Sam Sadler, of Bicester accountants Sadler Talbot, asks why Oxfordshire residents pay more tax than average

Recently the Government published the national statistics on household income per head for 2004. These figures represent the amount of income available to households after paying taxes, national insurance, and pension contributions.

Once these amounts have been deducted, the national average household income per head for 2004 was £12,800.

If you live in Oxfordshire however, the figures are much better, with an average household income per head of £15,400. This is 20 per cent above the national average and puts us third in the UK out of 37 regions.

So if we were left with £15,400, how much did we hand over in tax? We all feel that we pay too much in taxes but is there an element of truth in this for Oxfordshire's residents?

The average tax per head for the county amounts to £3,520, with national insurance costing £3,780.

Compared with the country's other 37 regions, we have the second highest tax burden in the UK 44 per cent above the national average. National Insurance contributions are 32 per cent higher.

On the face of it these statistics do not seem to add up. How can we earn 20 per cent more income but pay 44 per cent more tax?

This can be explained in part by the make up of our income. About 70 per cent of our primary income is made up of earnings from employment. This is 33 per cent above the UK average.

The remaining 30 per cent comes from rental income, self-employment income and interest received. These are all taxable sources.

To put the figures into perspective, and to justify the tax calculations, we need to look at the overall picture. The gross income per head from all sources other than benefits is £18,970.

The tax you would expect to pay on this level of income is £2,885. This is the equivalent of 15 per cent. These direct tax charges are the same whichever region you live in.

The average tax figure mentioned earlier was £3,520. The balance of £635 relates to council tax and vehicle duty. These can obviously vary from region to region.

The original article mentions that 83 per cent of the taxes paid relate to taxes paid on income. If this were true of Oxfordshire our combined council tax and vehicle duty should only be £590.

One other major factor that has an impact on the figures for Oxfordshire is the redistribution of wealth.

In 2004 Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire benefited the least from redistribution.

While we contributed 44 per cent and 32 per cent above the national average, benefits received were 6 per cent below the UK average.

The fact is that in Oxfordshire we are the victims of our own success.

There is little unemployment in the area and the number of people of pensionable age is below the national average.

A larger proportion of our residents are earning a decent salary, without having to rely on tax credits or social benefits.

Each of these factors in turn helps to boost the local economy. Is this benefit enough to justify paying a little extra tax, or does this mean we overlook those caught in a poverty trap?

Contact: Sadler Talbot Accountants, 01869 324480