Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, apelike said:

 

BTW The rich are also subject to the same taxation on alcohol, fuel and tobacco and are not exempt.

 

 

And it's a far lower percentage of their earnings.

20 hours ago, apelike said:

But if that person, like me does not have a vehicle, or smoke and brews his own beer then who do you think? You also ignore the fact that many people actually use public transport to commute. However the person in your hypothetical situation who pays the higher percentage of income tax on their earnings is the rich man and not the poor one. Don't forget the thread was about personal allowances and taxation on earnings not about hypothetical situations that may or may not happen. It was Thatcher that changed the way tax was generated from the old fashioned socialist way of taxing the hell out of everyone with income tax to a more balanced way. The idea behind it was to lower the direct taxation on earnings making the individuals tax burden less and increase indirect taxation instead to compensate, which proved to be a success. 

 

BTW The rich are also subject to the same taxation on alcohol, fuel and tobacco and are not exempt.

 

 

VAT increases and duty increases meant that the lowest paid / unemployed paid a far greater proportion of their spend on taxation than previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Longcol said:

And it's a far lower percentage of their earnings.

VAT increases and duty increases meant that the lowest paid / unemployed paid a far greater proportion of their spend on taxation than previously.

 

Are you suggesting a future system in which the less well-off pay a lower rate of VAT, Fuel Duty, etc....?  Love to see how that would work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cyclecar said:

 

Are you suggesting a future system in which the less well-off pay a lower rate of VAT, Fuel Duty, etc....?  Love to see how that would work. 

How about a system where a higher rate of VAT on non-essential or high value goods?

Not an easy thing to do, but we already have some foods at zero VAT, now that we have left the EU there is no excuse, as we are able to set what rate we want.

We could have the first £200 VAT free on our domestic energy, that would help. We could have a higher VAT rate on luxury goods such as jewelry and high value vehicles, a 4% increase to match other nations.

Edited by El Cid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, El Cid said:

How about a system where a higher rate of VAT on non-essential or high value goods?

Not an easy thing to do, but we already have some foods at zero VAT, now that we have left the EU there is no excuse, as we are able to set what rate we want.

We could have the first £200 VAT free on our domestic energy, that would help. We could have a higher VAT rate on luxury goods such as jewelry and high value vehicles, a 4% increase to match other nations.

The percentage basis rather than fixed amount of the current VAT system already does the job if hitting the higher spenders with higher tax naturally. 

 

Its basic maths that somebody buying 20p smart price chocolate biscuits from Asda is going to be paying less VAT than someone buying a £12.95 box of handmade freshly baked belgian chocolate biscuits from Fortnum and Mason.

 

Somebody buying an entry level Kia at £6,500 is going to be paying less VAT then someone purchasing a Lamborghini at half a million pounds.

 

A person having to heat a two up two down terraced house is going to be paying far less VAT on their fuel bills then some millionaire living in their 8 bedroom mansion.  

 

You seem to be advocating people buying items which have some completely arbitrary label of excessive luxury get penalised twice. They already pay more VAT £amount because their item has a higher price tag but then you want them to get slapped with extra tax for some completely simplistic and jealousy ridden reason that if they can afford to purchase X item in the first place, they must be "rich" and deserve to be penalised even more.

 

So, those "rich" people suddenly choose to stop buying those "uber-luxury" goods on regular basis, the businesses suffer and of course the VAT income drops through the floor.

 

Then, what about all those poor low income earners who scrimp and save for months and years to be able to treat themselves to a luxury vehicle or piece of home electronics or piece of jewellery. What a nice way of suddenly making it even harder or in are some cases completely impossible to achieve.

Edited by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ms Macbeth said:

Child benefit is no longer universal.   If one parent earns over £50k their eligibility changes, and they may lose part of it. 

 

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-tax-charge/your-circumstances-change

Thanks for that I didn't realise it had changed for high earners. I doubt people earning over £50k would be too worried though.

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Longcol said:

And it's a far lower percentage of their earnings.

That is true but does not really mean much except in relative terms the rich earn more than the poor which skews the data. It's also the same when talking about relative poverty and being poor.

 

Quote

VAT increases and duty increases meant that the lowest paid / unemployed paid a far greater proportion of their spend on taxation than previously.

That really depends on what they buy. When it comes to the basic essentials such as food, drink, clothing, health, books and a lot of other essentials are VAT free. VAT is then paid on non essentials such as alcohol, tobacco and transport fuel and when it come to electricity and gas that is low rated at 5%.

 

 

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

You seem to be advocating people buying items which have some completely arbitrary label of excessive luxury get penalised twice. They already pay more VAT £amount because their item has a higher price tag but then you want them to get slapped with extra tax for some completely simplistic and jealousy ridden reason that if they can afford to purchase X item in the first place, they must be "rich" and deserve to be penalised even more.

We already have a variable tax rate.

Most fresh food is zero rate, but not cooked food.

Domestic energy is rated at 5%

Tobacco and vehicle fuel around 65%?

Aviation fuel is zero.

Standard VAT rate is 20%

Biscuits and cakes are treated differently, so we have different rates already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primemover 70 again . . . I am a pensioner on supposedly index linking (whose goalposts are regularly sought for moving/changing) . . . Occ pensionwise I now find myself 6.5 pence a week worse off ! . . . Incidentally, I note that Civil Service pensioners' 0.5% 2021/22 increase remains at that rate until 2026 . . . Bet that wasn't touted by our wonderful media !  . . . Be humble sire, be humble . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/05/2021 at 01:44, El Cid said:

You seem like an honest person.

 

Taking into account that a poor person pays a large proportion of his erning in 60% fuel tax, 70% on tabacco/alcohol tax and that a proportion of a high earners tax is avoided ; who do you think pays a higher percentage of tax from their earnings?

A proportion of high earners tax is avoided? 10% of the population pay over 60% of the taxes received. how much more do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, primemover70 said:

Primemover 70 again . . . I am a pensioner on supposedly index linking (whose goalposts are regularly sought for moving/changing) . . . Occ pensionwise I now find myself 6.5 pence a week worse off ! . . . Incidentally, I note that Civil Service pensioners' 0.5% 2021/22 increase remains at that rate until 2026 . . . Bet that wasn't touted by our wonderful media !  . . . Be humble sire, be humble . . . 

Is that the state pension or and extra private one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/05/2021 at 13:31, apelike said:

Thanks for that I didn't realise it had changed for high earners. I doubt people earning over £50k would be too worried though.

One earner bringing in over £50k is penalised, two earners in the household each earning £40k then the family becomes eligible for CB. 

 

Income tax is nearly always applied to the individual, whilst means tested benefits are based on household income.  🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.