Jump to content

Talk:Taxation in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

overview suggestions ..[edit]

This topic is a CATEGORY , and not suited for being a subject page One can reinforce the overview nature of this wiki page by having independent pages for > income tax > local taxes > customs > excise > VAT I can help develop the "baby" pages Sanjiv swarup 07:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is suitable for both a article and a Category. The article should cover the topic areas until they are large enough to form their own article. At that point, it goes into a Summary Style format. Several of these sub-articles already exist in some way. Specific articles to the UK could be created but I think they should have sufficient content (by expanding here first). Morphh (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv swarup 08:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Ok, I hav started putting the content together. Please see article = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_income_tax j[reply]

Morphh suggested expanding here 1st, which would be better until a spilt is required. I do not think a split is required yet, especially as the page you have created does not appear to add any content and contains much that is not relevant to UK income taxes. I intend to undo this split when I have time. GameKeeper 09:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now undone the split. GameKeeper 09:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it has now been split again! into Income tax in the United Kingdom. I cannot see any new info in this new article and will undo the split if others agree, or there is no comment to justify it here. GameKeeper 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also expressed concern at the split. I have been assuming good faith, as Sanjiv Swarup stated he intended to work on the article. However, I've also yet to see any real additions or improvements to the article, and the notes on the talk page suggest a patchy understanding of the subject. While I've been prepared to give it some time, I'd like to see some convincing reason not to return development to this article. Winklethorpe 18:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the content deleted from this page, but kept the link to the sub article. I have done this as it gets harder to revret edits after many other changes have happened, so dont want to wait any longer. I still think the other article should go, but will give it a bit more time. I do not see a reason to split now. If expansion does occur then it should happen here first. GameKeeper 19:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link and deleted the other article today. no additional info had been added. GameKeeper 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top Rate Tax[edit]

This article contains nothing about the new top rate tax (all over the papers) on incomes above £150,000. Anyone care to explain it?

Residency and domicile[edit]

Are we not confusing residency and ordinary residency? Also, can't we say more on domicile? Isn't it domicile by birth or by being here 17 years out of 20, but v difficult to lose? (I specialise in corporate tax, though, and so am not as familiar with personal taxation issues as I could be.) In fact, I'm sure the remittance basis position of non-UK domiciled individuals is not adequately explained either. jguk 17:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The rules are, of course, a lot more complicated than the summary I gave. However, what I wrote is broadly correct and does not create an incorrect impression. I think that some of the detail now added is unhelpful as it gives a few more facts but not more information. And the section now jibes with the initial sentence of the article. We can add all the provisions of the complicated tax code together with established practice and case law on these particular issues but I suggest we do not. E.g. the distinction between "resident" and "ordinarily resident" I suggest we disregard for the purpose of this article. The issue of residence and domicile is also mentioned in passing in the tax haven article. But neither that article nor this needs a detailed treatment of these issues: If that is needed at Wikipedia (and why not?) then it needs its own article. Also, the "dubious" tag has been inserted but you do not say why. I would like to revert some of your changes and keep others. What say you? Paul Beardsell 05:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've re-added the dubious tag as the definition of residency is wrong [1]. I agree this is a summary, but to my mind that does not mean we should give inaccurate definitions. Maybe we just refer to residency and ordinary residency and provide a link to a more detailed discussion. What would be really good is a separate United Kingdom income tax article. (Note United Kingdom corporation tax is currently on FAC, if you'd like to comment on it.) jguk 09:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was making the same mistake I was arguing against above: We cannot hope here to duplicate the tax regs faithfully because they are huge and changing so I should not have attempted to give a definition of residency. Please feel free to replace the dubious tag if you are still unhappy. What is FAC? Paul Beardsell 12:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not that we should necessarily believe what the Revenue tell us in IR20 (in this case, Revenue practice bears only a passing resemblance to the underlying caselaw, but as their position generally favours the taxpayer more than the cases would suggest, nobody worries too much).
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Pity I won't be around for the next week or so to contribute to it. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As someone 'fresh off the boat', an article explaining the varieties of domicile, residency, ordinary residence, etc. The obvious danger in the current article, is that having read briefly about residence, I scroll down to the ISA section and discover that I just need to be over 16. Looking at the HMRC ISA FAQ (too many acronyms) http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm this isn't the case, as ordinary residence is generally also required.--Peterxyz 16:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Exiles[edit]

