Chancellor may tax older taxpayers more than younger.

[Destination]

There appear to be rumblings that Hammond next month might introduce further complications to the taxation system. Aiming to tax older taxpayers at a rate higher than those who are younger.
Hard to be certain of thoughts until we hear the final announcement.

Personally in my occupation, we do not get any type of service benefit, if I have worked one, ten or thirty years I get paid the same amount for each service I provide.
The thought that someone twenty years younger paying less tax for doing the same job as me seems utterly odd to me.

What are people’s views?

 

[paradigm]

Doesn’t sound particularly fair, it’s easily possible that someone older has taken a pay cut in order to say for example follow their heart in a new career, or wanted to step back from the stresses and troubles that typically come with working your way up a career trajectory.

Why should they pay more tax than they would have done if they had taken that role at a younger age?

 

[Glaucus]

sounds stupid, but then you haven't shown how it would work or why do it. But anything which moves further away from a simple and fair tax is bad imo. I'm still for a very high tax free allowance followed by flat tax rate. Despite being in the group which would be the worse off by such implementation.

 

[D.P.]

Depends on definitions of older and younger, however a young family trying to save up enough to buy a hours while raising 2 kids has many more expenses than a 55 year old at the peek of their career with their children left the nest. On that ground it is reasonable to have differing tax rates. However, I believe there are better ways of achieving this than purely age., because what if you are a 55 year old starting a new family and desperately trying to make ends, etc.


Increase the tax free allowance to 18K. Increase the deductions for dependents/children. Allow some part of rent to be tax deductible. Increase all tax bands by 2-3%. Add a 0.5% wealth tax on capital over 100K.

This way everyone can share the same benefits regardless of age.

 

[Destination]

Aye me too Glaucus, simplify NI too at the same time.
No point giving people a big tax free allowance and then slap a load of NI over the top of it just because you didn’t really want to give the. A big tax free allowance in the first place.

 

[D.P.]

sounds stupid, but then you haven't shown how it would work or why do it. But anything which moves further away from a simple and fair tax is bad imo. I'm still for a very high tax free allowance followed by flat tax rate. Despite being in the group which would be the worse off by such implementation.

Just out of interest, why do you think it makes any difference whether there are 2,3,4 or more tax bands? I'm actually much more in favor of the opposite, like the US has with dozen of tax bands. this means the increases in marginal tax rates are extremely gradual which creates more stability. if you had say a 24K tax free personal allowance and then jumped straight to 45% tax, so 2 tax bands, then you find a lot of jobs stagnating at the 23K salary and offering lots of alternative benefits.

 

[Glaucus]

Just out of interest, why do you think it makes any difference whether there are 2,3,4 or more tax bands? I'm actually much more in favor of the opposite, like the US has with dozen of tax bands. this means the increases in marginal tax rates are extremely gradual which creates more stability. if you had say a 24K tax free personal allowance and then jumped straight to 45% tax, so 2 tax bands, then you find a lot of jobs stagnating at the 23K salary and offering lots of alternative benefits.

as I think its the fairest way to do it. Also unlike a lot of people I realise the majority of high paid jobs take years of hard work and debt and its a tiny minority, and i don't see why they should lose proportionally more of their pay when they have spent years and 10s of thousands to get their.
Im aslo a fan of simpler taxes in general, lessens the amount of loop holes and the amount of people who need to check people aren't lying and the amount people need to spend on filling out tax forms. Get rid of things like vehicle tax, tv license and the like whilst we are at it. Stupid amount of money to administer and enforce pointless taxes.

 

[explicit4u]

Not really tax related but minimum wage rules means someone under 25 can be doing the same job as someone older and earn less. iirc thats a pretty recent thing so why try and tax young people less now?

 

[V F]

There appear to be rumblings that Hammond next month might introduce further complications to the taxation system. Aiming to tax older taxpayers at a rate higher than those who are younger.
Hard to be certain of thoughts until we hear the final announcement.

Personally in my occupation, we do not get any type of service benefit, if I have worked one, ten or thirty years I get paid the same amount for each service I provide.
The thought that someone twenty years younger paying less tax for doing the same job as me seems utterly odd to me.

What are people’s views?

Did they not learn from the election there?

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Our tax system needs to Full Estonian.

 

[V F]

Links to sources? Just had a quick look on the FT and Times sites and nothing prominent there.

Isn’t that the thing, put out ideas to see the reaction. If it goes bad it’s canned.

 

[Hades]

Depends on definitions of older and younger, however a young family trying to save up enough to buy a hours while raising 2 kids has many more expenses than a 55 year old at the peek of their career with their children left the nest. On that ground it is reasonable to have differing tax rates. However, I believe there are better ways of achieving this than purely age., because what if you are a 55 year old starting a new family and desperately trying to make ends, etc.

How does that work for people like me then? Almost 50 and still with kids in my nest.

What about people who are divorced and paying maintenance? That situation is far more likely in middle age than in youth.

Allow some part of rent to be tax deductible.

As long as part of my mortgage is tax deductible too, as well as any maintenance costs I need to do on my house.

Add a 0.5% wealth tax on capital over 100K.

