Grendel
Well-Known Member
Here is a percentage figure
Top 1% of earners in UK account for more than a third of income tax
Tax revenues ever more reliant on small group of high earners, says Institute for Fiscal Studies
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (63 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Here is a percentage figure
hill83
Well-Known Member
Here is a percentage figure
Top 1% of earners in UK account for more than a third of income tax
Tax revenues ever more reliant on small group of high earners, says Institute for Fiscal Studieswww.theguardian.com
I meant specific to this increase. I know a huge amount of the tax revenue comes from the highest earners.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
There is no applause or credit to be given here.
The right and proper thing to do was to implement some kind of wealth tax to get the money to fund social care.
What they have done as usual is kowtow to their ‘influencers’ and ‘donors’ and implanted a regressive and punitive tax on those that earn the least in society.
Save your energy as well replying with some bollocks counter argument about people taking their money out of the country because it’s rubbish.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Well, the argument is they're still using the services. And as more and more people get older the system has more and more people to care for with less and less people contributing. They still pay income tax.
When it was started the amount you contributed paid for those now and then future generations would pay yours. But that was when we didn't have so many old people living so long. Even if you looked at it as you building up credit for old age, previous generations were paying for a retirement that might last 10 years. Now it's closer to 20. We may well end up at a situation whereby people are spending more time retired and not contributing than they did working and contributing. So either retirement age needs to be extended or contributions need to continue once you do.
I don't see why NI shouldn't be part of pension payments. Richer people are likely to live longer and get higher pension payments so basically it's another way of richer people avoiding paying. They often get paid more, for longer, and don't have to contribute.
Nick
Administrator
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Nor me. Investment in all our futures, innit
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Another game he wouldn't want to play
The great pension divide between private and public sector workers
The nation's pensions pay divide is laid bare today. We have ranked the UK's top pensions pound-for-pound - revealing that the most generous is the NHS scheme which pays £10 for every £1 saved.
COV
Well-Known Member
Here is a percentage figure
Top 1% of earners in UK account for more than a third of income tax
Tax revenues ever more reliant on small group of high earners, says Institute for Fiscal Studies
We're into absolutes v % again- fair few of those top earners pay a lower effective rate than someone earning not much more than minimum wage. I think the point being made is that the % should be consistent across the board.
Jamesimus
Well-Known Member
If you're paid above average, in the current climate you can still be poor.
A lot of people don't have the luxury of choice in regards to professions, they make a choice based on the limitations their upbringing / background has allowed for (this also works in the opposite way). Also worth noting, that the salary of professions can vary quite a lot over time...
hill83
Well-Known Member
Paid too much to care.
I wish.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So you'd actually put NI on a £176 a week pension? Jesus Christ.
Jamesimus
Well-Known Member
Surely would be depend on other sources of income and assets, I don't think anyone is suggesting that a pensioner who has only that source of money coming in then has to pay NI on top of it...
Me neither.
Sadly too many people, like Rob, see it as just 'giving money to the tax man' and don't seem to realise or care that it goes towards improving society. Pure greed and selfishness really (typical tory voter, I guess.)
Jamesimus
Well-Known Member
Another game he wouldn't want to play
The great pension divide between private and public sector workers
The nation's pensions pay divide is laid bare today. We have ranked the UK's top pensions pound-for-pound - revealing that the most generous is the NHS scheme which pays £10 for every £1 saved.www.thisismoney.co.uk
The NHS pension is very good, that's without question.
Nick
Administrator
I'd rather pay as little tax as possible but that's not going to happen, if I do need to pay it then I'd much prefer to know it's actually going to help society.
My council tax has gone up again but the service I get for the things I do pay for is getting worse, for example....
My council tax has gone up again but the service I get for the things I do pay for is getting worse, for example....
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Assets? How would you charge NI on assets?
As a contribution to tax over time they have by definition paid substantial amounts
You and Dreamer should lobby the Labour Party on a tax the old policy
Would you make a retired Nurse pay NI out of interest?
Jamesimus
Well-Known Member
Should be records of assets. You charge NI on the pension if that particular person is wealthy in terms of assets (multiple houses etc) and other income streams.
I am not stupid enough to realise this isn't a bit of a pipe dream, but it should be obvious the current approach isn't particularly fair. I don't work in government and have no idea how you'd do it.
If a retired nurse had 20 holiday lets and other streams of income that allowed them to live more comfortably than the majority of working age people, then why not? Surely they wouldn't mind.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I'm quoting percentage because that's what the definition of progressive/regressive taxes are.
A progressive tax is one where the percentage paid progessively increases the more you earn. A regressive tax is one where the percentage contributed regresses the more you earn.
rob9872
Well-Known Member
Shock horror, Ian's here to bash thos
Thanks for giving me a label. You have no idea about me and are basing assumptions on a few posts agreeing with a tax hike. I'm well aware of the use of raising taxes, and what it can do. I'm also aware that I pay more into the pot than is my share and more than I'm ever likely to get back. I don't complain about that and to an extent think it's fair. I do however object to those who don't know my circumstances, thinking that I should pay even more and in some cases taxed further for being prudent with some of that income. It's a bizarre thing to think that the money I've already paid tax on and saved should then be used as a weapon to beat me with to pay more tax simply because I can afford to. I really don't get the logic.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Maybe because you are arguing that increasing a tax like NI which adversely penalties lower income workers is a good thing? It’s hardly a logical thing to do is it?
How do you know you're paying in more than you'll ever get back?
How many times have you used the NHS? What if you ever require expensive/extensive treatment or operations, or a member of your family does? (hopefully not)
And anyway, it's not just about your 'fair share'. It's about helping out those worse off. As I say, it's greed and selfishness.
You said tax is 'lost' and you seem to think that higher earners shouldn't contribute more, and that tax puts people off earning more. It's quite clear your opinions on tax.
I'm in the same tax bracket as you, from what I can gather, so this is not a case of using it as a weapon to beat you with, as you say.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
There's nothing to stop there being a LEL for it. If you set it at the rate of the state pension everyone recieving that would be exempt. Then it gets paid on private pensions.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
If that nurse had significant pension payouts then yes.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
We do of course have SBT very own Wolfie Smith who recently started a thread on here that he'd reached the dizzy heights of a high rate tax payer and was asking for advice how not to pay it....
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The politics of envy
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
The problem with tax is it's a dirty word that the rich have spent a long time convincing people is a bad thing.
It needs a rebrand. It's a public dividend.
It needs a rebrand. It's a public dividend.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I will still try and pay as little as possible - if its a dividend or a tax thanks
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Come the revolution, my friend...
rob9872
Well-Known Member
You're twisting my words now. You've quoted 'fair share' when I only used the word 'share' - world of difference. I also said I thought it was fair that I should pay more than lower earners. You've then therfore completely contradicted the post you're referring to and suggested that I said they shouldn't contribute more which is the exact opposite of what I said. In fact that post I made only made one point and is the one you didn't address, which regarded the paying of more based on my assets based on having saved for those assets (not inherited) using money that I've already been taxed on. If you think that's fair then you really are advocating a communist state.
Jamesimus
Well-Known Member
**HMRC reacted to your post with a like**
At the end of the day you think a tax hike that disproportionately affects those worse off is 'to be applauded' so that says all I need to know about your views.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
As is your right.
Point was that tax is seen as this terrible thing that is a complete waste and has virtually no benefit whereas things like dividends should be lauded and encouraged despite it often just being added onto someone already large bank balance.
Last time I checked making sure people were healthy, had food to eat and a roof over their heads was more worthwhile than someone being able to afford a new yacht.