10% tax band petition

[Rosaline]

I have to second Agent.

I have lived in Weymouth, a coastal holiday town with a completely messed up economy. I had two years of university education under my belt, so I wasn't at all uneducated.

All the well-paying jobs were either extremely limited in number (you can't have 50 supervisors per fast food outlet, can you?), seasonal (usually also highly limited in number), required specific training (nursing, teaching) or required a driving licence.

Almost all the low paying jobs simply would not hire someone of my training (seriously, education can be a total put-off at times).

What other jobs occasionally cropped up (but failed to do so whilst I was there) were agency work. As someone I believe has commented, agency workers don't figure properly into government figures. They are also a total ripoff for the employee, and would be for the employer if it were not for the vast flexibility and fluidity they allow.

And yes, exactly as Agent said, there are also the regular people who for various reasons simply do not have the ability to earn any more, no matter what incentives you offer or training you provide. Perhaps in an inner city area up north that is not a major issue, but...

The big problem in Weymouth was simply the cost of living. It was on the south coast, with a highly seasonally varying economy. In general, rent was extremely high for what you got, and very limited availability of alternative accommodation existed (often meaning, for example, pre-pay meters). We actually officially lived below the 'poverty line' (where more than half your income goes on rent and power). This was despite my partner having a reasonably (for the town) well paid job. For most people, earning enough to be able to gain access to means to earn more was nearly impossible.

[Rave]

I'm certainly better off under the new tax regime. But I still think it's disgusting. Why are people who actually do a low paid job- rather than not bothering and just claiming benefits- being penalised? It's absolutely absurd. I realised long ago that New Labour have absolutely no interest in bettering the lives of poor working class people- but I'm still flaberghasted by such a blatant move to dick them over.

[Agent]

but I'm still flaberghasted by such a blatant move to dick them over.

Superb

[dave87]

Using that calculator posted it appears I'll be £30 a year worse off, without the effects of inflation.

Oh joy. When can we vote out Gordon 'numpty' Brown?

On the plus side, looks like I should be getting some tax back this year

[Rosaline]

Oh joy. When can we vote out Gordon 'numpty' Brown?

Aye, I'll get on my knees and pray...

[SiM]

a simple fact that some people are more educationally talented than others.

I agree with you there, but my point is that there are people of below average intelligence who, with a bit of extra effort and will power, work their way up to a better living quality... It doesn't have to be through education either...

[Lucio]

I agree with you there, but my point is that there are people of below average intelligence who, with a bit of extra effort and will power, work their way up to a better living quality... It doesn't have to be through education either...

Well yes, that's how Gordon Brown became PM wasn't it?

[SiM]

Well yes, that's how Gordon Brown became PM wasn't it?

Don't diss, GordyB is a P.I.M.P

[TheAnimus]

By the same concept there are people that can not be educated to the level of the majority of the population. This doesn't make them "dumb" - I've met plenty of these people who so desperately want to learn but just don't have the mental capacity to do so.
To imply that everyone who works at Maccys could get to a management level there is unrealistic, sadly.

Not everyone wants to be educated for a start, which is the first big issue.

It's strange but when the debate goes towards this type of argument, ie there are a lower ability class present, some of whom really don't want to be educated, or try to contribute to society. I can't help but feal theirs a crying injustice in this world, that someone who's born in Wales, and like too many welsh people, simply can't be bothered to work, will have a higher quality of life, than those who try so very hard, but had the miss fortune of been borne in a part of the world we don't care to subsidise.

But on topic, if you look at someone who's earning £240 a week, their now going to be 99pence worse off.....

99 pence.... Thats not even going to be a pint of petrol by the end of this year.

Now when you think that house rentals have increased (and the credit squeaze is only going to make this worse, as many properties are leveraged, and there is still a shortgage of rental property in london for instance) that food staples have dramatically increased.

This 99p is really nothing.

[j1979]

im gonna be £96 worse off for the year, so no TV licence for me

[TheAnimus]

could always spend less time complaining about it on a forum, and more time earning money?