As long as the rate is variable across the country. So people living in expensive areas such as the South East pay that wealth tax but the threshold is lower for cheaper parts of the country (e.g. £50k or £70k wealth tax threshold for other areas).

 

[D.P.]

as I think its the fairest way to do it.

The problem is fair depends on a lot of factors. Is it fair that people that can't afford to pay high taxes have to ensure that simplify to appease those that can afford to pay more?

Also unlike a lot of people I realise the majority of high paid jobs take years of hard work and debt and its a tiny minority,

I agree with you here. But you also have to realize that no everyone start s life on an even footing. Not everyone would have even had the opportunity to put in the hardworking that is required to get a high pay. This attitude also tends to ignroe the fact that pelnty of peop[le put in a lot of hardwork but still don't earn a high salary. If we taxed inversely proportional to how hard people work then the landscape would be very different.

and i don't see why they should lose proportionally more of their pay when they have spent years and 10s of thousands to get their.

Simply because they can afford to pay more taxes, it is not a hard concept. Furthermore, even with 2 tax bands composed of a higher personal allowance and a single marginal tax rate, the higher income earners will still be paying a higher poprtion of tax, so you haven't actually removed that contention. If you want people to be taxed equally then they will also need to paid equally, which I am not really a fan of.

So the debate comes back to comparing 2,3 or more tax bands.It simply doesn't make a bug difference. Higher income earnes will have to pay higher tax amounts and how you go about doing this doesn't change greatly. It is simply more efficient not to tax rather than raxing them at higher rate and returning some of their taxes through rebates.

Im aslo a fan of simpler taxes in general, lessens the amount of loop holes and the amount of people who need to check people aren't lying and the amount people need to spend on filling out tax forms. Get rid of things like vehicle tax, tv license and the like whilst we are at it. Stupid amount of money to administer and enforce pointless taxes.

That I agree with. We need to drop VAT and NI and include that tax within income and capital taxes.
But again, this is where it is actually just simpler and more efficient to tax low income workers less rather than having to tax them more and rebate them money just so they end up in the same tax band as the high earners.

 

[D.P.]

How does that work for people like me then? Almost 50 and still with kids in my nest.

It doesn't, which is precisely why I said there are better ways of doing this.

What about people who are divorced and paying maintenance? That situation is far more likely in middle age than in youth.

What about paying back tuition fees, working on underpaid graduate schemes, mortgages etc. You can go back and forth all day on this. As i sai, better off simply reducing taxes on low income earners.

As long as part of my mortgage is tax deductible too, as well as any maintenance costs I need to do on my house.

Interest on the mortgage perhaps, certainly not repairs. And a Property tax at 2% would help out a lot, scrapping the antiquated council tax.

As long as the rate is variable across the country. So people living in expensive areas such as the South East pay that wealth tax but the threshold is lower for cheaper parts of the country (e.g. £50k or £70k wealth tax threshold for other areas).

Wealth doesn't change by region. in fact if anything the if you want to normalize by region then wealthier areas would need a lower tax rate due to increased living costs. However, that would be offset y higher property taxes.

 

[Glaucus]

they still pay far more with higher earnings and you want to tax them even more is just a giant kick in the balls , No where did i say tehy shoudl have the same tax burden so equal pay is just utter nonsese And you seem to have missed the part where i said high tax-free allowance.
No not everyone is born on the same footing, but tax is an extremely bad way of sorting that issue out.

 

[kindai]

Just out of interest, why do you think it makes any difference whether there are 2,3,4 or more tax bands? I'm actually much more in favor of the opposite, like the US has with dozen of tax bands. this means the increases in marginal tax rates are extremely gradual which creates more stability. if you had say a 24K tax free personal allowance and then jumped straight to 45% tax, so 2 tax bands, then you find a lot of jobs stagnating at the 23K salary and offering lots of alternative benefits.

After the tax free allowance I think everyone should be taxed the same. That way you aren't penalized for being successful.

 

[Destination]

Did they not learn from the election there?

Honestly, it would seem the muppets think this will make young people vote for them, rather than lose the middle who might vote for them.

 

[Freakbro]

How does that work for people like me then? Almost 50 and still with kids in my nest.

What about people who are divorced and paying maintenance? That situation is far more likely in middle age than in youth.

That's the problem with making national policy, it's tailored to the average, so we feel individyally aggrieved when it negatively effects us

As long as part of my mortgage is tax deductible too, as well as any maintenance costs I need to do on my house.

Yea, that bit of his argument didn't make sense

As long as the rate is variable across the country. So people living in expensive areas such as the South East pay that wealth tax but the threshold is lower for cheaper parts of the country (e.g. £50k or £70k wealth tax threshold for other areas).

I don't agree with that, the amount you accumulate already takes into account your income to expense ratio, so a flat wealth tax over a set amount seems a very fair way to levy it

 

[Spook187]

Yet again the clown Tories trying to bleed us for every penny we have, anyone who agrees with this needs put down

 

[Roar87]

After the tax free allowance I think everyone should be taxed the same. That way you aren't penalized for being successful.

That would be ideal, unfortunately it's not practical. You're either taxing people to the point they can't afford to eat, or you don't have enough money to run public services.