Funds Insider - Opening the door to funds

Welcome to the Citywire Funds Insider Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error

Increased taxation for the older generation?
Milo Don
Posted: 18 January 2021 22:40:09(UTC)

Joined: 18/05/2016(UTC)
Posts: 97

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 219 time(s) in 73 post(s)
But what is the 'fair share' of tax the wealthy should pay?

The top 1% of earners pay over a third of income tax (https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/how-high-are-our-taxes-and-where-does-the-money-come-from) but receive a paltry 16.8% of income (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/may/21/top-1-of-british-earners-get-17-of-nations-income)

So in order for them to pay their 'fair share', should their tax rate be halved? It might not be a broad vote-winner.

It seems politics, economics and individuals' perspectives on the the correct taxation rarely collide!
5 users thanked Milo Don for this post.
Easyrider on 18/01/2021(UTC), Tim D on 18/01/2021(UTC), jeffian on 18/01/2021(UTC), SimonHughes on 19/01/2021(UTC), Julianw on 19/01/2021(UTC)
Easyrider
Posted: 18 January 2021 22:40:41(UTC)

Joined: 09/11/2020(UTC)
Posts: 1,951

Andrew1952;147232 wrote:
Easyrider;147225 wrote:
Andrew1952;147223 wrote:
Vind;145565 wrote:
I think there was something in the report that covered DB pensions.


On a separate but related note, there has been talk of hardening the valuation calculation for DB pensions in relation to the Lifetime Allowance. Not sure it's progressed much, but there was talk of increasing the multiple of pension upwards from 20x.



The easiest way to deal with final salary pension values (and remember the NHS superannuation scheme with 1,350,000 members is totally unfunded, joe blogs, the taxpayer pays the lot) is to SCRAP employees NI and combine it with income tax at new increased rates.

This can be done without disadvantaging most people still in work but it will claw back some of the massive payments being made to the 77,000 retired public service employees who receive pensions of *more* than average earnings.

It won't affect the tax on most savings because interest rates are zilch and there is a £1000 tax free savings allowance.


Combining income tax and NICs would increase the rate of marginal taxation for all retired people who pay tax, not just public sector employees.
I'm not advocating it, or against it. I'm simply pointing out that all retirees would have to pay more income tax irrespective of whether they worked in the private or public sector, assuming their retirement income was above the income tax threshold.
IMO the 20x multiple is ludicrous.


And why shouldn't they (pay a bit more tax) ?. The tax free allowance is £10K and they spend nothing on commuting. Why should anyone receiving the state pension and still working (which many do) also be exempt from NI ?. Not just them, I believe their employer also does not have to pay employERS NI on their pay too (need to check on this). Why should anyone carry on getting unlimited 'all you can eat for free' NHS treatment for potentially 30+ years ?. There are now 560,000 people over 85, and 15,000 over 100 and last year there was a bulge of 99-yo's (do the maths) waiting to get a card from her maj.

NI is just Tax with a cuddly name.


You raise a real issue IMO. The State Pension was introduced at a time when one retired - usually males - at 65, lived for a few years if you were lucky and then popped your clogs at about 67. It wasn't designed for people having an average life expectancy into their eighties.
About 60% of NHS expenditure goes on people aged over 60.
One strand of any "solution" could be to introduce measures to extend the working age and the pensionable age by encouraging people to have longer working lives, aided by reducing immigration and therefore labour supply, and restricting the growth of pension pots, real and hypothetical, by abolishing tax relief, reducing the pension ceiling etc.
A strategy in effect of "encouraging" people to work into old age, possibly on a P/T capacity. For example, let's say the pensionable age were increased to 70. People would be "encouraged" to work until they were 70 and pay tax and NICs until they were 70, and then and only then be eligible to draw their State and private pensions.
This would obviously reduce the number of retired people and the length of retirement.
I'm not advocating this but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the way it goes.
The days of being in F/T education until you were 22, working until you were 55 and then being retired for 30 years were an aberration and I suspect, increasing a thing of the past IMO.
Easyrider
Posted: 18 January 2021 22:49:03(UTC)

Joined: 09/11/2020(UTC)
Posts: 1,951

Milo Don;147263 wrote:
But what is the 'fair share' of tax the wealthy should pay?

The top 1% of earners pay over a third of income tax (https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/how-high-are-our-taxes-and-where-does-the-money-come-from) but receive a paltry 16.8% of income (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/may/21/top-1-of-british-earners-get-17-of-nations-income)

So in order for them to pay their 'fair share', should their tax rate be halved? It might not be a broad vote-winner.

It seems politics, economics and individuals' perspectives on the the correct taxation rarely collide!


Actually the UK has one of the widest disparities of income (after tax) of any Western European country.
The Scandinavian countries all have higher levels of tax and less income disparity. The concept of progressive taxation, that is the more you earn not only do you pay more tax, but you PROGRESSIVELY pay more tax, is a cornerstone of the UK tax system.
I can't see that changing to say a flat income tax rate.
Milo Don
Posted: 18 January 2021 23:10:10(UTC)

Joined: 18/05/2016(UTC)
Posts: 97

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 219 time(s) in 73 post(s)
I'm not sure we're a particular or material outlier in that sense - https://ec.europa.eu/eur...t-news/-/EDN-20180426-1 despite some of the salaries in things like professional services/City and what appears to be a surfeit of 'social media stars'.

