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.

The question should be: should people pay more for the services they use.
Answer yes.
But this includes things like transport.
We need a car for work. Dh cannot get to and from work without one. It is written into my work contract that I have access to a car.
I pay as much in tax as someone lucky enough to have access to great public transport.
You don’t know how lucky you are if you can toddle along to a bus stop and expect there to be a bus every 10 minutes. We don’t have that.
So everyone drives here. Yet we pay towards other people’s public transport.
Health services are a bug bear of mine. There should be a cut on what services are given freely and to whom.
People should be expected to take responsibility towards their own health.
Only then should they be offered free help.
There are lots of people who take more than they put in, and people who pay more than then take.

@Holidayhell22 it’s a question of there but for the grace of god. You sound extremely blinkered.

Plus you could just move…

Oh yes I could move to London. Oh wait, I can’t afford to.
What a stupid statement.
That’s the same as saying to those who have terrible neighbours ‘well buy a house without neighbours.’
Yeah cos we can all afford to buy a house with acres of land.
Newsflash: I’m not in any position to move. I do like where I live by the way. I was pointing out how people pay for services they don’t use.
We either all pay for things we don’t benefit from, or we charge for those services.
In simple terms those are the choices.

Economically unviable.

I do think a 22% lower rate would be acceptable as long as the Personal Allowance was increased, then tax bands increased more gradually instead of a jump to 40%.

It's the wealthy tax evaders and tax-evading companies which need to be forced to pay their dues.

I think the problem is that services are so shite at this point that it feels like an absolute piss-take to be asked to pay more towards them. But they can't be improved until there's money in the pot to improve them, which needs to be generated from tax.

I think the way that companies and ultra-rich individuals evade tax needs clamping down on for sure, and many of the legal loopholes need closing. However, I also think that the state propping up otherwise unsustainably low wages through tax credits (now UC), and through paying housing costs to people housed by private landlords cannot continue long-term. But again, money - from borrowing or taxing - is desperately needed to help implement the changes.

I agree distinct I can’t get a doctor’s appointment. My dd left a & e after waiting hours to be seen. She couldn’t sit there any longer.
So it makes you angry that you are paying for services you cannot access.
Thus leads to a blame culture because sone people definitely take more than they pay in. Plus the last government wasted millions if not billions by handing out cash to their mates.

If you have gone to A&E and leave, you probably didn’t need to be there.

I can guarantee there won’t be any improvement in services with huge pay increases. The nhs is a mess and it’s not going to change with pay increases. GPS still won’t see you! How they work post COVID is a way of life. It’s not about to change.

But they can't be improved until there's money in the pot to improve them, which needs to be generated from tax

That's not true in fact. It is not like a household budget.

The Government can create money which can then be used for infrastructure, funding public services, which then goes back into circulation and boosts the the economy. Infrastructure projects mean creating jobs which then produce more income tax to go back to the Government.

The balancing act is stopping inflation getting out of control when money is created.

Where did she go after a&e? Did she get an urgent GP appointment instead?

A family member walked out of a&e who did need to be there, sent from the GP to a&e. They then received GP treatment instead, though (strong oral antibiotics rather than IV ones).

My family member walked out, fever may have affected their decision making though, they were then treated by the GP who had sent them to a&e.

Set the personal allowance at 40 hours @ NMW.

Set the 40% rate at twice that amount

And the 45% rate at three times that amount.

She rang her doctors surgery who said they had no appointments and could not see her.
This is common practice where we live.
A few years ago we were promised a new doctors surgery, along with a new school, when a builder built a vast housing estate in my town.
After building and selling these houses, the builder decided they would not be building the doctors surgery or the school.
It was Michael Gove who allowed them to rescind on their promise.
So now there are thousands more people all trying to access the same services in my town.
This is life for us.
I have friends who work in the A & E department. They say the service is on its knees.
I have friends who no longer work in the hospital. They couldn’t stand it any longer, lots of politics going on too.

Absolutely not! How on earth would it be fair to tax min wage 40% bonkers!

So what treatment did she receive after leaving a&e?

She had private treatment even though she isn’t well off by any standards. She used money she had saved for a house deposit. Until she could finally see the nhs doctor but the issue is not resolved.

Shop keepers and food vendors serve useful functions in our society.

You might not agree with the individual products being sold by all of them right now, but that's an entirely different debate.

Can you understand the principle of what I'm saying?

No, I can't.

You are trying to suggest that those who work lowly paid jobs are doing more necessary work than those that are paid more. This implies a level of value associated with different kinds of work and value is normally subjective.

Ok then.