We're All In This Together .....

[Lateralthinking1]

Nah mate. Can't be bothered.

[ahinton]

We pay well over 40 % of our income to the government. The (super)rich are the ones getting away with it. Marginal rates of income tax(including NI) are disgracefully high for many people, especially those on very modest incomes.
Marginal rates of over 30 % (worse if you include withdrawal of benefits) for those on £300 a week, compared to a top rate for the very highest paid of 50%. Not good.

Indeed, but you're failing to compare like with like. That "top rate" is for income tax only and many of those on it also have to pay NI, as indeed do their employers (in the cases of those hwo have them) on their behalf.

[ahinton]

"Government sponsored" as in "legal". Anything else as in "clearly should be taken to court".

I would very happily blow the whistle where appropriate.

Fine, but I don't think that anyone here is seeking to advocate tax evasion, which is breaking the law.

[ahinton]

It is miniscule compared with the 93% in the late 1970s. Even under Margaret Thatcher it was 60% or 50% so you are both some way to the right of her. Enoch Powell or Rick Santorum. That sort of area.

Of course it is - but then tax rates as high as this simply enocourage people to leave the jurisdiction, or evade tax as well as avoid it, or not bother to earn such high sums in the first place (in the cases of those whose incomes are derived principally from earnings), or any combination of the three, none of which benefits the Exchequer and none of which therefore benefits society, least of all the less well off.

Actually, you both disgust me on this.

"Both" of whom?

The sooner we get back to something at least in the region of 70% for the top rate, the better.

For whom? Who would even pay it in the first place? How much extra would it raise? - certainly not enough to make the slightest difference to the lower paid and less well off in society.

And everyone who has an income should pay tax. Even if it is tuppence. It means having a stake in society. Responsibilities and rights.

Why should they, especially if they cannot afford to do so? And how much would it cost the taxpayer for "tuppence" (or equivalent minuscule sums) to be assessed and collected? - almost certainly more than the tax revenues that such payments would generate! Do bear in mind that some people already pay some tax on certain state benefits (especially state retirement pension) and that, in such cases, the taxpayer pays the state to pay out the benefit and then pays the state a second time to take back some of it in income tax; how sensible is that? In any case, you are confining your argument here to tax on incomes, whereas there are many other taxes on things other than incomes. Furthermore, the "stake in society" argument is a potentially dangerous one, since it would suggests that the wealthiest people - or at least those who pay the most tax - have a larger stake in society than do those who receive less income and pay less tax; in any case, why should those who are not liable for any imcome tax be assume either to have, or to deserve to have, less responsibilities and less rights than those who are? And, on that subject, what about those who pay no income tax but do pay other taxes?

I have never fiddled tax in my life. Those who do cheat people out of their health and welfare. It must be a borderline area whether advocacy of law breaking is a good thing on here.

As I've said, no one here is advocating tax evasion - i.e. breaking tax laws - but unless you consider that tax avoidance cheats no one whereas tax evasion does, your argument, whilst perfectly understandable in principle, does little in practice to help the less well off.

[ahinton]

I think that we have a mindset (encouraged by politicians) that regards Tax as some kind of "legalised theft", people believe that somehow their money is being stolen from them , this is positively encouraged by the rhetoric of government ("we need to crack down on people claiming disability benefits" etc etc )......
surely what we need to do is to change the way we think about this ?

I don't think that it's only - or even mainly - that kind of government rhetoric that encourages this attitude; it's far more likely to arise from taxpayers' (a) lack of trust in tax inspectors and collectors to do their job properly and efficiently and keep mistakes to the barest minimum and (b) concerns over government misppropriation of tax revenues.

My children had free education
I've just had a major operation paid for by the NHS
I'm more than happy to pay for others to be treated well and not stigmatised

Your children receive subsidised education, not free education. Your operation (which I hope was successful) was indeed funded by NHS but NHS in trun can no more be fully funded by tax revenues these days than can state retirement pensions and other state benefits and such funding has to be made up from borrowings.

If we stopped thinking that somehow there is a conspiracy to "get one over us" things would be much better.

(this is not to say that we should be complacent but rather think differently..........)

That's fair comment insofar as it goes, but there is rampant incompetence within HMRC and DWP that exercises many taxpayers and which is a rather different phenomenon to either organisation "conspiring to get one over on us".

[teamsaint]

It is miniscule compared with the 93% in the late 1970s. Even under Margaret Thatcher it was 60% or 50% so you are both some way to the right of her. Enoch Powell or Rick Santorum. That sort of area.

Actually, you both disgust me on this.

The sooner we get back to something at least in the region of 70% for the top rate, the better.

