renault12ts
MB Club Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 16,671
- Car
- 2005 W215 CL500.
...abolished.
Discuss.
Discuss.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Retained, but at a higher threshold - probably £250,000 rather than £150,000.
Indeed abolished. Even if tax was at 20% and there was no tiers, the well off would still pay a lot more due to their higher incomes. 20% of £15,000 above the personal allowance is a lot less tax than 20% above £100,000 above the personal allowance so indeed the rich would pay their true fair share.
Making someone pay more per pound on a higher income is by any stretch of the imagination unfair.
.
I sincerely believe more tax in aggregate will be raised from the rich through a 40% rate than a 50% top rate.
40% is fair and reasonable whereas I would arrange matters to avoid paying 50% and so I believe would most others.
Retained, but at a higher threshold - probably £250,000 rather than £150,000.
You're more tolerant than me. 40% is double the taking of 20% and you need to consider NI as well.
My view is that any band of tax is by definition unfair, as the fair way is a flat percentage above a personal allowance, grading it means some people a lot more away relatively than others which IMHO is unfair.
Sadly a workable solution evades me, but previous chancellors have thought up wonderful fiscal schemes so who knows?
I'd lower the threshold to 10% for those living north of the Watford gap and raise it to 90% for those below and Lancashire, with a special zero tax rate for those in Yorkshire.
That presumably already exists indirectly, as people living in less affluent places generally pay less local tax (Council Tax). Or that's the theory at least.
I remember when tax was running at 87%!
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.