Not going to happen

Flat rate tax is a way of shifting tax burden from rich to poor.

at the moment we have a progressive tax system. If the rich pay less under a new system then where is the rest of the tax coming from? Either less is raised in general or the poor pay more.

If a stupid idea from the far right fringes of politics

Good articles non doms in the Guardian on Saturday

parasites

This thread is only “likely’ to end in tears, but as a point of fact, this is not necessarily true. A flat rate of tax with a minimum threshold is still progressive ie MRT goes up as income goes up. So assume 10,000 tax free threshold and flat rate of 30%.

If you earn 10,000 your MRT is 0%
If you earn 20,000, 15%
120,000 27.5%

The higher the threshold, the more progressive the tax

But why would anyone want to do a “formerly highly paid” job then?

e.g. say I’m a brain surgeon, getting paid large amounts of money but having the constant stress of facing death and disease every day, knowing that one slip could kill, plus continually studying, researching, going to conferences etc.

You come along and say brain surgeons now get paid the same as, say, bus drivers. Why wouldn’t I just sod off and become a bus driver then?? Much less stress, 9 till 5, no huge fees for indemnity, professional bodies and exams.

I think Sweden would be a closer fit – North Korea is probably less equal than the UK.

On placement last year I was paid £13500, I paid about 1200 tax, under this I would have got 10000 free and then 30% on 3500, that’s 1050, cool extra 150 for me!

Is how I understood the original proposition, so no extra burden on the poor. In fact with an increased threshold the poor will be paying less.
Out of interest TJ, what is a poor person? How little do they need to be earning to be considered poor?

Can’t wait for the usual lefties to come charging in throwing their weight around and beating everyone down with repetion and boredom…

I’m not saying we should or shouldnt have a flat rate of tax but there is no way on earth we should have a flat final income

e.g. say I’m a brain surgeon, getting paid large amounts of money but having the constant stress of facing death and disease every day, knowing that one slip could kill, plus continually studying, researching, going to conferences etc.

Not that I think communism is the answer (I don’t), but footflaps didn’t specify a threshold – it could be £10m. All the super rich sportsmen/actors/musicians/bankers etc etc give vast swathes of their income, but it doesn’t affect the brain surgeons/bus drivers who could end up better off. Maybe. Still a crap idea (no offence footflaps).

yes can we tax them less I mean what other way can there be to get them to pay more than by charging them less 🙄

ah sod it, it only cost 50 billion to implement the first year so come on lets help out the rich in this time of austerity with a tax cut we cannot afford then we can really let rip at the public sector and cut it some more…..no really this is their actual plan and they admit it !!!!

It is proper blue sky thinking and some sort of creeping tea party curse trying to invade our island.

How about they **** right off and pay more tax as they are **** minted and we are all skint?

Thatcher would be proud of you for thinking only of yourself

So grahamS what you are saying is basically your wife does not care and only does it for the money…let me know how that tea time debate went will you 😉

THM – so your point is they want a flat rate tax because they want a progessive tax rate…..someone has not thought this through properly have they. its a mute pooint and you can defend your stance if you wish but i doubt you actually “believe” it.

In that case with less tax raised overall from income tax either the services the poor use will be cut or the tax will have to be raised from elsewhere

It is a mechanism to transfer wealth from poor to rich – that what its designed to do – that’s what it will do.

TJ – not sure your recent break was enforced ( 😉 ) or not, but dont fall into the same old tiresome trap, please. I am merely correcting the factual element of your point. Nothing to do with RW or LW – simple maths. As for the empirical evidence, on tax take that is mixed and again hopefully free from political dogma.

No-one know what would happen to the overall tax take but under the current system the optimal tax rate is “believed” to be between 44-48%. (edit: under differing hurdle rates not a flat system BTW)

Don’t start down that road. TJ will explain to you why a couple on average wage are “poor”, while a lone parent paying high rate income tax MUST be “rich” (despite potentially having less actual money).

The official government definition of “low income” is a household income of less than 60% of median.

Tories for you.
Rich get richer, poor get poorer.

Except the 150K already earned taxed at lower amounts and at present the first 8100 not taxed at all…