DT78 Well said . Agree 100%
Share tax allowance... as a one income married couple i dont get my other halfs tax allowance?
The child allowance set up is a disgrace.
Amazon Boots GSK etc are the tax problem
1.7m on 72m profit.... 2%
My busiess will pay 50k on 250k profit - 20%
My business paid 10 times as much tax pro rata
That folks is the problem.
Yes.
But I need to have a better say in what it is spent on. And don't tell me I can vote for a party that would spend it more aligned to how I would want it spent as I already do but that party loses.
I do not want to pay more tax while a Tory party are in power.
In principle yes. However, if they took every penny I make, it's irrelevant compared to the tax avoidance, waste and self serving that goes on. Sort that, and if we still need more, I'll dig a little deeper.
Not at this moment no. Far to many loopholes and bad management of funds in place. Up until recently I knew of a guy whos local company was contracted to the nhs. Absolutely took the piss, 50 quid to put up a shelf etc etc
And its not just companies like Amazon avoiding tax. Ltd co contractors have been avoiding it for years. New private sector ir 35 rules cant come soon enough imo.
All those people saying no will end up perpetuating poor services and people will suffer.
What you are really asking for is a better distribution of tax burden. IIRC this is Labour's policy. I don't think any parties want to tax the poorer more.
Also, it's very easy to say 'stop tax avoidance' but I think it's pretty hard to actually do. A bit like saying 'catch all criminals' or 'just get a good brexit trade deal'
@rene59 - thanks, interesting for comparison. Not sure where the £20bn difference comes from. Perhaps the ONS include public sector pension spending. Not something I can be bothered to dig into though 🙂
If they sorted out the tax system to a single rate of income tax I'd have no problem paying more.
Yes and no.
It is a shame the question is always framed as "do you want to pay more tax" the question should be "do you want the roads to crumble, do you want social services to not have the finances to protect vulnerable children, do you want crime to rise due to police cuts, do you want your house to burn down because there is only 1 tender in town and that is already on a job ect ect..."
All those people saying no will end up perpetuating poor services and people will suffer.
What you are really asking for is a better distribution of tax burden. IIRC this is Labour’s policy. I don’t think any parties want to tax the poorer more.
The trouble with a “better distribution of tax burden” is that it will sound to most people like “raise the taxes on other people but leave mine alone”. If we want to significantly increase the amount of money raised by direct taxation the it will have to implemented at all earning levels. There’s no point in only raising the rate for people on six figure salaries as there aren’t enough people earning that much to raise significant amounts. It might play well in the press headlines but it won’t actually raise much money.
Speaking purely on a personal level I don’t want to be paying a larger proportion of my income on direct taxes as the current level of over 40% (that’s total not marginal and assumes I’ve done my tax return correctly) is I think enough.
Also, it’s very easy to say ‘stop tax avoidance’ but I think it’s pretty hard to actually do. A bit like saying ‘catch all criminals’ or ‘just get a good brexit trade deal’
There does seem to have been a deliberate policy of complicating tax laws to allow loop holes (across the world not just the UK), combined with restricting hmrc's ability to deal with dodgy practices forcing them to accept paltry offers of tax from corporations because they just don't have the resources to do anything about it. iirc a few years ago it was estimated that in the US every dollar of extra funding for tax collection would bring a 10 dollar increase in the tax collected (that is without changing the laws).
Wait for th Tories to privatise hmrc. If one dollar returns ten, it would be very profitable for someone.
“do you want the roads to crumble, do you want social services to not have the finances to protect vulnerable children, do you want crime to rise due to police cuts, do you want your house to burn down because there is only 1 tender in town and that is already on a job ect ect…”
How about the question "do you want those things, or have you got your cheque book out today ?"
I’d like to pay less.
Maybe somebody who wants to pay more would like to pay my tax bill?
If we want to significantly increase the amount of money raised by direct taxation the it will have to implemented at all earning levels. There’s no point in only raising the rate for people on six figure salaries as there aren’t enough people earning that much to raise significant amounts.
I wasn't talking about income tax necessarily.
the question should be “do you want the roads to crumble
Then the comeback is "but they waste it all". When really they just resent money being spent on things that don't concern them like ooh, jobseekers allowance or something.
Interesting the number of "well yes, but..." replies. There speak the high-earners I guess, and they really need all that money!
What you mean is "no"! This is my favourite:
If they sorted out the tax system to a single rate of income tax I’d have no problem paying more
Which is never going to happen obvs.
Me? Unlikely, but I earn well below the national average.
Like with many companies these days IMO, I suspect the salaries of higher management in the NHS are way more than 20x the salary of nurses (i.e. they have got way out of hand, just like with BBC celebs for example) and tax loopholes are enabling these higher earners (just like companies such as Amazon) to only pay stupidly low amounts of tax.
