It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


TAX cannot continue to increase

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:52 AM
TAX is too high in this country. We are paying the following :

- 22% for average wage earners.(up to £33,000)
- 40% for high wage earners (over £33,000+)
- NI (National Insurance) TAX is 10%
- VAT(sales tax) is 17.5%
- Fuel Tax on petrol/diesel is at 50%+
- Air travel tax
- TV license TAX is £131.50
- Council TAX is £1,000+/-
- Road TAX is £150+/-
- Stamp duty
- Inheritance Tax at 40%

And those are just the taxes that i can think off from the top of my head. There are thousands of stealth taxes as well which i cant remember but they are out there.

We seriously cannot continue to increase taxes like like we have in this country.

Prices of houses are incredibly high and kids cannot afford to buy a house and i'm not just talking about average families but also highly educated people who have degree's from university.

Out of every £100 we earn :

Calculations by Patrick Minford, of Cardiff Business School, show that — including Vat, excise duties, National Insurance and income tax — a basic rate taxpayer pays £48.50 in tax on every £100 earned. Among higher rate taxpayers the figure is £57.10.

So if you are in the 22% bracket you pay £48.50 per £100 and if you are in the 40% bracket then you pay £57.10. And that is just basic tax + NI. Think about when you also then have to buy fuel for you car then you are also forced to pay road tax. And then you have hundreds of other taxes in stealth form shoved to you in one form or another. Also add in VAT(sales tax) of 17.5% which is basically a consumption TAX pushed onto British people and it's at 17.5%.

Also our most brightest and educated people are leaving the country to other places with less taxes and lower house prices.

I will also get my degree this March/April from University and i will be forced to leave the country even though i don't want to because i cannot afford to buy a house in this country and get married.
To live the lifestyle i want i will have to move against my will and all i want is basic lifestyle of a 3 bedroom house and a married life and i'm being forced to leave because i cannot afford to do it here

And i'm not the only one i know many doctors and nurses who are also leaving the country to goto other places.

The trend has already began for mass emigration out of the country :

Britain's border problem: The British are leaving

Official data show that more than 350,000 people leave the country every year, up almost 50 percent from 10 years ago. A recent BBC survey remarkably found that 13 percent of people said they were hoping to emigrate in the near future - double the figure from a similar survey conducted three years ago.

At least 4.5 million Britons - about 8 percent of the population - now live abroad, a far bigger diaspora in percentage terms than those of other rich countries like France, Germany, and the US. Those anxious about rising immigration numbers should take note: more Britons now live overseas than the number of foreign nationals resident in Britain.

High TAX's are not just bad for individuals but also for business which cannot afford to operate in Britain because it makes there Business uncompetitive on the international market so they are forced to go else where to lower prices and pay less tax.

I think this country is killing itself with incredibly high level of taxes which are basically making this country into a socialist country. If the taxes get just a tad higher we might as well call ourselves a communist country.

Sooner or later the most educated are going to leave and so are major business in this country we simply cannot compete in the long run even though right now our economy in general is doing OK/well but in the long run with out socialist economic polices and high taxes we will lose out. Even in other European countries there is now a push for lower taxes why is Britain going in the opposite direction.

Don;t get me wrong i support paying Taxes but seriously there has to be a limit to how much you can take away from a worker until it starts to affect there personal life. So many families are struggling in this country to make ends meet because they don't have enough income left after the taxes are taken out.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by iqonx]

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:01 PM
I'm all for lowering taxes or providing reliefs for those at the lowest end of the scale (as this Labour government has been doing) and I want to see more of this over the coming years too, the 'job' is far from done.

But whilst some of those taxes (some, like the council tax are averages) seem high they are nothing like the whole story.

For instance -

- It's only fair to point out the truth that Labour has cut the basic rate of income tax and introduced a new 10p rate for all but which benefited the lowest earners most.

Chancellor Gordon Brown has cut a swathe through income tax bringing the basic rate down to 22p and introducing a 10p starting rate.

