I share this from Church Action of Tax Justice, with whom I have long cooperated:
Our NHS workers shouldn’t pay higher tax rates than the super-wealthy. Take action by emailing your MP for a fairer tax system now https://t.co/YShkUQSkBH #FairTaxNow #NHS pic.twitter.com/JgPiwKOjIG
— ChurchActionTaxJustice (@ChuActTaxJust) January 5, 2021
There is a link to take action. Please consider doing so.
There is more evidence to support Jo's story here.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Contrary to what the nurse says in this clip, the aims and objectives of this Tory Government is to de-motivate the staff so that the service gets worse and therefore manufacture consent to further privatise it.
To get change, you just make something bad by underfunding it. British Governments of all persuasions are good at this – look at how even the railways were handled if Beeching wanted to close a line – the worst rolling stock and motive power was deliberately used on the route so that eventually people stopped using it as the service was made to decay on purpose. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again.
And this factor goes beyond nurses and to most of the public sector – again I sort of object to this because its saying that some public sector workers are more important than others. I work in housing and have been working on getting people off the streets for the recent Government initiative where the whole team is still delivering that. Even over Christmas we had emergency housing staff on hand to respond. We have just managed to completes 9 new much needed properties despite austerity and Covid.
This is what I hate about about things like this ‘campaign’ – the picking off of bits of issues and choosing the ‘segment’ you want to focus on – it just falls into the hands of fascist divide and conquer every time and others still get left behind.
Many public sector workers are getting on for virtually working a whole year for free since 2010 (after tax). That’s not good or fair on any of us, nor is it good for the economy. And all we get is ‘well you’re lucky to have a job at all’ and too many nodding dogs think that is acceptable.
Public sector workers are also leaving for the private sector where wages are once again buoyant (though God knows how at the moment) so all that training and investment just walks out of the door.
Fair comment
I will pass it on
What an odd complaint. Public sector workers pay the same tax rates as everyone else.
No they don’t
They pay vastly more in tax than those who live off equivalent investment income
Or who can shelter their income in companies over the long term
The only odd thing about it is that it is a complaint that has not been made enough.
We know Tory antipathy to the public sector has existed since Thatcher’s time.
And its not just about tax – it’s about pay. Even the Labour party sups at this poisonous well having ended our final salary pensions in 2003 for no good reason (other people’s taxes do not pay our wages BTW).
Yet Labour and Tory MP’s gave themselves a whopping £20K wage rise during austerity and a 6+% pension rise. Yet the public sector is the one who delivers polices. Modern managerialism is rife in politics too and the upper echelons of the sector itself who are paid highly to shut up reduce the service.
And as for those who cheer on such cuts and treatment, it does not occur to them that their own children or family members might one day be working in the public sector as poorly paid workers!!
Certainly supporting this campaign is better than rattling tins outside our front doors on Thursday evenings.
“vastly more”?
Interest is taxed at exactly the same tax rates as employment income.
Dividend income is taxed on dividends paid after corporation tax has been paid. To give a simple example, £5,000 employment income at the basic rate would suffer £1,000 tax. A company making £5,000 profit would pay £950 corporation tax. The £4,050 dividend would suffer £303.75 income tax.
Where is the “vastly more”?
“shelter their income in companies over the long term”
Well, they can’t spend it while it’s in a company, can they. They have to take it out to enjoy it and it gets taxed at that point. And company profits will have paid corporation tax at 19% in the meantime. 1% below the basic rate of income tax.
Where is the “vastly more”?
It’s well known that as a percentage of total UK income tax paid, the wealthiest 1% pay far more now than they have ever done. You really should stop trying to whip up discord and envy by distorting reality. Very populist of you.
Have you noticed NIC and reduced rates on savings?
Or are you just spreading false information?
Richard.
There is no reduced tax rate on savings if you are an additional tax rate payer.
It’s £1,000 for basic rate tax payers, £400 for higher rate taxpayers and £0 for additional rate taxpayers. I’m afraid it’s you spreading false information.
Darryn gave numbers in her post. I have given numbers in mine. Why do you only talk in generalities? I’m not sure whether it’s because you know the facts don’t back up your assertions or you just don’t know the facts.
You ignore the disparity of national insurance
Plus the shelters available to the wealthy
Or the fact that so many amongst the wealthy can divert income to gains
And I most certainly know the facts as an FCA
I also know the data on all of this
Please don’t cast aspersions
I am not for one second sharing misinformation. Your selective denial is deliberate misinformation
I was responding to your specific claim about “reduced rates on savings”
There are no reduced tax rates on savings for the wealthy. There are reduced tax rates for the less wealthy but not for the wealthy. Will you admit that your statement about reduced tax rates on savings benefiting the wealthy was wrong?
You claim that the less wealthy pay “vastly more” in tax than the wealthy. A additional rate tax payer pays 45% tax on investment interest and 38.1% on dividend income. Please demonstrate how someone on the basic rate of tax of 20% – even taking 12% employees’ NIC into account – pays “vastly more” tax.
I am talking about a whole tax system that biases wealth over work
And as a matter of fact, on that I am right
You are ignoring NIC, CGT and CT,which is terribly convenient for your case.
