To reduce hours when labour win election

[Parttimeplay]

I fall into the “60%” tax bracket. With the upcoming elections and knowing the government always hammer the middle ground….woudlnt it make more sense for me to cut my hours for a more relaxed life, eligibility for childcare, reduced tax?

@EasternStandard

Tax policy on "high earners" doesn't really make any difference to the attractiveness of a country to firms that are investing. In fact many economists now dispute the link between corporation tax an investment too because investment ( as a component of AD) is linked far many more other factors ( infrastructure, labour force skills, economies of agglomeration etc) and levels of actual investment is higher in many states where there is higher CT than in others.

Although none of that is really relevant, as said, the people threatening to move countries are 99% not going to do it and will continue to work in the same job and pay a bit more tax ( although I haven't seen increasing the top rate of income tax proposed tbf).

Its the equivalent of threatening to take your ball and go home,

Wow @Spaghettily a burden 🤯

With this awful attitude it’s no wonder society is losing its grip on empathy

How do you tax wealth each year for a regular income.?
Or is this an increase in inheritance tax you mean ?

Except that nurse is providing a service for society. An exceptional service that we need. So I think NHS staff are not a good example here.

Lots of wealthy people hide their true income by paying themselves via dividends or holding their assets in off shore accounts. These legal but dubious practices need looking at. As well as IHT and CGT which have a single threshold point or a single tax rate. If CGT is the same for 300,000 as it is for 3,000,000 then that doesn’t seem right and serves to maintain and build wealth where it currently sits leaving average hard working people unable to get out of the renting trap.

No. You’ve misunderstood. I was using that as an argument against this idea that the benefit ‘burden’ (I am using their view not mine - I fully support a state that looks after it’s people) isn’t about feckless, lazy people that can’t be bothered to work.That kind of person is in the minority but over reported in tabloids. It’s a mix, including (and rightly so) pensioners that have worked hard and contributed all their lives.

Apologies for not being clearer and for any offence caused. I don’t see benefits as a burden. I see them as rightly looking after all. 💕

I don't understand why anyone with the ability and desire to move abroad to avoid high income tax hasn't gone already. We have had incredibly high tax burden under the conservatives.

I have lots of friends who have done various stints in very low income tax territories but they tend to come home at some point. Or they may not, people should do what suits them. The only Dubai lifers I know are people who are stuck there because they can't get a senior enough job elsewhere as people in London (in my industry - law) tend to be suspicious of people doing ex pat jobs for years. What we used to call FILTH types back in the day (failed in London try Hong Kong).

Anyway I digress!

Why are people pretending this is a new thing? And really really why are people pretending that they are Ok with their 60% marginal rate but are going to be NOT OK with whatever they are guessing labour will do? I'd be astonished if they put the rate up it's already shocking.

@Brooks11 At the same time, they look at a nurse and teacher raising a couple of kids (perhaps one with a disability) and think "parasites".

It's amazing that you're able to see into our minds and determine what we're thinking.

You could almost certainly make a fortune with that ability.

Well, you could be lying about your thoughts, but I think it is important to be charitable.

I am referring to tax from wealth not income tax from work, such things as capital gains tax on stocks and shares, property; company share buy backs etc. Note that capital gains tax in the U.K. is significantly lower than income tax. In the article I will link to below another suggestion is a very small levy (1%) on wealth above £10 million. The article also details the other areas I mentioned plus others such as inheritance tax loopholes. The main focus is on raising taxes on super rich people who derive their income from wealth.

https://www.taxjustice.uk/blog/six-wealth-tax-policies-to-raise-50-billion

Tax Justice also addresses in another article I will link too at the bottom of the post 12 objections critics raise against increasing tax on wealth such as the claim the very wealthy will leave the country if wealth taxes are raised. I will write out below 3 of the 12 in the article here:

“If wealth taxes are increased, won’t rich people just move abroad?

Studies have shown that most wealth holders who live in the UK have ties here, want to be here, and want to contribute as citizens. Tax levels are a minor factor in their decision to relocate in comparison to factors such as family and social ties, schooling, and overall economic stability. Our tax proposals would only lead to a very small amount payable relative to the net worth of people’s assets.

For example, the 1-2% tax (t j recommend a 1-2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, raising up to £22 billion a year) would only apply to assets above the £10 million threshold. It would not tax assets below the £10 million threshold. This would mean someone with £11 million in assets would only pay £10,000 - £20,000 a year, because they would only be taxed on their assets between £10 - £11 million, not on anything below £10 million.

Existing evidence on reform of the non-dom status showed that increasing taxes on the super-rich led to a minimal number of individuals leaving the UK. Reforms in 2017, which restricted access to the non-dom regime, led to just 2% of those who had been in the UK for fewer than 3 years leaving, the number was significantly lower for those with longer- term ties to the UK.

Wealth taxes would be bad for the economy and business

There are many compelling arguments that higher taxation of wealth in the UK could contribute to a more dynamic economy and stimulate growth, and that extreme concentration of wealth has damaging economic effects. Investments made by the super-rich tend to be less productive than those made by working people. Investing in share buybacks and dividends, for example, diverts financial resources away from the ‘real’ economy and reduces productive investment.

With the UK having suffered decades of low productivity and wage stagnation, anincreasing number of academic studies are finding that fairer taxation of wealth is a path to a healthier and more dynamic economy. Redistribution can create a healthier economy in which working people have more financial freedom, thus raising demand for goods and services and benefiting British businesses and high streets. Tax Justice UK has set out how six changes to taxes on wealth could raise £50 billion annually to invest in health, education, research and development, and national infrastructure, creating a healthier and happier workforce and encouraging productivity growth.

