The rather dry-sounding "Personal Incomes Statistics 2015-16", published by HM Revenue & Customs on Tuesday, provided the astonishing statistic that just under 31% of all income tax in the UK is now paid by just 362,000 people - the 1% of all taxpayers who pay the top, or "additional" rate of tax of 45p in the pound.

Another 4.5 million taxpayers who pay the higher income tax rate of 40p in the pound, just 14.5% of the total, stump up a further 37% of all income tax. The remainder comes from 25.3 million basic rate taxpayers and some 806,000 people whose taxable income comes mainly from their savings and investments.

Just think about that for a moment. More than two-thirds of all income tax, the biggest single source of income for the Government, now comes from fewer than one in six of the country's 31 million taxpayers. And just under a third of it is paid by a group of people fewer in number than the population of Stoke-on-Trent.

In The Know wrote:
The rather dry-sounding "Personal Incomes Statistics 2015-16", published by HM Revenue & Customs on Tuesday, provided the astonishing statistic that just under 31% of all income tax in the UK is now paid by just 362,000 people - the 1% of all taxpayers who pay the top, or "additional" rate of tax of 45p in the pound.

Another 4.5 million taxpayers who pay the higher income tax rate of 40p in the pound, just 14.5% of the total, stump up a further 37% of all income tax. The remainder comes from 25.3 million basic rate taxpayers and some 806,000 people whose taxable income comes mainly from their savings and investments.

Just think about that for a moment. More than two-thirds of all income tax, the biggest single source of income for the Government, now comes from fewer than one in six of the country's 31 million taxpayers. And just under a third of it is paid by a group of people fewer in number than the population of Stoke-on-Trent.

I suppose poorer people pay more in VAT?

Why not attribute - what is posted verbatim from Sky (without comment)?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I suppose poorer people pay more in VAT?

Is there VAT on scratchcards and burgers?

The rest of the article is also interesting -

What has all this to do with Mr Osborne? Simple. His policy - shamelessly purloined from his former Liberal Democrat coalition partners - of raising the personal allowance, year after year, lifted millions of people out of paying any income tax.

The potential consequences are frightening. In an age of global labour mobility, it would not require many of those top earners to leave the UK before gaps began appearing in the government's finances. A study of the HMRC tables from previous years reveals that the rate at which people are joining the ranks of employed people paying the additional rate (by far the biggest group of high earners) is slowing.

Among those who should be troubled by all this is John McDonnell. Labour fought the last general election promising higher taxes for the top 5% of earners, with the 45p additional rate kicking in for anyone earning £80,000 or more, rising to the more punitive rate of 50p at annual earnings of £123,000.

In January, the shadow chancellor reiterated the policy, telling The People: "We would ask those who earn the most to give a little more."

The party said at the last election these tax increases for higher earners would raise £6.4bn. The HMRC figures cast doubt on this. There simply aren't enough top earners to raise that kind of money. It would leave Labour having either to raise taxes for people lower down the income scale or having to tax even more heavily those high earners it wants to "give a little more".

And that is before higher earners took remedial action to avoid higher taxes by, for example, leaving the country, working fewer hours or taking early retirement.

Ah, you may say, shouldn't higher and top rate taxpayers pay more taxes because they enjoy a disproportionate amount of income earned?

Not necessarily. HMRC's figures this week reveal that those earning £150,000 or more - who, remember, pay 30.5% of all income tax - enjoy just 14.5% of total taxed income. Arguably, they already pay more than their fair share.

news.sky.com/story/sky-views-osborne-pla...nells-hands-11281872

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I suppose poorer people pay more in VAT?

Is there VAT on scratchcards and burgers?

The rest of the article is also interesting -

What has all this to do with Mr Osborne? Simple. His policy - shamelessly purloined from his former Liberal Democrat coalition partners - of raising the personal allowance, year after year, lifted millions of people out of paying any income tax.

The potential consequences are frightening. In an age of global labour mobility, it would not require many of those top earners to leave the UK before gaps began appearing in the government's finances. A study of the HMRC tables from previous years reveals that the rate at which people are joining the ranks of employed people paying the additional rate (by far the biggest group of high earners) is slowing.

Among those who should be troubled by all this is John McDonnell. Labour fought the last general election promising higher taxes for the top 5% of earners, with the 45p additional rate kicking in for anyone earning £80,000 or more, rising to the more punitive rate of 50p at annual earnings of £123,000.

In January, the shadow chancellor reiterated the policy, telling The People: "We would ask those who earn the most to give a little more."

The party said at the last election these tax increases for higher earners would raise £6.4bn. The HMRC figures cast doubt on this. There simply aren't enough top earners to raise that kind of money. It would leave Labour having either to raise taxes for people lower down the income scale or having to tax even more heavily those high earners it wants to "give a little more".

And that is before higher earners took remedial action to avoid higher taxes by, for example, leaving the country, working fewer hours or taking early retirement.

Ah, you may say, shouldn't higher and top rate taxpayers pay more taxes because they enjoy a disproportionate amount of income earned?

Not necessarily. HMRC's figures this week reveal that those earning £150,000 or more - who, remember, pay 30.5% of all income tax - enjoy just 14.5% of total taxed income. Arguably, they already pay more than their fair share.

news.sky.com/story/sky-views-osborne-pla...nells-hands-11281872

There certainly is VAT on burgers, junk food, takeaways, sweets, chocolate, crips etc, not to mention cigarettes, which are all consumed more by poor people than rich. (I think the middle classes win on wine though)

The poor consume more goods in general, because it is cheaper to be rich than poor.
For example, my house (I'm not saying we are rich. Some on benefits are better off, but go with it) is a Victorian terrace and some of the walls are a foot thick. We dont have to bother with heating much, because its warmed by the houses either side of us, whereas my friend is in a tiny housing association flat with cardboard walls and she has to have the heating on full blast or die! (she says).

My kitchen is big enough to prepare food comfortably, I use the same pans I have had since 1977,and a good oven and hob, so I use fresh food. (VAT free)

My friend has a kitchen smaller than a phone box, with electric rings that burn the (cheap) pans (so they need replacing all the time) and a hit and miss oven that nothing fits in.
Needless to say, she gets a lot of takeaways and pre-made food. (with VAT)

So she pays more vat than I do on boots, heating, household goods and food, and the examples could go on and on.

Poor people have to buy more things than rich, so although it doesn't make up for the difference in tax, they probably contribute a lot more than people think.

As you rightly said, honey!

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
it doesn't make up for the difference in tax

The fact is, a tiny number of people - who could all go abroad tomorrow - are propping-up the expenditure on the poor.

If they did quit the UK, where would the workshy be then?

In The Know wrote:
As you rightly said, honey!

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
it doesn't make up for the difference in tax

The fact is, a tiny number of people - who could all go abroad tomorrow - are propping-up the expenditure on the poor.

If they did quit the UK, where would the workshy be then?

No, there jobs would be replaced by people just below them, if people are earning 5million a year, its not going to be difficult to find people wanting to do this job, or have the skills. If you are earning stupid amounts of money £100,000s per week, marginally increasing tax isn't going to make any difference to their lives. They would still have much more money than they could ever spend.

"replaced" ?

how could they be replaced? If they had the capability they would be doing the job now.

robbiex wrote:
In The Know wrote:
As you rightly said, honey!

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
it doesn't make up for the difference in tax

The fact is, a tiny number of people - who could all go abroad tomorrow - are propping-up the expenditure on the poor.

If they did quit the UK, where would the workshy be then?

No, there jobs would be replaced by people just below them, if people are earning 5million a year, its not going to be difficult to find people wanting to do this job, or have the skills. If you are earning stupid amounts of money £100,000s per week, marginally increasing tax isn't going to make any difference to their lives. They would still have much more money than they could ever spend.

Agree with robbiex and Honey's related story making very good points. Should also be noted scroungers are never the issue as there will always be scroungers. Even within the high taxpayers group there will scroungers. That is people been paid ridiculous amounts for little to no real work and often complete incompetence and some, at extremely high incomes, are still underpaid because of their skills work ethnics and so on .

A Tax System is a closed system in that the workings of money is limited to collecting from the people's existing money.

The whole issue of revenue, social needs and what needs to be done should be considered first. Next the money supply system including fairness for rich and poor alike should be considered. So for example on the closed side of things the poorer should get more help in free University education, good housing and so on plus decent tax breaks. And the rich should never be taxed at those ridiculous rates as in the past but levels that assist the economy without threatening their level of income(wealth) to any great extend (having once reached the top rate of income tax can testify one or two or so percentage points higher at that level makes little noticeable difference).

Then other sources of income should be considered. Internationally agreed debt cancellation to reduce those huge interest payments. Workable, practicable central bank money creation not like the historic German situation that was assisted by the international demand for money that Germany did not have (This was after the first world war). Nor the modern money creation that as far as I can see mainly propped up "bond prices" and did little else. No money is in fact always created out of thin air - so as in the justice system where narrow mindedness, stupidity and so on - prevents those in positions of power from seeing the overall picture, all sides and what are the correct actions, so is the case in the money financial system.

It is the small thinking in all aspects of society that prevents easily solvable problems from been solved. Like UK housing. Empty houses owned by the rich is not the problem but the big problem small mindedness. The percentage of the population in need of basic suitable housing is very small so with run down properties and many other sources, housing could be provided for all within a should time span. The problem is in the mind of the decision makers and no where else.

The issue really is "not" who pays and props up the tax system but with the people in positions of power who can change, influence positively,find workable answers. Improve what is already good without throwing out already good workable solutions as often happens (may just need a little tinkering that is all)

And we the people need to get a fuller understanding to influence, by pressure on the people of power in their selection and what they do finding those who will listen and providing them with well reasoned solutions and not just complaints.

wjlmarsh wrote:
The whole issue of revenue, social needs and what needs to be done should be considered first. Next the money supply system including fairness for rich and poor alike should be considered. So for example on the closed side of things the poorer should get more help in free University education, good housing and so on plus decent tax breaks. And the rich should never be taxed at those ridiculous rates as in the past but levels that assist the economy without threatening their level of income(wealth) to any great extend (having once reached the top rate of income tax can testify one or two or so percentage points higher at that level makes little noticeable difference).

Is your brain hurting?
Do you need some tablets?

What a highly articulate and erudite response?

And you laugh at the afflicted...

In The Know wrote:
wjlmarsh wrote:
The whole issue of revenue, social needs and what needs to be done should be considered first. Next the money supply system including fairness for rich and poor alike should be considered. So for example on the closed side of things the poorer should get more help in free University education, good housing and so on plus decent tax breaks. And the rich should never be taxed at those ridiculous rates as in the past but levels that assist the economy without threatening their level of income(wealth) to any great extend (having once reached the top rate of income tax can testify one or two or so percentage points higher at that level makes little noticeable difference).

Is your brain hurting?
Do you need some tablets?

ITK questions
Is your brain hurting? Do you need some tablets?

Answer - No

I like think about things and throw out thoughts and ideas. Randall once challenged me on what would replace a jury when I suggested juries were incapable of deciding a case. And I was thankful for the challenge. Still thinking about it. And JK questioned my opinion, with reasons on Clegg. I still feel that the concessions granted at the time to the Liberals was only at the level to get them to join a coalition. The increase in the personal tax rate was a good thing. And I accept that they may well of contributed more sound reasoning to policy overall. I had felt at the time that in general the contribution was not entirely clear nor strong in standing up for the needs of the people. And the referendum on proportional representation was beaten out of shape to be a complete nonsense thus failed miserably. But I like the contributions of all who think about things which there are quite a number and includes ITK at times.

Over many years I have come to realise almost all people accept everything they are told either in the main stream media lead thinking or the accepted alternatives that is the crazy unsubstantiated conspiracy type theories.(And very surprised by the constant realization of it). It is refreshing to encounter from time to time people who listen examine things and attempt to find reason and evidence for any accepted conclusion. Who question both themselves and others in polite and a reasoned manner.

I see some crazy story about Corbyn on some Facebook site and that he commented on the site and was "a member" - Well so what!!!. Yet no mention of the content of his comments!!! And regrettably in the area of comments re Israel and Palestine there seems to be a loony approach from labour (Some support for ITK loonies theory). Labour appoints one person with a record of strong racist comments against a whole sector of society in an equality role no less and at the same time have ago at Ken Livingstone over some comments just on an historical point of view that be true or not true to some degree but is nonetheless a valid point and not racist. Every country has various percentages of good and bad in what they do and allow. And there is good things about Israel I guess but some ultra groups have treated some from the Palestinian fraction poorly. Then again some rich Arab sections have not used their wealth to help the Palestinian either. A real mix up and tragedy on all sides.

The point is often things are not simple. And this particular media story illustrates a brain dead report. If the article had comments that pointed to evidence of an inappropriate attitude then the story has something to say but as it stands it is stupid and perhaps the writer is the one that needs tablets not that I would give tablets to anyone or really suggest they take them as it is another area operating on "belief" rather than real serious research as tablets mean big money so why research thoroughly and question as there is no money in that...

I do worry about some posters.

We have one ... we all know who he is ... where every single post sounds like a Press Release (usually copied straight from FIFA ! - and we ALL know how accurate they are .... lol).

I'm not sure what the medical term for "insanely jealous" is ... but I don't blame him.

I know he doesn't have much cash (and some of those train spotting books can be quite expensive)
But he saves ... and always buys the best anorak that he can afford (2/- a week from Littlewoods catalogue).

Doesn't go out much ... right now he is working on his latest Airfix kit !

You'd think the NHS could do something, wouldn't you?

In The Know wrote:
The fact is, a tiny number of people - who could all go abroad tomorrow - are propping-up the expenditure on the poor.

If they did quit the UK, where would the workshy be then?

Maybe one of the posters on here - we've all seen just how good their maths is, haven't we? ...lol - could take over as Chancellor?

With them doing the books the more money you burn the better off everyone would be .... lol !!!

Any suggestions ? No names immediately spring to mind .... lol !!!

For the resident Ayn Rand fanatic:

<<< passed through the poor fellow's hands >>>


Yes, we've seen Labour poor money down the drain TOO many times !

comrade hedda wrote:
For the resident Ayn Rand fanatic:



Not heard the quote nor any rebuttal to the tickle down nonsense promoted Thatcher / Reagan era and probably many other times as well.

No doubt creating institutions that have created money like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and so on have created a trickle down effect for sure and worked well, at other times a dismissal failure. (Not necessarily wrong at the out set just sometimes hijacked in mid stream by a dictator and such like).

But certainly now with austerity and in the other eras major distributions of cash and home assets to the less fortunate with monitoring, helpful assistance, education (like alternative lifestyle to drug addiction) and considerate security like in tower blocks to prevent the hoodlums selling drugs etc. Ensure things run well. So from the ground up would be 100% stimulation to the economy (poorer people and areas of need have no choice but to spend the money 100%) whereas often the rich getting more in tax breaks etc just means that the extra goes into their assets like bank accounts as the rich have no further need to spend more thus tickling no where. (Aside from the main projects mentioned and such like. )

I don't agree though I love the quote. I think Trickle Down often does work. Encourage people like Bill Gates and Bruce Springsteen and millions will benefit.

JK2006 wrote:
I don't agree though I love the quote. I think Trickle Down often does work. Encourage people like Bill Gates and Bruce Springsteen and millions will benefit.

Chicken and egg?

People need to work to earn money first.

JK2006 wrote:
I don't agree though I love the quote. I think Trickle Down often does work.

Like the great benefactors of the Victorian era ... Sir Titus Salt and Lord Lever for example.

Without them the peasants would still be living in hovels.

They brought schools, hospitals, parks, and education for the masses
- and the peasants then were grateful ... 100,000 lined the route for Salt's funeral.