Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
For my generation who were able to get on the housing ladder, as in borrowing 2.5 times your income would cover the cost of a modest property, it has been surreal watching the price of houses soar. i went from shared ownership, to a flat, to a terraced house. All purchases acquired in a relatively calm and sensible financial climate where there was a relationship between income and house prices. However, it has been rather embarrassing to see the way property prices have risen around me, not because I have wanted it to be that way or I have taken advantage by indulging in churning or flipping. To me you settle in your community (in my case Lewisham East) and in terms of property value it always seems meaningless because if you move within your area what you get for one place is cancelled out by what you pay for the other. On reflection, the only way I was able to buy and sustain property ownership was by saving money, and not spending, and in my case although it wasn't particularly conscious, what I went without for my lifetime was holidays abroad, or in hotels or resorts, and frequent travelling to other countries. Others of my generation had regular holidays, but may have scrimped in other ways, or are simply in debt. So for my generation what is there to do? Downsizing? Like move to a flat in Hastings and be dead in a year? I want to remain in my area, and have something to pass on. Especially have something to pass on, because my son's generation can see no link between what they earn and what property costs as my generation could, and so eventually owning my place and passing it on is all I can do for him and his generation. Rather than downsize, and maybe because I haven't created an expensive annual holiday habit, i would prefer to help the general society by paying more in to the system provided it does some good. I can see merit in my (pensioner) generation to continue to pay national insurance where it is suitable, the understanding being that when needed the health and care system can really deliver for us. The landscape would look different if for my son and his generation there was a realistic link between average property prices and average income in the communities they inhabit, and my opinion regarding my personal situation would probably shift. The boom in buy to let has not helped the whole housing situation, nor has the sale of council houses.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
We have two houses, one fully paid for, one inherited. We are in a position to help our son d significantly and ensure he has no trouble being a property owner. Of course, I could fall ill with dementia tomorrow and the very expensive care fees may mean that we can't help our son as much as we would like, if I stay alive long enough! What you think are your assets can still be eaten away at an alarming rate!
Having a system that is fairer will benefit everybody. And the old ought to care about the young - sometimes sadly, a bit more than they actually do.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
1. No we don't, we don't pay enough tax and we don't spend it in the right places. To much of it in recent decades has been spent enriching private companies/individuals with little or no benefit to the general population.
2. Basic health = Medical advice and treatment as needed under a broad spectrum of services agreed by NICE/Govt/NHS/LA. Social Care = The care, support, accommodation and respite needed for all those that need it up to a minimum standard agreed and ensured by afore mentioned. All provided and paid for by a progressive taxation. I don't care who delivers it but 'a standard' to be applied across all delivery partners private, public or voluntary and rigorously enforced. Patient and community reps to sit as equals on all local health boards.
If people require treatment/care that falls outside this then there is a panel that meets to hear evidence with a clearly defined budget set each year, but no unproven new treatments that might benefit one person but take away funds for 20 others will be considered.
If people want more than this then there is a competitive 'alternative provision' market where people can purchase what they require. This will be regulated on the same terms as above to ensure standards and eliminate untested ideas that may not be in a patients best interest, may provide false hope or plainly just rip off people in distress.
We have two houses, one fully paid for, one inherited. We are in a position to help our son d significantly and ensure he has no trouble being a property owner. Of course, I could fall ill with dementia tomorrow and the very expensive care fees may mean that we can't help our son as much as we would like, if I stay alive long enough! What you think are your assets can still be eaten away at an alarming rate!
Having a system that is fairer will benefit everybody. And the old ought to care about the young - sometimes sadly, a bit more than they actually do.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
1. No we don't, we don't pay enough tax and we don't spend it in the right places. To much of it in recent decades has been spent enriching private companies/individuals with little or no benefit to the general population.
2. Basic health = Medical advice and treatment as needed under a broad spectrum of services agreed by NICE/Govt/NHS/LA. Social Care = The care, support, accommodation and respite needed for all those that need it up to a minimum standard agreed and ensured by afore mentioned. All provided and paid for by a progressive taxation. I don't care who delivers it but 'a standard' to be applied across all delivery partners private, public or voluntary and rigorously enforced. Patient and community reps to sit as equals on all local health boards.
If people require treatment/care that falls outside this then there is a panel that meets to hear evidence with a clearly defined budget set each year, but no unproven new treatments that might benefit one person but take away funds for 20 others will be considered.
