M413 – Tax Threshold Motion 2016 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
M413 – Tax Threshold Motion 2016, Jammy Duel MP
This House believes that the thresholds relating to income tax, national insurance, and council tax should be adjusted and index linked.

While it is admirable that Conservative led governments have in recent years increased the personal allowance others have been neglected in this shift, most notably the higher earners in society. Recently published OBR figures suggest that by 2021 469,000 people will be paying additional rate income tax of 45%, 1.5% of the population, a figure which will have doubled in just over a decade. In 2010 this figure sat at 0.75%, currently standing at 1.1%. The OBR predicts that the failure to increase the additional rate threshold will cost over £3bn per annum as these high earners engage in greater levels of tax avoidance.

This has also been observed with the 40% higher rate, although the proportional increases have not been as severe. Projections show that 4.6m people will be on this higher rate, earning more than £49,000 per annum in 2021, an increase of 6% on the figure today, itself 21% up on 2010.

This house therefore calls on the government to increase these thresholds in their next budget, and to ensure that they are increased, along with the national insurance thresholds and threshold at which the personal allowance is lost, at least as fast as average wage growth.

We have also seen council tax bands be left behind as house prices increase, with the average property now being in band G in all parts of the England, except London where the average property is band H, and the South East which joined London mere months ago, and Yorkshire and the Humber, where the average is only in band F but will also be bank G in less than a year at current rates, the East of England average due to hit band H in just over a year.

This is yet another method governments are using to increase taxation by stealth. We therefore call upon to government to revalue the bands to reflect the changes in house prices, set the bands by region, and to have these bands increase at least in line with the House Price Index.
0
cBay
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Translation: income inequality has doubled in the last decade, which is great so let's increase it even more.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by cBay)
Translation: income inequality has doubled in the last decade, which is great so let's increase it even more.
Which is why our GINI coefficient has been stable for the last quarter century, inequality has gone up soooo much that it hasn't gone up. Hell, I bet I could even find a way to show inequality has gone down over the last decade.

And let's not forget as much as you want to have more theft from the successful, they're the ones that are paying for everything, they're the ones are, all things told, losing a third of their income to the tax man, meanwhile over half the country are taking more out than they put in, a reliance on a small number is hardly sustainable, pushing them towards not paying even less so.

And I guess it's too much to ask for council tax cuts given Labour's past attempts to increase in by several hundred percent, but hey, you guys haven't tried to help the poor for decades.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
Not exactly fundamental tax reform. I like the idea of indexing though.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by Gladstone1885)
Not exactly fundamental tax reform. I like the idea of indexing though.
No, the fundamental reform was proposed last term internally and rejected in favour of more taxes and not bothering to fix the system (and the left certainly won't accept it if the supposed right wingers don't). This is a nice simple little thing to stop governments increasing taxes by stealth, with the proposed changes the statistically average person would see no changes in their council tax or direct tax without the government saying its changing, and they WILL hear about it (if a cut the government will rave about it, if increased the opposition will make sure you know).

Obviously the issue is that this average person doesn't exist. It's also worth noting that this will likely benefit the poor more than the rich. The poor are more likely to have property with slower value growth so have an effective slow cut in council tax, you've also got the protections on the national insurance threshold and personal allowance, meaning this trend of NI threshold never being increased (taxing the very low income by stealth) ends.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Aye.

As its a motion i'll ignore the individual specifics since i don't support indexing and i don't consider more people paying the 47% tax rate a bad thing (they are hardly poor and you've made an argument to reduce tax avoidance, not pander to rich people) however i completely agree with the rest of your motion.

(Original post by cBay)
Translation: income inequality has doubled in the last decade, which is great so let's increase it even more.
Income inequality has actually fallen since the Great Recession. Asset inequality is what has increased markedly largely as a result of rampant house price growth (the result of government intervention in the credit markets and planning law) and QE which has caused significant appreciation in the share prices.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
Change the motion to request indexing without requesting any specific tax rates and I might consider it.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Change the motion to request indexing without requesting any specific tax rates and I might consider it.
Not a single specific rate is requested.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Not a single specific rate is requested.
Ok, having read the motion more carefully, I may be happy to increase the threshold for the 'top rate', but I'm not happy to increase the threshold for the '45% rate'. I am also unhappy to commit to any net downward revisions of council tax at the top end, since Tory abuse has left councils woefully underfunded already.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Ok, having read the motion more carefully, I may be happy to increase the threshold for the 'top rate', but I'm not happy to increase the threshold for the '45% rate'. I am also unhappy to commit to any net downward revisions of council tax at the top end, since Tory abuse has left councils woefully underfunded already.
I repeat, nowhere are rates specified, merely thresholds.

It also seems odd to say that council tax shouldn't be cut due to reduced central government spending when you have, ummm, control over central government spending?
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I repeat, nowhere are rates specified, merely thresholds.

It also seems odd to say that council tax shouldn't be cut due to reduced central government spending when you have, ummm, control over central government spending?
If you commit to supporting increased funding for councils through increased top levels of income tax I will support this motion.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
If you commit to supporting increased funding for councils through increased top levels of income tax I will support this motion.
What do you think I am, a socialist?
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
What do you think I am, a socialist?
No, I just think you ought to admit this motion is a shameless attempt to give a subsidy to the rich.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
No, I just think you ought to admit this motion is a shameless attempt to give a subsidy to the rich.
Didn't realise you thought that the average Briton was rich, that would explain why all you lefties tried to increase their council tax by several hundred percent last year.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Didn't realise you thought that the average Briton was rich, that would explain why all you lefties tried to increase their council tax by several hundred percent last year.
It affects the top n%. It starts having an effect on middling earners; that is not its only effect.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
It affects the top n%. It starts having an effect on middling earners; that is not its only effect.
I don't think many people are covered by council tax exemptions (you got rid of those too)
0
Sternumator
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
Wage growth is at low levels and inflation is likely to increase next year. As someone else said, keeping the bands at roughly the same level in real terms is hardly a groundbreaking idea.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
No, I just think you ought to admit this motion is a shameless attempt to give a subsidy to the rich.
To be fair, re-rating council tax bands would be an enormously progressive move on a national scale.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by Rakas21)
To be fair, re-rating council tax bands would be an enormously progressive move on a national scale.
It's not something I will have the time to assess before this motion goes to vote, and forgive me for not wishing to take your/Jammy's word for it. Either way, I will take the ideas expressed in this motion into account in designing a budget, but I'd rather the House didn't pass it so I don't have to make some artificially toothless way to incorporate it if it turns out not to be progressive.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
It's not something I will have the time to assess before this motion goes to vote, and forgive me for not wishing to take your/Jammy's word for it. Either way, I will take the ideas expressed in this motion into account in designing a budget, but I'd rather the House didn't pass it so I don't have to make some artificially toothless way to incorporate it if it turns out not to be progressive.
You make it progressive... By making it progressive, in fact it's progressive (ish) to begin with so it's hardly a difficult feat.

And I know you haven't been in government for some time, but I'm still confused as to why it's such an alien concept that as the government you hold the purse strings, it's not like this is a bill already.

I'd also like to point out there is no obligation to act on motions, or even acknowledge their existence, as perfectly demonstrated by the last labour government who ignored either all or all but one or two motions that passed.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (221)
22.97%
Before I was 12 (346)
35.97%
13 (153)
15.9%
14 (111)
11.54%
15 (56)
5.82%
16 (36)
3.74%
17 (11)
1.14%
18 (8)
0.83%
Between the ages of 19 - 25 (15)
1.56%
Over 25 (5)
0.52%

Watched Threads

View All