I could add VAT and council tax into a broader system
Mow, very politely, take your inappropriate claims elsewhere
If I was so wrong why are so many desperate to get around IR35?
Good morning Richard
I’m curious about one thing. If the wealthy are so good at avoiding taxes, why has the share of total income tax paid by the wealthiest 1% risen from around 22% of all income tax paid in 1999-2000 to around 28% in 2018-19? Go back to 1980 and the wealthiest 1% paid only 11% of all income tax.
That 1% earned around 12% of all income in 2018-19 and paid around 28% of all income tax. They don’t seem that good at all at avoiding taxes.
I appreciate that the information I have given are facts rather than sweeping unsubstantiated assertions but I am curious nevertheless.
That is easy to answer
Inequality has risen
They have vastly more of the income
And, as ever, you look only at one tax. Overall your claim is nit justified as the wealthy benefit from regressive NIC, CGT, CT, VAT and council tax
How terribly odd that you ignore that fact
You claim is wrong
As recent research in tax in wealth shows, tax rates on many wealthy people are substantially lower than those on income alone
Take these other taxes into account and the differential is bigger still
You did not offer facts. You offered assertion based on skewed data. Biased assertion, in other words
“You claim is wrong”
My claim that the wealthiest 1% paid 11% of all income tax in 1980, 22% in 2000 and the most recent figures show they now pay 28% of all income tax is wrong? Can you link to figures that dispute this?
As for benefiting from regressive NIC, how is it a benefit if the NIC rate drops from 12% to 2% if at the same time the tax rate jumps from 20% to 40%? Simple maths shows that 40 + 2 is more than 20 + 12. Or do you dispute this as well? Indeed even dividends on the wealthy with no NIC at all are taxed at 38.1% which is more than the combined 30 + 12.
VAT is regressive? Really? How so? I would have thought that since the wealthy are more likely to spend on non-essential goods that they would be more likely to be incurring VAT.
And of course your ‘recent research’ completely ignored benefits. If HMG takes £5 off you in tax and gives you £5 in benefits you are clearly in the same position but you completely ignored that point. Talk about skewed data.
Corporation tax has been mentioned earlier. There is always more tax to pay when an individual takes money from a company so it is pretty poor analysis to look only at CT without considering additional taxes before an individual can benefit from the income.
What are we left with that hasn’t been mentioned? Council tax. This is a tiny proportion of tax. It’s inconceivable that this alone could result in the ‘vastly’ more tax you claim is paid by the less wealthy in comparison to that paid by the wealthy. CGT? Again a small proportion of the tax take.
Sure you can point to SOME wealthy people who don’t seem to pay much tax but to make sweeping generalisations that “the wealthy” pay tax at rates “vastly” lower than the less wealthy simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Finally won’t you at least admit that you were wrong about reduced tax rates on savings for the wealthy? Along with loss of personal allowances, claw-back of child benefit and reduced allowance for pension contributions, the wealthy lose the investment income allowance. You got that wrong.
You clearly have not a clue about how tax works
Or about its impact on the low paid
I got to your point on VAT and realised that I was dealing with someone who neither understands how progressivity is calculated, or cares to find out, and has never researched tax paid by decile, let alone how VAT works across the income progression.
Politely, find out
Until then please do not come back. You are only profoundly embarrassing yourself
And as for tax rates for savings on the wealthy, of course I will but apologise when I am right – for all the reasons given
“Indeed even dividends on the wealthy with no NIC at all are taxed at 38.1% which is more than the combined 30 + 12.”
A typo. Clearly 20 + 12.
You don’t even realise that the employer’s NIC comes out of the income first when doing the comparison, do you?
And 45.2% (and yes, I know the figures don’t add quite like that, but it’s good enough) is more than 38.1%
So very politely, you are making a false claim to support a callous claim to pursue an agenda that is biased against those who work for a living
I hope you’re feeling pleased with yourself
“You don’t even realise that the employer’s NIC comes out of the income first when doing the comparison, do you?
And 45.2% (and yes, I know the figures don’t add quite like that, but it’s good enough) is more than 38.1%”
Well, if you’re going to take employer’s NIC into account, shouldn’t you consider that 19% corporation tax has been paid before the dividend has been paid?
£1,000 profit – £190 corporation tax + £308.61 income tax @ 38.1% (on a dividend of £810) = £498.61 tax. 49.861%
So odd then, isn’t it, how desperate people are to have their income treated as dividends?
Actually, it’s really easy
You assume the highest income tax bracket, without saying so
So the comparison is 2% + 45% + NIC 13.2% = 60.2%
Why are there so many people not telling the truth on this one?
Well, that’s not right is it Richard.
The comparison would be;
£1,000 available, less employer’s NIC of £116.60, leaving 883.40 for wages. £397.53 tax, £17.67 employee NIC.
53.18%, not 60.2%.
An easy mistake to make.
I made it clear in a. Earlier tweet that I was aware that the additions were marginally different in this case
So you probe nothing except that you are a pedant
And, of course, that my point was right
So, in summary, all the claims by those disagreeing have been wrong
This is hardly surprising – there is a massive tax planning industry built in the fact I am right and that this needs to change
This correspondence is closed