Rishi - be a Robin Hood, Tax the richer and give to the poorer....

[Deleted member 28]

Well the thought's (sic) I have on that are that for someone who loves to blow his own trumpet about just how fantastically well he's doing, he seems to be fortunate in being able to spend FAR too long posting what effectively amounts to trying to tell us how fantastically well he's doing. Did you have any 'thought's' on the matter?

So none then, just trying to be a smartarse prick as usual (sic).

You genuinely have nothing to offer do you?

Here's an opportunity to make a name for yourself and offer a valid opinion on how to make the country a fairer place and all you can do is sound bitter.

 

[Deleted member 28]

You say you don't consider yourself to we wealthy but your second paragraph suggests that you seem to take some sort of pleasure in thinking yourself better off than other posters in the thread.

Also, one contributor has suggested complete reform of the tax system while on another thread I have called for the overthrow of our entire patriarchal society, by which I mean reorganisation of our economy, our system of government, our taxes, everything. I'm not sure how this fits with your notion of 'you all... would pay extra' but I can assure you that the forum membership is not as you seem to think, a homogenous entity with you as the single outlier.

You mis understand my term 'can't' I refer to the PAYE system, we can only pay what's asked by the HMRC so all the posturing is pointless, again we can all say these things but offer no suggestion on a 'way forward'.

Do you not see this in yourself?

What, for example would YOU like to see happening in YOUR new system, details please.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Do you understand what disposable income is? Here is one definition, there are others very similar:
"income remaining after deduction of taxes and social security charges, available to be spent or saved as one wishes"
The money spent on big house, nice holidays and expensive cars by the person in your example is part of their disposable income. So the two people may have roughly the same disposable income but choose to spend it differently.
You are confusing disposable income with discretionary income.

I'm not confusing anything I'm just trying to get some figures out of people.

Do we think the current 40% tax rate is correct?

Do we think the amount that's earned before we pay 40% is correct and if not what do people think it should be?

Do those earning enough to pay 40% feel they should pay more and if so how much more?

Do people think there should be other levels where people pay more from say 60k to 80k then 80 to 100 for example.

Should the personal allowance be upped for example and if so to what?

There's lots of opinions but not one has offered any cast iron suggestions.

Off you go.

 

[winjim]

You mis understand my term 'can't' I refer to the PAYE system, we can only pay what's asked by the HMRC so all the posturing is pointless, again we can all say these things but offer no suggestion on a 'way forward'.

Do you not see this in yourself?

What, for example would YOU like to see happening in YOUR new system, details please.

Got you, my misunderstanding, ignore that bit of what I wrote.

I think we can probably agree that the patriarchy is unlikely to be smashed and society reconfigured any time soon so for now I'd settle for taxing the rich.

 

[Milkfloat]

As has been mentioned before an exact amount of percentage is tricky, we should look at what the needs are and then work out how to pay for that. On that note, we should be ensuring that everybody who wants to has a roof over their head, heating, food, medical needs met and an education with a route into work as an absolute minimum. Other public service like transport and infrastructure should be considered next and then we should be thinking about funding the things that are vital for a functional society like culture and sport. When this has been added up we can work out where this money comes from.

I think most people just want a taxation system that is fair, so no section of society suffering less than anyone else, they want a system that does not have waste whether that is through fraud, dodgy contracts or just plain inefficiency.

My personal opinion is that we need to level the playing fields between the likes of low taking paying companies like Amazon and their local competitors, the personal tax system should be more granular down to individual percentage points rather than massive jumps like 20-40%. 50% is not a high enough level of tax for the richest of people, plenty of countries have a more punitive tax system and they do not suffer from these people leaving the country.

On a personal level I don't pay enough tax as I can see we don't meet the basic needs of everyone in this country. I cannot fix this alone, even if I gave all of my savings to charity, it needs collective effort and system change, closing tax loopholes, stopping fraud (see Covid PPE) and if necessary raise the income tax rates but we also need to look at how the revenue is spent like the £500 lightbulb examples in the NHS and paying for ministers to go on holiday.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Got you, my misunderstanding, ignore that bit of what I wrote.

