Going after the economically disadvantaged!

Germanshepherdsmum

You see I know what your answer would be, which is why you won’t give it. And why I said that the result of trying to equalise taxes was self-evident.

It's really simple. You make a return which includes all income. It is would then be taxed at the same rate set (or to be set) for the band it falls in - no allowances at this point.

Obviously, the government can work out how much additional income this will bring in. It will give them some flexibility. They could raise the personal allowance for instance. They could also reset the levels. What they should not do is put the allowances back without really working out if they do what they are meant to do and that we actually need them to achieve that.

Dear me, Daisy. I have used an accountant for years. I know what the forms entail because I sign them. Are you suggesting that each tax return will be perused individually and allowances (if any) and rates of taxation set on an individual basis? Retrospectively?

No idea what that post meant GSM. If you think you can explain it so it can be understood I would be grateful.

Germanshepherdsmum

You see I know what your answer would be, which is why you won’t give it. And why I said that the result of trying to equalise taxes was self-evident.

I'm still not seeing what is 'self evident' about equalising taxes being not worth aiming for.

I'd be fascinated, too, to know what my answer would be...

I'm afraid I missed the mind-reading skills classes at school.

DaisyAnne

No idea what that post meant GSM. If you think you can explain it so it can be understood I would be grateful.

Did you miss the mind reading classes, too, DaisyAnne? 😆

You seemed to be suggesting that each tax return would be perused and rates/allowances set accordingly Daisy. I can’t think you really meant that but that’s how your post reads to me so perhaps you could explain what you meant.

Germanshepherdsmum

Well, perhaps you would explain how you would approach equalising taxes. What would go up and what would go down?

I think I see the problem with your last post to me. You asked about a task the government would undertake. Foolishly, you asked how I would "approach equalising the taxes". I am not the government. Once a programme has been decided upon there are very clever government people who will know how to make it work. I gave you a vague outline of a possibility. Just because I am not a member of the staff who will undertake this doesn't mean parties cannot plan to do this.

You then, weirdly, took my reply to be all about you. Probably not a real surprise.

When you quote someone’s post it’s not unusual to take what you say as a reply. However you have twice quoted a post addressed to Maizie, not you. So it seems you think it’s about you.
I didn’t ask you how you would approach equalisation of taxes, I asked Maizie. As it’s something she considers worth aiming for I asked how she might do it. Is that foolish?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Those benefiting often don't Those benefiting from increasing inequality often don't

FGS Daisy, you started this by butting into something I asked Maizie, and misunderstanding. You’ve said I’m foolish, that I’m a prat and that I’m trying to introduce a rule about who can answer posts, as well as castigating me for not wanting equalisation of taxes and saying I’m selfish.
If you received income from various sources you wouldn’t want it all taxed at the highest rate either - and neither would many people who pay a lot of tax in the UK and create jobs here. Just think about what the results would be. And perhaps apologise for being so offensive.

Germanshepherdsmum

FGS Daisy, you started this by butting into something I asked Maizie, and misunderstanding. You’ve said I’m foolish, that I’m a prat and that I’m trying to introduce a rule about who can answer posts, as well as castigating me for not wanting equalisation of taxes and saying I’m selfish.
If you received income from various sources you wouldn’t want it all taxed at the highest rate either - and neither would many people who pay a lot of tax in the UK and create jobs here. Just think about what the results would be. And perhaps apologise for being so offensive.

It's called a conversation GSM. I don't think the examples you gave were even directed (quoted and named) at a single person. However, whether they were or not, we may answer any post. Nothing is in the guidelines (thank you for that), which says we may not.

You don't know where my income comes from - nor should you be asking. This is not the first time you questioned my personal situation when, unlike you, I had obviously avoided putting details online.

Back to the point: why should you pay less tax on income earned from investment than someone else does from the same amount of income earned from work? (You openly say you think it is right for you to be able to pay less). If someone else's work income pushes them up to the highest rate, I am sure they would rather pay less than they currently do. If it was equalised, that level could probably be reduced.

Why do you think you should be privileged when they aren't? That is not me being rude. That is what you are telling us you feel should happen.

DaisyAnne Back to the point: why should you pay less tax on income earned from investment than someone else does from the same amount of income earned from work?

Taxes have been paid on money one earns, seems logical and fair to pay at a reduced rate when one invests that money.

Norah

DaisyAnne Back to the point: why should you pay less tax on income earned from investment than someone else does from the same amount of income earned from work?

Taxes have been paid on money one earns, seems logical and fair to pay at a reduced rate when one invests that money.

Exactly 👏👏👏

GrannyGravy13

Norah

DaisyAnne Back to the point: why should you pay less tax on income earned from investment than someone else does from the same amount of income earned from work?

Taxes have been paid on money one earns, seems logical and fair to pay at a reduced rate when one invests that money.

Exactly 👏👏👏

I should add, I feel the same to legacy assets. Taxes have already been paid once, let that be enough or at least a very small rate.

I am not questioning your personal situation Daisy. Read my words again. I’m not remotely interested in them but your arguments give a clue, as do mine.

Norah has made the point very succinctly. Any CGT and divided tax I pay relates to assets purchased with taxed income

Of course some people’s assets may have been inherited and IHT is likely to have been paid. Or maybe shares have been taken in lieu of a cash bonus. There are a variety of possible scenarios. However if you try to equalise tax rates in order to increase someone’s overall rate of tax, which is where this argument about Sunak’s overall tax rate originated, people who are valuable to the UK will be alienated. They would find a more favourable tax regime, and that would be the UK’s loss. That is why successive governments of all hues have not sought to go down the punitive route you would like to see. Nor are they likely to.

Norah

DaisyAnne Back to the point: why should you pay less tax on income earned from investment than someone else does from the same amount of income earned from work?

Taxes have been paid on money one earns, seems logical and fair to pay at a reduced rate when one invests that money.

Why? Most people work hard for their salaries/wages. Most people who have capital gains or investment income don't.

Take for example house prices. People buy a house, hold onto it it for a number of years, maybe do it up and then sell it. Obviously one's PPR is exempt from CGT but 2nd homes etc aren't and shouldn't be. Apart from the added value of work done, most of the increase in value of houses has nothing to do with the owners so any gains should be taxed at the same rate as earnings, whatever the taxpayers marginal rate is.

Well that would see off a fair few private landlords!

Btw all my investments have been bought from taxed income for which I worked very hard. Same with my husband. I would query ‘most people’.

Norah

DaisyAnne Back to the point: why should you pay less tax on income earned from investment than someone else does from the same amount of income earned from work?

Taxes have been paid on money one earns, seems logical and fair to pay at a reduced rate when one invests that money.

Tax has indeed been paid on the money earned through work. It isn't taxed twice though. The tax is on the gain, i.e., what the investment "earns".

I may (quite easily )be missing something but why should that be a reduced rate?

I have already mentioned likely effects of capital gains being taxed at the same rate as ‘earned’ income.

Norah has made the point very succinctly. Any CGT and divided tax I pay relates to assets purchased with taxed income

So, by that reasoning we shouldn't have to pay vat on any of our purchases as those purchases are made with already taxed income.

It doesn't wash...

Well your suggestion certainly doesn’t.

There has to be some incentive for folks to invest their money, whether that money be from salary or inheritance.

ISA’s are exempt from all tax as are premium bonds.

Virtually every time you open your purse you are paying tax.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have already mentioned likely effects of capital gains being taxed at the same rate as ‘earned’ income.

Could you reference that. I seem to have missed it.

Ah! If it's the sentence Maizie quoted then I agree with her reply. What you say there simply doesn't add up.