Recycling changes...

[Jonah]

Put your cardboard into the blue bin. It's what I do if I fill the bag. It's always been emptied even with cardboard in.

 

[gilesjuk]

Put your cardboard into the blue bin. It's what I do if I fill the bag. It's always been emptied even with cardboard in.

I'm sure I read that cardboard is valuable, I think the only reason they brought the bag in is to force us to compact the cardboard.

 

[DoggedWalker]

It's the wealthiest that should be paying higher taxes but that's not going to happen under a Tory government.

The wealthiest already pay far higher taxes than the least wealthy - in terms of income tax payers, highest 10% of earners responsible for 60% of all income tax (the largest of all taxes by gdp) .

I know this will be unpopular on this forum but the Conservatives have continually increased the tax free threshold on income. That only directly impacts on the lowest earners.

The fact is we seem to increasingly expect the state to do more and more but can’t actually afford that.

 

[Mudgie]

The wealthiest already pay far higher taxes than the least wealthy - in terms of income tax payers, highest 10% of earners responsible for 60% of all income tax (the largest of all taxes by gdp) .

I know this will be unpopular on this forum but the Conservatives have continually increased the tax free threshold on income. That only directly impacts on the lowest earners.

The fact is we seem to increasingly expect the state to do more and more but can’t actually afford that.

Of course the wealthiest already pay far higher taxes than the least wealthy and that's because the wealthiest can afford to pay far far far higher taxes than the least wealthy.
Never mind the tax free threshold on income, the Tories as always ensure the rich get richer and richer while the poor get poorer and poorer.

 

[DoggedWalker]

Of course the wealthiest already pay far higher taxes than the least wealthy and that's because the wealthiest can afford to pay far far far higher taxes than the least wealthy.
Never mind the tax free threshold on income, the Tories as always ensure the rich get richer and richer while the poor get poorer and poorer.

£80k gets you into the top 10%, I’m not sure that means you can afford far far far higher taxes…

What do you mean, never mind tax free income? Literally THE best way for the state to improve the lives of the poorest and lowest earners in society is to remove the state burden from them. Not requiring low earners to pay tax is the government doing the right thing by the poorest. The first £12500 is tax free. That matters more to the person on £20k than it does the person on 80k, and once you’re earning over £100k, then you start to lose that allowance. I’m sure GPs, pilots and headteachers all deserve to lose their personal allowance/a salary of less than £100k though .

The fact is the tax burden is high, the wealthy pay a LOT of tax, but we have expectations from the state beyond what the state can afford. That’s the main issue.

 

[Noah]

There used to be a supertax band for the very wealthy, 19/6d (97.5p) in the pound. Think it was abolished in the 1970s.

 

[Mudgie]

£80k gets you into the top 10%, I’m not sure that means you can afford far far far higher taxes…

What do you mean, never mind tax free income? Literally THE best way for the state to improve the lives of the poorest and lowest earners in society is to remove the state burden from them. Not requiring low earners to pay tax is the government doing the right thing by the poorest. The first £12500 is tax free. That matters more to the person on £20k than it does the person on 80k, and once you’re earning over £100k, then you start to lose that allowance. I’m sure GPs, pilots and headteachers all deserve to lose their personal allowance/a salary of less than £100k though .

The fact is the tax burden is high, the wealthy pay a LOT of tax, but we have expectations from the state beyond what the state can afford. That’s the main issue.

Is that what you learnt from the Daily Mail ?

 

[Mudgie]

There used to be a supertax band for the very wealthy, 19/6d (97.5p) in the pound. Think it was abolished in the 1970s.

Yes indeed, and that gave us the NHS, welfare state and better living standards.

 

[Withnail]

Literally THE best way for the state to improve the lives of the poorest and lowest earners in society is to remove the state burden from them. Not requiring low earners to pay tax is the government doing the right thing by the poorest.

Except for the inference that to avoid tax is inherently 'a good thing' - and, of course, the prevailing idea that income tax has some sort of mythical primacy.

Low earners pay tax all the time, they literally cannot avoid it. Anybody who buys things, which is everybody, pays tax. And people who don't have much money to begin with pay proportionally more for those things.

The fact is the tax burden is high, the wealthy pay a LOT of tax, but we have expectations from the state beyond what the state can afford. That’s the main issue.

The fact is that we ask the wealthy to pay, proportionally, the same as everybody else, and they are not even prepared to do that. They are willing to pay actual money to finds ways to prevent paying more.

That's more of an issue.

 

[DoggedWalker]

Is that what you learnt from the Daily Mail ?

The Office of National Statistics. But that’s so often the problem, you quote actual figures about wealth to people ideologically opposed to ‘the rich’ and you’re dismissed as a right-wing crank.

Avoidance schemes are frustrating, but it’s a similar argument to the one about benefit fraud… that is, it appeals to the relevant political groups but overall doesn’t make a massive difference. £400 million is estimated to be lost through it. Which by the way, is much less than Benefit fraud which is money the State had and gave away, arguably worse.

https://www.news.co.uk/latest-news/the-sunday-times-tax-list-reveals-uks-100-biggest-taxpayers/ top UK tax payers.

 

[Mudgie]

The Office of National Statistics. But that’s so often the problem, you quote actual figures about wealth to people ideologically opposed to ‘the rich’ and you’re dismissed as a right-wing crank.

Avoidance schemes are frustrating, but it’s a similar argument to the one about benefit fraud… that is, it appeals to the relevant political groups but overall doesn’t make a massive difference. £400 million is estimated to be lost through it. Which by the way, is much less than Benefit fraud which is money the State had and gave away, arguably worse.

https://www.news.co.uk/latest-news/the-sunday-times-tax-list-reveals-uks-100-biggest-taxpayers/ top UK tax payers.