- You have left out the tax-credits, child care tax credits and child benefits (at record levels under this government) many families receive on the basis of their lower income or in respect of having children and needing childcare.

These can make a huge difference and may even apply to families with an income as high as a combined income of £58 000!
UK Tax Credits

- Also road tax is nothing like a blanket £150 anymore.

Some years ago a lower level of £100 for engines under 1400cc was introduced.

This has recently been expanded to a whole raft of levels (on the basis that the lowest polluting cars attract the lowest charges) meaning some cars are now rated duty-free and the charge is £0.
The biggest polluting cars/vehicles pay a lot more tax/duty and that is totally in accord with majority public sentiment." target="_blank" class="postlink">Link

- Stamp duty (our version of a house sales tax) does not apply on a property under £125 000 and is applied at a 1% rate between this level and £250 000.
UK Stamp Duty

- Council tax is a property tax and based on property values.
There are rebates and reliefs available for the lowest earners/income groups and a discount for people living alone.
Council Tax

Only the British would 'enjoy' the massive rises in property values/prices and turn around and deny this (totally unearned) new wealth should be considered when local authority taxation is being devised.

You should see what capital gains taxes many of the Europeans charge on that unearned property value/price rise, they consider it income to tax harshly to discourage property speculation.....but on the other hand this is very effective and does help keep their housing costs sane.

This is the French way for example -

Generally, Capital Gains Tax is payable by second or holiday home owners when the property is sold unless you have owned the property for 22 years or longer.......

........The longer you have owned your French property the less you pay until you reach 22 years where it dwindles to nil. There are exceptions such as pressing family reasons - e.g.death. If your French property becomes your permanent home CGT will not be payable after 5 years of residence for at least 8 months in each year.

The truth is that your 'council tax band' is the key difference and this varies from local authority to local authority.
It is quite misleading and inaccurate to pretend that everybody is in a band d home and paying vast bills.


- Air travel tax?
Many consider it a piffling tiny amount that ought to be a lot higher considering the damage high altitude travel does to the atmosphere.
£10 each way within the EU and £20 outside IIRC.
Big deal.

Taxes on air travel and "gas guzzling" cars should be raised to cut greenhouse gas emissions, says a committee of MPs.

Inheritance tax?!
It only applies if the value of the deceased's estate is £285 000 (this is moving to £300 000 next year) and there are a whole raft of escape clauses for instance if there is a spouse inheriting sole title to the family home.
UK Inheritance Tax

Oh those poor little rich guys.

One can play averages and get partial with figures all one likes but the truth is this -

The UK has a relatively lightly taxed economy, with the overall tax burden well below the average for the European Union and, in particular, countries such as Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark and Italy.

The main corporation tax rate in the UK, at 30 per cent, is lower than in any other major European economy. The UK also has one of the lowest standard rates of VAT in the European Union and, unlike many other European countries, does not impose VAT on a wide range of essential goods, including food and children's clothing.

It is also true that there has even been an element of redistribution from Gordon Brown's Treasury and Budgetary measures (from the Beeb 2005) -

On average, people in the bottom 20% of the income distribution have gained over 11% per year more from the government, and are £1,430 per year better off.

Those in the top 10% of the income distribution have received about 4% less from the government, an average loss of £2,243.

- Naturally there will be those who prefer to pretend that we all are all (aren't we everybody!?) so much worse off and paying crippling tax levels.

But, let's be honest, most of us aren't.

When it all boils down to it that's usually just tory press noise, their usual smokescreen to attempt to get the least well off to vote for and support the tory party here who will (once again) just cut taxes and create even more tax benefits for the most well off.
The rich getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, as per.

(the day they get really poorer - and continue the trend for a while - is the day I might pay a little bit of notice to the alarmist howls of the well paid tory press jounos, various staggeringly well-off business men or their financial experts who pop up on our media telling us all how much they need their fortunes/salaries to remain vast - not exactly a disinterested bunch of by-standers in all of this eh?)

