Should the rich pay more?

[cambsno]

So you have no compassion at all for others? You'd happily see people starving? You'd happily see a neighbours kid die because they can't afford medical treatment? You see no value in maintaining a reasonable education system for all?

I pity you. I really do.

Errrr, I thought the nhs was free???

There is poverty and some people do struggle. However, many of the so called poor manage to have large tv, games consoles and smoke, so not affording food for their kids is down to them.

 

[cambsno]

So you have no compassion at all for others? You'd happily see people starving? You'd happily see a neighbours kid die because they can't afford medical treatment? You see no value in maintaining a reasonable education system for all?

I pity you. I really do.

Why should someone who is too lazy to work continue to get benefits?

 

[gman]

Errrr, I thought the nhs was free???.

Not for and anyone else who pays nic it isn't lol!

 

[joescrivens]

Not for and anyone else who pays nic it isn't lol!

indeed

i think what simon meant was - it doesnt matter how poor you are you will still recieve NHS treatment and not be left to die like John's apocolyptic outlook seemed to describe

 

[boyfalldown]

indeed

i think what simon meant was - it doesnt matter how poor you are you will still recieve NHS treatment and not be left to die like John's apocolyptic outlook seemed to describe

unless you're in Staffordshire - sorry Joe, bad luck

 

[joescrivens]

unless you're in Stafford - luckily for you Joe, since you are close to both stoke and macclesfield hospitals

corrected that for you

 

[cambsno]

unless you're in Staffordshire - sorry Joe, bad luck

Our nhs may have faults but overall is excellent. Can't complain about the care family members have had.

 

[boyfalldown]

Our nhs may have faults but overall is excellent. Can't complain about the care family members have had.

it was a slightly tongue in cheek post relating to Joe's location and the recent reports about the NHS in that area

 

[Lynton]

define "Rich?"

are we talking income, assets, land, liquid assets, total net worth?

I think it's fair to say many earn much more than me, many earn less than me...

 

[wippers]

The current income tax is set up so that the more you earn, the more you pay. I don't agree with the 40%, 50% etc increases with income. Why should someone earning more pay more and more tax for hard work. They already pay more because of their income. 20% of a higher income is more tax. :bonk:

Perhaps if the Government looked at the amount of people avoiding paying tax through legal loopholes, we would have significantly more cash in the pot.

 

[BarryDawsib]

After listening to a rather angry caller on LBC radio today, saying that higher earners should pay substantially more tax than lower earners, I was wondering if I was in a big minority who thinks this is unfair? Why should people who have (generally) worked blooming hard to attain a job worthy of a large salary be penalised?

Half of them don't do anything deserving of a big salary or bonuses to be honest, and they certainly don't shoulder any liability for reckless actions (Bankers, Corporations and MP's anyone?)

Where people go wrong is they base their "tax burden" on income tax alone which is a fallacy. If you where to take the overall percentage of a persons income that gets taken back in various forms of tax you would find the poorest are paying a much bigger chunk than a millionaire.

To put it in simple terms lets try council tax;

Say it was a 2 bedroomed house.

• A person on £12000 salary (take home) paying £1000 council tax is paying 8.3% of their income on that tax.
  
• A person on £120000 salary (take home) paying £1000 council tax is paying 0.8% of their income on that tax.

Now lets try that with fuel tax.

• A person on £12000 salary (take home) paying £1000 per year commuting, of which 60% is tax (so £600) is paying 5% of their income in fuel taxation.
  
• A person on £120000 salary (take home) paying £1000 council per year commuting, of which 60% is tax (so £600) is paying 0.5% of their income in fuel taxation.

Now car tax, assuming both where paying the top rate of £475 per year.

• A person on £12000 salary (take home) paying £475 per year is paying 3.9% of their income.
  
• A person on £120000 salary (take home) paying £475 per year is paying 0.39% of their income.

