Why wasn't 40pc rate reduced or income tax thresholds raised?

[Indigoo03]

Any opinions?

Do high earners ever stop to think about how they earn their money and the entire system needed in a country to ensure that happens?

We don't exist in a vacuum. High earners couldn't earn their money without other people.

It’s very very frustrating indeed.

To think that tax cuts should only go to those who pay so little, thus making those who pay the lions share, pay even more!

People will stop paying!

Tell me how the tax cuts for rich people is different to tax cuts for people at the lower end.

If there are £3 billion of tax cuts, who should get them and why?

Who said anything about subsidies? Depending on the threshold, lots of the people making this call will be net contributors. You probably know that 100k is one of the biggest bottlenecks because of the personal allowance withdrawal, for example.

In terms of choices, the argument that you've chosen this so can't say anything is only valid if it's also applied to everyone else who takes a view on the matter. The impact of people choosing not to work more when they don't feel it's worth it goes well beyond the individuals doing it.

Yawn!
That old chestnut to soak the rich.

You are of course right, workers so to speak are needed but you are conveniently forgetting that the rich pay a disproportionately high burden of tax already.

No argument there, we should help people that need it.

But you can’t keep soaking the rich - they stop paying and then everyone who relies on taxation and all that it provides, is up nth Swanee without a paddle.

At what point can richer people legitimately say ‘enough’ unless of course you believe in total wealth redistribution?

This is only mini budget. In April we will have a full budget. Hoping those in the middle get consideration then by raising of band to £60k.

Just imagine.
Poorer people keeping more of their own money, spending it in local businesses, being able to go to work and buy things so rich people get more profit for their businesses.

The people who pay more tax should benefit more from the cuts.

Otherwise tax cuts, are then a stealth tax on the rich who pay serious amounts already, and are way less of a burden on the services they pay for.

Kwartang/Truss won't pass the tax cuts to low earners because low earners lack ambition & are lazy. That's what Britannia Unchained says. It's not fault of low earners, it's the fault of their soft parents & the fault of the social welfare state that made low earners dependent, and low aspirations that made education quality bad, and too much regulation which made companies not invest in upskilling workers. Whereas high earners are obviously ambitious & hard-working so will do something economically productive with their tax cuts. Reducing regulation will make companies enthusiastic about upskilling staff (not recruiting the cheapest staff overseas).

Anyway, it's your own fault for being so damn idle.

It’s not a zero sum game though.

Poor people are keeping more of their money- there is a reduction of 20% to 19%

What else income tax wise should the government do if they want to implement true tax cuts.

Again, I don’t think they should be cutting anything at all.

And I have never once said poor people shouldn’t get tax cuts, and that the rich only should.

Please read properly.

Why are people ignoring the reduction in BR from 20 to 19?

That’s a five percent cut in taxes for all basic rate payers.

TBF there is no NHS in those countries as healthcare is funded differently. Our NHS currently costs 40% of all Gov spending.

Therefore, in the countries you mention, there is more in the pot for roads, childcare etc.

It's political suicide to try to introduce another mechanism to fund our NHS so I see no way out!

i am pretty annoyed about this. I am a long-term lone parent in London. I earn a good salary but I am by no means wealthy. The tax cuts will not benefit me very much. My ex-h is a very high earner and will benefit hugely. It just feels unfair.

You seem to be forgetting that if people at the lower / middle end have more money,they spend it.

Which creates jobs. Which reduces the impact on the benefit system
It provides local work.
More businesses. Tax revenue

Isn't it better for that to happen than for already rich people to have more money through tax cuts?

No, median households are net recipients. Do you need me to find the ONS data for you or are you happy to find it yourself? I thinking you google “ONS tax benefits” you get it.

And where will they recoup this lost revenue from if they do that?

I looked in to moving to Sweden. I had thought the tax implications would be utterly horrific but, really, it wasn’t that terrible. And once I’d looked at things in the round - particularly the difference in the costs of childcare.

I actually think that for anyone towards the higher earning end of things (I’m nowhere near troubling the 6 figure salary mark, but still in the higher tax rate) the UK is a shit deal. You do end up paying a lot of tax but in return you get pretty crap public services. It’s not like the system is doing a good job of redistributing things either. It’s not like you can even say that at least it went to ensuring children were kept warm in the winter, regardless of their parents’ income (or something else that might feel like the tax was worth it).

The UK has a pretty dismal offer for people who can earn pretty well but aren’t super rich and, therefore, don’t give a fuck what the state offers.

Do you know what that actually is though to someone on £25,000?

I can’t agree with your framing there. The higher earners are not “getting more” money from the state, they don’t receive any money from the state at all.

The objective was to give a tax cut to the top 5% richest people. The Tories have done exactly what they planned to do.

They do not give a shit about the majority.

I’m not forgetting anything.

And you keep forgetting that richer spend more because hey have more so pay more tax overall and that this group of taxpayers to whom you refer are in fact net recipients (I.e. supported by the public purse)

Yes, it’s not a huge amount.

So you are asking for further subsidies for them then yes?

The reduction in NIC and BR tax benefits everyone with incomes over £12.5k.

The reduction in the top rate from 45% to 40% is pretty much irrelevant as the tax revenue lost is minimal, in fact, could bring in more tax as people earning over £150k stop taking action to avoid the 45%. (Tax revenue from those increased when the rate dropped from 50% to 45% years ago!).