Tax bracket up to 50% for big earners

[the_lone_wolf]

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

but...

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

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

Originally Posted by Dan

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]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

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

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?

Originally Posted by Luckypants

The Brain Drain of top staff

I'm still here taking advantage of the lack of local brains

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by MiniMatt

I think we've had this one out so many times in the past there's not much point going over the same arguments (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]

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

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]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

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]

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

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]

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

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 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]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

That was my point 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