Todays budget

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, Rem260 said:

Could you please explain what you mean by the highlighted sentence.

 

The same argument I use against conscientious objectors in war. It's like crewing a tank in or flying a bomber. If A doesn't turn up they don't set off one man short. They find someone else. Not A or not you but someone else.

Yes. A conscientious objector asks not to be sent to war as a combatant as they don't want to take the life of another. But if Sid says he isn't going the Army, or Air Force, won't send the tank out with one man less, of fly the bomber out with one less crewman.

So because Sid didn't go in his place gets sent Tom. And the tank gets blown up, the bomber gets shot down, and all are killed. Including Tom. So because Sid didn't go Tom got killed in his stead. So Sid who's argument was about not taking the life of another in fact has caused the loss of another's life.

He has take Tom's life. Because the tank or bomber didn't set off without Sid..."one man short"...it set off with Tom crewing the place that Sid might otherwise have filled. Because if Sid had gone Tom might have spent his war counting spare Bren Gun barrels at Weedon Bec with his greatest risk of death being falling into the canal.

Re business if the CEO of a company departs for a country where they pay less tax, if the Chief Accountant does the same, or the head of HR they don't run the company without him or her they find a replacement. Who will be happy to do the job at the salary and perks offered.

Again as said if "A" doesn't stay and do the job there's "B", "C", "D" in the line behind them to fill that vacancy. Just as there's some other mother's son to be advanced forward to take Sid's "place." For if Sid doesn't go there's a whole generation of Tom, Harry, **** to do so.

Edited September 26, 2022 by enfieldspares

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

The same argument I use against conscientious objectors in war. It's like crewing a tank in or flying a bomber. If A doesn't turn up they don't set off one man short. They find someone else. Not A or not you but someone else.

Yes. A conscientious objector asks not to be sent to war as a combatant as they don't want to take the life of another. But if Sid says he isn't going the Army, or Air Force, won't send the tank out with one man less, of fly the bomber out with one less crewman.

So because Sid didn't go in his place gets sent Tom. And the tank gets blown up, the bomber gets shot down, and all are killed. Including Tom. So because Sid didn't go Tom got killed in his stead. So Sid who's argument was about not taking the life of another in fact has caused the loss of another's life.

He has take Tom's life. Because the tank or bomber didn't set off without Sid..."one man short"...it set off with Tom crewing the place that Sid might otherwise have filled. Because if Sid had gone Tom might have spent his war counting spare Bren Gun barrels at Weedon Bec with his greatest risk of death being falling into the canal.

Re business if the CEO of a company departs for a country where they pay less tax, if the Chief Accountant does the same, or the head of HR they don't run the company without him or her they find a replacement. Who will be happy to do the job at the salary and perks offered.

Again as said if "A" doesn't stay and do the job there's "B", "C", "D" in the line behind them to fill that vacancy. Just as there's some other mother's son to be advanced forward to take Sid's "place." For if Sid doesn't go there's a whole generation of Tom, Harry, **** to do so.

But that's not quite right.

Sid is not a conscientious objector, sid is an experienced tank operator, who quits regular enlistment and becomes a conrtacted tank operator, with a foreign armed service contractor, which pays better and provides better benefits.

Sid's replacement Tom, is nowhere near as good a tank operator as Sid, and his mistakes get the tank crew attacked and destroyed. Sid did not get Tom or his old crew killed, failure to provide better pay and benefits, to keep those best at their job did, that and Tom's incompetentence.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Newbie to this

[Mungler]

Stolen from elsewhere:

1. A person on £20k pays £2,825 in income tax [14% of total]

2. A person on £200k pays £79,517 in income tax, that's 28x more tax for 10x more income than the person on £20k [40% of total]

3. A person on £1,000,000 pays £471,000 in income tax, that's 167x more tax for 50 times more income than the person on £20k [47%+ of total] and 6x more tax for 5 times more income than the person on £200k.

Obs net take home is less with NIC payments and pension contribs.

