[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Wills2

I'm quite happy for the 40% rate threshold to rise to 80k it's about time it did it was never meant to hit as many people as it does and the increases in NI contributions have further hit middle earners in the pocket since the introduction of the 40% band.

It should be tied in with a complete revamp of all the bands, rates and a scrapping of NI which doesn't do what it was intended to do originally and is now a weird regressive tax.

Start at 15% at 12k, go to 50% at £200k and a fairly progressive ratchet in between (I havent run the numbers to see how much that would cost by the way...)

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

It should be tied in with a complete revamp of all the bands, rates and a scrapping of NI which doesn't do what it was intended to do originally and is now a weird regressive tax.

Start at 15% at 12k, go to 50% at £200k and a fairly progressive ratchet in between (I havent run the numbers to see how much that would cost by the way...)

To be honest one of the changes in the tax system which I've welcomed in recent years is increasing the personal allowance to take low-paid people out of tax altogether and personally I'd prioritise extending that further over giving tax cuts to high earners.

I do however agree the whole issue of income tax and NI needs a revisit though; the latter is in effect just another form of the former but, as you say, works in quite a peculiar way - far better to consolidate it into one and simplify the whole thing IMO.

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by JNW1

To be honest one of the changes in the tax system which I've welcomed in recent years is increasing the personal allowance to take low-paid people out of tax altogether and personally I'd prioritise extending that further over giving tax cuts to high earners.

I do however agree the whole issue of income tax and NI needs a revisit though; the latter is in effect just another form of the former but, as you say, works in quite a peculiar way - far better to consolidate it into one and simplify the whole thing IMO.

Agree with both of these. I think the point at which you start paying should be higher, to help those less well off but working.

I also think you should scrap all the various allowances, and just tax all income, whether it be salary, dividends etc at the same rate, whatever that would be.

Some people would complain, but you would make for (eventually) a fairer system where less people could 'minimise' the tax they pay, because they are better off and have more options

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by JNW1

To be honest one of the changes in the tax system which I've welcomed in recent years is increasing the personal allowance to take low-paid people out of tax altogether and personally I'd prioritise extending that further over giving tax cuts to high earners.

I do however agree the whole issue of income tax and NI needs a revisit though; the latter is in effect just another form of the former but, as you say, works in quite a peculiar way - far better to consolidate it into one and simplify the whole thing IMO.

Can't keep hitting the people earning 50k-100k, if you earn 100k compared to 25k you pay 11 times the income tax for earning 4 times the salary.

That's just regressive.

We have situation whereby the truly wealthy can avoid tax and the lower earner doesn't really get asked for a meaningful contribution so those sat in the middle are easy targets.

We must also not confuse income with wealth they are often not connected and having a higher salary than most doesn't mean you're wealthy, the tax system sees to that.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Can't keep hitting the people earning 50k-100k, if you earn 100k compared to 25k you pay 11 times the income tax for earning 4 times the salary.

That's just regressive.

We have situation whereby the truly wealthy can avoid tax and the lower earner doesn't really get asked for a meaningful contribution so those sat in the middle are easy targets.

well on that basis it should be taxed by family unit not individual.... when my wife was ill she couldnt work (not that she did before..). I would contact the benefits people to be told she couldnt get any as I earned too much. So then I would ring the tax office and ask them for her tax free pay and 20% tax band, and they said I couldnt as she was independent. So I would call the benefits office and tell them what the tax man said and they would tell me it didnt matter. Bloody did to me. Why should a household with £80k income pay more tax just because it comes via one individual rather than being equally shared between two...

Agreed on those sat in the middle, of course lots would say that £45 to £50k is in the middle and they have just had a benefit from increasing the salary at which 40% band kicked in!

And of course £60k in the south east with south east mortgages is a lot further from wealthy than £60k in the north is (excepting a few expensive hotspots!)

I can see tax relief at higher rates on pension contributions being pulled at some stage to fund headline tax cuts (although the pension funds would not like that!)

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Wills2

I'm quite happy for the 40% rate threshold to rise to 80k it's about time it did it was never meant to hit as many people as it does and the increases in NI contributions have further hit middle earners in the pocket since the introduction of the 40% band.

While I can see your point, I don't think that should be the priority. The current system works like this - these are combined income tax and NI percentages by level of earnings:

25k 18%
50k 25%
75k 30.5%
100k 33.5%
150k 39.5%
200k 41.5%

Calculated from https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/

It is true that the burden falls on the higher paid, but I don't see much of an alternative.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Can't keep hitting the people earning 50k-100k, if you earn 100k compared to 25k you pay 11 times the income tax for earning 4 times the salary.

