Well done Tony Blair!

[kendor]

Sorry there, missed the mega-wealthy bit! Yes I do get pi**ed off at the loopholes and fiddles that they do.

I don't think a tradesmen, teacher ,engineer etc should be on the maximum tax rate.

Here-here, good call!

Does this have a feel of "because it affects me" about it?

On a serious note though how can you distinguish except on earnings who pays more tax?

The tax system is there because it is needed, no one would disagree to that but it needs to be a fair system also one that doesn't penalise the less well off but makes the richer pay more.

So that you get a more fairer cost of living for all, the levels have been set to what is believed to be the best for all.

Agreed the rich who don't work should pay towards the system also and i'd expect that the interest they earn on their money would be taxed but to be fair you can't penalise the fact that they have money in the bank otherwise no one would be able to save money without being penalised,
You can't pick on one section alone.

So far as the people that fall into the higher tax bracket because of extra hours worked etc, It must be financially worth them doing so otherwise they wouldn't do so, so complaining about the tax is from a purely selfish position.

Those that don't work beyond and keep outside the higher tax bracket also do so for the one reason not wanting to pay anymore tax and do so as they obviously have enough money to live on otherwise they would carry on earning, in other words the thinking is that it isn't financially viable because i'd be paying more tax and not thinking for the right reasons that i'd be paying into a system that hopefully will benefit all.

If you don't understand what i'm getting at with the above paragraph read back further again regarding the fairer system for all bit.

In the end it's all about having to give someone your money for nothing that hurts a lot of people, It's called Tax! get used to it.

I believe they don't pay income tax in Saudi Arabia, so if money is your god, perhaps a change of climate may suit? Warm, No heating bills to worry about in winter, sound good?

 

[david and julie]

kendor wrote,

So far as the people that fall into the higher tax bracket because of extra hours worked etc, It must be financially worth them doing so otherwise they wouldn't do so, so complaining about the tax is from a purely selfish position.

We are talking about two distinctly different area's of tax really though aren't we.

In the main, the people earning the top money are working less hours not more, most people are supposed to be governed by European hours rules now anyway.

The present system of over taxing spending rather than earnings adversely effects the poorer people.

On a serious note though how can you distinguish except on earnings who pays more tax?

They already do this, one is earned income, salary or wages etc, the other is unearned income, still income but from interest or profits from investments etc.

What I have in mind when I say lower taxes is (tax codes aside which are different) all earnings, being lower taxed and more importantly paying NI contributions. At present unearned is paying to small a share and is favouring the very rich.

When I was in business it was quite common for directors to pay themselves just below the upper limit and then pay themselves dividends. The dividend proportion was taxed at 25% as opposed to 40% it also didn't attract NI contributions because it was unearned. This effectively meant these people were paying less on the higher ammounts than an employee would. I am no longer in business so am uncertain if this as changed yet. This is only one area,the others, expenses , pensions, share schemes etc are all more methods of tax evasion by the wealthier.

What I am proposing would be fairer for most ordinary people and more transparent. The very rich have got away with this for far to long, if Tony was a proper socialist instead of a neo Tory he would look at these areas instead of courting their votes.

 

[kendor]

What I have in mind when I say lower taxes is (tax codes aside which are different) all earnings, being lower taxed and more importantly paying NI contributions. At present unearned is paying to small a share and is favouring the very rich.

.

but surely the fairest way is to tax on income earned proportionately as the lifestyle of a high earner would differ from that on low income by that i mean the low earner would probably have little left to spend after the bills are paid whereas a high earner or moreso one that has worked themselves into the higher tax bracket are more likely to have surplus money to spend after paying bills and it is this surplus that should fall under scrutiny of the tax man.

When you mention the businessmans ways of cutting his tax bill by paying dividends etc what could the money lost to the taxman have paid for?(before everyone says the politicians pay rises ) better railways , buses whatever?
Tax is not just a system for gaining money it is also a moral issue and a way of people saying i'm doing my bit to help the country run.
So isn't it right that people that are able to do so should contribute more?
Going back to the rich and their bank accounts we have to be careful with getting the balance right, tax too heavily and all they will do is take their money out of the country.
Better that we earn out of the interest than out of no interest.

 

[david and julie]

But you are doing what Adam did and confusing what I meant. I haven't a problem with someone getting promotion and getting pay rises etc. I am saying I am more concerned about the very rich and unearned money and specifically in relation to the NHS, which is where I would use the money.

Last week some of the banks and oil companies announced massive profits, many would say obscene really. A news pundit said the banks will post joint profits in the order of £30 Billion this year, as far as I know they pay 40% capital gains or corporation tax or WHY. Now this is obviously a hypothetical comparison but if you yourself earned this money you would also pay NI contributions on it. The difference is only in the name, earned or unearned.

This is all hog wash about taking money abroad, we have one of the lowest rates for these people and they still can't take it to India or China fast enough. They are making money here so should pay their way here we can't dodge it why should they?

Besides kendor much as you may not like it, you should be agreeing with me on this.

 

[kendor]

But you are doing what Adam did and confusing what I meant. I haven't a problem with someone getting promotion and getting pay rises etc. I am saying I am more concerned about the very rich and unearned money and specifically in relation to the NHS, which is where I would use the money.

Last week some of the banks and oil companies announced massive profits, many would say obscene really. A news pundit said the banks will post joint profits in the order of £30 Billion this year, as far as I know they pay 40% capital gains or corporation tax or WHY. Now this is obviously a hypothetical comparison but if you yourself earned this money you would also pay NI contributions on it. The difference is only in the name, earned or unearned.

