View Full Version : Top tax rate under review
weezer 316
13-Aug-11, 16:28
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14515518
Hear hear. Quite how it ever arrived at 50% is beyond me. Absurd piece of business that has likely (although we wont know until april) cost the country a fortune.
tonkatojo
13-Aug-11, 18:21
Aye about time the poor souls are paying far to much. They should get free private health insurance (no waiting in queues for them) as well, all paid for by who (yes you have guessed). Oh aye free poll tax for their ancestral pile as well, and if residing in London free congestion charges. The list goes on .
NickInTheNorth
13-Aug-11, 18:33
I just cannot imagine how those poor soles earning over £ 150,000 have been managing since the 50% rate was introduced. I suspect many of them have had to stay at home at least one weekend a year...
There is possibly some logic to this. Last year the govt announced a change in VAT for private aircraft, a news story ran with how it was making the rich pay etc. etc. and Ozzy was clamping down on tax avoidance by the rich etc. etc.
The net result was to see private aircraft owned and operated in other countries so the UK gets 20% of nothing and a huge reduction in revenue from associated services. The knock on effect is the business' serving this sector loose trade, this in turn affects jobs, this in turn reduces VAT & other tax revenues for the UK.
Is it not better to get 10% of something rather than 50% of nothing?
tonkatojo
13-Aug-11, 18:52
There is possibly some logic to this. Last year the govt announced a change in VAT for private aircraft, a news story ran with how it was making the rich pay etc. etc. and Ozzy was clamping down on tax avoidance by the rich etc. etc.
The net result was to see private aircraft owned and operated in other countries so the UK gets 20% of nothing and a huge reduction in revenue from associated services. The knock on effect is the business' serving this sector loose trade, this in turn affects jobs, this in turn reduces VAT & other tax revenues for the UK.
Is it not better to get 10% of something rather than 50% of nothing?
"this in turn reduces vat & other tax revenues for the UK". I know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but do tell me who it was lost out on the last round of income tax changes and am I right in assuming I paid 20% vat on my purchases last week. I for one recognise a con never gives any one but the rich owt certainly not the masses.
"this in turn reduces vat & other tax revenues for the UK". I know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but do tell me who it was lost out on the last round of income tax changes and am I right in assuming I paid 20% vat on my purchases last week. I for one recognise a con never gives any one but the rich owt certainly not the masses.Unfortunately it is always the lowest paid and poorest of society that always suffer. And that needs to change.
But to make tax policy based on what would make a good article headline in the Star, Sun, Mail or Daily Sport for nothing other than political posturing doesn't work.
If tax revenue can be generated efficiently at the higher levels then more help could then be directed to those on low incomes.
The point I'm driving at is that the more wealthy have more options available to them than the 'masses' and that includes the ability to shop around for the best tax options, and that includes wether paying tax in the UK or not. If we tax the wealthy out of the UK then the 'masses' (you and me (I assume)) have a higher tax burden.
Yes, tax avoidance needs to be addressed. (there are people on low incomes playing the system too)
Yes, the low incomes need help.
But revenue income needs to be efficient and effective.
"Some economists have claimed that tax avoidance and evasion mean the rate is raising less income than expected."
If this is the case then it is the governments responsibility to close the loops for tax avoidance and go after those who are evading tax. This would then allow for cutting the higher rate of tax and generating money in a fairer manner rather than simply cutting the rate.
Is it not better to get 10% of something rather than 50% of nothing?
My sentiments too...
weezer 316
14-Aug-11, 14:28
Aye about time the poor souls are paying far to much. They should get free private health insurance (no waiting in queues for them) as well, all paid for by who (yes you have guessed). Oh aye free poll tax for their ancestral pile as well, and if residing in London free congestion charges. The list goes on .
Less rhetorical nonsesne, more thinking please? No?
Whether they are struggling or not (if they are struggling then the issue is their outgoings, not the tax) the point is, and you have either overlooked this or dont understand it, people will look to move their money and taxable assets abroad. the result is we receive nothing. They are perfectly entitled to do this and no amount of moaning from the likes of you cna change that, nor should it.
In simple terms do you prefer something or nothing?
Less rhetorical nonsesne, more thinking please? No?
Whether they are struggling or not (if they are struggling then the issue is their outgoings, not the tax) the point is, and you have either overlooked this or dont understand it, people will look to move their money and taxable assets abroad. the result is we receive nothing. They are perfectly entitled to do this and no amount of moaning from the likes of you cna change that, nor should it.
In simple terms do you prefer something or nothing?
Why should they be able to avoid paying tax by moving their money abroad, surely this is tax avoidance and should be stopped ?
Anyone who thinks high tax rates can be used to somehow punish people for being rich is living in a dream world.
weezer 316
14-Aug-11, 15:25
Why should they be able to avoid paying tax by moving their money abroad, surely this is tax avoidance and should be stopped ?
Yes its tax avoidance but doing stuff to minimise your tax exposure is prudent to say the least. I assume if you could be payed in the caymen isles and be taxed 10% or paid here and taxed 50% then you would stay here because some people on a message board might complain about it?
Futhermore, as a point of principle, you should never ever ever under any circumstances other than nazis about to invade work for the govt more than yourself. You dont get out of bed in the mroning to pay for rioters to lay in their bed all day do you? You do it for yourslef and your family.
Yes its tax avoidance but doing stuff to minimise your tax exposure is prudent to say the least. I assume if you could be payed in the caymen isles and be taxed 10% or paid here and taxed 50% then you would stay here because some people on a message board might complain about it?
Futhermore, as a point of principle, you should never ever ever under any circumstances other than nazis about to invade work for the govt more than yourself. You dont get out of bed in the mroning to pay for rioters to lay in their bed all day do you? You do it for yourslef and your family.
Would they not continue to avoid paying tax regardless of whether it was a fair rate or not? close the loophole and have everyone paying a fair rate and no need to charge 50% from any group.
[QUOTE=sids;878550]Anyone who thinks high tax rates can be used to somehow punish people for being rich is living in a dream world.[/QUOT
Why would anyone want to punish people for being rich? what most people want in life is just a fair deal.
[QUOTE=sids;878550]Anyone who thinks high tax rates can be used to somehow punish people for being rich is living in a dream world.[/QUOT
Why would anyone want to punish people for being rich? what most people want in life is just a fair deal.
Fair based on what? What you have earned or what you perceive you deserve. How is taxing anyone 50% fair?
[QUOTE=Kells;878611]
How is taxing anyone 50% fair?
Plus national insurance at 8%? and VAT etc, etc........... It's quite possible that these people end up paying 2/3rds of their wages straight to the government, I don't think that's fair.
I personally dont think the tax system is at all fair - especially the 50% bandwidth. As we know, anybody who earns over £150,000.00, the excess from this income is taxed at 50%. Now, just take two different people - one who earns £160,000.00 pa and then the CEO types, footballers etc earning way way in excess of this figure, even possibly millions. How can it be fair that for such a differentiation in earnings that there can only be one tax bandwidth to take care of this. I personally feel that for those, for example, who earn more than say £500,000.00 there should be another bandwidth implemented.
Society has to decide what is fair, in this case the government but having decided what is fair then all should pay, no one should be allowed to avoid or evade the stated amount. As I have already said if all the avoidance loopholes and evasion were dealt with then surely the 50% would be reduced. Lets also remember that evasion is a criminal act and no one should be above the law.
I personally dont think the tax system is at all fair - especially the 50% bandwidth. As we know, anybody who earns over £150,000.00, the excess from this income is taxed at 50%. Now, just take two different people - one who earns £160,000.00 pa and then the CEO types, footballers etc earning way way in excess of this figure, even possibly millions. How can it be fair that for such a differentiation in earnings that there can only be one tax bandwidth to take care of this. I personally feel that for those, for example, who earn more than say £500,000.00 there should be another bandwidth implemented.
I do not see how anyone could think the present tax system is fair but in all honesty neither is the vast differences in income fair. It is surely time that the whole system was revised and brought into line with present day incomes.
I do not see how anyone could think the present tax system is fair but in all honesty neither is the vast differences in income fair. It is surely time that the whole system was revised and brought into line with present day incomes.
A lot of people who earn in the higher tax bracket have worked very hard to get where they are. Are you suggesting they should be penalised for this hard work? Because that is what it comes down to...
[QUOTE=Leanne;878656]A lot of people who earn in the higher tax bracket have worked very hard to get where they are. Are you suggesting they should be penalised for this hard work? Because that is what it comes down to...[/QUOTE
I have suggested nothing of the kind, try reading what I write.
NickInTheNorth
14-Aug-11, 20:57
A lot of people who earn in the higher tax bracket have worked very hard to get where they are. Are you suggesting they should be penalised for this hard work? Because that is what it comes down to...
Leanne, every cleaner I know works extremely hard, so does every bin man, every factory worker, everyone in a call centre, every grave digger, everyone earning minimum wage works hard. If you don't these days then you are history.
All these high earners that you keep telling us work so hard for their money probably do work hard, but then they could not do their jobs without the hundreds and thousands of minimum wage drones that they exploit daily.
Fairness needs to be seen, and as the gap between the rich and the poor has never widened faster than it has over the past 20 to 30 years the current system is palpably unfair.
The sad reality of it is though, generally, those who use their hands to earn their living are going to be paid less than their desk bound counterparts; i.e Lawyers, CEO's etc etc oh and of course not forgetting those with the funny handshake ;)
Should we be feeling sorry for all those celebrities who wash their linen in public- and get paid handsomely for doing so?
would it not be kinder to impose fines on Katie Price and kerry Katona in order to stop them from telling all?
every cleaner I know works extremely hard, so does every bin man, every factory worker, everyone in a call centre, every grave digger, everyone earning minimum wage works hard. If you don't these days then you are history.Sorry, this is some sort of Maily Dail socialist /communist BS or other flavour of cobblers dating back to the 1800's.
Not everyone earning minimum wage works hard. Grave diggers and bin 'persons' I would bet are not on minimum wage. But it all paints a picture that some want to portray.
I don't doubt that there are many committed and conscientious grave diggers and bin men that work hard but their job today is far from what it was years ago.
(incidentally, I have long maintained that this stupid council tax freeze is damaging these services)
All these high earners that you keep telling us work so hard for their money probably do work hard, but then they could not do their jobs without the hundreds and thousands of minimum wage drones that they exploit daily.What is the exploitation? Where does this happen? How?
Out of interest, could someone point out to me the tax rules (both UK & EU Reg's) that are currently being used by the 'rich' for tax avoidance. Please specify the laws / reg's and how these are implemented.
(just need to work out my tax return)
Im so glad Im not earning that much. Id hate to be paying that amount of tax.
Out of interest, could someone point out to me the tax rules (both UK & EU Reg's) that are currently being used by the 'rich' for tax avoidance. Please specify the laws / reg's and how these are implemented.
(just need to work out my tax return)
No way ...... that information costs a lot of money, even on the org you don't get it for nothing but worth a try. lol
weezer 316
15-Aug-11, 12:09
yeah, where does this exploitation happen?
The fact is some people do jobs that have greater economic value than others. A heart surgeon for example undeniably should get more than a cleaner, but at the same time a world class footballer should get mroe than the heart surgeon, simply because his job almost always drives sales in things like shirt sales, advancing in competitions etc that untimetly lead back to the marketplace, which decides what jobs get paid what.
Now morally, the heart surgeon should be top of that tree, but the reality is that is you let morals dicate wages instead of the marketplace then you very quickly arrive at a situation where those with the loudest constituents get paid more than those who actually generate cash, whcih is a far more unfair system as it could lead to an investment banker whose work sustains 10 000 jobs being paid less than a nurse, for whom there would be a large backing for, regardless of the economic value of her work!
I hope that makes sense!
yeah, where does this exploitation happen?
The fact is some people do jobs that have greater economic value than others. A heart surgeon for example undeniably should get more than a cleaner, but at the same time a world class footballer should get mroe than the heart surgeon, simply because his job almost always drives sales in things like shirt sales, advancing in competitions etc that untimetly lead back to the marketplace, which decides what jobs get paid what.
Now morally, the heart surgeon should be top of that tree, but the reality is that is you let morals dicate wages instead of the marketplace then you very quickly arrive at a situation where those with the loudest constituents get paid more than those who actually generate cash, whcih is a far more unfair system as it could lead to an investment banker whose work sustains 10 000 jobs being paid less than a nurse, for whom there would be a large backing for, regardless of the economic value of her work!
I hope that makes sense!
Aye Weezer, but if the heart surgeon saves the life of an expensive footballer who is worth more then? If the expensive footballer could save the lives of heart surgeons then they may well be worth the over inflated sums they receive at the moment for kicking a ball about for 90 mins a week!!!
C3.......:roll:;)
Forgetting about footballers (as football is just one of those weird economics thingies) pay tends to be related to the amount 'effort' you put into your chosen career. I for example, went to uni for five years, then a further 2, plus a couple of professional qualifications, to do my job. I love it, but for a long time I was in training and getting paid very, very little. Now, however I reap the benefits... I could have got a job as a dog groomer (for example), and worked equally hard, I just wouldn't have had to do as much training with little, or no pay.
