So sick of hearing about tax increases

[Imjustwonderingnow]

I don't want to be taxed more - I pay a shitloaf already while big companies like Google and amazon get away with paying next to nothing. Nothing I can likely do about it but I'm concerned about the fallout for people all over when taxes increase. I'll manage - of course I will and so will many. But something isn't right if the top 0.5% won't get affected but the 9% that pay 60% of taxes will. Why do you think successive governments haven't dealt with tax for big corporations? If you are an economist or know a bit about this I'd love to know your perspective.
And once taxes are raised that's it - it won't come down again... unemployment is at 5 % already - its a catch 22 ... just ugh - needed a moan (sticks head in sand because what else can you do )

And that's exactly why productivity suffers in the UK

No, it's the other way around. Low growth means higher taxes. Cheaper housing would have a huge impact on productivity

I completely agree with your point that cheaper housing would massively benefit the economy. For example in Germany where housing is relatively cheaper, workers spend a lower proportion of their income on housing costs which means that they either spend it on goods and services or they save it which in turn gets reinvested in the economy.

However any political party that either claims to or is successful in reducing house prices is not going to be very popular with home owners that are the majority of voters.

Did he? I thought he said he wouldn’t cut taxes? There’s a difference.

June is old news.

Waiting lists are rising again. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqje5ljdnygo.amp

Are you a ‘high earner’?

Like most people I wouldn’t mind paying tax if it were spent efficiently -there should be a DOGE to oversee public spending. On another thread a poster complained that because her NHS dept had made savings their budget was cut for the following year /no sense of irony in her complaint, just more evidence that public sector is just a sponge to suck up as much as it can get regardless of need. We should be lauding those (very rare) rare public sector managers who went against the gravy train culture and actually made the savings.

This is just such a wrong-headed attitude shiwing a complete lack of understanding of the basics of living in a civilisation.

If a person has a job with a salary of £200,000 they are not "losing half their salary to pay for other people"

• They are doing a job that brings significantly over £200,000 of value to the business they work for, making it a good deal for the employer economically to spend that money
• that value to the employer does not exist in isolation. It exists because the business operates in a context of civilisation where millions of ordinary people on ordinary incomes must exist in order to create the world in which that business thrives, therefore the business needs taxes to be paid to support a thriving and integrated civilisation where ordinary people can thrive as well as the tiny number of higher earners
• the amount at which the salary is set does not exist in isolation but in a context where it is understood that the progressive tax system will apply so the company offers the £200,000 headline salary in the full knowledge that £82,213.60 of that is going to go to the state in order to pay for thr societal structures that enable the business to thrive, and the remaining £117,786.40 is what is actually going to the employee. The £82,213.60 of tax never truly belongs to the employee and is not being "lost" by them. If taxes were lower then market forces governing supply and demand would not have made the headline amount so high in the first place.
• the tax money is not going to "pay for other people" it is the cost of living in a civilised functioning society, and those who benefit most from thriving growth of course should be the ones to pay the most. That £117,786.40 is still about 4 times the median household income after tax, no one is being reduced to penury by this, but for those whose circumstances are so mich more unfortunate that they receive more fromthe government than they pay in, the money they receive is a valid investment from the state which contributes to creating the environment that allows the business employing the £200,000 earner to do this. Every time some benefit or service has been created, it has been done in a context where it is calculated that spending £X now will generate £2X or £3X of value in the future whether because of increased population health, or improved educational outcomes, or reduced crime.

The nasty petty mindedness of those who resent tax is astonishing and shows a willful decision to be uninformed and unimaginative about how miserable and full of suffering an alternate low-tax setup would be. It's not a good look.

Can you explain a bit more the point where a lower tax system will be miserable and full of suffering ?

There is a huge divide between “high earners” in the North of England and “high earners” in London and the SE.
500k in the North buys you a lovely family home. But housing costs in and around London are so insane that a younger person on £50k finds themselves counting the pennies. £500K buys you a one bed flat in zone 3 if you are lucky. You will never be able to afford this unless you have help from family. So you are stuck paying 50% of your net salary in rent. You can forget having children because you will never be able to access social housing and it is impossible to trade up to 2 or 3 beds.
Being told your deductions (irrelevant whether income tax or NI) are going to rise before Christmas is difficult to swallow. It is not nasty or petty minded to complain!

You are not sick of taking their money though?

A “high earner” is anyone on over £52700 ie paying higher rate tax.

This. As I said on another thread, why do you feel they should take risks for little reward? Easy to be generous with other people’s money.

What a very weird comment. And what very weird assumptions.

Talk to me about the risks that very high earners take.

You underestimate the British love of ‘fairness’.

What threshold is a high earner in your view?

Not true. The top 10% by income earn one-third of the income and pay two-thirds of the income tax.

My H is a high earner working in internet security, there are some bucks which stop with him, if he fucks up there will be huge fallout.

It’s not easy keeping people’s identity, banking, private messages secure.

Taking on better paid jobs means more responsibility in your field. If he fucks up he loses his job and his professional reputation which has taken years to build.

Ah, right. And you don’t think people in low paid jobs take risks that potentially affect people’s lives? Or where fucking up can have significant ranifications? Fair enough.

Why ask if you’re going to paraphrase incorrectly.

@FenceBooksCycle
those whose circumstances are so mich more unfortunate that they receive more fromthe government than they pay in,

I think one issue is that your “so unfortunates” now make up 61% of households.

There are people who through misfortune need extensive state-funded provision. We are well beyond that point though.

Regarding the value of work versus the salary. What we have now is low-wage (and middle-wage) work being heavily subsidised in various ways, through in-work benefits and other services.

As a result it’s not clear that most people generate more economic value than they cost (pay+subsidies). Our system channels many people into roles that destroy economic value for their entire working lives, but disguises it. One reason we have a productivity problem and a public finances problem.

I wasn’t. A poster talked about the risks her dp took which justified his high salary. I pointed out that many people on low salaries take risks too.

We were higher rate taxpayers for a good couple of decades. The black economy has always been a huge bugbear of mine. A no cash society would tackle that issue, it would also tackle organised crime. Big crime operatives would probably find another way round but it would make it all harder. A lot of places that were a front for money laundering would shut.

With a lower tax system there would be less services. That’s back to workhouses and education and the absolute basics. I do not think many want to go back to those times. But becoming more civilised and trying to equalise can lead to downfall as it just isn’t sustainable, it’s not just the UK either.

@CurlewKate Are you a ‘high earner’?

I didn’t say that, you asked for examples.

If I was going to take a similar attitude that you seem to have, if people stay in low paid high risk jobs that’s their problem. (I don’t actually think that I think many jobs are underpaid and many overpaid)

But I do think each person needs to take responsibility for their own situation and if you want to change it take steps towards that. The world owes no one a living.