Taxpayers Alliance want to cut taxes, mostly for the rich


1:47 pm - May 21st 2012

by Jon Stone    


      Share on Tumblr

The Taxpayers’ Alliance wants a flat 30% rate of income tax with a £10,000 tax-free personal allowance:

We advocate a radical new system that taxes all income from labour and capital only once at a flat rate of 30 per cent, above a generous personal allowance for individuals and with no loopholes”(p16)

Yes, cutting the top rate of tax from 45% to 30% is a big tax cut for the rich. But this plan will do every little for ordinary people.

The average median salary across all jobs is about £21,000.

Most UK taxpayers fall within the 20% basic rate, with only the top 15% of earners paying the higher 40% rate.

All 85% of the British population who pay a rate no higher than the 20% basic rate would see their tax rate increase to 30% from 20%.

The TPA are including employer’s National Insurance in their sums, but that is not paid by employees. It is an employer’s tax paid by firms out of their revenues. When employer’s NI goes up, a worker’s take home pay does not go down.

Likewise, there’s no evidence to suggest that employers would increase take-home pay because employers’ NI has been cut.

So unless you’re in the top 10% of earners, the Taxpayers’ Alliance proposals will have minimal impact on your taxes.

As you can imagine, these ideas are very, very unpopular. The most recent polling on the subject suggests that only 12% of people would agree with a similar proposal, with 63% opposed.

When you think about what proportion of the population would benefit, that isn’t a surprising figure.


Sunny H: The article has been amended a bit since the author had gotten some sums wrong.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Jon is an occasional contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He blogs at The Red Rock
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Should have checked before posting this Sunny, it is economically illiterate nonsense.

The real basic rate – including both forms of National Insurance as the incidence in both cases is on labour – is 40%. Those on low and middle incomes will get a big tax cut from 40% to 30% in like-for-like terms, plus a higher personal allowance.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/bettergovernment/2012/05/2020-tax-commission-cuts-real-basic-rate-40-30.html

It’s worth noting that the TPA deny that they’d increase your taxes, because they’ve quite brazenly decided to include employers’ national insurance – a tax paid by firms – in the calculation of what tax employees pay.

Their justification for this is that they say that the tax is 100% bourne by employees – so when employer’s NI goes up, employees get a pay cut, when it goes down, employers get a pay rise. You know, just like you didn’t get when NI went up, because wages are sticky and don’t work like that.

It’s as if workers’ bargaining power didn’t exist, basically. They cite a problematic study of Chilean social security privatisation in 1981, if you’re interested. http://www.nber.org/papers/w5053

Incidentally claim that the tax is 100% bourne by employees is also inconsistent with the accusation that Labour’s planned employers’ NI increase is a “jobs tax” on firms, since it apparently has no effect on them, with 100% of the cost being bourne by employees.

You could also argue that any tax on firms could somehow be bourne by employees since wages are set by labour supply and demand taking into account the balance of bargaining power between workers and firms, so it’s not clear why you’d include employer’s NI and not, say, corporation tax, which also comes out of a firm’s revenues.

They won’t get a higher personal allowance than current plans, Matthew.

However Matthew is right, this isn’t a tax hike for anyone, it’s a tax cut for everyone…well..except pensioners who the TPA seem to see as fair casualties of tax simplification. Indeed the TPA think it’s ok to take enough money from pensioners that might mean the difference between having to sell their home or not, in order to give the super-rich another person’s wage extra each year.

This is presented as tax simplification, for jobs and growth (though as Sunny has said on Twitter there is little evidence of this)…what it really stands for is a destruction of the public sector, squeezing budgets so hard that the only option is to privatise and outsource.

This may well in the long term have a net benefit of increasing jobs (albeit with lower wage workers more prevailant against a backdrop of spiraling inequality of income and wealth), but with services that are less affordable and accessible.

Keep on championing the wealthy, Matthew, which I’m sure you will as long as they keep paying you to roll out this drivel.

4. Mr Eugenides

This really is a dreadful article.

@1

It’s instructive to see that, rather than just make the point, Matthew Sinclair has to put the boot in as well, talking of “economically illiterate nonsense”.

As far as employees are concerned, employers’ NI is not part of what they pay. So abolishing it does not benefit them, unless the employer decides to pass the cost on (or, as it would be in around 99% of cases, not).

What Sinclair and Co will not explain is how much more all those services that at present are provided by local and national Government will cost to make up for the £120 billion spending cut they propose, which includes a slashing of local authority budgets by 60%.

And save me the cites of TPA output – let’s see some reliable independent corroboration first. “Better Government”? Don’t make me laugh – the TPA wants to progressively weaken Government.

[my first observations on the TPA and IoD’s steaming pile is here http://zelo.tv/Jr92B6%5D

Good post. Hard to believe they could be so out of touch with reality that they seriously included employer NI as an employee tax. I doubt I’ll be getting a pay rise when they scrap NI any more than I got a pay cut when it got put up.

I use http://listentotaxman.com/ to work out any taxes. According to that somebody on £20,000/year takes home £15,962 in a year. If I’m not mistaken under the TPA’s plans they’d take home £17,000; so I think it’s dishonest to say they’d pay more tax.

That said I am suspicious about how we pay for this, it will surely mean more cuts, which we can’t afford. However getting rid of the regressive National Insuance and replacing it more Income Tax is one thing I would agree with the TPA on, just don’t get rid of the higher rates of tax.

This blog post and, especially, the author’s response is embarrassingly stupid. Let’s ignore employer’s National Insurance for a moment and only consider employee’s National Insurance. A basic rate taxpayer now pays 20p of Income Tax and 12p of employee’s National Insurance on each extra pound earned. That’s 32p in total, or 32 per cent. Our proposal is to abolish National Insurance and have an Income Tax of 30 per cent. Why can the author not understand that 30 per cent is lower than 32 per cent? And that’s even before our so-called “brazen” assumptions that those on the payroll suffer from payroll taxes.

We have published a comprehensive review of the economic literature in our 417-page report. We welcome debate about the issues and the facts but to just blithely say we haven’t looked at the incidence when we incorporate extensive discussion on the subject is just an embarrassment to the credibility of the author and Liberal Conspiracy for publishing it. The author should read the report before criticising it for what he assumes it does or doesn’t contain.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54459739@N08/5739862480/in/set-72157626639644397/ only about 100 turned up for their rally , their glorious leader didn’t even turn up …going to a free state funded museum instead ….the irony …a very motley crew of right wing anarchists , libertarians , economic patriots , anti EU , Randy Randy Ayn Rand and Ron Paul devotees , some anarcho capitalists too …all good far right sixth form politics …however their funding tends to come from corporates with vested interests in paying as little tax as possible or no tax at all .

10. Planeshift

” including both forms of National Insurance as the incidence in both cases is on labour ”

So basically the entire assumption in your calculations is that employees will see an increase in wages equivelant to the employer NI contribution.

The thing is – if you stopped the right wing agenda of wanting far less spent on public services, and simply made a case for simplification of the tax system using fiscally neutral figures you’d have a starting point that 95% of people would agree with.

11. Grayling

http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/know-your-enemy.html IDS’s SPAD is #Susie Squire ex of the #TPA …responsible for inflammatory tabloid friendly DWP press releases full of distorted , disingenuous and deceptive statistics ….no wonder hate crime has soared …Goebbels would have been proud of some of this one sided propaganda

I’ll actually hold my hands up here and concede that I’ve got the sums wrong on employees’ NI – I sourced the wrong figure. Fairly embarrassing, that. It is a 2% rate cut if you include employee’s NI, which I think is legitimate.

It is, nevertheless, a bloody expensive 2% rate cut for the majority, since you’re scaling back the public sector to 33% of national income. That isn’t anywhere near necessary for a 2% income tax cut.

And including employer’s NI is still hogwash.

TPA’s proposals aim to shrink government by starving the beast: radically decreasing the tax revenue, mostly by a massive tax cut for the rich (and a tiny one for the rest). One consequence would be a RELATIVE increase in taxation of people on modest incomes. That seems to be the real story here, not the false title claim that “Taxpayers Alliance wants to raise your taxes”. The hidden agenda of TPA is cunning (massively cut taxes for the rich and government services for the rest, without literally increasing taxes for anyone) and requires intelligent pushback.

I know it’s a political blog, but not being front-line politicians you can afford to be right for right reasons, not wrong ones. One look at UK marginal income tax rates:
http://centreforumblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/taxing-income-a-graph-of-marginal-rates-adam-corlett/
shows that TPA’s proposal DOES NOT increase ABSOLUTE income tax rates for anybody, even if we ignore employer National Insurance contribution.

C’mon, don’t lose the winning argument by making false claims. Misinforming the LC readers is sabotage.

14. Limiting Factor

Oh god, not this again. Every few years some rightwing policy wonk undergoes a bolt-from-the-blue eureka moment and starts gibbering “flat rate tax will solve EVERYTHING!”

One simple reason why its a stupid idea (along with all the other reasons) is this – it protects the rich from the high rates of tax that they should be paying. From postwar to the early 70s was probably the greatest period of uninterrupted growth this nation (and the West in general) has ever seen, all under high rates of tax. When high taxes curtail the wealth, there isn’t so much of it that it gets splurged on fantasy financial instruments and Mickey Mouse casino speculation. It generally gets spent on steady and reliable investments.

In short, take yer flat rate tax and and stick it back in the dustbin of history, alongside the flat earth hypothesis, and the theory of humours…

15. Richard W

We are never going to have a flat tax on income in the UK, so reports calling for a flat tax are as pointless as reports calling for sunshine everyday. However, NICs should be merged with income tax. The separation of the two and the deception that NI is not a tax but is a social insurance scheme is almost entirely a fiction. One academic paper once accurately described NI as “an exercise in deceiving voters” . NICs are not hypothecated to pay for the welfare state or the NHS as the public erroneously believe. NICs are a tax on labour income and as the Mirrlees Review recommended should be merged with income tax. Any decent tax system should be transparent and fair and certainly not an exercise in deceiving voters.

16. Bill Kristol-Balls

Unless the TPA are going to be honest about which parts of the public sector will be cut to pay for these changes, it is impossible to quantify how much better / worse off an individual will be.

What is known is that the higher your income, the greater the tax cut and the less reliant on public services you are. Therefore – with the inverse being true for lower paid workers – it is surely the case that the TPA proposals will increase inequality.

Furthermore, the vast majority of people do not pay capital gains and inheritance tax and so abolishing these will again favour the wealthy minority.

Look, even Richard Bleedin’ Murphy agrees that employers’ NI is really bourne by the workers in lower wages.

And absolutely every economist agrees that some part of it is: the only arguments are whether it is some, most or all of it.

18. Planeshift

” However, NICs should be merged with income tax. The separation of the two and the deception that NI is not a tax but is a social insurance scheme is almost entirely a fiction”

This is exactly the case the TPA should have been making from the begining. Instead all we have is a lengthy version of “if you cut public spending, you can also cut taxes. This is how we think taxes should be cut”

Once again the TPA just following orders from their American owners (sorry backers) The elites want higher taxes for the masses so they themselves can pay much less.

These people want it all. Start building the guillotines.

20. Planeshift

“is: the only arguments are whether it is some, most or all of it.”

There is a big difference between those options – frankly a serious effort at modelling this would include different scenarios depending on how much workers wages rise rather than take the most favourable assumption.

By the way check this out which proves conservatives are not patriots. They would sell out their country for a tax dodge.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/conservatives-liken-dem-tax-dodging-bill-to-nazis-soviets.php?ref=fpb

This article is not only badly researched (it clearly wasn’t researched at all), but it also departs so far from reality that I worry for the person who wrote it. It is astonishingly far of the mark, or is trying to be misleading. There is no other explanation.

“All 85% of the British population who pay a rate no higher than the 20% basic rate would see their tax rate increase to 30% from 20%.”

This is simpleton accountancy. That is not what they have said at all! You have to take total tax take. Under their proposal they would only ever tax income on wages once. Not 2 or even 3 times as under the current system. The arguments relating to NI are simply wrong. Over all tax for everyone would be lower under their proposals. GCSE economics students can see this.

I would have at least thought that Liberal Conspiracy would have had a go at the general lowering of taxes being bad for government revenue, blah, blah, blah, but failing to understand the point at all is a shocking error.

““is: the only arguments are whether it is some, most or all of it.”

There is a big difference between those options – frankly a serious effort at modelling this would include different scenarios depending on how much workers wages rise rather than take the most favourable assumption.”

Indeed, and the economics literature is stuffed full of such calculations. The general tenor of which is that if you have:

a) Mobile capital

and

b) Unemployment

Then the incidence is going to be from very nearly all to all on the workers in the form of lower wages.

@23 Tim

Those conditions might mean that a tax increase is passed on to workers, but they don’t mean that a tax cut will be.

That’s what I mean by bargaining power being a factor.

25. Grayling

shouldn’t disagree with the TPA …apparently it’s all sexual jealously …Evolutionary psychology http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/05/taxpayers-alliance-report-sexual-jealousy/

26. Planeshift

“Then the incidence is going to be from very nearly all to all on the workers in the form of lower wages.”

Really? So in a situation of mass unemployment employers will pass on nearly all of a cut in their NI contributions to the workforce?

Can you illustrate this with a real life example?

Always good to see the tory slaves spinning for their elite masters.

There is nothing a tory troll won’t do to help his master.

28. Frances_coppola

Jon, you aren’t only wrong on the impact of employees’ NIC. You are also wrong on the tax bands. The 10% band applies only to SAVINGS income, not to all income. Earned income is taxed at 20% from the start. See HMRC’s table here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm#2

29. kernowjim

The Taxpayers’ Alliance should get a new name, I don’t know any taxpayer who is a member, it should be honest about who it’s members are. It is an alliance of people who want to destroy public services. It has a very small membership and is not intererested in the majority of us.

By my calculations under the TPA system for income tax everyone earning between around £14K and £75K per year would end up paying more tax. A millionaire would be better off by over £135K per year. Shows whose side they are on doesn’t it?

Rather than simplifying the tax system there is an argument for making it more complicated. By this I mean there is a huge gap when you earn £42K from 20% to 40%. The system was created before we had the power computers and calculations were done by hand. Now we could afford to have a greater number of tax bands with an easy to use calculator on a government website.

For example a 30% tax rate could be introduced between say £35-£55K before the 40% rate kicks in and a 45% rate could be introduced earlier at say £120K. What ever you do the system is more flexible and can be used to take a little more from upper-middle to higher earners to provide tax breaks for the poorest in society. Hopefully this will encourage some unemployed that work is beneficial of them.

Obviously HMRC have detailed demographics can come up with a better system.

31. nellslad

although income tax is 20% the NI contribution makes the tax take 30%. read the rest, also advocated are reductions or removal of a rake of other taxes.

Thanks for being upfront enough to acknowledge the original version had some hiccups in the maths. Shows a bit of transparency.

33. andrew adams

If people want to propose ways to simplify the tax system, whether through a flat tax, merging income tax and NI, other measures and any combination thereof then fine – no reason why these things shouldn’t be up for discussion.
But any such proposals and the calculations to support them should be based on the assumption that they would need to raise the same amount in taxation as existing tax policies.
Anyone can produce attractive proposals to cut everyone’s taxes if they are based on the back of massive cuts in government spending. But there are two totally separate issues here – how much the government should be spending and what is the fairest way to raise the taxes to pay for it. To conflate them as the TPA has done is disingenuous.

34. James Francis

On 6 April 2012, the rate of personal tax allowance increases to £8,105 with the higher income tax rate of 40% being reduced to £34,371, (source: http://www.recruitmentrevolution.com/news/2012/04/april-2012s-employment-law-changes).

Personally, I think it’s ridiculous to have a flat rate of tax, it completely goes against the idea that those who are more well off should contribute more towards society and those who are vulnerable. After all, without society they would not have been able to be commanding such high salaries. It’s a shame that the Other Taxpayers’ Alliance had to stop updating their website, although False Economy is an excellent offering: http://falseeconomy.org.uk.

@34. James Francis

You make some interesting points. Firstly I would just point out that despite the misunderstanding that seems to have started in relation to this publication, ALL people, no matter their income would have more money under the plan the TPA proposes.

You say it is ridiculous, but is it? The wealthier you are the more in tax you will pay under a flat rate system. 30% of 1m is more money than 30% of 25k. So actually those with more money will contribute ‘more’ to the economy. The point I think you make is in relation to the proportion someone contributes. If someone is already contributing more money to the tax man, is it actually then fair to tell him that he must also contribute a higher proportion? That would suggest that each pound contributed by the wealthy person is somehow intrinsically less valuable than each pound contributed by the poor person. Under a flat tax system, both being humans, both being employed, they would have both contributed the same proportion of their income. Is this not actually the fairest system as both people pay the same proportion of tax?

The increased amount of money taken from the wealthy person will contribute more towards society contrary to what you say. Taking the example above, the man earning 1m taxed at 30% (300,000) will provide more hospital beds than the person who tax 30% on 25k (7,500). (Just to point out the basis of the TPA’s proposals actually drop tax on lower income earners by 10% because they only tax income once. Not 2 and 3 times as is currently done, which means tax rates for lower earners are actually 40%.

You also talk about ‘society’ as if it is something that is created by the government through taxation. It isn’t. Facilities to enable society to interact can be provided by government, but the governments intervention is not necessary for the operation of society. Even nomadic cavemen had societies without the need for government, and England existed for centuries without taxation. Apart from this however, the question is not whether there should be a government. There of course needs to be a framework in which people can exist. TPA makes this case. The issue they put forward is ‘how’ that government should be formed. What they are actually proposing is to cut government from 50% of GDP to 33%. This is the actual issue, because they believe that a smaller government (only slightly) will be a sustainable government, and is the optimum level of intervention to impose.

It is also difficult to say that society are the one who are responsible for the success of the individual. It is a rarely stated fact that not everyone is able to make a great deal of money. Many will put it down to barriers to them succeeding, or not being given the opportunities, but this is, at the end of the day, rubbish. The simple fact remains that not everyone is able to make a lot of money because not everyone can. They lack the ambition, drive, intelligence, ability, vision, etc. It is not easy, unless you win the lottery or inherit. The world is a growing place of self-made successful people. Some can, some can’t. Certainly, there are barriers depending on who you are, but if you have the ability to be successful, you will be.

So what the TPA are saying is not “lets deconstruct society”. They are saying “lets find the optimal rate of government interference, to produce the most prosperous society we can”

@35

No, what the TPA are saying is “We’re rich and want to pay less tax so we can buy more sports cars and take more skiing holidays”. If they wanted to improve society then they wouldn’t want to increase income tax for the lower paid as a flat 30% rate with £10K relief would do. Not to mention the cuts to services needed to pay for the NI cut.

No-one is disputing that someone on £1 million pays more tax and thus contributes more than someone on the average wage. The point is that someone on a huge salary can pay a higher proportion without it having a dramatic effect on their lifestyle. Your millionaire buddy will be rich whether he pays 30% or 50% tax. Someone on the average wage will have a huge effect on their lifestyle if the tax rate changes from 20% to 21%. That is why the rich pay more than the average man.

Plus the rich benefit more from the effects of tax. Their companies benefit from a healthy educated workforce, infrastructure and security from internal and external threats. How rich would these people be if for example the M1 hadn’t been built?

The TPA want to reduce everybody’s tax (because they want to shrink the size of government) but what it will do is actually increase the tax by those rich people who hire a tax accountant like Richard Murphy to convert income into capital gains or find tax shelters.
I don’t agree with flat taxes as, like most of you, I reckon the rich can afford to pay over a higher percentage of their income, but it would be nice if some of you (not Sally, of course) actually looked at their proposals before condemning them for something they have not said.
Anyone who says that this would increase taxes for anyone which isn’t using a tax-avoidance scheme just has not read the paper (they have put in a transitional plan for pensioners).
@33 Andrew Adams “Up to a point, Lord Copper” – simplifying the tax system would save the odd billion or ten and increasing CGT rates to match income tax rates would bring in several billion extra.
@ Chris 30 & 36 Many people have pointed out that Employee’s NI Contributions are more than 10% of earned income above the threshold which is, disgracefully, below 40 hours at NMW. Try feeding that into your calculator and you will find that anyone earning £10k upwards would pay less tax. Secondly the HMRC computer system creates more errors than occurred when the clerks used mental arithmetic: it is claimed that 30% of all tax assessments are wrong – but that is only the errors that are spotted!!
Separately, what I *really* object to is the 80+% marginal rate on below-median earners with children and/or teenagers at university.

38. andrew adams

John,

Yes, fair enough – if simplifying the tax system means that the overall process is more efficient and there is scope for tax cuts as a result that is a reasonable argument.

@36. Chris

I don’t think you actually understand how tax is levied. It is not as simple as saying they want a flat rate of 30% therefore it is an increase of another 10% for those on the lower earners bracket at the moment. You have to consider the total tax take from an individual. I don’t think you appraciate fully what is being proposed by the TPA. You are not only charged 20% as a lower rate earner. You are charged far more because of the way tax is levied. TPA in the detail of their proposal outlines a system whereby revenue streams are only taxed once! The system we have at the moment means that the govt. is taxing income streams that have already been taxed, this sometimes happens 3 times. So for instance Income taxed which is then used to purchase capital which is subject to capital gains tax on a gain already subjected to the original income tax. This is a simple example, but the principle is found all over the tax code, with some gains being taxed 3 times out of already taxed income. Therefore, the TOTAL tax take for a lower earner is about 40% of their income that go on various taxes. Income tax of 20% only makes up a part of that.

What the TPA proposes is that income streams are only taxed once! so the rate will be 30% and that is the ONLY time that money will be taxed. It will not be subjected to susequent taxation through NI, capital, council tax, etc. Therefore the effective TOTAL tax take will be 30%. 10% lower than currently.

You also say: “Not to mention the cuts to services needed to pay for the NI cut.” This sentence seems to suggest that “services” you refer to are “national insurance” services. They arn’t! There is nothing earmarking NI for national insurance services. More of your NI goes on govt. projects than any national services such as the NHS. It is simply another form of income tax. Its just nicer to tell the electorate that it is “National Insurance” used for our healthcare, when really, very little of it is.

“Your millionaire buddy will be rich whether he pays 30% or 50% tax.”

But who are you to say that he should keep that money? Why should someone who doesn’t have that money have an inalienable right to obtain that persons money? And why should it be lobbied through force (ie, imprisonment if not paid). To me it seems to exhibit an extrodinary sense of entitlement, and it still does not answer the question that if the wealthy pays more money for services, why should he then be made to pay a higher proportion as well? You say he will still be wealthy, and he will, but why should that make his 30% contribution less valuable than a lower income person? Isn’t it all money? Arn’t we all people? Should we not be equal?

You also use the example of the M1 motorway: “How rich would these people be if for example the M1 hadn’t been built?”

I am not saying that the M1 shouldn’t have been built, but who says it has to be publically provided? Indeed most of the motorway network in France is private and they have one of the best motorway networks in the world. Far better than what is provided here in the UK.

I fail to see your point. The TPA want to see capital gains tax, NI and council tax scrapped as well which gives an even bigger tax cut to the wealthy. After all, how many people on an average salary pay capital gains tax? Getting rid of these will mostly benefit the wealthy.

“You also say: “Not to mention the cuts to services needed to pay for the NI cut.” This sentence seems to suggest that “services” you refer to are “national insurance” services. They arn’t! There is nothing earmarking NI for national insurance services. More of your NI goes on govt. projects than any national services such as the NHS. It is simply another form of income tax. Its just nicer to tell the electorate that it is “National Insurance” used for our healthcare, when really, very little of it is. ”

Obviously NI just disappears into the big pot of taxation but it getting rid of it will reduce the total services provided overall. It raises almost £100 billion each year which is around 16.5% of the overall tax intake. This is enough to fund the entire education budget. You are either confused, proposing to decrease revenue by around £100 billion or proposing £100 billion of cuts to existing services.

The only way you can get rid of NI is by raising taxes elsewhere or by cutting services (or borrowing more which dramatically increases the budget deficit). Which one is it?

41. Sam Goldrush

There is a self-serving rationale from the right wing of the Tories (and I certainly include Osborne in that faction), that our rich people will pay more tax, if their top rate of tax is cut. Lets leave to one side that if that was the case, thats surely is a socialist policy (getting the rich to pay more tax). The reality of Osbornes tax cut for the rich is as follows: The top 5% of earners in fiscal 2009 / 2010 paid 26.4% of the total tax take, this is forecast to DROP to 23.6% for 2012 /13. The top 1% paid 13.9% of the total take in 09 /10, this will DROP to 10.8% by 09/10. So either we are going to have less rich ppl in a years time – or THEY ARE PAYING LESS TAX. The bottom 50% of earners will pay more: source: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. TentCityUni LSX

    How the Taxpayers Alliance want to raise your taxes http://t.co/YfzE5wc0

  2. Sam Kington

    "Taxpayers Alliance" propose massive tax raise for majority of Britons and tax cut for richest http://t.co/VpOkjcUZ

  3. Jason Cowan

    lol alert: "@Birdyword: .@libcon post some utter rubbish http://t.co/BogCkVXM – Author admits he's got sums wrong (20+12=>30) in comment 12"

  4. Sam Bowman

    lol alert: "@Birdyword: .@libcon post some utter rubbish http://t.co/BogCkVXM – Author admits he's got sums wrong (20+12=>30) in comment 12"

  5. Ravi Subramanian

    How the Taxpayers Alliance want to raise your taxes http://t.co/nw7hzIex < TPA only interested in the rich

  6. Matthew Sinclair

    .@sunny_hundal Why do you still have a post on @libcon when the author admits the title is wrong? http://t.co/CEpdrVfz

  7. TaxPayers' Alliance

    .@sunny_hundal Why do you still have a post on @libcon when the author admits the title is wrong? http://t.co/CEpdrVfz

  8. Rory Meakin

    .@sunny_hundal Why do you still have a post on @libcon when the author admits the title is wrong? http://t.co/CEpdrVfz

  9. 30% flat rate of tax - Radical change proposal

    […] How the Taxpayers Alliance want to raise your taxes (liberalconspiracy.org) /* */ Posted in Politics | Tagged Government, Government spending, Income tax, Institute of Directors, National Insurance, Stamp duty, Tax, TaxPayers' Alliance […]

  10. Steve Elsey

    How the Taxpayers Alliance want to raise your taxes http://t.co/nw7hzIex < TPA only interested in the rich

  11. Paul Crowley

    Who is right about the amount of NI paid by a median earner on £21k: @the_tpa http://t.co/6Bg3a0FQ or @libcon http://t.co/VpOfLCLP ?

  12. BevR

    Taxpayers Alliance want to cut taxes, mostly for the rich | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/SP1ocYnJ via @libcon

  13. Flat tax – pros and cons | Antony Last (Tony)

    […] How the Taxpayers Alliance want to raise your taxes(liberalconspiracy.org) […]

  14. BevR

    Taxpayers Alliance want to cut taxes, mostly for the rich | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/SP1ocYnJ via @libcon

  15. Mark Smithson

    Taxpayers Alliance want to cut taxes, mostly for the rich | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/SP1ocYnJ via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.