I have no axe to grind on this - inequality is everywhere, and 'twas ever thus! And almost certainly always will be too...
1 user thanked Milo Don for this post.
Easyrider on 19/01/2021(UTC)
Tim D
Posted: 18 January 2021 23:46:07(UTC)

Joined: 07/06/2017(UTC)
Posts: 8,883

Thanks: 33209 times
Was thanked: 24362 time(s) in 7229 post(s)
Easyrider;147267 wrote:
The concept of progressive taxation, that is the more you earn not only do you pay more tax, but you PROGRESSIVELY pay more tax, is a cornerstone of the UK tax system.
I can't see that changing to say a flat income tax rate.


UKIP had a flat tax policy for a while (31% proposed; income tax and NI merged). But by 2014 (under Farage) they had changed their policy to a more conventional progressive system with a 40p top rate. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28876122 . Presumably someone recognized they weren't going to attract many 20% payers with the flat tax policy, and/or that progressive taxation is widely accepted as "the British way" or something.
1 user thanked Tim D for this post.
Easyrider on 19/01/2021(UTC)
jeffian
Posted: 19 January 2021 00:14:42(UTC)

Joined: 09/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 954

Thanks: 808 times
Was thanked: 2222 time(s) in 632 post(s)
"The concept of progressive taxation, that is the more you earn not only do you pay more tax, but you PROGRESSIVELY pay more tax, is a cornerstone of the UK tax system.
I can't see that changing to say a flat income tax rate."

But a Flat Rate Tax system IS progressive, to a point. Suppose you set the tax-free allowance at, say, £15k and the tax rate is 30%. If you earn £15,500, you pay £500 x 30% = £150 = just under 1% tax. If you earn £50,000, you pay £35,000 x 30% = £10,500 = 21% and if you earn £100k you pay £85,000 x 30% = £25,500 = 25.5%. OK, it levels off after that but you are also bringing into the equation taxes on things that haven't been taxed before (Principal Residences) and doing away with all reliefs and allowances (pension tax relief, ISA's, VCT's, EIS's etc etc all of which are mainly taxes on the wealthy, so you would get a far higher yield, but at a rate most would be prepared to accept.

The trouble with wealth tax is that it would throw up all sorts of anomalies and be a nightmare to administer. I see that I was contributor #2 on this thread and I would go back to the point I made there. Before adding to the complexity of the existing tax system, why not go first for the 'low hanging fruit' that is universal benefits? I don't need free travel; I don't need a winter fuel allowance; I don't need a Christmas bonus (do they still do that?), I don't need free prescriptions; I don't need a free tv licence and so on. I don't know what that lot costs but it seems an easy win to me. Give help to those that need it and let the rest of us look after ourselves.
3 users thanked jeffian for this post.
SimonHughes on 19/01/2021(UTC), Tim D on 19/01/2021(UTC), Easyrider on 19/01/2021(UTC)
Tim D
Posted: 19 January 2021 10:06:30(UTC)

Joined: 07/06/2017(UTC)
Posts: 8,883

Thanks: 33209 times
Was thanked: 24362 time(s) in 7229 post(s)
jeffian;147273 wrote:
The trouble with wealth tax is that it would throw up all sorts of anomalies and be a nightmare to administer.


There was some stuff around the Wealth Tax Commission (WTC) report (possibly even from the authors themselves) about the prospect for it to turn us into "a nation of valuers".

(Well at least that might change the dynamics of dinner parties with tedious house price bores... instead I could imagine folks trying to smugly one-up each other over by how much they managed to get their houses' valuation knocked down and that actually they live in a complete hovel).

Worse, once all the valuation infrastructure was established (and the WTC had some estimates of the cost... a surprisingly high proportion of the take, IIRC), even for a one-off hit... it'd surely be an irresistible temptation for another government a few years down the line to dip into the pot again "just one more time".
2 users thanked Tim D for this post.
dd on 19/01/2021(UTC), Easyrider on 19/01/2021(UTC)
Tim D
Posted: 19 January 2021 10:40:04(UTC)

Joined: 07/06/2017(UTC)
Posts: 8,883

Thanks: 33209 times
Was thanked: 24362 time(s) in 7229 post(s)
Relevant and good piece on property tax reform in the Tele today:
https://www.telegraph.co...operty-system-reformed/ (or https://archive.vn/lr3tn )
Claims a level of 0.6% of property value would be neutral for Council Tax replacement.

Also another somewhat incredible one https://www.telegraph.co...y-rebounds-fast-enough/ (or https://archive.vn/a9U94 )
claims once we're all out and about again there'll be such a release of pent-up savings there'll be a massive boom and absolutely no need for any tax rises at all. (Typical Tele fodder then.)
andy mac
Posted: 19 January 2021 11:01:32(UTC)

Joined: 12/02/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,263

so what does someone do now?
Tim D
Posted: 19 January 2021 11:08:27(UTC)

Joined: 07/06/2017(UTC)
Posts: 8,883

Thanks: 33209 times
Was thanked: 24362 time(s) in 7229 post(s)
andy mac;147318 wrote:
so what does someone do now?


Wondering what was so great about Monaco led me to this https://nomoretax.eu/mon...r-everyone-a-tax-haven/

Think I'd sooner stay here and pay higher wealth/property taxes!
85 Pages«Previous page3839404142Next page»
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets