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

Do you not think the upper tax bracket is extremely unfair? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The people who work harder than other people get their extra money taken off them and given to the people who cbb to work at all.

    I agree with the progressive tax system, with the wealthy being able to pay more in tax, but 40%? Why must half of everything someone earns go to the government for no apparent reason? I think it would be better by going 20% for £0 - £34,800, and 30% to people earning over £34,800. Maby even 40% for those earning over 60,000.

    What do you think?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conor C)
    The people who work harder than other people get their extra money taken off them and given to the people who cbb to work at all.

    I agree with the progressive tax system, with the wealthy being able to pay more in tax, but 40%? Why must half of everything someone earns go to the government for no apparent reason? I think it would be better by going 20% for £0 - £34,800, and 30% to people earning over £34,800. Maby even 40% for those earning over 60,000.

    What do you think?
    You're oversimplifying it a little. The higher-rate tax band only applies to income within that band, so everyone gets taxed at 20% on the first £37,400 of their income above their tax-free 'personal allowance' (this is the current threshold; £34,800 was the threshold for the last 'tax year'). So, it's not quite as bad as you make out.

    It's a difficult argument. I can understand that some element of redistribution of wealth is generally a good thing to give everyone a certain minimum standard of living, and people with higher incomes can afford to lose a greater proportion of their income to tax. However, money is a significant motivator (perhaps the only one for many people) behind working, and if this incentive is removed to too great an extent by high taxes this isn't a good thing either. I don't feel that the current threshold is too punitive - if we're going to have progressive tax there has to be a threshold [i]somewhere[i] - provided that there's evidence that tax money is used effectively and efficiently by the government.

    I'll admit that I've not got as fully-developed an opinion on this as others may have, so it could be interesting to see some other views (though I'm sure that this topic will have come up quite a few times in the past). I'll also point out (as by the sound of it you're not aware of this) that there's an imminent 'additional rate' of Income Tax, which will be 50% on income above £150,000 starting in the next tax year (i.e., from next April).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what about those that where in the 10p tax band? they now have to pay a significantly more amount when they are not earning anywhere near as much as those in the band above them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because a lot of people in the country are below the upper tax bracket and that allows socialist politicians to play off human nature and say they will tax the evil rich and their undeserved money because secretly all these people are jealous that they are not hardworking/ intelligent enough to be sucessful. That allows the socialists to get into office because everyone will vote for them to tax the rich. It may not be fair but whatever the majority want goes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So they can take lots of money from rich immigrants and use it to prop up the same people who claim that immigrants are sponging off their pitiful tax contributions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I know I wouldn't live in the UK if I made much more than £37,400. The tax rate in the United States, for example, is much more hospitable to wealthy citizens.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gloved_hand)
    So they can take lots of money from rich immigrants and use it to prop up the same people who claim that immigrants are sponging off their pitiful tax contributions.
    Someones had a bit too much to drink I see. :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Tax is the state-sponsored looting of the productive classes.

    I believe that was said by the blogger Guido Fawkes
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No, I don't think it's unfair.

    Why must half of everything someone earns go to the government for no apparent reason?
    Erm, it doesn't.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Im not sure that just because you earn more you necessarily work harder :/
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The top quintile of earners earn eighteen times on average the income of the bottom quintile.

    The bottom quintile do not necessarily work any less or work less hard than those in the top quintile, often they are simply consigned to menial jobs through stereotyping, such as much of the dis/abled workforce.

    I see no problem with progressive taxation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    My parents, their friends and many of my friends' parents earn lots, well over £50,000.

    Pretty sure all, or very nearly all (I really can't think of anyone that wouldn't be), are in favour of progressive taxation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not completely sure on the exact figures but from what I've read and heard its something like 50% if you earn over £150,000 a year. Now, I doubt if anyone here earns as much as that but just picture it? Working so hard for so long, just to have half of your earnings taken and stashed away by the government.

    In my opinion, progressive tax brackets are a good idea. But this Labour government has taken it too far. I'm thinking that when the Conservatives come back into power, the high earners will no longer be taxed as much, if not then, then definately after the recession providing the aforementioned change in Government leadership has taken place.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feza)
    I'm not completely sure on the exact figures but from what I've read and heard its something like 50% if you earn over £150,000 a year. Now, I doubt if anyone here earns as much as that but just picture it? Working so hard for so long, just to have half of your earnings taken and stashed away by the government.

    In my opinion, progressive tax brackets are a good idea. But this Labour government has taken it too far. I'm thinking that when the Conservatives come back into power, the high earners will no longer be taxed as much, if not then, then definately after the recession providing the aforementioned change in Government leadership has taken place.
    If they don't like it, they can leave.

    There are plenty of other nations out there, each with it's own tax regime.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's 69% in Denmark. Now that's extreme.

    I think it's too high, although I can understand progressive taxation.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feza)
    I'm not completely sure on the exact figures but from what I've read and heard its something like 50% if you earn over £150,000 a year. Now, I doubt if anyone here earns as much as that but just picture it? Working so hard for so long, just to have half of your earnings taken and stashed away by the government.

    In my opinion, progressive tax brackets are a good idea. But this Labour government has taken it too far. I'm thinking that when the Conservatives come back into power, the high earners will no longer be taxed as much, if not then, then definitely after the recession providing the aforementioned change in Government leadership has taken place.
    Read my post above - even for those earning in excess of £150k per year, it's not going to be 50% of their total income, but 50% of their income in excess of £150k.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No. Obviously people who are high earners work harder, on average, than people who don't. But this goes nowhere near explaining the huge income and (especially) capital discrepancies that exist. If you are a high earner, you are benefiting far more from the system than your peers. You benefit from things like a decent infrastructure, educated workers and a police/army to defend your property far more than a low earner does, so I think it is justified to expect you to pay more towards them.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    I agree that there are problems with progressive taxation, and specifically it demotivates people, which just isn't a good idea for a society thriving on capitalism. The incentive to earn more, to work harder, does evaporate when taxes are so high. People just think, "why bother?"

    But on the other hand, those societies that do have higher taxes for the rich do better. It's sort of an unavoidable conclusion. The Scandinavian countries are a good idea of this, particularly Sweden and Norway. Higher taxation, but it's fairer and the benefits exist for the whole of society, not just the lower earners.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feza)
    I'm not completely sure on the exact figures but from what I've read and heard its something like 50% if you earn over £150,000 a year. Now, I doubt if anyone here earns as much as that but just picture it? Working so hard for so long, just to have half of your earnings taken and stashed away by the government.
    Someone earning £150,000 would be taxed 33%.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.