Tax ''thiefing Scumbags''

[Grahamm]

[quote author=Grahamm link=topic=11938.msg131617#msg131617 date=1393946184]
We have a staged system of vehicle taxation in this country where the most polluting or most damaging vehicles pay the most tax. All I'm asking is that that "staging" be applied to motorcycles as well, not least because they cause less congestion which is a positive benefit to road use.

Out of interest do you want stages set up purely for motorbikes, or for motorbikes to use the car stages?

[...]

Or should they use the exact same bands as cars, in which case my 1100 would just about fall into the £10/pa group.  Anything below a litre would be free, in which case why bother with the stages?
[/quote]

See my post above.

[Grahamm]

Cease VED.  Put it on petrol

I agree.

income tax - make it a flat percentage over a certain 'living' wage

So the less well off end up paying a bigger proportion of their disposable income whilst the wealthiest get a nice bonus?

Cease child benefit.

Why? Is this "If you can't afford kids, you shouldn't have them" attitude to stop the poor from breeding??

Re-introduce married person transferable tax allowances.

Fine, provided same-sex couples count as "married".

Cease tax free schemes like ISAs

Again, why? If you want things simplified, how are these complicated? There's no need to account for the interest on your tax return and the providers don't have to collect tax and pay it to the government.

Flat rate VAT - remove the anomalies like a lower rate for kids clothes, safety equipment, food, on and off-premises milk!

So, again, the poor in society get hit disproportionately hard as their children's clothes, their food, their heating and so on take a massive hike.

Voted Tory recently?

[ChristoT]

[quote author=alan sherman link=topic=11938.msg131632#msg131632 date=1393951713]
Cease VED.  Put it on petrol

I agree.

income tax - make it a flat percentage over a certain 'living' wage

So the less well off end up paying a bigger proportion of their disposable income whilst the wealthiest get a nice bonus?
[/quote]

No bonus! If you overtax the wealthy, they will leave the country, case in point: France (one of their most successful actors, Gérard Depardieu is technically now Russian!) The wealthy put the most in to the system, and typically draw the least (no benefits, often use private health care etc).

On the stepped system, what about the unfortunate middle classes who end up just above that step? They are then clobbered with a disproportionate tax.

Cease child benefit.

Why? Is this "If you can't afford kids, you shouldn't have them" attitude to stop the poor from breeding??

I prefer the earlier suggestion: cap it at a set number of children to prevent benefit fraud.

Re-introduce married person transferable tax allowances.

Fine, provided same-sex couples count as "married".

Hasn't that already happened? It's certainly been giving Catholics and other Christians throughout the UK enough grief!! I personally prefer the French system of civil partnerships when it comes to law, as that removes the religious connotations attached to marriage. Wrong thread for THAT discusssion, but it's worth mentionning en passant.

Cease tax free schemes like ISAs

Again, why? If you want things simplified, how are these complicated? There's no need to account for the interest on your tax return and the providers don't have to collect tax and pay it to the government.

I think this ties in with the flat tax idea. You get taxed on all the money you have, but it's a flat rate.

Flat rate VAT - remove the anomalies like a lower rate for kids clothes, safety equipment, food, on and off-premises milk!

So, again, the poor in society get hit disproportionately hard as their children's clothes, their food, their heating and so on take a massive hike.

Voted Tory recently?

Flat rate VAT doesn't mean it needs to hike up (although it probably would)... rather ironic, considering VAT was originally a temporary tax....

But I have to agree with Graham on this particular point.

[Lawrence]

No, a system, based solely on emissions, doesn't take into account the wear and tear a vehicle causes to the road, nor the congestion that it contributes to.

Any reasonable system should take both pollution and road wear into account.

And how do you quantify those?  As someone who filters at pretty much every opportunity, should I pay less tax than someone on the same bike who sits in a queue of traffic?

[midden]

[quote author=alan sherman link=topic=11938.msg131632#msg131632 date=1393951713]
Cease VED.  Put it on petrol

I agree.

Neither agree nor disagree but it would mean bikers getting severely hammered since you don't hear of many cars going for a 100 mile plus driveout on regular basis

Cease child benefit.

Why? Is this "If you can't afford kids, you shouldn't have them" attitude to stop the poor from breeding??

Tend to agree with Deadeye  child allowance good but after 2 may be 4 do the maths and if can't afford don't have.  This obviously is subject to circumstance on basis that those who could afford at time of having could become redundant but the point is obvious.








Re-introduce married person transferable tax allowances.

Fine, provided same-sex couples count as "married".

[size=78%]About time the single person got some bonuses too[/size]

Flat rate VAT - remove the anomalies like a lower rate for kids clothes, safety equipment, food, on and off-premises milk!

These are seen as essentials and the benefits are spread evenly regardless of financial status so why punish the poor

Voted Tory recently?

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

[midden]

No bonus! If you overtax the wealthy, they will leave the country, case in point: France (one of their most successful actors, Gérard Depardieu is technically now Russian!) The wealthy put the most in to the system, and typically draw the least (no benefits, often use private health care etc).

On the stepped system, what about the unfortunate middle classes who end up just above that step? They are then clobbered with a disproportionate tax.

You only get taxed the higher rate on the amount over the step/threshold (unlike the santander 123 account which pays interest on whole amount once savings pass the stated threshold ) and you'll find the rich pay amazing accountants to lose large sums of cash to reduce tax obligations






[quote author=Grahamm link=topic=11938.msg131726#msg131726 date=1393974497]

Cease tax free schemes like ISAs

Again, why? If you want things simplified, how are these complicated? There's no need to account for the interest on your tax return and the providers don't have to collect tax and pay it to the government.

