Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[jonneymendoza]

Yeah we get the point that flat taxes can't work, but equally how much is fair to tax someone who in most cases has actually earned their level of income? It gets to the point that you remove the incentive for people to work harder and achieve more, why should they pay for someone who hasn't put in anywhere near the same level of effort? Why should someone who's put in many years at University and worked their way up to a high earning job pay for someone who's happy to work part time at a low paid job without ever trying to do better for themselves? Not only do you remove the incentive at the top by taxing higher earnings, you remove the incentive to progress at the bottom if you pay everything for them. Society does better when people strive to achieve, that's why Communism ultimately failed.

hit on the nail

 

[Vern1961]

you gave them money? :/

B@

Well... under T. May's brave new UK, stealing a copy of the DM will be punished by burning at the stake.

On a semi serious note it struck me as strange, if the election is as much in the bag as the latest linked polls on here would suggest, what do they know that has sent the propaganda machine into overdrive?

 

[h4rm0ny]

It's because he took 31% of 150k to be around £50k then decided to come to the conclusion that you think everyone should have to pay £50k in tax, irrespective of how much they earn, rather than take on board your point which was that 31% of a high earners income is many times that of someone earning £20k

I see. Thank you. Well, they can multiply any arbitrary numbers together they wish, but unless I've argued that they should, I don't see what it has to do with anything I wrote! Yeesh!

 

[Andr3w]

The amount of lies and meme's on Facebook full of incorrect information (for all parties) is not only frustrating but also depressing that people just lap it up.

 

[Basher]

No, I am ignoring low earners on £20k. But middle income people pay around 35/36% effective tax and the top 5% pay only 31%. So on your way to aspiring to be one of the 5% you have to go through the pain of paying a higher effective rate of tax comapred to when you make it to over £150k per annum.

Yet the people on over £150k are complaining that they shouldnt pay more than 31% as its not fair. What about the person on £50k paying 35/36% They have more right to complain now than the top 5%.

Where are your figures coming from? Someone on £50k has a tax rate of about 26%. Those on £150k it's almost 40%.

 

[Rroff]

Yeah we get the point that flat taxes can't work, but equally how much is fair to tax someone who in most cases has actually earned their level of income? It gets to the point that you remove the incentive for people to work harder and achieve more, why should they pay for someone who hasn't put in anywhere near the same level of effort? Why should someone who's put in many years at University and worked their way up to a high earning job pay for someone who's happy to work part time at a low paid job without ever trying to do better for themselves? Not only do you remove the incentive at the top by taxing higher earnings, you remove the incentive to progress at the bottom if you pay everything for them. Society does better when people strive to achieve, that's why Communism ultimately failed.

That ignores the fact that people have very different circumstances however - I don't believe in the communist model (not at all it is self defeating) but there can be a variety of valid reasons why a path of striving to achieve more isn't open to someone either at a particular point in time or ever.

EDIT: Not a fan of the "effort" thing I know people who work incredibly hard but will never progress beyond a relatively moderate position in life.

 

[Greebo]

Someone on £27k would take home 80.1% of their salary.
Someone on £50k would take home 73.6% of their salary.

For comparison, someone on £150k would take home 60.1% of their salary.

All based on current, not proposed taxation.

On straight tax and NI is 79.8%, 73.2% and 63.1% but the analysis i linked to included indirect taxation.

For ages now the Tories have reduced or not increased direct taxation but increased indirect esp on things you cant avoid like Insurance tax. The last increase basically cost the average person with a car the same as if they had put up fuel duty.

I would imagine most people have house and car insurance so it affects the lower paid disproportionately to the higher paid.

Where are your figures coming from? Someone on £50k has a tax rate of about 26%. Those on £150k it's almost 40%.

My link from early assessing the total taxation paid by each earner including indirect taxes. I am starting to think none of you bothered even reading the link and just decided it was wrong from the off.

 

[Basher]

My link from early assessing the total taxation paid by each earner including indirect taxes. I am starting to think none of you bothered even reading the link and just decided it was wrong from the off.

Ah ok, mine was just take-home pay.

 

[dowie]

As mentioned in another post I am playing catchup so sorry if already discussed further.
Yes averages and all that, but on average the higher earner pays a lower percentage in tax once you take the direct and indirect taxes into account
A tee total, anti smoking, non car driving low wage earner may pay a lower % than a bolly drinking, cigar smoking, jag driving medium wage earner, but on average the more you earn the lower actual percentage you will pay in tax

this isn't true - I posted about this earlier in the thread, for example:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/30717534/

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4813

The Liberal Democrats have, once again, claimed that the poor pay more of their income in tax than the rich, and that this gap has got larger under Labour. But, by ignoring the fact that the poor get most of this income from the state in benefit and tax credit payments, and by overstating the extent to which indirect taxes are paid by the poor, this comparison is meaningless at best and misleading at worst.[...]

If we define "net taxes" as "taxes paid less benefits received", then the net tax rate of the poorest fifth is -46% of their original income (or -32% of their after-tax income), with the negative number reflecting that they are net beneficiaries. At the other end, the richest fifth have a net tax rate of +33% of their original income (or +50% of their after-tax income). These figures show what one would expect: the tax and benefit system as a whole takes money from the rich, and gives it to the poor.

the poorest fifth of the population get a fair bit of subsidy

My link from early assessing the total taxation paid by each earner including indirect taxes. I am starting to think none of you bothered even reading the link and just decided it was wrong from the off.

where is the link and does it include benefits?

 

[Greebo]

I didn't see you link, can you post it again please?

https://fullfact.org/economy/income-tax-are-top-1-really-paying-more/

It includes benefits too it says.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Well the question was clearly asked that it was the same as 11 was too many and how many it should be. On that basis it maybe should be 1. His question is ludicrous which is why it deserved a stupid answer.

Her. And I don't think you understood what I wrote. And you didn't answer my question ludicrously or otherwise. I want to know how many average people's tax you think someone earning £150,000 p/a should be required to pay morally. At the moment, such a person is paying income tax equivalent to eleven other people. Some people are saying they should pay more. I never wrote anything about what it should be, I asked you what you thought it should be. And I merely asked you to put it in the simple and accurate metric of how many people such a person should be expected to pull the same financial weight as. At the moment, 31% means they're giving more than eleven other people on the lower rate. How many people do you think they should be giving as much as?

 

[Greebo]

Her. And I don't think you understood what I wrote. And you didn't answer my question ludicrously or otherwise. I want to know how many average people's tax you think someone earning £150,000 p/a should be required to pay morally. At the moment, such a person is paying income tax equivalent to eleven other people. Some people are saying they should pay more. I never wrote anything about what it should be, I asked you what you thought it should be. And I merely asked you to put it in the simple and accurate metric of how many people such a person should be expected to pull the same financial weight as. At the moment, 31% means they're giving more than eleven other people on the lower rate. How many people do you think they should be giving as much as?

I answered. If its currently 11, it's fine to be 11.06. Honestly, looking at how the income of the top 1% has grown compared with the rest of the population, I might be happy with as many as 15 but I will take 11.06 for now.

 

[dowie]

https://fullfact.org/economy/income-tax-are-top-1-really-paying-more/

It includes benefits too it says.

that link doesn't appear to provide anything to support your previous claim

in fact on the ONS link contained there we see this:

quite clearly shows the poorest being subsidised and the richest paying more...

 

[inflames]

The amount of lies and meme's on Facebook full of incorrect information (for all parties) is not only frustrating but also depressing that people just lap it up.

I know, its scary how people lap it up! Some people can’t use a simple to tool such a google, to do their own research from multiple sources to obtain information and come to their own conclusion. They just think, its on Facebook it must be true.

 

[McPhee]

Her. And I don't think you understood what I wrote. And you didn't answer my question ludicrously or otherwise. I want to know how many average people's tax you think someone earning £150,000 p/a should be required to pay morally. At the moment, such a person is paying income tax equivalent to eleven other people. Some people are saying they should pay more. I never wrote anything about what it should be, I asked you what you thought it should be. And I merely asked you to put it in the simple and accurate metric of how many people such a person should be expected to pull the same financial weight as. At the moment, 31% means they're giving more than eleven other people on the lower rate. How many people do you think they should be giving as much as?

Someone on £150k has the disposable income (after a basic living allowance of £20k/year) of 11 NLW earning couples. While people complain about the amount of tax they pay, it's still an awful lot better than being at the lower-end of the spectrum.

I'm not saying people shouldn't keep a nice chunk of what they earn. But the current system is hardly unreasonable; it maintains a huge chasm in living standards between top and bottom.

 

[Tunney]

Not only do you remove the incentive at the top by taxing higher earnings, you remove the incentive to progress at the bottom if you pay everything for them. Society does better when people strive to achieve, that's why Communism ultimately failed.

Wages at the top end have ballooned compared to the average. A job paying the real-terms equivalent of £60k in 1980 now pays £150k a year. There's plenty of incentive to reach the top, even with another 5-10% tax added on top.

 

[Greebo]

that link doesn't appear to provide anything to support your previous claim

This is what i claimed in my previous post

Back in 1980 the top 10% of earners paid 19% of their earnings in income tax. In 2011/12, they also paid 19% of their earnings in income tax. There has been barely any change for the last 35 years.

People are also affected by far more than just income tax. The Office for National Statistics are able to measure the effects of benefits and pensions, as well as other 'direct' taxes such as National Insurance and Council Tax.

Even once these are factored in however, the lot of the highest earners hasn't changed a great deal. After earnings, minus taxes and plus benefits, the top 10% currently walk away with 70% of their original income (their 'disposable income'). Back in 1980, they took home 69% of their original earnings.

That the effective total rate of tax on the highest earners has not changed in 35 years and its 70% of what they earn. Therefore another 5% wont make much difference to them.

 

[Basher]

Someone on £150k has the disposable income (after a basic living allowance of £20k/year) of 11 NLW earning couples. While people complain about the amount of tax they pay, it's still an awful lot better than being at the lower-end of the spectrum.

I'm not saying people shouldn't keep a nice chunk of what they earn. But the current system is hardly unreasonable; it maintains a huge chasm in living standards between top and bottom.

Where does that basic living allowance figure come from? Surely as people earn more, their living gets further and further from basic?

 

[danielanthony]

I have never undertsood this attitude. I get this at work. "nah mate, I'm not going to do any overtime this week as it will put me into the top tax band and those extra hours at double time I will get taxed another 8% so it isnt worth it"

But tax + NI difference between the lower tax bands is 12%, not 8% (20%+10% vs 40%+2%). Plus, you also start to loose child benefit, so the more children you have, the higher the marginal rate.

 

[dowie]

This is what i claimed in my previous post



That the effective total rate of tax on the highest earners has not changed in 35 years and its 70% of what they earn.

I don't really care about your original post - If I'd quoted your original post I'd not have asked you to post your link again - what I objected to was this claim:

Oh I agree. i think everybody should and there should certainly be no corporation tax drop this year. I do think the top 5% could chip a little more into the pot as well. on the basis they are paying an effective smaller tax rate than everybody else.

this is false as I've demonstrated