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?

Adele;

'Speaking to Q magazine, the Rolling in the Deep singer said, "I'm mortified to have to pay 50%! [While] I use the NHS, I can't use public transport any more. Trains are always late, most state schools are shit, and I've gotta give you, like, four million quid ? are you having a laugh? When I got my tax bill in from [the album] 19, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire."'

She's a greedy cow - I am so glad I've never bought any of her music, nor will I! All state schools are shit?? So just because she got lucky she's suddenly above using public services! Clearly a case of someone whose head got way too big.

I haven't read that interview but my understanding is that she can't use public transport because she is easily recognised.

Never mind public transport, it's deeply ignorant to publicly make a statement like 'all state schools are shit'

She hasn't said ALL state schools, though. She said MOST state schools. That is what you said in your post where you quoted her, anyway.

(I'm not defending her, I don't even particularly like her music. But your anger is a bit misplaced)

I think her attitude stinks and she sounds greedy. Why is that a misplaced opinion?

I said your ANGER is misplaced, not your opinion of her personality (on which I have no views).

You seem to be having a problem with English comprehension. Are we on the [wine}?

Thing is though, if I was giving the state 4 million quid, I'd expect decent services, in return. Education and healthcare are not consistently good, throughout the entire country, so while she might have exaggerated, her comments are not entirely without merit.

And while I'm in favour of the wealthiest helping to support the poorest, I think 50% taxation is taking the piss. I've got a bit of sympathy with Adele - she is not super rich in the way someone like Philip Green is, but he manages to duck out of what he should be paying. Four million is a shit load of money to contribute, when other, richer people are managing to avoid paying. Didn't Vodaphone get let off a tax bill?

Or "Are we on the ?" even

If I were paying 4 million in taxes, I would certainly expect rubbish collection to be more frequent than fortnightly.

Er, no just coffee. I am entitled to my opinion if you don't agree and I am not angry - how would you know I was just from reading words on a page? Don't all famous musicians have to pay a lot of tax?

And on private vs state threads I have seen people get flamed for saying much less than 'state schools are shit'. This is far from true (even though I have a child in a prep school)

So let's agree to differ

To be fair, some state schools are shit. And when you hand over four million pounds, it's fair enough to want to see something good being done with it. 50% tax is ridiculous.

I agree that we shouldn't be wasting money on having passport forms being translated. anyone who is entitled to a British passport should be able to speak a British language.

There are some very good state schools, Outraged - the problem right now is that there aren't enough places as I see it!

I don't think Adele was being unreasonable in her complaint per se but she could have done a spice girl move (they left the country for the year they earnt all their money). Now the spice girls only pay tax on the money they make of the millions they made that one year they lived abroad and earnt their money tax free.

Yes, poor Adele. She only got to keep £4 million of what she'd earned. My heart bleeds for her!

So, Want2 - is it the case that most very high earners try to avoid tax?

So, Want2 - is it the case that most very high earners try to avoid tax?

It's the case that most people try to avoid taxation.

We need to look at what other countries get for their money. Why is our council tax so high, while we get rubbish collection every other week? There are too many people employed in the public sector, and too many people paid far more than they need to be. We need swingeing cuts throughout the whole state sector, and nothing can be held as sacred. There is no need for council chiefs to be on £250,000, no need for bog-standard administrators to be on £18,000, no need for half the jobs to even exist at all. Pensions should be drastically cut or just abandoned. People who can't do their jobs to the absolute highest possible standard should be sacked on the spot and escorted from the premises immediately.

We need to look at what other countries get for their money. Why is our council tax so high, while we get rubbish collection every other week? There are too many people employed in the public sector, and too many people paid far more than they need to be. We need swingeing cuts throughout the whole state sector, and nothing can be held as sacred. There is no need for council chiefs to be on £250,000, no need for bog-standard administrators to be on £18,000, no need for half the jobs to even exist at all. Pensions should be drastically cut or just abandoned. People who can't do their jobs to the absolute highest possible standard should be sacked on the spot and escorted from the premises immediately.

Hardly a considered sensible view.

Whilst i agree with the sentiment of cutting the bloated public sector ( and it is. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool,deluded or has a vested interest.) sacking people on the spot is a ridiculous and dangerous notion. Most employment rights are there for a very good reason.