If people want more than this then there is a competitive 'alternative provision' market where people can purchase what they require. This will be regulated on the same terms as above to ensure standards and eliminate untested ideas that may not be in a patients best interest, may provide false hope or plainly just rip off people in distress.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
1. No we don't, we don't pay enough tax and we don't spend it in the right places. To much of it in recent decades has been spent enriching private companies/individuals with little or no benefit to the general population.
2. Basic health = Medical advice and treatment as needed under a broad spectrum of services agreed by NICE/Govt/NHS/LA. Social Care = The care, support, accommodation and respite needed for all those that need it up to a minimum standard agreed and ensured by afore mentioned. All provided and paid for by a progressive taxation. I don't care who delivers it but 'a standard' to be applied across all delivery partners private, public or voluntary and rigorously enforced. Patient and community reps to sit as equals on all local health boards.
If people require treatment/care that falls outside this then there is a panel that meets to hear evidence with a clearly defined budget set each year, but no unproven new treatments that might benefit one person but take away funds for 20 others will be considered.
If people want more than this then there is a competitive 'alternative provision' market where people can purchase what they require. This will be regulated on the same terms as above to ensure standards and eliminate untested ideas that may not be in a patients best interest, may provide false hope or plainly just rip off people in distress.
We have two houses, one fully paid for, one inherited. We are in a position to help our son d significantly and ensure he has no trouble being a property owner. Of course, I could fall ill with dementia tomorrow and the very expensive care fees may mean that we can't help our son as much as we would like, if I stay alive long enough! What you think are your assets can still be eaten away at an alarming rate!
Having a system that is fairer will benefit everybody. And the old ought to care about the young - sometimes sadly, a bit more than they actually do.
Bloody champagne socialist!
They are not particularly big houses!
My main gripe with Corbyn is he calls himself a socialist. I am not a socialist, I am a social democrat and so is he. Leaning well to the left but he is a social democrat all the same.
We have two houses, one fully paid for, one inherited. We are in a position to help our son d significantly and ensure he has no trouble being a property owner. Of course, I could fall ill with dementia tomorrow and the very expensive care fees may mean that we can't help our son as much as we would like, if I stay alive long enough! What you think are your assets can still be eaten away at an alarming rate!
Having a system that is fairer will benefit everybody. And the old ought to care about the young - sometimes sadly, a bit more than they actually do.
Bloody champagne socialist!
They are not particularly big houses!
My main gripe with Corbyn is he calls himself a socialist. I am not a socialist, I am a social democrat and so is he. Leaning well to the left but he is a social democrat all the same.
We have two houses, one fully paid for, one inherited. We are in a position to help our son d significantly and ensure he has no trouble being a property owner. Of course, I could fall ill with dementia tomorrow and the very expensive care fees may mean that we can't help our son as much as we would like, if I stay alive long enough! What you think are your assets can still be eaten away at an alarming rate!
Having a system that is fairer will benefit everybody. And the old ought to care about the young - sometimes sadly, a bit more than they actually do.
Bloody champagne socialist!
They are not particularly big houses!
My main gripe with Corbyn is he calls himself a socialist. I am not a socialist, I am a social democrat and so is he. Leaning well to the left but he is a social democrat all the same.
Isn't it possible to be both?
The answer is of course yes. Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. The problem is the last bit - is it loose control or very tight total control? I would say the reality is loose control in terms of the Labour party in this country, but the press latch onto this and liken it to communism! That is why the term in my eyes in unhelpful.
Having lived in a country that completely underfunds jurisprudence with the result that it can take decades for anything to go through the courts I think we are heading down the same dangerous road.
The Tories shouldnt do anything, however sensible, that affects pensioners if they have any sense. They suggest swapping the triple lock to a double lock and it all kicked off.
I literally can't see how thinking its ridiculous some one in a hypothetical scenario is complaining about not being able to afford to live somewhere when the asset that they own outright is worth millions is some how controversial.
Hmmm, we had many many people in negative equity in the late 80's I was one of them, oh yes and the Tories were in power, I lost 25% off the price of my house, as did those pensioners you mention no doubt, so do I get some money from someone to make up the loss? No I dont, because in the last thirty years I have worked my arse off to get where I am because I am not a self entitled, its someone else's fault, millennial snowflake.
“I worked my arse off to sit in a home for years doing nothing so that the generation below me will be the first one worse off than me”
Also massive cringe at “millennial snowflake” hahahaha
You really are a child sonny.
Again with the personal attacks I see, devoid of facts completely. I guess I should reply with personal attacks too, but we all know how upset you get when some one else does that to you. Again, my heart bleeds.
