There is the argument that those that 'spunk it up the wall' are paying more tax because they're paying VAT on what they spend it on.
Showing restraint and saving shouldn't be discouraged but there has to come a point whereby the amount saved becomes extortionate and it should be taxable in some form.
One thing I think that should be brought in is to do away with rebates on things like losses for corp tax and carry back/forward of losses.
If I didn't earn anything in a particular year I can't then forward that onto subsequent years to reduce my tax in future. Or claim it against previous years earnings to get a rebate. So why should businesses be allowed to? If you make a loss that year you pay no tax that year. Simple.
As I've said before profit is a rubbish way of calculating a tax anyway. I don't get to offset my living costs against my income to reduce my tax. Especially ones which I can just pluck out of thin air, like the value of my car going down
A wise man once said paying tax justifies the amount you earn.Nope. The worst off are not working and don't contribute If I earn more than you I pay more. Also my employer pays the same. Is that not fair enough for you?
Aside from this argument then, but in part linked, what realistically what do you think you need in your pension pot to be comfortable on without paying further taxes?
Let's for arguments sake, take our similar circumstances and assume on retiremennt we have very little savings, no other income than pension, married reducing to one car between us, own our own home with the mortgage by then paid and no outstanding loans or credit cards etc?
Would want to be comfortable without necessarily being rich and to holiday a couple of times a year?
Our aim is purely for £30k pa between us which doesn't seem excessive. To achieve that I reckon (assuming there will be no state pension (will be 68 for us minimum anyhow) that we need a pot of £600k-£700k.
I earn reasonable, but still have a mortgage and having started later, currently only £200k in the pension pot. My wife only has a nest type pot with little more than £20k in. I'm 49 she's 46. I can't see retirement much before 65 at that rate. I could go sooner but retirement would be longer and the pot wouldn't be as high. At that stage if I leave it longer and take the lump some (or even invest all of it thanks to George Osborne allowing me to), then I would be seen as having higher assets despite only having my home and future pension. Are you aiming for more/less do you think people in those circumstances should be taxed on their wealth on retirement with only that modest level of living?
That probably says more about the widening inequality gap than anything else.Here is a percentage figure
Top 1% of earners in UK account for more than a third of income tax
Tax revenues ever more reliant on small group of high earners, says Institute for Fiscal Studieswww.theguardian.com
I'm just curious really. We think we're planning but in reality are we - I'm sure many on here will have much more than us, some probably with less, but I have no idea what we need. The biggest factor of course could be if there is any state pension as we'd need much less if there is imo. As I say not about being rich, just comfortable.You don't have to share you're finances on an internet forum mate!
I'm no economist so it's not for me to say what that figure is.
I'm just here to point out that you could be paying the same amount on this tax as someone else of an equivalent age, who is single, with no pension as yet or plan for the future.
It seems to me though like you are planning well for the future so good for you.
Saving is a sacrifice. Saving for the future. And for that I should be penalised? Really? That's illogical. I should pay it on what I earn not what I have if it's income that I've already paid tax on. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.
Comparing a rental property owner with your average joe isn't the way it works though. to be deemed as affording to pay you only need savings over £20k. Hardy makes you Richard Branson and yet the suggestion I replied to was that anyone in that bracket (eg with just over 20k in the bank the same as the very wealthy) should therefore pay tax and NI on their income in pension age.“Sorry mate, I want a 20% discount on that KitKat cos I’ve already paid income tax”
If you’ve got wealth you should pay tax on it. Hoarding excess money doesn’t help the economy and using to to get rental income isn’t productive work. The point of money is to stimulate innovation and provide resource where the demand is, not reward lucky people or those who by chance got paid better earlier in their life.
We aren’t talking about rainy day funds and standard pensions here, but billions in inherited wealth, property, private pensions, stocks and shares, etc. For the last fifty years it’s been a one way street and capital has been more valuable than productivity, not only is it wildly unfair on a moral level, it’s economically stupid. People should be rewarded for hard work and innovation, not luck of the draw and age.
Comparing a rental property owner with your average joe isn't the way it works though. to be deemed as affording to pay you only need savings over £20k. Hardy makes you Richard Branson and yet the suggestion I replied to was that anyone in that bracket (eg with just over 20k in the bank the same as the very wealthy) should therefore pay tax and NI on their income in pension age.
*Edit - again if you want to put a minimum on that of say £1m then I have no issue with that, but lots would fall into that bracket without necessarily being wealthy having lived prudently.
I really don't know enough about tax law re; corporation tax and how that works, but our tax rules and regulations do seem extremely clunky and over-complicated. Perhaps it's that I just haven't got a clue haha.
I find all the differing versions of employment and self employment in construction for example to be very weird and feel many are unnecessary / don't sit well with me.
As a general rule the rules are clunky and over-complicated either because people have not been playing in the spirit of the system and they've needed to close loopholes or it's deliberate to make it very difficult to establish how much should be paid.
I don't know about the construction industry but I do remember the big employee/contractor thing (IR35) whereby businesses were avoiding taxes and things like pensions and other costs by claiming people working for them were self-employed contractors not employees. That has since seen the creation of zero-hours contracts as a means around them.
“Sorry mate, I want a 20% discount on that KitKat cos I’ve already paid income tax”
If you’ve got wealth you should pay tax on it. Hoarding excess money doesn’t help the economy and using to to get rental income isn’t productive work. The point of money is to stimulate innovation and provide resource where the demand is, not reward lucky people or those who by chance got paid better earlier in their life.
We aren’t talking about rainy day funds and standard pensions here, but billions in inherited wealth, property, private pensions, stocks and shares, etc. For the last fifty years it’s been a one way street and capital has been more valuable than productivity, not only is it wildly unfair on a moral level, it’s economically stupid. People should be rewarded for hard work and innovation, not luck of the draw and age.
You’re saying this is in the most class obsessed country on the planet which has a hereditary HoS
Of course.I see the Tories are playing the Ferage playbook at PMQ’s. NI raise you say, Ooo look an illegal immigrant.
Tories are fucking over people that don't vote for them in order to protect those that do. Quelle fucking surprise.
If only there was another party that actually represented those that have been fucked over in education and housing that will have to pay for the ludicrous costs of looking those that have skewed the system against us while trying to protect the environment that they've fucked up.
The policy changes are targeted at the very people who do vote for Tories
That’s literally what LG said. Aimed at those who don’t work.
Cabinet positions await all three. All three made of the right stuff for this cabinet.oof suspended for 1 day, that must sting
Tory nonce apologists, beastsoof suspended for 1 day, that must sting
oof suspended for 1 day, that must sting
Does this mean that she’s not going to be invited onto GB News as a guest?Queen supports Black Lives Matter movement, says royal representative
Sir Ken Olisa, the first black Lord-Lieutenant for London, spoke to Channel 4 about the issue.www.standard.co.uk
Somewhere there's some flag shagger reading this and haven't an existential crisis.
Labour need to do much more than give the tories enough rope though.People starting to wake up and realise.
Does Grendel still think Johnson is the bestest, most popular PM of all time?
Labour need to do much more than give the tories enough rope though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?