Tax bracket up to 50% for big earners

[lukemillar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8011321.stm

So, anyone going to feel the pinch?

[Jamiebridges123]

So it's not as if we don't pay enough on fuel duty.. they want to put it up 2p in one year, then 1p a year for the next 4.. that's 6p, not forgetting any differences in oil barrel prices then either..

And the working class man needs his fuel.

As for the 50% thing, well if you're earning over £150,000 I doubt you're ever going to feel in a squeeze anyway..

[ThEGr33k]

Going to help the economy no end losing all the big earners... :rolleyes:

[Sally]

4/5 pence on a pint, 13 pence on a 1L bottle of spirits and 7 pence on a packet of cigs, shocking! :(

[Dave20046]

**** :(

[carty]

Not going to affect too many - there's only 1% of the workforce earn over £150k apparently.

Basically for every £10,000 a person earns over £150,000 they'll lose an extra £1,000 in tax compared to current situation. As Jamie says, someone who earns that much isn't exactly going to starve because of it.

It's certainly not going to trouble me, I expect they'll make a lot more money from the 2p per litre rise in fuel

[timwilky]

another promise of no increase in income tax broken.

[the_lone_wolf]

Going to help the economy no end losing all the big earners... :rolleyes:+1

This isn't even the robin hood "robbing the rich to feed the poor"

It's robbing the rich to make up for 10 years of unsustainable accounting and bloated spending by an arrogant one eyed ****...

[gruntygiggles]

So it's not as if we don't pay enough on fuel duty.. they want to put it up 2p in one year, then 1p a year for the next 4.. that's 6p, not forgetting any differences in oil barrel prices then either..

And the working class man needs his fuel.

As for the 50% thing, well if you're earning over £150,000 I doubt you're ever going to feel in a squeeze anyway..

I know what you're saying about not feeling the squeeze, but it's a horrible feeling watching a massive portion of your salary being taken from you. Not only will these earners feel the squeeze (in a different way) but we could further hurt the economy by penalising the high earners further than we already do.

Being on 40% tax over the threshold is bad enough....being on 50% would be almost unbearable.

Imagine you are on £200K you'll have £37,400 on 20% tax and 50% on the next £162,600 leaves you with:-

£37,400 @ 20% = £29,920
£162,600 @ 50% = £81,300

Total after income tax = £111,220

Granted that still gives you a very healthy six figure salary, but you're losing a total of £88,780 a year. If you were that person, wouldn't that make you feel sick???

Now, I'm not saying higher earners shouldn't pay a higher rate of tax and I do feel that seriously low earners should pay a lower tax rate, but there has to be some level ground. When you are in jobs where you earn that kind of money, the workload, stress and pressures that are faced day to day are enormous and you have huge responsibilities which is why the salary is so high.
Now, the goverment owes over 600bn and the tax hike will only bring in around 7bn, so it will not have a massive impact on the government and will go into paying off debt, not back into the social care, health care, poilicing, benefit systems etc that it is set up for. It will however effect the people in that £150 - £1m salary bracket who will be affected by it. Many people earning that kind of money have huge financial commitments and so although it may not seem like it, they do suffer and have to watch their pension plans and investment plans get lower and lower.

Now.........lets look at the people paying this tax hike........the people that create and grow businesses, therefore creating the jobs that are so badly needed. These are the people that have the money to put in the banks and investment funds and keep on the spending that is keeping the economy going now and will be integral to building it back up again.

Now, I think that anyone earning over £1m can afford the additional tax bracket, but anyone under that, especially under £300k will be impacted by it and affected by it and they will tighten their belts and stop spending as they usually do....therefore NOT supporting the economy and putting money into it.

The government is using us to pay their debts, not to support the people. They need to find other ways of doing that than penalising the very people that are most able to help the economy get back on track.

One of the things that made me laugh was that anyone unemployed for over 12 months will be "offered" a job or training. **** that!!!! Don't offer. Where a person is fit and able to work, they should be made to accept those jobs or training courses and if not, sacrifice their benefits. We cannot keep paying for lazy idiots that don't want to work when we have an economy in crisis.

Obviousy not everyone that is unemployed is a lazy twot and those that have valid reason not to work deserve probably more benefit than they are currently getting. BUT, those that are lazy are effectively a haemorrhage on our economy and we need to change that.

The problem I also have with it is that when they put it up, it is likely to stay that way, even after the economy gains strength. Then it'll be down to the election and our tax rate will be dictated by the need to gain votes and as the majority of the population feel that higher earners should pay higher tax, any new government will probably bow to pressure.

What can we do to protect our income. Everyone wants higher earners to pay more tax.....I myself agree with it, but we already do. We already wave goodbye to a third of our income.....when is it going to stop???

Sorry, a bit long that wasn't it. It's just never as clear cut and beneficial as the spin doctors make it out to be and as for the fuel duty.....OMG. Get a grip....how can the lower earners get to work and back if they can't afford fuel and the public transport system is carp!!!

[the_lone_wolf]

Now, I'm not saying higher earners shouldn't pay a higher rate of tax

As a somewhat contraversial aside... Why?

[jamesterror]

I read read through parts of the budget yesterday as to double check my business isn't going to get jumped on by the greedy labour government.

As a somewhat contraversial aside... Why?

Some people have worked incredibly hard to earn that, is it fair that a larger proportion should be taken away?

[Luckypants]

Being on 40% tax over the threshold is bad enough....being on 50% would be almost unbearable.

Imagine you are on £200K you'll have £37,400 on 20% tax and 50% on the next £162,600 leaves you with:-

£37,400 @ 20% = £29,920
£162,600 @ 50% = £81,300

Total after income tax = £111,220

Granted that still gives you a very healthy six figure salary, but you're losing a total of £88,780 a year. If you were that person, wouldn't that make you feel sick???

I believe your sums are wrong, but agree with the sentiment.

The tax to pay will be more like

£6,475 tax free
The next £37,400 @ 20% (Total 43,875) = £7,480
The next £112,600 @ 40% (Total 156,475) = £22,520
The next £143,525 @ 50% (Total 300,000) = £71762.5

Total income tax to pay £101,762.5, bloody criminal. The fact is that someone on £300K will pay an extra £14,352 in PAYE taxation under this move and is a massive disincentive to stay in Britain. Oh and lets not forget we've all been hit by hikes in NI under Labour - they did not raise Income Tax but they raised taxes on income.

[Luckypants]

As a somewhat contraversial aside... Why?

Yes I agree, why should higher earners pay a higher rate of tax than others?

[fizzwheel]

taxation under this move and is a massive disincentive to stay in Britain.

I'd go further, whats the point in sweating your guts out. Working hard, making a sucess in your life earning good money and then finding that the government take a huge amount of it away again in tax.

I can kinda see why people dont bother and claim dole / benefits....

[Luckypants]

Yeah I agree Fizz. A total of 29% of my salary went to the govt. last year. If you count employers NI as well, the government took the equivalent of 40% of my salary last year. Now I am not poor but I work hard for my money and don't like to see a third of it taken from me for little in return.

[jimmy__riddle]

I'd go further, whats the point in sweating your guts out. Working hard, making a sucess in your life earning good money and then finding that the government take a huge amount of it away again in tax.

I can kinda see why people dont bother and claim dole / benefits....

that seems to be the aim of this government, make it more worthwile sitting doing nothing than actually trying to do something.

[gruntygiggles]

As a somewhat contraversial aside... Why?

Because I believe in a rolling scale. Lets face it, there are many people out there that earn MASSIVE salaries and I used to place executives with companies run by these people. From what I have seen working in the Executive arena, anyone earning up to about £300K has to work extremely hard for that money and it's not money that makes them filthy rich without a care in the world. As high earners go, they are quite vulnerable as they have the income to be able to invest and save and live at a certain standard but they do not earn so much that they are exempt from risk.
Now......those earning in excess of £1m in salary alone do work and do have huge responsibilities, but they are people that have worked their way up to these senior positions, usually get there a little later in life and do not work full weeks, somwtimes just being non-exec board members of global corporations. These people are not at risk in times of financial crisis and are therefore not as vulnerable.

