Balance: Jeremy Corbyn's tax return

Snap

lloyd said:

Skipped said:

Fretwired said:

The £10K threshold was the right thing to do ...

I completely agree. I want Nick Clegg to get massive credit for doing the right thing. Cameron was absolutely insistent that a 10k threshold was unaffordable.

Can anyone here imagine Dave sacrificing his skin to "do the right thing" ??

It really should be a few grand more though IMO

Do we really want people on 12-14k paying the same tax as people on 20k+ I'm happy for people struggling on 12k to keep all their cash (ex NI).

12k is fuck all to live on. 

I think past a certain income threshold, everyone should pay a flat rate of tax. As it is today, about 5% of all tax revenue comes from around 3 to 4000 individuals. The wealthy prop the system up. The tricky thing is that the very low paid pay proportionally (out of all their income) more, and they feel it more. Perhpas the answer to this is the route that;s being taken - raising the threshold.

I disagree with higher earners paying a higher rate of tax. I just think its wrong in principle. The 40% threshold punishes a lot of people who aren't well off at all.  40% of your income, going to the government: that's a real big take.

20% flat rate, with threshold at something like 18 or 20k, maybe higher. More people would have more money, spend more etc etc. It would balance out.

and put tax on fags through the roof.

lloyd

Snap said: lloyd said: Skipped said: Fretwired said: The £10K threshold was the right thing to do ...
I completely agree. I want Nick Clegg to get massive credit for doing the right thing. Cameron was absolutely insistent that a 10k threshold was unaffordable.

Can anyone here imagine Dave sacrificing his skin to "do the right thing" ??
It really should be a few grand more though IMO

Do we really want people on 12-14k paying the same tax as people on 20k+ I'm happy for people struggling on 12k to keep all their cash (ex NI).
12k is fuck all to live on.  I think past a certain income threshold, everyone should pay a flat rate of tax. As it is today, about 5% of all tax revenue comes from around 3 to 4000 individuals. The wealthy prop the system up. The tricky thing is that the very low paid pay proportionally (out of all their income) more, and they feel it more. Perhpas the answer to this is the route that;s being taken - raising the threshold.

I disagree with higher earners paying a higher rate of tax. I just think its wrong in principle. The 40% threshold punishes a lot of people who aren't well off at all.  40% of your income, going to the government: that's a real big take.

20% flat rate, with threshold at something like 18 or 20k, maybe higher. More people would have more money, spend more etc etc. It would balance out.

and put tax on fags through the roof.






------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not 40% of your income though, it's 40% after a certain point, which seems ok to me. £32,000 is the threshold, which I assume is over average? It's a decent income, to describe it as 'not well off at all' is a bit of a push, my take is that you can spare a bit more when you're earning more. 

The top/privileged should always help up those at the bottom/underprivileged IMHO.

Smokers are already over paying on tax, plus they'll all be extinct in 50 years or so, so it's not a good long term strategy.

CabbageCat

Snap said:

 The tricky thing is that the very low paid pay proportionally (out of all their income) more.

Really? How do you work that out? Is it because of tax avoidance things? Certainly on the face of it, someone earning £12k is only paying ~£650 tax+NI - about 5% - which someone earning £120k is paying ~£47k tax+NI - about 40%. It seems to me that the very low paid pay a significant amount less, both proportionally and in absolute terms. 

Snap

I too know how tax works, and this too is semantics (:)), but having 40% of your income over a certain level taken off you, IMO is bad. THe threshold is around 42k.

Example - household one - one parent working, salary 48k, paying 40% tax on the over threshold amount (6k ish). Other parnet at home, kid raising etc,

Household 2 - two parents working, say 35k each, paying only 20% tax rate on all income. Not right.

Privilege is an emotive word. Most people earning over the 40% tax bracket have worked hard and long to get there.

Staggered tax rate elevators punish people for increasing their earnings. I just don't agree with that. On flat rate, as you earn more, you pay more money into the system. People who earn more, have more money to spend and save, the money flows more round the system. It would be good for us all I reckon.

Its impossible for smokers to overpay tax, the dirty buggers. Kill em all off, then we;d have 20% less adults, and there'd be more room in lots of places. And less smell. It would be great.

digitalscream

lloyd said:

It's not 40% of your income though, it's 40%

after a certain point, which seems ok to me. £32,000 is the threshold, which I assume is over average? It's a decent income, to describe it as 'not well off at all' is a bit of a push, my take is that you can spare a bit more when you're earning more. 

The top/privileged should always help up those at the bottom/underprivileged IMHO.

Smokers are already over paying on tax, plus they'll all be extinct in 50 years or so, so it's not a good long term strategy.

...except it's not privilege at all. Take two couples with children - in one couple, both work and earn £25k/year (less than the national average) and put their child in daycare every day (which they get state help with). The other couple has one parent stay at home to look after their child and the other earns £50k/year.

The second couple is squarely in the 40% tax bracket, yet they have less money per person than two people earning less than the national average. About £350 less per month, in fact, so it's not even an insignificant amount.