And everyone who has an income should pay tax. Even if it is tuppence. It means having a stake in society. Responsibilities and rights.

I have never fiddled tax in my life. Those who do cheat people out of their health and welfare. It must be a borderline area whether advocacy of law breaking is a good thing on here.

if you are referring to me , I am a bit upset.
If you read my posts on this subject, I would have thought that it was clear that
1. I would like to see the rich pay more tax.
2. I would like the less well off to pay less.
3. That its really important to preserve vital services and benefits, and especially for the vulnerable.

I wouldn't have any issue at all with high rates of tax for the very rich, but, very sadly, they just do not work, in part at least because of the complexity of the system.

Tax , and how it really works is very complicated (I don't pretend to understand a lot of the nuances), and it is almost always made to work for the benefit of the wealthy, which I why I was suggesting support for simpler systems that the rich actually can't avoid.

One thing to remember, incidentally, was that the era of very high income tax rates for the rich was also one of very high rates for the less well off . (income tax was at 33% with NI on top at one point , I think).
Also. LT1, if you read all of my posts, you would have seen that i strongly support a move to increase the personal allowance substantially, which, although it benefits all tax payers, gives a significant boost to the lowest earners.

I really don't think I am to the "right "of any of the people you mention. Don't really believe in left or right.all parts of the same game.

[teamsaint]

I think that we have a mindset (encouraged by politicians) that regards Tax as some kind of "legalised theft", people believe that somehow their money is being stolen from them , this is positively encouraged by the rhetoric of government ("we need to crack down on people claiming disability benefits" etc etc )......
surely what we need to do is to change the way we think about this ?
I have very modest earnings
I am more than happy to pay tax

My children had free education
I've just had a major operation paid for by the NHS
I'm more than happy to pay for others to be treated well and not stigmatised


If we were all a bit less greedy and a bit more generous we would be much happier
If we stopped thinking that somehow there is a conspiracy to "get one over us" things would be much better.

(this is not to say that we should be complacent but rather think differently..........)

Tax isn't much fun. but as you say, those of us who want properly funded public services,have to accept the need for a fair level of taxation.
About 40% of GDP seems to be the level of government spending that works in the developed world. But the very rich are simply getting away with too much. Additionally, taxes on income rather than spending or property do reduce personal choice and freedom, and even for the less well off , that is seldom good.
Taxes on property need drastically increasing in my view. High marginal rates of income tax, are not necessarily a recipe for good public services, and a fairer world.

The world has been made to change fast. Those of us with children who need educating now, are facing really difficult economic realities. The answer to that isn't joining the neo con agenda.
Your sentiment about generosity is good.But an good example from the top would help us all to behave better.

Regarding "getting one over", I suggest that the banks have caused a recession and have indeed "got one over us", whilst continuing to prosper...and they are the people calling the shots, along with their friends at the ratings agencies.

[MrGongGong]

Your sentiment about generosity is good.But an good example from the top would help us all to behave better.
.

Not really IMV
one thing we DO need to do is to rebalance what we consider as the "top" or "success"

for me

Tony Pappano, Robert Winston and Trevor Wishart are all examples of success
the Alan Sugar's of this world are worthy of a little sympathy for how pathetic they seem to be in comparison

[teamsaint]

Not really IMV
one thing we DO need to do is to rebalance what we consider as the "top" or "success"

for me

Tony Pappano, Robert Winston and Trevor Wishart are all examples of success
the Alan Sugar's of this world are worthy of a little sympathy for how pathetic they seem to be in comparison

the virtues of some "successful" people are certainly open to question. Robert Winston may be an example of success, but he's not someone I admire.......but thats just my opinion.Sugar......well don't get me started !!
There are even a few footballers who set a good example, by the way they work, and how they act in society. Zola might be one.Lee Holmes. I could even mention a portsmouth player !!

I see a lot of people in the public arena behaving very badly, including on tax matters, and it seems to me to be very damaging for society.

[ahinton]

the virtues of some "successful" people are certainly open to question. Robert Winston may be an example of success, but he's not someone I admire.......but thats just my opinion.Sugar......well don't get me started !!
There are even a few footballers who set a good example, by the way they work, and how they act in society. Zola might be one.Lee Holmes. I could even mention a portsmouth player !!

I see a lot of people in the public arena behaving very badly, including on tax matters, and it seems to me to be very damaging for society.

All of this is all very well, but taxation and the public conduct of taxpaying individuals are not things that can realistically and meaningfully associated in law, so I don't see the point in discussing it, really.

The societal rôle of taxation is now rather different to what it's been in the living memories of most of us in any case, so our view of it must change accordingly. Historically, taxes have supposedly been earmarked to allocate on public spending, which indeed they still are (including some appalling mis-spending, especially on defence), but it's no longer sufficient to cover all public expenditure, partly because of greater demands being made on certain areas of such expenditure (people living longer and with expectations - especially of NHS - increasing by the second, etc.), so the remainder has to be made up from increased borrowings. That cannot last. The worse the economy gets, however, the more people get put out of work and, as a consequence, income tax revenues dwindle and benefit payments increase, so the more the government of the day will need to borrow to keep afloat. Trying to deal with the greed of certain individuals, however morally defensible as it might in itself seem, will barely scratch the surface of problems of this gravity and magnitude.

There is also an unduly moralistic stance taken by some people when they say (as one contributor did here earlier) that they never fiddle their taxes. Whilst I accept that most such people are being honest in so saying (as far as it is practically possible to be so in this context), I wonder every time that I complete a tax return how "honest" the data I include on it might be seen to be and I find that there's no viable and credible alternative to having to accept that the details of such matters are open to interpretation; yes, one can be scrupulously honest in returning turnover, but what about the claiming of allowances against that income in order to arrive at taxable profits? All that needs to be remembered, I think, is that it is not and cannot be an exact science and one's view of the extent of one's scrupulous honesty in preparing data for such returns is inevitably predicated upon that inescapable fact - and this is quite a different matter from deliberately concealing from HMRC information that it is entitled to receive and which the taxpayer is obliged by law to declare.

To return to government sponsored tax avoidance (by which, for the sake of clarity, I mean legal tax avoidance, since the government rather obviously does not deliberately and wilfully arrange for taxpayers to break tax laws!). I know of one married couple, each of whom has invested the maximum permissible annual sums into PEPs and subsequent ISAs each year since this "small savers" scheme was introduced way back when; clearly, they've have a good financial adviser helping with timely fund switching and such like advice over the years in order to maximise investment growth, since their joint ISA portfolio is now worth in excess of £1.2m, all of which has been made without a penny going to the taxman, which is particularly good news for them as they've each been top rate taxpayers throughout. I'm sure that they're not alone in this good fortune and those permanently higher rate taxpayers who, like them, have also each maximised their pension contributions (which can now be done up to age 77 and will, I imagine, eventually be possible to do for life), will likewise have made a fortune out of those at the taxpayers' expense - and those who prolong contributions for the maximum possible term will likely be paying income tax on their pensions when they eventually vest them for a lot less time than would have been the case had they vested them at state retirement age (or earlier, when permissible). Turning to CGT (Capital Gains Tax), the best advice is often to time disposals with care and for couples to equalise their assets in order to make full use of each year's personal CGT allowances. Then there's IHT, for which all manner of mitigating and avoidance instruments are available, all of which fall firmly within the law. It's worth bearing cases such as these in mind when certain people wax moralistic about the well off paying too little in tax; for many such taxpayers to find themselves liable for more tax that is currently the case, there would not only have to be swingeing increases in tax rates but also the retrospective application of the abolition of all government sponsored tax avoidance schemes, each of which is inconceivable and each of which would never work in any case, especially as they would inevitably punish the less well off.

[Lateralthinking1]

A lot of pansophy, no heroic sanctity and ideaux far from beaux.

Wonder where that came from? Not me originally.

From the HMRC website, information about humanity -

"Special rates have been introduced twice within the post-war years, causing income tax in certain circumstances to exceed 100%.

For 1947-48 a special contribution was payable when a person’s total income exceeded £2,000. For investment income over £5,000 it was 50%. So with income tax at 45% and surtax at 52.5%, the effective rate was 147.5%.

In 1967-68, the special charge was imposed. For investment income over £8,000, the rate was 45% which - with income tax at 41.25% and surtax at 50% - meant a total rate of 136.25%."

Easily collected but it upset the Beatles. Shame!

1980s. The US model. Reaganomics. An almost humane 50%.

Now - Robbers who think tax enforcement is bullying.

[gradus]

An advocate of an alternative to our present taxation regime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George

[Serial_Apologist]

An advocate of an alternative to our present taxation regime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George

Gradus ad Parnassum :winkeye: :smiley:

[gradus]

Made me smile - but I don't know how to emoticon.

[Serial_Apologist]

Made me smile - but I don't know how to emoticon.

Go "Reply with quote". At the bottom of the window you will be replying on (like I am now), click "Go Advanced".

To the right of the window you will now see are the emoticons. When you reach the point where you want to inset an emoticon - like here - click on the emoticon of your choice: like :star: