Do you want to discuss boring politics? (22 Viewers)

[Grendel]

Not a game you want o play. They get paid for all the hours they work and more holidays than the average job too (I used to work for the NHS!)

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

 

---

[COV]

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

www.theguardian.com

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]

If they are paid above average they are not poor. They chose to go into a profession knowing the rates of pay as do plenty of other heroes in the army, police or fire services. All are important. All are paid above average salary. All deserve it. None can claim the wages are poor.

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]

Paid too much to care.

I wish.

 

[Grendel]

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.

So you'd actually put NI on a £176 a week pension? Jesus Christ.

 

[Jamesimus]

So you'd actually put NI on a £176 a week pension? Jesus Christ.

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...

 

[PVA]

And since I'm here, I've personally got no issue with paying more tax.

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]

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]

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....

 

[Grendel]

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...

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]

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?

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]

Only because you're quoting in % and not actual monetary terms which makes it progressive.

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]

Shock horror, Ian's here to bash thos

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.)

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]

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.

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?

 

[PVA]

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.

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]

So you'd actually put NI on a £176 a week pension? Jesus Christ.

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]

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?

If that nurse had significant pension payouts then yes.

 

[Grendel]

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?

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]

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.

The politics of envy

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

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.

 

[Grendel]

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.

I will still try and pay as little as possible - if its a dividend or a tax thanks

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I will still try and pay as little as possible - if its a dividend or a tax thanks

Come the revolution, my friend...

 

[rob9872]

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.

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]

I will still try and pay as little as possible - if its a dividend or a tax thanks

**HMRC reacted to your post with a like**

 

[PVA]

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.

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]

I will still try and pay as little as possible - if its a dividend or a tax thanks

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.

 

[Jamesimus]

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.

If you have been able to save to afford assets, you don't think it's wrong that you pay the same as someone who has never been able to afford to save?

I'm asking that as someone who once had no savings and was on £8.50
an hour in the south east. To think that under this current tax I'd have to pay the same as I earn now is daft and unfair. And no I didn't "better myself" before anyone suggests it!

I understand saving is a "sacrifice" somewhat, but if you can afford to do it, you're doing alright.

 

[rob9872]

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.

In other words you can't counter what I've typed so having misquoted me you'd rather pin an opinion of me than apologise for having got it completely wrong. Okie dokie!

 

[rob9872]

If you have been able to save to afford assets, you don't think it's wrong that you pay the same as someone who has never been able to afford to save?

I'm asking that as someone who once had no savings and was on £8.50
an hour in the south east. To think that under this current tax I'd have to pay the same as I earn now is daft and unfair. And no I didn't "better myself" before anyone suggests it!

I understand saving is a "sacrifice" somewhat, but if you can afford to do it, you're doing alright.

Saving is a sacrifice. Saving for the future. And for that I should be penalised? Really? That's illogical. I should pay it on what I earn not what I have if it's income that I've already paid tax on. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

 

[PVA]

In other words you can't counter what I've typed so having misquoted me you'd rather pin an opinion of me than apologise for having got it completely wrong. Okie dokie!

No, I just find it pretty reprehensible that you think disproportionately taxing those worse off is to be applauded so I'd rather leave it there than continue arguing semantics or he said she said with someone that has such views.

 

[rob9872]

No, I just find it pretty reprehensible that you think disproportionately taxing those worse off is to be applauded so I'd rather leave it there than continue arguing semantics or he said she said with someone that has such views.

No. You directly misquoted me and you still are. It is not disproportionate and I have not anywhere said it should be.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Top tax rate up to 50%, government then invests in a few projects to stimulate economy, and to help that bumps inflation up to 5% for a while, but keep interest rates low... sorted

 

[PVA]

No. You directly misquoted me and you still are. It is not disproportionate and I have not anywhere said it should be.

Of course it's disproportionate. You either don't understand it or choose not to.

 

[Jamesimus]

Saving is a sacrifice. Saving for the future. And for that I should be penalised? Really? That's illogical. I should pay it on what I earn not what I have if it's income that I've already paid tax on. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

I agree, it is. But also, you can afford to pay more than most people on your income if you have loads of expensive stuff knocking about.

I am in the same boat. I'd happily pay more so that some 20 year old hospitality worker doesn't have to pay the same as me, because a lot of us have been that person with the shite paid job in the past and it's tough. It's not just a case of "bettering yourself".

I'm also trying to plan for my future; as is everyone else?!

The illogical thing for me is people that get paid 9 quid an hour, have no savings whatsoever and can't afford to save or have their own house, paying the same as me or you or my boss with a Ferrari.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

If you have been able to save to afford assets, you don't think it's wrong that you pay the same as someone who has never been able to afford to save?

I'm asking that as someone who once had no savings and was on £8.50
an hour in the south east. To think that under this current tax I'd have to pay the same as I earn now is daft and unfair. And no I didn't "better myself" before anyone suggests it!

I understand saving is a "sacrifice" somewhat, but if you can afford to do it, you're doing alright.

There is the argument that those that 'spunk it up the wall' are paying more tax because they're paying VAT on what they spend it on.

Showing restraint and saving shouldn't be discouraged but there has to come a point whereby the amount saved becomes extortionate and it should be taxable in some form.

One thing I think that should be brought in is to do away with rebates on things like losses for corp tax and carry back/forward of losses.

If I didn't earn anything in a particular year I can't then forward that onto subsequent years to reduce my tax in future. Or claim it against previous years earnings to get a rebate. So why should businesses be allowed to? If you make a loss that year you pay no tax that year. Simple.

As I've said before profit is a rubbish way of calculating a tax anyway. I don't get to offset my living costs against my income to reduce my tax. Especially ones which I can just pluck out of thin air, like the value of my car going down