Chancellor may tax older taxpayers more than younger.

explicit4u said:
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?
Click to expand...

Agreed. The full minimum wage starting at 25 is a nonsense. Age shouldn’t come into it.
 
Glaucus said:
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
Click to expand...
You seemed concerned that higher income earners are taxed more and thought that 2 tax bands would resolve that contention. I merely pointed out, as you re-iterated here, that even reducing the number if tax bands form 4 down to 2 wont change the fact that higher earners will still pay proportionally more tax. The only way a 2 band tax system could equalize tax would if pay was equalized, which is clearly a ridiculous notion.

SO I will what I said, if you are happy that higher income earners are paying more taxes then what does it matter if there are 2 or 4 or other tax bands? Clearly for the total tax take to remain the same, on average the population will pay the same taxes and if the personal allowance is increased then higher income earners will have to pay more taxes to cover the loss in tax revenue from the poorest.

And you seem to have missed the part where i said high tax-free allowance.
Click to expand...
No, that is one thing we both agree on. But this will actually mean the high income earners will pay proportionally more tax than the lowest income earners which seems to go against what you were aiming for.

No not everyone is born on the same footing, but tax is an extremely bad way of sorting that issue out.
Click to expand...
And what is your suggestion otherwise? Quite clearly, lower income earners simply physically cannot afford the higher tax rates of the high income earners. You seemed to objct to the idea that everyone gets paid equally, which i totally understand, but that is one of the simplest ways to ensure ensure equality and equal taxes. If we want a system where people earn vastly different amounts and a large part of the population earns so little they could never actually cover their base economic costs (you have to earn something like twice the national average to break even), then varying taxes are a natural byproduct. Removing the inequalities in opportunity within society is impossible, unless you imagine the state intervening to such a level there are no such things as families and children are raised equally like machines in a factory... In the real world, some children will be disadvantaged enough to never be in the financial situation to pay a lot of taxes.


As someone who 's combined family income is well into the 45% tax band, I am glad I am privileged to be in the position to be able to pay such high taxes. I do wish they were better spent, but that is a different argument.
 
kindai said:
After the tax free allowance I think everyone should be taxed the same. That way you aren't penalized for being successful.
Click to expand...

But you are " penalized for being successful" in this case. E.g. raise the Personal allowance to 20K, a lot of people wont pay any taxes while those making a little above average see a 45% marginal tax rate for "begin successful" .



Anywa, you are completely thinking about this the wrogn way. taxes do not penalize the wealthy. There are tax reductions available to those who unfortunately cannot afford to pay enough taxes since they are underpaid relative ot the higher income earners.
 
I'd be concerned that this would lead to people retiring earlier. When really retirement age should be going up not down.
 
Moses said:
:confused:

.....so, links?
Click to expand...


seems to be picked up as a story in the telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ulling-new-age-tax-raid-older-workers-budget/

Spook187 said:
Yet again the clown Tories trying to bleed us for every penny we have, anyone who agrees with this needs put down :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

this is a bizarre view to take re: the Tories being the ones to avoid if you don't like being taxed more, I'd think you'd find the alternatives would lead to a larger tax bill for quite a few people - especially the older/wealthier
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
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?
Click to expand...
My view is that Hammond knows that the average age of Tory party members is conservatively (ha!) estimated at 57 and that people under the age of 45 are twice as likely to think labour are on their side than the Tories. He's scared, and rightly so, and he's looking at how to win back the youth vote. He'll be shouted down by the backbenchers, and will be sacked at some point, then in a few years the Tories will lose the next election and he'll say "I told you so."
 
I'm all for the Higher Tax-Free allowance and flat rate. Something like 24,000 tax-free and then 40% for everybody. Penalising people for being successful is unfair (even with a flat rate higher earners pay more anyway, the higher bands are just an extra kick in the nuts). The beer analogy always comes to mind when I think about how unfair it all is.
 
D.P. said:
It doesn't, which is precisely why I said there are better ways of doing this.


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.


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




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.
Click to expand...
Totally agree there are better ways of doing it, hence countering your examples.

Incidentally my point about tax relief for repairs is that part of rent covers the landlords costs for property repairs. So if a renter gets tax relief on their rent then it should apply to mortgage owners too.
 
neodude said:
I'm all for the Higher Tax-Free allowance and flat rate. Something like 24,000 tax-free and then 40% for everybody. Penalising people for being successful is unfair (even with a flat rate higher earners pay more anyway, the higher bands are just an extra kick in the nuts). The beer analogy always comes to mind when I think about how unfair it all is.
Click to expand...

. Never thought of this option but makes a lot of sense in having a baseline level of income that allows a comfortable level of living then a high flat rate of tax on income above that. Stops arguments about success being penalised with taxing people into the work house. Would be a danger of causing resentment between the tax payer and none tax paying classes but then I guess that exists already
 
Hades said:
Totally agree there are better ways of doing it, hence countering your examples.

Incidentally my point about tax relief for repairs is that part of rent covers the landlords costs for property repairs. So if a renter gets tax relief on their rent then it should apply to mortgage owners too.
Click to expand...
The landlord renting out the property can have deductions for the repair of the house. I see absolutely no reason why a homeowner should and it would be subject to all kinds abuse. If you want to buy a house then you take on the financial responsibilities to maintain it. A home woner can get tax relief on the mortgage interest.
 
D.P. said:
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.
Click to expand...

That’s called BIK and it’s generally taxed. You’re taxed on the value of your “free” private healthcare for example.*

What it may do is change the way people work and persuade people/companies to reduce the number of hours per week the employee works. I.e. basically you have more holiday, as that’s about the only “benefit” that isn’t taxed.

*Theres been a bit of squabbling over here recently as the government are discussing whether to include staff discounts as a taxable benefit.

D.P. said:
But you are " penalized for being successful" in this case. E.g. raise the Personal allowance to 20K, a lot of people wont pay any taxes while those making a little above average see a 45% marginal tax rate for "begin successful" .



Anywa, you are completely thinking about this the wrogn way. taxes do not penalize the wealthy. There are tax reductions available to those who unfortunately cannot afford to pay enough taxes since they are underpaid relative ot the higher income earners.
Click to expand...

Personally I look at it another way. Rather than being penalized for being successful a 2 tier tax system could be classed as a luxury tax.

The tax free limit is set at the “living” rate (potentially variable depending on number of people in the family) and everything else above that rate is considered money you spend on “upgrading” your lifestyle (nicer car, going out for meals, nice holidays etc.) and is taxed at x%. That way everything is “equal”.

It would fit in nicely with a move towards a universal basic income as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom