Tax.... what is everyone’s problem with it?

[muon]

I am saying nothing about whether we should be taxed more or less. Most people will pay zero tax if allowed to do so.

No they aren't the same rules. The same rules would mean either the same tax percentage for everyone, or if tax rates are different for people needing the money more, then everyone needing the money more should get that reduction too.

They are the same rules. "Needing money more" is a difficult thing to quantify. I can definitely say some who earns £20K needs that marginal £ more than a like for like person earning £100K. Therefore that marginal £ should be taxed at a higher rate.

Tax credits then come in to help certain people out, mainly families who have dependants to pay for.

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

I am saying nothing about whether we should be taxed more or less. Most people will pay zero tax if allowed to do so.

I wouldn't pay zero, I just think that a huge sum is wasted and the 40% tax bracket is extremely steep when you consider those who are in it likely have a 9% student loan too. Losing 49% plus NIC on top is no incentive to do overtime or push up the management ladder further for many.

 

[Rroff]

People aren't seeing the fruits of it so the status quo is to cheer avoiding it rather than look down on people who aren't paying their obligation.

 

[muon]

I wouldn't pay zero, I just think that a huge sum is wasted and the 40% tax bracket is extremely steep when you consider those who are in it likely have a 9% student loan too. Losing 49% plus NIC on top is no incentive to do overtime for many.

Why are you so aggrieved about the student loan? It's a loan where you borrowed money.

An argument about the incentives to work is something to explore (a valid concern), as naturally higher taxation will make working less profitable at higher levels (see well paid doctors for example), but I am of the belief most well paid people will pay very little tax if they could get away with it. That is because most of those people will refuse to accept luck and circumstance played a large part in their life.

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

I think my biggest issue is council tax. I've never been in trouble with the police or had a fire etc, so I'm effectively paying about a grand per year to have my bins emptied and the vast majority of that goes to the pen-pushers.

National insurance is becoming less value for money too because I've not been able to get a GP appointment since 2016. Secondary care is still good (hospital appts), but primary care no longer exists because all of the appointments are gone when I try to book first thing by phone or online

 

[cheesyboy]

Wait until you’ve had over 40% of your salary taken in PAYE and NI for a decade and report back.

Boo ******* hoo.

Basic rate tax payers hand over 32%, higher rate 42%. It's hardly a big deal

 

[Deus Ex]

Its starting to get on my **** that some families/single women can opt to breed as many children as she likes and the state picks up the fiscal pieces. I.e. I/we pay for it. Lat year I earnt as a locum/contractor (and wont again for 7 years) £8.5k a month and saw £4.5k a month after tax, student loan and NHS pension. Yet someone could make a million pound profit on their main residence and pay no tax or CGT is 28% at most. So not only do those who earn by selling there time pay more, but they pay for people who misuse the system. I would gladly by a house and have kids right now but realise i need to be in a fiscally secure place and being a junior doctor I've been ****** out of stable living conditions for half a decade more.

 

[VincentHanna]

I wouldn't pay zero, I just think that a huge sum is wasted and the 40% tax bracket is extremely steep when you consider those who are in it likely have a 9% student loan too. Losing 49% plus NIC on top is no incentive to do overtime or push up the management ladder further for many.

As somebody posted in speakers corner regarding Labours plan to tax people who earn over 80k more:

The extra tax on someone earning
£85k is £4.81 a week
£90k is £9.62 a week
£100k is £19.23 a week
£120k is £48.09 a week

Also

unsuitable image

 

[Uther]

Its starting to get on my **** that some families/single women can opt to breed as many children as she likes and the state picks up the fiscal pieces. I.e. I/we pay for it. Lat year I earnt as a locum/contractor (and wont again for 7 years) £8.5k a month and saw £4.5k a month after tax, student loan and NHS pension. Yet someone could make a million pound profit on their main residence and pay no tax or CGT is 28% at most. So not only do those who earn by selling there time pay more, but they pay for people who misuse the system. I would gladly by a house and have kids right now but realise i need to be in a fiscally secure place and being a junior doctor I've been ****** out of stable living conditions for half a decade more.

Please don't tell me you're struggling on 4.5k a month after tax...

 

[cheesyboy]

Please don't tell me you're struggling on 4.5k a month...

#QuestionTimeGuyProblems

 

[Uther]

As somebody posted in speakers corner regarding Labours plan to tax people who earn over 80k more:

The extra tax on someone earning
£85k is £4.81 a week
£90k is £9.62 a week
£100k is £19.23 a week
£120k is £48.09 a week

Also

You might want to edit that link...

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

Why are you so aggrieved about the student loan? It's a loan where you borrowed money.

An argument about the incentives to work is something to explore (a valid concern), as naturally higher taxation will make working less profitable at higher levels (see well paid doctors for example), but I am of the belief most well paid people will pay very little tax if they could get away with it. That is because most of those people will refuse to accept luck and circumstance played a large part in their life.

My student loan was paid back several years ago . I think the loan repayment system should be 5% over 10k salary to make sure EVERYONE pays it back. It should not be optional to do a 3h per week performing arts degree then evade repayment for your 3 year jolly for the rest of your life. /rant.

Back on topic, the progressive tax system is so steep for middle earners that it is diminishing returns.

Regarding the post about the 80k tax threshold, that won't apply to (at a total guess) 99.5%.

 

[Kemik]

An individual's view on tax really comes down to ethics and fairness - what do you feel is fair? Who is best place to spend money? I'm more of the simplicity camp. The size of the UK tax legislation has increased dramatically over the last twenty years. Much of it is to fix loopholes and oddities on legislation that was introduced to give special incentives to certain people (e.g. entrepreneurs' relief, R&D tax credit, etc).

As somebody posted in speakers corner regarding Labours plan to tax people who earn over 80k more:

The extra tax on someone earning
£85k is £4.81 a week
£90k is £9.62 a week
£100k is £19.23 a week
£120k is £48.09 a week

This is such a simplified view. "You're on £100k so you can afford it". In reality, there needs to be a bigger conversation about how much should who bare? For example, a young graduate with two kids may earn £85k a year and a pensioner might have £25k a year. However, one has a ton of student debt and lives in London, the other has a load of savings, a five bedroom house and lives in the North West. Looking at salary alone isn't a great way to judge wealth and affordability.

Using an example of spending £22 on a bottle of wine doesn't mean you should have to give it to the Government. People on £20k a year can probably afford a new car - does the same logic apply? Who decides what is a luxury? Or should we all earn the same?

 

[Raikiri]

No they aren't the same rules. The same rules would mean either the same tax percentage for everyone, or if tax rates are different for people needing the money more, then everyone needing the money more should get that reduction too.

They are the same for everyone. If I earn £50k I pay the same as if you earn £50k, they don't tax people differently, they tax earnings differently.

You want to pay less tax? Work less.

A flat rate tax without some form of basic income would simply lead to even more wealth inequality, further stunted growth to our economy and an even smaller middle class.

 

[Uther]

This link's a couple of years old, but the countries with the highest tax also seem to be the happiest.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-also-pay-a-lot-in-taxes.html

 

[FishFluff]

No they aren't the same rules. The same rules would mean either the same tax percentage for everyone, or if tax rates are different for people needing the money more, then everyone needing the money more should get that reduction too.

You're confusing 'everyone being subject to the same rule' with 'the rules treating everyone the same'.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Tax fights are best fights.

 

[Moothead2]

This is such a simplified view. "You're on £100k so you can afford it". In reality, there needs to be a bigger conversation about how much should who bare? For example, a young graduate with two kids may earn £85k a year and a pensioner might have £25k a year. However, one has a ton of student debt and lives in London, the other has a load of savings, a five bedroom house and lives in the North West. Looking at salary alone isn't a great way to judge wealth and affordability.

Good luck with that, you'd spend so much policing it it wouldn't be worth doing.

 

[Kemik]

Good luck with that, you'd spend so much policing it it wouldn't be worth doing.

I wasn't suggesting a policy - I was commenting on the ease at which people accept "more tax for the people who earn more than me" line

 

[VincentHanna]

People on £20k a year can probably afford a new car - does the same logic apply? Who decides what is a luxury? Or should we all earn the same?

I doubt they can without some form of loan.