But you've not quoted actual figures much beyond "£80k gets you into the top 10%" which doesn't prove anything much.
I think that those 'earning' over £125,140 pay 45% tax which is unnecessarily only about half of what it was just over fifty years ago.
,

 

[tek-monkey]

The Office of National Statistics. But that’s so often the problem, you quote actual figures about wealth to people ideologically opposed to ‘the rich’ and you’re dismissed as a right-wing crank.

Avoidance schemes are frustrating, but it’s a similar argument to the one about benefit fraud… that is, it appeals to the relevant political groups but overall doesn’t make a massive difference. £400 million is estimated to be lost through it. Which by the way, is much less than Benefit fraud which is money the State had and gave away, arguably worse.

https://www.news.co.uk/latest-news/the-sunday-times-tax-list-reveals-uks-100-biggest-taxpayers/ top UK tax payers.

Last time I looked they lumped benefit fraud in with errors in payment, which seemed a very deliberate way to ensure that their cockups looked like someone else was at fault. A quick check tells me the 400m tax avoidance isn't entirely true either though, and a further 800m is lost via 'avoidance behaviour', which again makes it look like someone is trying to fudge the figures and make it look like tax avoidance isn't as bad as benefit fraud.

 

[Mudgie]

Last time I looked they lumped benefit fraud in with errors in payment, which seemed a very deliberate way to ensure that their cockups looked like someone else was at fault. A quick check tells me the 400m tax avoidance isn't entirely true either though, and a further 800m is lost via 'avoidance behaviour', which again makes it look like someone is trying to fudge the figures and make it look like tax avoidance isn't as bad as benefit fraud.

Yes, "never mind the tax avoiders, let's have a go at the benefit cheats" is from the Daily Mail.
I remember before Thatcher the top rate of tax was 60% and that saw the district council build dozens of council houses each year, the county council establish a Polytechnic and repair potholes, not much of a waiting list for treatment at the SGI and no food banks.
I haven't heard any reasonable argument against a top rate of 60% for say income 'earned' above £500,000.

 

[gilesjuk]

The world has changed a lot in 50 years. The more income you take away from a higher earner the more incentive they will have to avoid it somehow. If it becomes cheaper to hire a creative accountant then they'll do that. You have have 45% of something or 75% of nothing, which will it be?

 

[gilesjuk]

Yes, "never mind the tax avoiders, let's have a go at the benefit cheats" is from the Daily Mail.
I remember before Thatcher the top rate of tax was 60% and that saw the district council build dozens of council houses each year, the county council establish a Polytechnic and repair potholes, not much of a waiting list for treatment at the SGI and no food banks.
I haven't heard any reasonable argument against a top rate of 60% for say income 'earned' above £500,000.

There were 56 million people in 1975. It's now 67 million.

Foodbanks first appeared in 2000 when there's was a supposed economic boom on (in reality a credit fuelled lie).

 

[tek-monkey]

The world has changed a lot in 50 years. The more income you take away from a higher earner the more incentive they will have to avoid it somehow. If it becomes cheaper to hire a creative accountant then they'll do that. You have have 45% of something or 75% of nothing, which will it be?

You do your job properly and plug the holes that allow the accountants to make it 0, but they won't do that as it's what they use too.

 

[DoggedWalker]

But you've not quoted actual figures much beyond "£80k gets you into the top 10%" which doesn't prove anything much.
I think that those 'earning' over £125,140 pay 45% tax which is unnecessarily only about half of what it was just over fifty years ago.
,

Unnecessarily… pretty much every government since the 70’s has disagreed with you. The idea the state should take more than half of what you earn as income tax is ludicrous.

If you’re ideologically opposed to higher earners then that’s fine. I fundamentally disagree with you but that’s fine. The fact is, tax receipts are higher than ever but state expenditure is too high also. The NHS costs too much to run and is woefully inefficient. The state is expected to do too much with too little and we have a NIMBY culture so untrained in the psyche of thecountry that we can’t build stuff that will grow the economy (and so the tax base) and we can’t build enough houses to house people that live here.

Besides, £125,000 is worth much less than it was when the higher rate was 50% plus!

 

[Mudgie]

The world has changed a lot in 50 years. The more income you take away from a higher earner the more incentive they will have to avoid it somehow. If it becomes cheaper to hire a creative accountant then they'll do that. You have have 45% of something or 75% of nothing, which will it be?

Yes, the world has changed a lot in 50 years.
No such thing as society now, the rich are in charge and just look after themselves.

 

[Mudgie]

There were 56 million people in 1975. It's now 67 million.

Foodbanks first appeared in 2000 when there's was a supposed economic boom on (in reality a credit fuelled lie).

I don't understand the relevance of "There were 56 million people in 1975. It's now 67 million".
"Foodbanks first appeared in 2000" but they were few and far between until recent years.

 

[Mudgie]

Unnecessarily… pretty much every government since the 70’s has disagreed with you. The idea the state should take more than half of what you earn as income tax is ludicrous.

If you’re ideologically opposed to higher earners then that’s fine. I fundamentally disagree with you but that’s fine. The fact is, tax receipts are higher than ever but state expenditure is too high also. The NHS costs too much to run and is woefully inefficient. The state is expected to do too much with too little and we have a NIMBY culture so untrained in the psyche of thecountry that we can’t build stuff that will grow the economy (and so the tax base) and we can’t build enough houses to house people that live here.

Besides, £125,000 is worth much less than it was when the higher rate was 50% plus!

If "the idea the state should take more than half of what you earn as income tax is ludicrous" why was it perfectly acceptable from the early 1950s to the early 1980s ? .