Car Talk - Non S2000 General Motoring and Non S2000 Car Talk

Surely not

Thread Tools
 
Old Nov 6, 2007 | 01:18 AM
  #41  
lower's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,652
Likes: 17
From: Market Harborough, Leics.
Default

Absolutely.

Obviously well off people pay more tax in that they pay more VAT because they spend more money etc, but rather than create a proper high rate tax bracket that pays a higher percentage as another tier in the system, our government seems to be happy to allow inflation to nibble away the thresholds and therefore gradually increase the number of people paying high rate tax.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2007 | 01:23 AM
  #42  
Moggy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,541
Likes: 0
From: omnipresent
Default

Originally Posted by lower,Nov 6 2007, 10:18 AM
Absolutely.

Obviously well off people pay more tax in that they pay more VAT because they spend more money etc, but rather than create a proper high rate tax bracket that pays a higher percentage as another tier in the system, our government seems to be happy to allow inflation to nibble away the thresholds and therefore gradually increase the number of people paying high rate tax.
They pay more in absolute terms already.

I think you meant progressively

They also pay a higher average rate of income tax than the average earner. They also pay the highest rate of marginal income tax.

Reply
Old Nov 6, 2007 | 01:33 AM
  #43  
lower's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,652
Likes: 17
From: Market Harborough, Leics.
Default

Sorry. You're right. They already pay more in terms of the actual value of the tax. But i'm talking about adding another top rate tax.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2007 | 01:34 AM
  #44  
lovegroova's Avatar
Former Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Former Moderator
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 24,771
Likes: 311
From: Stanmore
Default

Originally Posted by Bassoctopus,Nov 6 2007, 09:23 AM
Do you drive less because of fuel prices?

I don't.
The price of fuel does affect people's behaviour, note the massive rise in diseasel ownership in recent years. Admittedly partly due to improvements in the engines, but almost entirely due to the (perceived) lower cost.

The only thing that might spark people into action is a large single price rise such as the congestion charge in London which has reduced car use. Although that has been combined with improvements in public transport which means there is a viable alternative. The recent road pricing furore has shown that if prices are to rise significantly, many people will begin to take action.

As long as the prices continue to rise relatively slowly, a few pence at a time, there will be no protest, no revolucion.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2007 | 01:35 AM
  #45  
Moggy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,541
Likes: 0
From: omnipresent
Default

Originally Posted by lower,Nov 6 2007, 10:33 AM
Sorry. You're right. They already pay more in terms of the actual value of the tax. But i'm talking about adding another top rate tax.
They also pay a higher average rate of income tax than the average earner. They also pay the highest rate of marginal income tax.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2007 | 01:37 AM
  #46  
Moggy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,541
Likes: 0
From: omnipresent
Default

Originally Posted by lovegroova,Nov 6 2007, 10:34 AM
the congestion charge in London which has reduced car use.
Has it?

Do you have the stats?

I understood that car use reduced in the first year of introduction of the scheme, but then rose in the next year to a level not much lower than before the congestion charge was introduced.

I could be wrong though.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2007 | 01:55 AM
  #47  
Dembo's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,112
Likes: 2
From: Banbury, Oxfordshire
Default

Originally Posted by lower,Nov 6 2007, 10:33 AM
Sorry. You're right. They already pay more in terms of the actual value of the tax. But i'm talking about adding another top rate tax.
Nobody with any sense would pay it. When there was 99% tax in the 70s, everybody with money moved abroad.

We already have ~50% tax, which seems enough to me, and the thresholds do go up every year. It's gone from 33,300 last year to 34,600 this year, and that's 3.9% which is about the same as inflation.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2007 | 02:01 AM
  #48  
lower's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,652
Likes: 17
From: Market Harborough, Leics.
Default

At what point do we pay 50% tax?

I'm talking about having another top rate, say for the sake of arguement
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2007 | 02:10 AM
  #49  
baptistsan's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,346
Likes: 0
From: Suffolk
Default

[QUOTE=dreamer,Nov 6 2007, 09:33 AM] Another 5ppl going on in the budget next year.......

Sure another 5ppl averaging a tank a week, is
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2007 | 02:17 AM
  #50  
Dembo's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,112
Likes: 2
From: Banbury, Oxfordshire
Default

Originally Posted by lower,Nov 6 2007, 11:01 AM
At what point do we pay 50% tax?
12.9% employer's NI before you get your salary. Then 40% on that as income tax, and another 11% employee's NI up to the threshold (which I can't remember but is relatively low). I'm not sure where the point is, but high PAYE earners will pay 50%.

I'm not suggesting having a 97% rate or anything silly, just another, higher top tax band. Is that really going to send people abroad?
No high earners with sense will pay the 40% as is, they'll create companies to work through. Or go and live in Monaco and fly in for 3 days a week. Phillip Green (M&S chairman) famously paid himself a
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:29 PM.