Why is the UK Tax System so Weird

[@ricequackers]

The tax system of the UK seems especially designed to pick the pockets of the middle and upper middle classes. The 62% tax band between 100k and 125k, cleverly disguised as the "personal allowance taper" is especially egregious and is the reason I tend to go into an incoherent rage about taxes. When you factor in that you instantly lose tax-free childcare and 30 hours free childcare the moment you earn a pound over 100k (no taper at all), the effective marginal tax becomes greater than 100%, so you're actually worse off than if you earn under the threshold. That's why when my kid was in nursery, I deliberately had to contribute large sums of my pay into my pension to stay below this crucial threshold. Everyone lost out as a result of this maddening corner case - I lost out on disposable income, the government lost out on income tax revenue, and the economy lost out because that money is being saved instead of spent. Then there's the fact that the taxation system heavily penalises families with a stay-at-home parent and a high-earning breadwinner because there's no joint assessment unlike other countries. A friend of mine is in the worst possible situation as he earns roughly 100k from consulting while his wife doesn't work. Overall they get taxed significantly more than a couple earning 50k each, and also miss out on child benefit, despite both situations having the same amount of gross income coming into the household. Finally, other countries provide plenty of deductions that just don't exist in the UK. Things like mortgage interest or public transport commuting costs are deductible in many other European countries but not here. Why? Commuting by bus or train is an expense of doing a job, it's a publicly funded service and it encourages people to not drive which has social benefits, you shouldn't have to pay income tax on the cost of it.

[@blackhavaianas]

Glad it’s not just me who goes into an incoherent rage about taxes in this country! At least take comfort in the fact that it’s a 69.5% tax trap up here in Scotland - I’d save thousands in taxes a year by living south of the border!

[@ac1455]

It’s all for the finance focused part of the economy the uk is heavily reliant on. Can’t be 2nd largest services exporter without some shenanigans.

[@ricequackers]

@@blackhavaianas I've heard of quite a few Edinburgh-based finance folk who immediately upped sticks and moved south of the border the moment the tax changes were announced, either to Berwick or all the way to London. Not because it massively impacted them but because it sent a signal on which way the tax winds were blowing in Scotland.

[@blackhavaianas]

@ Makes sense, I will likely move to the US in the next 1-2 years, as that’s an option with my job. I love this country but feel I can’t really progress financially with the current tax levels.

[@SurmaSampo]

Deductibility of mortgage interest is an insanely bad idea. It is a direct transfer of tax revenue to banks.

[@faar2faar]

This is bonkers. Paying taxes on benefits instead of just reducing the benifit paid... That's just extra work for no reason.

[@Adderkleet]

It's equivalent. The entity giving you tax credits and benefits is also taxing your income. It is not more work for your employer or you yourself. The accountant software, or the Tax Return software, just works it out for you. I still think it's a bonkers way to calculate tax owed or benefits owed.

[@Burty117]

It'll be to skew some statistics somewhere, "most tax income we've ever had", whilst in reality, they practically paid themselves...

[@zombiedude101z]

The rationale I think is so even people on benefits are entitled to national insurance (state retirement pension)

[@Jonas_M_M]

It doesn't work like that. Taxes and benifits shouldn't depend on eachother.

[@manana1444]

The reason is to keep certain bureaucrats employed.

[@lostandfound2893]

I'm glad someone is talking about how garbage the UK tax system is. Needs a full revamp.

[@inbb510]

The problem is (as the video has stated), it will always have winners and losers across all economic backgrounds. For example, pensioners will be furious if council tax rates have changed. The working class will be furious as if they live in somewhere like Putney, they could be charged a wealth tax for having a house that is over £1 million in value.

[@humanperson8418]

Revamp, or Reform? (One of the thing Reform is running on is tax simplification)

[@reheyesd8666]

If only we voted in a party called reform that wanted to reform the system.

[@Ferdelance-vt6vu]

​@reheyesd8666 please dont do that reform are just tories in a different cloth

[@Prownilo]

Entire bureaucracy needs a revamp, it's a 1000 years of tinkering and loopholes, tonnes of things kept in just for tradition sake and permits and laws that simply do not keep with the times as updating them sends out a cascade of nonsense as it's all this interconnected mess. Dump the entire thing, start again.

[@lspcie]

UK tax system is crazy, completely disincentivises working or starting businesses.

[@migsteele]

You’ve also missed out the loss of the free childcare hours once you reach £100k which result in a >100% marginal tax.

[@dealbreakerc]

Cry me a river. If someone or even a household is making over £100k then they don't need childcare benefits.

[@Shino88]

​@@dealbreakercPeople really need to get out there head that 100k makes you wealth. In today's society you are very much close to anyone else in the lower bands. I've lived in Japan and 100k there warrants the comment you made but in the UK 100k means nothing today.

[@tomlxyz]

But that's like three times median household income in the UK?

[@Anim4us]

​@@tomlxyz and so they don't matter? The 2% who make up over 30% of our national income tax should just get fucked with a 70% marginal tax rate. God forbid that they want children and effectively pay over 100% taxes between 100k and ~130k

[@jonevansauthor]

@@tomlxyz that doesn't mean 100K in London is rich, it just means people in the provinces are not as well off as they should be, despite the lower cost of living. If to have that job and kids you need to have the same disposable income as someone living in Leeds, you're not better off financially. The weather isn't so much better either, and while you have more access to museums, it doesn't improve your local cinema or Sainsburys.

[@tatianastarcic]

higher taxes = higher inflation = government subsides to quell inflation, The rising interest rate can surely control inflation, but won't prevent erosion of the eroding purchasing power of the bank note. I have learnt my lesson this time. The banks can't be making money off my money, while inflation eats into it. I have set aside 650k to invest in the stock market now, since that keeps up with inflation, but I don't know how to get started.

[@sharonwinson-m8g]

Yeah, things may be hard right now, but I've come to realize both bear and bull market, recessions and economic boom, all provide opportunities to make high gains, I used to call bluff on folks that bragged about making a fortune from such down-markets until I happened to do so myself

[@nicolasbenson009]

Keeping money in the bank is like paying banks and the Government. Here's how it works: The bank gives out your money as loan, and charge interest obviously higher than inflation rate, and then give you, the depositor, interest lower than inflation rate. That means net loss for you. That is why I prefer to invest, and on average, my advisor makes returns that always beats inflation!

[@Vincent-j8u]

To be honest, I've been wary of banks for a while, but I wasn't sure how to speak with an advisor first. Please let me know who your adviser is if it's okay; I need some recommendations.

[@nicolasbenson009]

Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with Melissa Terri Swayne for about 4 years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.

[@BellamyGriffin19]

I just googled her name and I'm really impressed with her credentials; I reached out to her since I need all the assistance I can get. I just scheduled a call.

[@jonnyb7466]

5:40 I think this quite misleading. As stated in the previous slide, council tax is based on the value in 1991, or an estimate of what that would have been. The Southend property may be worth 321k now but that is not a band H property at all. The message that council tax is regressive is true but this is not illustrating it properly. The main point of council tax being regressive that it isn't proportional to the property price - a small house in the north will be paying a higher percentage of the property's value in council tax than a large house in london.

[@mrgreen2461]

I was thinking the same thing... A few errors popping up on this channel unfortunately

[@JasonDMurrray]

@@mrgreen2461really big error they are making. You won’t get a £321k house in Southend in 1991

[@justinstephenson9360]

The video got Council tax pretty wrong. The bit they got right was the bands, but each Council sets what rate should apply to homes in each band in their area. So whilst it is true that a £321,000 house (at 1991 values) in Southend would be in band H just as a £38m mansion in Kensington that provides no information as to what the owners will actually be paying - the owner of the Southend property might be paying more than the owner of the Kensington property

[@mrggy]

I think the point still stands though that a house that barely reaches the band H threshold will pay the same amount in council tax as a multi million pound mansion in the same city. I knew some wealthy Americans who were looking to relocate to the UK. They couldn't believe their eyes when they saw how "cheap" council tax was on the luxury house they were looking to buy. Council tax bands leave the rich paying much less in tax than they would in other systems (like the US property tax system, for example)

[@justinstephenson9360]

@mrggy you are mistaken. Two houses one only just in band h and the other a £10m mansion only pay the same council tax if they are in the same council area. Each council sets it's own rates for each band. Some councils have traditionally had low rates and others high rates

[@ravenmad9225]

Weird is the wrong word. Immoral could be the word.

[@jam99]

Crap is the one I would use.

[@davidoldboy5425]

Only persons who benefit the overcomplicated system are accountants

[@angryherbalgerbil]

Yup it's the administratum. A system of complexity, built intentionally to serve a centralised beaurocracy and impoverish the majority.

[@jommydavi2197]

I'd wager most accountants would like the tax system simplified because it causes such a headache learning and using the rules.

[@jackbrownio3]

At least most of our taxes are automatic rather than having to file them manually like they do in the US. But Yes the UK system should definitely be simplified from the Government Admin side and made fairer for poorer households

[@jgomo3877]

We pay far more taxes, and get nothing in return, but atleast its taken from us automatically!

[@FluufyPvPTM]

@@jgomo3877that’s a good point but I think it’s because the our tax revenue is less than the us

[@dealbreakerc]

The UK doesn't pay more in taxes than the US (except for a few states) once you add in the fact they have to pay for health insurance.

[@burburchacha]

uhh, i'd much rather the US system, UK taxes are too punitive and are mostly squandered by bureaucrats or used to fund stuff in foreign countries. It's not as bad in the US.

[@gamefever90]

@@jgomo3877 "nothing in return" do you mean that literary or are you trying to be sarcastic? What do you think your taxes do?

[@jonnyb7466]

The other thing about the child benefit is that it based on one parent's income, meaning one parent earning 80k gets nothing but if two parents are on 59k they get the full benefit.

[@tancreddehauteville764]

Yes, because it's not meant to encourage the 'ladies who lunch' to keep their backsides at home!

[@Talshere88]

This is absolutely criminal to me. The fact that two households both with 100k income, one is eligible for 100% of child benefit and free childcare, while the other is eligible for no child benefit and no free childcare is just immoral. Its patently obvious this is unfair, its discussed widely and yet never fixed. Why? Because if they fix it and allow families to share tax allowances the likelihood is there will be a drop in female participation in the work force and that means less taxpayers. They will be blasted over spurious claims of misogyny and discrimination again single mothers. And so our tax system continues to be uniquely anti-family in the midst demographic crisis due to low birth rates.

[@tancreddehauteville764]

@@Talshere88 Rubbish. The reason is quite simply that if one partner (usually the woman) stays at home there is no longer a need to have paid childcare.

[@A190xx]

@@tancreddehauteville764 Child benefit is not for child care, but to assist with the cost of raising a child - eg food, clothing, schools clubs, etc. You would be lucky to get full time childcare for £1,331.20 pa.

[@vencik_krpo]

The key term here is “tax system”. And the point is: there is none. Not only in Britain, our (Czech) one is just as weird. And the reason is: taxes are introduced and cut not as a systemic mechanism, but as a way to score political points. Basically to buy votes. Everywhere, that’s no secret…

[@davidcarter8320]

It also gets worse if you have a student loan as you lose another 9% over a certain threshold.

[@silliestsususagest3276]

tbf if it were free it would mean extra taxes for everyone sooo

[@UnlikeMitchell]

Students chose to do that it’s not a tax it’s a payment for a commodity

[@migsteele]

@@UnlikeMitchelluniversity education benefits the whole economy, not just those who attend university. An effective 9% graduate tax that anyone who isn’t PAYE gets to opt out of , is in no way fair or makes sense.

[@silliestsususagest3276]

@@migsteele University does to a point benefit the whole economy, the UK currently produces far too many graduates!

[@Peds013]

​@@silliestsususagest3276 I don't disagree, we should be giving student loan relief/reductions to STEM, doctors, teachers, etc, people that require and use their degrees. Those going 'for the experience', eg doing modern art should pay their own way.

[@caseysmith4206]

To add to complexity it’s different in Scotland

[@Dendarang]

Almost everything in the UK is. UK usually works on one system in England and Wales, another system in Scotland and a third system in Northern Ireland.

[@gachacaspa]

@@alt_zaq1_esc but in many ways you could have a better quality of life here depending where in scotland

[@georgesotiriou7051]

To be fair Scotland does not matter at all

[@gachacaspa]

@georgesotiriou7051 so doesn't England

[@SteveAshton-s2d]

Oh no, it’s different. Life is so hard

[@shaneintheuk2026]

You missed the highest marginal tax rate which is when you’re on benefits. Getting off of benefits is made difficult by the government taking away 55% of what you earn. So the lowest income earners pay as much as people on £100k. If you add in how hard it is to go back on to benefits there’s a huge disincentive to take the risk of taking insecure work which traps people in benefits dependency.

[@jamiebanyard1792]

Not sure you can class the UC reduction as tax, as its not taking your money away, its reducing the benefit help you recieve because you are earning more and need less financial support. However it is depressing working for about £5 an hour when you take into consideration taxes and UC reduction, might as well not take the extra work and enjoy having more free time, I do feel the 55% reduction in UC is a fair system though, better than a hard limit where benefit payments get removed, i remember years ago working with someone that couldnt do more than 16 hours a week or they would lose their benefits (disabled child) and so when the workplace was busy they had to refuse extra work,

[@shaneintheuk2026]

@ true but I think a smaller reduction like 30% would be a better system. It encourages work and gradually increases self reliance. It costs more in the short term but in the longer run more people get out of the system. Also it should be easier to return to the system if you take a short term contract like seasonal jobs. At the moment it is so hostile only an idiot would go through the delays and hassle of coming off benefits for a three month contract, even if it could result in longer term work.

[@junedhussain6252]

The UK tax system is one of the reasons why we're facing problems today. Unfortunately, none of the politicians are focusing into making the tax system simple to understand. People talk about the lack of productivity and ambition to work even harder. How are you gonna achieve this if the tax rates are too high and too complicated. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the tax system and keeping tax rates down.

[@thecaptain5344]

Something not mentioned here is loss of certain benefits at specific earnings, too. You mentioned the loss of the personal allowance at £100K+, but what wasn't mentioned was that going over 100k also IMMEDIATELY loses you free childcare hours and childcare contributions. This isn't just a deterrent - two working parents with a child in childcare, with one of them being a high earner, is actively WORSE OFF taking a higher pay at certain points. The only remedy is to reject any pay rises, or immediately plow any extra earnings into a SIPP, which isn't exactly hugely stimulating for the economy. Benefits are applied at a household level, but their criteria is based on the individual. This isn't the '50s where every mum is homebound - we live in a society where both parents are EXPECTED to work, and I imagine the economy relies on this to some extent. This is the other part that doesn't make sense. All of this wouldn't be so bad if it felt like our hard earned money was actually being used wisely - but after 14 years of Tory rule, it's been consistently spunked up the wall, and people have very little patience for it now.

[@dealbreakerc]

Worrying about what happens for people earning over £100k isn't worth thinking about. The median income in the UK is sitting around £35k or £36k.

[@danielb7006]

​@@dealbreakerc Earners over 100k don't make up as many people as they should, but they pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. Several of my friends just went to Dubai once they hit that level 😢

[@dealbreakerc]

​@@danielb7006good for your friends. I frankly don't give a fuck about people earning that much complaining about taxes when millions more people work just as long as just as important jobs and struggle to make ends meet.

[@NanoLT]

Oh that is so sad, rich people really have it too hard.

[@thecaptain5344]

@NanoLT it is a big deal when high earners are disincentivised from earning more and contributing further the economy. Not even to mention that inflation and fiscal drag means £100k isn't worth nearly as much anymore. These high earners are not the enemy - they are far closer to the median earner than they are the super wealthy.

[@bzuidgeest]

Combined with the recent video on land tax, this just proves that the tax system in the UK is designed to get money for the average Joe and leave alone the rich. Not surprising as the UK keeps voting in rich people with the expectation they care about poor people.

[@angryherbalgerbil]

But Keir Starmer's father was a tool maker! 🤣😂🤣

[@bzuidgeest]

@angryherbalgerbil but what is Keir stamer himself? It has to start somewhere and there is always the exception.

[@orchibasu9598]

the only issue i have found with the notion of "Tacing the Rich" is that if that happens, then the rich will just move to a place where they wont get taxed as much and just leave, which means now the government have lost a lot of taxation revenue. By nature, especially the british mentality, is that if things are slightly inconvient but not overly demanding than we will continue business as normal, like an occasional leaking tap faucet, many people would rather live with it, then spend the time/moeny/effort to change the tap. so yes you are absolutely right, the UK is designed to get money for the average Joe, as they cant really leave, and are more willing to keep living with slow/gradual hardship, so they are the best source of Tax revenue.

[@andybrice2711]

4:49 It seems insane to me that we implement this incredibly complex set of rules, when they result in something which could be approximated by a single tax with one or two bands.

[@sirloin8745]

Companies & individuals pay Accountants hundreds of thousands for a reason. Turning assets into expenses is a lucrative business.

[@georgesotiriou7051]

Most pay them because they are clueless about tax

[@archierch0463]

Got a copy of Too Long for Christmas. Thanks for a great year of TDLR on KZbin and a great magazine too.

[@millwow]

The 60% tax at £100k - £125k is absolutely maddening. Make the 45% band at £125k into a 50% band and get rid of that 60% band (scrap the personal allowance taper) entirely.

[@danielwebb8402]

The amount of mental effort people paid 95-140k spend managing this issue is inefficient for country's productivity. I just pensioned the F out of everything above 100k, so retired at 44. A more sensible tax scheme and I'd have saved weeks of mental effort / planning and worked another few years

[@tasin7777]

You want tax cuts for the super rich?

[@blackhavaianas]

That would mean an effective tax rate of 52% when you include 2% NIC, so more than half of your income would be lost to tax. I can tell you I wouldn’t work for that.

[@blackhavaianas]

⁠​⁠@@tasin7777Lol if you think earning above 100k makes you “super rich”.

[@cammza9989]

@@tasin7777 100K isn't the super rich, that's like a middle manager with a bit of overtime and a company car

[@beauthestdane]

Meanwhile, the US says "Hold my beer"

[@jamesardron]

The problem with tax is the changes are too low. Nowadays 40k being an increased tax rate is mad! It should be higher to improve people moving into those and getting comfortable

[@undead_corsair]

The worst thing is how that effective rate starts to plateau after 125k. There are no higher brackets? So, a legitimate hardworking software engineer on 200k is in the same band as his golf-playing, private-jetting CEO on a cool 10mil salary? Wondeful.

[@justinstephenson9360]

Our income tax system is bizarre and an incoherent mess because it was designed by politicians who are more interested in headlines and votes than making tax simpler. There is no economic justification for phasing out the tax free allowance, If I was in charge of tax law I would make the following changes almost immediately: 1. Merge income tax and employee national insurance contributions into a single tax. Of course that means pensioners will pay more (they do not currently pay NIC) but that could be compensated by increasing the state pension. 2. Remove the tapering of the tax free allowance. 3. Go back to the time when income tax bands were 0%, 20% and 40% - with the merger of NICs it would become 0%,33% and 50% and the 50% band would kick at a higher level say £75k 4. A single tax free allowance that would apply, at the taxpayer discretion, to income or capital gains or a combination. Then I would equalise the rates of CGT and income tax

[@chevyrees8988]

Student loans should also be discussed due to people having a lot borrowed in student loans and the interest rates on those loans. People struggle to pay off these loans in their working lives. The loan turns into an ~8% increase in your marginal tax rate throughout your working life rather than a loan you will pay off. Considering that a large amount of the working population is overqualified for their position and therefore underpaid for the qualification, they are not able to pay off the loan but have to continue to make payments, unable to pay off the loan due to their lower income. ~8% tax

[@angryherbalgerbil]

So we keep encouraging more and more students to go to uni until the government finally accepts it's mistake and caves. At the end of the day I've always been poor, and had nothing. A loan that expires in 30 years or when I die is frankly not something I'll ever worry about. From the government killing off our steelworks, industries, and manufacturing, to them placing the burden of education costs on the young, to them turning homes into over-inflated asset classes, to them introducing debt based financing and credit cards. All of it is the biggest "I told you so!" that the lower classes ever had. London, is where the wealth now resides. It's in the bankers, accountants, and lawyers. Turns out when you reduce your nation to an entirely white collar services economy, and a shelf stacking, burger flipping economy, then there's no actual wealth at all. Welcome to the Dead Pledge nation where homes are tombs, health is sickness, debt is wealth, and wombs are profitable.

[@fosyay1780]

Maybe people shouldn't take out loans unless the investment is sound.

[@alastairhoffmann9079]

The UK tax system is overly complex with a reliance on "computerisation" to sort out the complexities of calculations. It also suffers from "fiscal lag" where tax allowances and band boundaries remain more or less constant in cash terms, which has the effect of bringing more people into higher rate tax bands as time goes on. Add to this politicians ill thought out publicity stunts for a headline - David Cameron and the Child Benefit claw back springs to mind, and the result of this over many years is that you end up with a complex system. As Mrs Thatcher understood, a system that appeared to be reasonably simple and fair which did not take more than 50% of your income in tax would raise far more for the Treasury than higher and higher tax rates that were the norm in the 1960s and 70s. However the complexity problem has been compounded by the massive rise in the amount of concealed wealth and income that has been accumulating in tax havens and appears to be taxable nowhere ; - which has affected every country, Any future UK tax system has to be based on the principal that if you have a British passport or if you are resident in the UK, you have a responsibility to pay a fair amount of UK tax on your income and assets - worldwide - taking account of taxes due in other countries. One point about the marginal tax/NI rates is that if you factor in benefit clawbacks for the lower paid, then the marginal rates of tax and NI combined with benefit clawback can be even higher than 67%.

[@vivaepshakiaqe]

GLORY!!!I'm favored,$255k every 3weeks! I can now afford anything and also support God's work and the church.

[@CarolReed-k5k]

Wow, congratulations on your financial breakthrough! Can you share more about the investment that's generating $255k every 3 weeks?

[@ZionZzz-c9t]

How do you make such monthly ?? I am a born Christian ✝️and sometimes I feel so down of myself because of low finance but I still believe in God❤️

[@vivaepshakiaqe]

I give special thanks to Evelyn Vera,an instrument of God's goodness in my life. Her guidance and support have been invaluable.

[@vivaepshakiaqe]

To anyone seeking a financial breakthrough,I say:hold on to Faith,trust in God's promises,and believe in miracles!

[@ZacharyHarris-e2g]

Testimony is inspiring! how can others get in touch with Evelyn vera experience similar breakthroughs?

[@AnymMusic]

2:50 istg THIS is the thing that WAY too many people don't understand.

[@Daniel1LDN]

They need to do more for people with families. You may have one high earner and one very lower earner. But because of the one high earner you may miss out of childcare support meaning your worst off by a significant amount when you compare another family who have the same household income but its more balanced.

[@adampreslar2802]

The US system gives the option to file as a family unit (called 'filing jointly'). So the overall rate takes into account both partners.

[@jasonlib1996]

The problem with the UK tax system is that there are intentionally loopholes in the system for the highest earners, Like capital gains being taxed signifiicantly lower, which is how most multimillionaires earn their income, not via a paid wage. the system is intentionally complex to allow those with the knowhow or the money to skirt around certain rules, whilst the common man gets told otherwise.

[@georgesotiriou7051]

Multimillionaires are normally non dom or have left for Dubai and the like years ago

[@pratosaurusrex1128]

5:30 for those only listening and not watching the video (dunno how you would read this comment tbf) council tax value is on the value of the property in 1991. £320k for a property in 1991 was pretty big, so it’s not quite as clear cut as Jack is making it. E.g my parents detached house in a rural turned suburbia town in Sussex are just one band above my 2 bed flat in Surrey. Both were built after 1991 so the value is notional.

[@pragueuprising560]

From what I have seen, Council tax on new homes is bonkers. One bed flats in band F or higher, even though they are only worth 200k today. Total nonsense and may discourage people buying new builds.

[@georgesotiriou7051]

Plus new builds are total sh...

[@XSpImmaLion]

A fair tax system, in capitalist societies, would be one calculated every step of the way with no brackets, where you contribute more the more you have, in total assets and money. Just that, period. Everyone will complain, but it's the way it should be. One way or another, in adequate societies, there should not be people able to pay off hundreds of lifetimes over of descendants with their fortunes to live in luxury, in countries where people are dying out of hunger living on the streets. Doesn't matter if either of those persons are good or evil, it's basic standards to function as a human being, and for a democratic society to work well. There can be other means of calculating this too. For instance, you exempt poor and very poor classes from taxes, put a base rate tax in middle class, and then put extreme taxes on the rich. The parameters needs to be calculated by multiple independent bodies so there is no manipulation. And yes, this creates effects of tax evasion, capital runoff, enterprise runoff, people taking their money and fleeing the country, less incentive for new enterprise and scaling up and stuff like that - but ultimately, you stamp down on this with other laws, regulations and tools. You gotta leverage the strong points of a nation to convince people to live under this system. Combat incessant greed with results. I already have high doubts of huge money hungry industries and speculative market overall already. Those are sources of distortion directing work towards a whole bunch of crap that no one needs, or only the 1% demands anyways, as well as line goes up mentality and whatnot. It created an economic system where the rich always gets richer, the middle class live in a casino-like illusion while being exploited more and more, and poverty grows uncontrollably. The general problem of forcing politics to make that calculation is that it will always deviate and get distorted towards electors, lobbyists, politicians' personal interests, status quo, what news will twist into a scandal, what opposition will weaponize for criticism, and stuff like that. Addressing the core issue, core purpose that taxes are there for, goes to the bottom of the list. There is no room to think what is the role of taxes anymore. Everyone calls it exploitation and we leave it at that. You cannot dare even suggesting that it's there to fund government operations and put things in place to regulate markets, alleviate poverty and hunger, do major infrastructural and public benefit works, and stuff like that. And so the entire conversation gets perverted into people accusing the government of stealing them, people attacking each other because of different brackets, a whole ton of time and money wasted into thinking about ways of paying less taxes, a whole ton of time and money spent into declaring taxes, hiring lawyers and accountants to come up with the best way to avoid them, etc etc. So much time and money gets wasted on crap like that people don't realize the cost of it all. It ends up in a situation where people pay more in time and money to politicize the issue, to distort it, to avoid it, to calculate it, to try bending it towards their favor, rather than in taxes itself. It is ridiculous on it's face, if only people could see it more clearly. So, what you do is make it so straightforward that it becomes hard to question it. This will create side effects that might have good and ill consequences to societies, but it's just one of those things that should be non-negotiable. Because it is there as an economic tool to give equal rights to people, to equalize things. It's funding government, yes, but government should be all about just that - being a force to equalize power among society individuals. At least on a democratic point of view. Since we already don't have many functioning democracies any longer worldwide, it makes sense the mess of taxation throughout the world that exists. I know this will sound idealist or utopic to some, and it is. It's just that I feel we have gone so far off the trail that we lost sight or even memory of what matters already. Tax systems have become so twisted, distorted, and out of purpose not only in UK but in most modern democracies that I feel we should scrap everything and go back to the drawing board because it already lost any essence or idea of what it should target in the first place. It's a purposeless competition. Some might win individually, some might lose, but countries and societies as a whole already lost, as they completely lost sight on what the competition was for.

