The same %age is fair on all as a %age that climbs as you earn more gives no incentive to do well. 45% when you earn £150k+, what's fair about that?

TX.

It's the age-old debate.

But some are unable to ever earn a large amount so would pay the same % tax as a big earner, with huge disposable icome.

There would then be no incentive to work at all due to the benefit sytem.

Once you've worked out the perfect system, apply to be an MP and become chancellor :D. Then watch as you get ripped apart for being wrong.

There is no perfect system.

I can remember when I was at school a few girls were talking about their plans for when they leave, it was along the lines of:

1. Get a bloke.
2. Get pregnant.
3. Get council house.
4. Get rid of bloke.
5. Never have to work again and not be stuck with just one bloke.

They even knew what benefits they could get, how much they would get and what estates they were likely to live on.

For the ones that were already pregnant simply insert a young mothers hostel before 1.

It's tragic for the kids.

Can't please all of the people all of the time but FFS pls try & please some of the people some of the time :)

TX.

But, they will be girls from families who have done the same. Self-perpetuation through bad education.

No industrious person would consider wallowing in that sort of life. Human nature provides us with a desire to 'do better', thankfully.

I've met 1000s of people who live this way and can't see a single plus point in the way they live. They have nothing, live on nothing and exist in a world of sh1t.

Ok, think of it this way, if you pay 27% no matter what you earn, and using the previous examples...

£15000 p/a after 27% tax leaves only £11811

£300000 p/a after 27% tax leaves £236220

If you're on 15k minus tax, you have under £1000 a month to spend on whatever you choose.

If you're on 300k minus tax you still have over £19000 a month to spend on whatever you choose.

If the government chose to tax lower earners at 10% it would leave someone on a salary of £15k, they would have £1136 a month to pay for everything.
If the higher earners make up the difference in this theoretical situation, then the 17% discounted from low earners, added to the high earners, would leave high earners paying 44%.

Someone earning 300k a year would, after paying 44% tax, still take over £208,000. That would leave over £17k a month to pay for whatever they wanted. That monthly pay os still more than the gross annual salary of the lower earner in this theoretical situation.

The point is, Phil, that £1,136 per month won't go as far as £17,000 a month, so surely it is actually fair to everyone that higher earners pay more.

Why should high earners pay more tax as a %age? They earn more for a reason (no offence intended to anyone of course) ...

TX.

Why is stamp duty higher on more expensive property?

Answer:

Because it can be afforded by those paying/earning it.

FP.

Do you believe in that or are you looking for an arguement / discussion?

Same principle applies IMHO wrt stamp duty. It's a scandal that it increases.

TX.

Argument?

Surely it's obvious?

Taxes are higher for higher earners and buyers of higher priced properties because they can afford to pay it. It's pretty straight forward:lol1:.

The more you can afford, the more you put into the 'pot'.

I don't agree with the stamp duty levels, but agree that high earners should put more into the mix. But I don't agree with the benefit system.

It's complex. I pay far more tax than I think I should and think it is wasted on scrounging wasters.

How't that?

Because the country needs X amount to run, and it is far fairer to get that money based on peoples ability to pay.

Surely you can see why low earner should pay less tax as a percentage of their earnings.

As Scoobywont so excellently demonstrated, if you have a flat tax rate, it is the lowest earners that are hardest hit - When you have, say an income of £1200 a month, then a few hundred pounds a month makes all the difference.

High earners would still put more money in the pot if based on a fixed %age deduction ;) I don't see the sliding scale argument at all. You earn £100 so contribute £27, you earn £1m so contribute £270k.

Perhaps I'll try for that MP position after all ...

TX.

Let's hope you don't become an MP then.

The country would collapse and there would be mass unrest ;)

If you have ever wondered why you often can't get milk delivered it's because nobody can work as a milk man for so little money.

It's just a single example of the hundreds of jobs that would earn so little that they're not worth doing.
Such jobs really need a low rage of tax etc.

Of course high earners put more money in the pot.

But what you are advocating is high earners paying less tax than they do currently at the direct expense of low earners.