What I would rather see would be 20% on anything up to £37,400 as it is now, followed by a rolling scale so as not to have someone on 50K paying the same tax %age as someone on £1m. In 2010, anyone up to £150k will stay on 40%, but what if you are on £160k? You're still paying the same as someone on £1m.

There are arguments for and against any way you look at it, but as a higher earner myself, I don't mind paying a higher rate of tax within reason to support the people that need it in this country. I just don't think it's the answer to everything.

Also, being in executive search, negotiating packages for candidates in excess of £200k and on occasion mediating in contract renewals for execs in excess of £600k, I can tell you I have never had one of them say that they don't feel it is right to pay a higher rate of tax. They just all believe it shouldn't be as high as it is and also, that it should be more protective of all.

Does that make sense?

[gruntygiggles]

I believe your sums are wrong, but agree with the sentiment.

The tax to pay will be more like

£6,475 tax free
The next £37,400 @ 20% (Total 43,875) = £7,480
The next £112,600 @ 40% (Total 156,475) = £22,520
The next £143,525 @ 50% (Total 300,000) = £71762.5

Total income tax to pay £101,762.5, bloody criminal. The fact is that someone on £300K will pay an extra £14,352 in PAYE taxation under this move and is a massive disincentive to stay in Britain. Oh and lets not forget we've all been hit by hikes in NI under Labour - they did not raise Income Tax but they raised taxes on income.

Yeah, I was just doing a basic example, not taking all into account. After NI as well it's even worse, but hey ho.

[Essex of Essex]

We are starting to see a slow but steady exodus of experienced pilots heading overseas, better salary and living conditions and lower sometimes no income tax, all that money disappears from the economy.

[jimmy__riddle]

on a side note, if there was a flat rate for income tax, do you think companies would offer such large salaries, as by paying less tax you can take home the same amount with a much lower annual pay.

[600+]

damn! there goes the plan for asking for a payrise :D

[timwilky]

Whilst I an unfortunate enough not to earn enough to be affected by this particular change, a few in my extended family are. would this be sufficient to make them sod off abroad?

No, they did it years ago and this confirms they were right to move to the channel islands and IoM and base their businesses there

[fenjer]

Nurses have stressful jobs... they dont get paid £100k a year...
Doctors have stressful jobs...most of them dont get £100k a year...

I think the Govt leaders Brown etc should all take a pay cut, pay themselves minimum wage for a year and see how the frack they cope. They are so full of double standards.

And while I'm at it - the fuel price hikes could put my father-in-law, 3 different uncles and my OH out of business in the next four years.

[Luckypants]

Because I believe in a rolling scale.

Well I don't! :) I guess because I see it as penalising high achievers. Since tax is a percentage of salary, folks on higher salaries still pay more in tax. Those on massive salaries pay massive tax. Making those on higher salaries pay even more will drive them out of the country.

The Brain Drain of top staff leaving the UK in the late 60's and 70's due to punitive levels of taxation left this country bereft of talent.

[the_lone_wolf]

Does that make sense?

Perfectly

But it still doesn't eplain to me why someone earning £200k deserves to have more of it taken away, in %age terms, than someone who earns £40k

Do they place more of a burden on the state?

Have they done something wrong in entering a profession that demands such salaries and the additional tax is a method of being punished for it?

If you met two people who you'd never seen before, they were dressed identically and looked equally professional, how would you decide which has to pay 20% of his salary to the gov and the other 50% At the end of the day they're both one person, what about them, apart from an arbitrary number on their payslip, makes one more deserving of his money than the other

:smt102

[gruntygiggles]

I would personally love to have a 20% tax on my earnings. Three years ago when I was still a partner in my old company, I paid over £45k in tax to the goverment and that was sickening. As much as I would love to not have to have paid that much in tax that year, I don't personally mind paying a little more in tax as a percantage than someone on the national average wage or lower. BUT.....If I am paying higher tax, I would rather those on minimum wage or very low earnings pay a little less tax. I guess to be able to bring a little balance. I remember when I was on £12k and thinking, wow....that's £1000 a month ( I was young and it was my first job). Got my first pay cheque and had the shock of my life. It was nowhere near what I was expecting and scuppered some of the plans I'd made. So.....I personally don't mind paying a little more tax so that people at the lower end of the salary bracket can pay a little less and be a little better off.