But people earning £50k-£100k would also benefit from an increased personal allowance? All a matter of perspective I suppose but compared to the average UK salary someone earning £100k is relatively well off in my view; therefore, while I'm all for reducing taxes where possible, for me that particular group isn't an especially high priority.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by JNW1

But people earning £50k-£100k would also benefit from an increased personal allowance? All a matter of perspective I suppose but compared to the average UK salary someone earning £100k is relatively well off in my view; therefore, while I'm all for reducing taxes where possible, for me that particular group isn't an especially high priority.

Well I for one will welcome the day that our regressive tax regime is tackled, you must think paying 11 times the tax of someone earning 4 less is fair for me it's punitive.

[TimMcC]

Originally Posted by Wills2

We must also not confuse income with wealth they are often not connected and having a higher salary than most doesn't mean you're wealthy, the tax system sees to that.

I think this important point passes many by. Being highly paid does not make you wealthy. I know some very wealthy people on fairly low salaries.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Well I for one will welcome the day that our regressive tax regime is tackled, you must think paying 11 times the tax of someone earning 4 less is fair for me it's punitive.

A regressive tax system - which you've said on more than occasion is what we have - is when people on lower incomes pay a greater proportion in tax than those on higher incomes. However, as you yourself have noted, that's the exact opposite of the income tax system in the UK - we have a progressive system for that albeit one that's obviously excessively so in your view! There clearly are regressive taxes in the UK (VAT for example) but income tax isn't one of them.

When I started work many moons ago the rule of thumb was you kept roughly two thirds of what you earned after tax and NI and that's pretty much what someone earning £100k/annum keeps today. Would it be nicer if they kept more? Of course it would but keeping 66% of what you earn isn't punitive tax IMO - if you want examples of that go back to the 1970's when higher rate tax was 83% and the top rate tax on investment income was 98%!

Moreover, without wishing to sound like a socialist (which I'm not!), part of what the tax system should (IMO) be trying to help facilitate is a fair society and I don't see how giving tax cuts to the relatively well off achieves that (especially coming after a period when austerity has adversely affected a lot of low earners quite significantly). I think it's generally accepted one of the factors that influenced the Leave vote in the referendum was many ordinary people felt like society had failed them and they didn't matter and were ignored. You've been a very outspoken critic of Brexit so isn't it a tad ironic you're now advocating the sort of tax change which would exacerbate the very divisions in society which helped to encourage that Leave vote back in 2016?

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Well I for one will welcome the day that our regressive tax regime is tackled, you must think paying 11 times the tax of someone earning 4 less is fair for me it's punitive.

The problem with comparing income tax between someone on a salary of 25k and 100k, is that 25k is such a low salary, that if a material amount was taken in tax, the recipient would be likely to need benefits to supplement their income, which defeats the purpose. Since 2010 the UK has rightly moved away from taking income taxes while giving benefits to the same people - it is very inefficient and reduces the incentive to work.

If you compared income tax (excluding NI) levels between those earning 20k and 100k, you pay 18 times more income tax at 100k, but for the same reason, this isn't a useful comparison.

A more reasonable comparison to judge fairness in my view might be between those earning say 50k and 100k, or 75k and 100k.

[TodmordenLad]

Back to the OP's question, a picture speaks a thousand words. Our very own Trump Mini-Me.

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by JNW1

A regressive tax system - which you've said on more than occasion is what we have - is when people on lower incomes pay a greater proportion in tax than those on higher incomes. However, as you yourself have noted, that's the exact opposite of the income tax system in the UK - we have a progressive system for that albeit one that's obviously excessively so in your view! There clearly are regressive taxes in the UK (VAT for example) but income tax isn't one of them.

When I started work many moons ago the rule of thumb was you kept roughly two thirds of what you earned after tax and NI and that's pretty much what someone earning £100k/annum keeps today. Would it be nicer if they kept more? Of course it would but keeping 66% of what you earn isn't punitive tax IMO - if you want examples of that go back to the 1970's when higher rate tax was 83% and the top rate tax on investment income was 98%!

Moreover, without wishing to sound like a socialist (which I'm not!), part of what the tax system should (IMO) be trying to help facilitate is a fair society and I don't see how giving tax cuts to the relatively well off achieves that (especially coming after a period when austerity has adversely affected a lot of low earners quite significantly). I think it's generally accepted one of the factors that influenced the Leave vote in the referendum was many ordinary people felt like society had failed them and they didn't matter and were ignored. You've been a very outspoken critic of Brexit so isn't it a tad ironic you're now advocating the sort of tax change which would exacerbate the very divisions in society which helped to encourage that Leave vote back in 2016?

Totally agree with this. And as someone who would benefit from this, I'd rather see money spent on schools, police, health service etc, all of which are currently chronically underfunded.

[Broncho]

Some buffoon over on PistonHeads has just likened Boris you Churchill, that’s bold even for PistonHeads

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Broncho

Some buffoon over on PistonHeads has just likened Boris you Churchill, that’s bold even for PistonHeads

Presumably they mean this Churchill:

[Bryans69]

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by Bryans69

Totally agree with this. And as someone who would benefit from this, I'd rather see money spent on schools, police, health service etc, all of which are currently chronically underfunded.

Taxation is ripe for an overhaul. Certainly the starting point for 40% is too low now, a more graduated system makes more sense.

It doesn't sound overly complex in this day and age to introduce a 30% rate, 35% rate.

Personally, I think someone in the 75k-100k bracket should pay roughly what they do now, but 50k is definitely not a salary that should be taxed heavily.

Again personally, but one tax issue that has annoyed me is that the new tax free childcare system penalises those where one half of a couple is not in work. Meaning a family with higher income benefits from government contribution whereas the family where one doesn't work, and has a lower overall income, pays in full. There is logic there, but it's not a fair one IMHO.

[MashinBenzin]

114 Tory MPs apparently fit the title of the thread

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

Personally, I think someone in the 75k-100k bracket should pay roughly what they do now, but 50k is definitely not a salary that should be taxed heavily.

But someone who earns £50k/annum pays tax at a rate of 22% on their taxable income and personally I don't think that's excessive. Obviously there's NI on top of that but even taking that into account the take home is still 74% of the gross salary (which is far from being a punitive level of tax in my view).

So sorry but I'm afraid I just don't buy this idea that those earning above average salaries are highly taxed and need to be a priority for tax cuts. The idea had merit when Margaret Thatcher was doing it back in the 1980's but she was trying to change what was a genuinely high tax regime she inherited; the world's moved on since then IMO.

[isleaiw1]

Feel sorry for those earning £125k - on the last 25k they will have paid tax at 60% plus NI at 2%, as they tax free pay is withdrawn £1 for every £2 extra you earn until it has all gone - so you pay 40% income tax, lose 50p tax free pay for every extra pound (so 40% on an extra 50%) and then the NI...

As for MashinBenzin point about childcare vouchers, that is another example of a couple being unfairly treated versus two individuals and a complete joke in terms of fair and equitable.... £199k between two of you, you qualify if you both earn £99.5k, £101k between you but all from one party - you get nowt. Child benefit is similar but based on a £50k per individual cut off...

There is so much that could be done to make it fairer and more progressive, but instead we get useless headline figures bandied about as they grab headlines!

[JD6]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

As for MashinBenzin point about childcare vouchers, that is another example of a couple being unfairly treated versus two individuals and a complete joke in terms of fair and equitable.... £199k between two of you, you qualify if you both earn £99.5k, £101k between you but all from one party - you get nowt. Child benefit is similar but based on a £50k per individual cut off...

While I can see the unfairness on a single earner versus a couple, I have some sympathy with system as it stands. Under the current individual-based system, it is straightforward for HMRC to work out an individual's tax position. As soon as you allow couples to combine some or all allowances, that introduces a new level of complexity, and it provides opportunities for people to play the system. Flatmates or friends for example may decide to call themselves a couple for tax purposes.

I suspect that the administrative and avoidance/evasion cost of allowing combined allowances would be significant. My preference is to keep taxes as simple as possible to minimise loopholes and administrative expense, even if that creates some inevitable unfairness in the balance between single and couple's earnings.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by JD6

While I can see the unfairness on a single earner versus a couple, I have some sympathy with system as it stands. Under the current individual-based system, it is straightforward for HMRC to work out an individual's tax position. As soon as you allow couples to combine some or all allowances, that introduces a new level of complexity, and it provides opportunities for people to play the system. Flatmates or friends for example may decide to call themselves a couple for tax purposes.

I suspect that the administrative and avoidance/evasion cost of allowing combined allowances would be significant. My preference is to keep taxes as simple as possible to minimise loopholes and administrative expense, even if that creates some inevitable unfairness in the balance between single and couple's earnings.

It's not about complexity in this case, but about a form of logic - if my wife worked one day a week (actually, whatever the arbitrary income amount is) then I get 20% from the Government towards my childcare costs. Irrespective of whether it's one day childcare or full time, and equally irrespective of whether I earn £25k or £200k.

As soon as she drops through that income line, I lose that benefit and have to pay 100% of childcare costs.

The clear logic is that with both parents working you need childcare and if one is at home full time you do not. However, that is simplistic and flawed. For instance, you may see a social/upbringing benefit in keeping your child in nursery for a day or two.

Now if my wife was to sign up to benefit xyz, which she does not need/want, then I get my contribution back. It's ludicrous.