View Full Version : Taxing the rich
weezer 316
30-Aug-11, 09:59
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/29/tax-us-more-say-wealthy-europeans
I bet Cameron & Osborne will choke on their breakfast if they read that.
Raising taxes for high earners is not part of this Governments agenda. Instead they will tax the not so well off with a series of stealth taxes which hit the poor in a disproportionate manner
weezer 316
30-Aug-11, 11:50
I think my position is well stated on this, but I will repeat it again.
You cannot raise the top tax rate as it stands. Infact i should be lowered. Paying more to the govt than you get is wrong.
However, as Recquery raised on another thread, guys like Warren buffet are in a totally different class of person to the people who are at the bottom of the top tax rate. I would suggest, at least to begin with, a voluntary tax similar to what the article proposes, with those of assets + cash of over £5m. I would then introduce 2 new tax rates above the current top rate, one at 45% and one at 47.5%, and reduce the tax paid for those earning under £150k to something like 40% or possibly lower. A possible tempoary luxury tax on things like fancy cars etc may also help but it has to be temporary to allow us to get our house in order first.
The I would raise the people on lower rates tax. They dont pay for the services they consume so they need to pay more. And that inludes me.
tonkatojo
30-Aug-11, 12:06
Should this not be in the "joke section".
weezer 316
30-Aug-11, 12:09
Whats your suggestion sunshine?
tonkatojo
30-Aug-11, 12:17
Whats your suggestion sunshine?
I presume your replying to me, if so Aye some of that wouldn't go amiss.
I'd like to see the reform of the tax system and the elimination of tax havens (no I don't mean that bogus Switzerland deal) before something like this, still it's a nice idea.
I'd like to see the reform of the tax system and the elimination of tax havens (no I don't mean that bogus Switzerland deal) before something like this, still it's a nice idea.
How about a system whereby the more you earn the more you pay, and the people who evade paying tax are pursued with the same relentless energy as that shown against DHSS claimants.
How about a system whereby the more you earn the more you pay, and the people who evade paying tax are pursued with the same relentless energy as that shown against DHSS claimants.
That's a start, ideally it would cover capital gains, other assets, the elimination of tax havens and the sharing of banking information between countries also. On a side note I took some annual leave a couple of weeks back and caught a programme on BBC1 about benefit fraud. Daytime TV is a whole other level of awful but I was wondering what the likelihood of a similar programme being made about tax fraud, avoidance and evasion would be. One is demonised the other is ignored, both are bad but the tax stuff costs more than the benefit fraud.
If people actually paid what they were supposed to then we could probably lower the tax rates.
weezer 316
31-Aug-11, 14:13
I think benefit fraud is demonised simply because it is stealing, which it is. Minimizing tax exposure isnt. That's why.
We couldnt lower tax if everyone aid what it should, we dont pay enough as it is, hence the reason we are operating with a deficit. Mind the TUC reckons we lose £25bn tops from tax evasion. They would paint a worst case scenario.
I've heard different figures, though generally between £75bn - £152bn, even HMRC say it's at least £40bn - those figures include things like VAT-evasion though, with the figure for benefit fraud being £7bn.
Ideally a new system would take into account capital gains and various executive compensation packages such as someone paying themselves £1 a year salary and living off company perks and stock options. Something to deal with people resident but not domiciled, who are clearly abusing the system would be nice also. I'm not even saying we go after individuals, corporations are by far the worst for dodgy tax tactics.
oldmarine
31-Aug-11, 18:52
In the USA a person can contribute extra money to all level of governments (federal, state & local) with no questions asked if they so desire.
NickInTheNorth
31-Aug-11, 18:54
In the USA a person can contribute extra money to all level of governments (federal, state & local) with no questions asked if they so desire.
As they can in the UK - unfortunately it would appear that people are happier clinging on to every single penny possible, no matter how muc they have.
toffee_pie
31-Aug-11, 19:10
im paying over 600 squids a month on tax and im not exactly rich.:eek:
im paying over 600 squids a month on tax and im not exactly rich.:eek:
There are many people who would consider themselves rich if their income for the month was 600 pounds.
weezer 316
01-Sep-11, 08:46
im paying over 600 squids a month on tax and im not exactly rich.:eek:
I would like to remind you even on that you are comfortably within the top 20% of the worlds income earners. Dont forget it.
This figure is just for tax havens not all tax abuse, but there's an article on the Telegraph site about tax havens costing £16bn/£18bn a year:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/offshorefinance/8635370/Tax-haven-abuse-costs-the-UK-government-16-billion-per-year.html
I've heard different figures, though generally between £75bn - £152bn, even HMRC say it's at least £40bnThe truth is its finger in the air figures.
Even with the spin and political BS removed the calculations may well be flawed even with the best of intent. The assumption is always based on the revenue income still coming through the UK, but if you tax it, it goes elsewhere. So your not guaranteed the sums as the finances 'hidden' will shift again or be generated elsewhere.
Instead of this 'rich' chip on our shoulder we should look at making the UK competitive on tax as well as hammering evasion.
It is actually in our interest to get as many rich peeps spending their pennies in the UK as we can.
The truth is its finger in the air figures.
Even with the spin and political BS removed the calculations may well be flawed even with the best of intent. The assumption is always based on the revenue income still coming through the UK, but if you tax it, it goes elsewhere. So your not guaranteed the sums as the finances 'hidden' will shift again or be generated elsewhere.
Instead of this 'rich' chip on our shoulder we should look at making the UK competitive on tax as well as hammering evasion.
It is actually in our interest to get as many rich peeps spending their pennies in the UK as we can.
The rich are always the first to cry things like 'class warfare' and that people are 'jealous' or have chips on their shoulders when it looks like something will be done. They come up with economic plans which conveniently mean they'll pay less taxes and that, that will be good for economy, they'll occasionally co-opt a couple of sell-out politicians and economics professors to back this argument.
It's not a chip on your shoulder to want to have the rich obey the law, I'm sure if this were rioters or protesters the same people against obeying tax law would be shouting for things to happen.
It's a bit US-centric but this (http://www.reddit.com/r/greed) (http://www.reddit.com/r/greed) is a good resource for the sort of things I'm talking about.
weezer 316
01-Sep-11, 11:10
RecQuery,
I am sure I have seen you criticise the torygraph on numerous occasions when its articles are cited. Why the sudden change of heart?
I would worry less about the rich. You tend to think they work for you. They dont. they work for themselves, just the same as you do. I dont see you calling for more tax on your wages as it will benefit those worse off, why not?
As I have said on numerous occasions, they pay enoughm too much actually. WE, thats you and I, need to pay more or cut our cloth accordingly.
NickInTheNorth
01-Sep-11, 11:19
we really should all pay the same proportion in tax, apart from the very poorest.
Currently the wealthier you are the less you actually pay as a proportion of your income - and if not you should change tax advisor's :)
That is in terms of total taxation, not just income tax.
RecQuery,
I am sure I have seen you criticise the torygraph on numerous occasions when its articles are cited. Why the sudden change of heart?
Ah well if I quote sources people know I dislike or generally have a different ideology from me then it makes my life easier, I'm just as dismissive of things like the Guardian also BTW.
RecQuery,
I would worry less about the rich. You tend to think they work for you. They dont. they work for themselves, just the same as you do. I dont see you calling for more tax on your wages as it will benefit those worse off, why not?
As I have said on numerous occasions, they pay enough too much actually. WE, thats you and I, need to pay more or cut our cloth accordingly.
I would disagree with that, some of the rich may pay more as a raw amount but not in terms of a percentage of their total income.
weezer 316
01-Sep-11, 13:24
You would disagree?
Well if I earn 150k you are paying something like 60k in tax. Forgetting the incrementing amount of tax, that means overall you paying £1 in tax in order to keep each £2.50 you earn.
If you earn £16 000 a year you pay around £1700 in tax. That's £1 in tax to keep £9.40.
So, to summarise, they pay nearly 4x as much tax as someone in a roughly national standard wage!
And thats not enough?
Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway(worth Billions), recently came out and said that the 'Rich' should pay more taxes and he would be willing to do so....