Josephine - council tax is the most unfair of taxes as it takes no account of ability to pay. We are lowish earners and our council tax is £125 per month. We don't qualify forany benefits or tax creidits on our income of £26000. Utilities and council tax take up nearly 1/3 of our take home pay

Employment rights are there to protect the worker, at the expense of the employer. For the public sector WE are the employer. We have high levels of unemployment, there are plenty of people that would be happy to do a public sector job at much lower wages than are currently paid, and would be a lot more customer-friendly too instead of having an attitude to the public that is seemingly rooted in the 1970s.

Adele might not have another hit album so in the future her income will probably be much lower with a lower % of tax due to her majesty. The Spice Girls knew this which is why they left the country for the year their income was highest. They went so far as to not perform in the UK during that year.

Personally I think the Spice Girls were smart to do what they did. They secured their financial future. Adele needs to continue pumping out the albums if she is to remain in the UK. While she earnt GBP8 million in the one year she will probably not earn much after this year until the next album comes out or she goes on tour. If she goes on tour then I would be very surprised if she doesn't leave the UK while away.

Sparks/Perception There is too much benefit from trying to avoid tax in the UK. Here in the US the tax rates are lower and, having worked in both countries, much less focus is placed on reducing taxes in the US. I recall meetings in the UK where we spent far more time on talking about the tax implications and how to legally reduce the tax expense rather than the opportunity itself. This isn't a very productive way to operate. If I were George Osborne I would reduce the corporate tax rate to a flat 10% and do away with capital gains tax and include those gains as regular income with exceptions for business owners who have employed more than 5 people on a full time basis each year for the past 10 years and individuals who have owned shares for more than 10 years.

Employment rights are there to protect the worker, at the expense of the employer. For the public sector WE are the employer. We have high levels of unemployment, there are plenty of people that would be happy to do a public sector job at much lower wages than are currently paid, and would be a lot more customer-friendly too instead of having an attitude to the public that is seemingly rooted in the 1970s

No. They are there to create an equitable and fair contract between employer and employee.

However i do agree the public sector is overloaded and in many cases it's employees have a completely unrealistic expectation of their employment which borders on entitlement.

Having said that i also think that some of the recipients of these services that are provided are entitled. Cuts at both ends would offer taxpayers much better value for money. And more to the point, tax cuts.

oh yes Josephine, scrap pensions so that wealthy people can pay less tax! I suppose you'll never be old?

I don't think the public sector is bloated, particularly. That's just a cheap smear uttered by the bitter elements of the right wing, who resent the abolition of the workhouse. And I've never worked in the public sector. Have observed the NHS at close quarters for more than a decade, mind.

Council tax here in the house I live in is high at just over $10K a year. The amount due is based on your house value (it's about 2 - 3% of the value of your house). This has an effect of keeping house prices affordable so basically anyone can buy something in our neighbourhood. The state then runs a program where old people and those on very low income get assistance with the taxes in the year following payment. Overall it is as fair a system as you can get.

With that said, we have private rubblish collection which we pay $240 a year for. They come by twice a week and collect recycling once a month with cardboard collected every Saturday. In autumn we have leaf collection every two weeks and in the spring we have grass clipping collections. It is very good value for money.

Our property taxes pay for a school system, that while not perfect, is used by more than 95% of the families through choice. Class sizes are not an issue and there are lots of subsized activities provided at the local community center (eg ballet for children up to age 18 costs less than $10 per 1hr lesson), a library that has a well stocked children's section and activites such as sing-a-longs, music lessons and reading at no cost and more than 50 acres of parkland that includes tennis courts, a swimming pool complex (3 swimming pools, one of which is olympic open for 3 months of the year), squash courts, running tracks, football pitches, baseball diamonds and basketball courts all for $35 per person per year with a max charge of $120/year for each household. We also get snow removal in winter which is done efficiently by hooking up ploughs onto the front pick-up trucks and a salt distributor onto the back. I could go on with all the other services offered but I think you get the general idea.

This is what should be provided to everyone in the UK. I have no idea why council taxes are so high in the UK as education is funded through general taxation. Here in the US we pay income taxes of around 8% in federal tax and 3.5% state tax. Seeing what we get for our money here has certainly opened my eyes to just how much could be provided with the taxes paid in the UK (lets start with getting rid of tuition fees). I think people should be comparing and demanding better value for money from the public sector.