This months wages…

kelvin
Full Member
here have a proportionally bigger penalty for doing better than average.

So, if more tax needs raising on earners (not sure it does, but hey), you’d rather the additional “penalty” be increased for those doing “worse than average”?!?

No, where did I say that? The table up there clearly demonstrates that the more you earn the more (%) deductions you pay, so why should it therefore be loaded further at the top end?

If you take the average wage (full and part time) from 2021 as being just over £25k you’ll hand over approximately 15.8% of your hard earned or around £3950 pa / £330 pcm.

So if you earn a big fat £100k per year, 4 times the national average, you’ll give up £36000 pa or £3k pcm in deductions or 36% of your earnings, which unless you’re absolutely shite at maths you can see is around 9 times more actual GBP for earing 4 times more. So why therefore should higher earners be subject to even more deductions?

Until we have a Govt that doesn’t deliberately pi55 away my taxes, whether through incompetence and/or fraud I’m not willing to pay any more.

Also, after the 2019 GE I don’t GAS anymore about paying more for the less fortunate.
Far too many of those folk decided to vote for a policy that makes my life harder, more expensive and with less options/freedoms – so **** ’em.

Note, I have never in my life voted Tory, UKIP, NF or even LibDem, and never will – previously 100% Labour and since living in Scotland, SNP.

how about rather than squeezing a few more quid out of higher rate tax payers, we look at why someone paid ‘the living wage’ still has to claim benefits to survive while the likes of tesco and amazon post record profits and pay **** all in tax.

how about rather than squeezing a few more quid out of higher rate tax payers, we look at why someone paid ‘the living wage’ still has to claim benefits to survive while the likes of tesco and amazon post record profits and pay **** all in tax.

Get out of here, that makes way too much sense :-D

so why should it therefore be loaded further at the top end

Because if more tax needs raising from earners (I’m not convinced it does), those further at the top end can afford it and still have a comfortable life.

while the likes of tesco and amazon post record profits and pay **** all in tax

A very good point. Shifting the tax burden from companies to people has been the pattern for years now. But we still need to accept that when raising tax from people, there is a choice to be made… you can base it on ability to pay, or worry about the “fairness” of the well off being asked to contribute far more than those struggling, and people being asked to pay even more proportional at the “top end” than those in the middle.

I don’t think continually squeezing PAYE is the answer.

I agree, and I think gonefishin has some good points.

I mean, going by the chart above, he earns in one year almost what I have earned in my entire adult life so far, and I’m 42. So maybe putting PAYE back up to, say, 2011 levels wouldn’t hurt too much.

But the tax system here is opaque, full of loopholes, and very much favours the ultra-wealthy, who somehow contrive to have no ‘income’ and yet astonishing amounts of wealth. But as long as our parliamentary houses are full of people who literally grew up in castles, we’ll never tackle that elephant in the room.

tesco and amazon post record profits and pay **** all in tax.

and this!

I’m sure someone smarter than me has done the maths, but if you took into account the tax credits paid to low paid workers, would it actual end up that the goverment is subsidising Amazon to operate in the UK?

The “do away with tax credits” idea is great, ’till the result is people starving and freezing. Just chase these companies for a proper share of tax, and make them pay a proper living wage to everyone that does work for them. If that works, then the need for tax credits wanes. It doesn’t work the other way around… removing tax credits will not magically force companies to pay higher wages (or however they pay for work) and contribute more in taxes.

i wasn’t suggested that we did away with tax credits, more that the existence of tax credits in the first place demonstrates how **** up the system is.

whether i pay 40% or 45% is chicken feed compared to what the corporates are getting away with.

would it actual end up that the goverment is subsidising Amazon to operate in the UK?

Oh, massively, in several ways. Not just by paying people **** all.

Taxing “earners” more doesn’t really work very well though, you need to tax the non-earners, people who just sit there and watch their wealth grow, and corporations who avoid tax and underpay workers.

theotherjonv
Full Member
That chart demonstrates the NI thing well. I wonder what the 15K line looks like (that’s pretty much the £300 per week example which was raised yesterday)

10 to 50k in 1k increments if any use to you.. for Scotland mind.

As I say, I’ve not included the 3 month at the lower 9.8k threshold(so there might be a little more to pay in NI over the year), as I’m not sure how that’ll work tbh. Tax is calculated over a full year, so most people won’t even be by the 9.8k threshold in the first 3 months.

I’m actually curious about that myself, as I’m self employed, and obviously I just calculate tax at the end of the year. So confused as to how that calculation will work in practice tbh.

So confused as to how that calculation will work in practice tbh.

Same here. I have no idea.

This was a response to the rather glib statement that always rolls around that “high earners should pay more” when many don’t necessarily realise that they (we) already pay quite a lot.

I don’t get that either, here have a proportionally bigger penalty for doing better than average.

Wow, just wow. The combination of stupidity and selfishness on show here is quite staggering.

Words (almost) fail me…

kelvin
Full Member
So confused as to how that calculation will work in practice tbh.

Same here. I have no idea.

Not sure if they will calculate it or not, but 12.5% of 12571 – 9881 = £336 so might be worth just keeping that extra by just in case. (guess you could divide that 336 by 4 if you are feeling it tight mind you and just keep an extra £84 by for those 3 months, but who knows how they’ll calculate it, so could get stung).

Just seems a bit mental not to apply the threshold rise in April.

Wow, just wow. The combination of stupidity and selfishness on show here is quite staggering.

Was it just that part of my post that offended you? What about the next bit where I suggested some changes? Do they count as selfish too?

Here’s another reality check. If you increased the tax take from the top 1% of earners (that’s everyone over £120k) by 10k you would only increase the UK tax take by about 1% and that won’t make much difference at all.

mean, even hitting people at over £200k a year with an extra 1% would have to make a MASSIVE difference wouldn’t it… But i just can’t see a government doing that.

In absulote terms probably next to nothing. There simply aren’t enough individuals to which it would apply.

weeksy
Full Member
I mean, even hitting people at over £200k a year with an extra 1% would have to make a MASSIVE difference wouldn’t it… But i just can’t see a government doing that.

They actually have done that, the upper rate for NI, over 50k, has gone from 2% to 3.25%.

tbh I don’t really have a great issue with the way this tax rise has been done, if they have to do it, they have done it in the right way imo.

I’m a billion miles away from being a tory btw. :lol: Feels kinda SNPish in it’s tone tbh.

Was it just that part of my post that offended you? What about the next bit where I suggested some changes? Do they count as selfish too?

I thought your other suggestions were pretty good. My comment was limited to the discussion around whether it’s ‘fair’ that high earners pay a higher rate of tax than low earners.

For once we were having a half sensible conversation then thegeneralist gets nasty and personal. Remember that thread Mark put up a month or so ago. You may not agree with the sentiment of the comments but making moral judgements just makes the discussion toxic. Please play the argument not the man.

I thought I had. I actually edited my post to ensure it referenced the post rather than the poster.

Deleted.

I generally think the tax system in the UK is fair, higher earners do pay more. I think I’ve illustrated that, I’m not really sure how the system can be fairer? Guess you could make the ramp steeper and perhaps raise the level when it tops out at about a 46% effective rate for extremely high earners, but how useful that will be I dunno.

Now wealth distribution on the other hand. I think if you want to take more tax in, the quickest way to do that would be to make the lower earners earn more. There are lots and lots of lower earners compared to higher earners.

I generally think the tax system in the UK is fair, higher earners do pay more.

Income tax, maybe – but we pay many more taxes than income tax. Poorer people pay a much higher percentage of their income on VAT than richer people, IIRC. VAT is not progressive, nor is fuel duty. Likewise council tax – the council tax bands top out at a property value that’s not really all that high, so people on modest incomes with modest family houses pay about 2/3rds of what the wealthiest millionaires do, here in Cardiff.

Yeah, defo agree there. Should have specifically said income tax/NI system.

VAT is not progressive

It’s not progressive but given that it’s not charged on food (ingredients), housing and energy is at 5% it’s also not quite as regressive as some make out.

I don’t get that either, here have a proportionally bigger penalty for doing better than average.

But higher earners still make more overall, even with a higher tax. Talk about glass half full. Oh, I make £200k a year, but woe is me I am being penalised. Well, boo **** hoo, frankly. You’re still rich, you can afford to lose a few grand. Whining about that is just rationalising greed. You’re still well off if you make good money, that’s the basic fact. When you’re well off, looking at your payslip and looking at how much more money you could have pocketed if it weren’t for tax is just bonkers.

Many people are on their knees in this country, for all sorts of reasons, and you’re suggesting the rich need a tax break? What the hell?

Many people are on their knees in this country, for all sorts of reasons, and you’re suggesting the rich need a tax break?

Don’t think anyone is suggesting a tax cut, just pointing out that increasing the burden on the upper end of PAYE is not the answer as it won’t cover the shortfall.

Also a lot of the people on their knees voted for that by voting Tory, maybe there is some fairness in them suffering from the consequences of their own decisions?