The amount of tax should reflect ability to pay
An argument could be made that we all benefit from government (ie. tax) funded services to approximately the same degree and possibly
low earners may benefit more than high earners. Therefore we should all pay the same? This ignores the fact that every pound paid in tax by a low income household
has a much greater impact than every pound paid by a high income household where excess income can afford luxuries that are out of reach for those with low income.
Instead we believe it is the impact of tax paid that should be consistent across incomes, not the actual amount, meaning those with high income can bear more of the tax burden.
All income to be treated equally
Somebody earning a moderately good salary of £60,000 will need to pay approximately £14,600 tax in the year.
If instead that person had invested £3,000 in Tesla stock ten years ago and instead of working that year simply sold that stock they would also have
had in income of approximately £60,000 and the tax paid on that would be £10,800.
If the same person did not work and had not made any investment but was gifted (or inherited) £60,000 the tax paid would be zero.
Such discrepancy is not consistent with the idea that the level of tax should reflect ability to pay and gives an unfair tax advantage to those
with the most wealth whilst discouraging work.
We also need to consider the tax paid as income tax is actually a cost to the business which needs to pay a salary of £60,000 for the employee
to have an income of £45,400, as well as covering the employers national insurance cost. PAYE tax is the most damaging and yet the highest rate of any income.
Have no aritrary thresholds
Such thresholds should be seen as an indicator of a problem with a policy.
A simple example of this is the £90,000 threshold for VAT registrations which is quite widely believed to be harmful and undesirable and yet remains.
Why is £90,000 the level? Besides £1,000, What's different about a business at £89,000 turnover and one at £90,000, to justify an addition of 20% to the price it has to charge it's customers?