Time to raise 40% tax bracket to 100k per year?

[Deerobe 10]

Wasn't having a go at you - and I do secretly agree we are generally being robbed by the governmant/councils

 

Suggestions - don't shop at asda...use lidl/aldi and netto......but even then you have to be careful as they also have some very expensive items. ASDA as usual ndidn't have any fresh bread this evening...they do have the odd cheap electical item though.

 

I think in London it would be much worse for you, the cost of rent is unbelievable..for example you may get a 1 bed flat (I mean a really old one, not safe and not nice) for 1000 quid a month, excluding bills.

 

But bear in mind if you think you have it bad..the lower bracket have just had their taxes doubled....

 

Sorry I did not think you were having a go and certainly did not intend to convey that thought when writing my reply.

 

On the topic of shops.... Once a month I check the prices at the leading supermarkets and spread my shop across the cheapest. Whilst Netto is very cheap for certain items you need to beware. For example flour is 46p in Netto, 38p in Somerfield, 76p in the co-op and 35p in Asda and Tesco. so Netto is 11 p (approx 32%) more expensive. For butter Netto, Lidl and Aldi are charging 89p and Asda are charging 75p (sometimes 50p). This week Sainsbury's are very reasonable on vegetables. So basically I shop around on the internet first then decide where I am going. It takes me hours but it is the difference between eating a decent healthy diet and living on pasta and cheap junk food.

 

I am well aware that many others are far worse off than me and I remind my son of this when he is complaining because I am telling him I don't have the money for things he wants to do.

 

When I said go to London I did not mean move to London. I spent two years commuting and staying in an hotel or with friends. When I do this I am working on contract so all my travel and overnight accommodation costs whilst in London are tax deductible. This makes a big difference to my financial position and my travel costs for London are lower.

 

My other alternative is to seek work in a country such as Canada, Holland or Belgium where there are tax breaks for people in certain roles that they are unable to fill due to skills shortages.

 

Finally I could sell up here and go and live somewhere like Jamaica and work on the Internet. My skill set is totally transferable to just about anywhere in the world and my industry standard qualifications are acceptable anywhere in the world.

 

Now where is this all leading you may ask yourself?.... well unless the government does something to alleviate the middle classes, who have acquired the skills this country requires, the middle classes will increasingly find other countries to work in. There will be a massive brain drain and the country will be in an even worse state and the lower paid and those on benefits will be even worse off because there will be less money to go around.

[taxman 12]

 

Basically No One wants to pay income tax that is also true.

 

Any politician, from any party, will always avoid going into fine detail regarding taxation. It is something no one wants to pay but something that everyone wishes to share the benefits of it being paid.

 

 

Basically no-one wants to pay any sort of tax, but without a system of taxation we'd not have the money to waste spend on wars.

 

The argument about cutting the higher rate of tax leading to less tax avoidance is an interesting one. Personally I'd just prefer stronger anti-avoidance laws. Most people in this country pay what they owe through PAYE, they moan about it and criticize the government, but they pay it.

 

Every company like Tesco, or the company HMRC sold all its buildings to, who take advantage of loopholes to avoid paying tax are placing more of a burden on everyone else to maintain the Govt coffers.

 

As an aside we were told this week that the credit crunch will inevitably lead to us not collecting as much tax this year as in previous years. Good job I don't work on commission (although some people think I do)

[cloudybay 17]

Successive governments seem to be hell bent on means testing.

 

Means testing is not only demeaning but counter productive.

 

It negates self responsibility and replaces it with state reliance.

 

It also costs a fortune to administer.

 

Tax Credits are a prime example.

 

They're not 'Tax Credits' but means tested benefits.

 

A simple tax free allowance of say 10K per year per person plus non means tested child benefits might be a starting point.

 

Any system that provides a disincentives for people to earn more is nothing other than grossly stupid.

[taxman 12]

Tax credits have been a nightmare, both for many of the recipients and for the stupid, inept department that hands them out...erm.....

[jezzyjj 10]

If I was on 22% it would cost me half of this, the unfair bit is if I earned £1 over the 40% threshold, this would cost be £1200 per year, crazy!!

Actually you would only pay an extra 18 pence!

You only pay the 40% rate on the money earned over the threshold. So 40 % of £1 is 40p, compared to the 22% rate below the threshold.

 

This is from 2006 before the recent changes, but the principle is still the same

First £5,035 at Nil

Next £2,150 at 10%

Next £31,150 at 22%

Any excess at 40%

 

So with those figures you only pay 40% tax on any income over £38,295.

[cloudybay 17]

Tax credits have been a nightmare, both for many of the recipients and for the stupid, inept department that hands them out...erm.....

 

You are quite right.

 

HMRC should deal with the collection and inspection of taxes.

 

They were never ment to pay benefits.

 

That honour belongs to the DWP.

[Albert T Smith 10]

Oh, there's no doubt Scargill was spot on, but as a leader he was as dumb as a dingo.

 

A leader does not take his mean into a war with a superior power unless he's a nutter.

 

He had a choice and made the wrong one to take on the authorities - mind you it just showed the other trade unions were as defunct as a nun in a brewery.

 

Look what's happened to the other trade unions now?

 

Scargill did not make key decissions they were made by the Executive Committee of the National Union of Mineworkers.

 

He got instructions to carry them out to the best of his ability, which he did.

 

 

This he did.

[Gazza 10]

Actually you would only pay an extra 18 pence!

You only pay the 40% rate on the money earned over the threshold. So 40 % of £1 is 40p, compared to the 22% rate below the threshold.

 

This is from 2006 before the recent changes, but the principle is still the same

First £5,035 at Nil

Next £2,150 at 10%

Next £31,150 at 22%

Any excess at 40%

 

So with those figures you only pay 40% tax on any income over £38,295.

 

My scenario was based on a fuel card, the fuel card would be taxed at 40% if you crept £1 above the 40% bracket in the prev year.

[Cyclone 10]

I think it is time the government changed the limit at which you are charge 40% tax to those earning over 100k per year, it's not fair to people who earn less than this that have to give 40% of their earning to subside the poor.

 

lol, not a small change then. From 38k to 100k just like that. Massively slashing the tax bill of someone who is on 100k (4 times the average salary).

 

How do you propose that the treasury actually finance that massive tax reduction they'd be giving to people who don't need it?

 

If you'd suggested reviewing the threshold and maybe moving it 5 to 10 k, maybe it would sound reasonable, but nearly tripling the threshold, sounds a bit like you haven't thought through the implications.

[scargill 10]

lol, not a small change then. From 38k to 100k just like that. Massively slashing the tax bill of someone who is on 100k (4 times the average salary).

 

How do you propose that the treasury actually finance that massive tax reduction they'd be giving to people who don't need it?

 

If you'd suggested reviewing the threshold and maybe moving it 5 to 10 k, maybe it would sound reasonable, but nearly tripling the threshold, sounds a bit like you haven't thought through the implications.

 

the higher rate of tax has remained the same for a number of years, if the threshold had moved with inflation then it would be around £62k. Leaving at £34,600 ensures every year more and more people fall into the higher bracket, so keeping it level is actually increasing tax revenue.

[Cyclone 10]

I don't know if 62 is correct, but the principle definitely is. Still not close to suggesting it should be 100k though.

[Cyclone 10]

Hmmm.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_structure/table-a2a.pdf

 

A bit of research seems to indicate that actually the higher tax bracket threshold is regularly reviewed.

In 1990 it was 20700, with the exception of the early 90's it's risen every year to the current 34,800.

I can't be bothered to take the 20.7 and compound inflation on it from then until today, but it looks like it is adjusted roughly in line with inflation.