However moderate it might be there is at least some identifiable and real redistribution under Labour, there was sweet F.A. of that under the tory party
(who remain the party of privilege and the only credible alternative party here).

The really galling truth is that all a high-earner need do to end up paying absurdly low rates of tax in the UK is to employ a good skilled accountant and make use of every loop-hole and exemption going (of which there are still plenty).

This also applies to any high earning company.
News International made over £1 billion in profit yet paid around £1 million tax in it's first 10yrs in the UK.
Yet we're (all) supposed to 'back' this low-tax economy, huh? Weird.

Between 1988 and 1999, its British division didn't pay a penny in corporation tax, despite making profits of £1.4 billion.

The tax burden Murdoch dumped on the public would have paid for seven new hospitals, or 50 secondary schools or 300 primary schools.

There is a hell of a lot more to consider when it comes to one's quality of life and contentedness in any particular country (or otherwise) than a simplistic and mere marginal set of tax rates.

I hear taxes are very low in Iraq right now, any takers?

mod edit: Cut down link to correct page width.

Please use this in the post creation window in future to cut down the length of your link, as long url's can alter the width of the page.
Or alternatively you can use: []link name here[/url]
A good walkthrough to explain in more detail is ATTN :Image Size Guidelines

[edit on 18-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:14 AM
Excellent post Sminkeypinkey.

I too agree that taxes should be cut. However I believe that reducing national insurance is the key here. If you work at Tesco you get about 5.80 an hour (my wage) and then you loose 20% in tax automatically. If you have a car then your down even more before you get to repair. Then there's rent; this is massive about 40% of what I received went on it (440 a month) but then being in town I was better of than using a car.

Thing is I am actually quite wealthy I work at Tesco (part time) because I choose to and live on a tight budget because I choose to. But it's really unfair when your earning that kind of money to loose it on such basic things so quickly. Council tax was another burden (but it's nothing compared to rent or NI).

It doesn't surprise me; but it does annoy me how non-political most people at Tesco are. Many, many of them have perfectly good brains but they're not leading that type of life. However if they were aware of how unnecessary the whole thing is then there would be riots.

Well over a third of U.K taxpayers money goes on Social Security. Not to mention other stupid things

And the vast majority goes on benefits, well my attitude is that providing you don't starve, have a roof over your head then you are alright. If you’re ill then its the same thing except your in a boarding school.

What to Tax Cut...
The whole of National Insurance brings in only 90 billion of a 516 income (the 552 expenditure is done by borrowing which means we can't tax cut just yet).

If this was abolished the differences to peoples lives would be enormous. However it’s a well known fact the working class spends more of their income on things like cars, phones, even electricity than anyone else. This is quite logical as they still have same primary needs and wants as everyone else. But if you reduced their tax burden then more of their money would go into consumption and this in turn would boost the economy which in turn would boost the Chancellors Tax Income. Of course he would never get all his money back; but it would be far more effective than Margaret Thatcher’s "triple down" (where you focus your tax on the rich who already get taxed the least (in ratio to income that is).

As long as the working class spend more of their income than everyone else this idea makes sense. And a booming economy isn’t just good for chancellor obviously its good for richer people like me.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Excellent post Sminkeypinkey.

- Thank you.

Well over a third of U.K taxpayers money goes on Social

- Yes that is true.

The problem with such a bald statement is that it leaves the impression that the rise in social security spending is due to non-working 'benefits'.

It is not.

Social security spending has risen to this level because of the expansion of 'in work benefits'.

Working families tax credits and childcare tax credits are why social security spending has grown (which makes sense if you give it a moments thought seeing as how unemployment has fallen so sharply under this government).

This is quite a different matter than simply doling out the weekly 'brew' to the unemployed
(which in discussions like this often is just code for 'workshy' or 'feckless').

Personally I am all for this kind of 'benefit'.

I think we as country benefit with more people in work than out.

