Tax: Do you give more than you get?

[icstm]

From the BBC website HERE
Makes for an interesting analysis.
The point it misses and one that the public sector do not like pointed out, is that if you work in the public sector (or pseudo public sector like Serco), then these taxes do not cover your own salary, let alone the services you receive on top.

It helps focusses the mind on how we should collect (direct vs indirect) and how much...

 

[overkill]

From the BBC website HERE
Makes for an interesting analysis.
The point it misses and one that the public sector do not like pointed out, is that if you work in the public sector (or pseudo public sector like Serco), then these taxes do not cover your own salary, let alone the services you receive on top.

It helps focusses the mind on how we should collect (direct vs indirect) and how much...

So what? If my taxes pay for the NHS, Education, Welfare and Public services that are impartially run, for no profit motive, then fine.

I don't see what the point is?

If you don't want to pay out in tax more than you get back, then ok, go the US. However, there you will be expected to pay for : education (if you want your kids to be Educated), local refuse collection, welfare and your health cover, all of which add to a up a hefty bill that causes no end of debt problems.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[icstm]

I never said you should.
Nor did I say you should have it both ways.

However, what this starts to show is how little net contbutions so many people actually make.
If you play with the numbers you see that it s a few who actually are net contribtors.

So though many people are "Tax payers" are are rarely net tax payers to any great extent.

 

[MikeTV]

It's a bit misleading, really. If you're earning £43K, it says your contribution is 12K. But if you earn £44K, it says your contribution is £27K! You'd be devastated if you got a £1K raise and your tax increased £15K!

Still, it's interesting that you're not contributing anything until you reach the seventh decile!

 

[kav]

I'm the sole earner in our house. When I put figures in just for myself, it says I'm in the 10th decile, but when I add in my family (wife and three children - all figures set to £0), it puts us in the 8th decile.

 

[icstm]

It's a bit misleading, really. If you're earning £43K, it says your contribution is 12K. But if you earn £44K, it says your contribution is £27K! You'd be devastated if you got a £1K raise and your tax increased £15K!

Still, it's interesting that you're not contributing anything until you reach the seventh decile!

their small print takes care of that, by putting you in a decile

 

[icstm]

I'm the sole earner in our house. When I put figures in just for myself, it says I'm in the 10th decile, but when I add in my family (wife and three children - all figures set to £0), it puts us in the 8th decile.

with the amount of time you spend here I never knew you had THREE kids!

Just shows you how expensive having a wife is

 

[Deleted member 27989]

10th decile on my own, add my wife and children and I am still in the 10th decile....How come it doesn't surprise me. And the calculations a most definitely wrong as my negative balance is a lot more than £27K...

 

[sidicks]

10th decile on my own, add my wife and children and I am still in the 10th decile....How come it doesn't surprise me. And the calculations a most definitely wrong as my negative balance is a lot more than £27K...

That's because it is not calculating the numbers for you, it is calculating the numbers for the average person in the 10th decile!

So the numbers aren't 'wrong' as such, just misleading.

Sidicks

 

[Deleted member 27989]

Whilst I hear what you are saying, why does it need my income before tax then? I think the 'facts' on the second tab are much more telling. For example the top 1% (only 300k people) pay 27% of all income tax I really don't mind contributing my bit, but I do find it sickening some seem to have received more than £500/week in benefits if that is the new cap which is still a ludicrous amount of money.

 

[sidicks]

Whilst I hear what you are saying, why does it need my income before tax then?

Presumably to do with NI and tax free allowance adjustments. But you are right that it doesn't really make any difference. It would have been more meaningful to simply have people select which income band they fit into.

I think the 'facts' on the second tab are much more telling. For example the top 1% (only 300k people) pay 27% of all income tax I really don't mind contributing my bit, but I do find it sickening some seem to have received more than £500/week in benefits if that is the new cap which is still a ludicrous amount of money.

No, you can't say that on here. The "rich" don't pay enough tax...!

Sidicks

 

[icstm]

Surely most people on here also find it odd that we can pay out more in benefits (excl disability costs) than the average person makes.

Remember that benefits are paid net of tax, whereas income is earned gross, before tax. So average net pay is below £20k (<£400 a wk). There was an uproar when just housing benefit was being capped at £400/wk.