The Brown giveth, and the Brown taketh

[El_Machinae]

PoL: you don't pay higher income tax, because of the change?

Any tax increase at the lower levels of income affects me, because of the marginal tax rate (unless it's offset at a higher tax bracket). (I'm taxed less on my first dollar earned than my last)

 

[StarWorms]

I don't see how it makes sense to increase taxes on those on lower salaries. They should be increased on those with higher salaries. Inheritance tax should be scrapped altogether. It intended for very rich people, not average people.

 

[bathsheba666]

texture like sun.

Always a frown, with Gordon Brown.

 

[Rossiya]

Gordon Brown cannot, and will not control his jaw/chin/lower lip.

 

[Mise]

PoL: you don't pay higher income tax, because of the change?

Any tax increase at the lower levels of income affects me, because of the marginal tax rate (unless it's offset at a higher tax bracket). (I'm taxed less on my first dollar earned than my last)

The tax on the standard tax band has fallen by 2%. According to the accounting group KPMG, anyone under £17,000 will be worse off.

Source.

The biggest winners are those middle income salaries up to £35,000, and those high earners above £45,000. The sharp drop-off at £35,000 is due to National Insurance affecting anyone up to £43,000 (which is the new upper bound on the standard tax band), whereas before it stopped at £35,000 (which is £3,000 less than the old upper bound on the standard tax band of £38,000). It is said that those low income households will receive significant Tax Credits (benefits) to offset the loss to Income Tax and NI contributions, but since the Tax Credit system is complex (and means tested), it will not affect everyone under £17,000. Currently, £1.8bn worth of Tax Credits go unclaimed each year, highlighting the ineffectiveness of the system.

HOWEVER!!!

The Personal Allowance tax band (currently ~£5,000 @ 0%) has not been specified. It is likely that the Personal Allowance will be increased to offset the added burden of a 10% increase on taxes between ~£5,000 and ~£22,000. So the verdict's still out.

 

[Elrohir]

You don't understand. You've got completely the wrong end of the stick. I'm complaining because I am paying for a tax cut for the wealthy. I like paying taxes to pay for public services. I don't like paying taxes so that the rich can pay less.

It was a move aimed at stealing Tory middle class voers.

Does someone who earns 50,000 pounds more than you per year pay a higher percentage of their income in tax? If so, then stop whining, because they're the ones getting screwed over.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Does someone who earns 50,000 pounds more than you per year pay a higher percentage of their income in tax? If so, then stop whining, because they're the ones getting screwed over.

No there not, because they have loads more cash than I do and can afford to own a home and a big school and have private healthcare. None which i can afford, and paying more taxes so they can pay less means I ain't gonna afford it any time soon either.

 

[Elrohir]

No there not, because they have loads more cash than I do and can afford to own a home and a big school and have private healthcare. None which i can afford, and paying more taxes so they can pay less means I ain't gonna afford it any time soon either.

Yes, they are - they are being taxed, being punished for being rich. Because the rich are more successful, they have to give more than their fair share. That's crap. They should have to pay their own way, and pay a fair tax, but no one should have to pay more than their fair share. It isn't fair to tax people at a higher rate just because they have more money.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Yes, they are - they are being taxed, being punished for being rich. Because the rich are more successful, they have to give more than their fair share. That's crap. They should have to pay their own way, and pay a fair tax, but no one should have to pay more than their fair share. It isn't fair to tax people at a higher rate just because they have more money.

I don't hold to your 'let the rich prosper and the poor suffer' idealogy. Besides, I don't believe the rich do pay a fair share. In fact, I believe that in the UK the tax burden is largely on poor people and that the rich do not pay enough. I advocate lifting alot of people out of taxation all together, payed for by green taxes. Hence why I support the Lib Dems. I also think tax should be raised on the super rich.

