Reduction in top, 50%, rate of tax?

hermante

chrismac1 wrote: »

This is a bit like all the fuss that the Minimum Wage would wreck the UK economy.

Minimum wage wasn't going to wreck the economy, it just stops very low skilled people (mostly immigrants I expect) from working. If it's not worthwhile to employ them at minwage then they won't be employed, or employed illegally. And someone earning minwage still needs to pay tax! that's just stupid.

chrismac1

It's all pretty academic for this parliament in my view. It's pretty well a toss-up whether 50% increases or decreases overall tax revenues, but politically it's a complete no-brainer. There are millions more votes to lose by going back to 40% than you could gain from the big earners.

ben.bayliss

That's what's wrong with the whole tax system. Politics totally paralyses any common sense reform ideas. The whole lot needs sorting out in so many ways.

I'm not even a 40% taxpayer, let alone 50%, but if the day ever comes that, for every extra hour I work, I'm benefiting other people more than myself (which all 50% payers are), then that's the day I'm going to start working 4 day weeks...

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush

It's no coincidence that this 'story' breaks on the same day parliament votes to dismantle the NHS. Not that dave and Gideon would try and distract the public or anything.

pleasedelete wrote: »

We have 2 children. 14 and 16. Both doing school then hopefully uni. Both at state schools.

So you're happy for your children's education to be provided for by the taxpayer, yet are taking steps to avoid paying your share? Bravo.

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush

ben.bayliss wrote: »

but if the day ever comes that, for every extra hour I work, I'm benefiting other people more than myself (which all 50% payers are), then that's the day I'm going to start working 4 day weeks...

Or perhaps you could start looking at benefits to society as a whole from the taxation of higher earners, rather than the narrow-minded selfish perspective you appear to have adopted.

ben.bayliss

You say selfish, I say pragmatic. First and foremost I work to provide for myself and my family and my time is much more happily spent with them than working in order to benefit strangers in excess of any additional benefit to myself. Taxation and the benefits it provides to society is a side effect. If I want to give more generously, I give to charity.

The top 1% of earners, roughly those in the 50% band, already contribute about 28% of the total income tax receipts for the UK. Let's not clobber them even harder (the difference between 40% and 50% is obviously not massive as politically exciting as it may sound) and give them the wrong signals when they're clearly already paying a lot in which we should be thankful for.

le_loup

ben.bayliss wrote: »

my time is much more happily spent with them than working in order to benefit strangers in excess of any additional benefit to myself.

So you get no benefit from your taxes?
Think again about infrastructure, police, fire service, army, education, public transport, governance.
Or do you live in a bubble on a desert island unaffected by anything or anyone?

pleasedelete

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush wrote: »

It's no coincidence that this 'story' breaks on the same day parliament votes to dismantle the NHS. Not that dave and Gideon would try and distract the public or anything.


So you're happy for your children's education to be provided for by the taxpayer, yet are taking steps to avoid paying your share? Bravo.

We paid 76 k in tax and ni last year. I think that's more than our share! We have paid 500 k in past 10 years. More than covers school costs.

We worked it out last night and in past 21 years my husband has paid uk tax in 11 years from choice when he was abroad so much he wouldnt have had to. So yes we are really tax avoiding.

As a family we haven't been to a doctor in over 5 years so not a burden to the nhs either.

I went back to work when children 3 months old. Worked for 25 years already. But hey we could just work 16 hours a week and expect the rest of the country to keep us couldn't we.

We work very long hours for our money. If we worked just 40 we would earn much less.



Uni will not cost tax payer anything as they won't be taking a loan.

pleasedelete

ben.bayliss wrote: »

That's what's wrong with the whole tax system. Politics totally paralyses any common sense reform ideas. The whole lot needs sorting out in so many ways.

I'm not even a 40% taxpayer, let alone 50%, but if the day ever comes that, for every extra hour I work, I'm benefiting other people more than myselfs...

That's interesting.I believe that we should have a benefits system to support vulnerable people.

I am not sure that higher earners who often are higher earners because they work hard and have done so for many years should be propping up a broken system.

I am worried it has gone wrong. My cousin and husband both teachers had a baby 12 months ago. She hasn't gone back to work as a lifestyle choice. If she was to pay childcare she would still be £1000 a month better off. She says it's not worth it as they will get tax credits etc (not a lot less than 2k a year but why should they get anything? ) she is fit and able to work. It is her choice that she doesn't.

ben.bayliss

Of course some tax is justifiable and yes of course it pays for things that benefit everyone. But as pleasedelete has said, once you get to the 150k band, I think those people are already contributing very highly and to slap them with an even higher rate of tax where they would be taking home less than half of the additional income they're creating is unfair and sends the wrong message out.

Even after income tax they are still paying far more in all other taxes too: council tax (no doubt on a highly banded property), national insurance, VAT from spending their disposable income, road tax (nice car?) etc. etc.