......but it's interesting how the debate shifts over time, not that long ago this government were being slated for attempting to help and encourage single mothers and disabled people that wanted to return to work and who could work back into work.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:19 PM
More of a curious question than actual input to the debate, why not simply offer tax cuts equivalent to benefits, instead of earning your money it being taxed then getting an amount back in various benefits?

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Prometheus James]

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Prometheus James
why not simply offer tax cuts equivalent to benefits, instead of earning your money it being taxed then getting an amount back in various benefits?

- The idea is that by specifically targetting the benefit you get to maximise the benefit to those least well off whereas a general tax-cut always benefits everyone including the already most well-off.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:04 AM

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- The idea is that by specifically targetting the benefit you get to maximise the benefit to those least well off whereas a general tax-cut always benefits everyone including the already most well-off.

I didn't explain myself very well sorry, I meant that for example: A mother gets child tax credits, instead of recieving this money from the Government she gets a tax cut to the equal amount of said child tax credits.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Prometheus James
A mother gets child tax credits, instead of recieving this money from the Government she gets a tax cut to the equal amount of said child tax credits.

- That is how it works in effect PJ (although it may not necessarily be the mother who is the working partner and in that case it would be paid to the father/guardian etc etc).

Working benefits here are usually administered by the Inland Revenue and are paid as a tax credit (or, if the tax bill is high, effectively a tax reduction) through the salary.

It has been a goal of this government (like many western governments) for some time to try and implement an efficient integrated tax and benefits system better suited to the needs of those in receipt of the benefits here and those paying for the administration of the benefits here, these are further steps along the way.
Some details are available here

There is also a separate weekly 'Child Benefit' (also at record rates under this government) which is a 'universal benefit' paid to all families and which is designed to be paid specifically to a mother (assuming there is one there to be paid) to ensure mothers have some sort of an income

This might appear to be a bit of a hang-over from the days of majority one-income families but apparantly it is still considered valuable so as to ensure mothers have some sort of independent money as they are still in the overwhelming majority when it comes to raising young children." target="_blank" class="postlink">UK Child benefit rates

[edit on 18-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:21 PM
I see the working class who are in work and I don’t like the amount of tax they pay. The working class are actually a pretty massive section of the population as we are basically talking about those earning 5.80 an hour and less; the reason why this is such a small sum is because of National insurance, Petrol tax, and because most other basic living costs in the U.K are very high.

Personally I would rather benefits to those out of work where reduced so that those working hard in work were taxed less.
Personally I never want to see people starve, go without shelter or access to free healthcare. But it doesn’t exactly mean I believe the welfare state should behave like Father Christmas ether.
Currently there are so many benefits for being out of work the government has to run adverts warning people not to bend the rules by working on benefits. This only happens because we are not a country short of job opportunities.

My Vision: America’s New Deal
I was reading in history how America dealt with the mass unemployment created by the recession. They gave people benefits but gave them work to do as well. Even if the work was almost useless it still had the deterrent effect of ensuring the only people on benefits were those who needed it; the rest of the time the money ensured the nation got some work back in return for its free money. The later is the really important thing which we are 100% missing out on. Why?

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:04 AM
Oh dear.
Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express/Sun overload.
There's always someone reckons the UK benefits systems is far too generous (and costing the rest of us so much/crushing that entrepreneurial spirit/blah blah blah).

Do you know the rates for unemployed people lib
(or the hoops they have to jump through to stay in receipt of unemployment benefit)?

A couple over 25 gets £90wk

A single person over 25 gets £57wk
A single person over 18 but under 25 gets £45.50wk

You're supposed to survive and pay all your bills on that.
It is not generous.
It is nothing like 'father Christmas'
I suggest you try raising a family on it for several months before coming out with such garbage.

2006 UK Social Security Benefit rates

- The alternate (and IMO far more plausible) view of why we have a problem with some people willing to risk 'working on the side' and adverts warning/telling people not to do this is because benefit rates are so low that people feel forced to supplement the meagre benefit incomes with a little illegal 'working on the side'.

