to think that 6000 per month is excessive for the government to take off my pay for tax?

[tootaxed]

Surely there should be a maximum limit that each person has to pay as tax? Six grand per month in tax is just excessive imo. And that is before NI contributions etc. If the government set a maximum tax limit they would take more care over how they spent their central funds. And I wouldn't have to work so many hours away from my DCs only to have 72 bloody grand a year taken off my income to fund their mis-spending.

I guess you should focus on the good things your tax pays for.

We still get back to the issue - which is surely once you've paid an amount - say £6000 a month in tax surely you've done your bit and should be allowed to keep 100% of the rest just like with council tax.

I noticed this thread over the weekend and dipped in and out so will admit that I haven't read all the posts.

back to the OP - well I think you should be grateful that you are earning enough to be taxed 6K.

Most people have trained and worked hard all their working lives but still get taxed and whatever they eran it is still a big chunk out of their wages - eg nurses , teachers , firemen , etc etc

GET A GRIP POSTER GET IN THE REAL WORLD !

This threafd has made me really sick - You get taxed £6k a month I dont even earn £6k a year !

However I work part time and term time only and have the joy of ebing with my children whebn they finish school and get to spend alot of time with them - I think I prefer that.

What a load of bollocks this thread is

The last time I was shocked was when I paid someone for 5 hours work. I was expecting to pay her about £36 - tax took it below 30 to £28. Not THAT shocked me. Was tempted to give her a bottle of wine to make up for it. She worked bloody hard for that as well.

oh the amount i pay her is set by social services btw.

What do you do tootaxed? I think everybody wants to know

So shoot me but I have sympathy. I've scaled back what I pay a lot as I only work PT but my husband pays through the nose. I think the point is if the money appeared to be being well spent (look eg at Scandinavian countries where they pay more but public services are far superior) you wouldn't mind so much. But when you are paying a fortune every month and don't use many of the services you are paying towards, because they are inadequately managed despite the money pouring in, and in general society appears to be heading for a breakdown no matter how much they charge, I think you have a right to be a bit cheesed off.

This is playing a special tune for all you high rate taxpayers.

"We still get back to the issue - which is surely once you've paid an amount - say £6000 a month in tax surely you've done your bit and should be allowed to keep 100% of the rest just like with council tax."

Xenia - you still haven't answered my point - the logical extension to your argument is that if people only have to contribute a finite amount of tax, other people should only be able to withdraw a finite amount of benefit.

Do you agree with that?

If not, how can we have a system that is open-ended at the receiving end but not at giving end?

If people are in need (a severely disabled child for example) they can and should be able to continue to draw on the NHS and receive benefits their whole life, without a cap.

Likewise if people are benefiting from the economy and the hard work of others, they should continue to contribute as long as they are benefiting, without a cap.

I aspire to work in a call centre, I can't even find a job that good.

There has always been a cap. There has always been NHS rationing. There is much much more that could be provided but either doctors ration or the NHS managers. That's why state schools spend half what private schools spend per child etc so I don't agree there is some universal benefit without limit. All the time now and even in the very first days of the NHS when my father first started working in it things were rationed.

We could increase tax to 60% for all or 70% even and there would be more money for the army, NHS etc but we choose not to.

The lower the tax raters the more tax Government recover actually so lowering the tax rate could mean more money for the NHS (that's rates not capping).

The community charge - same amount for each local person to pay was fair I thought but I would accept that the more you earn the more you pay up to an over all limit and ideally all at the same rate so say 10% or 20% for all until you pay £50k a year and then that's it. Then you get your pat on the back from Gordon Brown.

What's 6000 quid, 7500 euros? That does our family 3 months. Comfortably.

It's a different world, isn't it?

I normally enjoy Xenia's bracing comments, even if I don't agree with them. I'm smiling at the contradictory positions she's getting into here though. On one hand she's telling us that it's fantastic that she's in the job she's in, and we get a run-down of the lovely Easter she's been able to have with her family because of her salary, whereas a few pages back she was telling us about having to take business calls on Easter Sunday. I'm wondering if Xenia's family feel that they appreciate her job as much as she does...?

There isn't a cap Xenia - don't be ridiculous.

Yes, there is rationing ie we can't afford to give everyone who wants one a nosejob and certain drugs are beyond the public purse, but that's totally different from a personal cap.

We don't say "I'm sorry, your severely disabled child has had 3 operations on the NHS this year and has reached their personal limit of £100,000 worth of publicly paid for care - you'll have to go private if you want their asthma medication."

This person pays as much tax a month as I earn per annum?? I am less than sympathetic I must say! Please save complaints for a time when your kids are cold and you can't afford to top up the meter.

I haven't read all the thread so apologies if this has been covered before but what about flat rate tax? Somewhere like Estonia has it - the first £15,000 is tax free then you pay something like 20% on whatever you earn after that. After an initial drop when this system was first introduced, they soon found that tax revenue soared because there was such a good incentive at every earnings level to work more. Plus the much higher tax free threshold would help everyone but particularly low wage earners.

We have a reasonably flat system. It goes up a bit to 40% but then stays flat. And you can't go too flat or you risk introducing disincentives at the lower end. Your system introduces a tax hike at £15k (whereas our current jump is at about £35k) which makes it difficult for people to get out of low earning jobs and frankly makes it more likely that people will stay on benefits and pay no tax than take jobs earning £16k and pay tax. And a 20% rate could not raise enough to pay for our public services.

This whole govt has been about welfare to work - moving people off of benefits and into work (remember that's what the windfall tax was for). That is a far more difficult nut to crack than persuading people earning £90k to work a bit harder and earn £95k. And in terms of social problems, migration of millionnaires looking for lower tax rates is really small beer compared to the problems of workless families. Of course entrepreneurs need to be encouraged. But workless families and communities need more help.

I used to work on tax policy and the problem with it is it's a bit like teaching. Everyone thinks they know something about it and could do a better job. In reality it's hugely difficult - and the hardest bit is incentives at the bottom end not the top end.

So is it the benefits we pay that are the problem, do you think?

well yes - and no. Obviously you can incentivise people at the lower end of the income spectrum to get a job by withdrawing all other sources of income but that's not generally viewed as an acceptable option particularly where children are concerned.

It is just very hard - of course some people are swinging the lead. But some people are not - and in any case, do you want their children/disabled partners/other dependents to suffer because of it?

Like I say - it's all hard.

"done your bit" when you've paid £6k tax?

If you earn enough to pay that you should be ashamed of moaning tbh.There are threads on here where people are trying to feed their family and keep a roof over their heads for a fraction of that.I can't help feeling you are looking for a reaction which judging by the number of posts you have got but I haven't read the thread just replied to the OP.Look at the bigger picture you sound really selfish

I notice you say you never see your chidren Whose fault is that?According to xenia though you are a better parent than someone who stays at home so it must be worth it Funny how I've never heard many adults blame their parent always being home for their adult insecurites and problems whereas the absent parent doesn't get off so lightly in the family therapy circle never mind

Agree with noddy. Ypu must earn a lot of money to pay that much tax- but I guess that's what you wanted everyone to know

why can't the "done your bit" level be at, well, the level when I could benefit??