A lot of the 'high fliers' have lived in scummy uni digs and put up with being called all sorts of names by the general populous, and have, for their hard studying (yes I know some don't) come out with tens of thousand of pounds worth of debt to pay back, as well as paying 40% tax. And then there is the competition for those very few high paying job.
It's not about how much hard work you do, it's about how much training you need for a job - the more training, the more it pays. Then you have those that are gifted in other ways -business owners and other entrepreneurs. Society financially rewards those prepared to take a chance - to put their money where their mouth in and just 'do' something. I suppose footballers come into this is a roundabout way. The may get paid an astronomical amount but their career is short lived, they don't have a company pension scheme so what they earn now is pretty much it. As soon as they are on the shelf they are pretty much the same as the rest of us...
Then some of the population takes the 'safe' option, a job straight from school or college and earning straight away. You don't have the same competition for jobs (well pre-financial crisis you didn't) but you also don't get the high pay :(
weezer 316
15-Aug-11, 12:58
Aye Weezer, but if the heart surgeon saves the life of an expensive footballer who is worth more then? If the expensive footballer could save the lives of heart surgeons then they may well be worth the over inflated sums they receive at the moment for kicking a ball about for 90 mins a week!!!
C3.......:roll:;)
jesus. I give in!
the footballer! did you actually read the point I made?????? Who generates more ecomnomic activity? The footballer clearly, therefore he should earn more. the market place decides, not morals.
Yes its over inflated, thats not the point though.
weezer 316
15-Aug-11, 13:02
Forgetting about footballers (as football is just one of those weird economics thingies) pay tends to be related to the amount 'effort' you put into your chosen career. I for example, went to uni for five years, then a further 2, plus a couple of professional qualifications, to do my job. I love it, but for a long time I was in training and getting paid very, very little. Now, however I reap the benefits... I could have got a job as a dog groomer (for example), and worked equally hard, I just wouldn't have had to do as much training with little, or no pay.
A lot of the 'high fliers' have lived in scummy uni digs and put up with being called all sorts of names by the general populous, and have, for their hard studying (yes I know some don't) come out with tens of thousand of pounds worth of debt to pay back, as well as paying 40% tax. And then there is the competition for those very few high paying job.
It's not about how much hard work you do, it's about how much training you need for a job - the more training, the more it pays. Then you have those that are gifted in other ways -business owners and other entrepreneurs. Society financially rewards those prepared to take a chance - to put their money where their mouth in and just 'do' something. I suppose footballers come into this is a roundabout way. The may get paid an astronomical amount but their career is short lived, they don't have a company pension scheme so what they earn now is pretty much it. As soon as they are on the shelf they are pretty much the same as the rest of us...
Then some of the population takes the 'safe' option, a job straight from school or college and earning straight away. You don't have the same competition for jobs (well pre-financial crisis you didn't) but you also don't get the high pay :(
Very good points. I actualy have some sort of sympathy for footballers, few of us operate under the sort of pressure they do. I plsy football locally and you miss a few passes you dont feel to clever. Try that with world class athletes breathing down your neck and 80000 people watching. It can destory some people
yeah, where does this exploitation happen?
The fact is some people do jobs that have greater economic value than others. A heart surgeon for example undeniably should get more than a cleaner, but at the same time a world class footballer should get mroe than the heart surgeon, simply because his job almost always drives sales in things like shirt sales, advancing in competitions etc that untimetly lead back to the marketplace, which decides what jobs get paid what.
Now morally, the heart surgeon should be top of that tree, but the reality is that is you let morals dicate wages instead of the marketplace then you very quickly arrive at a situation where those with the loudest constituents get paid more than those who actually generate cash, whcih is a far more unfair system as it could lead to an investment banker whose work sustains 10 000 jobs being paid less than a nurse, for whom there would be a large backing for, regardless of the economic value of her work!
I hope that makes sense!
You do make a lot of sense here, supply and demand is what makes the job market work. You have to also remember that without the cleaner the heart surgeon would not have a clean theatre in which to operate. the investment banker doing his job well will sustain 10,000 jobs but he also requires workers for these 10.000 jobs otherwise his work is not required. We have an interdependent society and that requires care for every part of society to continue to function properly and it is important that one section should not be ignored to the detriment of another.
jesus. I give in!
Steady on Weeze, calm down dear boy, we dont want you having a heart attack do we? I dont think Wayne Rooney is available to give you a heart Op right now and you woudnt want one of those undervalued Heart Surgeons to see to you do you? I think I had better stop posting on the .Org, I seem to raise your blood pressure everytime I post and I dont want to be held responsible for any nasty outcome !!
C3:roll::roll:;)
You do make a lot of sense here, supply and demand is what makes the job market work. You have to also remember that without the cleaner the heart surgeon would not have a clean theatre in which to operate. the investment banker doing his job well will sustain 10,000 jobs but he also requires workers for these 10.000 jobs otherwise his work is not required. We have an interdependent society and that requires care for every part of society to continue to function properly and it is important that one section should not be ignored to the detriment of another.
Did you not read my post?
Forgetting about footballers (as football is just one of those weird economics thingies) pay tends to be related to the amount 'effort' you put into your chosen career. I for example, went to uni for five years, then a further 2, plus a couple of professional qualifications, to do my job. I love it, but for a long time I was in training and getting paid very, very little. Now, however I reap the benefits... I could have got a job as a dog groomer (for example), and worked equally hard, I just wouldn't have had to do as much training with little, or no pay.
A lot of the 'high fliers' have lived in scummy uni digs and put up with being called all sorts of names by the general populous, and have, for their hard studying (yes I know some don't) come out with tens of thousand of pounds worth of debt to pay back, as well as paying 40% tax. And then there is the competition for those very few high paying job.
It's not about how much hard work you do, it's about how much training you need for a job - the more training, the more it pays. Then you have those that are gifted in other ways -business owners and other entrepreneurs. Society financially rewards those prepared to take a chance - to put their money where their mouth in and just 'do' something. I suppose footballers come into this is a roundabout way. The may get paid an astronomical amount but their career is short lived, they don't have a company pension scheme so what they earn now is pretty much it. As soon as they are on the shelf they are pretty much the same as the rest of us...
Then some of the population takes the 'safe' option, a job straight from school or college and earning straight away. You don't have the same competition for jobs (well pre-financial crisis you didn't) but you also don't get the high pay :(
Those people who take the "safe" option are the Nurses, Aux Nurses, Police Officers, Prison Officers, Firefighters, Paramedics, Teachers and Teaching assistants and most important of all Armed Servicemen of this country.
The latter being young men earning under 20K a year who put thier very life on the line
All the above earn modest wages as they are civil services and by and large it is difficult for anyone to make much money out of these but we also get very good pensions (for now) which is there to retain staff longterm as experiance more than initial training is what is so vital in this sector.
The riots in England just go to show how much we need these services as the Government were caught with thier pants down cutting police numbers and getting rid of experianced officers and this is a dangerous glimpse of the future if we continue down the road of this obsession with making vast profits at the expense of vital services.
Lets not forget that the biggest expense to the taxpayers was bailing out the banking system, we need a healthy balance between public and private sector and the recent riots is a serious wakeup call.
Leanne I can see what your saying but your only looking at one side of the fence, a healthy society cant run on people whose only aim is to make more and more money for for a small amount of people. It's right that the high earners are taxed at a appropriate level as you live in this country, benifit from Police protection, from the Education system to get where you are. You expect a Firefighter in a few mins if there is a fire, an Ambulance if needed. Criminals need to be taken off the streets and rehabilitated back into society.. none of this can be achieved without investment and the people who do these jobs are sadly the people you tagged as taking "safe options" I think we deserve a bit more respect than that for the sometimes dangerous jobs we do not for profit but just for the general good of the country.
Walter Ego
18-Aug-11, 19:42
The top 10% of income earners already contribute 25% of total income revenue raised.
Anything I have to say on this thread would be er... unpopular. Just that if you want more you have to devise a strategy to get more. This may mean working harder, or getting more qualifications, but it is much more likely to mean changing your career path and working smarter.
[QUOTE=Leanne;878899]Did you not read my post?[/QUOTE
What post are you talking about? the post you quote is a reply to wheezer.
The top 10% of income earners already contribute 25% of total income revenue raised.
So how would you change that?
Walter Ego
19-Aug-11, 08:26
There appears to be some who are of the opinion that tax should be set on some notion of 'worth' as opposed to income.
It doesn't matter how 'worthy' someone is perceived to be - it's their income that counts, pure and simple.
We want the best NHS, we want more coppers, we want better infrastructure, we want to able to equip our Forces well, we want a top notch educational system - it all has to be paid for. Unfortunately the 'them' syndrome always rears it's ugly head when it comes to taxation. "It's 'them' who should pay - not me. It's 'them' who should cut back, not me. I am unique, I should not have to pay."
NitN said that the gap between rich and poor has never been so big. I doubt his statement on this, apart from a miniscule people in true poverty, Britain is still a reasonably comfortable place to live for the majority. The low waged have got some decent tax breaks recently and the top earners are better off than they were back in the 70's regarding taxation levels.
The Taxation levels can be tinkered with to a certain degree, but wholesale change is not possible IMO.
NickInTheNorth
19-Aug-11, 08:41
There appears to be some who are of the opinion that tax should be set on some notion of 'worth' as opposed to income.
It doesn't matter how 'worthy' someone is perceived to be - it's their income that counts, pure and simple.
We want the best NHS, we want more coppers, we want better infrastructure, we want to able to equip our Forces well, we want a top notch educational system - it all has to be paid for. Unfortunately the 'them' syndrome always rears it's ugly head when it comes to taxation. "It's 'them' who should pay - not me. It's 'them' who should cut back, not me. I am unique, I should not have to pay."
NitN said that the gap between rich and poor has never been so big. I doubt his statement on this, apart from a miniscule people in true poverty, Britain is still a reasonably comfortable place to live for the majority. The low waged have got some decent tax breaks recently and the top earners are better off than they were back in the 70's regarding taxation levels.
The Taxation levels can be tinkered with to a certain degree, but wholesale change is not possible IMO.
Totally agree it is INCOME that should be taxed - not spending. In the UK there has been a huge shift from direct to indirect taxes, this has a disproportionate impact on the poorest in society.
As to the gap between rich and poor, have some reading :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8481534.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/22/equality-wealth-uk-social-mobility
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/08/poverty-equality-britain-incomes-poor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7003694.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/3232729/OECD-says-gap-between-rich-and-poor-in-UK-among-widest-in-world.html
http://www.caledonia.org.uk/dorling.htm
Lots of talk about the gap between rich and poor. Irrelevent in my opinion. It matters not what others have or don't have, it just matters what you have.
The gap only effects how happy or peeved off about it you are. Frankly who cares?
NickInTheNorth
19-Aug-11, 11:17
On an individual basis I would totally agree. However governments, newspapers, think tanks, Worldwide NGO's, banks, economic forecasters all seem to use this as an economic yardstick to judge economic performance and social justice.
But hey, what do they all know, bunch of commies...
There appears to be some who are of the opinion that tax should be set on some notion of 'worth' as opposed to income.
It doesn't matter how 'worthy' someone is perceived to be - it's their income that counts, pure and simple.
We want the best NHS, we want more coppers, we want better infrastructure, we want to able to equip our Forces well, we want a top notch educational system - it all has to be paid for. Unfortunately the 'them' syndrome always rears it's ugly head when it comes to taxation. "It's 'them' who should pay - not me. It's 'them' who should cut back, not me. I am unique, I should not have to pay."
NitN said that the gap between rich and poor has never been so big. I doubt his statement on this, apart from a miniscule people in true poverty, Britain is still a reasonably comfortable place to live for the majority. The low waged have got some decent tax breaks recently and the top earners are better off than they were back in the 70's regarding taxation levels.
The Taxation levels can be tinkered with to a certain degree, but wholesale change is not possible IMO.
That is a good answer Weezer and nice to be able to agree with you. I do agree as well the idea of them and us is becoming more common within our society and in the long term damages society as a whole.
I tend to agree that the gap has widened between the rich and poor but there again it may be that the awareness has risen instead.
I think that there is a need for a comprehensive appraisal of the taxation system to ensure a fairer structure for everyone.
weezer 316
19-Aug-11, 12:13
The top 10% of income earners already contribute 25% of total income revenue raised.
I think you will find that the top 2% generate 25% of income revenue. The bottom 20% generate less than 5% of the income raised.
weezer 316
19-Aug-11, 12:16
Call me crazy, call me cuckoo, but just about evryone on here moaning about the tax the rich pay and the like were moaning like dutch hookers over the international development budget. I see hypocrisy is still a valid manifesto choice!
But hey, what do they all know, bunch of commies...
Too right! :lol:
rob murray
19-Aug-11, 16:10
Unfortunately it is always the lowest paid and poorest of society that always suffer. And that needs to change.
But to make tax policy based on what would make a good article headline in the Star, Sun, Mail or Daily Sport for nothing other than political posturing doesn't work.
If tax revenue can be generated efficiently at the higher levels then more help could then be directed to those on low incomes.
The point I'm driving at is that the more wealthy have more options available to them than the 'masses' and that includes the ability to shop around for the best tax options, and that includes wether paying tax in the UK or not. If we tax the wealthy out of the UK then the 'masses' (you and me (I assume)) have a higher tax burden.
Yes, tax avoidance needs to be addressed. (there are people on low incomes playing the system too)
Yes, the low incomes need help.
But revenue income needs to be efficient and effective.
Two points 1 if you have money then you pay for a tax accountant who, quite legally, will set out to minimise taxation 2 In what way can people on low incomes minimise tax
Two points 1 if you have money then you pay for a tax accountant who, quite legally, will set out to minimise taxation 2 In what way can people on low incomes minimise tax
Buy less booze and fags and more food and children's clothes?
Totally agree it is INCOME that should be taxed - not spending. In the UK there has been a huge shift from direct to indirect taxes, this has a disproportionate impact on the poorest in society.Completely agree. Indirect taxation is crippling the poor and battering the lower earners and even the 'average' family. Drifting away from taxation there are many other factors that seriously impact the poorest financially, little things like not being able to pay bills by direct debit, card / prepayment fuel meters are amongst the dearest options for energy etc. etc.
As to the gap between rich and poor, have some reading :Some interesting figures and statements there. I've just cherry picked some that stuck out to me:
"Top 10% of population are worth more than £853,000" I am genuinely surprised at this, I honestly expected a lot higher 'worth' across the top 10%. Following this through means were bitching about a seriously tiny minority of seriously rich.
"Bottom 1% have negative wealth (liabilities exceed assets) of £3,840 plus" Again, slightly surprised, but when thinking about this, for those who are truly poor then this is actually meaningless. They will most probably consider it, or be considered, worthless.
"However, the report found that poverty has fallen significantly in the UK, with income poverty – the number of households on less than half average income – falling from 10 per cent to 8 per cent between the mid-1990s and 2005. "For the first time since the 1980s, the poverty level is well below the OECD average," the authors said.
Meanwhile, the number of UK children living in poverty fell from 14 per cent to 10 per cent in the same period - "the second largest fall - behind Italy".
So, something seems to have worked somewhere!
Two points 1 if you have money then you pay for a tax accountant who, quite legally, will set out to minimise taxation 2 In what way can people on low incomes minimise taxQuite agree. Point 1, the tax accountant could advise that to minimise taxation remove funds / income out of UK. = UK revenue loss.
Point 2, generally they can't. Which is the problem.
BUT, An apparent tax on the rich will not help the poorest in society. So we need to stop lapping up to stupid politico / commie / socialist soundbites that appear to pander to many peoples hatred of the 'rich' & successful and focus on taxation that works and relieves pressure on the poorest.
NickInTheNorth
24-Aug-11, 00:33
I don't understand why Osborne doesn't do the decent thing and move us to a sensible "Marginal Flat Tax" system.
Give a decent tax free allowance, perhaps the LibDems favoured £10k, anything above that is then taxed at whatever the rate needs to be for everyone. Make it a really radical flat tax system, scrap all the other taxes.
I guess one reason that it fell out of favour with Osborne when he saw power approaching was that he saw how much it would need to be - not too far off 50% according to Mark Wadsworth (http://markwadsworth.blogspot.com/2010/03/effective-income-tax-rates-in-uk-april.html)
Now in theory a flat tax system would increase tax revenues, and also lower collection costs. So surely that would make it fair?
If he was feeling really radical he could also scrap VAT, no more NI, no more fuel excise duty, no more road fund licence, roll all those revenues up into the marginal flat tax rate too.
Maybe keep tobacco and alcohol duty just to punish the bad people.
Discuss...
Hmmm!
I've always had a bugbear about road tax. I am personally convinced that this could be scrapped at a nil cost or most possibly gain by a marginal (seriously marginal fuel duty increase) this would A. directly affect those using the roads more and B. directly affect those with less economical engines (V8's etc.). BUT, the downside is that your going to sack a load of civvies in the process.
The reality, IMHO, is a far more effective and cost efficient & fairer tax / revenue system.
But what about the economical impact of sacking all those involved?
Is there actually an argument for creating 'non' jobs to constantly stimulate the economy?
NickInTheNorth
24-Aug-11, 01:03
How about a Negative Income Tax (NIT) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax) sounds far too sensible to me.
Although in essence it is almost what we could have in the UK now if the Tax Credits system had been implemented more sensibly. Or perhaps it is something we might progress to with the proposed new benefits system. It fairly well combines the Tax and Benefits system whilst in large part removes the need for a minimum wage because it guarantees a minimum income.
And yes Phill - Is there actually an argument for creating 'non' jobs to constantly stimulate the economy?
I think there is given that we pay out to those without jobs anyway. Why not get them doing some worth while work for a slightly higher rate than they get on benefits.
I think there is given that we pay out to those without jobs anyway. Why not get them doing some worth while work for a slightly higher rate than they get on benefits.
This would be an ideal solution apart from how do you make people work if they don't want to? That would probably violate the human rights.
And if it were possible to create real jobs out of thin air, we are already doing it or, it can't be done.
Warren Buffett said the US should raise it's tax rate on the rich, as did French millionaries recently and the UK wants to cut it. I really am amazed that a good chunk of the responsible rich want higher tax rates yet the poor and middle classes are fighting for less tax on the rich, I can only assume that they're preparing for the time when they themselves will be rich (!)
given that we pay out to those without jobs anyway. Why not get them doing some worth while work for a slightly higher rate than they get on benefits.
I think the problem with that is that if someone can get work done by people on benefits at a cheaper rate than hiring people part-time or full-time, say a local council for example. Then there's no need for them to create jobs as they already have them done by cheap labour.
I think the problem with that is that if someone can get work done by people on benefits at a cheaper rate than hiring people part-time or full-time say a local council for example. Then there's no need for them create jobs as they already have them done by cheap labour.
You mean like Jacquie Smith getting prisoners to do her decorating for her??? Nice work if you can get it!!!
C3..............:eek::roll:;)
weezer 316
25-Aug-11, 12:09
Warren Buffett said the US should raise it's tax rate on the rich, as did French millionaries recently and the UK wants to cut it. I really am amazed that a good chunk of the responsible rich want higher tax rates yet the poor and middle classes are fighting for less tax on the rich, I can only assume that they're preparing for the time when they themselves will be rich (!)
I think the problem with that is that if someone can get work done by people on benefits at a cheaper rate than hiring people part-time or full-time, say a local council for example. Then there's no need for them to create jobs as they already have them done by cheap labour.
Couple of things:
Warren Buffet isnt rich. People like that are are completely different class altogether. You cant bundle him in with a dentist who works at a posh clinic making 150k a year. Infact the case could be made the dentist is far closer to your income using any measure you wish so you should pay 50% as well.
And yes the US should raise its tax on the rich. Its top income tax rate is around 35% I am led to believe and there is no reason that couldnt jump at least 5%.
How would you deal with Guys like warren who has made is immense fortune from smart investment and derives almost all of his income from stocks and not in terms of a salary?
NickInTheNorth
25-Aug-11, 13:04
Well at least the government are planning to make a start with taxing the wealthy that like to keep the money locked up in swiss banks. Initially between 19% and 34% of the lump sum in the bank followed by 27% to 48% annually on the income the money generates.
Too little too late - but a start never the less.
I guess George and David don't keep theirs in Switzerland :)
Couple of things:
Warren Buffet isnt rich. People like that are are completely different class altogether. You cant bundle him in with a dentist who works at a posh clinic making 150k a year. Infact the case could be made the dentist is far closer to your income using any measure you wish so you should pay 50% as well.
And yes the US should raise its tax on the rich. Its top income tax rate is around 35% I am led to believe and there is no reason that couldnt jump at least 5%.
How would you deal with Guys like warren who has made is immense fortune from smart investment and derives almost all of his income from stocks and not in terms of a salary?
I'll admit Buffett is in an entirely different bracket. The US used to have a top rate of 40% but that was cut during the Bush presidency, actually it used to have top rates of 75-90% way back when pre-Reagan, after which the Republic part gets a bit crazy. A better Capital Gains tax system would probably be what I'd do.
Obviously we need to establish brackets with sensible a cut-off and have systems in place to stop avoidance, evasion and the exploitation of alternative revenue streams. Perhaps if people paid what they were supposed to then we could lower the tax rate.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.