The Labour Government

[inbetween]

It's unrealistic I think for people to expect to pay only 20% tax on earnings up to £50k per year and expect that is enough to pay for all the public services people aspire to us having. We have got used to a basic rate of tax that is IMO too low.

This is absolutely correct. We currently pay £ for £ less tax than the majority of Europe therefore we should expect to get much less value in terms of services.

What some people want is to pay no tax and somehow expect to get everything, or blame immigrants for the shortfall. Meanwhile the socialists want the rich to pay for everything whilst they implement policies that will ensure they don't stay rich for very long.

The answer is something fair and equitable which is we all must pay our fair share and a little bit more. I don't think there will be too many complaints if public services then suddenly start to work properly.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Comon mate, if the cancelling of the WFA was a Tory idea you would be all over this forum like a dog with two dicks slagging it off wouldn't you. Be honest now.

And there you have it .... it was a Tory idea .... proposed by T May but voted down by her MPs

 

[mosssideblue]

Yep all pensioners should just sell their home and downsize, not that easy when you have a strong emotional attachment to it and the state may require the money for your care at a later date. Many things in life are not straightforward Kobay. I guess you weren't aware of those things ?

Also costs a bloody fortune to move home with all the fees etc. also, no one should be forced to sell their home

 

[Kompany Car]

They reduce maximum pension contributions eligible for tax relief already. The limit is £60k now but if you earn too much it reduces down to £10k (2022/23 tax year minimum was £4k, effectively making it pointless for anyone earning a high amount to bother with a pension. Why on earth put money into a pension and get (almost) no tax relief, for the privilege of having your money taxed again (i.e. twice) when taking it out.

If hell bent on tax increases, I think the best bet would have been to up the basic rate to 22p or 23p something like that. It would raise a shed load of money and if you combined it with an increase in the personal allowance, you would ensure that anyone at the bottom end was better off, middle earners were neutral and only the better off were net losers, but they can afford it.

It's unrealistic I think for people to expect to pay only 20% tax on earnings up to £50k per year and expect that is enough to pay for all the public services people aspire to us having. We have got used to a basic rate of tax that is IMO too low.

Yes but the taper starts at... wait for it ...£260k !

To quote the government website "The annual allowance is tapered (reduced) for higher earners. It is reduced by £1 for every £2 someone earns over £260,000 (including pension contributions). Tapering stops when the annual allowance reaches £10,000."

By that point you really are in the realms of being able to have a good tax accountant to avoid it.

I've said it before, but the Scottish income tax bands make sense to me and seem fair.

https://www.mygov.scot/income-tax-rates-and-personal-allowances

 

[metalblue]

Better than freezing to death though isn't it?

You surely can’t favour moving a huge part of that unspent asset wealth in to the hands of banks and hedge funds?

That makes the wealthy more wealthy and the treasury loses out on at least two levels; firstly it impacts inheritance and thus reduces inheritance tax (less money for treasury) and secondly it is also likely to impact how much you can contribute to any social care to basically whatever cash you have in the bank (more money out the door for the treasury).

 

[metalblue]

Quality that. Proper belly laugh.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

You surely can’t favour moving a huge part of that unspent asset wealth in to the hands of banks and hedge funds?

That makes the wealthy more wealthy and the treasury loses out on at least two levels; firstly it impacts inheritance and thus reduces inheritance tax (less money for treasury) and secondly it is also likely to impact how much you can contribute to any social care to basically whatever cash you have in the bank (more money out the door for the treasury).

All good points. Which is why it's better for them to downsize. Plenty of over 55 accommodation being built. Or could go for a bungalow.

Newer buildings tend to be more efficient to heat.

 

[metalblue]

All good points. Which is why it's better for them to downsize. Plenty of over 55 accommodation being built. Or could go for a bungalow.

Newer buildings tend to be more efficient to heat.

That’s absolutely the sensible choice, people are emotionally attached to homes though.

All the same arguments that were made when the so called bedroom tax came in.

 

[Vic]

Also costs a bloody fortune to move home with all the fees etc. also, no one should be forced to sell their home

Better to do the downsizing when you can than when you have to.

 

[Vic]

That’s absolutely the sensible choice, people are emotionally attached to homes though.

All the same arguments that were made when the so called bedroom tax came in.

That was crazy though. Kids having to move school and all sorts. Another Tory policy now too expensive to reverse.