Iain Duncan Smith resigns

[grrclark]

It seems to me that If 16% of UK taxpayers are paying 70% of the country's tax bill? Is this not because these 16% are receiving a corresponding amount (70%) of the country's total annual earnings? More of course, if they are avoiding paying all their taxes?

 

Does it then not follow that the remaining 84% of UK taxpayers are only earning enough to pay the remaining 30% of the country's tax bill? Mostly on a PAYE basis, so tax avoidance is much less likely to occur, therefore 84% of the working population of the U.K. are receiving 30% (or maybe less?) of the country's total annual pay bill?

 

A person earning £450 per week on PAYE, without perks, makes pro rata a disproportionate (in terms of hardship and affordability) personal contribution to this country's finances than the person receiving £1,000,000 per annum, plus perks, and able to employ experts to minimise their tax bills does.

 

I am not an economist but if this is the case? Is it acceptable?

 

The 16% includes everyone that is in the 40% tax bracket so by no means are they are all super wealthy as your post implies and the majority of that will be via PAYE too so there is no tax avoidance.

 

There is only 330,000 people in the UK that pay the highest level of tax, so that is those earning above £150,000 so your choice of figures to illustrate an example are not really reasonable, but I do understand the point you are trying to make. 24m are basic rate 20% taxpayers only, 4.6m pay at 40% and 330k pay at 45%.

 

I do understand that someone earning £25k looks at someone earning £100k and thinks they are rich, i guess in relative terms of income they are, but your assertions that the lower paid pay proportionately more tax is false. I do accept that you are talking in terms of hardship and affordability and not absolute figures, but how do you quantify that? Where do you set the threshold for affordability, is it someone earning £20k, £30k, £40k, etc?

 

Assuming a £10k basic rate allowance then a £42k 40% allowance, which is close enough for illustration purposes the person earning £25k will pay £3000 in tax the person earning 4 times more will pay £6400 at 20% then another £20,000 at 40% so £26,400 total which is 8.8 times more than the lower earner. So 4 x the income yet 8.8 x the tax.

 

The person on £25k pays 12% of their income to tax, the person earning £100k pays 26.4%. Your example of someone earning £23.4k pays £2,680 or 11.4%.

 

The lowest paid pay proportionately way less tax than those who earn more as it should be. Factor in things like tax credits and other bits and pieces and the numbers skew a little bit more.

 

A couple both earning £25k each would pay £6,000 collectively per household, but a couple with only one individual earner of £50k would pay £8,400 is that fair?

 

It is also worth recognising that the total income to individuals is not the countries earning, it is individual earnings, those that earn more are not being greedy by taking a bigger share of the pot as there is not a pot to take a share of. Your post seems to imply this, but if I am misinterpreting or misunderstanding then I apologise.

 

I agree with progressive taxation where those who earn more contribute more and we do very much have a progressive tax regime in the UK, as I said under the tory and coalition government we have the wealthier element of society, so those earning above £42k per year pay 70% of the bill.

Edited March 19, 2016 by grrclark

[panoma1]

You will note that my post was liberally punctuated with question marks! So we're questions not statements!

 

The point is by leaving information out and/or interpreting numbers in a certain way........you can make statistics support anything you want them to!

[AVB]

And don't forget that those earning over £150K get no tax free allowance and no child benefit.

[keg]

 

The 16% includes everyone that is in the 40% tax bracket so by no means are they are all super wealthy as your post implies and the majority of that will be via PAYE too so there is no tax avoidance.

 

There is only 330,000 people in the UK that pay the highest level of tax, so that is those earning above £150,000 so your choice of figures to illustrate an example are not really reasonable, but I do understand the point you are trying to make. 24m are basic rate 20% taxpayers only, 4.6m pay at 40% and 330k pay at 45%.

 

I do understand that someone earning £25k looks at someone earning £100k and thinks they are rich, i guess in relative terms of income they are, but your assertions that the lower paid pay proportionately more tax is false. I do accept that you are talking in terms of hardship and affordability and not absolute figures, but how do you quantify that? Where do you set the threshold for affordability, is it someone earning £20k, £30k, £40k, etc?

 

Assuming a £10k basic rate allowance then a £42k 40% allowance, which is close enough for illustration purposes the person earning £25k will pay £3000 in tax the person earning 4 times more will pay £6400 at 20% then another £20,000 at 40% so £26,400 total which is 8.8 times more than the lower earner. So 4 x the income yet 8.8 x the tax.

 

The person on £25k pays 12% of their income to tax, the person earning £100k pays 26.4%. Your example of someone earning £23.4k pays £2,680 or 11.4%.

 

The lowest paid pay proportionately way less tax than those who earn more as it should be. Factor in things like tax credits and other bits and pieces and the numbers skew a little bit more.

 

A couple both earning £25k each would pay £6,000 collectively per household, but a couple with only one individual earner of £50k would pay £8,400 is that fair?

 

It is also worth recognising that the total income to individuals is not the countries earning, it is individual earnings, those that earn more are not being greedy by taking a bigger share of the pot as there is not a pot to take a share of. Your post seems to imply this, but if I am misinterpreting or misunderstanding then I apologise.

 

I agree with progressive taxation where those who earn more contribute more and we do very much have a progressive tax regime in the UK, as I said under the tory and coalition government we have the wealthier element of society, so those earning above £42k per year pay 70% of the bill.

You can't convince those that don't want to listen Graham, a well worded and concise post as always. If the Tories gave away gold bricks free, it still wouldn't be enough for some.

As you have pointed out, there is no such thing as government money.

 

I'm a 40% rate tax payer and far from wealthy, a 6 and 9 yr old car with 112k miles and 146k miles on A kitchen that needs replacing ....

 

I have bought a ticket for tonight so here's hoping.

[rodp]

You can't convince those that don't want to listen Graham, a well worded and concise post as always. If the Tories gave away gold bricks free, it still wouldn't be enough for some.

As you have pointed out, there is no such thing as government money.

 

I'm a 40% rate tax payer and far from wealthy, a 6 and 9 yr old car with 112k miles and 146k miles on A kitchen that needs replacing ....

 

I have bought a ticket for tonight so here's hoping.

Not long done our kitchen, and extended it. Best of luck when the wife goes to pick the units. Our supplier projected the finished kitchen on to the wall, about 12' square, and changed colours, doors, handles, taps at the click of a button. Good way of making money me thinks, every change upped the budget

[norfolk dumpling]

When we talk of the wealthy we should be careful to think in terms of those earning hundreds of thousands annually. Before retirement I was in the top 10% of earners and now because of the years of service and a good pension I'm in the top 8% of pensioners but do not pay the higher (40%) rate of tax.

 

It's very disappointing IDS has resigned and I suspect as Brexit roles forward there may be more. A pity if this splits the Tories as the other lot couldn't be trusted to run a play school. My only comfort in all of this is knowing it must be a lot worse for those north of Hadrians Wall!

[grrclark]

You will note that my post was liberally punctuated with question marks! So we're questions not statements!

 

The point is by leaving information out and/or interpreting numbers in a certain way........you can make statistics support anything you want them to!

I appreciate that. I'm really not trying to prove a point one way or the other. This post isn't directed at you in particular so please don't take it that way and I apologise if you thought i was having a go at you in my last one.

 

The problem is that there isn't a simple answer, income tax is progressive based on earning, but doesn't factor in endlessly subjective things like affordability.

 

It is the same with benefits if we make it a free for all people will take advantage, if we put on qualifying criteria people will argue about the boundaries.

 

We all agree that there sould be a disability allowance, but how do we establish who qualifies and who doesn't? Does everyone with a disability qualify for the same amount?

 

What about disabled people who would qualify for benefit but have inherited wealth, should they get paid anything by the state? What about those who have asset based wealth, but no liquidity, should they have to sell a house or valuables, the inherited matched pair of Purdeys from grandad, to pay their share? What about disabled kids whose parents earn a good income or the converse of high earning kids with disabled parents?

 

If we exclude those disabled people on the strength of wealth is that fair? Should disability welfare payments only be for those that are poor? What is the break point between poor/wealthy enough for benefit/no benefit?