The Tories shouldnt do anything, however sensible, that affects pensioners if they have any sense. They suggest swapping the triple lock to a double lock and it all kicked off.
I literally can't see how thinking its ridiculous some one in a hypothetical scenario is complaining about not being able to afford to live somewhere when the asset that they own outright is worth millions is some how controversial.
Hmmm, we had many many people in negative equity in the late 80's I was one of them, oh yes and the Tories were in power, I lost 25% off the price of my house, as did those pensioners you mention no doubt, so do I get some money from someone to make up the loss? No I dont, because in the last thirty years I have worked my arse off to get where I am because I am not a self entitled, its someone else's fault, millennial snowflake.
“I worked my arse off to sit in a home for years doing nothing so that the generation below me will be the first one worse off than me”
Also massive cringe at “millennial snowflake” hahahaha
You really are a child sonny.
Again with the personal attacks I see, devoid of facts completely. I guess I should reply with personal attacks too, but we all know how upset you get when some one else does that to you. Again, my heart bleeds.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
1. No we don't, we don't pay enough tax and we don't spend it in the right places. To much of it in recent decades has been spent enriching private companies/individuals with little or no benefit to the general population.
2. Basic health = Medical advice and treatment as needed under a broad spectrum of services agreed by NICE/Govt/NHS/LA. Social Care = The care, support, accommodation and respite needed for all those that need it up to a minimum standard agreed and ensured by afore mentioned. All provided and paid for by a progressive taxation. I don't care who delivers it but 'a standard' to be applied across all delivery partners private, public or voluntary and rigorously enforced. Patient and community reps to sit as equals on all local health boards.
If people require treatment/care that falls outside this then there is a panel that meets to hear evidence with a clearly defined budget set each year, but no unproven new treatments that might benefit one person but take away funds for 20 others will be considered.
If people want more than this then there is a competitive 'alternative provision' market where people can purchase what they require. This will be regulated on the same terms as above to ensure standards and eliminate untested ideas that may not be in a patients best interest, may provide false hope or plainly just rip off people in distress.
What is "enough tax" in your opinion?
More than we pay now.
Okay. According to the OECD, as a percentage of GDP the tax take is currently around 33%. That's on the low side really. We're 21st out of 35 OECD countries. (Mexico is lowest on 17%; Denmark highest on 46%)
We can all agree (I hope) that Denmark has somewhat better public services than Mexico. We can, too, all wish that we had public services as good as Denmark and the other high tax/GDP ratio Scandinavian countries. But what would we say about the concept of matching say Italy on 43%? (I'd guess whether rightly or wrongly that Italians don't get value for money on the tax-take and maybe their services are about on a par with ours?) You'd certainly guess that Italy lags behind Germany and their tax/GDP ratio is 38%.
So, perhaps, matching Germany would be a good place to start? But taking, for example, a couple of billion off pensioners by hitting them with NI contributions doesn't hack it - it's peanuts. We'd need another 5p in the £ all round on tax rates, including VAT.
The snag is that over a significant time-frame we all end up matching our lifestyles to our disposable income. Sucking another 5% out of the population's readies would do serious long-term damage to vast numbers of individuals and the economy generally. It's no good saying make the rich pay or tax companies more because that goes nowhere near far enough to raise the revenue by a significant amount. There's no way round it, to make a meaningful difference to the funding of public services, the public would have to pay.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
1. No we don't, we don't pay enough tax and we don't spend it in the right places. To much of it in recent decades has been spent enriching private companies/individuals with little or no benefit to the general population.
2. Basic health = Medical advice and treatment as needed under a broad spectrum of services agreed by NICE/Govt/NHS/LA. Social Care = The care, support, accommodation and respite needed for all those that need it up to a minimum standard agreed and ensured by afore mentioned. All provided and paid for by a progressive taxation. I don't care who delivers it but 'a standard' to be applied across all delivery partners private, public or voluntary and rigorously enforced. Patient and community reps to sit as equals on all local health boards.
If people require treatment/care that falls outside this then there is a panel that meets to hear evidence with a clearly defined budget set each year, but no unproven new treatments that might benefit one person but take away funds for 20 others will be considered.
If people want more than this then there is a competitive 'alternative provision' market where people can purchase what they require. This will be regulated on the same terms as above to ensure standards and eliminate untested ideas that may not be in a patients best interest, may provide false hope or plainly just rip off people in distress.
What is "enough tax" in your opinion?
More than we pay now.
Okay. According to the OECD, as a percentage of GDP the tax take is currently around 33%. That's on the low side really. We're 21st out of 35 OECD countries. (Mexico is lowest on 17%; Denmark highest on 46%)
We can all agree (I hope) that Denmark has somewhat better public services than Mexico. We can, too, all wish that we had public services as good as Denmark and the other high tax/GDP ratio Scandinavian countries. But what would we say about the concept of matching say Italy on 43%? (I'd guess whether rightly or wrongly that Italians don't get value for money on the tax-take and maybe their services are about on a par with ours?) You'd certainly guess that Italy lags behind Germany and their tax/GDP ratio is 38%.
So, perhaps, matching Germany would be a good place to start? But taking, for example, a couple of billion off pensioners by hitting them with NI contributions doesn't hack it - it's peanuts. We'd need another 5p in the £ all round on tax rates, including VAT.
The snag is that over a significant time-frame we all end up matching our lifestyles to our disposable income. Sucking another 5% out of the population's readies would do serious long-term damage to vast numbers of individuals and the economy generally. It's no good saying make the rich pay or tax companies more because that goes nowhere near far enough to raise the revenue by a significant amount. There's no way round it, to make a meaningful difference to the funding of public services, the public would have to pay.
Thanks for your considered answer which is much better than my quick one (I had something else to do, honest!).
I thought you were looking for an absolute figure expressed in ££££££££££££s but clearly I wasn't thinking right.
I completely agree with you being on a par with Germany seems to be a reasonable start, perhaps we could also have a look at how they spend it on and reflect that. I also agree that we need to raise taxes and be honest about it rather than all this farting around in the margins.
Not sure about your last bit though as wouldn't the opposite also apply and people would get used to having a little less to spend. They may also find that they have more disposable income if they work in the public sector or don't have to pay out additional money for services that used to be provided as standard.
The Tories shouldnt do anything, however sensible, that affects pensioners if they have any sense. They suggest swapping the triple lock to a double lock and it all kicked off.
I literally can't see how thinking its ridiculous some one in a hypothetical scenario is complaining about not being able to afford to live somewhere when the asset that they own outright is worth millions is some how controversial.
Hmmm, we had many many people in negative equity in the late 80's I was one of them, oh yes and the Tories were in power, I lost 25% off the price of my house, as did those pensioners you mention no doubt, so do I get some money from someone to make up the loss? No I dont, because in the last thirty years I have worked my arse off to get where I am because I am not a self entitled, its someone else's fault, millennial snowflake.
“I worked my arse off to sit in a home for years doing nothing so that the generation below me will be the first one worse off than me”
Also massive cringe at “millennial snowflake” hahahaha
You really are a child sonny.
Again with the personal attacks I see, devoid of facts completely. I guess I should reply with personal attacks too, but we all know how upset you get when some one else does that to you. Again, my heart bleeds.
Oh dear oh dear. You really dont have a clue.
I didn’t know you are a chuckle brother?
Good grief, you're young, you really must be able to do better than this, fuck sake you are lame.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
1. No we don't, we don't pay enough tax and we don't spend it in the right places. To much of it in recent decades has been spent enriching private companies/individuals with little or no benefit to the general population.
2. Basic health = Medical advice and treatment as needed under a broad spectrum of services agreed by NICE/Govt/NHS/LA. Social Care = The care, support, accommodation and respite needed for all those that need it up to a minimum standard agreed and ensured by afore mentioned. All provided and paid for by a progressive taxation. I don't care who delivers it but 'a standard' to be applied across all delivery partners private, public or voluntary and rigorously enforced. Patient and community reps to sit as equals on all local health boards.
If people require treatment/care that falls outside this then there is a panel that meets to hear evidence with a clearly defined budget set each year, but no unproven new treatments that might benefit one person but take away funds for 20 others will be considered.
If people want more than this then there is a competitive 'alternative provision' market where people can purchase what they require. This will be regulated on the same terms as above to ensure standards and eliminate untested ideas that may not be in a patients best interest, may provide false hope or plainly just rip off people in distress.
Not paying enough tax or not spending it in the right places is very different to not having a progressive tax system, we do (although you may feel it's not progressive enough and doesn't raise enough).
I said either much earlier on this thread or may have been the election one's (or both) that I personally favoured the Lib Dem solution of adding 1p (or potentially 2p) more to each tax band. I believe from memory the lib gems said the 1p would raise around 6bn and promised it I think for the NHS and care. Think there was similar on dividends although that only raised around an extra 10%. So 2p would raise about 13bn.