[MiniMatt]

Yes I agree, why should higher earners pay a higher rate of tax than others?

I think we've had this one out so many times in the past there's not much point going over the same arguments :D (not to LP in particular, just quoting the sentiment)

But for what it's worth, my general point again and again is disposable income. There are so many costs in life that are largely flat or on a very gradual slope. We all need to drink X litres of liquid a day to survive, regardless of whether your rich or poor. The person on 10K a year spends a far greater proportion of their income on tax and necessities than the person on 150K a year.

As for the old argument of "if we tax them they'll go away, oh noes". Well given that a large proportion of those on 150K workers are in the City I guess sympathy is pretty low for them right now. Other group of people on large salaries run their own businesses and that gives significant bonuses when you can wear an MD hat and an employee hat. Dividends, pension schemes, director loans, hell I ran a company motorbike for a while and claimed the VAT back on my ginger nuts. If you're earning 150K a year and getting that entirely through PAYE salary well I'd say we're not losing any great brains if they flee - the clever ones work out how to minimise that tax burden. The unfair thing is that those options are only really open to the rich.

And pilots? (or jumped up bus drivers as I refer to my helicopter flying friend - he loves that). Are you sure that problem is specific to the UK? Now I only know a couple of pilots over here and one in the states, hardly a solid base to draw conclusions from, but I know that the one in the states is as disillusioned as the two over here.

[Dan]

Doctors have stressful jobs...most of them dont get £100k a year...

You think? I used to work with 300GPs in my last job, and a high proportion (over 55%) were earning over 100K in total.

A high proportion of them were also not working full weeks (approx 35%). Some were, by nature of being involved in various NHS quangos and 'special interest' schemes, working as little as two days a week for a £40Kpa salary on top of whatever they were making in practice.

[timwilky]

When was the John Major election surprise win? 1992 I think, the real reason that labour failed then was the statements made on taxing the rich.

When asked to define "the rich" a senior labour politician of the time (I cannot remember who) said those earning over £35,000. When this was analysed it was found that the rich now included senior teachers, police inspectors and many white collar workers. No wonder a new term "Middle England" came out. Those of us that had worked hard, developed into a position where we could look after our families without recourse to benifits etc. But apparently we were rich. No wonder all those who screamed but we are not rich did not vote labour and John Major surprisingly snatched it.

The lessons learned, New labour promised no income tax rises and got in in 97. Now they are not going after the mythical rich, but the mythical super rich. Those who are rewarded for being wealth creators are now the focus of a government that has squandered the income of the past 12 years. What was it that Brown used to say? "No return to boom and bust economics". Tell me Gordon, what investment over the past 12 years with all that extra money have you done to ensure Britain would not be adversely effected by a global economic down turn. Answer is bugger all and boom &bust is all part of the economic life cycle and you got caught up in your own spin

[gruntygiggles]

Perfectly

But it still doesn't eplain to me why someone earning £200k deserves to have more of it taken away, in %age terms, than someone who earns £40k

Do they place more of a burden on the state?

Have they done something wrong in entering a profession that demands such salaries and the additional tax is a method of being punished for it?

If you met two people who you'd never seen before, they were dressed identically and looked equally professional, how would you decide which has to pay 20% of his salary to the gov and the other 50% At the end of the day they're both one person, what about them, apart from an arbitrary number on their payslip, makes one more deserving of his money than the other

:smt102


In an ideal world, as I have said before, I would love to pay less tax and keep more of my money and I have also said that I don't agree with the tax hike for the very reason that we would be penalising the people that support the economy, create jobs and work hard for the salary that they get. At the moment I'm getting paid to sit at home and not do much, but it won;t last much longer and I'll be back to the grind again. Before I left exec search, I was working 100+ hour weeks and it was ruining me, so you're darn right I should have been able to keep what I earned.