If you're trying to save money and put cash aside into a pension, the couple with one working basically has nothing left on a monthly basis.

The notion that those paying higher-rate tax are well-off enough to be able to give away 40% of everything extra they earn is laughable these days, because the threshold hasn't kept up with the rising cost of living within social norms.

digitalscream

@Snap: Errr....snap.

lloyd

Snap said:

I too know how tax works, and this too is semantics (:)), but having 40% of your income over a certain level taken off you, IMO is bad. THe threshold is around 42k.

Example - household one - one parent working, salary 48k, paying 40% tax on the over threshold amount (6k ish). Other parnet at home, kid raising etc,

Household 2 - two parents working, say 35k each, paying only 20% tax rate on all income. Not right.

Privilege is an emotive word. Most people earning over the 40% tax bracket have worked hard and long to get there.

Staggered tax rate elevators punish people for increasing their earnings. I just don't agree with that. On flat rate, as you earn more, you pay more money into the system. People who earn more, have more money to spend and save, the money flows more round the system. It would be good for us all I reckon.

Its impossible for smokers to overpay tax, the dirty buggers. Kill em all off, then we;d have 20% less adults, and there'd be more room in lots of places. And less smell. It would be great.

I'm sure you are aware of the tax rules, I'm being a cock

My point is that if you earn more then you should pay more (proportionally and actually) that's just my view on how society should work, we can use any words like privileged or whatever I just see it as those at the top helping those at the bottom regardless of the why's and how's, once there you are in a privileged position regardless of the graft you've put in. I realise that people have to work hard and sacrifice to get to a decent wage, having sacrificed and worked hard myself to get where I currently am in my career.

I personally can't understand how why anyone would want those on the lowest wages paying into the tax system the way they do and have done for the last x amount of years.

We can argue on thresholds and where it should (or not) be for ever. You have your view I have mine, I doubt we'll change each others minds.

Perhaps we could feed all the dead smokers to the poor bastards thus saving them on their food bill? Win/win (exepct for smokers, myself included...)

Troy

You do know if all the smokers (i am one) was to die overnight that the tax bill would have to be increased to compensate for the loss of taxation from cigarettes/tobacco? 

digitalscream

lloyd said:

I personally can't understand how why anyone would want those on the lowest wages paying into the tax system the way they do and have done for the last x amount of years.

Those on the lowest wages don't pay into the tax system, though. That's the point of the tax-free allowance.

Snap

Yes, I think the less well off should be supported by the better off, for sure. That for me is part of a decent way of life. I just think the current 3 tier tax system doesn't work right, and it jars with my own values. The wealthier DO support the less wealthy, massively actually. When you look at the numbers its staggering in terms of how much the uber rich contribute overall.

The thing is, the 40% tax rate hits loads of people. It used to be only the select few hit it, but I think in Gordon Brown's tenure as chancellor, something like 2 million more people slunk into the 40% band. It nullifies most middle earner's pay rises totally. If you and I were running the shop, and I had to compromise on a tiered taxation method, I'd say OK, but raise the 40% threshold to 100k.

Removing the rate, or highering it just allows people to get more of their earnings, and then this in turn puts the money into society via a different route. The government gets it through VAT (for example). But the difference is, people FEEL better. When you feel better, you tend to spend more, so the money comes in, just via a different door.

lloyd

digitalscream said:

lloyd said:

I personally can't understand how why anyone would want those on the lowest wages paying into the tax system the way they do and have done for the last x amount of years.

Those on the lowest wages don't pay into the tax system, though. That's the point of the tax-free allowance.

Jesus, more semantics.....Ok The lowest bracket of wages, under 14k, whatever you like. 

CabbageCat

lloyd said:

The top/privileged should always help up those at the bottom/underprivileged IMHO.

Until we reach a point where the top/privileged are paying so much that they actually have the same net income as those at the bottom/underprivileged there will always be people calling for them to contribute more. It doesn't matter that it's the money that virtually everything that goes towards society comes from the toppies anyway - that money isn't relevant - it's the money that the toppies have left that appears to be some folks' focus.

If I were an alien looking at this system I think I would question why attitude of the bottomies towards the toppies is one of hostility when gratitude would seem to be most logical.

digitalscream

lloyd said:

digitalscream said:

lloyd said:

I personally can't understand how why anyone would want those on the lowest wages paying into the tax system the way they do and have done for the last x amount of years.

Those on the lowest wages don't pay into the tax system, though. That's the point of the tax-free allowance.

Jesus, more semantics.....Ok The lowest bracket of wages, under 14k, whatever you like. 

It's not semantics at all - it's the very core of your argument. Can you explain why you've chosen £14k as the cutoff point, or is it arbitrary?

EDIT: Besides, your argument is that the top/privileged should pay more. The top 0.7% of earners in this country pay over a quarter of the entire tax bill. Is that not enough? It's actually increased from 25% since Labour left power, despite the fact that people think the Tories gave the rich a tax cut.

quarky

Snap said:

Example - household one - one parent working, salary 48k, paying 40% tax on the over threshold amount (6k ish). Other parnet at home, kid raising etc,

Household 2 - two parents working, say 35k each, paying only 20% tax rate on all income. Not right.