On care in particular i in part agree, although personally feel there should always be a contribution (if able to afford it/means tested) towards food, accommodation etc.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
Not sure where these numbers are coming from. Nobody in the UK pays more than 45% tax. NI is capped at £45k so CEOs of huge corporations pay the same as a newly qualified accountant/solicitor/surveyor. People with money get their salary paid into a company and pay 20/21% corporation tax on dividends. Less than you and me.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
Not sure where these numbers are coming from. Nobody in the UK pays more than 45% tax. NI is capped at £45k so CEOs of huge corporations pay the same as a newly qualified accountant/solicitor/surveyor. People with money get their salary paid into a company and pay 20/21% corporation tax on dividends. Less than you and me.
It's the marginal tax rate. Those earning in excess of (I think) £100k begin losing their personal allowance. That's were tthe figure comes from. It is effectively the highest tax rate in Europe.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
Not sure where these numbers are coming from. Nobody in the UK pays more than 45% tax. NI is capped at £45k so CEOs of huge corporations pay the same as a newly qualified accountant/solicitor/surveyor. People with money get their salary paid into a company and pay 20/21% corporation tax on dividends. Less than you and me.
Don't think that's right - the company would pay corporation tax first and then consider paying a dividend, the recipient of which would pay tax of up to 38.1% depending on their overall income.
The difference of course is the ability to be tactical about how much you take out as salary vs dividends (or leave in the company), and the timing thereof.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
Not sure where these numbers are coming from. Nobody in the UK pays more than 45% tax. NI is capped at £45k so CEOs of huge corporations pay the same as a newly qualified accountant/solicitor/surveyor. People with money get their salary paid into a company and pay 20/21% corporation tax on dividends. Less than you and me.
Ni is not capped at 45k, there are different rates at different earning levels but if you earn £10m you pay NI on all of it (all be it above roughly the 45k you mention it's 2% over that amount). On NI there is an LEL and UEL level, however above the UEL you pay 2% on all earnings. The upper limit is £827 a week, any earnings over that is 2%.
However for every 2 pounds you earn over £100k you lose 1 pound of your personal allowance, therefore at the moment from £100k - £123,700 of earnings you pay 60% income tax (40% standard rate and you lose your allowance every other pound effectively adding 20% to the 40%, total 60%). At that level you are also paying 2% Ni so you get 38p in the pound.
Child allowance is similar to the 100k-123.7k in that over 50k you pay additional tax until it is repaid.
The hump I mention at 150-210k is to do with pension taper relief and the limited amount allowed where you can receive tax relief. If I (and or my employer together) paid 40k into pension, 10k would be tax free, the rest taxed. basically for every £2 above the adjusted income limit of 150k reduces your allowance by £1 until it drops your allowance from 40k to 10k.
FWIW having just prepared my 2017/2018 tax return (and i'm only on PAYE, no BTL, not share earnings etc), and before any tax on savings interest, so purely on PAYE earnings I will pay 48.8% tax (both income & NI) on 100% of my salary/pay so all but a small amount, half.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
Not sure where these numbers are coming from. Nobody in the UK pays more than 45% tax. NI is capped at £45k so CEOs of huge corporations pay the same as a newly qualified accountant/solicitor/surveyor. People with money get their salary paid into a company and pay 20/21% corporation tax on dividends. Less than you and me.
It's the marginal tax rate. Those earning in excess of (I think) £100k begin losing their personal allowance. That's were tthe figure comes from. It is effectively the highest tax rate in Europe.
Personal allowances reduce the tax rate. Losing them doesn't affect the 45% rate. Marginal tax rate is about moving from one band to the next. Many countries have a 45% max like ours but most have a much lower threshold. Some are 50%. I doubt many allow tax dodging by paying salaries as dividends but most G20 have higher CT than us anyway. Your assertion that high earners here pay more tax is just bollox.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
Not sure where these numbers are coming from. Nobody in the UK pays more than 45% tax. NI is capped at £45k so CEOs of huge corporations pay the same as a newly qualified accountant/solicitor/surveyor. People with money get their salary paid into a company and pay 20/21% corporation tax on dividends. Less than you and me.
It's the marginal tax rate. Those earning in excess of (I think) £100k begin losing their personal allowance. That's were tthe figure comes from. It is effectively the highest tax rate in Europe.
