And they may work far harder and make far more sacrifices.
Any they might not
I suspect in any section of the pay scale there will be people who work very hard and people who don't and the spread is probably fairly similar
Why should someone who has had luck and family/school connections and ended up in a job paying £100K plus pay the same percentage of tax as someone who has worked very hard but due to bad luck and lack of opportunity only earns £20K
People whose disposable income is a higher proportion of their wage should pay more tax
(pay should be fair and equitable to but that is even less likely to happen)
Treacodactyl
|
Any they might not |
Indeed, and unless that's taken into account with everybody I can't really see how anyone can talk about fairness.
Green Man
|
That is why the same rate for all would ensure rich pay more. Make up complicated rules and bandings and it leaves room for people to 'fiddle' it. Still doesn't answer why footballers shouldn't get hounded out of our society for tax manipulation.
|
bagpuss
|
That is why the same rate for all would ensure rich pay more. Make up complicated rules and bandings and it leaves room for people to 'fiddle' it. Still doesn't answer why footballers shouldn't get hounded out of our society for tax manipulation. |
Anyone who avoids tax should be hounded out not just the footballers
The level at which you would have to set a flat tax to ensure enough revenue was generated would be a significant burden of those people who don't earn very much
Those who earn more pay a higher percentage of those earnings above a certain boundary, its not complex and its not those boundaries which enable people to get out of paying the tax its all the other complex rules which do that
Don't get me wrong I am all for a simplfied tax system but it still needs levels to ensure people on low incomes aren't unfairly penalised for having a low income
Green Man
|
Then just put up the tax free allowance. I think minimum wage earners should probably pay no tax at all.
I would scrap Tax Credits and push up tax free allowance.
|
bagpuss
|
Then just put up the tax free allowance. I think minimum wage earners should probably pay no tax at all. |
The tax free allowance should be higher, arguably anyone doing 37hrs on minimum wage should or less pay no income tax
That doesn't change the fact that anyone earning more than say £50K should pay a higher percent on earning above that mark and those earning more than £100K should pay an even higher percent on those earnings above that point
This still leaves these people will more money than anyone who earns less than them but gives the treasury the funds it needs to run a decent service
jema
|
People who earn less spend proportionally more of their incomes in indirect taxation, hence a proportionally higher income tax on the richer goes to make things fairer.
|
Green Man
|
I don't see that. Basic foods are VAT free. I bet most of the stuff wealthy people buy is full VAT. There is no vat on second hand cars etc.
|
Green Man
|
I would change the VAT situation on foods. All raw, unprocessed, and un packaged foods Vat free, all others full Vat.
|
Treacodactyl
|
Anyone who avoids tax should be hounded out not just the footballers |
Do you have a pension, ISA, have any tax credits, claim any expenses etc?
jema
|
I don't see that. Basic foods are VAT free. I bet most of the stuff wealthy people buy is full VAT. There is no vat on second hand cars etc. |
Any research will tell you the poor are hit hardest by indirect taxation. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this when they know the numbers.
Green Man
|
Remember that if say you were on an avarage UK wage you would be in the top 1% of the wealthiest people on Planet Earth. This make the majority of us 'Rich' Have we considered paying into a Global Tax Scheme to even things up a bit?
|
Green Man
|
Any research will tell you the poor are hit hardest by indirect taxation. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this when they know the numbers. |
It certainly will be true for those who smoke or drink.
Hairyloon
|
Have we considered paying into a Global Tax Scheme to even things up a bit? |
It is a good idea; especially for the super-rich: gets rid of the problems of tax-havens.
It is something that the world needs: an income stream to deal with the global problems.
T.G
|
Its the sportsmen that opt out of paying income tax by setting themselves up as a company who should be 'Boo-ed off the pitch' Why do working class people worship them? |
I have no idea
As I see it most people who work dead-end jobs if given the chance to play a game they purport to love/worship/adore if offered a chance at say £100k capped would snap your hand off... playing a game and earning above a decent income instead of working in a factory for your whole working life... It’d never happen mind, they don't know they're born footballers.
