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.

MoreSpam ..... people who work their backsides off to earn lots of cash aren't being taxed "gross amounts" though. They are being taxed at 40%, in exactly the same way that other people, who also work their backsides off to earn much less cash are. So, what's wrong with that ? It's proportional.

depends how you get paid by your employer - its harder these days but payment via bonuses, certain share schemes, options etc can get you to much lower rates - the private equity investors for example get 'paid' in shares they then dispose of and pay cap gains at rates approaching 10% (although that has just been stopped) - i agree with Xenia its normally non doms who negotiate / agree tax liabilities but it does happen.

Actually the thing that IS unfair is that it is only well off who can afford to have good tax advice to help them pay less tax. I have no problem with people minimsing the tax they pay so long as it is legal. What annoys me is that most people dont have access to the info to make sure they are not overpaying.

catsmother but that's just the thing - some people work their backsides off and pay 40% tax, others work just as hard and only pay 25% tax. I agree with taxes but I disagree with an upper and lower tax band - people should pay proportionate to what they earn - the higher earners would still be paying more than the lower earners.

Oh fgs. I can't be bothered to read the whole thread, but it's well known that people on lower incomes actually pay MORE tax (as a proportion of their earnings) than people in an upper tax bracket.

Quite a bit more in fact. So consider yourself lucky.

nancy - if I had a child that was in pain - i would pay rather than say "here little Johnny - have some more calpol only another 6 months to go!"

I think surgery that private health care wont cover is probably not going to be £176000. In fact she didnt say she couldnt afford it.

I agree that everyone has a right to the nhs if you are paying tax - maybe that was too hasty. But I just cannot see me earning that much cash and my dc in pain and me doing nothing. im just saying that if its THAT important and deperate and you can afford it, then why not use private health care or pay for it if the wait is so long?

Wannabe - the reason you have to have an upper income tax band is to iron out the other inequalities in the tax system, such as council tax (a much higher proportion of lower income household's income), VAT and duty.

A packet of tampons pays the same amount of VAT whether you earn £10,000 or £100,000 but is a massively much larger proportion of the £10,000 household.

Oh to be earning enough to pay that much tax.....yes I am jealous!!!!!

bonuses and options still taxed at 40% (though timing is often deferred on option schemes if option is exercisable at current market value), Certain share schemes can reduce tax but only in very limted cases.

I can't beleive I'm getting so excited at a thread on tax I'm such a bloody accountant!

Kewc, is right. Unless you're able to make your earnings capital because you're an investor (i.e. start up a business which means you are not being paid any wage or not much of one (which most of us can't afford)) then it is not easy to reduce that 41% apart from the obvious things like paying into a pension etc and you need spare money to do that.

There are a good few countries with flat taxes now and people in the UK fed up with UK tax should seriously consider if they'd like to move there to take advantage. I can't remember all the rates - some countries in Eastern Europe, the Baltics 25% etc. I would like it even more radical Flat tad for all at same right with an upper cut off and above the cut off you aren't taxed because you've done your bit for the nation. Tax is theft etc.

I actually started reading this thread cos it was on tax - i too am an accountant the shame....

WannaBe ..... I do see where you're coming from, but I can't quite ditch the notion that people who are "fortunate" enough to have a well paid job should contribute a little more to society. Maybe, given house prices, and the overall cost of basic living (fuel, utilities etc) in the UK, there's an argument for raising the lower tax band (on the basis that someone earning £40k these days would still be hard pushed to buy somewhere to live in, even using 4x salary) as the start of the 40% band isn't that high ??

Why do I think higher earners should pay more tax ? ..... well, I'm not sure I can articulate it very well, but I suppose it's about being a decent member of society and acknowledging that you are better off than most, and can therefore "afford" to contribute more. I know I'm not putting it very well. Frankly, I'd be pleased to pay 40% tax, because that would mean I was, at long last, despite years of hard work and study, earning enough to be in that category, and be taking more home as a result.

If there was a flat rate tax band across the board, my extremely rudimentary understanding of taxes tell me that this base rate would have to increase hugely from 25% (albeit under 40%) to break even. For lower income families, that's going to have an impossible to live by impact.

sorry, when i said bonuses i meant non cash ones but i agree that fancy scheme like wine, gold and platinum sponge have gone the way of the dodo (probably a good thing)

Sorry Xenia, but how on earth is it right that someone struggling to get by on £10k a year should have to do their bit for the NHS, while someone swanning along on £100K a year is patted on the head and told to run along and play?

Plenty of people work incredibly long hours in incredibly hard jobs and earn peanuts because they weren't lucky enough to be born clever or have the advantages to go to university or whatever. Or because they have a social conscience and want to do a job that helps society more than they want to earn lots

When you show me a society in which all professions are valued at their true worth and any member of society can earn a living wage and then maybe I'll think that a flat tax rate is a good thing. Until then, I'll stick with supertax, thanks.

Good point by theYoungvisiter !!

The "hidden" taxes certainly aren't proportional to income are they ?

why is earning 10k struggling and 100k swanning.

i know someone who earns 10k - and they swan

the 100 k are stressed all the bloody time.

but as a higher rate tax payer not only do you have to give more to society, but you are entitled to less. e.g. tax credits - why should only lower rate tax payers be entitled - or people who earn a certain amount? tax credits are there to help with the raising of one's family, no? I am a sahm and I am lucky that my dh earns enough money to support us both. I do not claim any benefits, technically I am receiving nothing from the government atm, but because my dh earns a good wage I am not entitled to anything in return either. it's all take and no give.

But please can we ditch this idea that the wealthy pay more tax? For the last time THEY DON'T.

They pay more INCOME tax. They do not pay more GROSS tax. They pay less gross tax than the very poor.

Here are the figures given in answer to a parliamentary question about gross tax levels.

In the 2004/5 tax year households in the bottom bracket earnt an average of £8376 and paid an average of £3564 gross tax - about 43% of their total income.

People in the top bracket earnt an average of £84357 and paid an average of £29420 in tax - about 35%.

and yes, high earnings often equal high stress. look at some of the traders in london for instance, they earn finominal amounts of money and huge bonuses, but most of them have to retire by the age of 40 because they just can't hack the stress.

the hidden taxes are the current government's speciality though...ironic given its a Labour government and you would expect them to protect lower earners. Stealth taxes are their trademark...

No tax system will ever be fair.

tootaxed, can only advise you - make sure you have the best financial advice you can afford and dont look at the amount the govt is taking from you. It's like looking at the summit of a mountain youre trying to climb - not a good idea for anyone.

wannaBe - they can afford to retire at 40 - most of us are going to have to work until we drop.

I'm sorry but I have feck all sympathy for people who earn trillions and moan about being stressed - that's the downside of earning a lot.

Aren't you entitled to child benefit? Tax credits are to help those on low incomes work.

I can't believe there are so many people who want free education, healthcare and subsidised transport but don't want to pay for it. Where on earth do you think the money comes from?

got to go, low battery, i look fwd to seeing how this one ends - a revised Budget for Mr Darling perhaps!!?

yes, I quite agree that high income often equals high stress etc etc, but the point is that people earning high incomes have chosen that path.

People in the bottom income bracket have not usually chosen to earn very little. They are usually there because of disability, learning difficulties, social disadvantages etc etc.

If you don't like which tax bracket you are in there is a very simple remedy - earn less!

TT - I wonder whether you have looked into the tax code you are on? It may not be quite right. Are you on a K tax code?

Perhaps you should find yourself a good accountant to have a look at things for you, help you with your tax return, and perhaps give you some pointers?

Does your DH get any kind of benefits, like DLA or Incapacity?

I'm sure you feel things are difficult for you. You'll never get a balanced view on here because the more "0's" you have in your salary, the less sympathy you'll get, because money seems to solve all problems apparently.....

Regarding the private health - I'd imagine that whatever she has is chronic and probably not covered by private health. It'll have to be a 'new' thing that started after the start of the policy, or, something she's had for over 5 years and that there be a development in the condition. Your average private operatino will cost around £3500.00 in total including tests, consultants appointments, pre op stuff and follow ups. Children usually cost more because if done ina private hospital they have to bring in paediatric nurses to do obs and most private hospitals dont have a full time paediatric nurse on site. I know I couldnt afford to have our monthly take home spent on an op for one of ours, and by the time you've saved, no doubt a slot on the NHS comes up. 3 times is quite a lot of times to cancel an op. Have they given a reason why each time - other than bed space?