According to modern monetary theory - tax is only for removing money from circulation.
Governments don't need to tax first and then spend later - they could just effectively print the money.
Clearly this doesn't get talked about much as it suits the Tories agenda to talk in terms of lack of money, low taxes - of which neither need apply.
"The key insight of MMT is that sovereign governments that are the sole supplier of national currency can issue currency of any denomination, and in physical or non-physical forms. Consequently, these governments have an unlimited ability to pay for the things they wish to purchase and to fulfill promised future payments. These government also have an unlimited ability to provide funds to other sectors. Because of this, it is not possible for a government that issues its own currency to be bankrupt."
The whole concept of balancing the books just doesn't exist or need to exist.
There are trade-offs though, inflation, employment and resources.
Yes but I would like to see funds ring fenced and ministers along with senior civil servants accountable for piss poor planning and failure in the same way private industry is.
Piss away all of the money, lie, use creative accounting and crash the company off to prison with you. Same should be for government jobs
also we should mandate that to be a minister you need to have experience in the work area. A political science degree does not qualify you to be minister for agriculture...
still the new regime will be low tax at the top. Low pay at the bottom as we race to the US model
Not sure. I feel that I pay a lot of tax as it is. My wage is taxed. I pay NI. I pay VAT on things I buy. I pay over £350/yr on car tax. I pay council tax. I do a lot of mileage and what, 70% of fuel is taxed.
I appreciate everyone else who works pays as well 😉
Where is it all going?
I wouldn't mind paying a little more. But being realistic, I'm not an especially high earner, I'n probably not first in line to be squeezed nor the most profitable person to squeeze.
If a moderate increase in my tax burden was the "cost" for a commensurately higher increase in higher earners' tax burdens then have at it.
I'd also want to see that less of it was used to line corporation's pockets though, and that the services and systems built with taxpayers' money wouldn't be flogged off for peanuts
I wasn’t talking about income tax necessarily
Then what taxes were you thinking of? In reality there are three main ways that we as individuals pay, income tax (and let’s include NI in that), VAT, and council tax.
Points about salary multipliers are fairly moot in terms of taxation. If you are paid a salary directly by a company there are very few tax loopholes available so the chances are that those high salaries are being heavily taxed.
If I felt any extra tax would contribute to improved public services I'd be open to the idea.
It doesn't seem to work out like that in the UK though, so it's a no from me.
Interesting the number of “well yes, but…” replies. There speak the high-earners I guess, and they really need all that money!
I am a high earner "yes, but". Giving more in tax to the Tory government is not going to be spent on anything I would want it to be spent on so why would I want to give more?
.I would say that anyone in the 40% tax bracket has enough money and doesn't really NEED any more.
Also helps if you don't look at it as tax and look at it as what amount of money people are taking from the system (the net amount) So instead of the angle "I am paying £NN in tax" it is "I am receiving £NN per year"
Puts in perspective the difference between a net wage of £100,000 and a net wage of £12,000. Who cares if the net £100,000 person is paying a load of tax.
And this is why socialism can only ever fail – socialists so very often want to keep their own money, and only be socialist with that belonging to other people, like greedy little monkeys, envious of any other monkey with more coconuts than they have grasped tightly to their chest.
Who said anything about socialism?
And whose the monkey?
Unless you are talking metaphorically, and including yourself in that statement..
”Taxes are what we pay for civilized society”
I agree with that, but as a top rate PAYE payer I tend to feel that I am being taken for a mug. As others have said, there is an awful lot of lawful avoidance that I would like to see stopped before I pay even more.
So instead of the angle “I am paying £NN in tax” it is “I am receiving £NN per year”
But it looking at it the same way high earners who have private medical cover, use private schools and live in low crime areas or single childless workers might then turn round and say I pay all this in but get much less back...
people don’t like to see someone else getting more than them... or at least it seems that way... look at the I pay my road tax drivers vs cyclists as an example
these groups already complain about supporting the ****less and the “breeders”. Other than a smug superiority over other people what does this offer?
I would say that anyone in the 40% tax bracket has enough money and doesn’t really NEED any more.
We don’t need shiny bikes, iPhones, expensive cars, large houses etc. We still want them...
this is not limited to humans. It is in built to build up fat reserves to boost survival odds. Animals horde food or in the case of pets where food is plentiful they horde toys and the like....
Where is it all going?
Foreign aid & dole scum.
As a single male higher rate tax payer I pay plenty, get little for my money and am sick of subsidising others existence.
So its very much a no from me.
Is it really underfunded?
