Advanced search

To think everyone should pay the same income tax?

(122 Posts)
bigch Fri 26-Oct-12 06:51:08

It seems unfair that the people who payed thousands for university, work full time to earn a higher wage or have their dream job are contributing more of a percentage of their income to the system than those who just wern't bothered or decided to have a lower key job.

20% of 100k is a lot more than 20% of £18k and they don't even use the same services such as public school, benefits, ect.

Not rich myself, decided to become a flight attendant because it was what I wanted, but my more hardworking richer friend shouldn't be paying more for my lazy ass to live, I do it fine on my own.

NickNacks Fri 26-Oct-12 06:52:40


And your reasons don't make sense.

<hands op hard hat. Fetches popcorn>

bigch Fri 26-Oct-12 06:54:04

Friend's a neurosurgeon by the way. Takes years of training, lucky she doesn't want children, it would be impossible to balance.

chickydoo Fri 26-Oct-12 06:57:27

You get taxed a lot more than 20% on 100k

mumblechum1 Fri 26-Oct-12 07:04:06

As chickydoo says, you'd pay a lot more than 20%. My dh gets zero tax allowance and pays 50% of part of his income and 40% on most of the rest.

tbh he doesn't resent it, although we have private healthcare etc. He grew up in extreme poverty and accepts that other people need money more than we do. Food, oil, logs, elec etc cost the same for us as for less well off people.

does your friend say that she resents paying a higher tax rate?

JeezyOrangePips Fri 26-Oct-12 07:10:32

There's not as much of a difference as you would think. At basic rate, people pay NI, (varies between 9ish and 12ish %, most people pay 12ish). At higher rate, they don't.

So you are really comparing 32% and 40%.

Don't see the problem myself!

(btw, higher earners pay less tax proportionally when things such as VAT and duty are taken into account.)

xkcdfangirl Fri 26-Oct-12 07:10:40

chickydo I think that's the OP's point.

If we followed your plan OP, the flat tax wouldn't be 20% but 25% or 30% as the lost tax from the rich would be taken from the poor. For every one rich person who would have a bit more cash for another holiday, there would be 10 or more people on low incomes who therefore had to pay more tax and were pushed over the border into penury and destitution. I would hate to live in a society that cared so little for it's weakst members.

JeezyOrangePips Fri 26-Oct-12 07:13:57

Actually that wasn't strictly accurate. People on higher rate pay 1% NI now, so it's 32% and 41%.

MissMyBellyButton Fri 26-Oct-12 07:19:48

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Brycie Fri 26-Oct-12 07:24:39

Oh my gosh you are assuming that everyone on a low income is lazy and everyone on a higher income is harder working. So you're completely wrong just because of that assumption! In universal terms of hard work I would go with care workers above just about every professional I know, including doctors and lawyers! Ok maybe that's a generalisation but basically any argument based on the idea that low income workers are lazy is not really worth anything at all. Sorry smile

JeezyOrangePips Fri 26-Oct-12 07:27:32

I wouldn't read too much into the 'lazy' comment. I know very hard-working flight attendants.

I suspect the op was really referring to ambition rather than anything else.

I could be wrong though.

Brycie Fri 26-Oct-12 07:27:59

Progressive tax is a great civilising force, providing it's no disincentive (so it brings in less as it rises) and providing it's matched by representation. What gets taxpayers goat (I bet) is not the progressive nature of tax, or that it's spent on helping less fortunate (as well as service supply) but that so much is wasted. But the waste of one person might be nuclear weapons, the waste of another might be benefit fraud, so it should even out.

Brycie Fri 26-Oct-12 07:29:17

Oh I see. Yes I understand that. Still I think the only argument is not to make progressive tax such a high marginal rate it becomes a disincentive.

JeezyOrangePips Fri 26-Oct-12 07:31:13

I wish I knew what you were talking about Brycie. If I did i'd know if I agree with you or not.

What is progressive tax?

Brycie Fri 26-Oct-12 07:35:06

It's how the rate of tax increases as the taxable amount increase. So earn 20 - pay ten per cent tax. Earn 40 - pay 30 per cent tax (on a proportion of income at least). Earn 150 - pay 45 per cent tax (on proportion of income at least)

I don't think those figures are the right UK figures at the moment but that's the idea. As oppposed to someone on 20 paying 20 per cent tax and someone on 150 paying 20 per cent tax.

Brycie Fri 26-Oct-12 07:36:33

The other kinds would be (I think I've got the names right here) a flat rate tax (ie everyone pays the same percentage) and a flat tax (where everyone pays the same amount). Flat tax is manifestly unfair that's why the poll tax triggered riots.

ChasedByBees Fri 26-Oct-12 07:41:15

Your sense of fairness, logic and reasoning are off but I'll let others deal with that.

Your idea doesn't make financial sense. Taxes pay for the upkeep of our roads, the police, schools, healthcare, science and research, a huge range of things that everyone uses. If we consider that currently higher tax rate payers would drop to a flat rate then the shortfall would need to be covered by everyone else. I imagine the amount would probably exceed many lower incomes. I might go and try and work out how much it would be actually...

honeytea Fri 26-Oct-12 07:41:48

Op yabvu, it's not just the low earners that your taxation idea will effect it is society as a whole, the more people living in poverty the higher the rates of crime there will be.

missmybellybutton don't be so mean, op wasn't asking you to correct her spelling, it would be like me saying to you it's a shame you couldn't go into any of the caring professions because your so mean!

impty Fri 26-Oct-12 07:42:01

I think most people who pay 45% tax realise that they are in a fortunate position.

bugster Fri 26-Oct-12 07:42:23

For me this is also an interesting point. My instinct is also that everyone should pay the same percentage, because as the OP says, 20% of £100K is a lot more than 20% of £20K. So the well off would always be contributing more than the less well off. From the point of view of fairness, that seems fair to me.

However, I suspect that just wouldn't raise enough funds for the public purse, so in practice the government try to squeeze more out where they can.

Not having lived in the UK for 10 years, I didn't know that higher rate tax payers don't pay NI. Is that really true, if so why? Where I live all taxpayers pay the equivalent of NI.

Interested in people's comments as I'm no economist!

lightrain Fri 26-Oct-12 07:42:34

Jeezy, what makes you think that higher rate tax payers don't pay NI? They do, at more than 1%.

JeezyOrangePips Fri 26-Oct-12 07:44:40

Thanks Brycie, I thought that might be it smile

JeezyOrangePips Fri 26-Oct-12 07:48:07

Sorry, you are right, it's 2% now, on anything above 40k per year.

my apologies. That must be reasonably recent.

MissNJE Fri 26-Oct-12 07:48:28

100% agree with you. I don't understand why people that did well should be punished and work for other people. Somebody on a high income is more likely to use private schools, private health insurance etc. anyway.

Its the people who avoid paying tax and the big tax avoiding companies that need to be tackled down.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now