To feel that having nearly half of your salary taken away is just not right?

[WinnieTheWho]

I don't earn enough to pay tax & NI but my DH has a pretty good job & salary for which he works BLOODY hard. I was horrified to work out after last pay day that for EVERY £1 he earned, he only kept 60 pence. This is due to a combination of paying very high income tax and NI, as well losing all of his personal allowance because he might get a bonus at the end of the year! It just seems that if you work hard to get paid well and you are a PAYE taxpayer, the Government & HMRC will just shaft you from all angles. It just makes me wonder why we bother? So... AM I BEING UNREASONABLE?

Jinsei, thats it exactly! You expect the state to support the next generation of doctors etcetc. Are you really telling me that you wouldn't feel pissed off if your children could only get into your sixth choice of school and that was miles away and not very good? You wouldn't be pissed off if your children wanted to become professionals but couldn't because despite you paying into the system, it would cost them far too much for the education? Would you really think 'that's ok, someone somewhere else needs that share of the pot more?'

Of course I would be mightily pissed off. Whether I would think it was ok because someone else needed the money more would depend on where that money had been spent.

If it was squandered on giving tax cuts to the richest in our society, for example, I would be fucking furious. If, on the other hand, it was spent making life slightly easier for disabled people, then I would accept it and ensure that my dc worked damn hard to succeed whichever school they attended.

There is inevitably a finite pot of money, and priorities have to be decided. If we don't currently have enough for all of the necessary costs - such as healthcare, education etc - then I personally would rather pay more into the pot to set this right.

My point is in reply to those who have commented on high earners who complain about extortionate taxes and comments about poor scum scrounging off the state. Judgemental, or what!

I'm also making a point that envy often rears it's ugly head in these debates.

The first comment to follow the OPs post was 'diddums' not helpful or mature. There were also comments that if they didn't like it they should leave the country! we would all have problems if thete was a mass exodus of high earner's

Our tax system isn't very well thought out but it's not going to change overnight.

Maybe the lower payed should start at a higher tax threshold instead of all the endless form filling badly run credits that exist.

I'm not a high earner and have been poor so I've no axe to grind here. Some on this thread seem to feel if you have a high income then there is no hard work involved and it was handed out on a plate.

Some on this thread seem to feel if you have a high income then there is no hard work involved and it was handed out on a plate.

Yes, I don't deny that, but those on higher incomes do not necessarily work any harder than those on lower incomes, and they're kidding themselves if they think that they do.

I think that's what annoys people - this holier than thou "I work so hard and then you take it all away from me" attitude. I know that's not what you are saying, sunshine, but it is implicit in so many of the posts on here that whinge about tax. It's a whole lot easier working your butt off when you earn good money than it is when you're on the breadline.

FWIW, I have no personal axe to grind either. I pay higher rate tax, but don't have an issue with that. I just find the victim mentality adopted by some higher earners really grating - we are the lucky ones, so why all the gnashing of teeth?

Sheesh, talk about wedge politics. The idea that only MW earners support or benefit from progressive taxation is abhorrent to me. Like catgirl, we earn a shed load and we pay a shed load in tax. We're still left with much more money than most. It's up to us to manage that well, not whinge that it's not fair cos life is expensive. It's expensive for everyone, we're the lucky ones and I'd be fucking ashamed to be so out of touch with reality that I believed we were the hard done by sector of this society.

Sadly, this is the flip side of an unquestioning belief in meritocracy - the idea that you've earned and deserved your good fortune therefore others have earned and deserve their misfortune. It's simplistic in the extreme to deny that all manner of influences and events have a bearing on how our lives play out.

We all benefit from society, the more we benefit the more we should put back in. We still end up ahead, despite paying HTR. I'm enjoying the irony of those blaming society for discouraging them while claiming they made it to the top unaided.

Well said, Hester

The quicker tax is one band with an even level for all the better. Wealth distribution from the hard working to the feckless in the guise of tax bands has done nothing to encourage the feckless to get themselves out to work.

I often wonder why people seem to think that they can motivate the poor to work harder by taking money away from them, and yet they worry that taking money away from the rich will demotivate them and make them work less.

I think the flat rate tax band would encourage a feeling that we all have an equal stake in society. Because although we should have that now, we don't. If everyone was paying the same percentage of their wage until they get to being rich rather than just ok or comfortable, there would be less time spent arguing amongst ourselves about what is fair, and more time spent getting value for everyone.

Exactly outraged.

But why should people who earn just enough to cover their day to day needs be taxed at the same rate as those who have much more disposable income? Surely the disposable income should be taxed more?

You can argue as to whether the threshold is in the right place at the moment, but I don't really understand why anyone would argue about the principle.

Before this gets any more heated, I thought you might find the new HMRC App really interesting. It calculates exactly how much tax you pay and, more importantly, how it is spent.

So, when I did it, the biggest chunk by far goes on welfare (does not include nhs, that's next). Which means of my meagre salary, the greatest proportion of the tax is going to those who are not working.

IMHO the biggest amount should be education.

Of course it doesn't account for VAT etc.

When you think about the high cost of living I would say there is a case for taking a very hard look at the purpose of welfare and reducing tax for all. Why punish successful people, or those who make choice to have a difficult, dull but well paid job? We were all welcome to follow their route. They already pay more actual tax than others anyway.

Yeah, civilisation is over-rated in my view. It's all very well wanting to support people who are disabled or unemployed, but you know what, they cost too fecking much. I mean, I know some poor people who actually expect to be able to eat! So it obviously irks me when they take away my hard-earned cash that could have been spent on a new pair of ballet shoes for my little tarquin. Why should I be punished???

People on lower incomes benefit more from the personal allowance though Jinsei (which would also increase if there was a flat rate of tax). They are being taxed on a smaller percentage of their earnings than someone on HRT. With a flat rate HRT payers would still be contributing more.

Is there something wrong with some people having more disposable income than others becuase they are in a higher paid job? That seems to come up a lot and I can't really see a problem with it beyond people just being jealous tbh.

Also, HRT payer does not necessarily = more disposable income. People always seem to be discussing extremes here e.g can't put food on the table vs footballers - but there are a lot of people milling around in the middle who are paying HrT but don't necessarily have a lot of disposable income compared to someone just below the cut off.

Because those who have more disposable income will pay more through VAT, stamp duty etc anyway. And they will pay more income tax because they earn more, 30% of a high wage will still amount to more than 30% of a lower wage. There would also be a generous personal tax allowance. The benefits of Doing this have already been mentioned numerous times on this thread, and I completely agree with it.

The 'welfare' element is largely pensions.

You can argue as to whether the threshold is in the right place at the moment, but I don't really understand why anyone would argue about the principle

In general those that don't have to pay progressive tax argue for it. Funny that.

The 'welfare' element is largely pensions

Total Govmnt spending is c £700bn (2011), Welfare is £160 bn of that.

Of the c £160bn of Welfare spend c £70bn is pensions, £20bn is Housing, and £17 bn is disability/carers allowances.

Next biggest spends after Welfare are Health at c £105bn and Education at c £55bn.

Emerging nation competitors spend next to nothing on welfare. Therein lies the rub.

The biggest rub about pensions for me is that the tax payers of today may not even get a state pension. Those that are paying HRT now are expected to pay into their own private pensions as well as pay for pensioners of today. Again, if the government could guarantee that all taxpayers will receive a decent state pension should they live long enough, then people might not feel so bad about the figure they see is taken from them on their payslips.

Outraged - you are completely right about the flat rate givng everyone an equal stake and also it removes the currect disincentive at the margins - ie peeople raleising if they earn more it will take them over the threshold, so the marginal rate is excessive. If the tax rate is flat, it incenitvises peopel to earn more even if it jsut a little bit more, which is good for the economy and society. Plain ridiculoust to say that some 'should' not have more disposable income than others - this has been tried in teh past and spectaculalry failed. People should all work and earn as far as they are able, with each family memeber contributing what they can.

Re the emerging nations, 6 of he 10 fastest growing, most vibrant and exciting economies are in sub-saharan Africa, where there is a talent pool of young, energetic, motivated people, and the smart money is investing infrastrucutre there ( not 'aid' - investment to enable them to generate real wealth).
The bleaters in this country wanting us to continue the spending splurge and 'grow' by borrowing to maintaint the non-jobs in the public sector (and no I do not mean nurses - obviously), as per the con perpetrated by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, and other European gravy-trainers won't know what has hit them until it is too late, and sadly it is our kids and grandkids who will pay the price

MrsGuyofGisbourne is completely right about progressive tax rates being a disincentive to work, or work more. Most often, when you get a promotion with more money, that also means more responsibility and more hours. If you are going to be more heavily taxed in addition to paying for more childcare and more time away from your family, little wonder intelligent women don't always fall for the con...

'I think that's what annoys people - this holier than thou "I work so hard and then you take it all away from me" attitude.'

Exactly. I'm not envious or 'jealous' of those who have done well - good luck to people who do :) My pov is general in terms of society, and a need to protect those who aren't so fortunate. But if you don't support the concept of collective responsibility you won't get it.

But why do you think that HRT payers that don't want to have to pay so much of their earnings in tax has that attitude perception? I don't think they do think like that.

Why are you assuming they think the worst if they begrudge paying? Why are you assuming that they think less of other people because they don't want to pay?

Couldn't it just as easily be that they don't feel their taxes are being spent wisely, and that they want better services that they could use like healthcare and education?

What makes you think that a reluctance to pay HRT has anything to do with opinions on other people?