Redistribution of wealth in the UK

Katie59

Although I agree that the rich should be taxed more on personal income, we have to recognise that they could leave the UK, earn more and be taxed less.

So it is very much a double edged sword, it would be
popular with voters while not raising much if any extra tax.

I don’t know how you could know that more tax would not be raised Katie59? A few high profile people at the top of the income scale will no doubt leave the UK to avoid paying high levels of tax, but in reality most won’t.

Although I agree that the rich should be taxed more on personal income, we have to recognise that they could leave the UK, earn more and be taxed less.

So it is very much a double edged sword, it would be
popular with voters while not raising much if any extra tax.

Figures, for 2021, from the ONS, by the way

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincomefinancialyearending2014

Percentage of gross income paid on direct and indirect taxation. By quintiles. 1 is lowest quintile

1 = 33.8%
2 = 27.7%
3 = 29.!%
4 = 29.7%
5 = 35.9%

So, quite wrong, Lilyflower. The bottom 20% of earners pays almost as much of their income taxation as does the top 20%

Interesting when it comes to indirect taxes paid as a %age of disposable income

1 = 22.6%
2 = 15.4%
3 = 13.8%
4 = 11.5%
5 = 6%.

I realise that in monetary terms this in no way says that the top 20% spend less than the lowest 20% into the economy, but it does, for me, illustrate that the tax 'burden' gets heavier as one gets poorer. It also suggests that the 'poor' are more likely than the wealthy to spend any extra money they may get into the domestic economy.

Having lived in Spain and in France, I can see that he UK is lacking behind in so many places ....my French neighbours were getting 2.000 euros EACH in OAP (they DID pay more into their system than we do ! Healthcare SHOULD be contributory for all but those with a little income ....what you pay (Mutuells insurance in France contributory ...you ay 25 euros to see the GP but get all that bar 2 euros back from your insurer) the UK actuaries have never re assigned the probability of the old living as long as we do now ....or drugs and treatments to keep us living longer ...so there is not enough money in the pot to fund our pension ...I read today pension payments will be re assessed (didn;t say when !) with the possibility to wealthy (again, no mention of what they consider wealth !) no longer receiving any !!!!! huh ! Doubtless anyone arriving in this country illegally will still be given money, housing, healthcare etc etc etc whilst British Nationals are forgotten (or slowly killed off through lack of treatments, hospital care, long term care, etc etc !) but for BREXIT I would have stayed in Europe ...............

PS. It's news to me that Afghan women are being offered more money in lieu of university places.

Lilyflower

The current tax regime distributes more money from upper earners to lower earners and those on benefits than at any time since the 1970’s.

Socialism dooms everyone to mediocrity and erodes truth and freedom. Liberty is the ultimate good and what every citizen in every unfree nation longs for. Ask the women in Afghanistan whether they want their university places back or more money.

Which country are you talking about?

How exactly does socialism erode truth and freedom?

Lilyflower

The current tax regime distributes more money from upper earners to lower earners and those on benefits than at any time since the 1970’s.

Socialism dooms everyone to mediocrity and erodes truth and freedom. Liberty is the ultimate good and what every citizen in every unfree nation longs for. Ask the women in Afghanistan whether they want their university places back or more money.

A follower of Ayn Rand perhaps?

The current tax regime distributes more money from upper earners to lower earners and those on benefits than at any time since the 1970’s.

Socialism dooms everyone to mediocrity and erodes truth and freedom. Liberty is the ultimate good and what every citizen in every unfree nation longs for. Ask the women in Afghanistan whether they want their university places back or more money.

GrannySeaside51

Anyone earning more than £125,000 receives no personal tax allowance.

Thank you.

There is nothing new about it. It was always like that.??????

MaizieD

Dinahmo

I agree with your post yesterday at 17.19 MaizieD except that you didn't mention the workers. Without them there would be no profits to be distributed to shareholders and bonuses to directors etc.

When I was first in articles, back in the 70s the father of a young colleague had two companies involved with steel fixing and scaffolding etc. He spent some days every week on the golf course and his son used to moan about the workers. I accept that the father had the idea for the business and built it up but, without the continuing work force he would no longer have a business. That is why workers should be well remunerated for the work that they do,

I don't think it was my 17.19 post, Dinahmo, that was about but never mind

That is why workers should be well remunerated for the work that they do,

I continue to find it extremely ironic that 250 years ago, Adam Smith, supposedly the 'father' of the market orientated neoclassical economics which predominate to day, said this in his famous 'The Wealth of Nations':

^No society can surely be happy and flourishing of which the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged^

Let's not forget that quotation Maizie.

The disparities are enormous.

Just checked on Google Maps and the distance between Grenfell Tower and Phillimore Gardens (average house price £24 million) is a mere 1.3 miles, but they might as well be a million miles apart.

Maximum council tax in Kensington & Chelsea is £1,749 - but try and squeeze a little more CT out of the extremely wealthy and all you hear is about little old ladies living out their days in their much-loved family homes, so nope, they stay ludicrously low for the very rich.

GrannySeaside51

Anyone earning more than £125,000 receives no personal tax allowance.