[Saracen]

......

But on topic, if you look at someone who's earning £240 a week, their now going to be 99pence worse off.....

99 pence.... Thats not even going to be a pint of petrol by the end of this year.

Now when you think that house rentals have increased (and the credit squeaze is only going to make this worse, as many properties are leveraged, and there is still a shortgage of rental property in london for instance) that food staples have dramatically increased.

This 99p is really nothing.

And even then, someone earning £240/week is not necessarily worse off, anyway. The budget changes have to be taken as a whole, not just looking at one measure in isolation. Some on that wage will be worse off, others not. It depends on more than just earnings.

[TheAnimus]

Indeed, if only it where a simpler system. I'd love to know how much of our tax is simply spent on systems i'm sure are designed to obsfuscate how much and where you contribute tax.

I think it was in the tory graph i heard that the tax book has trippled in size under new labours 10 year reign.

But then again, i'd love a flat rate tax. As it stands i'm been over charged by about 350 a month right now, it has taken about 3 hours on the phone to inland revinue and one of the loverly tax ladys about 2 days to try and sort it out.

Not to mention the way you have to claim tax back on your pension, in less your workplace operates a salary sacrifice scheme etc. Plenty of people are payign too much tax without realising it, whilst we're letting non doms pay sod all. No computer scientist would ever suggest tax laws like we have now, its overtly complex.

[Saracen]

I agree our tax system is overly complicated, and that is in no small part Gordon Brown's fault. He is and always has loved arcane systems, like the child tax credit system. Which might not be so bad if it actually worked properly .... and wasn't horrendously complex to administer.

But to my mind, that just typifies his control-freak mentality. It's the view that they'll take what they can get away with from everyone, and then decide the basis on which government largesse is going to give some of it back. I'd rather see a tax system based on taking only what they need, and "need" is based on the fundamemtal principle that they spend what they spend efficiently and effectively ... which does NOT include the John Lewis perks list for MPs.

But a flat tax .... hmmm. Not so sure.

It's fine in principle, but in practice you always seem to end up with looking for simplicity on the one hand and some kind of moral justice on the other. A simple flat tax just won't work. At the least, there needs to be a level of personal allowance below which you pay no tax at all. And exactly where you set that allowance is another issue.

But then, should there not be allowances for other things. For instance, if I have to use my car for business, should there not be an allowance that reflects the cost? It's all very well for the employer to pay for petrol, but it's very difficult to come up with a rate that is versatile enough to cover the range of cars out there while still being simple enough to operate. After all, business use drives the value down as the mileage goes up, my add to my insurance, certainly brings servicing costs forward, and so on. And you can make that argument for a number of issues.

But the biggest single problem is perhaps that ethically, you can make an argument that people should pay according to their ability to pay. We all have a certain level of expense simply to cover food, clothing and a roof over our head. And perhaps above that, you can say that it's equitable to all pay at the same rate.

But the impact of paying an extra £100 a year in tax will be vastly different on people of different income levels. If you're struggling as it is, that extra £100 may mean going without something. But if you're talking about someone that always flies first class, gets their handmade suits from Saville Row and has houses in five countries, that £100 means nothing.

Yes, that richer person will pay more if it's a flat percentage of a larger sum, but the argument still exists that wealthy people can pay at a higher rate without it actually hurting while the poorest can't.


But you have to balance that against a pure, simple fact. You can't bleed the wealthy too much, because it simply doesn't work. It's counter-productive in that if you up the marginal rate too far, tax revenue goes down, not up. Logic suggests it, and practical experience proves it. Look at the effect of Supertax.

If you bleed the wealthy too heavily, you remove the incentive to earn that extra bit. If the government try to take too much, they simply decide that it's not worth working the extra days only to lose 90% or more, so they don't. And the really rich decide to live in one of those other five countries and you lose all revenue from them.

