David Cameron went on live national TV at the weekend and said repeatedly that the proportion of tax paid by the country's top earners was higher now than it was at any time in the whole of Labour's 13 years in office. Make of this what you like, but more than 2 days later I'm yet to see a single rebuttal of that claim anywhere in the media.

 

So the top earners are paying more tax now, when the rate is 45%, than they were when it was 50%? Interesting.

Also, I would suggest that since there are more people out of work than there ever were under Labour, the proportion gets skewed as you can guarantee its not the top earners on the dole queue.

I.e. since there are less lower paid people in work than at any point under Labour, of course the top earners are going to be paying a higher proportion by default.

 

So basically you've made all that nonsense up haven't you and are going to try and sell it to us as fact?

The top 1% of earners provide 27% of the total tax take. That is FACT, look it up. And it hasn't just happened now, for many many years the top few percent of earners have provided over 20% of the total take.

You might think this is some kind of 'social justice' but only up to a point and then it becomes something very different, it becomes anti aspirational.

You sound like a lazy lefty layabout to me

 

Which bit do you think I have made up?

Whats your point? That the top 1% shouldnt be contributing over 20%? That somehow having to pay tax puts you off being a multi millionaire???

 

PB, it seems you are no better that the idiot Labour leader, all bluster and rhetoric and little substance, nothing about what should be done to 'fix' the problem(s).

 

Ok , Jon, What problem do you think that Osbourne is trying to "fix" by selling off employees right?

 

Exactly right, this is the point I wanted to make, from where I sit it would seem that the rich are paying to run the country and at the same time provide the layabouts with their disposable income to spend on ebay.

 

What? Seriously, What? If they contribute 27% - Where do you think the other 73% comes from?

Do you know what the average wage is in this country? Around £26,000. Now, given then there are people out there that earn 100 times that amount and more, that means there are millions of people that earn less than that figure. And what you are proposing is to actually take more tax from them, so that people who earn over £150,000 and more can pay less tax.

I mean I just want to clarify that this is the situation you would like.

 

If the rich have to pay a higher percentage to ensure the poor pay a lower percentage then that must mean that the rich subsidise the poor, simples

 

Depends how many people there are in each camp, Just as a illustration, if you have 1 rich person contributing 45% and paying , say, £90K per annum, and 10 people paying 20% but paying £10K per annum each then the less well off pay more to the system.

And it doesnt take a mathmatical genuis to work out that if the average wage is £26,000 then are a lot more people earning less than figure than there are over it.

 

When was the 50% rate cut to 45% (or when does it take effect)?

This is interesting...

Just under 98,000 people had taxable incomes between £150,000 and £200,000.
138,000 had incomes between £200,000 and £500,000.
26,000 had taxable incomes between £500,000 and £1m.
Just 13,000 people with taxable incomes over £1m each.
Source: HMRC for 2010-11

 

how ridiculous, that's like saying a high earner should pay £5 for a tin of soup from Tesco so that 20 other low earners can have the same for 40p and yet because the 20 low earners are spending £8 they are getting a raw deal as the high earner only spent a fiver

 

The fairest system of all is a tax free allowance for all (say £15k) and then everybody pays the same %age tax above £15k, say 25%. Someone in the Govt could do the maths so that the before vs after is exactly the same. This will never happen though of course ...

Pete - using your av pay of £26k p/a and the idea above means that someone on £26k pays £2.25k in tax whilst someone on £100k pays £21.25k. This then encourages people to earn more as they're not getting hammered with a 45% tax rate - as they earn more they pay more tax too remember. No doubt people that currently avoid tax due to it being 45% would probably not bother at 25% resulting in the perverse situation where tax income actually rises as the tax %age comes down.

I think it fair to say that people don't actually mind paying tax as we understand what it is needed for. Where you get problems is when it is perceived as a penalty and people then attempt to reduce what they pay or don't pay at all.

TX.

 

I think if you want your views to be taken seriously then you need to dispense with the silly generalisations. This is a complex matter and difficult policy area for whoever is in charge. I actually partially share some of your views regarding the flattening of the tax system. But to describe the poorest as layabouts is idiotic and counter-factual. In reality most people on benefits are actually working.

 

Can someone answer my question please????

 

Why is it whenever people talk about the Tories and tax, its always called the politics of envy.

My point, more than anything, was to show how out of touch the Chancellor is with the common man. They care about jobs, health ,energy costs, etc,etc, and what does he come up with. Reduce CGT on share scheme's in return for giving up your rights. Just laughable.