 

[Deker]

8 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Stolen from elsewhere:

1. A person on £20k pays £2,825 in income tax [14% of total]

2. A person on £200k pays £79,517 in income tax, that's 28x more tax for 10x more income than the person on £20k [40% of total]

3. A person on £1,000,000 pays £471,000 in income tax, that's 167x more tax for 50 times more income than the person on £20k [47%+ of total] and 6x more tax for 5 times more income than the person on £200k.

Obs net take home is less with NIC payments and pension contribs.

 

That's frightening, it really doesn't pay to be ambitious and successful

[Newbie to this]

19 minutes ago, Deker said:

That's frightening, it really doesn't pay to be ambitious and successful

But those at the top are not paying their fair share and need to be taxed more......or so we are told by some.

[enfieldspares]

46 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

But that's not quite right.

Sid is not a conscientious objector, sid is an experienced tank operator, who quits regular enlistment and becomes a conrtacted tank operator, with a foreign armed service contractor, which pays better and provides better benefits.

Sid's replacement Tom, is nowhere near as good a tank operator as Sid, and his mistakes get the tank crew attacked and destroyed. Sid did not get Tom or his old crew killed, failure to provide better pay and benefits, to keep those best at their job did, that and Tom's incompetentence.

Ah that is not the same. Not at all. 

[Mungler]

We have been lead down a path that there is some moral duty to over pay tax and volunteer more tax wherever possible. I disagree - it’s my money, I work very hard for it and wake up at 2 am and 4 am everyday thinking about work and if it goes wrong I’ll get little or no support from Government.

I know that no one will spend my money as well as I do / will and that government by definition is the most uneconomic and wasteful entity known to mankind. When did any government project come in on time, under budget and with value?

Simplified flat rate tax everyone is happy to pay and no one will bother to avoid and small government is where it’s at and central to true conservative ethos not this neo liberal spend spend spend we’ve had for the last decade from the conservatives.

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

4 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Simplified flat rate tax everyone is happy to pay and no one will bother to avoid and small government is where it’s at and central to true conservative ethos not this neo liberal spend spend spend we’ve had for the last decade from the conservatives.

Amen to that!  

[Wilts#Dave]

25 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Amen to that!  

Agree!
The idea of a flat rate of tax does seem more ‘fair’,  irrespective of someone’s earnings. Maybe a slightly higher rate for really high earners / companies, but not at such drastic differences in percentage as they are now. 

[Mice!]

3 hours ago, Mungler said:

Stolen from elsewhere:

1. A person on £20k pays £2,825 in income tax [14% of total]

2. A person on £200k pays £79,517 in income tax, that's 28x more tax for 10x more income than the person on £20k [40% of total]

3. A person on £1,000,000 pays £471,000 in income tax, that's 167x more tax for 50 times more income than the person on £20k [47%+ of total] and 6x more tax for 5 times more income than the person on £200k.

Obs net take home is less with NIC payments and pension contribs.

 

While those figures are still mind boggling,  person 3 is effectively on a lottery win to most people and while they are heavily taxed, they will still have an awful lot of money after tax.

Everyone always thinks they are paying too much tax, if the top earners rate was reduced,  then the lower raised, say the middle was reduced let's say 20, 30 & 40% how would that help the economy?

Those on lower earnings are worse off, so bitter and unhappy,  middle are better off so spend more but would those on the big money really notice?

[Lloyd90]

2 hours ago, Mice! said:

While those figures are still mind boggling,  person 3 is effectively on a lottery win to most people and while they are heavily taxed, they will still have an awful lot of money after tax.

Everyone always thinks they are paying too much tax, if the top earners rate was reduced,  then the lower raised, say the middle was reduced let's say 20, 30 & 40% how would that help the economy?

Those on lower earnings are worse off, so bitter and unhappy,  middle are better off so spend more but would those on the big money really notice?

