[John Whitworth]

Isn't that what I said, David? It ought to be since I copied it from the government figure. You put it more succinctly.

The point I was making is that our present taxes are not punitive. Under the ridiculous Corbyn they would be and all the rich would bugger off to France. How fortunate he has not a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected. Even his own Labour MPs are urging people not to vote for him. Is it the death of the Labour Party? Quite possibly. It is less then a hundred years old as a party with parliamentary seats. The Liberals died, after all. The Lib Dems are another, inferior thing altogether.

What will May's majority be? A lot, maybe an awful lot.

[David Anthony]

I visited Estonia recently, which is a model of prosperity in its region and economically the best performing post-Communist state after Slovenia.

Their personal tax system involves a series of allowances and exemptions, then a flat-rate tax of 20% regardless of income.

Estonians I spoke to were happy with this, thought it fair and believed it played a big part in promoting employment and prosperity.

However, I only spoke to a few Estonians.

[Michael Cantor]

And the Estonians you spoke to David - were they factory workers, farmers, or bankers? If there was a graduated tax system, where individuals with higher incomes paid a higher tax rate, would the people you spoke to pay more tax or less tax under that system?

And those allowances and exceptions. Are many of them basically the same for everybody, so that they represent a far higher portion of total income for a factory worker than for a banker? Assuming I'm correct - you're a numbers guy and you know where I'm going - the less you earn, the higher percentage of your income goes for taxes.

(I cheated, and checked out the Estonian individual tax code, and it was what I expected. Standard deduction, regardless of income, which means the lowest earners pay more as a percentage. Housing loans are deductible, and since wealthier people are more likely to buy than poorer people, it again drives down the percentage of income that the wealthy pay. And so forth.)

[Nigel Mace]

Nailed it, Michael.

[David Anthony]

Originally Posted by Michael Cantor

And the Estonians you spoke to David - were they factory workers, farmers, or bankers? If there was a graduated tax system, where individuals with higher incomes paid a higher tax rate, would the people you spoke to pay more tax or less tax under that system?

And those allowances and exceptions. Are many of them basically the same for everybody, so that they represent a far higher portion of total income for a factory worker than for a banker? Assuming I'm correct - you're a numbers guy and you know where I'm going - the less you earn, the higher percentage of your income goes for taxes.

(I cheated, and checked out the Estonian individual tax code, and it was what I expected. Standard deduction, regardless of income, which means the lowest earners pay more as a percentage. Housing loans are deductible, and since wealthier people are more likely to buy than poorer people, it again drives down the percentage of income that the wealthy pay. And so forth.)

I don't understand your logic, Michael.
Everybody gets the same personal allowances, which means the poorest pay no tax and the 20% tax rate is progressive thereafter. You can claim mortgage interest and other expenses, but only up to a maximum of about 3,200 Euros, which is not a lot.
I spoke to two people, one of whom was a professional tourist guide and the other a student working part-time as a guide. Interesting though the conversation was, I didn't get to ask them about their personal tax affairs.
I was just responding, really, to John's comment that the UK's 40/45% tax rates are not excessive, by pointing to a prosperous and successful country which taxes its citizens far less.

[David Anthony]

Originally Posted by Nigel Mace

Nailed it, Michael.

Nigel, do you agree?