Surely we must pay more taxes!?

Perhaps this ineffectual finance minister could take the radical and obvious step of taxing the wealthy!!!

Well yes, and no. I'd like to think that we could raise more money by closing loop holes that the wealthy and companies find to use to avoid paying their fair share.
Would also be a good thing to close the inequality gap, but that just seems to keep on increasing.

Releasing herself from the self imposed fiscal restraints would be a start.

It would indeed, Whitewavemark.

I don’t agree that tech companies should be more heavily taxed, OP - they are our future. I don’t know why you suggest that.

My heart sank when Jeremy Hunt, on the World at One (Radio4) today suggested that the extra money needed for defence will have to come out of “welfare”.

Please could someone define what they mean by wealthy.

What size of income? what value of assets?

That question never gets answered MOnica.

In September 2023, in response to a FOI request to know the amount of tax paid by high net worth individuals (defined as individuals with a net worth of more than £20 million), the National Audit Office responded that:

HMRC now defines individuals as ‘wealthy’ if they have incomes of £200,000 or more, or assets equal to or above £2 million in any of the last 3 years.

www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FOI-1655.pdf

Silverbrooks

In September 2023, in response to a FOI request to know the amount of tax paid by high net worth individuals (defined as individuals with a net worth of more than £20 million), the National Audit Office responded that:

HMRC now defines individuals as ‘wealthy’ if they have incomes of £200,000 or more, or assets equal to or above £2 million in any of the last 3 years.

www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FOI-1655.pdf

I would consider that pretty fair!

I agree with you Struthruth, but it would seem that everyone who has been in power in the last 15 years thinks that nobody will vote for them if taxes are increased.

Public services fail all around us, hospitals treat people in corridors, the roads are full of potholes - but that's fine because taxes are low.

You only have to see the threads on IHT to realise how much some people do not want to pay tax, even on money they've not worked to earn.

pascal30

Perhaps this ineffectual finance minister could take the radical and obvious step of taxing the wealthy!!!

Please define wealthy.

M0nica

Please could someone define what they mean by wealthy.

What size of income? what value of assets?

Yes, this.

Should read the entire thread before I post.

Silverbrooks

In September 2023, in response to a FOI request to know the amount of tax paid by high net worth individuals (defined as individuals with a net worth of more than £20 million), the National Audit Office responded that:

HMRC now defines individuals as ‘wealthy’ if they have incomes of £200,000 or more, or assets equal to or above £2 million in any of the last 3 years.

www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FOI-1655.pdf

Good to know.

Thank you for the link.

I agree Cossy

£200k income or £2m assets?

I would suggest that’s too high to gain enough taxation from individuals because a couple would be double that. If you have assets of £1m (£2 for a couple) you are wealthy and don’t need state help.

£2m for a couple is double the inheritance tax threshold, they certainly don’t need state benefits at all.

The NAO currrently has work in progress: Collecting the right tax from wealthy individuals with the report scheduled for Spring 2025.

I see it says: HMRC no longer has a specific unit to manage high net worth individuals (the wealthiest taxpayers) and instead manages them as part of its overall approach to wealthy taxpayers.

www.nao.org.uk/work-in-progress/collecting-the-right-tax-from-wealthy-individuals/

Struthruth

We need substantially more money for defence, I would suggest that the population would be more prepared to see an increase in income tax, than to decimate public services more or cut back on infrastructure/social care etc.

Perhaps more controversially tax tec companies, the super rich etc to reduce the disparity between rich and poor.

Trying to bring much needed change to our struggling country plus the extra but necessary burden of defence costs without extra funds will just cripple us and we will become a country of ‘pot holes’.

Over to you…..

I agree and have been saying on this forum and to anyone willing to listen that Labour should never have promised not to increase taxation before the GE, a huge mistake.
Now however, increasing defence spending gives them a get out clause, raise our taxes and use it for defence and anything else.Am sure people will understand as defence spending is being very much talked about on the news.

I had hoped that Labour would increase taxes when they were elected so we would have a functioning care system, NHS, schools, defence etc.

In 2022 there were said to be around 800,000 individuals wealthy individuals. As the gap between wealthy and poor widens, I suspect that number has increased - say a million at least.

The 45% rate currently starts at income over £125,140. Raise the rate on the top slice from £125,140 to £200,000 to 60% for a million people and you've already raised over 11 billion just from those with incomes up to £200,000.

What we need is a return to progressive rates of higher rate tax not just the 40% and 45% we have now.

Barleyfields

That question never gets answered MOnica.

Wealthy is anyone who doesn’t need the WFA,
who can leap into an EV unconcerned about the life of the battery,
who will be unworried by the discussions about future banning of gas boilers and obliging people to have a heat pump.

The effect of the 45% tax band is more complex than you might think. This explains it:
www.theprivateoffice.com/insights/have-you-fallen-victim-62pc-tax-trap#:~:text=From%2520the%25206th%2520of%2520April,all%2520earnings%2520over%2520%C2%A3125%252C140.

Any higher band shouldn’t kick in at less than £200k imo.

Silverbrooks

In 2022 there were said to be around 800,000 individuals wealthy individuals. As the gap between wealthy and poor widens, I suspect that number has increased - say a million at least.

The 45% rate currently starts at income over £125,140. Raise the rate on the top slice from £125,140 to £200,000 to 60% for a million people and you've already raised over 11 billion just from those with incomes up to £200,000.

What we need is a return to progressive rates of higher rate tax not just the 40% and 45% we have now.

Agreed.

I think the personal allowance should be £20k.

The 45% rate, above £125k (easy number) should be 50-60%.

Well Molly, I don’t need the WFA, I wouldn’t have an EV if you gave me one, and I already have a heat pump.

Perhaps not having the EV is my get out clause.

In 1980 Margaret Thatcher's government faced a top income tax rate of 83%, which was reduced that year to 60%. The 83% was on earned income only, investment income attracted a further 15% surcharge. Successive governments whittled it down and down and despite a couple of increases in the top rate since then it has stayed pretty low in comparison.

I think most "ordinary working people" would imagine that £100k is more than high enough to attract a high rate of tax, never mind double that level of income.