That’s the thing, the 5% tax cuts for the people earning over £150,000 whilst nice for them, probably makes little difference to their life on the grander scale. I doubt they are wondering how they are going to manage to put the heating on and pay for food. 
 

A 1% cut to the base (previously 20% tax rate) amounts to very little for someone not earning a lot. It’s not the rich persons fault that this person earns so little in comparison, however when they are struggling massively due to the huge changes in cost of living, inflation, energy, food, mortgages rates, it seems nuts to give those that are already better off than over 90% of the country a tax cut. 
 

Just how many people in the U.K. earn over £150,000+ a year? I don’t know any.
 

I know plenty of people who have worked very hard and are earning over £50k. It’s achievable for a lot of professions.

 
 

Amazes the option to raise the 40% threshold was dropped and a cut was instead given to those earning over £150k. 
 

 

 

[Mungler]

I read somewhere that we are currently taxed more than Denmark when you factor in all the nibbling taxes we pay - NIC, VAT, stamp, CGT, IHT, road tax, congestion, ulez, insurance, green etc.

Don’t forget too the NHS is the single biggest employer in Europe and the single biggest cost to government by a country mile - think about that. They are not figures to be proud of and we treat the NHS as completely free to anyone who fancies hitting it up, but it’s not free by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing is free.

For all the tax we pay (which the government then in turn should turn into services to provide to us) is anyone happy with their lot? Anyone here happy with policing, fire brigade response times, NHS waiting lists / GP appointments? What about other public sector service standards? The flip side is there anyone who works in the public sector happy with their lot? We should have zero crime, zero NHS waiting lists and all be living to a 120 years of age for what gets spent.

Big government is the embodiment of wastefulness and paying yet more tax won’t fix the problem.

The only way we get to pay less tax is to stop government spending (wasting) our money. 

No one should blame anyone who works for their money wanting to keep hold of more of it at whatever level - the primary position is it’s their money because they earned it.

[12gauge82]

21 hours ago, Deker said:

Something I saw on FB describing the tax update (and why the cap on bankers earnings is lifted):

Something to think about. I think it applies in Scotland although slight difference in rates.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED - USING A BEER ANALOGY

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Completely over simplistic nonsense but it was a good story 😂

[discobob]

15 hours ago, Mungler said:

When did any government project come in on time, under budget and with value?

I actually worked on one - it was for the MOD and was actually mentioned in Parliament. It was working until the day it was retired (10 year lifespan) and apparently the replacement doesn't work, went over budget and wasn't delivered on time!!!

The first was delivered by a bunch of freelance contractors providing services to BT - The last was delivered by a big consultancy.

I was invited back to BT Tower for the end of the project a few years ago. My contribution was called out as the biggest success of the project and wasn't bad for being designed on the back of a fag packet 

[Lloyd90]

On 26/09/2022 at 09:03, Deker said:

Something I saw on FB describing the tax update (and why the cap on bankers earnings is lifted):

Something to think about. I think it applies in Scotland although slight difference in rates.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED - USING A BEER ANALOGY

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

All I learned from this was that Facebook isn’t somewhere to work out complex tax policy for a country 🤦‍♂️

Anyoen could come up with silly examples like that: 

10 blokes are drinking down the pub, the beer costs 10x what it used to years ago, due to taxes and inflation whilst their wages have remained the same. They only have the 1 pint now cos of the cost.  
 

At home they can’t afford to turn the heating on, and they have to walk home because it’s too expensive for their Mrs to pick them up in their car. 
 

They invited their boss to come for pint but he was out in a top class restaurant with his 10 CEO mates where he drank top shelf booze all night,  had a 4 course dinner, then him and all his mates paid on their company cards and put it down as a ‘business meeting’. 
 

 

 

[Rem260]

18 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

The same argument I use against conscientious objectors in war. It's like crewing a tank in or flying a bomber. If A doesn't turn up they don't set off one man short. They find someone else. Not A or not you but someone else.