(Oh, and btw, i don't agree with a Mansion tax. If you have worked hard enough to have a big house, good luck to you)

 

I would guess some laws are European wide, and some are determined by the State. You would give up the ones from the Nation state............but its a good point.

 

The short answer, Clare, reading the commentaries, is that nobody knows if this would be allowed under European Law. We have a whole thread about a concept that would probably only affect a very small percentage of the workforce, so my guess is that it will be lost in a sea of red tape and never quite see the light of day.

 

What makes me smile is how so out of kilter the proposal is with general direction of travel a country should embark on

Surely the national aspiration should be a country full of high skilled jobs with good employment rights – like they manage in other countries

Government should strike a compact with both industry and the workforce to achieve this, all working for the same goal - like they manage in other countries

But what do we get - politicians so devoid of creativity and ambition that they come up with this rubbish,

“errr let’s create a market for employment rights” - laughable

I’ve said it before, we are on a race to the bottom, competing with countries to see how **** we can make our pensions/employment rights/etc

 

Of course its main target is start-up companies, to encourage the creation of new businesses. Fow whom it wouldn't be laughable at all. Does that count? At all?

 

From I can see I guess what the Chancellor is trying to achieve is to cut employment red tape to make it easier, less costly, increase flexibility and perhaps reduce the element of risk for the employer to encourage employers to start recruiting the unemployed.

 

Totally agree. Its like they have given up any notion of a skilled, efficient workforce. One million "Neets" and no-one seems bothered.

 

Thanks Tel and Paul

 

Well that is the case at the moment!

18 months ago i worked for a start-up that went into administration - no redundancy, no accrued holiday pay, no pay in lieu of notice

If it had been a success, my shares would have been hammered with capital gains tax

So this new idea does have potential to be of benefit - both to smaller companies and their employees.

mb

 

1)All of that statement I quoted you have made up. If I'm wrong provide the evidence

2) The fact that you use terms like 'multi millionaire' shows you are at the worst end of success hating anti aspirational left wing politics. What is a multi millionaire anyway? Are you saying anybody earning over £150k is a multi millionaire?

It's not paying tax that p8sses these people off, most do actually have a social conscious, it's that people like you feel taxes should be levied upon them almost as a form of punishment. As though being successful is a sin.

If somebody works their butt off, gives up their evenings and weekends to make extra money and this pushes them above £150k why should they then hand over 50% of this money to hmrc?

How does this encourage people to work harder, to strive, to achieve? It is anti aspirational, this is something that people of your ilk fail to grasp

 

Perhaps this is the best way forward. I'm no good with maths, but as a general idea, it seems to make sense. The poorer get a bit of a break, and it may help the economy overall as they will have a little more money available to spend, ultimately paying into the pot that way. The better off will have a bit less of their hard earned taken away, and this may encourage those who avoid paying tax as it stands, not to do that. It may be simplistic, but sometimes the best solutions are.

 

No offence, but you make it sound like only the rich help run the country and have to pay for those at the bottom??????????

Whilst those higher earners pay more into the pot, a huge amount of people across this country still pay in, and it seems like you just dismiss all of them by just looking at the two ends of the spectrum.

 

Richard Branson is only a billionaire because loads of so called "poor people" subscribe to Virgin Media, use his airline, or deposit their wages at his bank. The thing is we need each other. A society where everyone does well, means there are more "little people" to use his airline, everyone wins.

 

Sorry, I was struggling to make a certain poster on here understand why the taxation system in this country is unfair.

There will always be people in society who need help, the elderly, disabled, genuine people made redundant after working for most of their life, etc etc, I believe these people should get all the help they need and of course this has to be paid for by taxation.

Unfortunately there are also a lot of people who don't want to work, have no intention of working and just play the system, probably with more money in their pocket than you or I who work hard to try and make a future for ourselves.

And here lies the problem, a high earner would already pay more into the system even if income tax was at a flat rate, so why penalise these people further by hiking up the tax rate?

If society thinks its acceptable to support people who can't be bothered then so be it, but why should someone who has worked their butt off, 18 hr days etc etc to give themselves a better life pay more towards it as a percentage of every £ they earn than anyone else?

This country needs to encourage business owners and entrepreneurs to move onwards and upwards, these are the people who create jobs and wealth, to punish them for success is so wrong.

 

So only poor people can afford digital tv services, to go on overseas trips and have any money to deposit in the bank?..Says it all really!

Only joking, I know what you mean