to think a flat tax of 25% for all on everything would be much fairer?

[peapodlovescuddles]

51% is ridiculous. People shouldn't be penalised for working hard their entire life (and I know this will be controversial) and being much better than average at what they doI know the economy is in trouble but surely alienating the richest portion of society is a stupid idea?
£150,000 isn't a ridiculous salary, there are plenty of middle class professionals who aren't living a lavish lifestyle earning that much.

i think a flat rate tax would be fair as long as the personal allowance were set at a reasonable level.
i have seen the argument before that lower earners pay proprtionately more tax, however what is not often mentioned is that those earning the very high wages often use less of the resorces available. generally somebody on £150k per year will have private health care, will send their kids to private school and if they loose their job they are generally not in a position to claim any benefits, looking at it from that point of view i can see that a higher earner might wonder what they get for their money.

nancy75 - the word fair does not even come into your analogy.

why?

They get roads, the police, the fire brigade, national defence, weather forecasts, A&E care if they get knocked down by a bus, universities, trains...and the luxury, should they want it, of being able to opt back into the system. Under many circumstances, you are better off being treated by the NHS for some conditions.

dh will be paying 51% tax (if he still has a job) on the top slice of his earnings. I think that's entirely fair.

"being much better than average". Lots of people who are experts in their field earn considerably less than £150,000. What a completely ridiculous OP. Let look at investment bankers and hedge fund managers for starters. Show me how they are 'better than average'? Their complete lack of derivatives and the sub prime market is the reason we are in this mess. Nothing else.

understanding derivatives etc.

nancy, they get to live in a civilised society where the poor and dispossessed are not rioting at the gates.

We ALL benefit from living in a society where people look after each other and contribute what they can to the common good. There is a huge body of evidence showing how highly unequal societies (like the US) pay a terrible price in community breakdown, crime, antisocial behaviour, family dysfunction, and poorer health (poorer health for everybody, including the rich, interestingly).

I never complain about paying tax. I think it is the cornerstone of the kind of world I want to live in.

Well- I don't buy that argument nancy75- at the end of the day if we want to have a decent society to live in we need to put in what is required.
I don't think we pay enough tax in this country- look at skandinavia- 50, 60, 70% taxes, even for those on lower incomes... the difference is the actual pay rates- factory workers, working in a canning factory, with no qualifications or skilled were on £17.50 per hour 10 years ago (my friend was one in Denmark).
We have to support everyone that lives in this country, not just those we feel like supporting this week
Taxes are not about what you personally get back- they are about the welfare of all- that includes many people who are disadvantaged and marginalised- they are still deserving of a decent life, and a reasonable standard of living.

noonki- I have lived in poverty (and I'm not just talking about not being able to afford a flatscreen television here...) and I'm sorry, but a flat tax rate simply is the fairest system- providing as I said above that VAT is abolished on those items we all need- fuel, food, sanpro, clothing etc. If you earn £400k- you would pay £100k tax, if you earn £20k you pay £5k tax- how is that unfair? The personal allowance should also be raised to a level at which people can live rather than just 'get by'.

I haven't read the budget details yet, but I think it is unfair to remove anyone's personal allowance- we all need to eat whether we earn 10k or 100,000k.

i dont remember suggesting they shouldnt pay any tax, and 25% of £150k is nearly £40k per year, thats quite a hefty contribution.

'A flat tax is the fairest system' - it all depends on your definition of 'fair'. If you believe in the redistribution of income - working towards (but probably never achieving) a roughly equal post-tax income for all - then progressive taxation is the only way to achieve it. Flat taxes result in the rich having far more, in absolute terms.

madeindevon - you are extraordinarily selfish.

Dh is a high earner and works very hard..but he is also very fortunate indeed that his work is well remunerated. Other people also show commitment, effort and dedication to their work but aren't rewarded quite so well. Still others are not in a position to work...

Dh and I accept graduated taxation, and that he should pay more. It is the mark of a civilised society.

well pw - I didn't say anything about wealth redistribution! I judge it as fair as everyone pays the same proportion.

Well yes, fair enough - it's just that you stated 'flat taxes are the fairest' as though this were a fact, not an opinion. Whereas in fact it's yet another thing we could all argue about until it's time to go to bed.

I know this has been said before but it bears saying AGAIN

Having a shed load of money doesnt not automatically mean you work harder than someone who earns feck all.

Get up at 5.30am and drive down a main road in London. There are very many poor people standing waiting for the first morning bus. They get on the bus, they get to their office, hospital, school, prison, they clean up piss, sick and shite, they go home. They start it all again the next day, and the next and the next and so it goes.

They are 'lucky' if they get minimum wage. They dont get paid holidays, paid lunch hours, pensions, company cars, away days, training, christmas parties or respect from people who think £150k could not fund a lavish lifestyle.

So to repeat YABVFU.

indeed pw
I am off there now...

Very sensible

chegirl - indeed. Was it Polly Toynbee who wrote the book about surviving on the minimum wage? There was some really shocking stuff.

Is it not the case (and I'm quite prepared to be wrong since I rarely involve myself in the financial affairs of the rich) that after earnings of what amounts to around c£100,000pa National Insurance is payable at 1%?

Is that not a massive "tax" saving that the rich enjoy? The rest of us pay at 16%.

So I'm assuming you flat taxers are taking that into consideration. (I know NI isn't meant to be a tax, but it is isn't it, to all intents and purposes?)

It in fact completely compensates you, and more, for the recent Income Tax rise in terms of proportion of income taken by the government.

YABU. Flat tax on income is unfair, simple as. Why should people earning more pay a higher proportion? - because it's fairer all round, that's why.

The Beatles didn't exactly suffer and starve on the 95% tax regime either, did they? How much is McCartney worth now?

I do not see how a system where some people pay a higher proportion can be fair. We do not live in a Marxist society- why shpuld wealth redistribution be our aim?
We still have a monarchy ffs, our society is exceedingly hierarchical.

Paul MacCartney is hardly a reasonable example is he?

1. he is utterly prolific (hence income)- he has worked practically every day of his life from his teens into retirement years

2. society over-values celebrity status (witness how someone like JG actually has an inheritance to leave her children

wonders if dollius would like to work a my sons carer, because I bet she be asking for more than the 54 quid a week that I get.

Just think how much would cost if they needed to pay someone to look after him

madeindevon's post was astonishingly judgemental - and she then had the brass neck to come back and tell others they were making alot of assumptions. Er - "pot - kettle - black" love.

You cannot tax someone 25% on a minimum wage - what on earth would they live on.

150k is a fabulous income - so you have to pay 51% on anything over that - boo fecking hoo. I am so sad for you - really I am.

... and nancy75 - if the higher earners use private schools, medical care (whatever) all those people involved will have trained in the public sector funded by taxpayers - oh and if they ever have the misfortune to be involved in a serious accident where on earth do you think the ambulance will come from? Not from the local private hospital I can assure you. In other words they reap the bloody benefits in every way from taxation - just because they pay for it doesn't absolve them from responsibility for maintaining public services which they can use freely the same as anyone else.... and never know when they might need either.

right, i simply can't see how one could not live a lavish lifestyle on 150k.

explain.