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

[Deleted member 28]

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.

Example?

 

[Deleted member 28]

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.

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

It's never stopped people thinking their experts on everything else, Covid, the War in Ukraine.

 

[Deleted member 28]

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.

And?

 

[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 am genuinely intrigued with this Derby thing, any chance of enlightening me?

 

[Deleted member 28]

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

So people can't have an OPINION on a subject unless they're an expert in that field?

Stinks of avoidance like every other subject I dare have a view on that differs from the rest.

BTW you must have one hell of a private pension if you're only just under the 40% tax bracket, well done that man.

 

[icowden]

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.

The top band was that 90% band. And indeed once a 99% band. The problem is that it doesn't work very well to raise revenue.
Firstly, the top band at the moment is for people who earn more than £150,000 per year. About 300,000 people in the UK are in this bracket, so it's quite a small money pit in terms of the number of people. Of course many of them may be earning vast sums, so it might be worth it.

However, generally speaking, the more money you earn, the better you are at avoiding tax. If you raise the rate to 90%, how many of those 300,000 people will suddenly be earning money offshore through shell companies, paying into trusts etc and avoiding income tax? I'd imagine quite a lot, and certainly the ones earning the most money.

The next bracket is between £37,000 and 150,000 which is a *really* wide bracket. The impact of that 45% tax of course depends on what you earn and also where you live. The closer to London you are, the shorter that money will travel.

In my opinion the best way to raise taxes is based on purchasing. If a purchase of non-essential goods is made in or *from* the UK then some of that purchase should be taxed. This would stop Facebook, Amazon and Google extracting the urine.

For the very super rich, it might be worth creating a UK version of the giving pledge to encourage the super rich to invest in philanthropic outputs in the UK.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Example?

OK. Since you cannot seem to understand that, at our level of knowledge, the figures cannot be anything more than guesswork, I’ll join in the game and bite.
Instead of having large bands and big jumps in taxation levels what about starting paying tax at £15k. Instead of having one jump from 20% to 40% increase the top of the basic rate level to say £30k and have say 5% jumps coming in every £10k increase in taxable pay rising to a max of say 50%. And just include NI in with income tax.
Now I have just made this up in about five minutes and I’m sure someone more expert than I can come in an tell me that it is too complicated or that it will drop or raise the income tax take too much, but it is an example of an alternative to be taken apart.
What is your opinion and why?

It's never stopped people thinking their experts on everything else, Covid, the War in Ukraine.

So people can't have an OPINION on a subject unless they're an expert in that field?

Which is it to be? You’ve reached that level where you are contradicting yourself.

BTW you must have one hell of a private pension if you're only just under the 40% tax bracket, well done that man

I was lucky enough to have had good jobs with good pension schemes, retired at 50 then got bored, had two kids to fund through university, so started in self employment where I made good money working 2/3 days a week and added to a personal pension each year until I finally retired at 64. Life was good to me and I am happy to pay more tax if it helps society and people who have not been as lucky as I have.

 

[Ian H]

The top band was that 90% band. And indeed once a 99% band. The problem is that it doesn't work very well to raise revenue.
Firstly, the top band at the moment is for people who earn more than £150,000 per year. About 300,000 people in the UK are in this bracket, so it's quite a small money pit in terms of the number of people. Of course many of them may be earning vast sums, so it might be worth it.

However, generally speaking, the more money you earn, the better you are at avoiding tax. If you raise the rate to 90%, how many of those 300,000 people will suddenly be earning money offshore through shell companies, paying into trusts etc and avoiding income tax? I'd imagine quite a lot, and certainly the ones earning the most money.

The next bracket is between £37,000 and 150,000 which is a *really* wide bracket. The impact of that 45% tax of course depends on what you earn and also where you live. The closer to London you are, the shorter that money will travel.

In my opinion the best way to raise taxes is based on purchasing. If a purchase of non-essential goods is made in or *from* the UK then some of that purchase should be taxed. This would stop Facebook, Amazon and Google extracting the urine.

For the very super rich, it might be worth creating a UK version of the giving pledge to encourage the super rich to invest in philanthropic outputs in the UK.

The answer to tax avoidance is to reform the law. At the moment you have someone like Harmsworth who can live in this country but, for tax purposes, be classed as domiciled abroad.
Purchase tax (VAT for example) is regressive. It hits the poor hardest. If it was going to be on 'luxury items' only it would have to be a very restricted list (Gold-plated Rolls-Royces, larger yachts and executive jets, perhaps).
Other taxes may be worth considering, a property tax for example.

 

[Deleted member 28]

OK. Since you cannot seem to understand that, at our level of knowledge, the figures cannot be anything more than guesswork, I’ll join in the game and bite.
Instead of having large bands and big jumps in taxation levels what about starting paying tax at £15k. Instead of having one jump from 20% to 40% increase the top of the basic rate level to say £30k and have say 5% jumps coming in every £10k increase in taxable pay rising to a max of say 50%. And just include NI in with income tax.
Now I have just made this up in about five minutes and I’m sure someone more expert than I can come in an tell me that it is too complicated or that it will drop or raise the income tax take too much, but it is an example of an alternative to be taken apart.
What is your opinion and why?


Which is it to be? You’ve reached that level where you are contradicting yourself.

I was lucky enough to have had good jobs with good pension schemes, retired at 50 then got bored, had two kids to fund through university, so started in self employment where I made good money working 2/3 days a week and added to a personal pension each year until I finally retired at 64. Life was good to me and I am happy to pay more tax if it helps society and people who have not been as lucky as I have.

There you go, how hard was that?

Where have I contradicted myself?

So essentially people now in the 40% bracket would pay a bit less until they hit about 70k?

I see where you're coming from.

That would be a decent jump but at least you've offered something rather than just 'tax the rich'.

I pay what the government ask for and don't question it, I think how much I pay is fair for how much I earn.

As you've mentioned, more knowledgeable people than me set the thresholds so who am I to argue?

 

[Rusty Nails]

There you go, how hard was that?

Where have I contradicted myself?

I pay what the government ask for and don't question it, I think how much I pay is fair for how much I earn.

As you've mentioned, more knowledgeable people than me set the thresholds so who am I to argue?

It was easy because it was meaningless guesswork without any expert knowledge on which to base its credibility.

Would my carefully thought out and costed system be more or less fair than what we have now? You must have a view since you were so insistent on getting detailed answers.

Should people question what the government ask for when they demand a chunk of their money?

To see where I said you contradict yourself read those two quotes and consider what they mean. In the first you criticise posters for thinking they are experts, the second you say you don't have to be an expert to post an opinion. Heads you win, tails I lose.

 

[Deleted member 28]

It was easy because it was meaningless guesswork without any expert knowledge on which to base its credibility.

Would my carefully thought out and costed system be more or less fair than what we have now? You must have a view since you were so insistent on getting detailed answers.

Should people question what the government ask for when they demand a chunk of their money?

I've edited my reply to address your question, unless my Math is wrong I think you need to up the payments a bit.

 

[Deleted member 28]

It was easy because it was meaningless guesswork without any expert knowledge on which to base its credibility.

Would my carefully thought out and costed system be more or less fair than what we have now? You must have a view since you were so insistent on getting detailed answers.

Should people question what the government ask for when they demand a chunk of their money?

Taxes go back a long, long way so I guess we're brought up knowing we have to pay it and further investigate reveals what it's for.

 

[BoldonLad]

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.

So, no-one on here has the expertise required? Bit pointless talking about it then, rather like the armchair Generals discussing the Russian tactics in Ukraine.

 

[Deleted member 28]

So, no-one on here has the expertise required? Bit pointless talking about it then, rather like the armchair Generals discussing the Russian tactics in Ukraine.

Except for 'tax the rich '.

That'll sort it, oh hang on, who are the rich?

Never mind anyway, next time I might just say "yeah, tax the rich ".

 

[Rusty Nails]

So, no-one on here has the expertise required? Bit pointless talking about it then, rather like the armchair Generals discussing the Russian tactics in Ukraine.

Not at all pointless for people to give their opinions on the understanding they are not experts or that would close down all internet forums and stop just about all talk of politics, sport, driving, cycling or sex in the pub.

If those armchair Generals talk rubbish about stuff they are unqualified to do, then they are there to be shot down.

I can quite properly have an opinion about whether our public services are not working as they should, or appear to be underfunded, without having to have the expert knowledge to decide on exactly the level of funding required, the amount of tax and the methods of collecting it.

Non experts use their opinions to vote in governments who they hope will have the expertise or take the advice of experts, or vote out those who don't. It's called democracy....rule of the people, not rule of the experts.