Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    Why should non-wealthy people only pay 20% then? It's just unfair to people who have worked hard.
    Are you assuming that some people are rich simply because they work hard, and others are not rich simply because they are lazy?

    (Original post by Trinculo)
    How is someone earning £200,000 and paying 40% tax on 80% of their earnings not being unfairly treated compared to someone on £20,000 paying 20% on half their earnings and 0% on the rest?
    Because that 200,000 earner is not working 10 times as hard as the 20,000 earner, and simply earns to much more because they can take advantage of how our society is structured. They didn't magic their 200,000 out of nowhere. The country they live in provided them with the opportunity to make that 200,000, and they should certainly contribute back to it.

    (Original post by Trinculo)
    The tax burden is overwhelmingly on higher and middle earners. Low earners contribute next to nothing
    The tax burden should certainly not be on those who have the least to give..
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Because they're more able to pay. The cost of living doesn't scale with wage, someone on a £200,000 salary is vastly more capable of paying tax than someone on a £20,000 salary. A loss of a few thousand on a £20,000 salary could be ruinous, a loss of a few thousand on a £200,000 salary would be barely noticeable. So of course the tax burden is overwhelmingly on higher and middle earners because they're the groups that are actually capable of paying significant taxes. If you're struggling to make ends meet you're hardly going to be contributing a huge amount in terms of tax, are you? Even after tax, you're still earning a huge amount if you're on a six figure salary. I have no idea what you're complaining about.
    I beg to differ, you'll find the 'mo money, mo problems' saying is quite apt here.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Congrats, you've discovered taxes!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They are always a shock when one starts work. :teehee:

    I hope to one day have the problem that OP describes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Contributing back into society isn't a punishment, it's collective responsibility. As much as wealthy people would like to believe that their success is theirs and theirs alone, this is a falacy that simply exists to serve their egos and justify their excesses. In reality their success relies fundamentally on the infrastructures that have been put in place through taxation, i.e. an educated and healthy workforce, transportation infrastructure etc.
    This is not true. Success is primarily genetic and government spending is almost all socially wasteful.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    This is not true. Success is primarily genetic and government spending is almost all socially wasteful.
    Ok. Are you suggesting that if we took Donald Trump, and took away all his resources, and then gave him a job as a £7 an hour healthcare assistant in a hospital, he would somehow turn into a billionaire again? After all, he would still have the same billionaire genes!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fred5134)
    Ok. Are you suggesting that if we took Donald Trump, and took away all his resources, and then gave him a job as a £7 an hour healthcare assistant in a hospital, he would somehow turn into a billionaire again? After all, he would still have the same billionaire genes!
    I don't know about a billionaire because part of Trump's wealth is inherited, but I think he would easily become a multimillionaire. Trump has come back from bankruptcy in the past. I doubt he would ever show up at the hospital.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Being generally a fan capitalism with some sympathy towards libertarianism, I can understand with the views that greater success should not increase your tax burden as much as it does currently in the UK. I do think there is some envy & outright hatred of the rich from certain sections of society, generally on the left, who believe it is impossible to obtain that much wealth without abusing other workers. Therefore, they've developed the attitude that the majority of, if not all, rich people are automatically further along the "evil scale" than someone who isn't rich.
    In reality there will always be some rich, ruthless CEOs & other types of businessmen/women who don't care about others & are only really motivated by money & their job position/status. But I do think this view isn't true of the rich as a whole.

    In a capitalist economy like the UK, the less well off & the rich need each other - companies the rich create provide jobs while the workforce then spends their wages on goods & services. It's been proven by various studies that people who are less well off are more likely to spend any extra money they earn whereas the rich are more likely to keep hold of it. So, even from purely an economic point of view, it makes sense to tax the wealthy more than the poor.

    It does seem that the stats can be manipulated to show that the rich pay a higher burden in terms of sheer numbers whereas the poorest 5th pay more of a percentage of their income depending on the source as these two links show:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...on-rich-incre/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10353982.html

    Personally I'd like to see a further reduction in income tax for all but mostly for those on the lower wages. It's good to see the government increasing the annual Personal Allowance (I think you can now earn something like £12,000 without paying income tax on it). I'd like to see this increased further. Although I do think trickle-down economics works in the long term, I think the trickle-up works far quicker & is more effective: it gives the less well off more disposable income which in turn creates more demand in the economy which should lead to more jobs being created.
    In general, I don't have too much of an issue with inequality increasing as long as everyone is getting better off & that people from lower & middle class backgrounds get opportunities to get good careers.