The excess revenue, the clubs would have, could then be and should be inputted at the grassroots end such as proper public facilities, school sports facilities, minor clubs; larger clubs should help to sponsor/fund smaller teams, from villages and communities.
They say, amongst other things that they buy international players because we don't produce enough, well this would help to see if that truly was the case.
They all claim it's a sport for the people, well then put your money where your mouth is.
Green Man
|
It is something that the world needs: an income stream to deal with the global problems. |
It will happen one day, but not till we are on a level playing field as far as wages and life-style are concerned. This is happening quicker than I think anybody in the West realises.
Green Man
|
Consider this when thinking the rich should pay more tax, bear in mind business owners are generating ALL the tax in this country. Public sector workers and employees never really had it in their wallets to pay in the first place.
|
bagpuss
|
Consider this when thinking the rich should pay more tax, bear in mind business owners are generating ALL the tax in this country. Public sector workers and employees never really had it in their wallets to pay in the first place. |
When did we start talking about public sector workers
Highly paid individuals either paid by the government or a private company should pay a higher percentage of their wage as income tax than those who have a low wage
jema
|
Consider this when thinking the rich should pay more tax, bear in mind business owners are generating ALL the tax in this country. Public sector workers and employees never really had it in their wallets to pay in the first place. |
I find that an odd argument, if a business disappeared the demand would still be there and the same business would generally reappear with probably the same workforce generating that wealth. owners play a role but it is not the be all and end ask of things.
bagpuss
|
Anyone who avoids tax should be hounded out not just the footballers |
Do you have a pension, ISA, have any tax credits, claim any expenses etc?
I got an interesting set of definitions from a friend who is a Tax accountant
There is careful tax planning, isas, tax credits, expenses (I am not in the UK tax system don't do this anyway) which is allowed as are larger benefits for say investing in businesses, different tax on savings and dividends etc
There is tax avoidance which normally involves sticking to the letter of an obscure loophole but really going against the spirti which is illegal and generally dealt with by fines and wrist slaps
There is tax evasion which is not paying tax you clearly owe and this on a small scale is also dealt with by fined but can also end up in the criminal justice system and slaps on the wrist
Argubly Footballers and people like Philip Green are only engaging in careful tax planning but those rules should be adjusted to ensure they pay a greater proportion of their income in tax
I would all for a simplification of the tax system to remove some of the loop holes but I still think that people who earn more should pay a larger percent on those earning above a certain barrier
Green Man
|
Highly paid individuals either paid by the government or a private company should pay a higher percentage of their wage as income tax than those who have a low wage |
The Government can't pay anybody till it has clawed it from business. Self employed and business pay for everything from the taxes paid. I can't see why taxing them even more could in any way be considered fair.
bagpuss
|
Highly paid individuals either paid by the government or a private company should pay a higher percentage of their wage as income tax than those who have a low wage |
The Government can't pay anybody till it has clawed it from business. Self employed and business pay for everything from the taxes paid. I can't see why taxing them even more could in any way be considered fair.
And the self employed and business people wouldn't have roads, emergencies services, electricity, any sort of infrastructure or support be that practical or financial without the government so it really is a two way street
You should move to the US I suspect you would love the tea party movement
Bebo
|
Any research will tell you the poor are hit hardest by indirect taxation. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this when they know the numbers. |
It certainly will be true for those who smoke or drink.
Or use petrol, electricity, gas or oil. Which we all do.
How about the unfair taxation on all women of childbearing age?
Green Man
|
A Plan :- all employees and public service workers should have to pay no tax at all, but have their take home pay set at its current level. This would save £bs in administration. Then just tax the business owners and the self employed at a higher level.
|
Green Man
|
gas or oil. |
for home heating is only taxed at 5% and our homes are much smaller than the rich in general.
Shane
|
That doesn't change the fact that anyone earning more than say £50K should pay a higher percent on earning above that mark and those earning more than £100K should pay an even higher percent on those earnings above that point |
Erm, do you mean something like:
£0 - 37,400: 20%
£37,400 - £150,000: 40%
Over £150,000: 50%
Green Man
|
How about the unfair taxation on all women of childbearing age? |
I'm not sure of what you mean (I'm not saying your wrong, just need it explained)
bagpuss
|
That doesn't change the fact that anyone earning more than say £50K should pay a higher percent on earning above that mark and those earning more than £100K should pay an even higher percent on those earnings above that point |
Erm, do you mean something like:
£0 - 37,400: 20%
£37,400 - £150,000: 40%
Over £150,000: 50%
I am all for the current levels
I would personally but in another one say 75% of anything over £1millon but it would never happen
Bebo
|
The fact that VAT is charged on tampons. Which are pretty much an essential.
