COVID-19: Those earning above £19.5k should pay more tax after pandemic to help fix UK finances, says think-tank

[James]

Just stop wasting huge amounts of tax payers money on stuff like the £12 Billion refurb of the Houses of parliament.

I don't think we should allow historic buildings to fall into disrepair to save a few quid. 12bn isn't much in the grand scheme of things, especially when it's spent over a couple of decades.

The official annual tax gap is around £30bn a year, for context, and some think it may be to three times that.

 

[Milton Whonez]

I don't think we should allow historic buildings to fall into disrepair to save a few quid. 12bn isn't much in the grand scheme of things, especially when it's spent over a couple of decades.

The official annual tax gap is around £30bn a year, for context, and some think it may be to three times that.

When a building that generates no income costs this amount to repair it is unsustainable. For less than half of that amount an entire new state of the art parliament could be built on a brownfield site outside the M25. It could include a police station, an army barracks and a hotel so all our politicians do not need 2nd homes in London. This is just the biggest example, plenty exist, Portcullis House roof for instance, cost £235 million, 15 years later £100 million had to be spent on 'urgent repairs'. Last I heard a £360 million replacement roof was being considered, utter madness.

And I'm sorry, but £12,000,000,000 is a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.

 

[James]

When a building that generates no income costs this amount to repair it is unsustainable. For less than half of that amount an entire new state of the art parliament could be built on a brownfield site outside the M25. It could include a police station, an army barracks and a hotel so all our politicians do not need 2nd homes in London. This is just the biggest example, plenty exist, Portcullis House roof for instance, cost £235 million, 15 years later £100 million had to be spent on 'urgent repairs'. Last I heard a £360 million replacement roof was being considered, utter madness.

And I'm sorry, but £12,000,000,000 is a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.

You can apply that logic to pretty much every single historic building in the UK then, plus every library and community centre. Virtually none of them cover their own running costs and require subsidies to survive. They play a key role in education and culture so they're worth the investment.

There's a good argument to move parliament to somewhere new, but you'd still have to repair the existing building to avoid losing something of significant cultural and political value. It's a 200 year old building and iconic for the country. Would be insane to let it fall into the Thames to save 12bn in the short term.

 

[I'm Spartacus]

It's already disproportionate, someone on 70k will pay 20% on 38k and 40% tax on 20k of that.

Someone on 19k will only pay 20% on 7k

Its bullshit, its like you are getting punished for doing well. I have seen a p60 for 150k earnings and they paid 50k in tax

On top of all that there's lots of loopholes

And someone on already low wages will be disproportionately affected by losing that 1 or 2% than someone who’s on 150k. I mean how many on that sort of figure will drop down to 19k a year so they don’t pay as much tax? None that’s how many, not f***ing one.
I’d rather lose a few grand a year pulling in 8k a month than lose a few hundred when I already haven’t got a pot to piss in...

 

[Milton Whonez]

You can apply that logic to pretty much every single historic building in the UK then...

No you can't, most historic buildings generate an income or survive with donations, many do receive gov money but nothing anywhere near this amount.

They play a key role in education and culture so they're worth the investment.

You've answered your own question - they provide a service so warrant investment, investment at a sensible level, HoP is not a sensible level.

It's a 200 year old building and iconic for the country. Would be insane to let it fall into the Thames to save 12bn in the short term.

The Queen has the worlds largest private art collection, mostly stored in warehouses, turn the parliament buildings into a massive art gallery, charge for admittance, use the money generated to ensure it is kept in reasonable repair (not state of the art retrovation) for the foreseeable future. I bet you £12 Billion the Thames swallows it up before it collapses.

 

[woodlebert]

Fine by me but not at that cut off. Probably closer to the 25k I reckon

Seems a bit low I agree

 

[Ghfd]

Don’t worry, the scheme to reduce the debt has already been done in the period 2010 to 2019. It lead to a thumping majority, so anyone who is not paid below the minimum or on the minimum and those in receipt of benefit have no worries.

the load will be taken care of by those people and the conservatives will increase their majority at the next election

that’s what people did in 2019, see no reason not for them to do it again.

 

[Frijj]

Westminster Palace is one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. A true icon of Britain and sheer lunacy to let it fall into disrepair.

 

[Ghfd]

I don't think we should allow historic buildings to fall into disrepair to save a few quid. 12bn isn't much in the grand scheme of things, especially when it's spent over a couple of decades.

The official annual tax gap is around £30bn a year, for context, and some think it may be to three times that.

The bedroom tax was brought in as the cost to the taxpayers was 1 billion.

Westminster Palace is one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. A true icon of Britain and sheer lunacy to let it fall into disrepair.

It will fall into the Thames as time goes on

 

[Frijj]

The bedroom tax was brought in as the cost to the taxpayers was 1 billion.

It will fall into the Thames as time goes on

Maybe. I do hope not though.

 

[HellsBells]

Seems fair. I would be fine paying more tax so long as the benefits of it are evidenced and not spunked on their billionaire mates.

In case you’ve not noticed, they’ve already spunked it on their mates. Hancock’s in particular.

 

[James]

No you can't, most historic buildings generate an income or survive with donations, many do receive gov money but nothing anywhere near this amount.

You've answered your own question - they provide a service so warrant investment, investment at a sensible level, HoP is not a sensible level.

The Queen has the worlds largest private art collection, mostly stored in warehouses, turn the parliament buildings into a massive art gallery, charge for admittance, use the money generated to ensure it is kept in reasonable repair (not state of the art retrovation) for the foreseeable future. I bet you £12 Billion the Thames swallows it up before it collapses.

If you're going to keep timeless art in there the whole place would need to upgraded at extreme cost or you'd risk damaging it.

Point is that the building is a national asset and of priceless heritage value. There's tons of other ways to raise revenue that don't involve the neglect of buildings of architectural and symbolic merit.

The fuel duty freeze for example has cost the UK government over 100bn since 2011. It has also driven up car usage and emmisions that are damaging to environment and peoples health. Seems like a sensible move to increase that slightly to start recouping some money and passing on some of the true cost of fuel onto consumers.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Why does anyone have to pay anything?
Just restart from where it was left off. Where did the government get the money from to finance what they set out if it wasn't coming in?
They grabbed it from thin air because it's mostly just digits.

Nobody needs to suffer anything but they will, because that's the way the system works with governments, or should I say, those at the very top who control the issues.


We get told we borrow x amount off some country and that country borrows x amount of another and so on and so on.
So basically I borrow off Peter and Peter borrows off Paul, then Paul borrows off Ann and Ann borrows off Mary. Mary then borrows off Peter who then borrows off Ann and Ann borrows off Paul.....and so on and so on.

The sensible thing would be to restart but those at the top have no interest in that. The only interest is to take more and more out of the people until the people have full on reliance to them with a begging bowl of, please sir can I have some more.


They parade a bunch of puppets in front of us to promise us solutions and lies whilst most of us just sit back and gobble it all up and say "phew we'll soon be sorted and back to normal" until the realisation kicks in that the mindset of normal was made with a full set of clothes.... and yet here we all are sat in our holes with bits of underpants attached.

 

[nyron4england]

put an extra 10p on fuel duty and increase vehicle excise duty. that should bring some more money in.

 

[Frijj]

put an extra 10p on fuel duty and increase vehicle excise duty. that should bring some more money in.

Nawty. Petrol is well spenny atm bruv

 

[Edinburgh Black Cat]

We are sounding like Americans, where they detest low paid workers and dont want them to receive any help. Somebody posted earlier in this thread to try and justify a standpoint that higher earners should not have to pay more than lower.That a loaf of bread costs the same whether the person buying it earns 20k or 100k , how absolutely pathetic is that man.

Pretty sure someone on 100k would spend more on a loaf of bread than someone on 20k (on average like).

Don't forget the higher earners who spend their money on big houses/cars and artisan bread from the local market get taxed in other ways (stamp duty, VAT, IPT, etc.) and their spending on shite generates money for others which again gets taxed (either profits or income tax).

People on higher salaries can afford to pay more, that's why it is set up the way it is. But there must be a tipping point where it is counter productive.

(And on a separate point, morally I don't think anyone should be taxed more than 50% on any of their income - I know they don't in this country at the moment, well excluding an anomaly in Scotland)

 

[Billericay Dichio]

Don't forget the higher earners who spend their money on big houses/cars and artisan bread from the local market get taxed in other ways (stamp duty, VAT, IPT, etc.) and their spending on shite generates money for others which again gets taxed (either profits or income tax).

The old trickle down bullshit so beloved of the rich.

 

[Wonderbra]

Maybe the people that used the furlough schemes should pay them back.

19.5k is fuck all, it’s barely above minimum wage. Tax the people earning 60, 70, 80k if you’re going to tax someone

Why should successful people be penalised?

 

[HellsBells]

Maybe the people that used the furlough schemes should pay them back.

Why should successful people be penalised?

Because a flat rate of tax is disproportionately unfair on lower incomes.

 

[Big Sharp Teeth]

Because a flat rate of tax is disproportionately unfair on lower incomes.

I guess it depends on your definition of ‘unfair’.

Personally I think a flat rate tax is the fairest. But I also think it’s not the most practicable approach so I prefer a progressive model even if I do think it’s unfair.