I think we can probably agree that the patriarchy is unlikely to be smashed and society reconfigured any time soon so for now I'd settle for taxing the rich.

No worries,

Not really much of an answer though is it, there's a few questions above you could probably mull over and come up with an approach don't you think?

 

[Deleted member 28]

As has been mentioned before an exact amount of percentage is tricky, we should look at what the needs are and then work out how to pay for that. On that note, we should be ensuring that everybody who wants to has a roof over their head, heating, food, medical needs met and an education with a route into work as an absolute minimum. Other public service like transport and infrastructure should be considered next and then we should be thinking about funding the things that are vital for a functional society like culture and sport. When this has been added up we can work out where this money comes from.

I think most people just want a taxation system that is fair, so no section of society suffering less than anyone else, they want a system that does not have waste whether that is through fraud, dodgy contracts or just plain inefficiency.

My personal opinion is that we need to level the playing fields between the likes of low taking paying companies like Amazon and their local competitors, the personal tax system should be more granular down to individual percentage points rather than massive jumps like 20-40%. 50% is not a high enough level of tax for the richest of people, plenty of countries have a more punitive tax system and they do not suffer from these people leaving the country.

On a personal level I don't pay enough tax as I can see we don't meet the basic needs of everyone in this country. I cannot fix this alone, even if I gave all of my savings to charity, it needs collective effort and system change, closing tax loopholes, stopping fraud (see Covid PPE) and if necessary raise the income tax rates but we also need to look at how the revenue is spent like the £500 lightbulb examples in the NHS and paying for ministers to go on holiday.

Again we can all agree there are lots of things that need to be done but why is it no-one here seems to be able to suggest a level of taxation that would bring more money in?

Is it because no-one here really wants to pay any more and think the insanely rich (footballers, actors etc) and big corporations should bear the brunt or is it that deep down we know basic rates should really go up and the 40% level should probably be more?

I'm still yet to hear any 40% tax payers telling me how much more they should be paying (as they apparently are the rich/wealthy) according to some.

Is this trolling or me trying to ascertain an answer?

 

[Mr Celine]

Of course I know how much I pay, I see it every month on my payslip!

I hate to be the bringer of bad news but there are other taxes in addition to the one that appears on your monthly payslip.

 

[Milkfloat]

Again we can all agree there are lots of things that need to be done but why is it no-one here seems to be able to suggest a level of taxation that would bring more money in?

Is it because no-one here really wants to pay any more and think the insanely rich (footballers, actors etc) and big corporations should bear the brunt or is it that deep down we know basic rates should really go up and the 40% level should probably be more?

I'm still yet to hear any 40% tax payers telling me how much more they should be paying (as they apparently are the rich/wealthy) according to some.

Is this trolling or me trying to ascertain an answer?

If you can provide the raw data I can have a stab. You are asking for the impossible from us as without knowing what the bill is we cannot work out how to split it up. Without doubt the majority of us on NACA should be paying more and would probably be prepared to pay more if they knew that the revenue would not be wasted and services would improve. I cannot tell you how much more I should be paying, but as a higher rate tax payer I would be willing to pay more for better services, I don't think that the burden should be on the lower half of the basic rate payers. That's why I said we should have a more gradual escalator in increments of 1% rather than big jumps.

 

[PaulB]

Again we can all agree there are lots of things that need to be done but why is it no-one here seems to be able to suggest a level of taxation that would bring more money in?

Is it because no-one here really wants to pay any more and think the insanely rich (footballers, actors etc) and big corporations should bear the brunt or is it that deep down we know basic rates should really go up and the 40% level should probably be more?

I'm still yet to hear any 40% tax payers telling me how much more they should be paying (as they apparently are the rich/wealthy) according to some.