Yes. A conscientious objector asks not to be sent to war as a combatant as they don't want to take the life of another. But if Sid says he isn't going the Army, or Air Force, won't send the tank out with one man less, of fly the bomber out with one less crewman.

So because Sid didn't go in his place gets sent Tom. And the tank gets blown up, the bomber gets shot down, and all are killed. Including Tom. So because Sid didn't go Tom got killed in his stead. So Sid who's argument was about not taking the life of another in fact has caused the loss of another's life.

He has take Tom's life. Because the tank or bomber didn't set off without Sid..."one man short"...it set off with Tom crewing the place that Sid might otherwise have filled. Because if Sid had gone Tom might have spent his war counting spare Bren Gun barrels at Weedon Bec with his greatest risk of death being falling into the canal.

Re business if the CEO of a company departs for a country where they pay less tax, if the Chief Accountant does the same, or the head of HR they don't run the company without him or her they find a replacement. Who will be happy to do the job at the salary and perks offered.

Again as said if "A" doesn't stay and do the job there's "B", "C", "D" in the line behind them to fill that vacancy. Just as there's some other mother's son to be advanced forward to take Sid's "place." For if Sid doesn't go there's a whole generation of Tom, Harry, **** to do so.

But what happens if the CEO runs his company from a different country and pays his tax there.

[enfieldspares]

23 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

But what happens if the CEO runs his company from a different country and pays his tax there.

Yes. That is true and, indeed, may happen with Scotland? 

Edited September 27, 2022 by enfieldspares

[enfieldspares]

9 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

 

Double post. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by enfieldspares

[Lloyd90]

49 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

But what happens if the CEO runs his company from a different country and pays his tax there.

Plenty of that happening anyway, especially after Brexit. 
 

It’s down to the consumers to be honest. 

No one buys British because it costs a lot more, look at the shops that are always rammed, Primark etc, all their stuff made of what is basically exploited foreigners. 

 

What we should really have, is that companies have to pay taxes on profits made within our country. Not allowing big firms to make billions within the U.K., then say they are based abroad so they pay a much smaller amount of tax to another country. 
 

If you operate within the U.K. then you should have to have a U.K. base and pay U.K. tax on U.K. profits! 

The idea however that if we make companies and people pay a FAIR (not try to tax them into Oblivion), but a fair amount of tax in this country, that they will simply all run away abroad, is stupid. 
 

As has been said, there are people willing to fill their spaces / jobs or niche within this country.

Yes some of them may not be as good, however some of them may be better, and we develop those skills and areas within our own nation surely? 
 

 

I’m certainly not advocating for just slamming all high earners with loads extra tax as it just makes earning a large amount pointless. 
 

There is no doubt that London and the finance sector there bring in the lion’s share of the income and should not be punished for that, as noted everyone else benefits from that being distributed.  
 

What I do think is that the entire system needs a massive overhaul. 
 

 

It will be interesting to see what further tax cuts / changes are being lined up as apparently there is a lot more to come. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Lloyd90

[Rem260]

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

Plenty of that happening anyway, especially after Brexit. 
 

It’s down to the consumers to be honest. 

No one buys British because it costs a lot more, look at the shops that are always rammed, Primark etc, all their stuff made of what is basically exploited foreigners. 

 

What we should really have, is that companies have to pay taxes on profits made within our country. Not allowing big firms to make billions within the U.K., then say they are based abroad so they pay a much smaller amount of tax to another country. 
 

If you operate within the U.K. then you should have to have a U.K. base and pay U.K. tax on U.K. profits! 

The idea however that if we make companies and people pay a FAIR (not try to tax them into Oblivion), but a fair amount of tax in this country, that they will simply all run away abroad, is stupid. 
 

As has been said, there are people willing to fill their spaces / jobs or niche within this country.

Yes some of them may not be as good, however some of them may be better, and we develop those skills and areas within our own nation surely? 
 

 

I’m certainly not advocating for just slamming all high earners with loads extra tax as it just makes earning a large amount pointless. 
 