BUT, I am acepting of the fact that we can support the economy more by paying a little more tax. My main problem with hiking the tax now is that it will not go into the economy and make a difference to those that need it. Itw ill go to paying off debts that have come about through pi$$ poor running of the country.

Think how much money would be saved each year if everyone that was fit and able to work was made to work, not eat up the benefits that we pay for???

It's true, it's no wonder people want to leave and go abroad.

SO......I don't mind paying tax, and I don't mind paying a little more if need be, but make it fair and make sure that the sacrifice I am making by giving up some of my hard earned wages is worth it by distributing it properly, not by paying debts and allowing inflated egos with inflated salaries to continue running the country into the ground!

[the_lone_wolf]

definitely agree with using taxes more efficiently, a notion apparently lost on this governement...

but...
SO......I don't mind paying tax, and I don't mind paying a little more if need be

wouldn't you already me paying "a little more" if you were earning £100k and i was earning £30k and we both paid 30%

i still can't see the logic for exponential increases in the rate of tax for high earners, whether they're happy to pay it or not:confused:

[fenjer]

You think? I used to work with 300GPs in my last job, and a high proportion (over 55%) were earning over 100K in total.

A high proportion of them were also not working full weeks (approx 35%). Some were, by nature of being involved in various NHS quangos and 'special interest' schemes, working as little as two days a week for a £40Kpa salary on top of whatever they were making in practice.


No i know what you mean. I didn't really mean doctors I knew it was wrong as I wrote it...

but public sector workers - social work, police, ambulance, etc - all have stressful jobs, and dont get paid hundreds of thousands a year... but I think I'm getting a bit Off topic - sorry!

[gruntygiggles]

definitely agree with using taxes more efficiently, a notion apparently lost on this governement...

but...


wouldn't you already me paying "a little more" if you were earning £100k and i was earning £30k and we both paid 30%

i still can't see the logic for exponential increases in the rate of tax for high earners, whether they're happy to pay it or not:confused:

You don't have to.....it's my personal opinion so it doesn't need to affect anyone else or trouble you.

My opinion would never be able to be workable because we will never be able to guarantee that the taxes we pay go to the causes that they should, i.e. Health care, Benefits etc. I just personally would be happy to give more of what I have to help others as I would be in a position where I was able.

It's not logic.....it's me knowing that if I could, I would be happy to sacrifice a little of my personal income to benefit those not as lucky as me.

I'm able to say that because I am in a position where I have had to give up a third and more of my salary to the government.....which pi$$ed me off no end because I don't trust them with it. I'm just the kind of person that would do without myself to ensure someone else more at risk got what they needed. Silly maybe, but not wrong and as it doesn't and never will affect anyone else......it doesn't really matter does it?

[600+]

The Brain Drain of top staff

I'm still here :D taking advantage of the lack of local brains ;)

[Luckypants]

I think we've had this one out so many times in the past there's not much point going over the same arguments :D (not to LP in particular, just quoting the sentiment)

But for what it's worth, my general point again and again is disposable income. There are so many costs in life that are largely flat or on a very gradual slope. We all need to drink X litres of liquid a day to survive, regardless of whether your rich or poor. The person on 10K a year spends a far greater proportion of their income on tax and necessities than the person on 150K a year.

Yes and I think in general we agree that those on lower incomes need to helped by the tax system. That is what the tax free allowance and Tax Credits try to address. What is iniquitous in my opinion is making those on higher incomes pay proportionally more than those less well off. A fair society means we all pay the same proportion.

I will pick you up on one thing though, someone on £10K pays a MUCH lower proportion of earnings to tax than someone one on £100K, simply because a much smaller proportion of their earnings are taxed and at a lower rate. The £10K person pays tax on 35% of earnings (10000-6475 allowance) while the £100K person pays tax on 93% of earnings. Both may pay less than this in reality, but lets keep the argument on PAYE.

Now I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of the Treasury to come up with a taxation scheme where the starting rate is low to help low income earners (10% on first £15K of earnings?), with a middle band where middle to high earners pay a bit more to compensate for the lower rate they pay on the first 15K of earnings (30% for £15K- £30K of earnings?) and then this goes back to a standard rate (20%) for anything over the 30K. The net result is that a standard rate is applied to all, but lower earners get taxed a lot less. As wages go up beyond the first threshold (£15K in my example) the overall income tax paid starts to rise until at the next threshold (£30K in my example) it has levelled out at 20% of overall earnings. Now obviously the numbers will need changing to suit the revenue raising goals of the government, but that seems a fair system where lower earners keep more of their money and it is not until you earn over a 'good' wage where you pay full whack.

Waits to be shot down.

[Luckypants]

I just personally would be happy to give more of what I have to help others as I would be in a position where I was able.

It's not logic.....it's me knowing that if I could, I would be happy to sacrifice a little of my personal income to benefit those not as lucky as me.

I'm able to say that because I am in a position where I have had to give up a third and more of my salary to the government.....which pi$$ed me off no end because I don't trust them with it. ...

In that case Grunty, would it not be better that the government let you keep a lot more of your money, which you could then give to those you consider needed it? Charitable donations would probably achieve your view much better than any government.

[gruntygiggles]

In that case Grunty, would it not be better that the government let you keep a lot more of your money, which you could then give to those you consider needed it? Charitable donations would probably achieve your view much better than any government.

True and whose to say I don't do that already. Like I said......I don't necessarily WANT it........I just wouldn't begrudge it in the right circumstances.

As for what you mentioned in your previous post....I totally agree and will not shoot you down. I emtioned myself eariler that a rolling tax scheme could work to protect both high and low earners!

[fizzwheel]

It's not logic.....it's me knowing that if I could, I would be happy to sacrifice a little of my personal income to benefit those not as lucky as me.

As would I, but it doesnt does it, it goes to pay of debt or gets wasted / swallowed up in the system...

I cant see any government changing this. They all promise they do, but they dont.

[Luckypants]

True and whose to say I don't do that already. Like I said......I don't necessarily WANT it........I just wouldn't begrudge it in the right circumstances.

That was my point :D If you have more cash in your pocket through less taxation, you are free to give all of that (and more) to charities targeting the areas you think the money should go to. It's your money, not theirs, so they should allow us to spend it as we see fit.

[gruntygiggles]

That was my point :D If you have more cash in your pocket through less taxation, you are free to give all of that (and more) to charities targeting the areas you think the money should go to. It's your money, not theirs, so they should allow us to spend it as we see fit.

Can't and won't argue with that. Just a shame most people wouldn't bother and would keep it all for themselves, not wanting to help the needy. Their prerogative, but if they were paying far less in taxes, that would leave the needy more.....urrm, needy!

I

[gruntygiggles]

As would I, but it doesnt does it, it goes to pay of debt or gets wasted / swallowed up in the system...

I cant see any government changing this. They all promise they do, but they dont.

Yep...just as I said in my original post. over £600bn in debt to pay off and in the time it will take to do that, only around £7bn will be made by hiking up the tax to 50% for those earning more than £150k. Litlle point really given that the mojority of those in that earning braket are the ones that are keeping the economy fluid!

[yorkie_chris]

So a vast increase in expense with sod all benefit?

Is it possible to opt out of governance?

[the_lone_wolf]

Is it possible to opt out of governance?
Declare independence you mean?

I reckon with a few like minded folks we could overthrow the IOW local authority

the residents are all doley buggers or a billion years old anyway so as long as we supply poor houses and propaganda daytime TV we'll have control of the people

;)

[gruntygiggles]

Declare independence you mean?

I reckon with a few like minded folks we could overthrow the IOW local authority

the residents are all doley buggers or a billion years old anyway so as long as we supply poor houses and propaganda daytime TV we'll have control of the people

;)

LOL. But then if it was me.....I'd gain control over those people and the ones that fall into the lazy could work but can't be ar$ed category would quickly wish they hadn't voted me in.....lol.

[the_lone_wolf]

LOL. But then if it was me.....I'd gain control over those people and the ones that fall into the lazy could work but can't be ar$ed category would quickly wish they hadn't voted me in.....lol.

Yep, it's dead easy, simply make unemployment without a valid reason for more than 3 months a criminal offence, but instead of jailing them group them into a pool of slave labour to complete public works for minimum wage

Plus as an added bonus i would ensure that as criminals they lost their right to vote me out again

It'd be the bitchin'est dictatorship ever:cool:

[gruntygiggles]

Yep, it's dead easy, simply make unemployment without a valid reason for more than 3 months a criminal offence, but instead of jailing them group them into a pool of slave labour to complete public works for minimum wage

Plus as an added bonus i would ensure that as criminals they lost their right to vote me out again

It'd be the bitchin'est dictatorship ever:cool:


Hahaha, that made me giggle!

[Biker Biggles]

This country has been brought to its knees by greedy people milking vast sums of money from the wider economy.The sooner we "brain drain" these wasters to other parts of the world the sooner we can start to rebuild our devastated land.

As for the specifics of revenue raising I accept that we are now in exceptional times and the economic waters are uncharted,but recent history (last few decades)says governments of either persuasion have had to raise broadly similar amounts of money by taxation.Now if those with lots of money dont want to pay lots of tax(and who can blame them?)it just leaves those with a lot less money to pick up the tab.So if you dont tax the rich,you will just have to tax the poor a lot more.

[the_lone_wolf]

...if you dont tax the rich,you will just have to tax the poor a lot more.

not really, in terms of wealth there's a lot more with less and less with more, so you only need to tax the more with less a little more to make the same as taxing the little with lots a lot...

[Biker Biggles]

not really, in terms of wealth there's a lot more with less and less with more, so you only need to tax the more with less a little more to make the same as taxing the little with lots a lot...


I think you should send that little gem to Mr Darling:confused:
Or let the farmer who said this run the show----"An hours rain will do more good in five minute now than a weeks would do in a month at any other time of the year":study:

[gettin2dizzy]

It's all piffle.

A few rules of life.
1. Debt is exponential
2. Net movement of money is to the rich
3. Basic maths is beyond most people
4. Politicians don't know their **** from their elbow.

If I ran the country - £10k tax free, then 10% on everything after that. Think of it as a tip if the government do well :thumbsup:

[Jamiebridges123]

Ah, so you're proposing a flat rate 10% rate.. although fair to everyone, the actual income from tax will be far less than what it is now.. :|

[gettin2dizzy]

Ah, so you're proposing a flat rate 10% rate.. although fair to everyone, the actual income from tax will be far less than what it is now.. :|
Not much of the government's income comes from income tax. Give it to us, to allow us to put it back in to the system as we choose.

Small government is what we need.

[yorkie_chris]

This country has been brought to its knees by greedy people milking vast sums of money from the wider economy.The sooner we "brain drain" these wasters to other parts of the world the sooner we can start to rebuild our devastated land.

Here's my thoughts;

The "Mr Two-Jags" everyone seems to want to set fire to, making corporate decisions would be employed by a company, controlled by shareholders. Shareholders want gains, don't particularly care about risk. If Mr Two-Jags was to be careful and not show such gains, then he would very quickly be removed from office and become Mr One-Jag, only to be replaced by Mr One-Audi, who would be prepared to be a yes man and create gains on share prices regardless of risk. Thus becoming Mr Two-Audis. So who's to blame? What's the point of making yourself unemployed just so the cycle could repeat itself?

I'd say the greed isn't just right at the top of the tree.
In fact I'd blame people too stupid to control their own finances, borrowing ahead of their means. Ironic coming from a student eh :-P. I know there are(/were?) far bigger gambles going on much higher up the financial chain, but that's what it boils down to.