This is all hog wash about taking money abroad, we have one of the lowest rates for these people and they still can't take it to India or China fast enough. They are making money here so should pay their way here we can't dodge it why should they?

Besides kendor much as you may not like it, you should be agreeing with me on this.

not sure what you are getting at here?

 

[masona]

oil companies announced massive profits,

That's very true but it's the worldwide profit and it's not in the UK profit as people see it.

 

[pipme]

What is the betting on the percentage of tax they actually pay compared to the man in the street ?

 

[david and julie]

I mean you should agree about the tax system unfairly benefitting the rich.

Let me put it another way. Someone puts £1M in the bank at 4%, they get £40K less tax only.

You go to work and have a good job, you earn £40K and you pay not only tax, but NI contributions too.

Now the way I see it is that is you are both getting £40K gross, but the system is favouring the guy who needs it least.

I agree with us all paying less as long as the public services are properly funded and they don't waste money. But we should all contribute a fair share. Surely the only reason this situation exists is because most of our leaders are wealthy.

Although this is obviously not the fault of the current government alone, one would of expected them to at least of made some inroads into addressing this imbalance after 8 years.

 

[pipme]

Lots of anomolies, 40% tax payer gets relief on pension payments at 40%, given by the state, on our behalf, why ? What benefit to the standard rate payer ? -- One man's tax relief is another's tax burden.

 

[pipme]

I mean you should agree about the tax system unfairly benefitting the rich.

Let me put it another way. Someone puts £1M in the bank at 4%, they get £40K less tax only.

You go to work and have a good job, you earn £40K and you pay not only tax, but NI contributions too.

Now the way I see it is that is you are both getting £40K gross, but the system is favouring the guy who needs it least.

I agree with us all paying less as long as the public services are properly funded and they don't waste money. But we should all contribute a fair share. Surely the only reason this situation exists is because most of our leaders are wealthy.

Although this is obviously not the fault of the current government alone, one would of expected them to at least of made some inroads into addressing this imbalance after 8 years.

Trouble with that is -- double taxation -- the money (probably) has been earned, taxes (unlikely) been paid, stick it in the bank, taxed again on the full amount .. pretty major overall taxation there !!
Worse !! If you are paying enough tax at 40% on earnings, then you will have to pay extra 20% on interest earned and taxed 20% at source, unless the investment is in a recognised tax free scheme... I wonder how many declare this ?
P

 

[jasy]

Those that don't work beyond and keep outside the higher tax bracket also do so for the one reason not wanting to pay anymore tax and do so as they obviously have enough money to live on otherwise they would carry on earning, in other words the thinking is that it isn't financially viable because i'd be paying more tax and not thinking for the right reasons that i'd be paying into a system that hopefully will benefit all.

In the end it's all about having to give someone your money for nothing that hurts a lot of people, It's called Tax! get used to it.

?

Why should i work more if i know i will be paying higher tax and i can live comfortably on what i already earn. That is not being selfish that is called self preservation. Why earn 45000 a year and take home less than someone who is on 38000.........do the maths ............it is called common sense! That is why when feb comes around just take a look at how many people in construction take their hols

 

[chainsaw_masochist]

Why earn 45000 a year and take home less than someone who is on 38000.........do the maths ............it is called common sense! That is why when feb comes around just take a look at how many people in construction take their hols

That is just optimising your tax burden and as you say it is just common sense.

I agree with D+J though, that there are probably quite alot of people who are not paying much (if any) tax, who have acces to huge fortunes. I am referring here to, say, those who claim to be domiciled in the UK but are not actually citizens (or subjects). What level of tax would they ever have to pay? Clearly it would be absolutely disproportionate to the tax burden that falls on Joe Public.

 

[AdamW]

Why earn 45000 a year and take home less than someone who is on 38000

Am I missing something here? I've never been self-employed so my tax burden has always been something of a foregone conclusion for me. But, I do pay attention to the brackets, so:

If you earn 45K then you are paying more tax, percentage-wise, than someone on 38K, but the amount you take home after tax and NI is still more. In fact your take home after tax and NI would be about £4K a year more (you would be paying 40% tax and 1% NI on that extra £7K, plus whatever your pension is)... not quite the £7K you earned, but the difference between staying at home all summer and a kick-ass holiday!

Who do I speak to round here to get a £7K pay-rise?

 

[kendor]

You go to work and have a good job, you earn £40K and you pay not only tax, but NI contributions too.

Now the way I see it is that is you are both getting £40K gross, but the system is favouring the guy who needs it least.

Ah i see what you are getting at now, not about the tax but the NI, yes i agree on that point, not sure though how you could have a programme of collecting NI contributions from only the rich unless it was done on the level of interest paid? You mantion a tax code system for all? this would make all investors liable against their tax codes?
Again this could be seen as a unfair or stealth tax by the investors.
Although i do not agree with their motives( the rich), i can understand why they would be given concessions.

 

[kendor]

Lots of anomolies, 40% tax payer gets relief on pension payments at 40%, given by the state, on our behalf, why ? What benefit to the standard rate payer ? -- One man's tax relief is another's tax burden.

None Pip but as they pay tax at 40% they are entitled to the benefits at the same rate otherwise it would be seen as favouritism towards the standard rate payer unless of course their tax relief was also reduced but then you get a downward spiral where does it stop?