Tax the poor - not the rich

Pigmyhippo

Nishka wrote: »

Despite this I am about to start a new job in a week which is a real chance for me to get on the career ladder as it were. I am going to be working for a marketing agency earning £28k with bonuses and profit schemes. However, because of the way the tax is currently set - what is the incentive for me to earn more than that and move into the next bracket (rates change at £37k I believe) because it's just going to be taken away again.


There, that's my rant. :rotfl:

Because, if you move into the next tax bracket of £37,400 for the 2009-2010 year, you will be paying 40% only on anything you earn over that figure. You still pay 20% tax on anything up to that figure. So yes when you are earning more, you do pay more tax, but you do not pay 40% on your full earnings so you are still better off. That is why I am happy to work up the payscale and pay a higher rate of tax on my earnings because although the government take 20% more from me, I am also taking more home each week.
Also, just found this link about NI contributions, http://www.bullimores.co.uk/files/reports-251108-5.pdf
Once you earn over £43888 pa your NI contributions drop from 11% of wage to just 1% on anything over that amount, basically meaning that once you hit over that amount you are effectively paying 41% of your wage to government which is only 10% more than when you are in the lower tax band paying 31%.
Not really such a huge leap.

lostinrates

hubba wrote: »

would we be having this arguement if all of us were earning 20k a year, and i can tell you now if i earned a 150k a year i would quite happily pay my taxes and count my blessings that i had a great job.

We would be having a different argument if we were all on the same pay, but there would, almost certainly be one.

stephen163

Nishka wrote: »

Are you nuts?? People on lower wages don't usually even have enough to live on as it is.

I don't agree with the higher taxes (very high taxes) for high earners as I think everyone should pay the same rate - a lower rate. This would still mean higher earners are paying lots of money into the system but as it is current the government seems to want people to get off benefits, but yet if anyone dares to aspire to earn more they will have it all taxed away!

Flat taxes would benefit only the poor and the rich. Middle income earners lose out in flat tax systems. Is that fair?, Does that incentivise aspiration?

benood

Fairness: 100% subjective.

It's the people earning just over £100k who the government are coining it from. For every £1 increase in pay the government receive 73.5p in tax and NI.

mangadarkogirl

The_White_Horse wrote: »

apart from the usual lefty emotions of jelousy and spite, can anyone tell me a sensible reason for charging a higer rate of tax to those that have studied hard, worked hard and generally improved their lot in life?

Are you saying everyone who is rich, is so because they have earned it? That's a bit of a generalisation, don't you think. I think you're discussing the really poor, who may or may not be able to work and claim benefits.

I work full time for the NHS, and I pay enough tax thanks. I don't get a break and the first hour of my night shift is deduced for a break that I don't receive. Do you actually do a job that is worthwhile? I.e helps people? When you do then you can preach about higher taxes.

lostinrates

mangadarkogirl wrote: »

Are you saying everyone who is rich, is so because they have earned it? .

But not everybody who ears a lot is yet asset rich, either, yet you can be asset rich and cash very poor.

My feeling is if you are on a salary you have 'earned' it- whether is a cushy little number of a job or you are over worked...its earned.

mangadarkogirl

I agree with you there. The fact is this person has stated several times that they think all poor people are so because they are stupid. I regard myself as middle class, because I work etc.

This person is saying unless you go to university and complete a masters degree, you are lazy and stupid?

I'm sorry that is absolute nonsense. Everyone has a role to play, some people like stacking shelves. The hours suit their lifestyle and the place of work are good to them. And if they were all at Uni instead, we wouldn't have such luxuries as 24hr supermarkets.

What I am basically annoyed at is the short-sightedness of this individual.

Money_Grabber13579

The_White_Horse wrote: »

apart from the usual lefty emotions of jelousy and spite, can anyone tell me a sensible reason for charging a higer rate of tax to those that have studied hard, worked hard and generally improved their lot in life?

Now there I agree with you. However I don't think that taking all the poor people's income is an answer! A lot of poor people do have jobs and work very hard for only minimum wage. Besides, there isn't enough well paid jobs for everyone. It's those who sit around on benefits all day who don't want to work that we should be targeting. Cut their benefits, and then those who actually try to earn a living won't have to pay for all the fraudsters!

mangadarkogirl

Yes, this is the sort of conversation we should be having.

I think there is a line between poor and rich not being looked at here:

poor - people on the dole who don't want to work, benefit hoarders

middle class - people who aren't mega rich, average households who have two full time earners (or one part time with children) who work for anyone from public sector to minimum wage retail etc

rich - comfortable, have worked their way up the ladder from the bottom, or come from a higher income family.

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

apart from the usual lefty emotions of jelousy and spite, can anyone tell me a sensible reason for charging a higer rate of tax to those that have studied hard, worked hard and generally improved their lot in life?

I actually partly agree with you on this one, and would quite like a flat tax. For the sake of argument though, two sensible reasons for charging a higher rate of tax to those that earn more:

• There is a theory that as your income levels rise, the spending of the individual decreases in relation to the increase of income. So to get this money in to the economy, it's taxed. I believe this is known as the 'Marginal Propensity to Consume.'
• There is another, quite interesting theory, that the wealthy in our society have more of a vested interested in aspects within society that are funded through taxation, i.e. the infrastructure of the country. I guess in real simple terms, if you're a rich factory owner who owns a massive factory, with 500 employees, it's in your interest that your employees have availability to health provision, that the police protect your property, that the legal system protects your factory. Therefore, the theory goes, that the rich factory owner pays more tax than his employees: he has more to lose if society goes 'wrong' because of a lack of funding.

Don't know if I fully agree with either of these, but there we go. We had some interesting lectures on this at Uni. However, I realised that I had forgotten the details and therefore looked on Wikipedia. Wish wiki had been invented when I was Uni.