There is no doubt that London and the finance sector there bring in the lion’s share of the income and should not be punished for that, as noted everyone else benefits from that being distributed.  
 

What I do think is that the entire system needs a massive overhaul. 
 

 

It will be interesting to see what further tax cuts / changes are being lined up as apparently there is a lot more to come. 

I agree with you that tax should be on earnings made in the country. But not so high that it stops further investment from the said company. Or diverting profits into pay to avoid tax.

[discobob]

the thing is it is all done under a loans/licensing type agreement - Starbucks the coffee profit was 20p, 20p to make and the rest went on the licensing deal back to a company in a low tax country.....

[old man]

2 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Plenty of that happening anyway, especially after Brexit. 
 

It’s down to the consumers to be honest. 

No one buys British because it costs a lot more, look at the shops that are always rammed, Primark etc, all their stuff made of what is basically exploited foreigners. 

 

What we should really have, is that companies have to pay taxes on profits made within our country. Not allowing big firms to make billions within the U.K., then say they are based abroad so they pay a much smaller amount of tax to another country. 
 

If you operate within the U.K. then you should have to have a U.K. base and pay U.K. tax on U.K. profits! 

The idea however that if we make companies and people pay a FAIR (not try to tax them into Oblivion), but a fair amount of tax in this country, that they will simply all run away abroad, is stupid. 
 

As has been said, there are people willing to fill their spaces / jobs or niche within this country.

Yes some of them may not be as good, however some of them may be better, and we develop those skills and areas within our own nation surely? 
 

 

I’m certainly not advocating for just slamming all high earners with loads extra tax as it just makes earning a large amount pointless. 
 

There is no doubt that London and the finance sector there bring in the lion’s share of the income and should not be punished for that, as noted everyone else benefits from that being distributed.  
 

What I do think is that the entire system needs a massive overhaul. 
 

 

It will be interesting to see what further tax cuts / changes are being lined up as apparently there is a lot more to come. 

Shame on you for having any common sense thoughts.

We plummet like a stone, irreversibly.

Truss and co, planted in to rip out the last few quid into their masters pockets.Truss rewarded pension and PM wage for life, to be cleared off  at election time leaving a third world economy for someone else to try and recover?  

[Lloyd90]

1 minute ago, old man said:

Shame on you for having any common sense thoughts.

We plummet like a stone, irreversibly.

Truss and co, planted in to rip out the last few quid into their masters pockets.Truss rewarded pension and PM wage for life, to be cleared off  at election time leaving a third world economy for someone else to try and recover?  

Without a doubt. 
 

She’ll be gone by the next GE. 
 

Caretaker role, far pay, fat pension, shaft everyone and no consequence.

[Mungler]

All this bitterness for MPs and the prime minister in a job that which is not at all well paid and even less rewarding. Your local GP consultant will earn more than the PM and probably double what an MP earns and yet it’s all some can focus on. 

Too many people see tax as justified punishment of people who have done well for themselves.

When people can look at tax logically and park the green eye, then we can make some progress. 

The bottom line to paying less tax is for there to be less government expenditure. Indeed, we’ve seen that flooding the government (and any governent agency) with tax money doesn’t result in a proportionate gain (and sometimes any gain) for the money thrown at it. 

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

All this bitterness for MPs and the prime minister in a job that which is not at all well paid and even less rewarding. Your local GP consultant will earn more than the PM and probably double what an MP earns and yet it’s all some can focus on. 

Too many people see tax as justified punishment of people who have done well for themselves.

When people can look at tax logically and park the green eye, then we can make some progress. 

The bottom line to paying less tax is for there to be less government expenditure. Indeed, we’ve seen that flooding the government (and any governent agency) with tax money doesn’t result in a proportionate gain (and sometimes any gain) for the money thrown at it. 

Agreed.

I’ve never considered progressive tax to be particularly fair.

Not done the math or searched for the figures but I wonder what a U.K. income tax flat rate would need to be to maintain the current tax revenue.