    TLDR - I agree tax should be reduced but tax cuts for the less well off should definitely take priority.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    If you earn £100000 a year, your take-home pay is only £65467 after income tax and national insurance. So you literally lose more than a third of your income to the government. Surely this is really unfair to those who have worked really hard. I would much prefer it if everyone just paid 20% of their income in tax
    I completely agree, we should introduce fairer, flatter taxes. It is unfair that our current tax system penalises success and ambition, a reduction to a 20% flat tax would encourage growth, encourage investment and would allow people to keep more of their money to energise the economy and encourage saving.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There should be an income tax of 10%, and nothing else.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    That's why most people work a system where their salary is less but they get a Christmas bonus, seems to work.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EzBB)
    I completely agree, we should introduce fairer, flatter taxes. It is unfair that our current tax system penalises success and ambition, a reduction to a 20% flat tax would encourage growth, encourage investment and would allow people to keep more of their money to energise the economy and encourage saving.
    (Original post by richpanda)
    There should be an income tax of 10%, and nothing else.
    Charging the poor the same tax % as the rich is not a fairer system. You are spouting propaganda.

    The rich have a tendency to sit on their money, and greatly reducing the tax on them is not going to encourage growth, investment in the amount necessary to make up for all the lost tax money. I am also curious about how you expect the country to not implode when you cut the tax revenue by something like over 2/3rds, which means the government will have to cut spending by over 2/3 which would destroy many jobs, causing huge unemployment.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    christ almighty

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There was a tax rate of 98% at one point....

    'With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£187,970 as of 2015),. In 1974 750,000 people were liable to pay the top-rate of income tax'

    In 1979 top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Yeah, taxes + NI is high in the UK aha, nothing new here. If you want lower taxes go work in Singapore, Dubai, HK, or Switzerland.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Life's good here
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EzBB)
    I completely agree, we should introduce fairer, flatter taxes. It is unfair that our current tax system penalises success and ambition, a reduction to a 20% flat tax would encourage growth, encourage investment and would allow people to keep more of their money to energise the economy and encourage saving.
    I'm by no means a leftie but this is so counterproductive towards the lower end of the scale. Progressive taxes make it very beneficial to work if you're poor and start getting out of the poverty and benefits trap.

    I'm a big fan of the 12,500 tax free allowance.

    You're saying that poor people should pay 2.2k on that 12.5, just so the rich can get more on their huge pay packets?

    Who do you think that helps more? I can tell you 2.2k is a LOT of money to someone earning 12k or so.

    SS
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    But I never knew they were this high. £100000 a year just seems not worth it anymore when you have to give any so much of it.
    You do realise £65,000 is still A LOT of money, right? Also, taxes pay for health, education and lots of other important things we need for a functioning society. Would you rather have £100,000 but have to pay for your child to go to primary school and pay for an operation, or have £65,000 which you can spend on whatever the **** you like


    This thread is stupid it's like saying "I earn £20,000 but after paying rent, taxes and bills it is less than this."
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Life's good here
    I can imagine.. Plus the strength of the franc vs weakness in the pound makes it even more enticing. Is cost of living as bad as people say?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by zayn008)
    That's why most people work a system where their salary is less but they get a Christmas bonus, seems to work.
    Really? The bonus gets hit at a higher marginal rate..

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    There was a tax rate of 98% at one point....

    'With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£187,970 as of 2015),. In 1974 750,000 people were liable to pay the top-rate of income tax'

    In 1979 top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%...
    And companies paid the income tax too. How people could make money in these times is a mystery.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, they should keep the taxation rate the same above a certain salary of course. People who earn more will pay more regardless but the proportion they pay will be the same.

    Assume taxation rate was 20% at all prices. A person earning 40k would take home 32k and a person earning 100k would take home 80k. The higher earning person lost more money, but proportionately is balanced out. The fact that at higher salary slabs you have a higher rate is ridiculous. It leads you to paying a MUCH higher amount then you should have to.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Surprised no one has mentioned that tax is a means of reducing inequality...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.