to think that the threshold for higher of income tax is far too low

[ReallyTired]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721477/Surge-police-teachers-dragged-40p-tax-band-More-1-6million-employed-pay-higher-rate-decade-ago.html

Higher rates are starting to hit people in ordinary jobs. In 2003 there were no nurses paying the higher rate of tax and now there are 72,000 nurses in the higher tax band. Middle to high earners are the work horses of the UK economy and high taxes act as a disincentive to working harder or taking on more responsiblity. We need these people generate income to pay for benefits.

I feel that cutting of child benefit also harms the ecomony.

Vivien, because it's incredibly unfair to have someone else say that you 'don't need all that money'. Why shouldn't you have that money if you've earned it? If everyone was on the same tax rate (with a decent personal allowance) then the people on 150-200k would be paying much more £££ in tax than the people on 45k anyway.

People on 150K tend to create jobs. If we tax them to obvilion then they are likely to move abroad or take the view that risk and hard work is not worth the results.

YANBU.

For me, the disparity between wages is ridiculous. 1 person works 40 hours a week for £10 k, another works equally as hard for £££kkkkk . It's bollocks

Yeah, because communism works sooooo well doesn't it?!? Face. Palm.

Another one here who thinks HRT band should be higher or at least flexed on a cost of living scale. Using nurses. Teachers, policeman cost of living differences or something.

£50k in Preston = fucking mega bucks.
£50k in london = not even able to afford a 1 bed flat on your own in zone 3.

OUr tax system is just too bloody complicated. The superrich will always have accountants and lawyers to mitigate this. The very poor and low earners pay nothing (quite right). The man and woman in the middle are stuffed.

Th

I 100% agree with WitchWay. A simpler system would make tax fiddling harder and be cheaper to administer. It would reward hard work.

The child benefit thing is ridiculously unfair. A couple earning the same between them as another couple but split differently get taxed totally differently.
So one that earns 80K at 60/20 split get hit first by paying more tax overall and then lose child benefit.
A couple that earns 80K at 40/40 split pay less initial tax and get child benefit too.
Where is the fairness in that?
If the government wants to tax us as individuals then child benefit she be worked out based on each individual in a couple as well.

• she = should

The current high rates of tax are a disincentive to hard work. Someone mentioned her husband not doing over time before of the 42% stolen by the state. Same in our famiyl. My brother stopped doing work at weekends (doctor) when half went in tax. It was just the tipping point - better off playing with his children than given more of his all to the NHS if the statei s going to take half of what he earns for that over time.

If we could just have a merged tax/NI of 33.3% starting at the same point tax starts (remember NI starts much lower than tax and is 12% on your earnings over about £8k) and is the same rate for all that would mean higher earners would work harder and ensure those who are less fortunate actually have more not less money. 20% tax plus NI is currently in total about a third of what you earn. Applying that to all these middle earners on £40k £50k etc would ensure they would not stop over time, would not seek to do fewer hours and would ensure more tax is generated.

I also agree with all the posters above who say if you work very hard and after many years earn say £160k you pay a lot more tax than someone on a lower wage even if you were to be paying a 33.3% flat tax as 33.3% of £160k is a lot more tax than £20k x 33.3%. You are still contributing a lot and those less fortunate are very grateful that you work all those extra hours to pay so much back to the state. The upper rate does not have to be the current 47% tax/NI to be fair. 33.3% is more than enough tax for anyone to have to pay.

whois get what you are saying. But it can't be too different in wages just because of location. There already is a cost of living allowance in certain areas. If you work mostly in the south and get paid loads to get on the propertly ladder down there you can just move up to live as a lord among us poor northerners in ten years or so as your property will convert to so much more. But we could never move down there in the same way. Once you establish yourself and a lower value property area it is very difficult to move from that. That isn't really fair either.

High earners get the greatest financial benefit of living in a stable society with a well educated, motivated workforce. As such, it seems bloody obvious that they should shoulder a sizeable wedge of the tax burden. If they don't, who will?

I'm sure there is a point where excessive taxation would drive more "brain assets" out of the country than could be balanced by the tax income and immigration. Not even the daily mail could convince me that it's at 45% though...

I think that there is definitely a point here around the fact that the level at which people become higher rate tax payers has in real terms been eroded massively and quietly.

So when i was young being a higher rate tax payer meant that you were really pretty rich, you know proper well off, private schools for the kids, flash cars, big house etc etc. Wealthy.

Over the years it has been eroded so that now people with quite bogstandard - middling - lifestyles - are higher rate tax payers.