We have the highest peacetime taxes in the country’s history, we can’t raise taxes anymore.

The level of taxes in the UK is about average compared to similar countries. Many European countries have much higher levels of tax than the UK. At Tax Justice UK, we don’t want to raise taxes on working people. We want to raise taxes on super rich people who derive their income from wealth. The effective tax rate on working people is the highest it’s ever been, while the richest in our society, whose wealth is ballooning by tens of billions of poundsevery year, pay a much lower tax rate. For example, Rishi Sunak, who earned nearly £2 million in 2021-22, has an effective tax rate of 22%, while an average doctor in London pays 40% in tax. This is because taxes on income from wealth are much lower than taxes on work, and the Prime Minister made most of his income from returns on dividends and capital gains.

In this context, the government has chosen to increase taxes on working people (by freezing income tax thresholds) rather than looking to the wealthiest. In fact even the wealthiest pay very different rates of tax, depending on the source of their wealth. A study found, the average person earning more than £2 million had an effective average tax rate of 40%, while the average person with total remuneration of £10 million from capital gains, has an effective tax rate of just 21%. It’s even unfair for the super-rich!

https://www.taxjustice.uk/blog/wealth-taxes-will-cause-the-rich-to-flee-11-wealth-tax-myths-debunked

@silverneedle what a wonderful post. I’ve thought for some time that we tax people with few assets and modest income too much and that wealth tax is the way to go. You’ve articulated your argument very well. For those who have won life’s financial lottery, would it really hurt to pay a bit more tax and have a better society with decent education, healthcare, security and infrastructure? Who was it that said that tax is a price we pay for civilisation?

Excellent post.

What an absolutely disgusting post. ‘The main burden is pensioners ‘ you mean the people that have paid into the tax system most of them for 40 plus years that have propped up everything, thousands of whom are currently being failed by this country in terms of social care and the nhs ? You should be ashamed.

I agree. It is like all the posts who judge contribution by net tax payment at the moment. Similarly dumb.

The main burden is pensioners is factually correct. The money they paid into the system wasn’t put away for when they reach retirement age, it was used to pay the generations before pension. How did they do anything differently from the working age population now

It's always somewhat amused me the way higher earners behave when they're entitled to to take something back. They do everything in their power both legally and often illegally to maximise their entitlement and heaven forbid they have to pay care home fees for their parents. They've been paying tax all their lives!

If the careworker they're refusing to pay properly asks for a little more so she can feed her children and heat her home she's entitled, lazy, feckless, stupid etc.

The amount of mental gymnastics they must have to go through to justify this to themselves is really quite astounding. It's not surprising that a small number of them would rather move to, and financially support a country, which treats women like second class citizens and has a history of shocking abuses of human rights in order to avoid paying a bit more tax.

For example, Rishi Sunak, who earned nearly £2 million in 2021-22, has an effective tax rate of 22%, while an average doctor in London pays 40% in tax.

Holy fucking shit. Just 22%!

Crikey. No. That’s not what I meant. Please see my other apology. I am 100% supporting of benefits and pensions. My response was to the poster that was suggesting that those on benefits and the benefit ‘burden’ (I don’t see it as a burden - they do) is people with spurious diagnoses and lazy people that don’t want to work. I was pointing out that pensions are a massive part of what the state pays out so it’s people that have worked all their life - but I can see how it’s been misunderstood out of the context of the other poster. But to be clear. I fully support taxes paying pensions and benefits. Apologies for any upset 💕

Yes, but I wasnt saying that. I was replying to a post that insinuated that the benefit burden was all about feckless lazy work shy people. I was pointing out its mainly pensions - so people that have worked all their lives. I FULLY support the benefits system and believe that the lazy takers who don’t care are few but are over reported. Apologies for the misunderstanding! 😬

Yup. And this is why we need to focus on taxing wealth more, not income or we stand no chance of shrinking the appalling inequality in the UK.

State pensions were introduced in 1948.
Anyone that is a pensioner now will have supported pensioners when they were working.
Just as they have a right to the same.
That’s how the system works.
It all goes wrong if birth rates start dropping, which it did in the late 60s. With an average of 140,000 less births every year we now have a smaller population working supporting a larger population not.
This will be a problem as long as birth rates drop every year.

Hence the importance of everyone paying in to maintain our services.

Thank you.

I’ve thought for some time that we tax people with few assets and modest income too much and that wealth tax is the way to go - definitely

For those who have won life’s financial lottery, would it really hurt to pay a bit more tax and have a better society with decent education, healthcare, security and infrastructure? - agree surely would not - and of course the super rich don’t even pay their fair share currently.

But the system is changing. Workers now have to pay into a defined contribution scheme and support OAPs.

The long term plan is clearly to abolish the State Pension sometime around 2060, which will be 48 years after they introduced compulsory pension contributions in 2012. I wouldn't be surprised to see it tapered before that time - e.g. I started working in 2000, so i might get 25% of the State Pension for the years accrued between 2000 and 2012. I'll be expected to have built up enough private pension to cover the remaining 75%.

The only people getting 100% State Pension will be those that have never worked, such as the genuinely disabled and the workshy. I'm not sure how they'll deal with people that actively choose to opt out of the pension contributions. I think it would be fair to give them fuck all, but i expect they'll end up getting full pensions because [insert sob story here].

The working age population will also be entitled to draw their pension when the time comes. I do hope that somebody calls you a ‘factually correct burden ‘ when it’s time for you to draw yours though or perhaps you’d prefer to euthanise yourself before that point so you don’t become a ‘burden’ instead ?