Or
Do the bloodsucking leaches from the private sector just need to be replaced with state run setups
Sure, as long as I can see the increase going to the NHS, education, welfare and not funding tax cuts for companies and the rich.
The tax loop hole thing needs sorted. Theres enough russian billionaires in london and enough billion pound companies in the UK that taxing them would easily fix a lot of problems. If you need a top up I'll happily pay an extra £50 pm in tax.
Also, while we are at it. How about -
Politician pay topped at £40k (most have second jobs anyway)
Tax second homes out of existence
Tax cigs out of existance
Minimum price for alcohol
Legalise cannabis
.I would say that anyone in the 40% tax bracket has enough money and doesn’t really NEED any more.
Would you !
good for you,
well done,
what a guy !!!
Post a pic I bet you`re dead fit as well.
Anyone who says I would gladly pay more tax if I knew it was going to what I think it should....is a thoroughbred prick!! There is no other description. I would rather give it to my new mate the Nigerian Prince who just inherited a gold mine with a cash flow problem.
I would pay more if we could only re build the Royal Navy and go and reclaim some of our Empire !!!
Is giving more money to the bellendery who waste our money really the answer ?
Did you type the wrong URL when meaning to go on to the Daily Mail site there cheekyboy.
I know exactly who the thoroughbred prick is from your 'post' thanks
<div class="bbp-reply-author">kerley
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Also helps if you don’t look at it as tax and look at it as what amount of money people are taking from the system (the net amount) So instead of the angle “I am paying £NN in tax” it is “I am receiving £NN per year”
It doesn't really work like that- people contribute in other ways than direct taxation. Anyone in public service does more by their labour than their tax. Anyone in the private sector is (hopefully) adding value for the company which contributes to corporation tax and makes it possible for the higher earners to do so.
</div>
No, I read your puerile, sanctimonious little post and nearly choked on my falsies.
As a single male higher rate tax payer I pay plenty, get little for my money and am sick of subsidising others existence.
This sentiment moves us to a pay for play system that would probably pass a referendum. No one need public services until they need them...
Politician pay topped at £40k (most have second jobs anyway)
If politicians were experts in their fields then pay would not need to be capped but second jobs should be restricted. Capping salaries often smacks of jealousy and if I can’t have it no one can sentiments..
old talent - you do realise that in any other european country you would be paying muych more?
Are you really so selfish that you are prepared for those less fortunate than you to be in dire poverty and illhealth so you pay a bit less?
Want scandenavian style public services then you have to pay for them thru tax
Want US style services - go there. You are not welcome here.
A no here too.
As already mentioned in earlier posts; the tax system is a farce. Those wealthy enough can afford to use loop holes that enable them to pay much less then they really should. Its endemic for the rich and famous ... even the new Welsh super idol lives in a different county to avoid paying UK taxes here.
Good job the Welsh government are spending thousands on a parade for him; its not as if the money would have been better spent on social services, NHS ...
I love how the "I pay far too much tax" never substantiate their position.
Pure self interest, albeit deeply imbedded .
"Thousands spent" on a parade - yeah that'd lreally fix the NHS!
Those wealthy enough can afford to use loop holes that enable them to pay much less then they really should
But don't the top 1% already pay 28% of the income tax in the UK? It was only 11% when that "high taxation" Labour Callaghan government was in charge?
I love how the “I pay far too much tax” never substantiate their position.
Pure self interest, albeit deeply imbedded .
As imbedded as those that say higher rate tax payers should pay even more.
Its a cyclical argument as old as grotes and King John. Yet here we are in the 21st century stating the obvious and bemoaning the unfairness of a system geared to keep the mega rich rich and tax the many.
Its been designed that way to keep “middle England” working, paying thier bills and kept in thier place. Middle England will never revolt or rebel, it’ll follow its similar path as it has done for millennia. And it’ll moan and cry “unfair, whattabout xxxx” but nobody listens because the cry’s are muffled puffs of indignace.
So yes, imbedded.. good word.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">nick1962
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
But don’t the top 1% already pay 28% of the income tax in the UK? It was only 11% when that “high taxation” Labour Callaghan government was in charge?
Is this a useful comparison? Is the gap between top and low earners larger?
</div>
old talent – you do realise that in any other european country you would be paying muych more?
Are you really so selfish that you are prepared for those less fortunate than you to be in dire poverty and illhealth so you pay a bit less?
Want scandenavian style public services then you have to pay for them thru tax
Want US style services – go there. You are not welcome here
Answers below
In not in an European country, so I dont care.
yep
im not in scandinavia
In not in the US, but I prefer their model.
Not welcome where? The uk or this website? You in charge then LOLZ
