COVID-19: Those earning above £19.5k should pay more tax after pandemic to help fix UK finances, says think-tank

[RUNFAST11]

Your thoughts on this?

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-those-earning-above-19-5k-should-pay-more-tax-to-help-fix-finances-12130088

How should the debt be clawed back? What would you do if you were government to raise the money?

@echt, funnily enough I've been saying this to my.family; didn't realise it was actually an option and had a name, lol.
Good on Australia, let's hope we follow their example.

@Ohthatsgreat

In the last week we’ve had headlines like £21m given to a ‘PPE broker’ and the Tax Payer Alliance uncovering £5.6bn of excess spending in the public sector on luxury travel, dog beds and takeaways. Hospitals advertising for diversity directors on £70k when healthcare workers are going to see a pay freeze,

So I’m feeling less than in the mood for a tax rise when the public sector pisses money up the wall on non jobs and expenses. Time for government spending to be regulated and audited before taxpayers can be asked for a penny more.

When you say ‘public sector’ who do you mean? Public sector? Civil service? Government? The PPE intermediary who allegedly was paid that amount was engaged directly by the government, it didn’t go through an NHS procurement process. Ditto expenses. I don’t think you’ll find NHS and teaching staff have been given anything to set up home offices in the main and are out of pocket paying for that and utility bills. There’s a huge public push for diversity and inclusion and reducing health inequalities (which are very real). Someone has to have that job or nothing changes. It’s interesting that negative stories are creeping out about the civil service just when the government are aiming to privatise it....

I’m now on maternity but worked straight through lockdown from home as a keyworker. My partner also worked throughout lockdown in a specialist provision school with no extra pay. £19,000 is not a high income especially in areas of high housing costs and it is not furloughed workers fault that they received 80% so I don’t think they should have to have the burden of paying higher taxes especially when many in hospitality and retail would only be on nmw. Myself and partner are not on great wages so can cover all bills and keep a little aside for a rainy day but we would rather pay a little more tax ourselves than someone less fortunate be put on the poverty line by paying unaffordable tax because they were furloughed.

When you say ‘public sector’ who do you mean?

TPA submitted 4000 FOI requests, I don’t know the exact areas they probed but the report mentions the Treasury, MoD, Department of Culture etc.

What does it matter anyway? Any taxpayer money wasted is still wrong regardless of where it happens. The £21m paid to a PPE broker is a joke regardless of what procurement process it did or didn’t go through.

And it absolutely makes a mockery of schools or hospitals having budget cuts when the government departments in charge of those areas are throwing money around on things the taxpayer would not expect it to be used for.
We should all care about waste as taxpayers because we want to see the money used effectively and be spent on the right things to maximum effect. I don’t want to pay more tax off the back of this pandemic for it to be wasted on takeaways and dog beds thanks,

How about people who were furloughed repay an extra tax on their earnings over 19.5k.

I find it very unappealing as a household who
A) weren’t furloughed
&
B) Don’t qualify for any funding/support/benefit (not even child benefit) to keep being told to pay more into the system.

That’ll be a no from us and we’ll be taking every loophole opportunity to avoid paying more we possibly can

Actually, I think it is quite an interesting idea as it effectively imposes a higher levy on unearned rather than earned income. So someone who only has a salary will pay 1% extra (ie 4% surcharge less 3% reduction in NIC) whereas someone (eg a landlord) who makes all of their income from investments would have a 4% increase in tax.
Much of the "pain" of the current pandemic has been carried by younger members of the workforce who are more likely to be employed and less likely to have investment income so this tax measure would be a way of redressing the balance a little.

No. The threshold is too low. I worked through the first lockdown and am this current one. Had to spend £400 of my own money on a laptop when working from home March to July. Instead furloughed neighbours decorated the whole of their house. So it's a no from me.

I'd be up for this. It's only fair - we've all been supported in some way or another.

we've all been supported in some way or another.

In what way if not financially? I’ve not been supported as far as I’m aware.

I’d be ok with this but not as those levels. I think over £30/40k would be better. It would hit me but I can afford it more than someone on £19k.

We’ve not been supported either. Both worked FT throughout.

Supported in that a fuck load of money has been spent to try to stave off at least some of the huge wave of redundancy, closure and pain that would have resulted without furlough or the self employed scheme. Even if you weren't directly affected by that - I wasn't - you presumably benefited from being able to carry on using services and goods produced by said businesses over summer? Where exactly is the money going to come from if not the taxpayer?

Sorry not following, if businesses kept on providing goods and services then they wouldn’t have needed support, the support provided was largely for business interruption. A lot of businesses who did carry on made a lot of money so I don’t think everybody has been supported.

