What is a rich household?

Marxist, authoritarian and vicious.

Better off people will disconnect from the grid and generate their own power.

Nicksmrs46

If it’s $250,000 then it’s definitely not the UK ..!!

Income of $250 or £200k is less than 0.5% of the UK population, there are apparently 34m tax payers in the UK, so 170,000 declare over £200k for income tax

But that’s not the whole story the assets (property, shares etc). they have increase in value and are not declared for CGT until they are sold at a much lower tax rate.

Barbadosbelle

.

I've always thought that the first £20k of earnings should be tax free and the rest - no matter how much- should all be taxed at at flat percentage of, say, 25%. No ifs. No buts. No get out clauses.

The Government would end up just as well off especially as they wouldn't need the hundreds of thousands of Civil Servants now needed to check and delve into the present mash of clauses, exemptions etc.
.

Well, I'm not sure there are hundreds of thousands of Civil Servants working in HMRC.

cc

Many feel that money “earned” in this country should also be taxed here, even if the person earning it does not live here.

Try making UK governments see this, and follow it through.
We sold a flourishing business here in the UK and were able to transfer ALL the funds into a new business abroad. We just disappeared taking everything, lock, stock and barrel with us.

cc

Many feel that money “earned” in this country should also be taxed here, even if the person earning it does not live here.

I think you're on the right lines.

The whole purpose of governments issuing money throughout the ages was to enable trade and other economic activities to continue. The purpose wan't, and still shouldn't be, to enable wealthy people to hoard it and cause a money shortage leading to reduced economic activity.

Governments taxed it back to ensure that they weren't continually having to issue excessive amounts in order to
maintain the few services they carried out (like paying for the army and navy). Which kept money circulating.

Of course profits made from our money in our country should be taxed.

My Granny often quotes Churchill - "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer". (They're the ones that help create the jobs for us)

Quite honestly, that's a load of nonsense. The entrepreneurial rich get richer by taking money from the poorer. The already rich get richer partly in much the same way. Like the land and property owners who make more money by renting and leasing out their assets. Or the country house owners who charge for visiting their houses..

Churchill died when the UK was well on its way to reducing the unequal distribution of 'wealth' by means of controls on the offshoring of capital, high tax rates for the wealthy and high inheritance taxes (death duties). He also came from a wealthy background which had no intention of sharing its wealth.

If it’s $250,000 then it’s definitely not the UK ..!!

Aren't those most vulnerable and use more heating due to health, disability issues likely to be eligible for payments/benefits to help with energy costs.The UK has the highest energy costs in Europe, how are other countries managing to upgrade systems without basing customer charges on income? Wouldn't be due to many being nationalised perhaps.

Lucky you. I work and pay tax - dont get anything courtesy of anyone.

.

I've always thought that the first £20k of earnings should be tax free and the rest - no matter how much- should all be taxed at at flat percentage of, say, 25%. No ifs. No buts. No get out clauses.

The Government would end up just as well off especially as they wouldn't need the hundreds of thousands of Civil Servants now needed to check and delve into the present mash of clauses, exemptions etc.
.

.

Absolutely NO.

30% of all U.K. tax is paid by just 1% of the population. If they leave (as many now are - "Thank you 2TK") then us standard max payers will have to pay more tax to make up the shortfall.

My Granny often quotes Churchill - "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer". (They're the ones that help create the jobs for us)
.

Usedtobeblonde

Many of us over 65’s would certainly benefit from a starting figure of £20k before paying tax and as another poster has said, we will be spending the extra cash in our pocket/ purse so everyone including the government will benefit.

Yes, it's also very unfair on pensioners who have the state pension and a modest private pension to find they have to pay tax because their income is above 12.5 k a year. Also the current income tax threshold is a discentive to work for many people.

Many feel that money “earned” in this country should also be taxed here, even if the person earning it does not live here.

Usedtobeblonde

Many of us over 65’s would certainly benefit from a starting figure of £20k before paying tax and as another poster has said, we will be spending the extra cash in our pocket/ purse so everyone including the government will benefit.

Totally agree with you and the amount..

foxie48

Funnily enough no one seems to be bothered that the poorest people usually pay more for their gas and electric! The standing charge is a higher proportion of your overall bill if you use less and those who have struggled to pay their bills and have been put on meters pay a higher charge.

This is so true. Also those without a reasonable credit rating can’t buy fuel on credit meters and have to pay extra on a prepayment meter. I paid my daughter’s fuel account by DD for a couple of years so now she can have her own account.

And good health, good luck, and other people's wise decisions which you had no control over.

That is very harsh, Moii.

It is not always lifestyle choice which dictates income.

I assume you are in a rich household - is that through your own high intelligence and hard work?