I came to this page looking for an explanation of the term "tax exile", which I (an American) have heard numerous times in reference to wealthy British citizens. The implication as I understood it is that England taxes its wealthy citizens so highly that many move out of the country in order to save their money, and that this is a common (and perhaps uniquely, or at least characteristically British) phenomenon. There is no article for Tax exile, and the link in the Exile article links only to Tax haven, which makes no mentioned of tax exiles. Could someone who's in the know on this phenomenon write a piece on it for the 'pedia? (Or let me know if I'm just completely off base or misunderstanding the issue.) Thanks! Adam Conover 20:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

A tax exile is always(?) one who takes advantage of a tax haven. As you will read at tax haven the UK can be a tax haven for foreigners residing in Britain. And you will read that the USA (uniquely) makes it difficult/impossible for its citizens to legally avoid US tax even if resident abroad. Paul Beardsell 12:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the top UK rates of tax are not particularly high (by international standards), and much easier to mitigate through investment strategies than US income tax, especially as non-residents are not subject and three territories exist within the United Kingdom & Islands which can provide tax relief, as well as simply having a good accountant (not to mention massive exemptions on the ownership of land, capital gains, and other unearned sources of income). It should be noted that of the UK's 40-odd billionaires, they paid a combined tax last year of £14.5m (with Mr Dyson paying over £8m of that). So the tax situation isn't as bad as it's been proported. When I was living in the States I was told we had high taxes all the time, wasn't so bad when I returned home. Roche-Kerr 04:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top rate income tax[edit]

I was reading The Economist last night and it said something about a top income tax rate of 95% or so prior to Thatcher in the 70's in the UK. Is this anyway correct? Did I misinterpet it? The curiosity is really bugging me! Can anyone explain? CGorman 20:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the top rate of tax on investment income (not earned income though) was 95% for some years. This was because 'Investment Income Surcharge' of, I think, 15% was added to the actual top rate of tax of 80% in those years. SandalsMan 17:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thats unbelievable! Thanks. CGorman 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! Anything further you wish to know, just let me know! SandalsMan 20:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As the beatles said - There's one for you, nineteen for me 'cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman' 14:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad to see this topic already in the discussions because I planned to add a comment and CGorman's question seems to validate my comment/request which is......

This whole entry is about today. Wouldn't it be valuable to add some historic data about previous tax regimes in the UK and how it has changed over time? As an encyclopedia entry the trends and history are equally as interesting as a snapshot of today's policies. I'm sorry I can't contribute to the content, I came here hoping to find the info I suggest, and as it happens SandalsMan's contribution here gave me exactly what I was looking for (thanks SandalsMan!) but it would have been good if it was in the main entry.

- Julian

I'd agree with that Julian, the history of how the whole taxation system has evolved would be very valuable - I personally don't cureently have either the expertise or time to help on this one, but I hope someone follows up on it. CGorman 23:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The top rate referred to above (for certain types of passive income on top earners) actually reached 98% at some stage. Mind you, some countries have at times had rates in excess of 100%, so 98% might seem positively generous in comparison. Incidentally, much of the history, at least of the basic structure of income and corporation tax, is hidden away at Schedular system of taxation, jguk 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company domicile[edit]

I am not sure the paragraph on Company Domicile (starting "A company is resident in the UK...") makes sense with regard to the last two sentences. The article says: "A company is domiciled in the UK if it is incorporated in the UK." then the next sentence says: "A company's domicile has no effect on its tax position - it pays tax on its worldwide income and gains." I am not an expert on that aspect of company tax, but I think the final sentence should read something like: "A company incorporated in the UK, and therefore UK domiciled, pays tax on its worldwide income and gains." As it stands, if I am reading the final sentence correctly, there would be no need for the preceeding sentence, but the remaining last sentence would not be quite correct; a non-domiciled (ie non-UK incorporated) company does not pay tax on its worldwide income and gains in the UK so far as I know. SandalsMan 20:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the "domicile" of a company makes much sense from a UK tax standpoint: the critical issue is residence (although incorporation will govern residence for most UK companiesm, since they are automatically resident in the UK for tax purposes under section 66 Finance Act 1988, subject to the transitional provisions in Schedule 7 FA88 and the provisions of double tax treaties which take precedence under section 249 Finance Act 1994). I agree that the article is not phrased particularly well. It really needs a good spring clean. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will leave the spring clean to you. You obviously know much more about it than me. SandalsMan 20:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is UK resident companies that are subject to tax on their worldwide income. It is correct to say that a company's domicile has no effect on its tax position - it is its residency that is important, jguk 23:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Residence and domicile: Not quite right[edit]

