Britons beware, Labour to rejig council tax

[Fragony]

Absolute tax, same amount for everyone, you don't get more service, so why pay more taxes. I could live with a flattax. Having to pay more taxes because you have more money is rediculous. And property tax don't get me started; property-tax is posession-fine. Paying more because you have a swimming-pool, did they dig that hole or anything? No and the labour it took to dig the hole was already taxed. It simply doesn't belong to them.

[rory_20_uk]

Although I do not have the thresholds, I would advocate zero tax up to a level witha flat tax on monies earnt above that level, and get rid of the mydiad of complexity with credits for certain things but not for others and for some children but not others which apart from employing a legion of beurocrats to sort out means that no one including the staff know exactly what is going on - and so the indicdence of fraud is greater.

Yes, having children is a financial burden - but you chose to have them, so cough up. The benefit to employment woul also be greater with more money eaching the worker for longer.

[Furunculus]

i would have a flat taxation rate above the average wage.

just that i would have a reduced rate below that, and a zero rate below the poverty line.

[Husar]

Yes, having children is a financial burden - but you chose to have them, so cough up.

The lack of children here is why the government can hardly pay the pensioners anymore, they're trying a lot of things to make people have more children, not less. Of course the lack of jobs for young people doesn't help with that any way you look at it. The money pensioners receive is not the money they paid into the pension fonds that was stored and is then given to them again, it's paid for by the younger generations who have to rely on their kids later to pay for their pensions, thus we need enough younger people with jobs to keep things working.
Not sure that's exactly how it works in the UK but I doubt you have some trasure chests with pensioner payments stored away somewhere.

[LittleGrizzly]

Not sure that's exactly how it works in the UK but I doubt you have some trasure chests with pensioner payments stored away somewhere.

Pension contributions make useful short term funds, to either pay for something extra or to reduce taxes...

Basically short term thinking by politicians... can't blame them though, people want more services and less taxes...

So yeah we need kids to pay for all the retired people...

Im starting to wonder if we should tell people to retire and then pay them... maybe only those that have saved for thier retirement should be able to do so... (army and police we would give pensions)

Obviously those not well enough to work would be supported...

Or is this idea a bit out there ?

[rory_20_uk]

The lack of children here is why the government can hardly pay the pensioners anymore, they're trying a lot of things to make people have more children, not less. Of course the lack of jobs for young people doesn't help with that any way you look at it. The money pensioners receive is not the money they paid into the pension fonds that was stored and is then given to them again, it's paid for by the younger generations who have to rely on their kids later to pay for their pensions, thus we need enough younger people with jobs to keep things working.
Not sure that's exactly how it works in the UK but I doubt you have some trasure chests with pensioner payments stored away somewhere.

You're advocating a Ponzi scheme to solve the problem - more today so more pensioners later, so even MORE children etc etc.

Perhaps reform of the system is better than continuing a scheme which even on paper doesn't work.

[Fragony]

The lack of children here is why the government can hardly pay the pensioners anymore, they're trying a lot of things to make people have more children, not less.

They are doing it all wrong then, the german baby-boomers got a nice present, their very comfortable situation can improve with economic growth, but not deteriote with decline. No such candy for the young, they have to pay for it no matter how it goes. So it's the younger generation that is in uncertainty, and with economic uncertainty comes lower birthrates.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Although I do not have the thresholds, I would advocate zero tax up to a level witha flat tax on monies earnt above that level, and get rid of the mydiad of complexity with credits for certain things but not for others and for some children but not others which apart from employing a legion of beurocrats to sort out means that no one including the staff know exactly what is going on - and so the indicdence of fraud is greater.

Yes, having children is a financial burden - but you chose to have them, so cough up. The benefit to employment woul also be greater with more money eaching the worker for longer.

No one should get credits for just not earning; on the other hand, I am in favour tax-breaks for a limited number of children (no more than three) and for being married.

[Idaho]

I can't see my future in the UK, especially with the debt pile we're accruing at a breathtaking rate.

So where are you going to move to that is different?

[Idaho]

i would have a flat taxation rate above the average wage.

just that i would have a reduced rate below that, and a zero rate below the poverty line.

I'd agree with that - weirdly enough.

First thing - combine National Insurance and Tax - and just call it tax. Cut out a swathe of beauraucracy.

Then I think we shouldn't be touched by any kind of tax for the first £15k. Then if we are married/partnered the £30k tax free is applied to the couple's total earnings. And then get another £3k tax free per child up to 3 children.

All income above the tax free allowance can be taxed at 50%.

So currently I earn about £40k and my wife about £12k (part time). We have 3 kids. As it stands we both have different tax free allowances, our tax burden is calculated seperately on our own allowances using 3 different tax bands. We both pay National Insurance at different rates as well as the tax. We pay money then get some of it back via child tax credits that are worked out on the basis of last year's income, as well as child benefit taken off my wages and paid to my wife...

It's as if they delight in making it complex.

Why not just say - we as a couple earn £52k - £13k is taxable at 50% - that's £6.5k in tax. No cashback, no benefits, no bands, no NI, no faffing about. One form. Two or three basic principles - easy.

Of course the reason they don't do it like that is because the poorest in our society actually shoulder a massive tax burden that keeps relatively comfortable folk like me in the style to which I have become accustomed.

[rory_20_uk]

So where are you going to move to that is different?

Good question.

Short term - probably nowhere. I have a secure job for 6 months so I'd be a fool to get rid of that without something pretty damn amazing to go off to.
Medium term - I would aim to get some experience in internationally as apparently this is a Good Thing career-wise. The GCC looks tempting for a bit as it is very different in almost every way. Length of time there would depend both on what I find the place to be like and engagements; it's a big enough region that if one state implodes (cough, cough, Dubai, cough cough) one can move to one of the others.
Long term - not sure really. But keeping flexible seems sensible. Staying here is only to be taxed into oblivion whilst the government undertakes replenishing its bank balance and short term policies to try to make the poorest students irrespective of ability have all the advantages of the richest, in case parenting by one's parents is undertaken by anyone.

[Idaho]

Good question.

Short term - probably nowhere. I have a secure job for 6 months so I'd be a fool to get rid of that without something pretty damn amazing to go off to.
Medium term - I would aim to get some experience in internationally as apparently this is a Good Thing career-wise. The GCC looks tempting for a bit as it is very different in almost every way. Length of time there would depend both on what I find the place to be like and engagements; it's a big enough region that if one state implodes (cough, cough, Dubai, cough cough) one can move to one of the others.
Long term - not sure really. But keeping flexible seems sensible. Staying here is only to be taxed into oblivion whilst the government undertakes replenishing its bank balance and short term policies to try to make the poorest students irrespective of ability have all the advantages of the richest, in case parenting by one's parents is undertaken by anyone.

I would thoroughly reccommend anyone working in another country for a year or so. I still draw lessons from my year in Japan almost 10 years ago.

Where is the GCC? Is it one of those dreadful Gulf States? Personally I wouldn't work in one of them if you put a gun to my head

[KukriKhan]

GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council.

[Husar]

First thing - combine National Insurance and Tax - and just call it tax. Cut out a swathe of beauraucracy.

Then I think we shouldn't be touched by any kind of tax for the first £15k. Then if we are married/partnered the £30k tax free is applied to the couple's total earnings. And then get another £3k tax free per child up to 3 children.

All income above the tax free allowance can be taxed at 50%.

So currently I earn about £40k and my wife about £12k (part time). We have 3 kids. As it stands we both have different tax free allowances, our tax burden is calculated seperately on our own allowances using 3 different tax bands. We both pay National Insurance at different rates as well as the tax. We pay money then get some of it back via child tax credits that are worked out on the basis of last year's income, as well as child benefit taken off my wages and paid to my wife...

It's as if they delight in making it complex.

Why not just say - we as a couple earn £52k - £13k is taxable at 50% - that's £6.5k in tax. No cashback, no benefits, no bands, no NI, no faffing about. One form. Two or three basic principles - easy.

I'd vote for you.