And beyond that, it is that wealthier class that are often providing the entrepreneurship and investment that drives our economy forward. If you penalise earnings too much, you not only remove the incentive to work, but you most assuredly remove the incentive to take risk and without that, there's no investment.

So .... on the one hand, you have the ethical notion of taxation according to the ability to pay because, to most people, it simply seems fairer. On the other hand, you have to balance what might seem fairer with the pragmatic aspects of however fair it may seem, if it won't actually work, it's useless.

Any practical flat tax proposal is never quite a flat tax. There's always a few complications, provisions, allowances and special cases.

So to my mind, while I'd fully support a MUCH simpler tax system, it's always going to be a case of quite where to draw the line in complexity, not whether we have a line at all. That just doesn't work.

[TheAnimus]

The problem comes down to how i was brought up i guess. Mum a teacher, dad an army officer, i couldn't help but see oodles of hypocosy in the way they taught moral principles in regard to sanctity of life. The problem i couldn't get my head around is so simple.

Why do we not care about people in the 3rd world. Now i've often tried to rationalise it, say its an (apologies to non maths/computing/logic students) as a simple optimisation task, almost like linear programming, there is a life quality thats worth living at, how can you optimise it so the largest group has this.

But this isn't ever achived, whilst i'd imagine i give more of my income to charity/tax than the average bear, i'm not really doing squat am i? Hands up, who's spent money on coffee/smoothies/snacks in the last week. Heck smoking and drinking. Sooner spend money on a vice than helping someone who's in real poverty.

The only logical conculsion is that really we don't give a crap about others, and only want to support them to a degree that perhaps alivates our guilt.

or is it even more selfish than that (my view for instance) the same way i'd like to think i'd help someone who was been assaulted on the street (and i've narrowly avoided a beating doing so) is because of selfish motives, they'd do the same for me i'd hope. Now if we have a benefits system that will include me, i'd help it, because it would help me. But feeding/imunising/cleanwatering someone who's a few hundread miles away, and very unlikely to ever be of any use. Sod that.

Which then leads me onto the fact we don't seam to care about the santicty of life, so why give a toss about poor people, their generally providing less into a capitalist society (don't get me started on volenteer workers, i consider those a tax dodge that's an inefficency). Harsh but i can only see one conclusion that we help thouse who are in a position to hurt us. Ie making sure poor people don't starve because otherwise thye've got nothign to loose and are dangerous on our doorstep level of logic. I can't see a compelling reason, to allow them access to things like healthcare at the same level as someone who's paying £100k tax, for someone who's paying £3k. It stands to reason, and this is why we see the horrific injustice that is the teered health system we have now, i'm damn lucky now i have health benefits, i was able to get a lot of the damage caused by the nhs when i was 13 fixed, the real joke is that bearly cost me £800 to put right + 12 months of steroid treatment (about £20 a month for hte perscription).

I'm aware of my demon, even if i can't disprove it with any rational, whats worse is the obvious conclusion when thinking this way i come to, my mum has always been a teacher level tax payer, but must cost the NHS about £75k a year. So whats really horrible, is not only do i think that my logic is right, i'm going to be so selfish as to over rule it. I know that health money would be better spent helping people with simple easy to fix ailments, which would provide them with a hudge life improvement, so much so they'd be able to work + contribute. But instead its spent on someone who's retirement age, and never going to be cured.

What i'm getting at is its very hard to balance the idea of moral 'leveling' of the playing feild. Whilst flat rate might be extream, the overly complex system we have now, seams to do nothing to address the injustices, often exhasabating them (non-doms,cgt dodging,salary sacrifice,defered salary payment).

[Ferral]

Using the calculator I will be around £80 per year worse off, my wife will be the same as me as we earn about the same. So £160 over 12 months isn't a great amount but at the same time that money is better off in our pockets rather than the government. Especially when I look at the council tax bill and noticed that it has gone up by £100 this year. That ups the amount for the year to £260 which is around a quarter of a months wage for me alone.

Quite disgusting really