So thus far on the basics that everyone is expected to pay:

£12000 job paying 20% Income tax is paying a total of 37%
£120000 job paying 40% Income tax is paying a total of 41.69%

So on that its closer than some think.

But despite all these numbers it is totally irrelevant, the reality and the reason for hatred (some deserved) is that economy is based on spending, people spend excess income, the majority of those that spend are the bottom earners, the bottom earners have no excess income thanks to an ever increasing void between top and bottom that equate to a relative loss for the poorest and in many cases negative equity.

So the real problems here are that wages are far too low for the majority, and that when it comes to the crunch rather than a CEO taking a pay cut they lay off workers.

And of the many examples that are frequently being seen are companies laying off people (who where on minimum wage) whilst publishing paying bonuses to top tier management. Which is not only rewarding failure but contemptuous to the work force.

PS, anyone who says people on the dole etc are living it up, take a walk down a less privileged estate, a good long hard look. You wont find 40" plasma TV's, a computer in every room, in fact in several you wont even see furniture.

To believe that bit of Tory propaganda shows a worrying level of ignorance to the facts.

Should the richest pay more? yes a hell of a lot more. You cant tax negative equity but this government keeps trying.

They should also get off their lazy posh arse and get the bankers who are responsible for where a monumental proportion of the UK's tax revenue went.

 

[joescrivens]

Half of them don't do anything deserving of a big salary or bonuses to be honest, and they certainly don't shoulder any liability for reckless actions (Bankers, Corporations and MP's anyone?)

Where people go wrong is they base their "tax burden" on income tax alone which is a fallacy. If you where to take the overall percentage of a persons income that gets taken back in various forms of tax you would find the poorest are paying a much bigger chunk than a millionaire.

To put it in simple terms lets try council tax;

Say it was a 2 bedroomed house.

• A person on £12000 salary (take home) paying £1000 council tax is paying 8.3% of their income on that tax.
  
• A person on £120000 salary (take home) paying £1000 council tax is paying 0.8% of their income on that tax.

Now lets try that with fuel tax.

• A person on £12000 salary (take home) paying £1000 per year commuting, of which 60% is tax (so £600) is paying 5% of their income in fuel taxation.
  
• A person on £120000 salary (take home) paying £1000 council per year commuting, of which 60% is tax (so £600) is paying 0.5% of their income in fuel taxation.

Now car tax, assuming both where paying the top rate of £475 per year.

• A person on £12000 salary (take home) paying £475 per year is paying 3.9% of their income.
  
• A person on £120000 salary (take home) paying £475 per year is paying 0.39% of their income.

So thus far on the basics that everyone is expected to pay:

£12000 job paying 20% Income tax is paying a total of 37%
£120000 job paying 40% Income tax is paying a total of 41.69%

So on that its closer than some think.

these numbers are plain wrong

Theres a very tiny chance that someone earning 12,000 vs 120,000 has a house the same size in the same area of the country to pay the same council tax and has the same car type to pay the same car tax.

 

[ACW]

these numbers are plain wrong

Theres a very tiny chance that someone earning 12,000 vs 120,000 has a house the same size in the same area of the country to pay the same council tax and has the same car type to pay the same car tax.

My thoughts exactly.

Taxing the rich and giving to the poor will end up with the poor becoming even more complacent than they already are. As (lets not beat around the bush) a lot of people on benefits simply cannot be arsed to get a job.

I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, as I know there are a lot of hard working people on low wages, and yes they should be paid more by their employers, but don't tax the wealthy because of that.

Let's say Mr X and his partner earn a comfortable £30/40k each. Why on earth would they bother trying to work their way up the ladder if Mr X on £100k isn't taking home much more after tax anyway. Paying big at the top makes people strive harder, thus increasing company turnover. It shouldn't be a crime to have ambition, and you should most definitely not be penalised for that.