Personal allowances reduce the tax rate. Losing them doesn't affect the 45% rate. Marginal tax rate is about moving from one band to the next. Many countries have a 45% max like ours but most have a much lower threshold. Some are 50%. I doubt many allow tax dodging by paying salaries as dividends but most G20 have higher CT than us anyway. Your assertion that high earners here pay more tax is just bollox. I say this as someone who has actually processed and understands payroll.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
Not sure where these numbers are coming from. Nobody in the UK pays more than 45% tax. NI is capped at £45k so CEOs of huge corporations pay the same as a newly qualified accountant/solicitor/surveyor. People with money get their salary paid into a company and pay 20/21% corporation tax on dividends. Less than you and me.
It's the marginal tax rate. Those earning in excess of (I think) £100k begin losing their personal allowance. That's were tthe figure comes from. It is effectively the highest tax rate in Europe.
Personal allowances reduce the tax rate. Losing them doesn't affect the 45% rate. Marginal tax rate is about moving from one band to the next. Many countries have a 45% max like ours but most have a much lower threshold. Some are 50%. I doubt many allow tax dodging by paying salaries as dividends but most G20 have higher CT than us anyway. Your assertion that high earners here pay more tax is just bollox. I say this as someone who has actually processed and understands payroll.
Yes, the reduction/loss of the personal allowance doesn't effect the 45% band as it falls into the 40% band, but the fact remains that part of the 40% band actually has a 60% rate. If you earn to the full 150k where the 40% band ends you actually pay 44.57% income tax on the 40% band (plus 2% NI). So in reality although the headline numbers and people will say that the 45% band starts at 150k, for those at that level or above its actually starts at 46,351. If you additionally have to pay the higher income child benefit tax you will actually pay more than 45% income tax in the 40% band!
It's probably why a lot of people who earn the above type of numbers (in particular above 125k) didn't like Labours manifesto when it came to income tax as people at the above levels are already paying 45% plus income tax and 2% NI, add the 5% on Labour wanted to and pretty much from £46k you'd be paying over half your income just on NI & Income tax.
Isn’t it that council tax is replaced with a property tax with multiple bands. Ie not on income but house value?so if a pensioner with a small income has a £2m it’s unlikely they could afford the tax?
sell the house then. no sympathy for pensioners sitting in 4 bed properties when they should be downsizing and selling for families.
That’s harsh! On that basis then I’m sure you agree we should only let couples buy one or max two bed places and if you are single then studios or max one bed?
how is it harsh? £2 million in an asset they likely paid comparitive peanuts for 40 years ago. Anyone should be able to buy whatever they are able to afford, but sitting in a house thats worth millions and crying that they've got a small income cos they're pensioners.. give me a break.
If you are skint at any time you sell your assets and if that is a house or car you downsize and use the difference to live on/buy what you need/give to your kids.
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
Is that not what we have now? It is a little more camel hump or even double camel hump shaped thanks to the nasty party as with the 100-123k earnings taxed at 60% plus Ni and potentially those with children at 60K will have paid 58%+ NI between 50 & 60k. There is another hump at the 150-210k mark where the rate can get to 70%.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
Not sure where these numbers are coming from. Nobody in the UK pays more than 45% tax. NI is capped at £45k so CEOs of huge corporations pay the same as a newly qualified accountant/solicitor/surveyor. People with money get their salary paid into a company and pay 20/21% corporation tax on dividends. Less than you and me.
It's the marginal tax rate. Those earning in excess of (I think) £100k begin losing their personal allowance. That's were tthe figure comes from. It is effectively the highest tax rate in Europe.
Personal allowances reduce the tax rate. Losing them doesn't affect the 45% rate. Marginal tax rate is about moving from one band to the next. Many countries have a 45% max like ours but most have a much lower threshold. Some are 50%. I doubt many allow tax dodging by paying salaries as dividends but most G20 have higher CT than us anyway. Your assertion that high earners here pay more tax is just bollox. I say this as someone who has actually processed and understands payroll.
Yes, the reduction/loss of the personal allowance doesn't effect the 45% band as it falls into the 40% band, but the fact remains that part of the 40% band actually has a 60% rate. If you earn to the full 150k where the 40% band ends you actually pay 44.57% income tax on the 40% band (plus 2% NI). So in reality although the headline numbers and people will say that the 45% band starts at 150k, for those at that level or above its actually starts at 46,351. If you additionally have to pay the higher income child benefit tax you will actually pay more than 45% income tax in the 40% band!
It's probably why a lot of people who earn the above type of numbers (in particular above 125k) didn't like Labours manifesto when it came to income tax as people at the above levels are already paying 45% plus income tax and 2% NI, add the 5% on Labour wanted to and pretty much from £46k you'd be paying over half your income just on NI & Income tax.