I don't understand those saying they haven't benefited so don't want to help pay for it. Everyone has benefited. What about all the extra money for the NHS? The PPE? The testing and now mass testing? Extra money for free school meals, rise in benefit payments, money to keep businesses afloat that you use, isolation payments, public services being bumped up. Everyone has benefited somehow from additional money spent. Everyone, including those on low incomes, needs to help pay or it will be our children paying for this their whole lives. This idea is a good one, those on lower incomes will pay less and those who earn more will pay more. That is fair for everyone.

I actually hope this causes riots which end the bastarding lockdowns.

On the face of it, I would love everyone who has been able to keep on earning over 19k (either by WFH or by being furloughed) this year to contribute to getting us out of this financial disaster. I haven't earned a single sodding penny since March, and haven't qualified for anything either. I am one thousand per cent opposed to Covid hysteria, lockdowns, face-masks - in fact, every single thing to do with it.

If you have been able to WFH on a full salary, and have a lovely, jolly time (while, in fact, saving money because you're not commuting), then yes - the angry and frustrated bit of me says you should pay for it, and then you might realise, just a tiny bit, how lockdown has felt for so many of us.

I do realise, though, that this is completely unfair of me because even those who have carried on earning this year have probably had a crap time in other ways.

Perhaps there should be a new Track and Trace system to identify those who've had a lovely, fun, sunny, wealthy year and deduct all their income for a year.

I’d be ok with this but not as those levels. I think over £30/40k would be better. It would hit me but I can afford it more than someone on £19k

I find comments like this really painful. People earning middle to high income (£40k+) seem to get an awful lot dumped on their doorstep in terms of ‘they can pay for X,Y&Z.

I’ve only ever seen a handful of threads this sensibly identify why this is unfair and why a family earning £40-70k (especially from one wage) are definitely not rolling in it!

Our UC system and government funding of things like ‘funded hours’ and ‘free school meals’ is set up to bridge the gap between low and medium earners. But these top ups are so rarely taken into account when discussing income.

What happens is that Mandy who works 16 hours a week and qualifies for substantial UC; every type of funding and assistance, ends up with a similar take home monthly to Sandra who earns £30k a year and doesn’t qualify for anything other than funded hours and child benefit.

But Betty earning £50k per year doesn’t get child benefit and gets substantially less funded hours. So suddenly there’s very little between Sarah and Sandra.

I looked at my finances if I were single on entitled to. I have a baby, another on the way and work PT.

I’d basically have a similar amount to what I currently have with a ‘high earning’ DH. So no, please do not tax us more!

What about all the extra money for the NHS? The PPE? The testing and now mass testing? Extra money for free school meals, rise in benefit payments, money to keep businesses afloat that you use, isolation payments, public services being bumped up. Everyone has benefited somehow from additional money spent

Ha, bloody ha.

My year:

No income
No support
No benefits
No treatment for an excruciating disability - despite the "extra money for the NHS" to which you refer
No public services provided
Charges for PPE when I visited the dentist with a broken tooth

How exactly have I benefited?

On a slightly different note, I agree with you about the 'middle earners', Pumpertrumper. That's what I was, until I was suddenly earning £0.

It was all fake money anyway. Just tell the bank of England to keep printing money to pay back the loan installments to itself. That can keep going for the next 20-30 years until our economy outgrows the debt and inflation destroys its value.

I mean, that's almost certainly what they will do, but in the mean time they'll do something else to fuck over the poor because that's what the British love I think.

Is it 4% on the full £19.5k, or earnings over that? I'd be okay with earnings over, I earn just over the threshold. I think it should double for earnings over £50k like income tax though.

It’s low. I think frontline staff should be exempt.

Wealth tax on those with assets of over a certain amount, say £1m.

If the assets are tied up in real estate/company, payment can be deferred until sale of asset or death. With special measures to ensure assets held in trusts or offshore are also liable.

@Barbie222

I'd be up for this. It's only fair - we've all been supported in some way or another.

3 million self employed have been excluded, not supported. There's no way they'll willingly pay more tax IF their businesses survive.

Paying a little bit more tax might be fine, but if you freeze pay and also raise tax, then people can't spend. All those businesses in our local area that sprang back up quickly in the summer, will be starved of customers.

@kowari

Is it 4% on the full £19.5k, or earnings over that? I'd be okay with earnings over, I earn just over the threshold. I think it should double for earnings over £50k like income tax though.

Didn't read it properly. 4% of over 12.5K, offset by 3% cut to NI so if you earn under 19.5k then you will be better off. Sounds like a good idea to me.