The top 10% of taxpayers contribute 60% of income tax...

[MsPinkMarshmallow]

I'm fed up of hearing that "high earners" will be targeted by the next budget.

The top 10% of taxpayers pay 60% of income tax.

Don't piss them off. They'll just leave the UK or work less so they're taxed less.

Some more stats: in 2024-25, the top 1% of income tax payers earned 13.3 per cent of total income and paid 28.2 per cent of income tax

35% of adults in the UK pay no tax at all

More from the Taxpayers Alliance here:

https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/briefing_share_of_income_tax_paid_by_percentile

<stands back and awaits kicking>

"luck" - how? I'm lucky for being intelligent, hard working and having a drive to succeed? Applying, myself and succeeding?

If people wanted to make a measurable difference they can always use their "excess income" and help people locally.

Yes, intelligence is largely luck really. Genetics plus upbringing. And then there are all the other advantages that a relatively privileged background brings. Yes there are always exceptions, but there is a huge correlation between family background (income, education level, stability, connections) and future success. The on top of that there is the more familiar "right place, right time" kind of luck.

I think I've been very fortunate. Yes I've worked hard and show good judgement. But I dont kid myself that there's any guarantee I'd have done as well if I'd been born into a family with no money, no education and few aspirations for me. My parents were teachers, so there wasn't a huge amount of of money but we were comfortable and there was plenty of informed support.

Yes some people make it in the hardest circumstances, but it's a lot easier to make it from comfortable circumstances.

That's not exactly luck though is it. There is a wide debate on how much intelligence is genetic (inherited) of between 30 and 80% with a central view of around 50%. The rest being surroundings - family, school, friends etc.

And it is a reality that higher intelligence usually means higher incomes, which means that children of parents who are of high intelligence are a) inherit that intelligence and b) grow up in a wealthier environment.

If you really want to create equality then you need to force people with above average genetic intelligence to only have children with people with below average intelligence. But that's not going to happen in reality!

Everyone has the opportunity to make the best for themselves.

of course it’s luck. everything you desctbe, both genetics and environment, is luck. It’s not hard striving. Which is why some redistribution of income and wealth is only fair. Just not so much as to massively reduce the incentives to work. It’s a tricky balance.

Forced redistribution of income and wealth is theft.

I'm happy to have secured a transfer to the Dubai office.

A person's genetics, mind and body are intrinsically theirs. It's not a shared resource to be considered in some kind of 'fairness' balance for redistribution

The environment a parent provides for their child is a direct gift from the parent to the child: also not up for grabs in redistribution.

There is no moral case for redistribution appropriating a person's own intrinsic and family strengths.

That's not fairness: it's theft.

Thank you. I admit my previous message was harsh. I had a think. I would pay for public goods/services we all benefit from. Like police, army etc. (since I benefit as well). Educational as well, though all the people I know at state grammar are doing well.

I think those who are disabled need the money to help with their disability and support them into work. Those too disabled should be supported if proven they cannot work at all. I think in extreme life events and shocks people (especially single mums needs help to get them through the tough times). But I do generally believe in personal responsibility and not being reliant on the state. Usually welfare should be a last resort and temporary.

So let's take an example of a child that was born to two parents who were tall and sporty with a passion for say basketball. They then share that passion with their child and actively encourage/ support them in playing basketball.

The child then gets to become a top basketball player whereas the child born to short dumpy non sporty parents (like myself) don't. This has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with genetics and environment.

Maybe this is just semantics, but to my mind, genetics and environment are an example of luck, because they are not a result of our own effort and choices. And I think that those of us who are relatively lucky in genetics and environment have a duty to contribute more than those who are less lucky. Indeed, if you could truly tax genetics and environment, then it would be the perfect tax as it would not disincentivize hard work and creativity. The problem is that in practice you can't tax genetics and environment, so instead you tax income and wealth as a proxy. But that has the disadvantage of creating disincentives.

