The Tories really are the party of low tax.

[Cyclone]

Because somebody told me they don't

 

And they also told you that they were a higher earner. I'm not sure manofstrad can be trusted you know, he's been known to fib before.

[chem1st]

"Progressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables. For example, when refundable tax credits and other tax incentives are included across the entire income spectrum,"

 

You can't consider isolated parts of the tax burden.

 

You also can't count.

 

0, 32, 52, 62, 52.

 

62 is an anomaly that could be removed by altering the boundaries, then you'd have 0, 32, 52. Progressive.

Benefits are not supposed to be an income, they have little place in a discussion about whether taxation is progressive or not, particularly when the focus is on the higher end of taxation.

 

If we are to consider the 50% rate of tax as a permanent measure.

 

If it's temporary and it's removed, then we will have 0, 32, 52, 62, 42.

 

As it stands we have, 0, 32, 52, 62, 52.

 

Neither are progressive.

 

And that's not even considering benefits and other forms of taxation.

 

The tax/effective taxes of those at the top is very relevant to the tax/effective taxes of the poor, especially if we are to consider a system's "progressiveness".

 

If a man can earn an extra £100k and receives only 48k after tax, he shall go out an earn that money.

If a man can earn an extra £1.00 and receive nothing, he will not.

[Conrod]

I . .

 

If a man can earn an extra £100k and receives only 48k after tax, he shall go out an earn that money. . . . .

Do you think it's right for somebody to pay more than half of their earnings in tax?

[chem1st]

Do you think it's right for somebody to pay more than half of their earnings in tax?

 

Personally I'd quite like to see a flat income tax of 50% and negative income tax/basic income.

 

I don't like seeing people pay a large share of their wages in income tax, and THEN pay 50% of their after tax income in rent for a small home (often smaller than minimum housing standards of the 60s - that are no longer in force, although new ones are being proposed in London). Then pay 7.5% of their after tax income in council tax, then pay 10% of their income on public-private transport (public subsidies and private profits) to get to work, and a further 2.5% in water rates, 10% on fuel and 10% on telecommunications, leaving them only 10% for food.

 

Council tax for a tenant (non property owner) would be 8% of after tax income for a person on £10k. For somebody on £100k it's 1.3%.

For a person who owns their own home outright it'd be 8% of after tax income for a person on £10k and 1.3% for someone on £100k.

Yet there would be the matter of 50% (for £10k earner) or 10% (For £100k earner) of income spent/not spent on rent.

 

Other taxes have to be considered. Of which there are many.

 

And benefits.

[I1L2T3]

Do you think it's right for somebody to pay more than half of their earnings in tax?

 

Out of interest how much do you have to earn before you pay over 50% of your earnings in tax? I don't mean where does the higher band kick in. I mean at what earning level are you taking home less than 50% of your earnings because of tax?

 

Edit: I just worked it out. The tipping point for 2011/12 is £922,000. Leaving a monthly take home of approx £37k

[Cyclone]

If we are to consider the 50% rate of tax as a permanent measure.

 

If it's temporary and it's removed, then we will have 0, 32, 52, 62, 42.

How do you get the 62 without the 50% income tax?

I think you might now mean

0, 32, 52, 42

 

As it stands we have, 0, 32, 52, 62, 52.

 

Neither are progressive.

Due to a small misalignment of the boundaries that could be easily removed.

Actually I've just looked it up and I think you've got it wrong anyway.

 

http://www.tax-calculators.co.uk/nibands.html

 

NI payments drop to 2% above £42500.

 

So your numbers now become 0, 32, 42, 52.

That's because the NI and the tax boundaries now line up completely, as you tip over from 20 to 40 % income tax, NI goes down by 10%, so you're 10% worse off.

Looks like it's perfectly progressive now doesn't it!

 

And that's not even considering benefits and other forms of taxation.

 

The tax/effective taxes of those at the top is very relevant to the tax/effective taxes of the poor, especially if we are to consider a system's "progressiveness".

 

If a man can earn an extra £100k and receives only 48k after tax, he shall go out an earn that money.

If a man can earn an extra £1.00 and receive nothing, he will not.

I'm not sure how that last bit is related to the topic.

[Cyclone]

Personally I'd quite like to see a flat income tax of 50% and negative income tax/basic income.

 

I don't like seeing people pay a large share of their wages in income tax, and THEN pay 50% of their after tax income in rent for a small home (often smaller than minimum housing standards of the 60s - that are no longer in force, although new ones are being proposed in London). Then pay 7.5% of their after tax income in council tax, then pay 10% of their income on public-private transport (public subsidies and private profits) to get to work, and a further 2.5% in water rates, 10% on fuel and 10% on telecommunications, leaving them only 10% for food.

 

Council tax for a tenant (non property owner) would be 8% of after tax income for a person on £10k. For somebody on £100k it's 1.3%.

For a person who owns their own home outright it'd be 8% of after tax income for a person on £10k and 1.3% for someone on £100k.

Yet there would be the matter of 50% (for £10k earner) or 10% (For £100k earner) of income spent/not spent on rent.

 

Other taxes have to be considered. Of which there are many.

 

And benefits.

 

You should have been voting lib dem then, they've long wanted a 'local income tax' to replace council tax.

Although you ignore the fact that the person on the high salary is likely to be in a property in a higher band for council tax assessment, so it's probably not as bad as you make out.

[Obelix]

How do you get the 62 without the 50% income tax?

I think you might now mean

0, 32, 52, 42

Due to a small misalignment of the boundaries that could be easily removed.

Actually I've just looked it up and I think you've got it wrong anyway.

 

http://www.tax-calculators.co.uk/nibands.html

 

NI payments drop to 2% above £42500.

 

So your numbers now become 0, 32, 42, 52.

That's because the NI and the tax boundaries now line up completely, as you tip over from 20 to 40 % income tax, NI goes down by 10%, so you're 10% worse off.

Looks like it's perfectly progressive now doesn't it!

I'm not sure how that last bit is related to the topic.

 

Just a little wrinkle in the ointment - the personal allowance is removed as you go over £100k so for every £2 over 100k your allowance drops by £1. This has the effect of bringing in that amount at 20% tax so for the bracket 100k to 115k (assuming you are on standard allowances) you have an effective surcharge of 10% on your income.

 

So it would be better to say it goes 0, 32, 42, 52, 42, 52

[percy filth]

Out of interest how much do you have to earn before you pay over 50% of your earnings in tax? I don't mean where does the higher band kick in. I mean at what earning level are you taking home less than 50% of your earnings because of tax?

 

Edit: I just worked it out. The tipping point for 2011/12 is £922,000. Leaving a monthly take home of approx £37k

 

You may well have a valid point there but it still doesn't address that very important question. Why would someone base their business in the UK to earn £37K/month when they could do exactly the same in a different European country and take home £40K?

[I1L2T3]

You may well have a valid point there but it still doesn't address that very important question. Why would someone base their business in the UK to earn £37K/month when they could do exactly the same in a different European country and take home £40K?

 

Many reasons. For example the UK has lax labour laws compared to other countries. Maybe more favourable company law too. It's swings and roundabouts I guess and while taxation is an important facet it isn't the only driver.