It would be far more efficient to cut the millions of pounds a week paid in benefits to people sat indoors watching Jeremy Kyle because they've decided to get pregnant at sixteen and now live in a council house paid for by the tax payer. Then of course all of the benefits they get on top of the house which they can waste on cigarettes and alcohol for the layabout other half (if he's even still in the picture).

 

[TriggerHappy]

I'd love to see some actual stats and facts to support this notion of an epidemic in people too lazy to work because there's benefits for them, and also for all these fraudulent benefit claims that some papers would have you believe is prolific.

 

[ACW]

I'd love to see some actual stats and facts to support this notion of an epidemic in people too lazy to work because there's benefits for them, and also for all these fraudulent benefit claims that some papers would have you believe is prolific.

4.
There are now 3.2 million people receiving Disability Living Allowance and forecast expenditure on the benefit for 2011/12 is £12.6 billion. In just nine years the numbers claiming Disability Living Allowance has risen

DWP estimates 0.5% of disability living allowance claims are fraudulent. This is £63000000. This is on last years figures and without even going into actual dole money.

Lets not underestimate how significant any figure over 0.1% is.

 

[PatrickO]

DWP estimates 0.5% of disability living allowance claims are fraudulent. This is £63000000. This is on last years figures and without even going into actual dole money.

Lets not underestimate how significant any figure over 0.1% is.

If the fraud rate is really only 0.5% then I think that is very good. Especially when you hear about high earners who somehow manage to pay NO tax at all.

 

[ACW]

If you earn £105k p/annum before tax, this is how its dished out. Not my salary, just an example.


Welfare and Pensions: £13778.91

Health: £6908.44

Education: £5200.31

National Debt Interest: £2695.05

Defence: £2239.55

Economic Affairs (transport, agriculture etc): £1973.84

Public order and safety: £1859.96

Government administration: £873.04

Recreation, culture and religion: £759.17

Environment protection: £645.29

Housing and community amenities: £569.38

Overseas aid: £379.58

Contribution to the EU: £75.92


So 36.3% on Welfare and pensions, and only 18.2% on Health. Right.

 

[ACW]

If the fraud rate is really only 0.5% then I think that is very good. Especially when you hear about high earners who somehow manage to pay NO tax at all.

Yes but that represents infinitely more wrong'uns than the small amount of big earners doing the naughty.

And of the 200 people earning more than £10m a year, 16 paid between 20% and 30%, six paid between 10% and 20%, and 12 high earners paid a tax rate below 10%.

12 people earning more than £10million paying less than 10%? Chances are they will still be paying over £1million p/year in tax. And the millions they probably spend on taxed goods in the economy anyway...

 

[Keith W]

Just to clarify here that Disability Living Allowance is not an unemployment benefit.

You can claim this benefit even if you are working

 

[TriggerHappy]

Just to clarify here that Disability Living Allowance is not an unemployment benefit.

You can claim this benefit even if you are working

Beat me to it!

 

[ACW]

Just to clarify here that Disability Living Allowance is not an unemployment benefit.

You can claim this benefit even if you are working

Beat me to it!

Sorry, I was using the term 'benefit' loosely to cover money given by the state to those that need it.

I think that DLA is a great principle and I hope it genuinely helps those that need it, but it infuriates me that 0.5% are so scummy that they fraudulently claim it.

Obviously there aren't any figures relating to how many people on benefits who are doing it because they are lazy.

How much of the above is because of laziness? Even if it's <1% that's still a huge drain.

 

[dinners]

I've enjoyed reading through this thread - some good points have been made.

Slightly off topic but what does rile me (not necessarily in this thread though) is when people say "why should I be taxed at a higher rate - I've worked harder for it".

Some people choose a particular career because it will ultimately see them earn a good wage. Others because it's something they enjoy or consider a worthwhile profession.

In my experience - income isn't necessarily relative to how 'hard' somebody has to work.

 

[archamedes]

UK Tax chaos. Government raising twice as many taxes as it cuts

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ce_1359921780

 

[new2me]

Slightly off topic but what does rile me (not necessarily in this thread though) is when people say "why should I be taxed at a higher rate - I've worked harder for it".

Some people choose a particular career because it will ultimately see them earn a good wage. Others because it's something they enjoy or consider a worthwhile profession.

In my experience - income isn't necessarily relative to how 'hard' somebody has to work.

It has featured in this thread though Phil and it's made me chuckle. I dont know what individuals here do for a living (although I have seen servicemen/firemen/police and such mentioned elsewhere) but I'm sure that 'hard' work that some mentioned by some isn't really that hard.

 

[joescrivens]

Let's say Mr X and his partner earn a comfortable £30/40k each. Why on earth would they bother trying to work their way up the ladder if Mr X on £100k isn't taking home much more after tax anyway.

Mr x earning 40k takes home £29,732
Mr x earning £100k takes home £64,778

He is still taking home more than double what he would at 40k.

 

[joescrivens]

.

Slightly off topic but what does rile me (not necessarily in this thread though) is when people say "why should I be taxed at a higher rate - I've worked harder for it".

Some people choose a particular career because it will ultimately see them earn a good wage. Others because it's something they enjoy or consider a worthwhile profession.

In my experience - income isn't necessarily relative to how 'hard' somebody has to work.

Well, it riles me when people say I don't work hard. Some people seem to think that "working hard" has to be a physical job.

It's all relative, my dad worked 16 hour shifts in a steel mill 7 days a week before I was born. Depending on each person that's harder work for some than others. My dad was a huge beast of a man, so doing 16 hours in a very physical job wasn't particularly hard work for him, others it would have been.

In my case the hard work I have done relates to how much time I have spent working and not necessarily the nature of the work, but I spent 10 years learning a trade then worked extra hours outside of my job to capitalise on it.

A the end of the day we are all responsible for our own lives, if you are working 60 hours a week and being paid pennies then do something about it. Nothing is for free in this life, and there are no excuses for not succeeding - you are the master of your own destiny!

Hmmm, that could be the title for my next book

 

[cambsno]

Mr x earning 40k takes home £29,732
Mr x earning £100k takes home £64,778

He is still taking home more than double what he would at 40k.

But (and its a complex one) the guy earning 40k could be entitled to benefits, tax credits etc... For example he can claim 243 in childcare vouchers rather than 124 each month.

 

[new2me]

Hmmm, that could be the title for my next book

is this part of your hard work regime, or just one of your paid hobbies?

 

[joescrivens]

But (and its a complex one) the guy earning 40k could be entitled to benefits, tax credits etc... For example he can claim 243 in childcare vouchers rather than 124 each month.

he's still going to bring home a lot more.

The percentage of tax to take home is lower the more you earn, but you still take a lot more home. The figures are out there for you to see for yourself

 

[Steve Smith]

In my experience - income isn't necessarily relative to how 'hard' somebody has to work.

In fact, it's usually inversely proportional to it.


Steve.

 

[Pookeyhead]

The threshold for 40% income tax (minus personal allowance) is currently £34,370. Next year that will DROP to £32K. Higher earners ARE paying more tax than they used to. In 2011 the higher rate kicked in at £35K... that's a £3K reduction in the higher rate in 3 years!!

The personal allowance you are allowed to earn before ant tax is paid has been increasing! In 2011 it was £7,475, in 2012 and currently it is £8,105, and next year it will be £9,205.

All this is favour of lower earners, yet lower earners keep bleating on about higher earners needing to pay more tax!!

What is this, communist Russia?



Gimme a break!

 

[joescrivens]

In fact, it's usually inversely proportional to it.


Steve.

How can you quantify this?

 

[gumbo-67]

Shouldn't that be "Not all"? All are not implies that none are...



Terri, if P's been earning abroad, are there not tax breaks as long as he's not back for more than 90 days during the year? There may be a minimum period before he qualifies - ask an accountant!

Nope Nod we looked into all that. oh well he will pay it because he has too

 

[dinners]

Well, it riles me when people say I don't work hard. Some people seem to think that "working hard" has to be a physical job.

It's all relative, my dad worked 16 hour shifts in a steel mill 7 days a week before I was born. Depending on each person that's harder work for some than others. My dad was a huge beast of a man, so doing 16 hours in a very physical job wasn't particularly hard work for him, others it would have been.

In my case the hard work I have done relates to how much time I have spent working and not necessarily the nature of the work, but I spent 10 years learning a trade then worked extra hours outside of my job to capitalise on it.

A the end of the day we are all responsible for our own lives, if you are working 60 hours a week and being paid pennies then do something about it. Nothing is for free in this life, and there are no excuses for not succeeding - you are the master of your own destiny!

Hmmm, that could be the title for my next book

"No excuses for not succeeding" That's a shocker Joe

I agree that 'hard work' doesn't need to be 'physical' work.

There are plenty of people with 'hard' jobs or people who work long hours for pennies who do (and should) consider themselves to be 'succeeding' because they measure success by the service they provide rather than the money they earn.

Anyway - this thread is about Tax so I'm out as I pay far too much

 

[joescrivens]

"No excuses for not succeeding" That's a shocker Joe

I agree that 'hard work' doesn't need to be 'physical' work.

There are plenty of people with 'hard' jobs or people who work long hours for pennies who do (and should) consider themselves to be 'succeeding' because they measure success by the service they provide rather than the money they earn.

Anyway - this thread is about Tax so I'm out as I pay far too much

why is that a shocker?

I agree that people measure success by their own merits not on the money they earn, but I stand by that comment. There is no excuse for not succeeding. Whatever you measure your success by, it's your choice to get there.

there are lots of people who don't care to earn more money, my wife is one, she chooses to work in the public services industry where she works long hours for not a lot of pay, because she wants to help families and children.

 

[Keith W]

I have my tax gubbins for this year in front of me as it happens

From 6 April 2013 to 5 April 2014 my personal allowance is £9440

After this tax will be paid at the following rates:

At 20% on the first £32010

At 40% on income between £32011 and £150000

At 45% on anything over £150000

 

[PJ S]

So 36.3% on Welfare and pensions, and only 18.2% on Health. Right.

What has percentages to do with anything?
It's the value for the money spent that matters.

How much of that 18% is squandered with middle management, target chasing, and all other forms of non-essential healthcare that could be redristributed?

How much of that 36% on welfare is housing benefit to private landlords in expensive areas, as well as rates/council tax?
How much is also paid out in pensions?
The 36% doesn't represent 100% of dole money, which you've obviously forgot about.
There's a lot of retired people still living, and a high rate of unemployment/unemployables, as well as disabled and allowance for carers.

The big percentage to get worked up about, which you've not, is the National Debt repayments - 1/2 of eduction, a shade more than National Defence!

 

[cambsno]

So you have no compassion at all for others? You'd happily see people starving? You'd happily see a neighbours kid die because they can't afford medical treatment? You see no value in maintaining a reasonable education system for all?

I pity you. I really do.

You should read today's sun. A unemployed woman has lost a lot of weight and the nhs won't do a tummy tuck. Do she is trying to have a baby as then she will get one, then will probably give it up for adoption!!

Yes, it's one story, and guardian readers will probably dismiss it as its in the sun, but these and similar stories do happen.

 

[Johnd2000]

You should read today's sun. A unemployed woman has lost a lot of weight and the nhs won't do a tummy tuck. Do she is trying to have a baby as then she will get one, then will probably give it up for adoption!!

Yes, it's one story, and guardian readers will probably dismiss it as its in the sun, but these and similar stories do happen.

You should try avoiding right wing tabloids, if you're trying to backup an argument.

 

[tiler65]

You should try avoiding right wing tabloids, if you're trying to backup an argument.

Err....right wing left wing.....they are opinions.


ps Didn't the Sun back a left wing government in the not to distant past?