ISA's are a teaser the choice is the individuals some think it a con so don't use their allowance. Others, the sensible buy into the system and pay a little less tax. At the end of day the sensible gain from the tax reduction the Government gain tax monies from the suspicious and the suspicious lose by paying higher rate of tax

[/quote]

[alan sherman]

By a flat rate of income tax I do mean just that. Say 30 percent (remember that ni would be included). The richer don't get a bonus. They do get to keep more of what they have earned. However rich people would still pay more tax than poor people (as it is a percentage). The current yoyo of net take home money is ludicrous and needs simplifying.

I have kid (and number 2 is on the way). However child benefit is a nonsense really, I'd be interested to see how much needs to be taken in tax by the government to pay out the 80 quid a month. I'd rather pay less to the state in the first place and manage my own budgeting without the inefficient middle man thanks very much! The truly poor would be the ones to miss out here. That would be those who have income of zero to an amount where the efficiency of scraping the scheme breaks even.

My basic premise is that tax is too complicated. On purpose. It is so us tax payers don't realise just how much is taken from us.

[Dead Eye]

I can't see that tax model working unless there were drastic changes to other taxes to compensate. Since NI is 11% we are already taxed 31% on anything above 10k (as of the latest tax allowance). So raising that tax free allowance to, what? £20k maybe? For a living - which is doable. I would then expect to see income tax skyrocket to 50%+

The richer do get a bonus though - at the moment the tiered system means its 20% on anything between your tax allowance and £32k, then 40% on anything from £32k to £150k and then 45% on anything above £150k

So; assuming a 'rich' person is on £200k per year (gross - before tax), under the current system this is how it breaks down;
£200k minus tax free allowance (assume £10k) = £190k

20% Tax = £32k * 0.20 = £6400
40% Tax = £118k * 0.40 = £47200 (118k is 150k minus the 32k that tax has already been paid on)
45% Tax = £40k * 0.45 = £18000 (40k is the remainder of the total 190k income minus 150k that tax has already been paid on)

Total Tax = £71,600


Under your new system, we would raise the tax free allowance - for the sake of this lets go over the top and make that £12k (the higher this is, the less tax this 'individual' would pay)
So, taxable income is now 200k - 12k = 188k

With a flat rate of 30%, this means;

Total Tax = £188k * 0.30 = £56,400

That's a 15k drop in tax payments for the 'rich' - a 20% difference for this made up individual


This becomes more of a problem for the government the more you earn plus by raising the tax free allowance they lose out on a huge amount of money because a very large majority will be paying in to that first 20% base rate at the moment...


Sorry this went on a bit, I'm just trying to see if there is any way that that system could every work properly? A staged setup (like our current one) is the only way to distribute the volume of taxation such that everything doesn't fall to pieces, as far as I can see.

[alan sherman]

I'd have the personal allowance higher.  I see no point having people pay tax to then return it to them via benefits or tax credits.  Scrap all of the benefits and tax credits then the tax take doesn't need to be so high. 

Not sure where the net effect of benefits vs tax is zero (especially as it is complex due to circumstances and benefits) but there are some interesting examples out there.

There does need to be safety net to catch those made unemployed, sick ill etc, exactly where that should be is part of the issue.

Simpler, so cheaper and easier to administer systems would lower tax.  Would also make accounting cheaper for businesses and individuals.  Also a cut of benefits (but remember - this is balanced by those in work paying less tax) seems a sensible way forward to me.

The alternative of high tax with government redistribution of wealth is not attractive to me.  If you work hard and earn, why shouldn't you be better off?  If you earn a lot why shouldn't you be able to leave this earnt money to your children (or anyone you choose to for that matter)?

I'm not a socialist!  I am someone from a working class background who has worked hard to get an average salary.  I see that if I work a bit harder I'll only see 50% of that money actually come to me.  I can't afford foreign holidays at the moment so don't consider myself 'rich'. 

[alan sherman]

An interesting graphic:
http://www.paydayloan.co.uk/Resources/ta...lator.html

It doesn't include car / motorbike VED

[Andy FZS]

Just to cheer every one up.....don't forget the tax you pay when you spend your money. Lol
I may be a defeatist but the only way I get to pay less tax is by having less money. So I guess I I'll have to grin and bear it.

[fazersharp]

I do resent paying tax on my savings as I have already paid tax when I earned them.
Isas were intruduced to encourage people to save, but now what this country need is people to spend

[Lawrence]

I do resent paying tax on my savings as I have already paid tax when I earned them.
Isas were intruduced to encourage people to save, but now what this country need is people to spend

But you're paying tax on the interest earned on your savings aren't you?  Which is income tax as you're making money?

[richfzs]

Making money? Hardly, with the way interest rates and inflation are sitting!

[Lawrence]

Making money? Hardly, with the way interest rates and inflation are sitting!

Hardly, but you are.  If you stick £1000 in a savings account for a year you'll have £1005 at the end so you pay income tax on the £5 you earn.

[Andy FZS]

Unfortunately that £1005 can by then probably buy you less than the £1000 you saved and then you pay tax....

[Lawrence]

Unfortunately that £1005 can by then probably buy you less than the £1000 you saved and then you pay tax....

But that's down to inflation, not tax...

[cfoley]

So what you are saying is we would be better off spending our savings now on things we will need in the future... things like a new bike.

[Andy FZS]

Great idea

[richfzs]

Once you've paid the tax on the 5 quid, what you've got left will buy less than the £1000 you had at the start of the year, thanks to inflation. Yes you've got more money, as in more pounds, but less wealth, which ultimately is the important thing, and what we mean when we say we're making money. We are getting less rich.