That is not quite true. The personal allowance is reduced by £1 for every £2 or adjusted net income over £100k. When someone reaches £125,140 their PA is Nil.

The important factor is adjusted net income. This income is after deduction of pension contributions (paid by themselves of their employers), charitable donations made under gift aid and trading losses.

The more one earns the more likely they (or their employers) will be paying large pension contributions. They could probably ask for a larger part of their salary to be paid into their pension fund, rather than taking it as earnings.

One partner could be in highly paid employment and their partner could be self employed. They could form a trading partnership and share losses.

Many wealthy people also own farms which, especially if a manager is employed, invariably make losses which can be set off against their other income. Look at J Clarkson and his farm. I would think that it is highly unlikely that his farm is making a profit.

So, it's necessary to look in depth into the actual emolments, rather than the taxable income. There's a difference.

Let’s face it , some of what are described as poor are just feckless. My late partner’s ex is classed as poor , as are the rest of the family. They live hand-to- mouth, on benefits, hand-outs and money lenders. There’s never a spare scrap of food in the house and Christmas / birthdays for the many offspring usually consists of IOU s. However, there are always cigarettes, drugs and various alcoholic beverages in their houses and foreign holidays to be had every year.

GrannySeaside51

MaizieD

They get no personal tax allowance, paying tax on the first £ they earn, and any bonuses are heavily taxed as are shares they may receive.

It's news to me that some people don't get a personal tax allowance, GrannySeaside. Why don't they?

Are you defending a friend or relative here?

Both my daughters have worked their socks off to achieve what they have done against great adversity- female being one! I am not defending them, they don't require that. Also anyone earning more than £125,000 gets no tax allowance and pay 40%-45% tax on what they earn.

Indeed. That is precisely how taxes are paid.

MaizieD

^They get no personal tax allowance, paying tax on the first £ they earn, and any bonuses are heavily taxed as are shares they may receive. ^

It's news to me that some people don't get a personal tax allowance, GrannySeaside. Why don't they?

Are you defending a friend or relative here?

Both my daughters have worked their socks off to achieve what they have done against great adversity- female being one! I am not defending them, they don't require that. Also anyone earning more than £125,000 gets no tax allowance and pay 40%-45% tax on what they earn.

I am horrified to see the income gap between rich & poor at the moment in the uk, and the demonising of benefits claimants to justify cutting benefits. I have had my time of claiming benefits & used them to get me through a bad time.
the wealthy pay very little tax as they use specialists to tell them how to avoid it. The EU are cracking down on this & I think this was why the Tories supported leaving the EU. I welcome a Labour gov't & am happy to pay more tax but rather than see it go to the already wealthy. The NHS needs better management, nowadays their income goes to private companies, such as test n trace (their fee is included in NHS expenditure as are others) if the money allocated to the NHS was spent directly on patient care we'd have a much better service.

Anyone earning more than £125,000 receives no personal tax allowance.

MaizieD

^They get no personal tax allowance, paying tax on the first £ they earn, and any bonuses are heavily taxed as are shares they may receive. ^

It's news to me that some people don't get a personal tax allowance, GrannySeaside. Why don't they?

Are you defending a friend or relative here?

Because you have no allowance if your income is over £126,000

*(I believe that is the number).

They get no personal tax allowance, paying tax on the first £ they earn, and any bonuses are heavily taxed as are shares they may receive.

It's news to me that some people don't get a personal tax allowance, GrannySeaside. Why don't they?

Are you defending a friend or relative here?

Whilst in no way am I saying the lower paid should not be paid more but I want to redress the balance when it comes to the argument on redistributing wealth. There are some highly paid people, who have gone through University, worked their way up the ladder, work extremely hard and long hours under a great deal of pressure and responsibility for teams ( and yes, before anyone feels the need to say it - I know nurses do also). They get no personal tax allowance, paying tax on the first £ they earn, and any bonuses are heavily taxed as are shares they may receive. Why should they be made to feel guilty for their achievements?

Oops, got distracted while writing first sentence.

It should say '...that was about workers...'

Dinahmo

I agree with your post yesterday at 17.19 MaizieD except that you didn't mention the workers. Without them there would be no profits to be distributed to shareholders and bonuses to directors etc.

When I was first in articles, back in the 70s the father of a young colleague had two companies involved with steel fixing and scaffolding etc. He spent some days every week on the golf course and his son used to moan about the workers. I accept that the father had the idea for the business and built it up but, without the continuing work force he would no longer have a business. That is why workers should be well remunerated for the work that they do,

I don't think it was my 17.19 post, Dinahmo, that was about but never mind

That is why workers should be well remunerated for the work that they do,

I continue to find it extremely ironic that 250 years ago, Adam Smith, supposedly the 'father' of the market orientated neoclassical economics which predominate to day, said this in his famous 'The Wealth of Nations':

No society can surely be happy and flourishing of which the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged

@M0nica really interesting proposals - re directors it’s incredibly unfair. My partner is a director and the company rules our lives. He is never off duty and fights very hard for an excellent working environment for his employees (paid maternity leave for a year for example.) His employees go home and they’re off duty - he is never off duty. The idea that that he shouldn’t have the perks is ludicrous- he works the hardest by a million miles. Many directors of smaller companies do.