You'll have to stand as an independant, or one of the fringe parties - None of the mainstream parties will touch a flat tax rate policy with a barge pole.

If no one wanted to do the job due to low pay levels so stopped doing it then surely (sp?) pay would rise to attract people to it as a result? If not then there would be no milkmen & surely no demand for them either?

TX.

If you want to know the reason there are hardly any milkmen, have a look in your nearest Supermarket :)

^^ are they stacking shelves ;)

TX.

That's why milkmen aren't so common, the money to pay them a decent wage isn't there to be given, a lower tax level for low paid jobs would make a lot of jobs more worth while.
Thats just one example, there are probably hundreds of jobs like it that are made less worth while by tax.

Who knows... you could even end up having to go to Tesco's to get rid of your rubbish, while you're getting milk.

my mrs has gone back to work pt after our 1st baby, she is doing 14 hours aweek, but we have lost £30 a week, in child support. so for them 14 hours work, is only worth around £55-£60 now, as we have lost the rest. £3.93 ph anyone??

it scares me to think that there are people on here and else where that actually think this.

%age rates allow people to payy the same % back in tax relitive to what they earn.


someone on £15k a year doesn't live the life style as someone on £300k a year.
unless they live on the street and don't spend.


the car a £15k wage buys might be a Focus, the £300k a wage buys might be a Bentley, the bentley costs more to run than the focus, so more of the £300k is spent on that than the person with the focus.

Houses the same.

just cus you do well why should you be penalises to pay more out?

There are plenty of expenses which are pretty much the same for everyone, though - food, water, fuel spring to mind - which would dominate your outgoings if you were on £15k, but which would be insignificant to someone on £300k.

A greater proportion of that £300k is 'spare', in that it's not required to pay for essentials. Hence the higher marginal rate.

I assume that's net as the minimum wage is £5.73 / hr gross.

But surely you knew all that before you decided to start a family?

Do you mean, the type that drive around in, early, falling apart classic imprezas on every council estate in Britain.

No, the reason you don't have many milkmen is because they have been priced out fo the market by supermarkets. Nothing to do with tax.

We have relatively low taxation rates here in the UK so we should count ourselves lucky.

I doubt there is anyone on here that earns enough to pay a genuine 40% out of their income in direct taxation.

Think about it before you jump in head first ;)

Look at other countries, Netherlands, Norway etc, we pay far less than what they do.

I agree with the 45% on the super rich, in reality with pension contributions, it would be around a £165k cap

The flat rate for everyone argument falls down as soon as you look at non variables. The price of gas, the price of electric, the price of bread. If you make 1200 a month after tax and NI you have about 900 left then feeding a family of 4 for 300 a month is a major deal.
If you make 20k a month, after take and NI you have about 15k then 300 a month to feed your family is not a big deal.

Higher tax rates are not a punishment for doing well, its simply putting back into the economy a percentage of what the country has enabled you to take out.

As for milkman, out of principle we still have milk delivered as we can afford the £7 a week for our 5 pints of milk and 3 pints or orange juice, And by using a service like this can only help, albeit a tiny amount, to bolster the economy.

Don't you think it's more along the lines of 'putting back into the economy a percentage of what other people have taken out'?

Earn enough to pay higher rate tax and chances are you're getting no benefits or tax credits, have private health cover so place a below average demand on the NHS, don't require the state to provide you with a home...

I couldnt agree more that the benefit system is ludicrous in this country. And infact you have highlighted why talking about tax rates in isolation is a nonsense.
In an ideal world we all just pay a contribution, just what we could afford and everyone would have food on the table and a roof over there head, however this is the ideal and as we all know when we hear stories of people that have babies to get council flats, some people are not ideal.

This is a bit to thought consuming for me at 10:12 on a Wednesday morning... Maybe we should all elect a government that could sort it for us ;)

..and while we are on the subject, why does childcare cost so bloody much, I thought they are trying to encourage people to go back to work?
How the hell people afford it even with vouchers and grants is amazing.