I'm pretty sure they charge it on toilet roll as well, which I think everyone rich and poor use. Except re-enactors I expect (didn't the Romans use a stick?)
|
Shane
|
Its the sportsmen that opt out of paying income tax by setting themselves up as a company who should be 'Boo-ed off the pitch' Why do working class people worship them? |
Granted, it seems a bit rich at first glance for millionaire sports stars to take adantage of the rules to save a fortune in tax, but if you removed the possibility of setting yourself up as a company you'd destroy the market for agency workers in the UK's various service industries. The job vacuum that created would be filled by an expansion of existing overseas service centres, with a net loss of jobs (and tax revenue) from the UK.
I should declare a vested interest as a high earner who left the UK mainly due to the miserable disposal income that was left at the end of each month. And no, I didn't lead an excessive lifestyle.
bagpuss
|
Its the sportsmen that opt out of paying income tax by setting themselves up as a company who should be 'Boo-ed off the pitch' Why do working class people worship them? |
Granted, it seems a bit rich at first glance for millionaire sports stars to take adantage of the rules to save a fortune in tax, but if you removed the possibility of setting yourself up as a company you'd destroy the market for agency workers in the UK's various service industries. The job vacuum that created would be fulfilled by an expansion of existing overseas service centres, with a net loss of jobs (and tax revenue) from the UK.
I should declare a vested interest as a high earner who left the UK mainly due to the miserable disposal income that was left at the end of each month. And no, I didn't lead an excessive lifestyle.
Are you willing to say what your net and gross monthy incomes were?
Green Man
|
The fact that VAT is charged on tampons. Which are pretty much an essential.
I'm pretty sure they charge it on toilet roll as well, which I think everyone rich and poor use. Except re-enactors I expect (didn't the Romans use a stick?) |
LOL, I know its crazy what VAT is on. Compost for goodness sake! this always angers me.
Shane
|
I would personally but in another one say 75% of anything over £1millon but it would never happen |
I suspect that would result in higher earners finding a way to declare the extra income as earned overseas and not subject to UK taxation (or something). If you pay enough for an accountant, he'll always find a loophole. Another reason that a punitive tax structure is more likely to be a net loser (IMO).
Green Man
|
I would personally but in another one say 75% of anything over £1millon but it would never happen |
In the late 70's Super Tax was about 90%. All the millionaires moved out.
Treacodactyl
|
I would personally but in another one say 75% of anything over £1millon but it would never happen |
I suspect that would result in higher earners finding a way to declare the extra income as earned overseas and not subject to UK taxation (or something). If you pay enough for an accountant, he'll always find a loophole. Another reason that a punitive tax structure is more likely to be a net loser (IMO).
Actually I think they're looking at the levels as the 50% tax rate doesn't collect much which would suggest a 75% rate would be just a token gesture that would cost more to implement than it raises.
Hairyloon
|
Why not allow people the option of providing services instead of paying taxes?
Cut out the middle man so to speak.
|
Shane
|
I should declare a vested interest as a high earner who left the UK mainly due to the miserable disposal income that was left at the end of each month. And no, I didn't lead an excessive lifestyle. |
Are you willing to say what your net and gross monthy incomes were? Somewhere in the middle of 40% and 50% cutoffs
There's an old, old thread on here somewhere where I was lamenting about how much it cost to work in London, but the search function keeps giving me a network error, so I can't dig it up. The summary was that although I could earn more by working in London, the costs associated with accommodation and transport more than wipe out the benefit, especially when you have a family to look after too. We only had a small house and one, reasonably efficient car, but the costs kept creeping up year after year, so when faced with a choice of twenty years of just about getting by or paying the mortgage off in three, it was a fairly easy decision.
