[Archived] When will the next general election be called?

[Al]

23 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

When I decided to work on past 65 I was absolutely amazed that I no longer had to pay National Insurance contributions. . That enabled me to work for four days instead of five and hardly notice the difference financially.  Anybody in work should pay National Insurance contributions irrespective of age I would have done so willingly given I was drawing on the system much more than I did as a young bloke.

That I wouldn't argue with. Seems logical to me.

[broadsword]

On 5/10/2018 at 02:03, RevidgeBlue said:

Not sure if this is the right thread but the proposed plan to give a 10k hand out to 25 year olds has to be the craziest idea I 've ever heard.

My better half who is 62 is absolutely spitting feathers about it. She has worked all her life and paid tax and never claimed a penny off the state, expecting to be able to receive her modest state pension when she reached the age of 60. When the time came the goalposts were moved without warning and as things stand she now has to wait until she is 67 (assuming god willing she lives that long to receive a penny)

Then in the next breath despite the fact there is allegedly no money in the pot to pay pensions there are apparently plans afoot to just give out money to youngsters for doing precisely nothing!

Madness.

 

 

I think when retirement was first introduced, life expectancy was 65 years and 3 months. With life expectancy increasing, it's harder and harder to justify keeping the retirement age as it is, because it is incumbent on following generations to create the wealth to help pay for it. The same generations that are locked out of housing and social mobility and are burdened with decades of debt repayments just because they wanted a university education. I don't think it's "madness" to give them money to invest in their future (rather than spent on an epic beer-up in Magaluf), because these are the people I'll be relying on for my pension.

I'm sorry that your partner has to work for longer, but as bad as it may seem, she won't have it anywhere near as bad as those entering the world of work in the last five or ten years.

[Baz]

On 10/05/2018 at 02:03, RevidgeBlue said:

Not sure if this is the right thread but the proposed plan to give a 10k hand out to 25 year olds has to be the craziest idea I 've ever heard.

My better half who is 62 is absolutely spitting feathers about it. She has worked all her life and paid tax and never claimed a penny off the state, expecting to be able to receive her modest state pension when she reached the age of 60. When the time came the goalposts were moved without warning and as things stand she now has to wait until she is 67 (assuming god willing she lives that long to receive a penny)

Then in the next breath despite the fact there is allegedly no money in the pot to pay pensions there are apparently plans afoot to just give out money to youngsters for doing precisely nothing!

Madness.

 

 

2 completely different things. Ask why corporation tax has been lowered year on year, rather than give your partner their pension.

Giving 25 year olds 10k isn't going to happen, and it hasn'  happened for the last 2 years, so its not stopped your partner's pension either. 

Put the blame at the feet of political decisions, not 25 year olds.

[Scotland1]

On 08/05/2018 at 20:38, joey_big_nose said:

While I agree with your sentiment, it does show the seriousness of the challenge ahead of us that the Tories are proposing solutions more radical than sit well with a died the in wool Labour man like yourself. 

On clamping down on tax evasion and avoidance there is certainly a lot of money that can be recovered from that, but not in my understanding enough to cover the forecasted gap. General taxation needs to increase and obviously the expectation is the wealthiest need to pick up the majority of it, and the majority of those wealthy people sit in the older generations.

I don't think Wilotts is proposing a wealth tax, rather changes to income tax to remove tax breaks for pensions, inheritance and restructuring stamp duty. 

Agreed. General taxation does need increasing for higher earners, and a flat tax rate for all earning under 50k. 

Additionally foreign nationals to pay a levy or additional NI contributions to make up for non contributions years.

Problem is and will be as it was under labour we will see the skilled leaving the country to be replaced by more immigration on lesser wages, compounding the issue.

[joey_big_nose]

2 hours ago, Scotland1 said:

Problem is and will be as it was under labour we will see the skilled leaving the country to be replaced by more immigration on lesser wages, compounding the issue.

Interested in the above... Is that true? Have we seen a decline in higher rate tax payers in the UK? I think actually it has increased. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.cityam.com/265759/record-number-people-now-paying-highest-tax-rate/amp?source=images

 

[joey_big_nose]

Further on taxes found this document and thought it very interesting. Breaks down where taxes come from ie. How distributed across the population etc. 

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178

[Mike E]

I often wonder if a flat tax of say 35% for everyone above £12k/year and under £50k/yr would be welcomed (alongside 40% for higher earners) if it meant that all our valued services were funded and worked properly.

If it meant free education (including the first degree course), free at point of use NHS, cheaper rail fares I'd be all for it.

I'd personally (being very idealistic and over a long time) scrap buses and reintroduce trams, and perhaps even supply free bikes to anyone in FT employment.

Buses just add to traffic, and the bus lanes made are not really fit for purpose. Open local tram lines again where possible and it takes a lot of unnecessary emissions of the road. Could also use bus lanes as a nice and wide cycle lane to keep cyclists and motorists happy in avoiding each other.

