To not want my children to pay for tax cuts for the middle-class?

[antelopevalley]

A new policy proposal to increase the ceiling for higher rate tax for individuals has been proposed so that it will only apply once you earn £80k plus. But there seems zero idea of how this will be funded.
Realistically the only way it will be funded is by increased government debt. Debt that my children and others will be working to pay off in the future.
Why should my children and others have to work in the future for tax cuts for the middle class?

Government borrowing should be for investment in the future. Building sources of cheap future energy for the future for example. It should not be used for short term political gains.

[antelopevalley]

@Winceybincey Except I have not. I am just not naive. Higher taxes will happen in the future to pay for all of this.

[Doingprettywellthanks]

@antelopevalley

@Doingprettywellthanks If you read my posts you would know that. The not respectable working class is those who are long-term unemployed, living in sink estates, who nearly everyone else looks down on. I come from that family that MN people would look down on and use as an anecdote against benefits. I now live in a decent area, Jointly own a house, and work full time.

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain Some of the pandemic debt was unavoidable, although competency and a lack of corruption would have kept the debt much lower. But we should not be adding to the debt unless we cant avoid it.

Your definition of the “un respectful” working class…. Aren’t working!

[tootiredtoocare]

@Ohdearthatwasntgreatwasit we need low earners as much as high earners. If hospitals didn't have housekeepers, porters, HCA's, outpatient clerks, etc etc etc, there would be no health service. We wouldn't have carers for our elderly and vulnerable, or our small children. Arguably, society relies more on low earners than high ones.

[Doingprettywellthanks]

I’m afraid op you seem to have started a thread and made a big statement but ultimately you aren’t articulately putting any decent points across.

anyone who differentiates between “respectful” and “not respectful” working class has a somewhat… let’s just say Daily Mail understanding of, no doubt quite a bit

[ginghamstarfish]

Tax bandings should surely be changed much more frequently, so yes overdue for an increase.

[roarfeckingroarr]

I support raising the 40% threshold, even if not to £80k. I cut my hours down because it wasn't really worth it and would potentially increase them if this goes through.

[Winceybincey]

@tootiredtoocare

@Ohdearthatwasntgreatwasit we need low earners as much as high earners. If hospitals didn't have housekeepers, porters, HCA's, outpatient clerks, etc etc etc, there would be no health service. We wouldn't have carers for our elderly and vulnerable, or our small children. Arguably, society relies more on low earners than high ones.

We do need those and the lower pay workers in the public sector such as nurses, teaching assistants etc are far underpaid and undervalued. But we need the higher earners in order to pay the lower earners. A vast amount of tax is generated from high earners so the more of them we have then the more money there is in society and if we ever have a government with integrity - then there’s more money for lower earners to be paid what they deserve. But that’s an ideal world and probably wouldn’t happen. More incentives are definitely needed though.

[AclowncalledAlice]

@SpiderinaWingMirror

Yanbu. It would make far more sense to increase the tax free allowance
But then you would benefit low earners and that's not the Tory government is about.

I agree, I think the threshold should be increased so that anyone earning less than 17,500pa should not pay tax. The "in work" benefits would then be less as those working full-time on NMW would not be reliant on top-ups from UC quite so much.

[LittleMissUnreasonable]

Personally I think there should be a flat rate rax of 33.3% regardless of earnings. Only the threshold at which you start to pay rate should change to £25k and education for salaries over 100k.

@saleorbouy Bloody hell, I'm glad you have no say in the financial sector....I earn 25k, not a penny more. I am entitled to no benefits at all. If I was to be taxed 33%, I'd be on my knees and would probably loose my home.

[Blossomtoes]

@LittleMissUnreasonable

Personally I think there should be a flat rate rax of 33.3% regardless of earnings. Only the threshold at which you start to pay rate should change to £25k and education for salaries over 100k.

@saleorbouy Bloody hell, I'm glad you have no say in the financial sector....I earn 25k, not a penny more. I am entitled to no benefits at all. If I was to be taxed 33%, I'd be on my knees and would probably loose my home.

Under those arrangements you wouldn’t pay any tax at all.

[Beachcomber]

So let me get my head around this.

The new PM wants to use borrowed money to give tax cuts to high and higher earners.
During a cost of living crisis / energy / NHS crisis.

The idea being that these comfortable and well off people will spend this money on stuff they can already afford without these tax cuts and that that in turn will somehow boost the UK economy and help everyone (despite the context being that of a global crisis).


Meanwhile lower and low earners are sharing tips on how to heat homes with candles in flower pots and feed families on veg from allotments and packets of dried lentils (that they better try to buy and stock up on before the inevitable price increases really kick in).

And surprise, surprise, the haves think this is an excellent policy. After all we live in a fair, meritocratic society!

The gap between rich and poor just continues to increase in the UK. Not only is is shameful but I honestly don't think it is sustainable. There will be protests if not riots this winter. You can't expect some people to put up with being poor, hungry and cold in a rich country with plenty of money to go round whilst others sit comfortably contemplating which luxury to spend their tax break on.

And all this whilst the energy companies (and their shareholders) sit counting their record booming profits.

It's fucked up people.

[zzzexhaustedzzz]

Has this thread been hijacked by rentaTories?
Aside from the complete BS idea that there is any genuine social mobility in this country…
Who is paying for this price freeze? When we should renationalise.
What plan is there to actually help the poorest, shortly to be even poorer?
Minimum wage increase? No?
Abolish zero hours contracts (no sick pay etc) No?
There is a level of human decency when you make choices about the lives of the poorest in society that this government have been sinking beneath for a long while.
Billionaires should not exist.

[PerfectlyPreservedQuagaarWarrior]

The policy in itself isn't a bad one, though I don't know if I'd go as high as 80k. The tax burden on income rather than wealth in this country is very skewed and there is only so far the working age population can be burdened with tax. Sooner or later we are going to have to address the reality that it's a shit idea to tax income, much of which is earned through work, in a way we don't tax wealth and assets. It's just going that way, for good or for bad, because of the balance of things. This is a more important point than whether people are further incentivised to work more via tax cuts: as I understand it, the answer to that is usually 'it depends' anyway. Additionally, with inflation raging as it is, 50k is liable to become rather closer to the median full time salary than it is now.

The problem is that Truss can't be trusted to fund this in a sensible way rather than simply kick the can down the road.

[MrsDanversGlidesAgain]

Some of the pandemic debt was unavoidable, although competency and a lack of corruption would have kept the debt much lower

We're dealing with the debt we have, not the debt we should have had if things had been better run.

[SlickShady]

A tax cut is just that, government taking away less of the people's hard-earned money. It is not 'giving' away anything.

What you really mean is that you don't want your children to shoulder a more equal share of the country's budget. Instead you want 'the rich' to be forced to fund everything.

[AStar98]

Assuming you currently pay tax OP. What do you think your taxes have been funding? Aside from when you lived abroad and, presumably didn't pay UK tax.
When you have paid tax, your contributions have most likely been part funding an overspend from previous generations when, shock of horrors, the government of the day racked up debt to fund 2 World wars! And the following economic chaos that would have ensued afterwards.
My point is, there is ALWAYS going to be government borrowing - you cannot realistically get away from it. It's like a Housing market where no one needs a mortgage, it's not going to happen. Not all debt is 'bad debt'.
The energy market is also in disarray. Demand is beyond outstripping supply at a rate of knots. Freezing prices & price caps are about curtailing that spiralling price, because like any other market it has it's limits. That said, how would you propose of stimulating growth and reducing borrowings without businesses being able to function on massively reduced energy? You want investment but I don't see the UK as a particularly attractive country.
Something has got to give!

[MrsDanversGlidesAgain]

can I ask what you think comprises those not respectful working class?

It does rather smack of the Victorian concept of deserving and undeserving poor, doesn't it? still, makes a change from OP blethering on about the royal family, I suppose.

[Jiminycricket10]

Not rtft if I’m repeating anything...
I’m not against incentivising working hard, but I do have grave concerns with the current leader and some people’s attitudes about ‘unproductivity’/‘need to work harder’.
Quotes of only keeping between 30p-37p in a pound for high earners doing overtime include student loan debt, child tax benefits being reduced and pension, which is different to the current thread on tax bands (money for pension isn’t lost to tax and includes an employer contribution?/claiming child tax credits over 50k shouldn’t be necessary so is rightfully reclaimed on a sliding scale/student loan debt is a separate issue)
Any arguments on making it pay to work should include those at the lower end, as even though 33% tax is percentage-wise less, people in this bracket can actually be working full time, and have not very much to show for it. I have student debt, not sure how I’m supposed to save for a house deposit/mortgage and pension, given that I lose around 50% of income over 21k (student loan plan 1 = 9% over 21k, plus masters loan = 6% over 21k, plus tax plus national insurance) - this does not even including putting towards a pension...
So yeah, I’m in agreement with working hard paying, but it shouldn’t just apply to those earning over 40k (jobs like that are few and far between in my region!).
Oh, and speaking from experience, there isn’t an issue with productivity, there’s an issue with working conditions - those in the NHS and education as well as those doing minimum wage jobs for very little respect or job security have been saying this on various threads - it’s not the money.

[Tangled123]

@SlickShady You can’t fund anything if you don’t have any money in the first place. If the rich don’t fund it, who will? Do you want roads full of potholes, full bins everywhere, no emergency services or schools? Or do you not care because you’re ok?

[MissFranKubelik]

@PAFMO

I didn't much want to pay for your kids to go to school and get medical care, but hey, that's democracy for you.

Dear god. We've sunk THAT low have we?

[Jiminycricket10]

Also, arguments that the vast majority of tax is paid by the wealthy should surely raise the question of income disparity...
Should people be able to earn hundreds of thousands into millions while those who do the actual work (remember those we clapped for back in the day) barely see their wages raised in line with inflation...?
I think Australia/New Zealand put a cap on the highest wages related to lowest wage (something like 10x the lowest wage??)

[SlickShady]

@Tangled123

@SlickShady You can’t fund anything if you don’t have any money in the first place. If the rich don’t fund it, who will? Do you want roads full of potholes, full bins everywhere, no emergency services or schools? Or do you not care because you’re ok?

We should all fund it equally (percentage-wise), after a reasonable tax free allowance. The aim should be to get away from progressive taxation altogether.

[Blossomtoes]

The aim should be to get away from progressive taxation altogether.

Absolutely not. Fortunately no party with any genuine hope of getting elected will ever put that in its manifesto.

[Travis1]

@ScarlettOHaraHamiltonKennedyButler

you are someones crotch goblin are you not? did you not go to school? see a doctor? no? you're parents must have been incredibly wealthy.

My parents/grandparents taxes paid for you.

and you have no intentions of ever seeing a doctor (who was once a child at school) or using any other public service ever? I applaud your utter selflessness. You will be one less burden on my DC when they are adults.

More's the pity, she should have aborted me when she had the chance to be honest.

So I can't use the services that I pay for? Okie dokie then. The audacity of parents never fails to astound me.

[Jiminycricket10]

Scrapping progressive taxation is only fair from a starting point of everyone have the opportunity and ability to earn a decent amount and to progress in line with effort.
We’re a long way off of that...