Green Man
|
Or pay no tax and pay for our services. Rich would be quids in again.
|
Shane
|
Or pay no tax and pay for our services. Rich would be quids in again. |
Indeed. That would benefit the rich even more than even a flat tax structure - pay for the services and keep the change versus pay a percentage of everything you earn.
oldish chris
|
I would personally but in another one say 75% of anything over £1millon but it would never happen |
In the late 70's Super Tax was about 90%. All the millionaires moved out. You mean that by 1979 there were no millionaires in the UK at all? Not one?
RichardW
|
It all needs simplifying (as do the VAT & benefits systems).
Ditch ALL the allowances / schemes.
Have a high ish tax free band to cover low earners & then a simple sliding scale above that.
No wide tax bands just a smooth sliding scale once you earn over the tax free bit.
Save loads in admin which will help offset any losses in tax collection.
|
bagpuss
|
surely a sliding scale would be more difficult as how much you pay would vary for everyone
|
RichardW
|
surely a sliding scale would be more difficult as how much you pay would vary for everyone |
Perhaps more complex for a person to do yes but a computer would so so easily. Not many now would be paid by a manual payroll any way. Plus a log table would soon give you the correct amount. Have the pay split into say £500-1000 amounts for each change in amount paid.
It could be as simple as earn X & you will pay Y. One single simple TAX payment that covers every thing.
Its time ALL taxes, NI, VAT, benefits, pensions, road fund & fuel tax ect ect had a major overhaul in the UK.
We have such a complex system that it taxes loads of people to administer it for the Gov. Reduce that load & then you need less income to run the country or can do more with what you do have.
Its become so complex that even "simple" tax matters need an "expert" yet each expert can & will give different advice for the same set conditions.
Remove all the schemes & allowances & you remove the ability to avoid tax.
jema
|
I'm all for simplification, but I don't think a sliding scale fits the bill.
The more bands you have the more bands people will be on the threshold of and hence drawn into the temptation to fiddle their way below the band.
I concentrate on improving individual income tax by removing national insurance completely from individual taxation.
Income tax would have to rise to compensate but there would be no holes in the progression level as NI limits would not be there.
I'd also do a lot about the private pensions scam, but that's another issue.
|
Green Man
|
No millionaires in the UK at all? Not one? |
Ok, I admit Cliff Richard stayed. lol
Shane
|
I thought he moved to Portugal and set up a vineyard?
|
Andrea
|
I thought he moved to Portugal and set up a vineyard? |
Nah. That was me.
bagpuss
|
surely a sliding scale would be more difficult as how much you pay would vary for everyone |
Perhaps more complex for a person to do yes but a computer would so so easily. Not many now would be paid by a manual payroll any way. Plus a log table would soon give you the correct amount. Have the pay split into say £500-1000 amounts for each change in amount paid.
It could be as simple as earn X & you will pay Y. One single simple TAX payment that covers every thing.
Its time ALL taxes, NI, VAT, benefits, pensions, road fund & fuel tax ect ect had a major overhaul in the UK.
We have such a complex system that it taxes loads of people to administer it for the Gov. Reduce that load & then you need less income to run the country or can do more with what you do have.
Its become so complex that even "simple" tax matters need an "expert" yet each expert can & will give different advice for the same set conditions.
Remove all the schemes & allowances & you remove the ability to avoid tax.
Saying a computer will do it I think suggests that computers always get it right and it will all be fine and dandy is a little bit short sighted
RichardW
|
[quote="bagpuss:1151393"]
Saying a computer will do it I think suggests that computers always get it right and it will all be fine and dandy is a little bit short sighted |
They always give the correct answer to the question asked, as its asked when compared to the pre installed condition set. If the human cant get his act together its not the computers fault.
If it does not give the expected answer then either the question asks something different to what you think it asks or the condition set has been incorrectly configured.
As the levels of change would be close together there would be no incentive to get into a lower level. You will still have more money to spend even if you just go into the next level.
Plus with no schemes or allowances what would you do with the money that you needed to drop by? You cant use a scheme to get it non tax able.