[yorkie_chris]

Not much of the government's income comes from income tax. Give it to us, to allow us to put it back in to the system as we choose.

Small government is what we need.

I wonder what is the actual turnover of the government...

+1, though that would mean the end of most of the highly paid jobs program for shuffling papers. And the only people who'd have the balls to do that are doing something useful, not politics.

[gettin2dizzy]

Sod it. I'll just earn a pittance and claim my porn and two jags on expenses instead ;)

As much as I'm opposed to such greedy governments; the difference between your average trainee's salary and the executive's salaries are just laughable, and totally unjustifiable. So I don't give a monkeys if they're paying a little more tax. Anyone not on PAYE with their head screwed on will just find a way around it.

As an example; I worked for a division of a company (a household name in Western countries) who hadn't made a profit in 30 years. Last year we made £10 million net and then the CEO/President/*insert-other-sickeningly-indulgent-title-here* walked away with a £12 million lump sum to say goodbye, all in addition to his pension. Why the hell would I want to bust my balls to save a few pounds when the guys at the top gorge in the wealth? Why would the shop workers look for innovative ways to make the place more efficient? (read: they didn't!).
We even got sent monthly newsletters of the Directors on jaunts all over the world! Ha!

[lukemillar]

Declare independence you mean?

I reckon with a few like minded folks we could overthrow the IOW local authority

the residents are all doley buggers or a billion years old anyway so as long as we supply poor houses and propaganda daytime TV we'll have control of the people

;)

Sod IOW, Sealand is due takeover ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

[lukemillar]

As an example; I worked for a division of a company (a household name in Western countries) who hadn't made a profit in 30 years. Last year we made £10 million net and then the CEO/President/*insert-other-sickeningly-indulgent-title-here* walked away with a £12 million lump sum to say goodbye, all in addition to his pension. Why the hell would I want to bust my balls to save a few pounds when the guys at the top gorge in the wealth? Why would the shop workers look for innovative ways to make the place more efficient? (read: they didn't!).
We even got sent monthly newsletters of the Directors on jaunts all over the world! Ha!

This just shows that there are high earners and then there are high earners. Problem is how to distinguish between them.

I work in an industry where there are a lot of higher paid staff. Yet with this money comes regular 80+ hours weeks. I have known people work so hard at times, that they are eating 3 meals a day at work and going home just to grab a couple of hours sleep. Also, they didn't step into these positions overnight! I don't see why these people should get more heavily taxed by the government than someone who works a 9-5.

One guy I used to work with lived with a city banker and he would never see him. He would leave for work before 7pm and get home after 1am - Everyday.

[Stu]

I believe your sums are wrong, but agree with the sentiment.

The tax to pay will be more like

£6,475 tax free
The next £37,400 @ 20% (Total 43,875) = £7,480
The next £112,600 @ 40% (Total 156,475) = £22,520
The next £143,525 @ 50% (Total 300,000) = £71762.5

Total income tax to pay £101,762.5, bloody criminal. The fact is that someone on £300K will pay an extra £14,352 in PAYE taxation under this move and is a massive disincentive to stay in Britain. Oh and lets not forget we've all been hit by hikes in NI under Labour - they did not raise Income Tax but they raised taxes on income.
No Mike you're still wrong (ignoring NI)
Personal allowance is being removed from anyone earning over £100k (N.b. £100k not £150K)

[Luckypants]

No Mike you're still wrong (ignoring NI)
Personal allowance is being removed from anyone earning over £100k (N.b. £100k not £150K)

Ohh right, dirty low down skunks.

[Demonz]

Living in this country does bring opportunities which is where the government justifies taxing the higher earners. Can they earn the same level and escape the tax man if they moved elsewhere??? Possibly but unlikely - every other country is in the same position at the moment. A more relaxed way of life is appealing - but the lure of money will always remain where the markets are.

The thing that annoys me most of all is paying tax and seeing the govermnet and even worse our banks - p*ss it against the wall - I could have done that myself at the local pub without the help.