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!!!!

@Iamthewombat Do you have any suggestions as to which set of taxpayers should be paying the coronavirus bill, or do you agree "the wealthiest" as defined by this thread should do so via raising the earnings thresholds or tax rates?

Given your tax knowledge, I'm curious as to which source you think would be most equitable, effective and efficient for HMRC to go after.

And once you earn over a £100k you begin to lose the personal tax allowance of £12.5k, until at £125k all your income is liable for tax.

So higher earners, despite working long hours, probably spent many years training to be where they are now, paying considerably more tax already, are now being targeted to pay more tax?!?!

So higher earners, despite working long hours, probably spent many years training all assumed. I could equally say, “so high earners who had the help of the bank of mum and dad, don’t suffer with a disability, had every opportunity going”....every single situation is different, HMRC can’t morally check every situation before issuing a tax code

@Flossie41 working long hours isn't exclusive to high earners. Many people in low paid jobs work long hours. Many high earners DON'T work long hours. Blanket statements are silly.

@coastercat so are you saying that £66k take home pay is not enough to live on with two children? that is £5500 per month?

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.

That's still something that you need aptitude for - it's not something anybody could do. I can't even pass a driving test for a normal car, let alone a lorry.

flossie long hours does not always equal high pay. My late DH worked 84 hours over 7 days with only 3 rest days following before he was back in for 84 hours. He earned little more than NMW for each of those hours.

It might interest posters to know that combined personal wealth in the U.K. is about £13 trillion, which is roughly seven times GDP. That’s property, pensions and savings.

So you can continue to talk about income taxes or you can look at where the money really is held in the economy. It needs moving around a bit.

If the high earners are really worried about paying more tax just quit your high earning jobs and get a job as a care worker, problem solved. Somebody else who doesn't mind paying tax can do your job and you'll be filling a badly needed role in a care home AND most importantly, paying less money in tax. Everyone wins!

KenDodd - I’m guessing that’s sarcastic!!

Higher earners already pay an eye watering amount of tax. They can get lost.

Wax IME higher earners do work very long hours. When you own your own business it’s generally not 9-5 with weekends off.

People do not realise the tax system doesn’t allow people to ‘get rich’ it’s only the super rich that avoid the tax trap. Folk should focus on the mega companies that avoid paying tax.

Why should KenDodd's post be sarcastic?

Posters are saying (in effect) 'I deserve my high salary because I work much harder than people on a low salary, so why should I pay more tax?'

They all have the option of taking an 'easier' job at a lower salary. Except the jobs aren't easier, and deep down, they know that.

Folk should focus on the mega companies that avoid paying tax.

I agree. What a shame Boris and co took the EU anti tax avoidance measures out of the EU withdrawal agreement. Still, he won a stinking great majority so most people must like it.

@Fanthorpe I agree with you. Problem is though who owns the property, occupiers or mortgage lenders. In other countries wealth tax might only be levied on net wealth and also potentially only on non-productive assets, so there are a lot of loopholes to think about. Also how do you implement it, it would be very hard to administrate. I think a property tax is more likely to come in the form of reshaped council tax than anything else. Pensions are a huge problem too, you don’t want to disincentivize saving but many older people have highly generous defined benefit pensions (guaranteed income streams) which simply aren’t available to younger (ie under 50) workers who have all had to accumulate their own pots through defined contributions schemes. So one has a clear value (DC), the value of the other depends on how long you live (DB). Lots of people also have several pensions and absolutely no idea how much is in any of them.

I've paid higher rate tax most of my working life, i have no problem paying more tax.
Higher rate should start at 45% (and we need more bands too) and council tax valuations for band E properties and above need to dramatically increase too (with help for those with an expensive house but little cash)

No point "clapping for carers" and then refusing to fund their pay rises or even worse, expecting them to pay for the CV crisis, through pay freezes and cuts in personal allowances.

Do you have any suggestions as to which set of taxpayers should be paying the coronavirus bill

Yes. I’ve already alluded to it several times on this thread. I’d increase higher rate income tax by 2p in the pound to start with. Maybe more.

Yes, that would affect me, before anybody asks.

I’d also get rid of the extra inheritance tax exemption that applies when a main residence is left to a family member, which would bring more estates into IHT. That would effectively transfer wealth, which @Fanthorpe (above) is quite right about.

Don’t ask me how much these measures would raise, because I don’t have access to the Treasury models.

But the jobs are different are they? Jobs with high salaries in banking, industry, retail, engineering are about creating wealth. We have to have wealth creation in the economy in order to pay people to tend the sick and the elderly. Both important parts of the economy but the money has to be generated. Sadly the financial value that us put on those socially vital roles is low, which is wrong in my view because those people can’t spend money in the economy if they don’t have it. Pay people more and they spend more, although then you have higher inflation to worry about...

People do not realise the tax system doesn’t allow people to ‘get rich’

Tell that to Denise Coates, the founder of Bet 365. She’s an example to everyone. Her salary for 2018/19 was more than £320m. She paid full income tax on all of it. Every penny. She didn’t move to Monaco or attempt to participate in avoidance schemes. She provides jobs for half of Stoke on Trent. She is, by any objective measure, ‘super rich’.

it’s only the super rich that avoid the tax trap.

By becoming non-resident, you mean? What proposals do you have for preventing rich people from moving to Monaco or the BVI to avoid income tax? Meanwhile, in the real world, it is perfectly possible to become wealthy and pay tax at the current rates, or higher rates.

Folk should focus on the mega companies that avoid paying tax.

Yes, everybody grumble ineptly about Amazon etc., so that we don’t have to confront the reality of better-off people paying more income tax.

INERTLY, that should say, not INEPTLY!

@Iamthewombat

Do you have any suggestions as to which set of taxpayers should be paying the coronavirus bill

Yes. I’ve already alluded to it several times on this thread. I’d increase higher rate income tax by 2p in the pound to start with. Maybe more.

Yes, that would affect me, before anybody asks.

I’d also get rid of the extra inheritance tax exemption that applies when a main residence is left to a family member, which would bring more estates into IHT. That would effectively transfer wealth, which @Fanthorpe (above) is quite right about.

Don’t ask me how much these measures would raise, because I don’t have access to the Treasury models.

The higher rate of income tax is 45% and was previously set at 50%. It changed in 2013. The change in revenue was give or take £100m. It’s a not significant amount. A pointless change if your reasoning is to raise revenue. As far as I can see this policy is one to appeals to people who want to penalise higher earners or virtue signal.

To raise the kind of revenue we need through income tax you would have to bring in a rate increase across the vast majority of people. In theory you go for increases in lower band rates. Not desirable.

No, the additional rate is 45%. The tiers are basic rate/higher rate/additional rate.

@Coastercat

£66k net is a very substantial income. We have brought up two kids on less and lived an affluent lifestyle, I have no issues with people earning good salaries but moaning that it's not a high salary really annoys me. The average salary is £26k gross!

With the amount of chips on shoulders on this thread you could open a chippy.