That is pretty much my scenario. My wife doesn't work because it works having her at home to sort out the kids, dog, and house, but I am not sure that we should be worse off for trying to do the right thing. In France the tax would be calculated for the couple, which seems more difficult, and more open to abuse, but probably fairer.

lloyd

Snap said:

Yes, I think the less well off should be supported by the better off, for sure. That for me is part of a decent way of life. I just think the current 3 tier tax system doesn't work right, and it jars with my own values. The wealthier DO support the less wealthy, massively actually. When you look at the numbers its staggering in terms of how much the uber rich contribute overall.

The thing is, the 40% tax rate hits loads of people. It used to be only the select few hit it, but I think in Gordon Brown's tenure as chancellor, something like 2 million more people slunk into the 40% band. It nullifies most middle earner's pay rises totally. If you and I were running the shop, and I had to compromise on a tiered taxation method, I'd say OK, but raise the 40% threshold to 100k.

Removing the rate, or highering it just allows people to get more of their earnings, and then this in turn puts the money into society via a different route. The government gets it through VAT (for example). But the difference is, people FEEL better. When you feel better, you tend to spend more, so the money comes in, just via a different door.

Ok so we're arguing (discussing) where the threshold should be. There will be different sweet spots for different people.

quarky

CabbageCat said:

If I were an alien looking at this system I think I would question why attitude of the bottomies towards the toppies is one of hostility when gratitude would seem to be most logical.

Because the really rich could help out a hell of a lot more and barely even notice?

I am obviously not a commie/leftie, but I also like to think that aliens have done away with a system where people can have way more assets than they could ever need, while in other parts of the world, people are dying of starvation and expose.

lloyd

digitalscream said:

lloyd said:

digitalscream said:

lloyd said:

I personally can't understand how why anyone would want those on the lowest wages paying into the tax system the way they do and have done for the last x amount of years.

Those on the lowest wages don't pay into the tax system, though. That's the point of the tax-free allowance.

Jesus, more semantics.....Ok The lowest bracket of wages, under 14k, whatever you like. 

It's not semantics at all - it's the very core of your argument. Can you explain why you've chosen £14k as the cutoff point, or is it arbitrary?

EDIT: Besides, your argument is that the top/privileged should pay more. The top 0.7% of earners in this country pay over a quarter of the entire tax bill. Is that not enough?

Semantics is explaining to me that the very lowest earners don't pay into the tax system, yeah you're right the very lowest don't. I'm talking about a bracket of the lowest earners-up to about 14k as should have been obvious from my previous posts....

My very quickly thrown together breakdown of living costs should show you why I've chosen around that figure, also the minimum wage is around £7 which at 40 hours a week would equal around 14k.

Finally on a personal level I've earned shitty wages 12k-14k and struggled to get by week to week and have earned 20k+ and I know that I'd prefer to lose out on £16 p/m now than to lose £16 p/m back then....I'd be happy to pick up the slack for past me so would be happy to pick up the slack for some poor bastard struggling like I was.

Fretwired

quarky said:

CabbageCat said:

If I were an alien looking at this system I think I would question why attitude of the bottomies towards the toppies is one of hostility when gratitude would seem to be most logical.

Because the really rich could help out a hell of a lot more and barely even notice?

I am obviously not a commie/leftie, but I also like to think that aliens have done away with a system where people can have way more assets than they could ever need, while in other parts of the world, people are dying of starvation and expose.

Define rich. You can be rich, but are asset rich and cash poor. You could be in the Times top 100 wealth list but your money could be in shares held by your company - it's notional wealth until you sell the shares and turn them into cash.

The super rich will just piss off to warmer climates - everyone has a go at Tory Lords yet still buy records by the Rolling Stones, Clapton, ELP, Led Zep, Rod Steward and watches Sean Connery films .. in the 70s they all pissed off to the US to save tax yet they don't get slagged off.

digitalscream

quarky said:

CabbageCat said:

If I were an alien looking at this system I think I would question why attitude of the bottomies towards the toppies is one of hostility when gratitude would seem to be most logical.

Because the really rich could help out a hell of a lot more and barely even notice?

I am obviously not a commie/leftie, but I also like to think that aliens have done away with a system where people can have way more assets than they could ever need, while in other parts of the world, people are dying of starvation and expose.

I'm on higher-rate tax, and I'm not rich - certainly not enough to be giving a boatload of money to . Neither are the 1 million-ish people who've found themselves in the same bracket in the last 7 or 8 years.

With that said...I presume that you're not counting all the additional help that people get in terms of benefits? A single parent, for example, with one child and earning £14k per year gets an additional £7,500 in tax credits, child benefit etc to make their equivalent salary £25k.

I'd call that significantly helping out those people.

quarky

No, I am not talking about high-rate tax payers, but people with (say) £50m+ of assets, either in their names, or the names of their owned companies. I am sure they can afford to pay a little more tax, and I would hope that if aliens visited, they would be fairly quick to point out the ridiculousness of it given the bigger picture.