Generally in the private sector jobs aren't graded like they are in the public sector and salaries are more performance related. It would also give issues between competing companies.
But i'm sure you are right to an extent, companies will pay what they have pay, so ultimately you will get two people doing the same job getting different rates of pay, i've no issue with that as long as you can explain why.
Rob and CAFCfan, to get the thread back on track. How do the Tories need to change? Stop pretending that high paid execs who don't really earn their exorbinate salaries, pay too much tax.
Generally in the private sector jobs aren't graded like they are in the public sector and salaries are more performance related. It would also give issues between competing companies.
But i'm sure you are right to an extent, companies will pay what they have pay, so ultimately you will get two people doing the same job getting different rates of pay, i've no issue with that as long as you can explain why.
Of course in the private sector there is no need to explain why. I think the levels of secrecy have gone a long way to promoting the huge variation in salary for men and women doing the same or similar jobs. I think it’s going to be the quest for true parity between sexes that might lead to complete transparency of what people are paid and what tax they pay. Sooner the better as far as I’m concerned.
Comments
However a progressive tax system should be in place to fund people to receive the basic health and social care that they need.
i went from shared ownership, to a flat, to a terraced house. All purchases acquired in a relatively calm and sensible financial climate where there was a relationship between income and house prices.
However, it has been rather embarrassing to see the way property prices have risen around me, not because I have wanted it to be that way or I have taken advantage by indulging in churning or flipping. To me you settle in your community (in my case Lewisham East) and in terms of property value it always seems meaningless because if you move within your area what you get for one place is cancelled out by what you pay for the other.
On reflection, the only way I was able to buy and sustain property ownership was by saving money, and not spending, and in my case although it wasn't particularly conscious, what I went without for my lifetime was holidays abroad, or in hotels or resorts, and frequent travelling to other countries. Others of my generation had regular holidays, but may have scrimped in other ways, or are simply in debt.
So for my generation what is there to do? Downsizing? Like move to a flat in Hastings and be dead in a year?
I want to remain in my area, and have something to pass on. Especially have something to pass on, because my son's generation can see no link between what they earn and what property costs as my generation could, and so eventually owning my place and passing it on is all I can do for him and his generation.
Rather than downsize, and maybe because I haven't created an expensive annual holiday habit, i would prefer to help the general society by paying more in to the system provided it does some good.
I can see merit in my (pensioner) generation to continue to pay national insurance where it is suitable, the understanding being that when needed the health and care system can really deliver for us.
The landscape would look different if for my son and his generation there was a realistic link between average property prices and average income in the communities they inhabit, and my opinion regarding my personal situation would probably shift. The boom in buy to let has not helped the whole housing situation, nor has the sale of council houses.
Does of course depend on what you mean by 'basic' in respect of health and social care....
Having a system that is fairer will benefit everybody. And the old ought to care about the young - sometimes sadly, a bit more than they actually do.
2. Basic health = Medical advice and treatment as needed under a broad spectrum of services agreed by NICE/Govt/NHS/LA. Social Care = The care, support, accommodation and respite needed for all those that need it up to a minimum standard agreed and ensured by afore mentioned. All provided and paid for by a progressive taxation. I don't care who delivers it but 'a standard' to be applied across all delivery partners private, public or voluntary and rigorously enforced. Patient and community reps to sit as equals on all local health boards.
If people require treatment/care that falls outside this then there is a panel that meets to hear evidence with a clearly defined budget set each year, but no unproven new treatments that might benefit one person but take away funds for 20 others will be considered.
If people want more than this then there is a competitive 'alternative provision' market where people can purchase what they require. This will be regulated on the same terms as above to ensure standards and eliminate untested ideas that may not be in a patients best interest, may provide false hope or plainly just rip off people in distress.
My main gripe with Corbyn is he calls himself a socialist. I am not a socialist, I am a social democrat and so is he. Leaning well to the left but he is a social democrat all the same.
Having lived in a country that completely underfunds jurisprudence with the result that it can take decades for anything to go through the courts I think we are heading down the same dangerous road.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/11/striking-lawyers-legal-underfunding
Again with the personal attacks I see, devoid of facts completely. I guess I should reply with personal attacks too, but we all know how upset you get when some one else does that to you. Again, my heart bleeds.
Oh dear oh dear. You really dont have a clue.
Again with the personal attacks I see, devoid of facts completely. I guess I should reply with personal attacks too, but we all know how upset you get when some one else does that to you. Again, my heart bleeds.