Is this trolling or me trying to ascertain an answer?

Your first post on this was at7.08 this am and you posted this about 3pm. I can't be bothered counting the number you posted but it will be stupidly high. That's a loooong day for you there, little Derbyshire Sheppy in your gilded mansion on your massive wages.

 

[Rusty Nails]

As has been mentioned before an exact amount of percentage is tricky, we should look at what the needs are and then work out how to pay for that. On that note, we should be ensuring that everybody who wants to has a roof over their head, heating, food, medical needs met and an education with a route into work as an absolute minimum. Other public service like transport and infrastructure should be considered next and then we should be thinking about funding the things that are vital for a functional society like culture and sport. When this has been added up we can work out where this money comes from.

I think most people just want a taxation system that is fair, so no section of society suffering less than anyone else, they want a system that does not have waste whether that is through fraud, dodgy contracts or just plain inefficiency.

My personal opinion is that we need to level the playing fields between the likes of low taking paying companies like Amazon and their local competitors, the personal tax system should be more granular down to individual percentage points rather than massive jumps like 20-40%. 50% is not a high enough level of tax for the richest of people, plenty of countries have a more punitive tax system and they do not suffer from these people leaving the country.

On a personal level I don't pay enough tax as I can see we don't meet the basic needs of everyone in this country. I cannot fix this alone, even if I gave all of my savings to charity, it needs collective effort and system change, closing tax loopholes, stopping fraud (see Covid PPE) and if necessary raise the income tax rates but we also need to look at how the revenue is spent like the £500 lightbulb examples in the NHS and paying for ministers to go on holiday.

Wot he says ^^^^^^^

 

[Ian H]

Brilliant we're getting somewhere, what if I earn 80k per year but choose to spend it all on a big house, nice holidays and expensive cars yet you earn the same and choose to be frugal, who has the most disposable income?

I have already asked this though.

You both have the same. You just choose to dispose of more of yours.

 

[Ian H]

I'm not confusing anything I'm just trying to get some figures out of people.

Do we think the current 40% tax rate is correct?

Do we think the amount that's earned before we pay 40% is correct and if not what do people think it should be?

Do those earning enough to pay 40% feel they should pay more and if so how much more?

The 40% band is fine, as is the 45% one above it. But there also need to be higher bands for very high earners. I seem to recall there was once a 90% top band.

 

[Rusty Nails]

If you can provide the raw data I can have a stab. You are asking for the impossible from us as without knowing what the bill is we cannot work out how to split it up. Without doubt the majority of us on NACA should be paying more and would probably be prepared to pay more if they knew that the revenue would not be wasted and services would improve. I cannot tell you how much more I should be paying, but as a higher rate tax payer I would be willing to pay more for better services, I don't think that the burden should be on the lower half of the basic rate payers. That's why I said we should have a more gradual escalator in increments of 1% rather than big jumps.

It is possible to look at the way this country is run and the problems in a whole range of publicly financed areas such as the NHS, Social Services, infrastructure, police, defence etc. and realise that, if we accept that these things need attention, it is going to have to have a greater level of taxation to pay for them. Or not, if you are happy with the way these things are provided presently.

It is also facile to expect an individual, with no expertise, to be able to set those correct levels of taxation with any level of accuracy or credibility, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows. We can make stabs in the dark just to make it seem as if we know enough, but that is all they are, and can be picked to pieces by any expert with the relevant knowledge.

Only a fool would answer those questions.....or ask them.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Your first post on this was at7.08 this am and you posted this about 3pm. I can't be bothered counting the number you posted but it will be stupidly high. That's a loooong day for you there, little Derbyshire Sheppy in your gilded mansion on your massive wages.

I've completely lost your thought process with me, you insist on convincing yourself I live in Derbyshire and have never added a worthwhile comment to anything I've ever said.

I don't mind a weird approach to banter but have you a mental issue which skews the world?