It wasn't pure chance that caused your basketball playing couple to give birth to a basketball playing child. But it was still lucky from the point of view of that child to have been born to that basketball playing couple and benefited from their genetics/environment, rather than a less favourable environment.

I guess we fundamentally disagree

I think you are absolutely right that this is just semantics. In my mind it wasn't luck that a tall male and tall female basketball player were drawn to each other, got married and had a child. This was a conscious decision based on shared interests.

Similarly wealthy professionals who are often genetically intelligent tend to consciously choose to marry other wealthy professionals who are often genetically intelligent, thereby having genetically intelligent children.

To me luck is a random chance or occurrence, like finding a £10 note on the pavement or winning the lottery.

Where if there is a conscious action like say hanging around ATM machines in case someone drops a £10 note then this isn't luck.

Yes, it would seem we do fundamentally disagree.

I believe the purpose of taxation is:

a) to fund shared state services, where those services are best funded and/or supplied by the state. Exactly which services is open to debate: but I'm happy with education, defence, government, policing/security. Probably healthcare (although I'd be OK with an insurance model for funding and the state providing the care - for efficiencies of scale and consistent quality - like France). Probably not utilities/infrastructure or housing ideally (government provision distorts incentives too much with those).

b) to provide a limited, universal, self-insured (by the state) insurance policy for each citizen against illness/disability/old age/unemployment. Limited in order not to impose an excessive burden (on taxpayers) for the cover, and in order to not distort incentives to work.

I'm happy for taxation to be progressive, so that the social provision (which should be kept as small as possible) is funded according to people's ability to pay: so long as everyone actually is contributing. It's far too skewed just now in the UK: significantly more so than any EU country, including the Nordic ones.

Redistribution from one group of people to another- consistently only one-way - 'just because' / so that everyone ends up with the same money/stuff is theft.

I think I agree on this as well. You summed it up really well

Change the word “achievement” for “privilege” and suddenly it becomes okey-dokey to take the fruits of people’s hard work and sacrifice off them.

It’s a good linguistic trick.

Sounds good.

Every time you succeed it's not due to hard work it's due to "privilege"

@strawberrybubblegumfor PM!

Indeed. People who live off the state are doing so for reasons entirely out of their hands and have never made a bad decision in their life, whereas high earners are in those positions entirely because of luck.

it’s weird how that happens.

Sounds utterly wrong & very much like the USA.

France hasn't an efficient healthcare system, its v admin heavy and the french tax burden is far above ours.
Its good because they pay more in and have done for decades.

The UK pays less as a proportion of GDP on Welfare than other comparable EU countries.

The privatisation of Utilities has been a disaster, sewage issues & a stream of water quality problems - see Kent right now.

I fully support the need for temporary emergency assistance as a last resort. People will need something but you can't be on UC forever unless there's health issues for you and your kids

I remember in the year 2000 the World Health Organisation said the French healthcare system was the best in the world. There are many other systems that do a lot better than the NHS with social insurance models.

I get your point about water but let's be frank. The water out of the tap is fine.

All these systems demand more from their tax payers, esp business, look what French employers pay towards Health Ins.

France also has big issues in getting staff into rural areas, 2000 is a long time ago.

Ask the people in Kent if water is fine? and then there is the cost, bills up by 60% because we are now paying twice for improvements.

Trains? Energy? hardly success stories.

The only privatisation that really worked out, was Telecoms, though now in my area, we have 3 sets of fibre cables, 2 over ground and one supplier who dug up all the all roads, now we ve pot holes :(
Plus side is i get a payment from BT and now from Wildanet for allowing installation of poles.

Fair point on the level of tax but the UK system needs to fundamentally change as well. If you look at different metrics per capita Vs % of GDP you get NHS spending above or below other countries just by varying the stats.

Trains - set up really badly. It's some weird hybrid mix that doesn't work.

Energy I'm unsure about. I don't think they much much profit on the retail end anyway.

We also didn't need the government to own and run British Airways.

It's a conscious action by the couple. It is not a conscious action by the child who was born to them and benefitted.