Certain employers are only too happy to undercut their (legal) competitors by exploiting this reality and shirking their responsibilities in terms of tax and NI.
(knowing full well the 'wage' on it's own would not be a living wage as being 'on the side' it is very likely to be below minimum wage).

You can always point out a few cheats but the truth is that for the vast majority life on benefits is a tale of struggling with the expense (all the best discounts for household bills apply to those already with a stable income who can manage standing orders/direct debits) and sometimes mere subsistence as people try to avoid money-lending sharks whilst doing their best to, somehow, to keep up (or at least let their kids keep up) with what 'normal' people around them have/do.

I've known people go without food themselves to feed their kids.
Let's not forget the life-long effects being poor for any length of time brings.
Low income years of subsisting on low quality junk food may well give you and your kids all sorts of lurking horrors and illnesses to look forward to in adult life.
Father Christmas, Jayzuss wept.

It is not an urban myth, but, it's not something you'll often hear as other, usually very young, people love to tell stories of how it isn't that bad as they gauge all unemployed people/families on the basis of how the single unemployed (usually) young men they know have a great laugh being on the dole for a couple of weeks cos they wanted 'a bit of time off'.

By the way there are not "so many benefits for being out of work".
There is actually 1 benefit in relation to work (Job Seekers Allowance, either funded by NI contributions or not).

The other benefits usually relate to things like bereavement (inc. war widows etc), old age, sickness or children.
Check the table and the link.
Or perhaps you would consider a War Disability Pension a "benefit for being out of work", hmmm?

Perhaps you are too young to have experienced it yourself or to have known too much about other families who have experienced it?
I suggest you try raising a family with several young children on state benefits for 6mths or more and then maybe you'll be qualified to come back and tell us all how much like Christmas and how easy it all is.

It got better under this government but not by very much......mainly cos of those kind of attitudes which have been ingrained in the British for centuries.

The 'deserving' and the 'undeserving poor' are concepts going back centuries.

Hark, hark, the dogs do bark, the beggars are coming to town!
(13th century England)

You might care to review a little of British 'Poor Law' history in respect of 'social care' for those unfortunate enough to be long-term unemployed and in need of support.
It has for centuries been a story of blaming those in that unfortunate predicament for their predicament.

Historian reveals identity badges, not cards, were compulsory in the 1600s

Research from the University of Warwick reveals that far from being a new idea ID 'cards', in the form of badges, were commonplace in the 1600s.
Just as today's cards will enable people of access public services such as benefits more easily, the 16th and 17th century forms of identification were to show an individual's entitlement to supplement their income and to identify the deserving.

As the government's pilot program to ensure that UK citizens have ID cards by 2011 is implemented, historian Professor Hindle reveals that the concept is far from new. A recent paper entitled "Dependency, Shame and Belonging" examines the practice of making the poor wear badges from the 16th century through to the compulsory identification of all parish paupers under a 1679 statute.

Always the same story.
The meanest 'support' (because the ideology always insists that 'they'll' only become dependent and then 'they' won't be motivated to help themselves/get work for themselves) and usually for a lot of labour (sometimes very harsh and utterly pointless as it's always considered morally correct).

Go find out about poorhouses and workhouses.
Cos all you are doing is regurgitating the same old same old with new labels.

US-style new-deals?
Sadly the era of large-scale public works is over, both tory and Labour governments here once used this kind of thing for that purpose (some of our major motorways were effectively tremendous large and long-term work-schemes), but watch the construction and engineering companies squeal if you try and start that kind of 'socialist' 'social engineering'.

The UK's net taxation figure (when allowances and credits are counted) is for 2006 38% (and not the gross 42 - 42.5% figure some right-wing commentators continually try to use).
UK public finances (includes graphs)

[edit on 20-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 07:26 PM
£552 billion (total government expenditure) divide 60 million (population of the United Kingdom) is the equivalent of £9,200 for every man woman and child in the U.K.
Just looking at £516bn (their actual income) (the difference by the way is caused by government borrowing) the equivalent is: £8600 (for every man woman and child).

So (hypothetically) cut all government expenditure tomorrow and within a year you could give £9,200 to every man woman and child (or save them £8600) (as £600 of the 9,200 is debt).

Now let’s have a look at social security…
I include…
1. Social protection: 156 bn = £2600 per U.K person
2. Personal social services 26bn = £433 per U.K person
(And out of interest)
3. Health: 96bn = £1600

So the total annual “social service” bill is £4633 or £3033 excluding health (per person).

Now focusing on the £3033 bill; this is pure expenditure on people on benefits. Which frankly I find amazing as there can’t be so many people on benefits that the total bill is the equivalent of £3033 (for every man woman and child in the U.K).

I Have A Better Idea…
Let’s pretend we put everyone on benefits? Then every person has £3033 to share equally.
Of course trying to live of this some would be kind of harsh, so what we do is we give every unemployed person a job for the state. This costs the state nothing because it would have spent (i.e. given) that £3033 anyway. However being essentially free the work done will save the state money; this saved money can go towards increasing the £3033 starting some.

Still feeling short of cash? By this the 3033 thousand would have shot up to about £6000. The extra 3000 is the equivalent of doing 750 hours of work a year at 4.00 an hour (a mere 14.42 hours a week of work).
Of course double the amount of work to 28.84 hours a week (that’s 4.117 hours of work a day) then the unemployed are now earning 6000 plus 3033 in basic state benefits (£9033 a year).

The Big Question…
Could the State find 14.42-28.84 hours of work a week at 4.00 an hour?
The answer is a fanatic yes when you include the private sector.
If the state requires that the unemployed do (God forbid) 43.26 hours of work a week; that’s 6.18 a day) and charges just £2.00 an hour for their labour the total is still £4,499 a year. Add the magic unemployment figure of £3033 a year and that total shoots up to 7532.04
Of course if the state can charge 4.00 an hour; then you’ve just added another £4,499 to the potential unemployment income (it’s now 12,031 a year). All tax free; and all only for 6.18 hours of work a day.

Still feeling short of cash? Well I guess we could stop pretending we give 3033 to every person in the equally (including children); instead we could give nothing back to the “super rich”. And perhaps a little bet less in child benefit?

This would help cough up £12,031 for those who can’t work. Of course under my system everybody accept someone in a coma, mental asylum; does actually work its just there will be a large number of disabled where that work is economically worthless (or certainly worth less than £4 an hour).
Hence in order to provide 12,031 to every “unemployed” person; the unemployment system will need subsidising. This extra money can come from…
1. Increasing the unemployed’s 6.18 hours of work a day figure, and keep the extra income as a tax; so that those unemployed & uneconomically productive get a share.
2. (as said) Stop pretending we’re giving £3033 to everyone equally. (Still not included in my hence additionally robust figures).

1. The working class get a £3033+ tax break. And because they spend so much of their income this benefits the economy and hence inevitably also rich.
2. Near zero benefit fraud: If you have to work through the state 6.18 hours a week (possibly plus) to get your £3033 figure then cheating the system becomes a bit self defeating. Hence any bureaucrats we currently pay to track down these people can join this very work scheme (wicked smile.
3. Higher self esteem: The unemployed will probably be better of; as I for one have found that doing nothing (for a job over very long periods of time) is (mentally) very unhealthy.

4. Because of the loose nature of my figures there will be extra money to go around.
A. This means that the £12031 unemployed salary can increase still further (by increasing the £3033 basic salary).
B. Or by increasing this same £3033 figure; it means the £4.00 an hour private sector money could be even less. Wow England economically competing with China?
C. There is extra money for more tax cuts.

There’s probably other advantages as well but I’ll leave it at that. So ATS what do you make of the Liberal1984 Benefit System?

posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 12:56 PM
Wow and I was complaining about the taxes taken out my pay check which is like 10%? Around there...

new topics

top topics


log in