The forthcoming budget

westernpromise

ruperts wrote: »

The top 10% of households pay about 27% of the overall tax take (https://fullfact.org/economy/what-do-wealthiest-pay-tax/).

Looking for figures on how much the top-10% earn and spend as a proportion of all earning and spending and struggling to find a single source that lays it out clearly, but looks to me to be about 30%.

So we have a top-10% earning and spending 30% of the total but only contributing 27% of the tax.

Also according to this a senior accountant gets £32k not £162k. I know a few ordinary salaried accountants and none of them are on even a third of that figure. Ridiculous claim.

Your own link states that the top 1% pay 27% of the income tax. So as I said, the top 1% pays 37 times as much income tax as the other 99%.

It goes on to state that "three-quarters of the government’s revenue comes from elsewhere" on which basis 27% of all the state's revenue is collected from just 10%.

Like I said, the government should be very, very worried about this. It is simply unsustainable to rely on 1% of people for 27% of the income tax, and on 10% for 27% of all state revenue. Imagine if half of those people left. The !!!!!!!!!!s who contribute roughly nothing might find they have to dig deep and start making a contribution.

westernpromise

martinsurrey wrote: »

"looks to me to be around 30%"

Income Tax is not related to spending, its on earnings, you own link shows the top 1% earn 12% and contribute 27% in Income Tax.





you know a lot of unqualified accountants!

http://www.icaew.com/~/media/corporate/files/about%20icaew/ICAEWSALARYSURVEY2015-amended.ashx

the senior end of the ICAEW member average salary+bonus is in the £100-130k range.

Partner salary is £150k+ depending on location
https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Partner_-_Accounting_Firm/Salary

Thrugelmir

westernpromise wrote: »

Like I said, the government should be very, very worried about this. It is simply unsustainable to rely on 1% of people for 27% of the income tax, and on 10% for 27% of all state revenue. Imagine if half of those people left. The !!!!!!!!!!s who contribute roughly nothing might find they have to dig deep and start making a contribution.

What % of the population are net beneficiaries or takers?

Such is the case with Universal Credit. People complain that they only £1.73 a week better off by working. What's wrong is the culture. In a huge part thanks to Mr Browns nanny state plans. Previous generations simply had the attitude to work in the main. There were no free hand outs. That in itself was an incentive to better oneself..

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What % of the population are net beneficiaries or takers?

Such is the case with Universal Credit. People complain that they only £1.73 a week better off by working. What's wrong is the culture. In a huge part thanks to Mr Browns nanny state plans. Previous generations simply had the attitude to work in the main. There were no free hand outs. That in itself was an incentive to better oneself..

Something has to be done about those people who are only marginally better off (or those in receipt of benefits) despite working, unfortunately I don't know enough about the benefit system to even understand how it works, never mind suggest strategies of what I think should happen.

Thrugelmir

chucknorris wrote: »

Something has to be done about those people who are only marginally better off .

That's the nature of any benefit. There's a line drawn somewhere. Better off is still better off. Albeit marginally. Getting them into work hopefully means that they'll then progress higher and improve their own earning ability.

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's the nature of any benefit. There's a line drawn somewhere. Better off is still better off. Albeit marginally. Getting them into work hopefully means that they'll then progress higher and improve their own earning ability.

But that is ignoring the attraction (to some) of the dark side (people claiming benefits but also working in the black economy). Something which I do not condone, but acknowledge that it happens.

But going back to the main point, I feel that it is fundamentally wrong for someone to be working full time and only £1.73 a week better off, I think some sort of 'workfare' (is that what they call it?) is needed for the long term (healthy) unemployed. But maybe for social projects, not unscrupulous (I am aware that workfare can be both a tricky and sensitive subject) employers.

michaels

chucknorris wrote: »

But that is ignoring the attraction (to some) of the dark side (people claiming benefits but also working in the black economy). Something which I do not condone, but acknowledge that it happens.

But going back to the main point, I feel that it is fundamentally wrong for someone to be working full time and only £1.73 a week better off, I think some sort of 'workfare' (is that what they call it?) is needed for the long term (healthy) unemployed. But maybe for social projects, not unscrupulous (I am aware that workfare can be both a tricky and sensitive subject) employers.

So do the employed get too little or the unemployed too much?

chucknorris

michaels wrote: »

So do the employed get too little or the unemployed too much?

I have a slightly different take on the matter, I think the unemployed (particularly the long term and healthy) should not get much less, but have to do workfare, but it needs to be non exploitative work.

ruperts

westernpromise wrote: »

Your own link states that the top 1% pay 27% of the income tax. So as I said, the top 1% pays 37 times as much income tax as the other 99%.

It goes on to state that "three-quarters of the government’s revenue comes from elsewhere" on which basis 27% of all the state's revenue is collected from just 10%.

Like I said, the government should be very, very worried about this. It is simply unsustainable to rely on 1% of people for 27% of the income tax, and on 10% for 27% of all state revenue. Imagine if half of those people left. The !!!!!!!!!!s who contribute roughly nothing might find they have to dig deep and start making a contribution.

It says the top 10% of households pay 27% of the overall tax take, which is what we're discussing. Read the whole thing instead of cherry picking.

From my research the top 10% of households earn and spend about 30% of the total. Therefore they pay tax in a lower proportion to what they earn and spend.

Earlier you were concerned that relying on the top-10% to pay 27% of the tax was dangerous because they might all move their families abroad, but in fact it is roughly in proportion to what they earn and spend, so they aren't actually paying any more than anyone else relative to what they earn and spend. If anything they are paying slightly less than everyone else.

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

You'll have 'I blame Gordon Brown for this' on your gravestone.

That's a rather stupid comment. Polticians live and die by their actions. Not their words.

For the record Brown set-up a task force with the aim

""to streamline and modernise the system to fulfil the objectives of promoting work incentives, reducing poverty and welfare dependency, and strengthening community and family life."

We all can agree with hindsight that it was an abject failure. Not least that in the Blair\Brown years. No impact was made on poverty at all.