Should the Lower Rate of Income Tax be 40%

[ChilledOut79]

I have read so many posts over the recent Months regarding adding VAT to education provision & Labour tax plans.

All these posts seem to have recurring theme to tax "someone else" more, so the net contributors (who already subsidise net recipients through tax take), have to pay even more in the name of funding the NHS/state schools etc.

It seems to me, If funding services are that much of a priority, we should increase the base rate of income tax to 40% for everyone.

This would fund all vital services and ensure all mainstream tax payers have the same skin in the game.

Some shocking lack of understanding of how tax works on this thread.

Because they earn more?.

What you are suggesting is equally shared, not equitably shared. There’s a difference.

Parents of privately educated kids are doing themselves no favour on this topic on MN. They seem to be hilariously ignorant about how they are coming across.

What drivel.

We are all going to have to pay more. I'm perfectly happy with that, although I have a good income. Lots of people are happy to pay their share.

Your tone is dreadful.

@LiterallyOnFire Ironic really. I would imagine majority of net contributors to society (from a tax take perspective), would think the tone of entitlement from net recipients to contributing more, is awful.

Something tells me you're a 40% tax payer with kids in private education.

All I can say is thank god you're not in charge.

Nope. You just sound very odd.

If my assumptions are correct about what's coming on 30th Oct with regards to pension taxation, out of my full time work (extremely long and stressful hours) one day a week I'll be working for not too much over NMW rate. That will be the impact of Labour tax on me.

What I will do instead is go part time. I'll lose a bit, but the total tax take from me will reduce very considerably vs what I pay now. If many higher rate taxpayers do the same (and many over 50s are able to), the total impact will be very substantial.

It's the same as 15% of PS kids moving to state will bring net loss to HMRC.

If that assumption makes you feel a little better...😂

It certainly has the same energy as some of the angrier threads about VAT on school fees.

@LiterallyOnFire

What is unreasonable, (or angry), about having a position that everybody should pay more to fund services.

As I say, particularly when the cohort shouting loudest for them, currently contributes the least?

Their response that they can't afford to pay more & others can do, but never scream about the mis management of budget to begin with speaks volumes.

What makes you think the minority, can viably keep paying more to fund net recipients?

In real terms, or regardless of inflation? I ask because the impact of fiscal drag in the last few years has been significant.

I think that’s too much but we should get rid of tax free allowance

Absolutely not. And 40% tax is already vastly unfair for higher earners.

At some point they will realise that VAT is usually a tax that disproportionately affects the poor. So most people aren’t going to be massively concerned about VAT being added to something which is overwhelmingly accessed by the richest 10%.

Also, and correct me if I’m wrong, but if you take all forms of tax in this country into account don’t the poorest pay a greater % of their income in tax than the richest? And I’m fairly certain that has got worse under the Tories.

Double the personal allowance to say £25k and everyone pays 40% tax - that would be fairer

What makes you think the minority, can viably keep paying more to fund net recipients?

That's just a very strange construct. All the citizens belong in the society, not just the ones who can pay a higher membership fee. A society of only wealthy people wouldn't function. (Who would clean, care, mend?) That's why we don't and can't have a flat rate high membership fee.

In any case you're conveniently ignoring the other taxes that most citizens pay and the non monetary contributions they make.

It's hard to believe that thinking adults could believe the whole "net contributor" model. It's playground stuff.

No. Everyone is taxed the same on their first 50k. After that if you choose to earn extra then it's only a higher rate on the surplus income.

Yes you're right @RafaistheKingofClay

Or another model is no personal allowance and we all pay tax including pensioners

@LiterallyOnFire

Your interpretation is stranger.

The points you make about contribution are irrelevant, as public services need the funding.

A minority of society are already paying more than their share, and at some point will not be able to pay more.

To think the solution isn't that everybody should pay more, is astounding.

I don't think you'll get far saying min wage workers should pay more tax because higher band tax payers are struggling to make ends meet.

Earning that kind of money gives you more choice than earning min wage. The sort of choices like, downsizing your property if you need to. Where do you economise if you're on minimum wage and you have nothing to economise? And then you're expected to pay more tax because the poor rich people can't pay the lease on their brand new car anymore?

It's laughable really.

I would pay a little bit more tax for better services as a "normal" band tax payer but I'd be reluctant to if it was sold to me that I needed to subsidise people earning twice my wage.

And it's not "perceiving they have more" ffs, they do have more.

Are you Liz Truss?
This sounds like one of her batshit ideas.

And a significant chunk of the population already in poverty into destitution.

I'm guessing this ridiculous idea has been dreamed up by someone who pays 40% tax and resents it.