And yet because it's been done so quietly, the psychological reaction to hearing "higher rate taxpayer" is still, for most people, "oh they're proper rich then".

hence they were able to push through the child benefit thing - which is nonsensically illogical anyway - by saying oh well it affects higher rate tax payers which in most people's brains translates immediately to "rolling in it".

there are lots of different views about taxation and so on obviously but I do think that the government and people need to be more upfront about and acknowledge that "higher rate taxpyer" doesn't mean what it used to in terms of actual wealth.

The biggest of all is we have one of the biggest most expensive states in UK history now and the biggest debt we have ever had on which we pay massive interest payments. As long as the state remains so large tax will remain very high in the UK.

If we were to trumpet the UK as a country where the highest income tax and NI rate was a third of your income we would generate a lot more profits and income and would all be better off. At 47% top NI/tax rate we do not give people that incentive particularly when stamp duty and lots of other indirect taxes are so high too.
My daughters in their 20s are paying 42% tax/NI. It is catching so many people when as they live in London their net pay after housing costs are so much lower, never mind when they have them in due course childcare costs. That upper rate has crept down to lower and lower levels of people whilst lower earners get all kinds of top ups which can mean a benefits claimant is on £34k before tax equivalent and her twin sister who earns £50k and pays £14k tax/NI, £14k childcare as she works full time, £14k mortgage has less than her benefits claimant twin.

inabeautifulplace, but they already are shouldering a sizeable wedge of it, before even putting them in a higher bracket.

Totally agree with you Seven. We are in no way 'rolling in it' but when we were younger, DH's salary would definitely have gone much further.

Greengrow totally agree.

If I lived in a country with high taxes taxes but where everyone benefited from it I wouldn't mind so much. For instance in Scandinavian countries where the tax is high but everyone gets really good childcare regardless of there income as an example.
But there is an attitude in this country that the more you put in the less you should get out of it. You get shafted at every level.

Top rate tax payers pay a massive amount of tax. Far more than they receive back in terms of usage of the country's assets.

Nobody is saying they work any harder than some of those on NMW. Some minimum wage jobs are among the toughest out there. But there aren't many paying top rate tax who don't work incredibly hard just to then hand over £60k in tax each year.

I know a good number of people who have moved to Dubai for this very reason.

I just don't get why people who earn more have to pay more tax as a proportion as their income goes up. They are already earning more, so with a flat rate system would be paying more anyway.

Why do the higher earners have to contribute more for the benefit (benefits - ha ha) of those on lower incomes? It strikes me as bonkers & grossly unfair.

Bodicea - totally agree. Don't really see why as I worked hard at school and continue to do so and develop myself I should hand more and more money to the state. Especially when so many of those who attended the same school alongside me have never worked or contributed anything to the system whilst taking lots out.

Flat rate tax is always hardest on those on low incomes. Pay 30% of NMW = poverty. Pay 30% on £100k = riches. That's wrong.

However, I agree that the threshold for HRT needs to be put up quite a lot -about £60k seems fair to me. And don't talk to me about the way CB has been handled - this should simply be assessed on household income, not highest earner income. Don't tell me it isn't possible - create the workforce and the systems in HMRC to chase the cheats and it can be done. It woudl silence a lot of the (legitimate!) complaints.

BTW I am a standard rate tax payer who is not eligible for CB due to DH's immigration status so no financial axe to grind.

Bodicea yeah I know it wouldn't really work. I just think that maybe a lot of the nurses, teachers etc pulled up into HRT is going to be because of their London weighting.

Anyhow. I don't like seeing how much tax is taken of my payslip. But I am incredibly proud that we have healthcare free at source, and free education. A good infrastructure network. Police who aren't corrupt. And all that jazz.

We need to pay for tax so that we have a civilised society. However in 1998 1.35 million were paying the higher rate of tax and now its over 5 million.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26572914

Nigel Lawson is right that the threshold really needs to be raised.

I feel that the tax system needs to be simplified. Things like losing child benefit once your salary hits 50K or losing your personal allowance once your income hits 100K discourages people from increasing their income.

I feel that the benefits system should be used to help those on low incomes. 10K is ample for a young 18 year old who is living at home with his parents and has no responsiblities. However it would be a nightmare for someone with a family. I don't agree with raising the personal allowance any further as not everyone on 10K needs additional income to survive.

My dh earns enough that we lost child benefit (though it's claimed back from us. Via his tax return as we don't want me to lose the benefits to my pension).

Also he is way over the 40% bracket (he's a GP) - my 2 day-a-week charity sector job means I pay no tax but, hey, I'm part of call-me-Dave's big society in providing educational support for those who leave school unable to read/write/count.

We'd happily pay more tax (no, really!). We both benefitted from a posh Uni education when grants were the norm, we both have professional qualifications (his MbChB, my MA+PGCE) and we do feel it's our responsibility to give something back.