Failing that we have ONE rate for all income above the basic tax free amount.
bagpuss
|
Saying a computer will do it I think suggests that computers always get it right and it will all be fine and dandy is a little bit short sighted |
They always give the correct answer to the question asked, as its asked when compared to the pre installed condition set. If the human cant get his act together its not the computers fault.
If it does not give the expected answer then either the question asks something different to what you think it asks or the condition set has been incorrectly configured.
As the levels of change would be close together there would be no incentive to get into a lower level. You will still have more money to spend even if you just go into the next level.
Plus with no schemes or allowances what would you do with the money that you needed to drop by? You cant use a scheme to get it non tax able.
Failing that we have ONE rate for all income above the basic tax free amount.
As has already been discussed on this a single flat tax rate is grossly unfair to anyone on a low wage
I am still struggling to see how a sliding scale is better. If a computer can be programmed to handle a sliding scale it can also be programmed to calculate our current tax system (I suspect this is something people actually make a lot of money out of) why is a computer doing it now impossible but with a sliding scale so good you don't need much in the way of staff to ensure its being done correctly
Treacodactyl
|
I am still struggling to see how a sliding scale is better. If a computer can be programmed to handle a sliding scale it can also be programmed to calculate our current tax system (I suspect this is something people actually make a lot of money out of) why is a computer doing it now impossible but with a sliding scale so good you don't need much in the way of staff to ensure its being done correctly |
I think you're being very short sighted. A sliding scale would be very easy to program, probably just a simple formula that can be thoroughly tested and proved.
The current system relies on too many laws, judgements etc and even senior tax inspectors do not understand it and will disagree.
bagpuss
|
I am still struggling to see how a sliding scale is better. If a computer can be programmed to handle a sliding scale it can also be programmed to calculate our current tax system (I suspect this is something people actually make a lot of money out of) why is a computer doing it now impossible but with a sliding scale so good you don't need much in the way of staff to ensure its being done correctly |
I think you're being very short sighted. A sliding scale would be very easy to program, probably just a simple formula that can be thoroughly tested and proved.
The current system relies on too many laws, judgements etc and even senior tax inspectors do not understand it and will disagree.
Simplification of the tax system is important certainly but I miss where simplifying the tax system and just having say 3 boundaries is any more complicated than having a sliding scale
I am with Jema of the get rid of NI though, that does complicate matters
Green Man
|
And get rid of Tax credits after thresh-hold has been lifted. That is an administration nightmare.
|
bagpuss
|
And get rid of Tax credits after thresh-hold has been lifted. That is an administration nightmare. |
Certainly, people shouldn't have to claim money back, the personal allowance should be high enough that it isn't needed
Green Man
|
When I first heard of the scheme, I thought that's how it would work. Only idiots could have thought up the current system. I once got told as I struggled to hear on the phone line, over the screams of my fighting children, that I didn't qualify as I wasn't a parent.
|
Shane
|
I thought he moved to Portugal and set up a vineyard? |
Nah. That was me. Ahem: Cliff's juice
Shane
|
Only idiots could have thought up the current system. |
Or people who wanted to employ a quarter of the country on the public payroll.
Green Man
|
He was going through his Christian phase in the late 70's.
|
RichardW
|
As has already been discussed on this a single flat tax rate is grossly unfair to anyone on a low wage
|
Why?
If all of their income is tax free as a low wage would be under the tax start point?
Green Man
|
I still think it should only be business owners and those self employed who pay tax. Would save Multi £bs in admin.
My next step to world domination would be only those that pay tax can vote. (This may be too far?)
|
bagpuss
|
As has already been discussed on this a single flat tax rate is grossly unfair to anyone on a low wage
|
Why?
If all of their income is tax free as a low wage would be under the tax start point?
where would you put that point?
arvo
|
I'm not massively sure about doing away with NI though. I think its quite good (especially in the current climate) to have a largely ring-fenced pot of money that can only be spent on health and welfare, not on hubristic building projects for the wealthy or bombs.
|
bagpuss
|
I still think it should only be business owners and those self employed who pay tax. Would save Multi £bs in admin.