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh....but.................his Company has been fighting with the US Tax Dept for years and they have only recently settled I think 2002/3 Taxes. All the others are under Appeal by his Company, so he is not exactly telling the truth.......He has teams of Accountants fighting the Govt!
There is such a fasle game going on...Oh well I don't have to worry.
NickInTheNorth
02-Sep-11, 17:54
Quite a detailed discussion of the change in the burden of taxation between the rich and the poorer in the USA here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/us-taxation-public-finance).
Very similar changes here in the UK over the same period.
Yes................Remember that the US has No VAT, or Federal Tax.......
In Canada we had a Provincial Tax of 7%(PST), and also a Federal Tax(GST) of 6% and recently they have 'Harmonized' it (sounds good eh) to a combined Tax of 13%.
Many of the States in the US have no tax at all, and the thought was that there should be a tax like most Countries have, but no one can agree, thus
there is no equivalent to your VAT..... Of course it will work for a while and then they will use it all up and they will be in the same boat that the rest of us are........
I think sometimes people forget that many of the huge corporations do not pay as much tax as perhaps they should, BUT they are the ones that are paying the Dividends which in turn pays for Pensions plans and also Gov't Pensions....
Gov'ts have huge sums of money invested in Blue Chip Companies, e.g. Suncor, BP, Shell, GE and the list goes on.
Perhaps we cannot have it both ways...We tax them more/ it lessens the Dividends/ which is turn lessens their return to the shareholder who are sometimes our Gov't.
It was reported today that 20 "High Profile Economists (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14810323)" want to scrap the 50% tax band stating that it is causing "lasting damage" to the UK economy. No doubt they have a vested personal interest in seeing this tax bracket removed.
Perhaps it was these economists (and others around the world) fiscal policies that got us into this mess in the first place
The people that brought the country into it's current financial mess are the numpties buying big houses with huge, unaffordable mortgages, financed cars etc. etc. If someone earns a high wage it is generally because the work hard, assume major responsibility and/or work long hours. Why should they hand over 50% to finance Joe Bloggs that sits on his dock all day?
weezer 316
08-Sep-11, 08:13
It was reported today that 20 "High Profile Economists (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14810323)" want to scrap the 50% tax band stating that it is causing "lasting damage" to the UK economy. No doubt they have a vested personal interest in seeing this tax bracket removed.
Perhaps it was these economists (and others around the world) fiscal policies that got us into this mess in the first place
Just............
You and I got us into this mess. Or rather, every eejit that voted labour knowing fine well they were running a massive deficit. Why cant people like you undertsnad that?? It itsnt that difficult!
It should be scraped. I dont work for you, I work for me. I assume tis the same with yourself
It was reported today that 20 "High Profile Economists (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14810323)" want to scrap the 50% tax band stating that it is causing "lasting damage" to the UK economy. No doubt they have a vested personal interest in seeing this tax bracket removed.
Perhaps it was these economists (and others around the world) fiscal policies that got us into this mess in the first placeThat, and other similar articles seem to be comparing apples and oranges.
They talk about the richest people on the planet, the likes of Warren Buffet and Liliane Bettencourt. These people are rich beyond comprehension, its utterly irrelevant if they ask for or want to pay more tax. Let them hand over part of their $70+ BILLION to their respective treasuries if they wish.
But, this shoulder chipped approach to taxation in sound bites for the Daily Star / Sun readers isn't the best way of doing business. And yes, it's business.
The 'rich' people that these kind of taxes hit are, as described, 'mobile'. They can choose when and how to pay their tax, by hiking it up in the UK does not necessarily mean an increase in revenue, they can up sticks with accounting and go to a different member state and get a better tax deal. The end result is the UK getting lower overall revenue.
Yes it may give some of you a smug smile of satisfaction to think that the 'rich' are getting hammered for 50% but the reality is they've just shifted elsewhere and paying less tax to another country. So you still have to pick up a bigger tax.
But hey, it makes a good misdirection for the voters though, laughing at the 'rich' while the gubbyment slip in another stealth tax.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.