If someone is 'poor' due to life style choice why should others subsidise them even more.

Nah!

Norah

Cumbrianmale56

Norah

Cumbrianmale56 I think the main problem isn't so much the rich, but the tax system that hasn't been reformed since the last decade. I would support raising the tax threshold to 20k a year, which would improve the living standards of millions of the poorest workers, and bringing in a new tax rate of 30% for people earning 50 to 80k a year, which would remove the huge jump from 20% to 40% we have now in this tax bracket.

Agreed, current income tax system is most of the problem. It seems raising the tax threshold to 20k and adding bands could help.

I think the first 20k should be tax exempt, then the next 30k should be taxed at 20%, then the rate should be 30%, up to 125k a year, where the 45% rate starts. It would make a huge difference to the vast majority of taxpayers and boost the economy as people would have more money to spend and the government would gain more in VAT, fuel duty and corporaton tax. Also keeping the 45% rate would avoid any arguments that the rich were benefiting from tax cuts.

That could work. I'd change the 45% to 60% over 125k a year.

These suggestions are far too sensible to interest Rachel Reeves.

Cumbrianmale56

Norah

Cumbrianmale56 I think the main problem isn't so much the rich, but the tax system that hasn't been reformed since the last decade. I would support raising the tax threshold to 20k a year, which would improve the living standards of millions of the poorest workers, and bringing in a new tax rate of 30% for people earning 50 to 80k a year, which would remove the huge jump from 20% to 40% we have now in this tax bracket.

Agreed, current income tax system is most of the problem. It seems raising the tax threshold to 20k and adding bands could help.

I think the first 20k should be tax exempt, then the next 30k should be taxed at 20%, then the rate should be 30%, up to 125k a year, where the 45% rate starts. It would make a huge difference to the vast majority of taxpayers and boost the economy as people would have more money to spend and the government would gain more in VAT, fuel duty and corporaton tax. Also keeping the 45% rate would avoid any arguments that the rich were benefiting from tax cuts.

It’s more likely to push house prices even higher, as a tax free investment it’s just too good.

Many of us over 65’s would certainly benefit from a starting figure of £20k before paying tax and as another poster has said, we will be spending the extra cash in our pocket/ purse so everyone including the government will benefit.

Cumbrianmale56

Norah

Cumbrianmale56 I think the main problem isn't so much the rich, but the tax system that hasn't been reformed since the last decade. I would support raising the tax threshold to 20k a year, which would improve the living standards of millions of the poorest workers, and bringing in a new tax rate of 30% for people earning 50 to 80k a year, which would remove the huge jump from 20% to 40% we have now in this tax bracket.

Agreed, current income tax system is most of the problem. It seems raising the tax threshold to 20k and adding bands could help.

I think the first 20k should be tax exempt, then the next 30k should be taxed at 20%, then the rate should be 30%, up to 125k a year, where the 45% rate starts. It would make a huge difference to the vast majority of taxpayers and boost the economy as people would have more money to spend and the government would gain more in VAT, fuel duty and corporaton tax. Also keeping the 45% rate would avoid any arguments that the rich were benefiting from tax cuts.

That could work. I'd change the 45% to 60% over 125k a year.

Norah

Cumbrianmale56 I think the main problem isn't so much the rich, but the tax system that hasn't been reformed since the last decade. I would support raising the tax threshold to 20k a year, which would improve the living standards of millions of the poorest workers, and bringing in a new tax rate of 30% for people earning 50 to 80k a year, which would remove the huge jump from 20% to 40% we have now in this tax bracket.

Agreed, current income tax system is most of the problem. It seems raising the tax threshold to 20k and adding bands could help.

I think the first 20k should be tax exempt, then the next 30k should be taxed at 20%, then the rate should be 30%, up to 125k a year, where the 45% rate starts. It would make a huge difference to the vast majority of taxpayers and boost the economy as people would have more money to spend and the government would gain more in VAT, fuel duty and corporaton tax. Also keeping the 45% rate would avoid any arguments that the rich were benefiting from tax cuts.

Sarnia

GrannyGravy13

No, no and no again.

You cannot price commodities and/or consumables according to anyone’s bank balance.

I agree. It has to be charged solely on consumption.

It's the standing charge which is the problem for those on very low incomes, which bears no relation to consumption.

Standing charges cover the cost of:

Maintaining the energy supply network – the wires and cables that deliver the gas and electricity to our homes
Supporting government social and energy investment schemes like the Warm Home Discount and Smart meters
Operating costs - such as billing and metering services
Failed suppliers exiting the energy market – electricity only

Why should those on very low incomes have to pay for failed suppliers exiting the energy market? Why should any customers?