jp5
Q-School Graduate
Sure work harder and smarter, get a higher paying job, earn more in the process, but pay a higher proportion in tax to support those not so fortunate. What's loser-ish with that?
-
PGA Pro Q+A: Ask Our Expert For Advice On Improving Your Golf Game ⛳
Tax rates
- Thread starter CheltenhamHacker
- Start date
Sure work harder and smarter, get a higher paying job, earn more in the process, but pay a higher proportion in tax to support those not so fortunate. What's loser-ish with that?
Spuddy
Challenge Tour Pro
Where would you have it now out of interest?
CheltenhamHacker
Journeyman Pro
Would you keep the current thresholds and tax rates?
GreiginFife
Money List Winner
I think in relation to "high earning" I would say around £65k (relative to 1988 high earning IMO) would be fair.
Just for avoidance of doubt, I would still be in the bracket so not saying it to eliminate me.
jp5
Q-School Graduate
I'm no tax expert so I'll leave that to those who have analysed the data and worked out what tax rates are most effective. Evidently there is a balance to be struck given that higher tax rates actually don't bring in any additional income past a certain point - for example France's recent 75% top rate. The Labour proposal to stick the top rate back to 50% is a no-brainer to me.
But to suggest a flat tax structure is ridiculous. It would greatly benefit the millionaires and top earners whilst increasing the tax burden on lower earners and likely reducing the quality of public services.
Here's a comment from a BBC article that sums it up nicely:
"When I was on basic rate tax when I first started in work, I thought about the problem of paying higher tax rates as I earned more. I thought "that would be a problem I'd love to have" and indeed, that's as it has turned out. For most of my working life I've paid higher rate tax & at no time have I thought "better not work hard to get higher pay, as I'll pay more tax". 60% of a lot is still a lot."
GreiginFife
Money List Winner
I agree with most of that. Only query would be, what's a lot? From what I have read, 1.35m people were on 40% when introduced, as it is not increasing with inflation, this will be nearer 5m people in 2015. The only problem with"a lot" is that a lot changes constantly. To keep the purpose and intent surely it needs to change with the times (as golfers surely we all know the need to move with the times).
Val
Ryder Cup Winner
I agree, the upper tiers of taxation should move with inflation which it hasn't done.
Spuddy
Challenge Tour Pro
Using your numbers, if you moved the higher rate to 65k, that would save every one of them 5 grand which would be great for them.... The problem you now have is that you've now lost 25 billion pounds from the government pot which equates to about a quarter of the annual cost of the NHS.
Unfortunately, the numbers need to add up.
jp5
Q-School Graduate
I don't think you can base rates on historical figures, it's got to be worked out on what is fair and necessary at the time.
I agree that the rates and thresholds could well be reviewed, though can't see any drastic changes happening any time soon.
Rooter
Money List Winner
GreiginFife
Money List Winner
Therein lies the problem. The 25bn has become a symptom of more and more people finding themselves in that bracket as thier earnings and inflation increase but the band stays the same. Almost autonomously raising revenue that is now relied on.
The rate was introduced for those classed as well off, I don't know many £43k earners on thier oen that could be classed as well off as the cost of living and property rise again.
Just my opinion of course. I pay higher tax and just have to deal with it like everyone else.
What does irk me though is the disparity, a couple we know earn the same combined income as my wife and I, they both earn just under the £40k mark and qualify for tax credits for thier son. Not much but still a token amount. We dont as I earn too much apparently.
Now I would not claim for it as I think it a nonsense but its the principle thats annoying.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Just to note as the discussion has considered varying higher rates. My understanding one reason the Scottish parliament hasn't used it's tax raising powers is that it has to raise all rates together and it can't change the thresholds at which tax is paid. Under the Scotland Act 2012 10% will be deducted from the basic, higher and further UK rates and the Scottish parliament decides what it will add - but it adds the same % across the board.
This provides very little flexibility since the number of rates, the banding of them, and eligibility remain wholly UK responsibilities. Scotland also has no control over the tax thresholds. The personal allowance also remain in UK control.
This provides very little flexibility since the number of rates, the banding of them, and eligibility remain wholly UK responsibilities. Scotland also has no control over the tax thresholds. The personal allowance also remain in UK control.
CheltenhamHacker
Journeyman Pro
Stop trying to bring Scotland into it
We're focussing on non GE, non referendum, non politics. More the theory behind what you believe to be "right".
When I started work in 1983 in payroll as Maggie Thathcer's pay clerk (forgive me for I have sinned) there were numerous rates of taxation going up in five percent increases all the way to about 60 or even 65%% from a dim and distant memory. Certainly the tax tables we had to manually use were like the Encyclopedia Brittania and it was a long and convoluted process to do manual calculations as my fellow pay clerk from that time Paul Stewart will no doubt come on here and testify.
The point is, this was before the 80's boom and Britain was still struggling economically. Personally I would argue that perhaps another look at the tax bands especially for the higher earners and maybe more banding is a way forward to ensure that the significantrly well off are targetted as efficiently as those further down the income scale. Income has significantly changed in the intervening years and I'm not entirely convinced our taxation policies necessarily have
The point is, this was before the 80's boom and Britain was still struggling economically. Personally I would argue that perhaps another look at the tax bands especially for the higher earners and maybe more banding is a way forward to ensure that the significantrly well off are targetted as efficiently as those further down the income scale. Income has significantly changed in the intervening years and I'm not entirely convinced our taxation policies necessarily have
Kellfire
Blackballed
In a less than ideal nation, I believe that taxation brackets allow for the best method of wealth distribution.
Rooter
Money List Winner
Why should wealth be distributed unevenly though? Why lets say I earn 150k (i dont!!!) why proportionately should i pay more tax then someone on 38k? to fund the unwashed and lazy so they can buy sky TV and 20 fags a day and still go to the match and have a few pints?
Hacker Khan
Yurt Dwelling, Yoghurt Knitter
You seem to make a bit of a jump that most of your your tax goes to the welfare budget and then the welfare budget mostly funds people to watch Sky TV etc etc. And if anyone has that attitude then of course it will cloud their judgement on how much tax they are willing to pay. This may help http://wheredoesmymoneygo.org/dailybread.html
More is actually going to coffin dodgers. Who most probably use it to fund their golf club membership at your golf club.
Last edited:
bluewolf
Money List Winner
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Stop trying to bring Scotland into it
Indeed - but is the Scotland 2012 Bill income tax model one that UK could adopt? What would be wrong in putting the basic rate up to 23% and the higher rate to 43%. No idea if it would raise as much as putting the higher rate up to 45% and keeping basic rate at 20%.
Rooter
Money List Winner
My comment was slightly tongue in cheek, but the largest proportion of tax goes to the "helping others" field on that website. With the largest slice of that pie going to the elderly.
If we cut back on the health care budget, we could halt the ageing population. People are living too long and costing society too much, If by say 85 years old you cant pay for your own care, you get left in the woods for the wolves.