I have separated out the first para of the ==residence and domicile== section into two. The first is as correct as you can get without going into pages and pages. The second sounds comprehensive and authoritative and is mostly correct but not completely. Further, it adds nothing to the the first! E.g. it says UK rentals are taxable but we have already said in the 1st para: All UK sourced income is taxable. Yes there are "ifs and buts" but the 2nd goes nowhere near coping with all that. So, I will probably remove the 2nd para soon. Paul Beardsell 23:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or!?!??!? Is what is written in the now 2nd para correct entirely? Without omission? Is there no further income tax to be paid on UK dividends by non-UK residents? Paul Beardsell 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty much correct. See section 128 Finance Act 1995 - the UK income tax liability of non resident individuals is limited to tax deducted at source on the forms of income falling within s.128(3) (that is, interest, dividends, pensions payments, etc.), plus UK income tax payable by a UK representative within s.126 (i.e. a branch or agency - not "permanent establishment", that concept only applies to companies - through which a trade, profession or vocation is carried on in the UK).
I really ought to look at this article again. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. My problem with the 2nd para is that it reads as if the examples given is an exhaustive list, not examples. If the list is exhaustive, fine, let's make that more plain; if not, fine, let's say they're examples. Paul Beardsell 12:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Income Tax on Knowhow supplied by individuals and converted into equity[edit]

Sanjiv swarup 06:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be one line describing a real life situation by using the following illustration..

> Say Mr. A (UK resident) has a certain knowhow which he values to be GBP 100 000. > He supplies this to a UK company ( XYZ Ltd.) against receipt of 100000 equity shares (value face value GBP 1 per share ). (not publicly traded company)

Is there any immediate income tax that he needs to pay for this transaction ?

Hi Sanjiv swarup. Is this a question you know the answer to? If so, I encourage you to be bold and write it up, with references so that those who come after you can follow it. A good example can help illustrate technical points. Of course, I don't actually know what technical point this illustrates, it not being my field. Possibly it's an issue of income tax on dividends, followed by income tax on any gains on disposal? Winklethorpe 18:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted your point, and shall attempt to answer them in the independent article

for Income Tax UK‎ In the meantime, I seek permission to move this section there

Sanjiv swarup 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article organisation[edit]

I reverted some changes to the article recently which had placed Capital Gains and residence and domicile under Income Tax.

  • in the UK 'income tax' refers to a specific tax on earnt income, not all taxes on income (like national insurance)
  • residence and domicile has effects on multiple areas of taxation, not just income tax.

The article could do with some reorganisation but please be careful. GameKeeper 09:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it I reverted the capital gains part to be under income tax GameKeeper 13:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Value Added Tax in the UK[edit]

Definition: VAT is a tax that you pay when you buy goods and services in the United Kingdom. Where VAT is payable it's normally included in the price of the goods or service you buy, but not neccessarily all goods attract VAT.

When someone charges VAT they multiply the original price of the item or service by the VAT rate to calculate the amount of VAT to charge. They then add the VAT amount to the net price to give the 'gross' price - the price you pay.

Total Amount payable = (VAT% * Price of item) + Price of the item

Standard rate 17.5%

You pay VAT on most goods and services in the UK at the standard rate currently 17.5 per cent.

Reduced rate 5%

In some cases you pay a reduced rate of five per cent.

Zero rate

There are some goods on which you don't pay any VAT.

Ruzbehraja 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17.5%?, Wow that's unbelievable. How long has this rate been around?

VAT is an EU Tax, ISTR that to be a member of the EU, VAT has to be in force. Someone will correct me if wrong, but ISTR that some of the VAT income is paid to the EU.

Also, some items are VAT exempt - as opposed to attracting VAT of 0%. For example, education is VAT exempt, most food, children's clothes and books are not VAT exempt, but are rated at 0%. Something I've wondered about is book publishing; books are rated at 0% so no VAT income, but, presumably the publisher can claim VAT back on the things they buy to print the books, so it looks like the Revenue actually lose money.

Apepper (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I've made some minor tiyding up efforts to this section, but on reflection I'm wondering if it has a place in this article at all. Would it be better just to link to the ISA article in the footer? It just kind of sticks out in a page where the other sections relate to specific kinds of tax.

Income tax history[edit]

I came here actually looking for some sort of history of income tax, ideally a table of the income tax rates over the last 200 years, maybe every ten years, it wouldn't have to be too detailed. Came here from the Aneurin Bevan article, specifically one of the notes about tax rates before the war actually being higher than nowadays. This was something I didn't expect, what with the uproar whenever a 50% top rate is proposed here... Does anyone have access to a table like this? Or do I just need to find the right wiki entry? WikiReaderer 12:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back to '91. If you get any further with your research, leave links here. The article is in horrible shape, and any extra references will be of help. J.Winklethorpe talk 08:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not least that it has some kind of narriative up to the late 80s, then just stops dead, as if it's been cribbed from a dusty old economics textbook or something. We had to have got from the 25% starting rate in '88 to the 22% one already in force in '99 (when the 10% and 22% bands were defined, before the current 20% starting rate in 2008) somehow... Unfortunately I can't contribute much because I came here *looking* for that info! (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly narrative, but has a few hard facts here and there. J.Winklethorpe talk 08:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs updating[edit]

The current budget has removed the 10% rate, and cut the 22% rate to 20% for income tax. This article needs updating, but I don't know the exact rates to change. Can somebody with prior knowledge do this? (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this revision, hopefully I got everything right. flib0 (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I don't believe there's sufficient information in 10p tax rate and the concept will soon seem obsolete. The article lacks sourcing and wrongly stated that anyone earning less than £18,000 will be charged twice as much income tax, when in fact only a small band is being scrapped. It could do with the attention of the large number of contributors this article has had. --Lo2u (TC) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I would agree with this. GameKeeper (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The 10p rate of tax has received massive media attention and more than notability, if anything it should be expanded to provide information, especially since it is cause alot of dissent in the labour party.
A merge does not mean that the info is lost. A redirect to here could provide context , if anything the info is more likely to be found and expanded upon here. If the amount of info expands to be over dominant the article can be split off as national insurance and corporation tax have been, but until then it will get more visibility here. This is NOT a deletion. GameKeeper (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs the attention of more experienced editors. The version as it was created [2] was full of bizzarre, inaccurate and uncited assertions, was poorly worded and wasn't going to be noticed because it was a short stub that didn't link to much. It isn't very good now and even the choice of title seems not to have been properly considered - how will anyone who wants to know about controversies related to the starting rate of income tax ever find this article? If it started to look like a decent article I'd be entirely in favour of splitting it again. --Lo2u (TC) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, people are unlikely to look it up at all. It is misnamed and even if they find it, in the absence of the attention the article would receive if it were part of the main article, they are unlikely to learn much. I don't see why people should be unable to look the subject up if it is part of the main article, but if there is no consensus for the merge, I would suggest the article be renamed Starting rate of UK income tax and that a section be placed in this article with the same title and a Main Article template. --Lo2u (TC) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New IT/NIC graphs[edit]

I updated the graphs for income tax and NICs to this present tax year (08-09). I decided to use the pre-May 13th thresholds for now since the effects of those changes will not appear for anyone until September 2008, at which point I would propose to update the figures. In case I am not around at the time, I have made the images in editable SVG files and have on the image pages also published the MATLAB code that generates them. Splash - tk 00:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these updates. I made one of the old graphs and had intended to update them, but never seemed to get round to it. Nice to have more current information. I just wish I had a MATLAB license. GameKeeper (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CGT and taper relief[edit]

I thought that CGT was from this new tax year now a flat 18%, with taper relief abolished. But HMRC's page does not reflect this change yet, referring to it as still subject to provisions in the Finance Bill 2008. Are these changes yet in force, and if so could a suitably knowledgeable person update the article? I suspect there is now some difference in CGT rates for individuals and companies, judging from the text on the HMRC page. Splash - tk 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true?[edit]

I heard a rumor that only a consenting private corporation need pay tax and that tax does not apply to any free man, woman or child. The government creates a private corporation for every one of us by spelling our names entirely in capital letters and getting us to sign our consent away on the dotted line. If the name is spelt with just the first letter of each name capital and the rest lower case, this indicates the person in question is a free human to whom no laws or taxes apply. Lawyers working for the IRS (Americas version of Inland revenue) questioned their superiors on this subject only to be met with an embarrasing shrug of shoulders. They resigned and have not filed a tax return since 1999 and are still living in America, TAX FREE!. Can anyone shed some light on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like one of the various falsehoods put about by some in relation to US taxation (see Tax protester arguments). It has nothing to do with UK tax. LeContexte (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV License[edit]

A tax that is imposed in this country, should it be added.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In January 2006, the Office of National Statistics classified the licence fee as a tax for the first time." http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/128/128i.pdf Mind you, if the article simply listed all the different taxes in the UK, it would be about 10 times the size (there's a tax on pig's bladders, and flagstones over a certain size, apparently too - want to list them as well?) --gilgongo (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not include anything on Working tax credit and Child tax credit[edit]

This article does not include anything on Working tax credit and Child tax credit. These would have a marked difference on the graphs. I am very interested in what the Marginal rate is at various incomes. I think that due to the taper on these benefits it is very high. (This is of practical interest to me, as if the rate approaches 75% it becomes worth putting money into a pension fund rather than paying capital off the mortgage). -- Q Chris (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a quick look at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psf_statistics.htm. It shows the effect of tax credits was a negative income tax of GBP4.7 billion in 2011-2012. Corporation tax credits were 0.9 billion. So, not to be sniffed at, but hardly earth-shattering. --gilgongo (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


How did the British government raise revenue before the introduction of taxation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have something on the history of UK taxation - eg. withdrawn taxes such as window tax ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance premium tax[edit]

Could we have mention of the Insurance Premium tax (and any relation to VAT) ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top marginal rate[edit]

The article says "After consideration of employer and employee National Insurance contributions, the effective marginal top rate for 2011-12 is 58%: that is, to pay an employee £1,000 gross costs the employer £1,138 and the employee receives £480 after deductions."

However, this isn't the top marginal rate. From £100,000 there is a clawback on the personal allowance of £1 for every £2 earnt which makes the band from £100,000 to £115,000 effectively 60% marginal rate for income tax. This means that for the £1000 the employee pays £400 (for the 40% tax), £200 (for the 40% tax on the £500 clawback) and £20 (employee NI at 2%). This equates to receiving £380 after deductions, i.e. 62% personal marginal rate or 66.6% if compared from a starting point of £1138 that the employer started out with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squish (talkcontribs) 13:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pie charts - improvement?[edit]

I do not wish to appear in any way ungrateful to the individual who created the pie charts in the article. However, they would be rather more illustrative, and a good deal easier to read, if they were simply horizontal bar charts. This is for a number of reasons, not least because in the UK receipts chart, you would be able to see the relative proportions of the < 1% group, which is substantial, and quite interesting (petrol tax contributes rather less than vehicle tax, for example). Something like this example, which I created from last year's stats: http://bayimg.com/eAHDNaAEN --gilgongo (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pension Income[edit]

This article does not indicate what taxation is applied to pension income. This is an omission; if pension income is treated as 'other income' the article should mention that, if pension income is not taxable the article should say so. I hope that someone in the know will make an update, thanks. (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

error in History section[edit]

from [1] "5 At the end of the 1970s, only around three-quarters of a million people paid higher-rate tax (compared with around 2.75 million in 2000), and of these only a very small proportion had incomes sufficient to pay the very highest marginal rates."

whereas the WP article currently says: "In 1974, as many as 750,000 people were liable to pay the top-rate of income tax."

I think someone must have confused the top rate with higher rate tax, and also missed the target by about 3 or 4 years.

Any objection to this being changed?

Gravuritas (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Scottish income tax[edit]

Is it not worth mentioning that from April 2016, those tax payers whose primary residence is in Scotland will be paying a percentage of their tax liability to the Scottish Government? (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The highest rate of income tax in World War Two starting from which income?[edit]

At the part [rules] is written: The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. Does anybody know from which income during this war? 

Musketeer88 18:35, 6 May 2020 (West Germany)

Development of the Article[edit]

Eventally, all articles become good, and then featured. Hopefully. Theoretically.

OK, this page lacks an external links section. These items in an external links section can help an article grow by providing information not written into publication by volunteers.

Someone will eventually volunteer if you refer them to the External Links. "See the external links for explanations." is a tempting morsel for win-win learning and sharing.

External links items can be removed, cleaned-out, once digested and interpreted onto Wikipedia. Then in order to keep Wikipedia from becomeing a link farm, removed.

This article needs to encourage its own development, not by asking readers to read the BBC for explanation, but by moving those "citation"s to a new external links section. (Those citations are not citing anything in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#nondom)

Cpiral§Cpiral 03:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]