 

[Elrohir]

I don't hold to your 'let the rich prosper and the poor suffer' idealogy. Besides, I don't believe the rich do pay a fair share. In fact, I believe that in the UK the tax burden is largely on poor people and that the rich do not pay enough. I advocate lifting alot of people out of taxation all together, payed for by green taxes. Hence why I support the Lib Dems. I also think tax should be raised on the super rich.

Do you even listen to yourself? Because the rich are successful at what they do, their money should be stolen in the name of the poor? You aren't Robin Hood. Taxing people at a higher rate, and taking more of their money solely because they are successful is simple thievery, and is disgusting.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Do you even listen to yourself? Because the rich are successful at what they do, their money should be stolen in the name of the poor? You aren't Robin Hood. Taxing people at a higher rate, and taking more of their money solely because they are successful is simple thievery, and is disgusting.

Oh please, either take your uber-capitalist views elsewhere or ditch the 'disgusting' and 'thievery' language. I support a taxation system where everybody pays a fair share, including rich people. If you can afford a pool and a huge house and holidays to the carribean then you should be paying more taxes then someone who is worrying about ever being able to move out of their parents home. Hence why I think this budget is terriable and is the poor subsiding the rich's lifestyle. With language like 'theivery' and 'robin hood' your trying to make it look like I don't want people to be able to enjoy their wealth, which simply isn't true. I just want them to pay a bit back to teh society that made them wealthy in the first place.

 

[Kozmos]

Because all rich people got there through hard work? Not likely.

Even if they did earn it through fair and hard work, does not the christian principle ask the more fortunate to help those in need. "If thou hath an extra cloth of shirt, giveth it to your brother" or something along those lines.

 

[El_Machinae]

First, we should acknowledge that living expenses are essential and cannot be dodged. Someone's income should really be measured for all money after that point (assuming that they're reasonably frugal), and thus taxes should be collected at a stage that's mostly after living expenses are accounted for.

At that stage, we have to ask who is being taxed more. If I frugally live on 90% of my (sad) income and taxes take 5%, then they're basically taking half my wealth. However, if I frugally live on 50% of my (average) income and taxes take 20%, then I'm basically being taxed at 40% of my wealth.

The poor person is paying a larger relative burden. Now, sometimes average people don't live frugally, so they'll feel more of a tax burden, but it's an illusion. The same illusion of poverty that a poor person partakes if he spends his money foolishly.

Keep in mind, too, that a wealthy person benefits (even obliquely) from paying a decent share of taxes. If nothing else, it keeps society more stable so that he can continue raking it in.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: @ALL: Please keep the debate civil

If you can afford a pool and a huge house and holidays to the carribean then you should be paying more taxes then someone who is worrying about ever being able to move out of their parents home. Hence why I think this budget is terriable and is the poor subsiding the rich's lifestyle.

No, they are not. In absolute dollars, the rich pay much, much more in tax than the poor; it is the rich subsidising the poor, not the other way around. That is the facts, and your claim is mere spin from a "tax cuts for the rich" perspective (where, god forbid, those that pay by far the most in taxes actually get a bigger 'saving' when taxes are cut).

Whether the rich are paying what is "fair" in terms of an ability to pay is a separate issue, but it is simply dishonest to try and claim that they are being subsidised by the poor. A more correct terms is that the amount of money that the rich are having to contribute (in the form of subsidising the poor) has decreased.

I just want them to pay a bit back to teh society that made them wealthy in the first place.

Classic leftism vs rightism. Society didn't make them wealthy, it supported their endeavours to make themselves wealthy.

 

[Elrohir]

Oh please, either take your uber-capitalist views elsewhere or ditch the 'disgusting' and 'thievery' language. I support a taxation system where everybody pays a fair share, including rich people. If you can afford a pool and a huge house and holidays to the carribean then you should be paying more taxes then someone who is worrying about ever being able to move out of their parents home. Hence why I think this budget is terriable and is the poor subsiding the rich's lifestyle. With language like 'theivery' and 'robin hood' your trying to make it look like I don't want people to be able to enjoy their wealth, which simply isn't true. I just want them to pay a bit back to teh society that made them wealthy in the first place.