[@Tannhauser62]

I'm upvoting this for the sheer effort expended, not necessarily the content.

[@dulio12385]

Because UK taxes are inherrently classist. They're meant to discriminate against some and coddle others.

[@nickhalden4759]

6:28 change “press can prove” to “press can claim” - this takes into account the very rich press owners making real people believe they will be affected too, when in reality they won’t

[@chrisgray1507]

Why is it that income tax jumps from 20% to 40%? Why is there no bands in between? Surely that would make it fairer as you can have more bands at more levels

[@dorgepot]

Asking what would make it fairer got us in this mess to begin with. We need simplification, not ever more tax bands.

[@tancreddehauteville764]

I agree with this point - there should be a 30% band.

[@tancreddehauteville764]

@@dorgepot Simplification helps the wealthy at the expense of the poor. NO!

[@dorgepot]

@@tancreddehauteville764 So taking the poorest out of paying tax all together would simplify the system, allow people to keep more of their own money and incentives work. But we can't do that because of people like you who are obsessed with anyone earning over 50k and how much they do/don't pay in taxes. This is why the tax system is so complex to placate those who have so much envy in them they can't see actual solutions that benefit everyone.

[@dorgepot]

@@tancreddehauteville764 And who would you arbitrarily say should give 30% of their money they earned to the government?

[@leonbanks5728]

Council tax needs to be updated in line with today’s house prices.

[@loc4725]

That would involve hitting London house prices, so just like Land Value Taxation it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

[@leonbanks5728]

@@loc4725 Then they need to lower house prices in line with council tax bands. That would also address the problem of everyone under the age of 30 (including myself) not being able to get their own home.

[@danielwebb8402]

On a cost neutral basis. At each local council level. So won't be much impact at all. Won't result in south subsidising Sunderland more than does at moment. But positive outcome that shuts up the "why using 1991" squeal

[@loc4725]

@@leonbanks5728 *"Then they need to lower house prices in line with council tax bands."* As someone who's older let me give you a leg up on how this works. For decades governments of both colours have been trying to pump up house prices, mainly so that Boomers who had not saved for retirement (and there's *a lot* of them!) could instead sponge off later generations by buying up houses, pricing out the young and living off the rental income. This inevitably meant that money which should have gone into the productive economy though shares and investments instead went into pushing up house prices. So fast forward and now we're once again in the situation where banks are vulnerable and any shocks to house prices will consequently cause catastrophic damage to the economy. And the growth which we should now be seeing hasn't happened because unlike in other countries we didn't invest in ourselves. One thing you should absolutely be doing though is being sympathetic to and supporting those Boomers who are living alone in 3-4 bed houses whilst on pensions of up to £51,000 a year and who, thanks to Labour won't be getting the winter fuel allowance. Don't worry about the genuinely poor ones though; they're guaranteed social housing because of their age and will still get the allowance as it's now means-tested. It's only the 'poor' entitled wealthier Boomers who are living beyond their means who are going to freeze to death (allegedly) this winter, and as you've probably noticed there's a lot of them about.

[@leonbanks5728]

@@danielwebb8402 It’s either they do that or they put the house prices down to the 1991 council tax band levels, which would help anyone under the age of 30 (me included) get their own house.

[@douglasboyle6544]

The system isn't "poorly designed", it's designed just exactly how people who can afford to bend the ear of MPs want it designed.

[@livephysiology]

This is similar to the statement made about the British Constitution. It has been said the British Constitution is unwritten. Yet, there are those who have said it is not so much that the British Constitution is unwritten, but rather that it is uncodified. It is not as simple as looking at which page on the document that is the constitution to look things up. Rather, it is finding some ruling somewhere or some decree somewhere else.

[@BrandonMoeller-wx1mm]

I reached $138k today. Thank you for all the knowledge and insights you've shared with me over the past few months. I began this journey in October 2024. Financial education is essential for over 70% of the population, as only a few are truly literate in this area. Thanks so much Mrs Helen Curtin.

[@chubbybritta600]

I'm surprised that you just mentioned and recommended Helen Curtin, I met her at a conference in 2018 and we have been working together ever since.

[@frederickalfie.]

The very first time we tried, we invested $2000 and after a week, we received $9500. That really helped us a lot to pay up our bills.

[@Riz431]

new at thI'mis, please how can I reach her?

[@Ryandavis.]

I was skeptical at first till I decided to try. Its huge returns is awesome. I can't say much.

[@BrandonMoeller-wx1mm]

she's mostly on Instagrams, using the user name

[@shanesmith7609]

Blame William Pitt the Younger

[@UsmanX]

I'm a person that is in that 100 - 125k income bracket quite regularly, and honestly at that point, it's extra money but its more beneficial to put it in pension or charities to claim tax relief on that additional pay. At the end of the day being in that position is just being well off more so than others, and I honestly can't stand people that are in similar situations complain that things are unfair when you're literally in the top 5% of earners in the country, if you wanted to benefit more, moving further out from the city would instantly save more money since the majority cost is housing. If people can't manage their finances at that level of income, then the state shouldn't be subsidising them for poor monetary skills.

[@Anim4us]

It's not about not making ends meet, it's about having fair taxation and providing the right incentive to people. A 70% marginal rate that drops at higher earnings is crazy. Having that also be the same point where free childcare is removed is counterintuitive. It encourages people to earn less so their take home is more!

[@eugeneagyeman1]

I also earn around that bracket and you have it the wrong way round. If I as a tax payer need to make changes to my lifestyle at that level of income to seek optimum tax rates then that is wrong. The state works on behalf of us not the other way around. We’re taxed at such a level compared to other earners that we should be seeing benefits of doing so but we are not.

[@jonevansauthor]

@@eugeneagyeman1 no you shouldn't get greater benefits just because you pay more tax. The country should, not you vs some other taxpayer. You aren't entitled to more help from the police than anyone else. However, it's crazy if the progressive tax rate doesn't increase logically by tax bracket and has a dip in it now, that's weird and illogical. It's truly mind blowing. And the fact the highest bracket starts at such a low amount is also very weird when there are people who earn much more.

[@angryherbalgerbil]

Fully agree! If you're blowing most of a £100k plus salary, then you either have a cocaine and alcohol problem, or you're trying to live like a billionaire instead of knowing your actual level of wealth. Poor financial choices and wearing wealth badly isn't something that should ever be rewarded. As for needing benefits on £60k a year the same applies. Lower your expenditure on shoite you know is a luxury you don't need. But nah, people will still class things like netflix and disney+ as essential costs, or their vape sticks, or the ineffecient car that eats up fuel like candy. Everyone's sense of values and actual value is entirely eroded. And that won't change until people start saying "How much?" "I'm not paying that!" "We don't need that!" "I can live without that!". Greed, convenience, and laziness. And we'll not go into why childcare is a problem. Turns out once you monetize disposable nappies and human needs, then you have people over a barrel. Nothing props up banks and corporations like babies and mortgages. Welcome to the Dead Pledge nation. Where debt is wealth, and life is death, homes are tombs, and wombs are profitable.

[@lonyo5377]

​@@angryherbalgerbilwhen you earn less money in your pocket for having a higher salary the system is broken. If you have young kids then the £100k hard cut off means you literally have less money despite a higher salary, and if you have 2 kids getting 30 hours a week childcare is going to take £20k+ of salary (£120k) just to get back to where you would be at £99k salary due to childcare. Literally zero point in taking that extra £20k. So people throw it into pensions where it's not taxed at all.

[@きれいな岸田文雄]

The concept of “Increases complexity” is always seen here in Japan. This month, PM Ishiba insisted he decreased “reconstruction tax”by 1 percent but the reality was he imposed new 1 percent-tax named “national security tax” permanently instead of “reconstruction tax” which will end by 2037. What we could say about politicians is they have a very good talent of scamming.

[@tolgasevinir2829]

Thanks

[@hockysa]

Thanks for doing a video on this. So many people are oblivious or in denial about marginal tax rates and simply thinking those people are rich tax them more, meanwhile the politicians and actual rich are laughing at how they’ve pitted the middle classes against each other.

[@wildfire9280]

How do you define middle class?

[@antonio3220]

​@@wildfire9280 you just proved his point 😂

[@CamoHunt8]

It would have been worth mentioning that the personal allowance has been effectively frozen since 2019, which has been a stealth tax on the poorest in the nation. Another quirk...

[@chrisowen184]

Council Tax was the replacement for Poll Tax. The basic idea is that a person costs the council a certain amount of money. If you own a big house, then it's assumed that you cost more because you have a bigger car and you use more council services. But it's not supposed to be related to income. Actually, the Poll Tax was probably a better idea.

[@stuartjones3001]

Thank you great video I have shared it Merry Christmas Joyous Jack

[@TheWolfXCIX]

Council tax needs to be updated, and include land values so that it applies to empty plots. Why are we charging businesses a fortune in business rates when people who waste valuable land are charged nothing!?

[@mandrakejake]

If an empty plot of land is generating no income, how should it be taxed? If your logic applied to objects, the owner of the Mona Lisa would probably pay £1b a year just to own it. It doesn't really make sense.

[@noahjohnson8740]

​@mandrakejake the thing is with owning land that is different to the mona lisa is that taking up space to just leave vacant in a valuable area is a cost on the rest of society and they should compensate for it.

[@sisakhoza4739]

Me, a South African, paying the same in taxes as some households get as their income, thinks these brackets are wild as even we're capped @ a super tax of 45%

[@rodzacjisook]

Because it is tax ordinary working person, while allowing the establishment and rich to pay nothing

[@ABanRocks]

The poor pay way less than they take. The rich does pay but doesn't take that much from the system. The middle class pay for everything.

[@jarnMod]

You do business, you know paying tax is nothing major. Doing tax is. Paying tax is not painful. Paying the backlog and fine and fee and interests on all three, that's painful. To be fair, the West as a whole tend to be like that. It's the reason I don't do business in the west at all, and focus on Asia, SEA and Africa, because paying the government is easy, and they don't do stupid things too often.

[@danellis-jones1591]

The tax system is crazy and needs a total revamp. But council tax being set at 1991 house prices is INSANE!

[@johnmunro4952]

As a father of 3 my child benefit and tax credits wiped out my NI, income and council tax bill. Obviously this will end once my kids age out. But at least it took pressure off my income and genuinely helped us raise our children. The rub of course was I was put off working any overtime as I would have lost the tax credits. Swings and roundabouts.

[@justyouraverageguy9109]

Those tax rates are actually higher in reality because student loans account for another 9% (which most people now have)

[@katarvitz4850]

I get the feeling this is convoluted and a mess to help benefit the 1%.

[@snomcultist189]

That’s a little conspiratorial, can’t a tax system be stupid and convoluted because the people who made it are?

[@katarvitz4850]

The people who made it are usually rich and want to stay that way. Though I will admit the additional problems of the UK having so many archaic laws that have never been properly overhauled doesn't help.

[@olamilekanakala7542]

@snomcultist189Do not blame things that can be explained by incompetence on maleficence.

[@georgesotiriou7051]

No they just don't have the nerve to change tax rates so they tinker around them which results in the absurd situation we are in

[@Tannhauser62]

@@georgesotiriou7051 And why is that? Because the second anyone suggests a tax overhaul it's political suicide. Everyone thinks they're hard done by and that someone else is getting it easier. Take a look at half the comments in here. The most radical tax overhaul was attempted by Thatcher in 1989ish, which ended in riots and a climb-down.

[@MarkGore-q3g]

An excellent video - especially for those who don’t work in the tax / finance sector of explaining just how difficult it is as chancellor There are also 200 years worth of tax uk legislation and human rights that the UK have signed up to … to get around The most prominent thing to take away from this is the council band payments Imagine that being taxed properly - as a percentage of your property value - the councils of the elite would have so much more to spend … and not have to come and ask from the national pot - that the poorer areas need. And therefore public sector jobs within that council area should also be paid as a percentage and not across the national board - also note that councils set their own prices for bands …. Therefore, it should be enough to not ask for any more money from the government each year. The tax system needs a complete overhaul … as those with children earning between £60k - £125k are the ones being hit the most. The rich use trusts and pensions to ring fence their income and actually then receive a benefit in that year by doing so. Those needing this are the middle class….but alas cannot afford to do so It’s almost worth living 10 years underneath what you think you’re value is worth and then stepping up Not saving for just a deposit - but for the whole property itself - without having to borrow and pay the establishment interest on that borrowing However, it is these people that lobby the government into not changing the rules to keep those wanting to step up at arm’s length Only a few get through, and that’s what they want … It needs an overhaul and not one that will be commissioned by those in parliament - as those are the ones that are lobbied But it is a tough ask and one that cannot be done in four years as times change … as do needs and extra benefits and in all this time … prices rise … squeezing and taking anything given It’s doable … very doable … old fashioned legislation needs to be almost abolished But that takes time to process through first parliament and then the courts opposed by the very people that know a quick change will hurt them The only people that can afford to be proposed … if you’re at the top - you want to stay there A game of thrones style look at it - it costs too much to challenge the best lawyers who know the legislation … which is why though it can be done and should be, it proves too difficult to process to what’s needed. And that is only from a selfish way that we look at from our own point of view and others we know….you have to do it from everyone in the country’s angle That proves tough and who’s gonna speak loudest ? They are the ones listened to unfortunately and there is always someone who can afford a bigger megaphone …

[@antilunio]

Because of a Medieval Mentality. British lawmakers has an adversion of de word "change".

[@keymot1491]

A magazine in 2024 actually looks awesome, i'm a 2005 kid and I've never really read a magazine as an adult and the graphic design is so good I might actually buy it for the nostalgia and support lol

[@rickatatastan2695]

The more complex, the more it can be abused by wealthy people. ... and that's why the UK Tax System is so Weird.

[@mattbecker3066]

You should clarify that the figures you present are not for the UK as a whole, but just for England, Wales & NI. In Scotland there is a certain marginal tax band of 69.5%!

[@dorgepot]

There's also a graduate tax (not actually called this but is effectively what it is) whereby you pay 9% of everything earned above 29k toward student loan repayments over a 30 year period until its cleared or wiped. To add to the complexity, this depends on when you started the course as there are different repayment plans based on this and where you live as there are also different rules in Scotland, Wales & NI with the devolution powers. Basically it's a complex mess.

[@tancreddehauteville764]

Easy solution: don't go to university.

[@tomofthetomb]

​@@tancreddehauteville764so no one should go to university and the tens of millions of graduate jobs in this country should just stop hiring. Wow sounds like a great idea

[@Zdravko-x8c]

After reading book titled The Elite Society's Money Manifestation, I finally understood why so many people struggle with money. It reveals stuff that most people don’t even know about how money really works. Has anyone else read it?

[@georgesotiriou7051]

All the bots are upvoted

[@Worldmisery]

Labour is a bourgeois party that does not serve the needs of poor and disadvantaged people. Your opinion is irrelevant to those in power.

[@cpuuk]

It's weird because they constantly need put in loopholes for the rich. I point at Labours replacement for Non-dom tax exception, that now gives 4 years of tax exemption and unlimited tax-free money laundering (bringing money in\ taking it out).

[@mrvwbug4423]

I'll never complain about the complexity of the US tax system again haha. That's insane, it literally looks like something Thatcher would've crafted out of pure spite for the middle class.

[@rainbowevil]

I would definitely say the US system is more complicated. The UK has one set of taxes, and they’re basically taken care of automatically for the majority of employees. The US has state and federal taxes (possibly another level too?) and largely requires filling out the paperwork/paying some commercial software to fill out your taxes. I’d take the UK’s in a heartbeat, but it would be nice to properly taper all these rates and vital to remove all of the cliff-edge thresholds that cut benefits completely.

[@user-xu5vl5th9n]

The US is even more bizarre because they have a "citizenship" tax which applies wherever you live.

[@mrvwbug4423]

@@user-xu5vl5th9n It depends on which country you are an expat in. They have agreements with some countries where US expats won't get double dipped.

[@ciarand2823]

The whole thing was designed to keep the rich people rich by keeping the poor people poor.

[@JohnnyinMN]

It’s not just the tax system. It’s the entire country. Chalk it up to no written constitution and people still (for some unknown reason) thinking they are ‘exceptional.’

[@Wiki7202]

dammed if they do, dammed if they don't No wonder politicians are in a lose lose state, regardless of their view or stance on a subject they are doomed to be criticised.

[@badabing8884]

It’s giant mess with too many different rules, reliefs and allowances. Successive Govts have made our tax code the longest in the world!

[@pbrown0829]

God forbid people keep their own money.

[@chester6343]

Wahh but what about Sharon who can't work because of anxiety

[@ksec6631]

UK may be the most bureaucratic country on the planet. To quote Steve Jobs, most people thought the process was the most important. They just forget about the content. Why they are doing something in the first place is completely gone. And there is no way of fixing it because it seems bureaucracy is inherited in the culture.

[@Worldmisery]

That's because Britain isn't a democracy. It is a highly classist society. and we can't change it.

[@stevetodd7383]

Erm, no, someone in Southend won’t pay the same council tax rate as a super rich person in, say, Chelsea. The local council sets how much tax needs to be paid per tax band. The council tax system is a bit of a bodge though, brought in to replace the massively unpopular poll tax.

[@LukeDraper-p6u]

The other discrepancy is that you have to pay taxes individually and not as a married couple. So if a family earns 100k from one person you pay more tax than 2 people earning 50k each.

[@jimsilsby3841]

You CAN'T tax the super rich. It's impossible. They will ALWAYS have a way of kicking that extra cost down to the working class. The only way they won't is by sheer human kindness, and you don't get that rich by caring about workers.

[@dumdees]

There’s a buzzing coming from your microphone or audio kit! You can eliminate this using a simple EQ and tuning down the frequency of the buzz, or some AI-based tools will do this for you.

[@benjaminlehman3221]

I fully support a FLAT tax rate with a high exclusion and NO OTHER deductions. My example is a flat 25% tax rate and a 60k standard deduction.

[@slothsarecool]

Capital gains should be different for business investments and real estate, one is a risk, the other is your home (presumably)

[@javelinfalcon2298]

There are indeed big problems with tax rates, especially income tax, which does not have a progressive proportional tax rate but a one-size-fits-all approach.

[@connorgurney8889]

People of the UK!! When returning to work this year ask your employer to not pay PAYE tax out of your wages!! Boycott Taxation from the money you earn!! The government will only give the money you earn to those too lazy to earn for themselves.... The NHS is already in shambles so taking our taxes out of the equation can't make it worse for us!!! Boycott Taxation they cannot put the whole working class of uk residents in prison!

[@gustavkrauspe3991]

Governments need to learn to spend within the budget without borrowing from the reserve bank, but they want to educate us the people to spend withing our budgets.

[@richardskinner6391]

The child benefit charge shouldn't really be considered a tax, plenty of us are child free. It's equivalent to adding in the withdrawal of UC and Child Tax Credits/Working Tax credit at low income.

[@tyrian_rets]

You're also missing the free childcare removal which is an effective tax rate of over 100% on incomes between £100k and ~£130k for a single child (depending on your local nursery costs). It literally means one is better off turning down promotions....

[@EatSomeAcorns]

Do any countries have a perfectly smooth/straight marginal tax increase? As in 100 brackets with a tiny change in each? With modern calculators/computers this wouldn’t even be that hard to administer.

[@Name-py2el]

Income Tax will be based around the minimum wage salary, which is 8 hours a day over the course of the working week, within the year. Both employees and employers will pay a 10pc public health insurance tax (PHIT). Half of the local / lower tax will be given to the local and regional governments. Income Income Tax + PHIT Rate Zero - One 10pc Local / Lower One - Two 20pc + 10pc Lower Middle Two - Four 30pc + 10pc Higher Middle Four - Eight 40pc + 10pc Higher Eight - Sixteen 50pc (+ 10pc between Eight - Sixteen) Upper

[@valentinrizvan1870]

Taxes purposely done in such a way to confuse and obscure the real numbers, especially in a country where maths is not its strong point. Besides personal taxes like income tax, national insurance, council tax, road tax, inheritance tax etc you get loads of other indirect taxes like VAT, insurance premium tax, excise duties (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, fuels), stamp duty, property taxes. This coupled with massive rents, transport costs and childcare, doesn't leave much in terms of expendable income compared with other developed nations. And my main issue is that after you pay so much in taxes you hardly get anything back in terms of policing, health service...etc

[@guss77]

The point about high marginal tax rate discouraging work is completely bogus and have been disproven in numerous economics studies. One effect that may account for "the ineffectiveness of high marginal tax rate to discourage work" may be that wage rise is exponential - when you earn £15/h, you'd be happy to get one more ½£ (less than 4%), especially if it's taxed at 28%, but it you earn £200/h your next pay jump won't be 1£ - you won't bother with a less than 10~20% pay rise - regardless of how it's taxed, it's going to be a lot of money. Also at these levels pay bumps are never about putting in extra hours and are most often recognition for good productivity and discouraging leaving and you are never expected to need more personal expenditure to allow for the extra pay.

[@vezokpiraka]

Not sure I agree from personal experience. The people I met from Norway usually work until they hit the diminishing returns part and then quit and start their own company. This isn't really discouraging working, but it's also not amazing for companies to lose their most hardworking employee because they physically cannot pay them more.

[@guss77]

@vezokpiraka I'm not familiar with the Norwegian tax regime, but another issue is that at high income levels it is open advantageous to shift your income from "work based" income - that is taxed very high even at low income levels - to "capital based" income that is often taxed at the lowest rate on the economy - so a person whose skills are very much in demand will want to form their own company - they can then move some their (normally not compensated) expenses to the company, such as transportation, pay themselves low salary and pull most income as dividends (that are taxed as capital gains). Where I live this tax loophole was closed by having owner dividends classified as work income, but many places still have this loophole.

[@guss77]

@vezokpiraka taxes are complicated and there are various ways high earners can game the system, that are too numerous and complicated than a KZbin comment thread can handle.

[@vezokpiraka]

@@guss77 the Norwegian tax system has super high marginal tax rates (up to 90% I think) that's why I used it as the best example.

[@guss77]

@@vezokpiraka looking at the Norwegian tax authority website, the highest tax bracket is 55.8% - that is very reasonable: I pay 54% here and I'm on the third highest tax bracket. So I can't account for your experience, except to comment again that taxes are complicated and wage incomes are always taxed the highest and if you have the financial capabilities to game the system you almost always can get more coins in your hand by not pulling a high salary and instead doing something else.

[@kryp879]

The UK takes far more tax from high earners than most comparable nations and those with the lowest income also pay less. CGT and business taxes are largely aligned with other countries to remain competitive. The UK Is in a difficult position because reforming our tax system in a way which would increase certain tax rates to make the system more reasonable overall would make us less competitive - unless we increased tax on the lowest earners which would be very unpopular. Or alternatively we allow the reforms to decrease taxes overall, but that would largely benefit higher income people and would require cuts to spending, which also wouldn't be popular with voters.

[@kailsar]

Council tax isn't progressive at all. Progressive doesn't mean that richer people pay more in absolute terms than poorer people; progressive means that richer people pay a higher percentage of the total value of their property/income/whatever. People with expensive houses pay a smaller percentage of the value of their houses than people with cheaper houses, therefore council tax is a regressive tax.

[@MartinPoulter]

Just a reminder that the top tax rate used to be 90%, during the 1950s and 1960s, a time when we had very good economic growth. Then in 1971 is was brought down to 75%., but kept even higher for investment income. People in these comments are talking as though 40% or 50% were an unusually high marginal rate.

[@jamesholt4449]

There was no captial gains tax back then

[@IbrahimSowunmi]

@@jamesholt4449less than one percent of people had stocks back then

[@georgesotiriou7051]

Yeah and everyone was converting income to capital gains

[@Domhnall1989]

So in regards to property taxes, he said someone with a £320,000 house pays the exact same as someone with a £10,000,000 house. Is it just a flat tax? Because if it’s the same percentage, then the person with the mansion is still paying more in taxes than someone with a £320,000 house.

[@dorgepot]

We have council taxes which I believe may be similar to property taxes but are certainly unique & of course complex. They're set rates you pay per year for what band your property is in, not a % of the property value. And these are not set nationwide, each band is set by the local council and can vary. For example, a property worth over £320,001 in London would be in band H and cost £4072. A property located in the same area but worth 4x the value would still pay the same council tax rate of £4072. The bands are always the same (A-H) but the amount you pay depends on what the council decides to charge. There might be a cap on how much they can charge but even I don't know that.

[@Mic_Glow]

You misspelled wrong/ unfair. But UK is not alone, most countries have a similar system.

[@sluglife9785]

Whilst I don't disagree that things are over-complex and there are elements that are unfair or don't make sense, the number of people in the comments earning over 100k a year and complaining about losing benefits boggles my mind.

[@jwilkinson8162]

are you sure about that council tax point? - the house valuation is based on 1991 prices, yet the South End house at 321k is clearly modern value.

[@angryherbalgerbil]

No the house prices are over-inflated. My parents home is currently worth over £100k. They paid £5k for it back in the late 70s. With inflation it should be worth around £25k in today's market. And it's just a semi-detached in Yorkshire. London property values are inflated even higher. Homes should be homes not "asset classes" used to make up for a lack of genuine wealth and a cash racket to prop up the banks whilst tying people into debt slavery to buy a home marketed at 20 times it's actual value.

[@toothless-grizzly7907]

I don’t get why they can’t just have 1 set tax rate for all, that has to be paid.

[@willalm830]

Amazon’s tax bill falls despite huge UK profit increase | ITV News

[@roberttuck4768]

The one thing I hate about marginal tax rate diagrams is not clearly stating up front what assumptions have been made about the person paying the tax and what allowances have been assumed. I have little sympathy about complaints about marginal tax rates from people benefiting from allowances, if they want a fairer tax system maybe we should just remove them?

[@tae_ethusiast]

The figures are incorrect as the employee pays the employer NI as well which is additional 15%.