Oh dear oh dear. You really dont have a clue.
I didn’t know you are a chuckle brother?
We can all agree (I hope) that Denmark has somewhat better public services than Mexico. We can, too, all wish that we had public services as good as Denmark and the other high tax/GDP ratio Scandinavian countries. But what would we say about the concept of matching say Italy on 43%? (I'd guess whether rightly or wrongly that Italians don't get value for money on the tax-take and maybe their services are about on a par with ours?) You'd certainly guess that Italy lags behind Germany and their tax/GDP ratio is 38%.
So, perhaps, matching Germany would be a good place to start? But taking, for example, a couple of billion off pensioners by hitting them with NI contributions doesn't hack it - it's peanuts. We'd need another 5p in the £ all round on tax rates, including VAT.
The snag is that over a significant time-frame we all end up matching our lifestyles to our disposable income. Sucking another 5% out of the population's readies would do serious long-term damage to vast numbers of individuals and the economy generally. It's no good saying make the rich pay or tax companies more because that goes nowhere near far enough to raise the revenue by a significant amount. There's no way round it, to make a meaningful difference to the funding of public services, the public would have to pay.
I thought you were looking for an absolute figure expressed in ££££££££££££s but clearly I wasn't thinking right.
I completely agree with you being on a par with Germany seems to be a reasonable start, perhaps we could also have a look at how they spend it on and reflect that. I also agree that we need to raise taxes and be honest about it rather than all this farting around in the margins.
Not sure about your last bit though as wouldn't the opposite also apply and people would get used to having a little less to spend. They may also find that they have more disposable income if they work in the public sector or don't have to pay out additional money for services that used to be provided as standard.
Oh dear oh dear. You really dont have a clue.
I didn’t know you are a chuckle brother?
Good grief, you're young, you really must be able to do better than this, fuck sake you are lame.
I said either much earlier on this thread or may have been the election one's (or both) that I personally favoured the Lib Dem solution of adding 1p (or potentially 2p) more to each tax band. I believe from memory the lib gems said the 1p would raise around 6bn and promised it I think for the NHS and care. Think there was similar on dividends although that only raised around an extra 10%. So 2p would raise about 13bn.
On care in particular i in part agree, although personally feel there should always be a contribution (if able to afford it/means tested) towards food, accommodation etc.
It's the marginal tax rate. Those earning in excess of (I think) £100k begin losing their personal allowance. That's were tthe figure comes from. It is effectively the highest tax rate in Europe.
The difference of course is the ability to be tactical about how much you take out as salary vs dividends (or leave in the company), and the timing thereof.
Current straight income tax bands are;
£0-£11,850 0%
£11,851 - £46,350 20%
£46,351 - £150,000 40%
£150,000+ 45%
However for every 2 pounds you earn over £100k you lose 1 pound of your personal allowance, therefore at the moment from £100k - £123,700 of earnings you pay 60% income tax (40% standard rate and you lose your allowance every other pound effectively adding 20% to the 40%, total 60%). At that level you are also paying 2% Ni so you get 38p in the pound.
Child allowance is similar to the 100k-123.7k in that over 50k you pay additional tax until it is repaid.
The hump I mention at 150-210k is to do with pension taper relief and the limited amount allowed where you can receive tax relief. If I (and or my employer together) paid 40k into pension, 10k would be tax free, the rest taxed. basically for every £2 above the adjusted income limit of 150k reduces your allowance by £1 until it drops your allowance from 40k to 10k.
FWIW having just prepared my 2017/2018 tax return (and i'm only on PAYE, no BTL, not share earnings etc), and before any tax on savings interest, so purely on PAYE earnings I will pay 48.8% tax (both income & NI) on 100% of my salary/pay so all but a small amount, half.
It's probably why a lot of people who earn the above type of numbers (in particular above 125k) didn't like Labours manifesto when it came to income tax as people at the above levels are already paying 45% plus income tax and 2% NI, add the 5% on Labour wanted to and pretty much from £46k you'd be paying over half your income just on NI & Income tax.
Can you imagine the uproar when they are published and you can look at each and every person you work with and see how much they earn!
I worked for the NHS. I knew what everyone I worked with was earning. I don’t remember it being a problem.
I realise that in the private sector things are kept under wraps but that’s only so some employees can get screwed over and others rake it in.
But i'm sure you are right to an extent, companies will pay what they have pay, so ultimately you will get two people doing the same job getting different rates of pay, i've no issue with that as long as you can explain why.