They do pay more in cash, but they should pay an equal proportion. In the US, the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of income taxes. No matter how you slice it, that isn't fair. If the poor are going to be taxed 10% of their income, then the rich should only be taxed 10% as well. If you are going to tax the rich 50%, then the poor should be taxed at that equally as insane rate as well.

A tax that increases by percentage with the more money you make is as unfair as the poll taxes of the past were. A flat, percentage based tax that applies equally to everyone is the only way to tax people fairly - effectively fining people for doing a good job is ridiculous. You can't tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor, that is grossly unfair.

 

[StarWorms]

A tax that increases by percentage with the more money you make is as unfair as the poll taxes of the past were. A flat, percentage based tax that applies equally to everyone is the only way to tax people fairly - effectively fining people for doing a good job is ridiculous. You can't tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor, that is grossly unfair.

I do not believe that it is unfair. I see your point. I lie somewhere in between the two sides of the argument. If they can afford to pay more in taxes then I believe they should pay some extra (not so much to be in proportion with their earnings though). If they are earning so much then they won't be affected much by taxes anyway. For example, let's say it's £1000 a year for all. Let's say a poor person can't afford it. Let's say they can only afford to pay £600 of it, for whatever reason. A richer family, earning let's say £100,000 per year can easily afford it. £1000 doesn't make much of a difference. I believe taxes on the rich should be higher because community services depend on taxes. To increase taxes, you either increase taxes for all, or increase taxes for the richer. Increasing taxes for all will leave far more people in poverty, which isn't going to make a great statistic for the area or the country as a whole. It will devalue areas. Increasing taxes on the rich, however, means that services can be funded better. While the taxes on the rich will increase, it's not much in comparison to their earnings and will make little difference to their financial situation but will make a big difference to services.

Do you think it would be right to increase taxes on those who win lotteries, since they probably haven't been doing a "good job" - they've earned their money through luck rather than effort.

 

[Mise]

Guys, lets stop talking about who can "afford to pay more", and start looking at their disposable income, i.e. the amount of money that they are left with after discounting essential living costs. Poor people have far, far less of it, and will pay a far, far higher percentage of it without progressive taxation. That's the economic argument for progressive taxation, for those of you that can't see the obvious social argument...

A tax that increases by percentage with the more money you make is as unfair as the poll taxes of the past were. A flat, percentage based tax that applies equally to everyone is the only way to tax people fairly - effectively fining people for doing a good job is ridiculous. You can't tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor, that is grossly unfair.

I'm beginning to think that you have no idea how your tax system actually works. The tax doesn't "increase by percentage with the more money you make"... I dearly hope that that's just a mis-wording, and not some fundamental misunderstanding.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Guys, lets stop talking about who can "afford to pay more", and start looking at their disposable income, i.e. the amount of money that they are left with after discounting essential living costs. Poor people have far, far less of it, and will pay a far, far higher percentage of it without progressive taxation. That's the economic argument for progressive taxation, for those of you that can't see the obvious social argument...

This is a good answer to ainwood and Elrohir's points.

Classic leftism vs rightism. Society didn't make them wealthy, it supported their endeavours to make themselves wealthy.

I don't hold to that. Alot of wealthy people I know had wealthy parents and so on, whilst alot of poorer people I know had poorer parents and so on. One major problem I have with the arguments you and Elrohir are putting forward is that they are based on the assumption everyone is born financially equal and generate all their own wealth, which is at odd's with the realities I see around me.

If you are going to tax the rich 50%, then the poor should be taxed at that equally as insane rate as well.

Not at all. Tax people who can afford to pay more more, tax people who can't afford to pay less or none at all. Your flat tax argument is again based on the assumption that all are born equal.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

PoL: you don't pay higher income tax, because of the change?

Not that I'm aware of.