To think that taxing high earners even more would actually be a bit unfair?

[bubbleymummy]

I hear this suggested a lot on mumsnet and I really disagree with it. High earners are paying a huge contribution in tax already - thousands and sometimes 10s of thousands more than a lot of people who are clamouring for them to be taxed even more! Why should they be punished for having a highly paid job? How would you like handing nearly half your income over to the government? I think we should be thankful that we do have high earners who are already making a significant contribution. We would be a lot worse off if we drove them away with higher taxes!

At the end of the day if tax is set at, for example (and let's take an arbitrary figure), 20%, a far greater amount is paid on earnings of 100,000 than on earnings of 20,000. To introduce high rates of marginal tax is punitive and is a disincentive for people to do well and for businesses to set up in the UK. This would have a long term impact on jobs and overall propseperity for the nation as a whole notwithstanding the fact that the brightest, after university would leave the UK for more favourable locations.

how is a weekly food bill 200 ? how old are your children? how big is your family?

sorry to ask, don't answer if you don't want to, i'm just interested really..

enough meat from organic butcher for a week for me is about 40 max absolute max, I mean that's pushing it to the envelope (organic cos he'ls the only local guy and i'm trying to avoid supermarkets and support local)

rice/pasta/bread 20 max max max

veggies 20?

then butter, milk, biscuits, oil.. sorry what do you spend 200 on?

I'm a bit surprised that's all..

actually I know it's nosy but I really want to know! are you including washing powder and stuff?

Add in nappies, formula and maybe some ready meals and snacks with washing powder and general cleaning stuff, £200 wouldn't be too hard to believe at all.

Appletrees - two teenagers here and I'm sorry but we are very close to 200 a week at the supermarket, sometimes a bit less, sometimes a bit more and that certainly doesn't include organic meat. Probably 120 in the shop and top ups throughout the week. That includes all cleaning stuff and shampoo, cat food and a couple of bottles of wine and beers though.

thanks.. sorry for asking

ok i can see why a bit more, still it would be hard for me to reach

As higher rate tax payers, DH and I both accept our moral responsibility to thos eless fortunate.

However, our current rate of tax surely fullfills that?

We pay 50% tax on a large proportion of our income. Plus NI.
Neither of us have a tax exemption.

It's more than half of what we earn.

Are people really saying that's not enough?

"Are people really saying that's not enough?"

They'd still be saying 'its not enough' even if you were paying 70% Litchick, or 80%.

Envy is a terrible thing.

And remember - raising taxes is brilliant when someone else is paying it.

Ok so if you have £300k of unearned income, interest on interest etc do you really feel that giving 50% of that away is unacceptable ?
I understand to a degree people who drag themselves out of bed at 5am, and if ever you are on the motorway at 6am it's packed with people going into work, that you'd be disgruntled at paying any extra tax, but certainly income from investments could be taxed at a heavier rate.
Buy to let properties should be subject to more taxes for sure.

"Ok so if you have £300k of unearned income, interest on interest etc do you really feel that giving 50% of that away is unacceptable ?"

See that's what I mean, it's just come on, you're not entitled to it anyway, hand it over.

Really that's your argument ?
You think Paul MacCartney, Wayne Rooney etc who can never spend their earnings in their life time should be exploiting loop holes whilst Mr and Mrs PAYE have no choice but to pay their share ?

yes, that's my argument, lack of respect fr tax paid, not that people shouldn't pay tax due

Oh get over yourself, death and taxes, two certainties in life. Lack of respect pmsl what do you want a photo of the banker you've sponsored ?

am arguing against taxes? where?

you prove my point

lack of respect for public money leads to wastage and recklessness

pmsl? all the way to the bank with other people's money

haven't you read the thread?

It's a bit far back my last comment but when I said they generally don't use the public services I mean they choose to pay for private education and healthcare.

Why should they be expected to pay extra when they're not getting anything from it? Even if they're not chosing to? It's not like they get extra special treatment if they do.

No, I don't think the well of should fund the not so well off. I think it should be entirely equal.

mamatomy, firstly, the majority of people who have declared themselves to be a 50% rate taxpayer haven't said that its unacceptable, I think if you read back you will find that we are saying that we already giving more than half back in taxes (including NIC). Giving more than that is what would be a disincentive. litchick raises a good point, I already pay 51% tax, I am not Wayne Rooney, and go out to work 5 days a week like everyone else. How much more would you like me to pay in tax?

Second, I can assure that any interest income I earn is taxed at 50% already.

Third, to be earning £300k of interest a year, you would have to be riding high on the Sunday Times rich list i.e. you are talking about the super rich. The vast vast majority of 50% rate taxpayers earn their income from employment, i.e. they go out to work 5 days a week just as you do. Are you a proposing a tax system that basically penalises them to pay, what 60% tax? Would you be incentivised to carry on working if you giving away not just half but well over half your income in tax?

Yes we are talking about the super rich, there should be a distinction between earned and unearned income for everyone.

When you cut to the chase, those who extol the virtues of tax buy to lets, tax bankers, tax investments...ie. the "tax the rich brigade".

What they really mean is "Tax someone else and give it me"

They also refuse to acknowledge its a flawed plan which has NEVER worked.

Simple maths dictate that there simply isn't enough mythical rich people to tax but hey....don't let reality get in the way of all the bleating about taxing the rich eh?

Bloody hell £200 quid lol. See these people seriously are living in a different world if they spend £200 a week on food, toiletries etc. I spend that a month if that, thats crazy money. The food bill alone would be nearly my husbands full time wage for working 45 hours a week!

Why is fairness the measures we apply to tax? Surely efficacy is a better one?

its fun to ask higher rate tax payers who are going on about how hard it is to swap.. just for their faces! I worked for a manager who told me that I was much better off than him, because he had no more increments, and my salary went up every year - he was on £60K and I was on £22.

I said oh that's terrible, you should have it better than me, lets swap... It was a long five seconds of silence I can tell you before his face cracked into a nervous and self-conscious laugh.... wealthier people are full of such bs. about how we don't understand that 'its really difficult paying for a £500K house you have no idea' - when its no more difficult than it is for me to pay for (most) of mine - its just scale but higher-paid people can scale back if things are hard, or buy cheaper property or invest more. If you are up against it you have no safety net, no downsize option and no freedom.

I would much rather have a £60K salary at the higher tax rate than bubble along under the living wage.

I've managed to get the weekly shops down from £200 a week to about £150

I still don't understand HOW we spend quite so much.

Well, actually I do in some areas - relatively expensive brands etc.

oh you dumbasses re 'paying more but not using services' protecting and designing society, policing, regulations etc for wealthy people is much more expensive than for poorer people! Why do people think that all taxing does is give free money to the poor?? It also helps set up massive privately run infrastructure projects that make money for shareholders you divs.

coalition - You should go on MSE.com they can cut your food bill by so much but you can still have good quality family meals. I bet you can keep the same standard of food but cut money off.

This infuriates me, my family is classed as 'rich' yet with my part time job in a retail store earning minimum wage and DP well paid job (higher rate tax payer) we have no more household income than our good friends who are teachers earning two seperate wages under the higher tax threshold.

We will lose our child benefit, will lose our childcare voucher benefit and now people are suggesting that we should actually pay more tax

We have a nice 4 bed house that desperately needs updating but we dont have the money and its ok for now, we are lucky enough to have two mid value cars - are people suggesting that because DP has a good wage that we should sell up and buy a 3 bed house get rid of one of the cars in order to pay more tax - where is the incentive to better ourselves if everything we try to achieve is taken away.

I am lucky that I can work part time but when the child benefit goes I will have to up my hours as that makes a big difference to us - why shouldnt I be able to stay at home with my children when ive seen people argueing they are entitled to stay at home on benefits to look after their children.

Im all for helping people genuinely in need
but the idea that every higher rate tax payer has a bottemless pit of extra money is just not true - this topic makes me sooo bloody cross.