The wealthiest families should pay the Coronovirus bill

[WellDoneBridge]

Aibu to think this is VERY unfair the household incomes of £100k plus should be tax EVEN further?!

Ffs... Anneliese Dodds. What a joke!!!!

Is it really a choice to have a low income job though? Access to decent education, ability to go to university and having the time to learn a new skill isn't something you can just 'do' when low income jobs are all that is available to you.

Perhaps, instead of blaming people for not wanting to better themselves (highly insulting btw) perhaps you could question fairness of pay. Manual labour (supermarket workers, care home staff) has been what has been keeping this country going while others have the luxury of being safe and WFH.

Not everyone can earn huge amounts, everyone has a ceiling and everyone deserves certain basics in life- these have to be funded. Fact is greater taxation means those on a higher income may have to reign in some personal lifestyle choices whilst those on the lowest incomes may not be able to eat or put a roof over their heads. That’s why it’s fair to stagger tax.

So if everyone 'betters themselves' in order to earn more, who is going to do the vital minimum wage jobs without which this country would grind to a halt?

@WellDoneBridge

As Ken Dodd further up thread said .........I wouldn't worry op.
We have a Tory government, the cost for this will fall on the backs of the young and the poorest...... with austerity - which was needed due to greedy and incompetent (w)bankers it was the poorest members of society...disabled.... that paid....

Don't worry you will prbably keep your hubbies £100K and increasing numbers at the bottom will use food banks --- sigh

@Iamthewombat

As a high earner, I think there comes a point when other sources of revenue need to be considered before looking to increase tax on the individual.

Let’s hear about these ‘other sources of revenue’ then, and why they haven’t been considered by the Treasury.

In the context of a thread entitled "The wealthiest should pay the coronavirus bill", and those wealthiest being defined as those earning over £100k, absolutely I think other current sources of tax revenue should be reviewed before this group is raided as a whole.

People on PAYE are one of the easiest ways for HMRC to raise revenue. Since they introduced RTI, it's even simpler to operate, and for them to follow up with employers. Once, we accidentally sent the BACS for the PAYE to arrive 2 days later than it should, and we received a call from HMRC asking where it was in the morning of the first overdue day!

If they raised the top rate to 50% plus, they would raise a decent amount at a stroke, but they'd piss off the group that pays the most tax, and are probably more likely to vote for them (I don't personally, and wouldn't).

It's much more difficult for them to announce they'll collect additional amounts on corporation tax (companies will probably find a way to offset more costs to lower profits), or on inherited wealth, hence they won't do it.

@Rainbow12e

My partner earns over 100K and is worried about this. Doesn't seem fair to punish the hard working and wealthy.

Diddums.

Who do you think should pay? The poor? Many of whom, I am sure, work harder than your precious partner.

And paying tax is not a “punishment”. It’s the price we have to pay to live in society, and of course those who can afford more should pay more.

Is it really a choice to have a low income job though? Access to decent education, ability to go to university and having the time to learn a new skill isn't something you can just 'do' when low income jobs are all that is available to you

I take it this is aimed at me? If so the point I make is that saying ‘well it’s your choice to work PT and care for your children’ is equally as ignorant and insensitive as saying ‘Well people on low wages could better themselves and earn more’ it’s the same logic really. The ‘it’s your choice therefore your fault if you’re unhappy’.

I don’t want to work PT but I’m trapped doing it.

We need childcare, my current wage is less than nursery fees in our area. Even if we wouldn’t lose money to send them DH’s career also doesn’t offer the flexibility to facilitate drop offs/pick ups so that would still be all on me. DH can’t go PT as my earning potential (at this stage in my career) simply can’t match his and we need to pay the mortgage/bills and live (Very average house and no flashy cars/holidays...etc). Yes all of these are ‘choices’ but not really more or less so than low income workers who equally can’t better their earning prospects because of childcare/time/finances. I just find it incredibly irritating that it’s fine to say ‘well you could work FT’ to someone like me but insensitive to say ‘well you could get a better job’ to someone comparing about low income. Well yeah...I could...but it’s pretty unrealistic and financially problematic.

@Jux

I like the idea that all jobs pay the same. If there is a vacancy it is a job that the company needs to have done, doesn't matter whether it's a loo cleaner or a CEO.

Citizen's wage is a good idea too. With a bit of tweaking we can make that work sensibly.

Except...some people work a lot harder/faster than others/get better results/do a better job. Is that fair?

The one thing I thought everyone had realised over the past weeks is that the people who keep this country going are the key workers most of whom are on low pay. So comments like high earners work hard and people should better themselves are really not helpful. How quickly we forget.

Exactly pixie. Supermarket staff, care workers, nurses have all kept this country running while high earners are able to safely work at home. Not saying WFH is easy or enjoyable, but it's safe.

Try criticising inequality of pay and understanding that people on low income jobs aren't choosing this, nor are they just being too lazy to 'better themselves' (still insulting).

It's also not a criticism on people working PT, dunno where that came from.

Corporate/Business tax is one. It’s flat rate at 19% of profits (not income).

You have to ask yourself, with the lowest individual tax bracket paying 20% income tax, why is it that giants like Amazon are paying even less than that?

The question was, “Let’s hear about these other sources of income that the Treasury haven’t considered”.

You haven’t answered that, but the answers to your questions appear in several places on this thread.

Amazon can get away with paying less corporation tax because the UK Treasury can’t control what other countries do. We can’t invade the Caymans, or Luxembourg, to demand that they stop offering favourable tax rates to multinationals. We have international legislation (BEPS: look it up if you’re interested) to deal with this, but you can’t legislate for jurisdictions who want to do their own thing to pull in foreign money. If you find the solution, let us know.

Otherwise, we pull in more CT revenue now than we did when CT rates were higher. Increasing CT is not the answer, I’m afraid. It’s nice to think that wicked old businesses should pay for the virus, but it doesn’t work like that.

I’m not going to respond to each individual point as I have a cranky baby on the go. Plus you’ve totally missed my point.

Oh you’re back, are you?

I’m not arguing the current tax system, or that higher income shouldn’t pay some extra.

That is exactly what you have been arguing for. You should read some of your earlier posts, to remind yourself.

I am arguing that the answer to the furlough debt is to further increase the taxation of ‘high earners’ who already pay proportionally more than others, certainly aren’t rolling in spare cash and are villainized for wanting to hold onto their hard earned cash.

You were arguing exactly the opposite position earlier. Did you mean to put the word ‘not’ in the paragraph above?

You were the one who suggested doctors were not a ‘special case’

Yes, you got that bit right. Let’s see if that continues...

and as others have since corrected, yes they sort of are.

Which other posters have put forward a good argument in favour of doctors being given special, favourable tax treatment compared to people earning similar amounts? All of your attempted arguments have fallen on stony ground, because they were ill-founded and poorly-executed. Moving on...

That’s irrelevant to the current tax system but very relevant to your argument that Dr’s are somehow rolling in cash they’re begrudgingly trying to withhold from donating to the greater good.

Who said that doctors are rolling in cash? You and your husband simply need to accept that you’ll be paying the same amount of tax as other higher rate taxpayers, and if the higher rate increases, you won’t be getting special treatment for any of the weak reasons you’ve outlined.

I do work but am part time caring for children. Saying ‘well you could work FT, that’s your choice’ well equally ‘low income workers could retrain/get themselves better paid jobs, that’s their choice!’

I don’t care whether you work full time, part time or not at all. You complained that with one wage earner, you paid more tax than two wage earners earning the same amount in aggregate would. There’s a reason for that: if you don’t work you don’t get to use your personal allowance. That is a choice: yours. Don’t blame the taxation system for your own choices.

Why should they be exempt from further taxation for their choices whilst we are penalised for ours?

Low paid people don’t usually choose to be low paid. Do you really think that they do? This thread has been an eye opener, and not in a good way.

Oh, fabulous news for my family. We've just now, today, lost our Working Tax Credits! Luckily, they were only 100 a month so we won't have to eat too many more tins of beans a week! (I'd settle for spaghetti hoops, but dh won't countenance them. I'd like a change now and then though).

Oh sorry, you were talking about Corporation Tax weren't you? That's v important, sorry to interrupt.

If we want to raise more tax the most obvious thing to do is raise the basic rate of tax. Our basic tax rate is much lower than other European countries with better funded public services.

This is just another tax on income however. I thought the government were thinking about a one off wealth tax which is a much more interesting prospect. Take your assets (Savings,property, pension pot), less your liabilities (debt, mortgage etc), that is your wealth. Would it be more equitable to tax this rather than just another income tax? The Sunday Times was digesting the tax would only kick in if your wealth was over £750k. The obvious problem is that some of this wealth is not very liquid - I.e. the house you live in - but it is an interesting concept to look at overall wealth rather than just income all the time.

And yes, as was stated above, please realise Amazon etc don’t pay much corporation tax due to the way international tax works, and the UK government alone can’t change that. Every time the question of which tax to raise comes around Amazon etc are mentioned, and it really isn’t that simple!

At what point is higher rate tax ‘enough’? If you earn £100k once NI and income tax, and loss of child benefit, childcare vouchers etc is taken into account then you pay more in tax than you receive each month. Is this fair?

Takw your assets (Savings,property, pension pot), less your liabilities (debt, mortgage etc), that is your wealth then aren’t you just penalising people who prioritise savings/ paying off their debt?

if you earn £100k once NI and income tax, and loss of child benefit, childcare vouchers etc is taken into account then you pay more in tax than you receive each month no you don’t, how are you making that sum?

If all jobs are paid equally, I'll definitely change to a different career.

Some pp seem happy with lower earnings to work reduced hours and do something they enjoy.

I feel we should all pay more tax apart from people on minimal wage. I do think it's unfair if people who weren't furloughed have to pay a bigger proportion, a fair few of my friends were wealthier not working - no childcare/commuting costs (and they are very unlikely to be made redundant).

@Coastercat - Londoners and many other UK cities really won't put up with a tax on property equity. That's money people haven't ever seen if they owned the property for many years, or they paid off a mortgage in punitive property costs; either way it isn't money that anybody has sitting in their pocket until the property is sold. We can't ALL sell up and move to a cheap village elsewhere, but it would be forcing many out of their homes if you try to "take" value that they can't access. Besides which, why would it be fair to penalise owning a house, but not penalise having spent the same money on a car, jewellery or holidays?

Indeed the tax on property has its problems, but then again if someone owns a property worth £750k without mortgage it is likely that they have benefited in some way from either inheritance or house price rises - neither of which have been taxed in the hands of the recipient. It seems fairer to try to tax these assets rather than yet more income tax.

Take someone truly asset rich. They have a house with no mortgage and are living off a trust fund for instance. What tax do they pay? Well they will be taxed on any income / capital gains from the trust fund investments but with the current level of interest rate this is likely to be low. Could they afford to pay more? I think so.

Earn £100k and you’ll take home £66k. Have two kids and you won’t get the £1,800 child benefit earning that much, and you won’t get the tax free childcare which is worth £2k. You don’t get free hours of childcare if you earn over £100k either so any further tax rises and you’ll be getting near the stage where after paying for the childcare you are not getting free you could get close to taking home £50k. And that’s when people earning over £100k (I certainly don’t) might start thinking it is not fair.

And you won’t get income support or housing benefit or council tax reduction. I wonder why, oh yes you don’t need it.

Is it really a choice to have a low income job though? Access to decent education, ability to go to university and having the time to learn a new skill isn't something you can just 'do' when low income jobs are all that is available to you.

I think many people assume that education is necessary to earn a decent salary. I got my HGV license in four days of training and was on £45k within 18 months. Not senior manager salary but a lot better than minimum wage and likely a very good option for the types of people unlikely to do well in a corporate environment.

It cost me £2k but I know a fair few drivers who went the route of government training programs. Many companies will also put their employees through the training as the UK is facing a shortage of drivers with the average age being 55yo and there being a 100k shortage of drivers.

Two of my previous driver's mates are currently being put through their training. Both early 20s, of ethnic origin, and with few qualifications. Both will be on around £35k by the time they're 23 and with few years experience will be able to get onto £40-£45k. For the really ambitious there are options like becoming an owner operator or going into specialist areas like mobile cranes where the experienced guys can earn £85k, but realistically £60k+.

Coastercat as much as it pains me to say it, having children is a choice, a phrase I hate but none the less true. I actually think CB is a complete farce and should be given to everyone as it was, everyone gets 15free hours a wk- if people think it’s so much worse earning 100k than 49k then stick to the lower salary. It’s rubbish that’s why!