 

Conversely should those with a disability that do work and pay tax get a tax rebate seeing as they are disabled?

 

If we pay more in disability payments then who funds it? Do we all accept that everyone who is working and able bodied should shoulder a bit of the burden? With progressive taxation those who earn more will shoulder more of the burden respectively, which is fair but as you suggested earlier should the person on £450 per week fund that too? Do we reduce funding to other areas to allow for a greater share to be paid to welfare? Should that be education, defence, healthcare, non disbaled welfare, agriculture, etc?

 

Throw income support or job seeker allowance into that mix and should the thresholds change, should those on £450/wk fund those that get 70% of that for doing nothing? Appreciate that is a controversial statement as not all those on income support choose not to work, but it illustrates the point.

 

The easiest argument in the world is to shout that the under privileged or disadvantaged should be looked after and of course they should, but what is the point at which being disadvantaged is drawn?

 

The quadriplegic is easy, likewise many other conditions or diseases, but what about the below knee amputee?

 

Perfectly capable of working in the vast majority of roles, sure they may need additional support in adaptive appliances or mobility aids initially, but once that is paid for should they get more than the regular job seeker with 2 feet?

 

The difference in allowance may make it worthwhile for the fully able bodied person to work in a soul destroying call centre for 37.5hrs per week, but the guy with one foot who could do exactly the same job doesn't have to bother as he has some extra state tuck. Of course the guy with 2 feet is now paying for the guy with 1 foot via tax. Is the differentiation in the disability status of one versus the other in that example fair?

 

Blur those lines a little more and throw a sore back or non specific fibromyalgia into the mix, is the person with the qualifying disability payment swinging the lead because they can and because they don't fancy trying to sell boiler upgrades or solar panels in a soul destroying call centre for 37.5hrs per week?

 

Blur it even more and throw in alcoholism as a qualifying measure.

 

That is the problem, it is easy to talk about disability as a catch all term, how shocking it is for the government to take money from the disabled, it is highly emotionally charged; but if it is to level the playing field between the guy with one foot and the guy with 2 feet who is paying for the guy with 1 foot but who could both work in the same call centre doing the same job is it still unfair?

 

Does being disbaled mean that you are more equal than the able bodied when it comes to welfare?

 

Genuine socialism is about redistributive policies, having those who can pay more support those who can't, but there are very few genuinely socialist people when it comes to volunteering to pony up.

 

At that point for those that might have to pay more it reverts back to an argument of 'fairness'; it isn't fair that I have to pay when that rich person could pay more. If that rich person was disabled, let's say a wheelchair bound quadriplegic, but was in receipt of a £15k per month living allowance from a rich inheritance or maybe a £15k per month salary because their job is about brain power and not physical capability that disability would be trumped by the fact that they're wealthy, the expectation is they shouldn't claim even if they are entitled. The serious nature of the disbaility wouldn't matter as they are loaded, which really makes it a very unequal system.

 

The wealthy are expected to volunteer to give up wealth for others, but who decides what is wealthy? is it paying 40% tax? Is it earning £100k plus? Is it having a big house? Is it having asset wealth?

 

I appreciate this post rambles, but it reflects a really small snapshot of what needs to be considered. So easy to talk about things in simple terms and make it all sound so easy and obvious.

Edited March 19, 2016 by grrclark

[JDog]

IDS has resigned this evening.

 

His resignation letter to Cameron is pretty scathing, and is devastating for Osborne and his disability cuts.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35848687

 

Good. A small man with an axe to grind.

[vole]

This man was PM for a spell so I think his views should be taken extremely seriously . To suddenly have IDS and the whole of the medical profession against you does not look terribly good . Not to mention the manufactured crisis of the EU referendum . Why at the end of a recession do they want to play political roulette ?

Anyhoo , 25% voted them in so hope you're happy . Sadly we are stuck with these shysters for a decade at least because the opposition has lost the plot .

Edited March 19, 2016 by vole

[keg]

Not long done our kitchen, and extended it. Best of luck when the wife goes to pick the units. Our supplier projected the finished kitchen on to the wall, about 12' square, and changed colours, doors, handles, taps at the click of a button. Good way of making money me thinks, every change upped the budget

I think we may look at doors and fronts only, We were told by one guy that it was a custom fit kitchen with non standard carcass sizes..

 

My Mrs holds the purse strings and is reasonably sensible...i think!!

Edited March 19, 2016 by keg

[Paddy Galore!]

I think we may look at doors and fronts only, We were told by one guy that it was a custom fit kitchen with non standard carcass sizes..

 

My Mrs holds the purse strings and is reasonably sensible...i think!!

i'm making the doors for ours keg, got quoted over 500 to replace them and they weren't all that nice either, and the price of new carcasses is just ridiculous! it's only bloody chip board! I can make bespoke custom carcasses from BF ply for less and still make a fair profit.

back to the plot though... in my opinion the tories shouldn't have increased the tax free allowance, if what they say is to be believed then they really need the money, i'd happily pay more tax if it was spent wisely and not slashed up a wall somewhere on some hair brained idea.

[CaptC]

I must congratulate grrrclark for such excellent comments - not that I agree with all of them!

 

IDS - I will bet the price of a box of cartridges that IDS and that dreadful man Gove have come to some sort of arrangement. Gove and his entourage are waiting backstage for Cameron's almost predictable fall after the Euro election farce which has cost this country millions. Gove will run for party leader (what a thought?) with IDS as his chancellor. Deal done thank you.

Dear George will also be sharpening his knives - the Euro election is "The Wooden Horse".

[shaun4860]

 

The 16% includes everyone that is in the 40% tax bracket so by no means are they are all super wealthy as your post implies and the majority of that will be via PAYE too so there is no tax avoidance.

 

There is only 330,000 people in the UK that pay the highest level of tax, so that is those earning above £150,000 so your choice of figures to illustrate an example are not really reasonable, but I do understand the point you are trying to make. 24m are basic rate 20% taxpayers only, 4.6m pay at 40% and 330k pay at 45%.

 

I do understand that someone earning £25k looks at someone earning £100k and thinks they are rich, i guess in relative terms of income they are, but your assertions that the lower paid pay proportionately more tax is false. I do accept that you are talking in terms of hardship and affordability and not absolute figures, but how do you quantify that? Where do you set the threshold for affordability, is it someone earning £20k, £30k, £40k, etc?

 

Assuming a £10k basic rate allowance then a £42k 40% allowance, which is close enough for illustration purposes the person earning £25k will pay £3000 in tax the person earning 4 times more will pay £6400 at 20% then another £20,000 at 40% so £26,400 total which is 8.8 times more than the lower earner. So 4 x the income yet 8.8 x the tax.

 

The person on £25k pays 12% of their income to tax, the person earning £100k pays 26.4%. Your example of someone earning £23.4k pays £2,680 or 11.4%.

 

The lowest paid pay proportionately way less tax than those who earn more as it should be. Factor in things like tax credits and other bits and pieces and the numbers skew a little bit more.

 

A couple both earning £25k each would pay £6,000 collectively per household, but a couple with only one individual earner of £50k would pay £8,400 is that fair?

 

It is also worth recognising that the total income to individuals is not the countries earning, it is individual earnings, those that earn more are not being greedy by taking a bigger share of the pot as there is not a pot to take a share of. Your post seems to imply this, but if I am misinterpreting or misunderstanding then I apologise.

 

I agree with progressive taxation where those who earn more contribute more and we do very much have a progressive tax regime in the UK, as I said under the tory and coalition government we have the wealthier element of society, so those earning above £42k per year pay 70% of the bill.

Very good post

 

[Les*1066]

Sadly we are stuck with these shysters for a decade at least because the opposition has lost the plot .

 

I've heard two recent interviews with Jeremy Corbin, and he actually makes more sense than 'Dave'. Now I'm REALLY getting worried!!

[keg]

i'm making the doors for ours keg, got quoted over 500 to replace them and they weren't all that nice either, and the price of new carcasses is just ridiculous! it's only bloody chip board! I can make bespoke custom carcasses from BF ply for less and still make a fair profit.

back to the plot though... in my opinion the tories shouldn't have increased the tax free allowance, if what they say is to be believed then they really need the money, i'd happily pay more tax if it was spent wisely and not slashed up a wall somewhere on some hair brained idea.

Pity you are not closer although we have friends near Thetford. Always been a tory but agree that some schemes/ideas seem at best rushed, at worst, not even thought through.

[andrewluke]

This man was PM for a spell so I think his views should be taken extremely seriously .

he was never PM he was tory leader 2001-2003

[Chris Bb]

I think we may look at doors and fronts only, We were told by one guy that it was a custom fit kitchen with non standard carcass sizes..

 

My Mrs holds the purse strings and is reasonably sensible...i think!!

 

Mods:

 

OFF TOPIC, GET RID!

[krugerandsmith]

 

You forever trot out this line, but fail to see the irony in mentioning it when others are being critical about budget cuts in respect to welfare.

 

In order to not grow the national debt there would have to be no deficit, which would have meant absolutely devastating cuts right from day 1. It would also have had to been coupled with a huge change in the rate of tax for all. The change in revenue/expenditure would have had to be something like £120bn in 1 year.

 

If we didn't want to have any cuts in government spending at all then to put that into numbers the 29.3m UK tax payers would all have to pay an extra £4100/year on average, if you want to be progressive and keep that burden on the higher rate taxpayers only it would mean that 4.9m people would have had to pay an extra £24,500/year on average.

 

I know you don't like the tories and that is your absolute right, but please if you are going to keep harping on about that same line then understand what it means. If the debt has still doubled despite all of the cuts that have taken place across the spectrum then consider how much more we are/were actually spending beyond our income.

 

As for looking after the higher rate taxpayer it is worth understanding that the higher rate taxpayers currently pay around 70% of the UK income tax burden, so around 16% of taxpayers, or 7% of the population, pay 70% of the bills. Under the tories that burden paid by the higher rate tax payers number has grown from just over 50% to just under 70%.

 

I am not defending some of the cuts made within the welfare system, i think that they have botched way too many initiatives and pursued the wrong policies in respect to corporate taxation, but to suggest that the tories are making the poorest pay for the benefit of the wealthier simply isn't true, it is nothing other than typical tired rhetoric that people love to trot out without ever bothering to understand the numbers.

 

Paint any picture you like and yes you are correct in saying that I

[krugerandsmith]

 

Paint any picture you like and yes you are correct in saying that I

 

Sorry about that..... as I was saying. Yes you are correct I do keep reminding people about the National Debt.

[keg]

 

Mods:

 

OFF TOPIC, GET RID!

Calm down dear, it's only a thread!

[srspower]

My brother is disabled and had his assessment and the doctor was on his side and reccomended he keep his benefits. So this morning the dss rang him trying to cross examine him to try and prevent him being qualified for his benefits. He is a vulnerable person and not in a position to defend himself, I am disgusted with the dss and this government.

[rjimmer]

I think most people will agree that the benefit system, especially anything to do with illness/disability, is being abused by a lot of people.

[rodp]

I think most people will agree that the benefit system, especially anything to do with illness/disability, is being abused by a lot of people.

This is the problem, not the dss. What are they to do, just let it carry on until there's no money for anyone ?

[panoma1]

I think most people will agree that the benefit system, especially anything to do with illness/disability, is being abused by a lot of people.

But how do you separate the crooks, work shy, feckless, lead swingers from the genuine people in need? The government seems to presume everyone is from the former catagory and punishes and disadvantages everyone, including those in real need.....that is indefenceable! Avoiding tax and fraudulent claims from the public purse should be dealt with by the justice system as the despicable crimes they are..........and not punished by a slap on the wrist and a few hours community service!...........but by lengthy jail terms as a deterrent..........they should perhaps start with the large organisations that rob the public purse by avoiding their fiscal responsibilities?

[rjimmer]

But how do you separate the crooks, work shy, feckless, lead swingers from the genuine people in need?

Unfortunately, that has been dealt with by the people behind the counter in the Jobcentres, and they appear to not care how much they allow people to claim, as long as they have a quiet life.