The loss of an individuals personal allowance (for earners over £100,000) should increase each year with inflation.

[Itsthedifference]

If the personal allowance is raised from £12,570 to £20,000 (Great):

Then, by the same justification, shouldn’t the £100,000 “cap” be raised?
(Where an individuals personal allowance is reduced by £1 for every £2 of income earned over £100,000)

Surely the loss of your personal allowance should be increasing each year with inflation. Yet it’s been the same since 2010.

Op can you link the headline please @Itsthedifference

The problem of having a lot of money?

Maybe that threshold can be raised when our nurses don’t rely on food banks to feed themselves and their families.

Such an immature reaction. Do you know how much tax these people pay so you lower earners don't have to?!

Its not me staying it though - is it

But lower earners do pay tax.

meanwhile, they can’t afford to feed their families. And the higher earners bitch and moan about paying, and about their private school fees increasing.

The top 10% of income earners pay 60% of all income tax receipts. The top 1% pay 29% of all income tax.

Proportionate? No.

All the people earning around £50,000 and only paying 20% is a problem. It's not enough.

Ultimately if you want to have more revenue overall you want a system where the vast majority of people at all levels of income just grumble a bit about tax vs actively taking steps to avoid paying it. You currently have a system where the vast majority in £100-125k and lots on £60-80k that have families actively take steps to avoid tax. You have a similar situation with UC tapering at the bottom end where people with families actively choose to work less hours as they’d be worse off overall working full time taking childcare costs into account or they’d have so little extra for the additional work it just doesn’t feel worthwhile. It’s all part of the same issue & it’s all bad for overall tax receipts.

Hi @AmazonianWarrior - you may want to start your own thread with this question and then you will get more specific response to it

good luck!

No.

the problem is the richest in society avoiding paying their taxes. The problem is people like Starmer and Farage exploiting loopholes to avoid paying their taxes. The problem is corporations and the like not paying their way.

going after ordinary people doesn’t help one bit.

Sadly for the nurses once they reach band 8d or 9 on the pay scale this taxation issue becomes their problem too.
You think it only applies to bankers and lawyers?

What is really concerning imo is that £100k isn't thought of as a normal salary and the average salary should be around £75k

But also the fact that someone earning £125k is paying the same tax as someone earning £200k, where as the difference between £25k (around £3,400) and £100k (around £31,000) is so wildly different

You're just not very clued up on this issue and parroting what you've heard.

People earning £100k are ordinary people.

Indeed they are.

That’s very true.

Someone earning 50k pays just 7.5k income tax whereas someone earning 125k pays 42.5k.

A 150% increase in pay results in paying nearly 6 times more income tax.

When compared to most other countries we tax lower earners a lot less than they do and higher earners a lot more than they do. Unfortunately much of the political rhetoric suggests the opposite is true making sensible change almost impossible.

This is exactly that's unfair. This can, and does stop people from bothering to work harder to earn more.

Well, I think the personal allowance should be raised to £24k for everyone and everyone with income over that should pay flat-rate tax @20% like the Swiss model. Increasing the personal allowance should also cut a significant amount of spending on benefits.

Alas no
Raising the pa to 24k would result in a massive reduction in tax take, which we can't afford without huge cuts in public services
A flat tax at 20% would also result in huge reduction in tax take, which we can't afford (as above)
Increasing the PA cutting spending on benefits: no. A huge chunk of who currently receives UC are low earners and part time workers including non working/low hours working pip receipients, who pay little to no tax already and would still be eligible for all the same benefits

The country would be bankrupt in days!!

In Sweden everyone pays 32% until they reach a certain amount and then it's 20% extra

The biggest issue with it is there's no method of really understanding how the jumps in our pensions occur so its hard to predict or avoid... so basically everyone stops as too scared just in case (particularly when nearer retirement as said consultants are in 2 different pension schemes which makes it more complicated still)

The biggest jump is when you finish training as as a trainee you are only pensioned on your basic 40H/week salary (not the out of hours nights/weekend bit, which is about 50% of our take home)...but consultants pay 12.5% pension on their entire salary so their pensionable amount goes up massively that year so you get big bills.

Tbh I don't really understand it as have too much stress to deal with re finishing training and it wont affect me for a couple of years yet

This is a Dr that tries his best trying to explain it to us

.

The top 10% of income earners pay 60% of all income tax receipts. The top 1% pay 29% of all income tax.
Proportionate? No

Your maths is off. The group of "top 10%" comprises far more people that the "top 1%". The reason the top 10% adds an extra 31% of the tax take beyond the top 1%, is there's far, far more people in that bracket.

No, it doesn’t.

why is it unfair that the richest in society pay more?

Of course it does. What do you think people do when faced with effective marginal tax rates of 100%? Would you work extra for no reward?