My next step to world domination would be only those that pay tax can vote. (This may be too far?) |
Have you really thought about how that would work
What about employed people who have savings and shares or invest capital in businesses should they not pay any tax
and I won't even bother to state why the voting comment is stupid because I suspect you know that already
bagpuss
|
I'm not massively sure about doing away with NI though. I think its quite good (especially in the current climate) to have a largely ring-fenced pot of money that can only be spent on health and welfare, not on hubristic building projects for the wealthy or bombs. |
Interesting reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance_Fund
Not sure I entirely understand
I would happy for a fixed pot of the treasury fund to be considered like this but the way NI is collected is still kind of regressive and one of the complexities which can cause issues for people close to the various tax boundaries
Green Man
|
Have you really thought about how that would work
What about employed people who have savings and shares or invest capital in businesses should they not pay any tax
and I won't even bother to state why the voting comment is stupid because I suspect you know that already |
LOL I was only joking about the Vote thing.
I would tax the companies before they paid out on share dividends and bank savings get tax deducted by the banks.
bagpuss
|
Have you really thought about how that would work
What about employed people who have savings and shares or invest capital in businesses should they not pay any tax
and I won't even bother to state why the voting comment is stupid because I suspect you know that already |
LOL I was only joking about the Vote thing.
I would tax the companies before they paid out on share dividends and bank savings get tax deducted by the banks.
the bank savings tax does get deducted by the bank but it works in the same way as all the other income tax does so without this system you would need to rethink savings income tax or stop taxing income from savings
Green Man
|
Just have a standard savings tax. You might like this as wealthy people get higher interest so they will pay more?
|
bagpuss
|
Just have a standard savings tax. You might like this as wealthy people get higher interest so they will pay more? |
currently savings tax is staggered in the same way as all the other tax is, I quite like that system actually
Green Man
|
No, too much administartion. Same rate for everybody will be much more efficiently 'harvested'.
|
bagpuss
|
No, too much administartion. Same rate for everybody will be much more efficiently 'harvested'. |
just grossly unfair for anyone with just a small amount of savings just as a flat tax is grossly unfair for anyone with a low income
Green Man
|
No, too much administartion. Same rate for everybody will be much more efficiently 'harvested'. |
just grossly unfair for anyone with just a small amount of savings just as a flat tax is grossly unfair for anyone with a low income
The level of tax paid at today's low intrest rate isn't worth arguing about.
bagpuss
|
No, too much administartion. Same rate for everybody will be much more efficiently 'harvested'. |
just grossly unfair for anyone with just a small amount of savings just as a flat tax is grossly unfair for anyone with a low income
The level of tax paid at today's low intrest rate isn't worth arguing about.
Interest rates aren't always going to be this low plus if you have savings of the order for £50-100K which a person on a salary of £100K plus might even 2% starts to become more substantial over time
Green Man
|
With that level of savings you will be in a different interest bracket so will be paying more anyway.
|
Treacodactyl
|
Re: The rich should pay more tax marigold wrote: | The rich should pay more tax |
The French are at it now.
|
marigold
|
Re: The rich should pay more tax marigold wrote: | The rich should pay more tax |
The French are at it now. |
Yeah, I noticed that earlier. I was also thinking how stupid it is that people who are paid from taxes (teachers, doctors, nurses, roadsweepers, police, firemen etc) pay tax themselves and get benefits such as child benefit and tax credits. The whole system needs a huge overhaul and simplification. But I doubt that will ever happen, instead yet more complexity will be introduced...
oldish chris
|
Re: The rich should pay more tax marigold wrote: | The rich should pay more tax |
The French are at it now. |
Yeah, I noticed that earlier. I was also thinking how stupid it is that people who are paid from taxes (teachers, doctors, nurses, roadsweepers, police, firemen etc) pay tax themselves and get benefits such as child benefit and tax credits. The whole system needs a huge overhaul and simplification. But I doubt that will ever happen, instead yet more complexity will be introduced... In the case of Civil Servants, the employer doesn't, however, to make sure that the correct money is paid, a computer works everything out, using exactly the same calculations as everyone else. You'd be amazed how quickly and cheaply computers can do this sort of thing Similarly, money can be transferred to and fro as quick as a flash, again at a very low cost.
Home Home Home Home Home