Dream on, eh?

[Baz]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

I often wonder if a flat tax of say 35% for everyone above £12k/year and under £50k/yr would be welcomed (alongside 40% for higher earners) if it meant that all our valued services were funded and worked properly.

If it meant free education (including the first degree course), free at point of use NHS, cheaper rail fares I'd be all for it.

I'd personally (being very idealistic and over a long time) scrap buses and reintroduce trams, and perhaps even supply free bikes to anyone in FT employment.

Buses just add to traffic, and the bus lanes made are not really fit for purpose. Open local tram lines again where possible and it takes a lot of unnecessary emissions of the road. Could also use bus lanes as a nice and wide cycle lane to keep cyclists and motorists happy in avoiding each other.

Dream on, eh?

If you had a flat rate of tax, you'd have no public services left.

[Mike E]

2 hours ago, Baz said:

If you had a flat rate of tax, you'd have no public services left.

I know I'm being naive but why?

[jim mk2]

Currently the top 10% of all income tax payers in the UK pay about 59% of all income tax. They also pay tax at higher rates than anyone else. That is why they pay so more, but that's also because they earn more than most.

Under a flat tax system they would enjoy substantial - maybe massive - tax cuts.

Those on low incomes would almost certainly pay more because around the world flat tax systems are associated with high National Insurance contributions - that hit the lowest paid hardest.

So flat taxes are really about cutting taxes for the best off, cutting services (like the NHS) massively and requiring payment for their use instead, and increasing tax, overall, for the least well off. That's the reality.

[Mike E]

12 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

Currently the top 10% of all income tax payers in the UK pay about 59% of all income tax. They also pay tax at higher rates than anyone else. That is why they pay so more, but that's also because they earn more than most.

Under a flat tax system they would enjoy substantial - maybe massive - tax cuts.

Those on low incomes would almost certainly pay more because around the world flat tax systems are associated with high National Insurance contributions - that hit the lowest paid hardest.

So flat taxes are really about cutting taxes for the best off, cutting services (like the NHS) massively and requiring payment for their use instead, and increasing tax, overall, for the least well off. That's the reality.

Informative, thanks for that Jim

[Rover-the-Top]

22 hours ago, Mike E said:

I often wonder if a flat tax of say 35% for everyone above £12k/year and under £50k/yr would be welcomed (alongside 40% for higher earners) if it meant that all our valued services were funded and worked properly.

 

I'm not sure how what you're suggesting differs from the existing system, except for twiddling the numbers slightly? Ordinarily you'll pay 20% PAYE on earnings between £11,850 and £46,350, and 12% NI from £8,424 to £46,350. Then 40% PAYE and 2% NI on earnings above £46,350 with the PAYE rising to 45% if you break £150k.  

[Mike E]

58 minutes ago, Rover-the-Top said:

I'm not sure how what you're suggesting differs from the existing system, except for twiddling the numbers slightly? Ordinarily you'll pay 20% PAYE on earnings between £11,850 and £46,350, and 12% NI from £8,424 to £46,350. Then 40% PAYE and 2% NI on earnings above £46,350 with the PAYE rising to 45% if you break £150k.  

Income tax is one of my weaknesses. Perhaps one of the weaknesses of the electorate in general tbf.

Most of us vote on our ideals rather than on what we view to be pragmatic, mostly because we don't fully appreciate the complexities of things like taxation.

I personally think PSHE time in schools should be as much about personal economics as about humanity and citizenship.

[Baz]

20 hours ago, Mike E said:

I know I'm being naive but why?

Your tax take would be a lot lower. 

[Baz]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

Income tax is one of my weaknesses. Perhaps one of the weaknesses of the electorate in general tbf.

Most of us vote on our ideals rather than on what we view to be pragmatic, mostly because we don't fully appreciate the complexities of things like taxation.

I personally think PSHE time in schools should be as much about personal economics as about humanity and citizenship.

Personal budgeting should definitely be a bigger part of schooling. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

14 hours ago, Baz said:

Personal budgeting should definitely be a bigger part of schooling. 

A pal of mine worked for an organisation called PFEG when he retired as a maths teacher. They were set up by the banks to provide financial education for schools. He'd go into schools providing material for teachers regarding financial matters.

[Rover-the-Top]

16 hours ago, Mike E said:

Income tax is one of my weaknesses. Perhaps one of the weaknesses of the electorate in general tbf.

Most of us vote on our ideals rather than on what we view to be pragmatic, mostly because we don't fully appreciate the complexities of things like taxation.

I personally think PSHE time in schools should be as much about personal economics as about humanity and citizenship.

I totally agree.  I have to understand how it works for my job, but it is hard explaining to someone that their tax bill shoots up when they do overtime because every hour extra they do is paid above the threshold. It's a logical system, you came up with something similar without realising it.  But HMRC seem to make it sound more complicated with their jargon, and no one bothers to teach what is a fundamental part of adult life.