'Should high earners pay 50% tax?' poll discussion

ped54

I think in some cases it may be warrented - but to be honest on a whole I think we persecute people who do well in this country. Whats the point in striving to achieve in life only to be taxed a rediculous rate? However, if you are a lazy @rse and sit doing nothing with youre life you are given everything you need / want.... Just my point of view.....

teddyco

Britain is currently on the slippery slope towards socialism......

Richard_T

IMHO - High earners fall into either or both of two groups:
1) High spenders - who stimulate the economy directly.
2) Savers - who make money available for institutions to lend to stimulate the economy.
Simply giving more money to the government doesn't stimulate the economy - usually the reverse? :rolleyes:

harryhound

zygurat789 wrote: »

Tax 20p
NIC 11p
Reduction in tax credit 39p
(to look after two perimary aged boys because she has been abandoned and the CSA et seq can't do anything)
Total 70P

I cannot see how you get 45p

Think I was assuming that she was in some sort of pension scheme and thus not paying 11p NIC on top of the 20p most of us have to pay.

Harry.

PS I also wonder what her parents and siblings are doing to support the future of the two primary school children, following the collapse of the "relationship" that produced them.
Do let us know.

unionjack81

Personally, I disagree with the 40% tax bracket never mind 50%!

I'm a basic rate tax payer myself so it doesn't affect me directly. However, the thought of me working hard and being lucky enough to be rewarded with a large enough salary to tip me into the paying a higher tax rate than someone else doesn't really make sense (in my simply mind).

How can the government possibly hit these hard working, successful people, when many of them (politicians) are no better than leeches. Lately it seems like there is nothing but expense scandals at Westminster..... um.... why don't we cut politicians expenses and allowances instead of robbing people?

I don't agree with the argument about people who earn more should pay more because they can afford to. How does being able to pay more justify more? If you went to a restaurant and someone asked you how much you earned so they could calculate the bill would you accept it? :rotfl:

DavyBoy_2

unionjack81 wrote: »

However, the thought of me working hard and being lucky enough to be rewarded with a large enough salary to tip me into the paying a higher tax rate than someone else doesn't really make sense

This is a common misconception of the way tax bands work, and a mistake I made when I was younger. It was common knowledge that the higher income rate was 40% at £40k, so I never quite saw the reason to earn more than £39,999 if suddenly I would have to pay 40% tax on everything, and not 22% as previous.

What it actually means is that you pay 40% tax on everything you earn after £40k. So the first £39,999 is taxed as it was before, but now you pay 40% tax on everything else (so if you earned £41k, you only paid 40% on £1k, and the 22% on the £40k). So everything up until £150k still attracts tax at the same level it does before, but everything over that gets taxed at a higher 50% rate.

You don't suddenly lose money for earning £1 more!

harryhound

Unless you are on benefits at the bottom of the pile and you are honest enough to tell the whole truth to the various bureaucracies involved..The curse of means testing, See zygurat789 example above without factoring in the freebies from the local council, NHS etc.her daughter gets to keep 30 pence of every extra pound she earns.
The so called poverty trap, that makes "working the system" the rational option.

unionjack81

DavyBoy wrote: »

What it actually means is that you pay 40% tax on everything you earn after £40k. So the first £39,999 is taxed as it was before, but now you pay 40% tax on everything else (so if you earned £41k, you only paid 40% on £1k, and the 22% on the £40k). So everything up until £150k still attracts tax at the same level it does before, but everything over that gets taxed at a higher 50% rate.

Ok, so when I earn £40,000 my employer gives me a 'cost of living' pay rise and my wages rise with inflation. However then I'm taxed more on this new pay (40%) which means I'm worse off than I was previously (relatively speaking) because I only get 60% of it instead of 80%.

Have I picked this up wrong? I still don't buy it. This is wrong no matter what way you look at it.

harryhound

This is called progressive taxation and is a good way of extracting more tax without those paying realising.

Over the years there has been a huge fuss in parliament about such traps being set up by the government, especially when they refer to the personal allowance (not) keeping up with inflation.

People are less aware of changes to National Insurance (just another income tax) so that gets monkeyed about more often.

MP's and all those who spend other people's free money are really good at arguing what a good job they do and how they deserve an ever increasing amount of this free money for their pet project.

The reality is that this country is deeply in debt for a generation and we are already debating comparatively small tax rises. Just wait until after the general election when the peasants in China get a bit fed up lending us money.
We will either go bankrupt Argentina style, or it will be noses to the grindstone, shoulders to the wheel and backs against the wall.

Those under 35 might like to think about emigration.

unionjack81

harryhound wrote: »

Those under 35 might like to think about emigration.

And on that positive note, I think that just about wraps up this thread! :rotfl: