Just look at the bloody tax burden!

Traditional families with stay-at-home mothers have been penalised financially by the Coalition and now pay more tax than the international norm, an official study found.

Yes, that\’s the way the story is being told. But it\’s not the important part of it at all. Look at these numbers:

In Britain, the single parent had seen the biggest fall in tax from 15 per cent of their earnings in 2000 to 8.4 per cent, largely because of the tax credit system. The single person’s tax rate fell from 32.6 per cent to 32.3 per cent.

The two-earner couple’s tax rate fell from 28.3 per cent to 28 per cent now.

However, the single-earner couple’s tax rate rose from 27.8 per cent in 2000 to 27.9 per cent.

Except for the single mothers a very minor jiggling around then.

A traditional British family with a stay-at-home mother that is classed by the OECD as well-paid – earning more than double the average wage – will pay 40.5 per cent of their earnings in tax, compared with an international average of 38.6 per cent.

But look at that! A family on 50k (average, ie mean, wage is about 25k) is paying 40% of all income in tax. Yes, these are average rates, not marginal rates.

Rather than look at the different rates, rates which show that we do indeed have a highly progressive tax system, look at the burden of those rates. You can\’t say we\’re a low tax country when the State is taking 40% of all the income of someone doing slightly better than average.

Do note, of course, that these are of all wages: at all stages of a career. A senior nurse, a police sergeant, skilled working lass if you like in the good years of their careers, they are paying 40 fucking percent of all income in taxes.

About time we hanged the politicians I think.

9 thoughts on “Just look at the bloody tax burden!”

  1. I don’t know who you think describes the UK as a low tax country. It clearly isn’t a low tax country. Singapore is a low tax country. The UK is a relatively low tax country compared to other mature European countries with populations who demand fairly substantial state provision (old age pensions, education for all, health, defence etc).

    If people want a larger state then surely that is fine, so long as they realise that everyone will have pay for it through higher taxes (and not just fund it through a bonus tax on bankers).

  2. Given that the tax incidence of employer NI falls wholly upon the employee, the real slice is in excess of 50%

    Of course Polly Pot and her acolytes would have you believe that Britain is a ‘low tax’ country.

  3. To be fair to Polly Toynbee she has only ever said that the UK is a low tax country in relation to the fact that taxes are too low to fund the services that “we” appear to demand.

    She’s always been clear that she would like a larger state and that taxes need to be raised to pay for it. And, again to be fair to her, has always said people like her should pay an increasing share of the tax burden.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    Shinsei1967 – “And, again to be fair to her, has always said people like her should pay an increasing share of the tax burden.”

    Although we have no idea what tax minimisation schemes she uses. And she is always free to give whatever amount of money she thinks is fair to HMG and the Treasury.

    I assume she doesn-t.

  5. ” And, again to be fair to her, has always said people like her should pay an increasing share of the tax burden.”

    Saying that people like her should pay more taxes is not the same as saying that she should pay more taxes

  6. Other people should vote Labour and pay more taxes so that the Labour government can subsidise the Guardian through paying for recruitment advertisements for public sector workers so that the Guardian can pay her a six-figure salary.
    Supporting a “mansion tax” that doesn’t apply to her villa in Tuscany is hardly increasing her share of the tax burden.

  7. “Supporting a “mansion tax” that doesn’t apply to her villa in Tuscany is hardly increasing her share of the tax burden.”

    I think, though I am happy to be corrected, that Italy has bought in some form of wealth tax. Given that it applies to Italians’ assets outside Italy, I suspect that it is applied with some enthusiasm to foreigners’ property in Italy. It’s an ill wind…

  8. are you not just devaluing people.
    By persueing policies which deliberately diminish procreation the male and females breeders are devalued.
    The wealth capacity of the senior nurse etc comes at the cost of the missing children.
    And now you have to import breeders at some cost.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *