|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 14, 2014 8:15:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jun 14, 2014 9:27:38 GMT
the taxing of the highest earners sometimes becomes a political /idealogical issue as in france rather than an ecomomic one
|
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Jun 14, 2014 9:52:40 GMT
The old tried, tested and failed Thatcher model? Really?
The slower recovery in France is a long way away from being about just some simplistic tax comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2014 10:02:36 GMT
Luke 20:45-21:4
[45] While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, [46] "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. [47] They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."
[21:1] As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. [2] He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. [3] "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. [4] All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."
Seems somehow appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Jun 14, 2014 10:05:40 GMT
Luke 20:45-21:4 [45] While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, [46] "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. [47] They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." [21:1] As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. [2] He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. [3] "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. [4] All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." Seems somehow appropriate. Politics and religion. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Jun 14, 2014 10:57:34 GMT
Pretty obvious really. Increasing taxes too far chases high earners (and contributors) away. Never fails to amaze me how people think a 75% top tax rate could ever be a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by kristoff on Jun 14, 2014 11:29:46 GMT
Its the same as everything, its finding a balance. If something costs £45 you will get in X amount of money, reduce it to £35 and its likely more people will buy it so raising your profits
Not exaclty a perfect analogy but fairly obvious stuff
|
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jun 14, 2014 12:13:36 GMT
Less is More.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 11:42:50 GMT
Pretty obvious really. Increasing taxes too far chases high earners (and contributors) away. Never fails to amaze me how people think a 75% top tax rate could ever be a good thing. It's a good thing in the sense that the people who would pay that rate of tax are evidently so wealthy that it would have little or no material impact on their lives, save for their already enormous bank balances missing a zero at the end, while the money generated hopefully goes to the benefit of the rest of society. Of course, the real problem is not the rate of tax, but that the people who would be required to pay that tax rate are almost invariably greedy, selfish, money-grabbing, tax-dodging cunts who employ an army of accountants and tax lawyers to ensure that they would rather not see a zero disappear of their enormous bank balances to help other people despite it having no impact on their own comfortable existences. It never ceases to amaze me that this isn't seen as one of the more disgusting human traits and worthy of more public condemnation. The Thatcherite 'trickle down' pipe dream has been shown to be absolute bollocks, the wealth increasingly stays in the hands of the few. There's more than enough money circulating in the world to solve most of the world's problems, unfortunately there is no real will to see them solved, so long as having billions and billions of pounds more than any one person actually needs is considered a desirable end. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 16, 2014 11:52:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Jun 16, 2014 13:43:14 GMT
Pretty obvious really. Increasing taxes too far chases high earners (and contributors) away. Never fails to amaze me how people think a 75% top tax rate could ever be a good thing. It's a good thing in the sense that the people who would pay that rate of tax are evidently so wealthy that it would have little or no material impact on their lives, save for their already enormous bank balances missing a zero at the end, while the money generated hopefully goes to the benefit of the rest of society. Of course, the real problem is not the rate of tax, but that the people who would be required to pay that tax rate are almost invariably greedy, selfish, money-grabbing, tax-dodging cunts who employ an army of accountants and tax lawyers to ensure that they would rather not see a zero disappear of their enormous bank balances to help other people despite it having no impact on their own comfortable existences. It never ceases to amaze me that this isn't seen as one of the more disgusting human traits and worthy of more public condemnation. The Thatcherite 'trickle down' pipe dream has been shown to be absolute bollocks, the wealth increasingly stays in the hands of the few. There's more than enough money circulating in the world to solve most of the world's problems, unfortunately there is no real will to see them solved, so long as having billions and billions of pounds more than any one person actually needs is considered a desirable end. The super wealthy yes. As in people worth hundreds of millions. But they are few and far between, and contribute little to society (rightly or wrongly). The people that this affects the most are those earning a couple of hundred thousand per year, maybe into the low millions. There are quite a lot of them in the UK and they contribute a hugely disproportionate amount of revenue to the government. They earn enough and are successful enough to be able to move anywhere they like, but don't earn so much that hiking the tax rate won't hurt their lifestyle. It would be good in theory to bring in a high tax rate for those earning millions, but it wouldn't bring much extra money in at all but would scare off a whole load of people who would see Britain as anti-success, even if they will never directly be affected by it. Bringing in a tax that dips into those earning good, but not astronomical sums will also do far more harm than good. |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jun 16, 2014 13:50:44 GMT
That's not balance. It's moving the goal posts. It's sort of like saying "Well you're comparing potatoes, here's an orange for balance" on the basis that both fall under the category of tax, like a potato and orange fall under the category of food.
The poorer pay a higher percentage of their income in tax overall, not a greater amount in actual money. Poor person A earning 15,000 could pay 43% of their income on tax and it would be around £7k to the treasury. Wealthy person A is actually earning £1m a year and therefore only needs to contribute 0.7% of their income to match that. However, the estimation is they're paying 35% of their income on tax, or a fairly substantial £350,000.
Just what taxes are included (is VAT for example?) because the VAT on an item costing £100 is exactly the same for the two people, however, its a higher percentage of a poor persons income than it is a wealthy persons.
Ultimately, it's common sense, taxes at flat rates are a larger percentage of income to a person with less money. But 30% of an elephant is more than 50% of a cow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 16, 2014 14:54:27 GMT
That's not balance. It's moving the goal posts. It's sort of like saying "Well you're comparing potatoes, here's an orange for balance" on the basis that both fall under the category of tax, like a potato and orange fall under the category of food. The poorer pay a higher percentage of their income in tax overall, not a greater amount in actual money. Poor person A earning 15,000 could pay 43% of their income on tax and it would be around £7k to the treasury. Wealthy person A is actually earning £1m a year and therefore only needs to contribute 0.7% of their income to match that. However, the estimation is they're paying 35% of their income on tax, or a fairly substantial £350,000. Just what taxes are included (is VAT for example?) because the VAT on an item costing £100 is exactly the same for the two people, however, its a higher percentage of a poor persons income than it is a wealthy persons. Ultimately, it's common sense, taxes at flat rates are a larger percentage of income to a person with less money. But 30% of an elephant is more than 50% of a cow. For a £15000 salary, £10000 is tax free isn't it? That's 66.66% leaving at the most 33.3%, which about only 25% of that would be tax free, I'm not sure how you are getting 43% from that |
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Jun 16, 2014 14:57:14 GMT
Luke 20:45-21:4 [45] While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, [46] "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. [47] They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." [21:1] As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. [2] He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. [3] "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. [4] All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." Seems somehow appropriate. ....well Lukes talkin out of his arse... |
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Jun 16, 2014 15:23:49 GMT
That's not balance. It's moving the goal posts. It's sort of like saying "Well you're comparing potatoes, here's an orange for balance" on the basis that both fall under the category of tax, like a potato and orange fall under the category of food. The poorer pay a higher percentage of their income in tax overall, not a greater amount in actual money. Poor person A earning 15,000 could pay 43% of their income on tax and it would be around £7k to the treasury. Wealthy person A is actually earning £1m a year and therefore only needs to contribute 0.7% of their income to match that. However, the estimation is they're paying 35% of their income on tax, or a fairly substantial £350,000. Just what taxes are included (is VAT for example?) because the VAT on an item costing £100 is exactly the same for the two people, however, its a higher percentage of a poor persons income than it is a wealthy persons. Ultimately, it's common sense, taxes at flat rates are a larger percentage of income to a person with less money. But 30% of an elephant is more than 50% of a cow. Someone on £15k pays 12% of their income in tax. Someone on £150k pays 40% of their income in tax Someone on £1.5m pays 46% of their income in tax. You can add 20% VAT to the cost of everything bought and still the person earning £15k comes nowhere close either proportionately or in real money. Also, a 10% hike for the person earning £15k costs them a hundred quid or so. If they leave, which they can't afford to do anyway, it loses the government £1.5k. A 10% hike for the £1.5 million earner costs them 70 odd thousand, a huge incentive to up and leave. They pay £700k in tax already, and given the freedom to move around that money brings, they could pay nothing if they move to a low tax nation. It's a fine tipping point when tax is already so high in the UK, and when they go they take 700k in tax with them. So you can quickly see how it takes an awful lot of low wage earners to cover the loss of a single high earner. When you're talking 75% tax rates its dangerous territory. |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jun 16, 2014 15:29:36 GMT
That's not balance. It's moving the goal posts. It's sort of like saying "Well you're comparing potatoes, here's an orange for balance" on the basis that both fall under the category of tax, like a potato and orange fall under the category of food. The poorer pay a higher percentage of their income in tax overall, not a greater amount in actual money. Poor person A earning 15,000 could pay 43% of their income on tax and it would be around £7k to the treasury. Wealthy person A is actually earning £1m a year and therefore only needs to contribute 0.7% of their income to match that. However, the estimation is they're paying 35% of their income on tax, or a fairly substantial £350,000. Just what taxes are included (is VAT for example?) because the VAT on an item costing £100 is exactly the same for the two people, however, its a higher percentage of a poor persons income than it is a wealthy persons. Ultimately, it's common sense, taxes at flat rates are a larger percentage of income to a person with less money. But 30% of an elephant is more than 50% of a cow. For a £15000 salary, £10000 is tax free isn't it? That's 66.66% leaving at the most 33.3%, which about only 25% of that would be tax free, I'm not sure how you are getting 43% from that Huddy's article says its 43% |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 16:20:48 GMT
It's a good thing in the sense that the people who would pay that rate of tax are evidently so wealthy that it would have little or no material impact on their lives, save for their already enormous bank balances missing a zero at the end, while the money generated hopefully goes to the benefit of the rest of society. Of course, the real problem is not the rate of tax, but that the people who would be required to pay that tax rate are almost invariably greedy, selfish, money-grabbing, tax-dodging cunts who employ an army of accountants and tax lawyers to ensure that they would rather not see a zero disappear of their enormous bank balances to help other people despite it having no impact on their own comfortable existences. It never ceases to amaze me that this isn't seen as one of the more disgusting human traits and worthy of more public condemnation. The Thatcherite 'trickle down' pipe dream has been shown to be absolute bollocks, the wealth increasingly stays in the hands of the few. There's more than enough money circulating in the world to solve most of the world's problems, unfortunately there is no real will to see them solved, so long as having billions and billions of pounds more than any one person actually needs is considered a desirable end. The super wealthy yes. As in people worth hundreds of millions. But they are few and far between, and contribute little to society (rightly or wrongly). The people that this affects the most are those earning a couple of hundred thousand per year, maybe into the low millions. There are quite a lot of them in the UK and they contribute a hugely disproportionate amount of revenue to the government. They earn enough and are successful enough to be able to move anywhere they like, but don't earn so much that hiking the tax rate won't hurt their lifestyle. It would be good in theory to bring in a high tax rate for those earning millions, but it wouldn't bring much extra money in at all but would scare off a whole load of people who would see Britain as anti-success, even if they will never directly be affected by it. Bringing in a tax that dips into those earning good, but not astronomical sums will also do far more harm than good. Given that the average salary in the UK is about £26k, I think those "earning a couple of hundred thousand a year, maybe the low millions" can well afford to pay more tax without finding their lifestyles suddenly reflect those of some of the characters off Benefits Street! But it's not really the tax rate that is the issue, it's the fact that there are so many dodges and wheezes that mean billions of pounds go unclaimed by government every year, some of which is almost condoned by government. Take the owner of the Daily Mail Lord Rothermere for example. UK born, UK educated, UK resident = non-dom, pays zero tax to UK HMRC. Amazing! But, as I said, there's no real will to resolve this as governments don't work together to provide a coherent tax approach globally which would benefit everybody instead of the few. Probably because governments these days are run by and heavily influenced by the very people who would be most affected! Greed is good. |
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Jun 16, 2014 16:28:25 GMT
The super wealthy yes. As in people worth hundreds of millions. But they are few and far between, and contribute little to society (rightly or wrongly). The people that this affects the most are those earning a couple of hundred thousand per year, maybe into the low millions. There are quite a lot of them in the UK and they contribute a hugely disproportionate amount of revenue to the government. They earn enough and are successful enough to be able to move anywhere they like, but don't earn so much that hiking the tax rate won't hurt their lifestyle. It would be good in theory to bring in a high tax rate for those earning millions, but it wouldn't bring much extra money in at all but would scare off a whole load of people who would see Britain as anti-success, even if they will never directly be affected by it. Bringing in a tax that dips into those earning good, but not astronomical sums will also do far more harm than good. Given that the average salary in the UK is about £26k, I think those "earning a couple of hundred thousand a year, maybe the low millions" can well afford to pay more tax without finding their lifestyles suddenly reflect those of some of the characters off Benefits Street! But why should they? They already pay a disproportionate amount. Why should they be penalised for being successful? Other than the 'well they have something and i don't, so they should give it to me' mentality of the UK, what valid reason is there for them to give up even more of what they earned? |
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 16, 2014 17:24:52 GMT
Written by Fraser Nelson a board director with the Centre for Policy Studies think tank,I see. I think I'll get info from somewhere other than a self obsessed free market neo-liberal, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 9:02:03 GMT
Given that the average salary in the UK is about £26k, I think those "earning a couple of hundred thousand a year, maybe the low millions" can well afford to pay more tax without finding their lifestyles suddenly reflect those of some of the characters off Benefits Street! But why should they? They already pay a disproportionate amount. Why should they be penalised for being successful? Other than the 'well they have something and i don't, so they should give it to me' mentality of the UK, what valid reason is there for them to give up even more of what they earned? Because it makes no difference to them! I think we fundamentally disagree about what constitutes being penalised! And I suspect that's probably how the venal, money-grabbing, tax dodging wealthy see it too. "It's my money, I'm keeping it regardless of the good it could be put to and regardless of the fact it will have minimal impact on my already comfy lifestyle. To put it bluntly I don't give a fuck about what happens to other people." That's what it boils down to. If you think that is a good way for the world's societies to proceed then I think you're ultimately heading for disaster. History shows that whenever the ruling wealthy elite becomes so detached from the rest of the society they operate in it usually ends in violent upheaval. Conversely, studies also show that the smaller the divide between the haves and have nots the more cohesive, content and calm is the society. In fact you could argue that the recent rise of Ukip is a direct message to the wealthy ruling elite in this country and the EU generally that a lot of people are beginning to get fucked off with how things are being run by them with little or no evident benefit to the average man or woman. Of course our domestic electoral system is massively weighted against any new party being able to effect real change so the main three parties will talk about listening and change and nothing really will. It's a very dangerous game they're playing imo. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 17, 2014 9:34:10 GMT
Always tax the rich from people.
I know a guy who earns about 100-150k. He's got a nice house, nice car has nice holidays etc, people want to tax him to an inch of his life, just because he can afford. The reality is he employs 100 people on good wages, that's a 100 lots of low tax payers, 100 mortgages, 100 families in employment on a decent wage, 100 people putting money into the economy
It's not always a case of he should pay more tax, it's a bit simplistic and wrong to forget for every banker or footballer earning big money there are people running businesses and contributing in more ways than one
We can't tax by occupation and probably have the fairest system we can.
|
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Jun 17, 2014 10:43:07 GMT
But why should they? They already pay a disproportionate amount. Why should they be penalised for being successful? Other than the 'well they have something and i don't, so they should give it to me' mentality of the UK, what valid reason is there for them to give up even more of what they earned? Because it makes no difference to them! I think we fundamentally disagree about what constitutes being penalised! And I suspect that's probably how the venal, money-grabbing, tax dodging wealthy see it too. "It's my money, I'm keeping it regardless of the good it could be put to and regardless of the fact it will have minimal impact on my already comfy lifestyle. To put it bluntly I don't give a fuck about what happens to other people." No offense but its like arguing with a 5 year old. "Because it makes no difference to them". "Tax dodging wealthy". "Dont give a fuck about other people". All of which is complete rubbish you've made up on the spot because you saw it in the paper. Ive shown you enough figures and cases that you ignore/dont understand, no point doing it again. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 11:33:16 GMT
Oh dear. Because I disagree with you and am not convinced by your points, it's apparently like arguing with a five year old? Well don't worry, I'm sure there are plenty of people on here you can agree with to back up your worldview and make you feel better again.
Just as a parting shot and to highlight the weakness of your general approach, how could I have made something up on the spot if I'd read it in the paper? That's a complete non sequitur that simply doesn't make sense!
I suspect like most right wingers you just don't like being thought of as selfish, money-obsessed, thoughtless and inconsiderate to the less fortunate members of society which is precisely what well off people who don't want to contribute more are (and those who argue in their defence). No-one likes to be told they don't give a fuck about other people because they won't put up with a small reduction in their wealth but that's the reality. I suspect I touched a nerve!
Actually before I go let's have a look at your figures. So, someone on 1.5m pays 700k in tax, which leaves them 800k to scrape by on. The poor fucking lamb. Then he suffers a further 10% increase and pays another 70odd k which is apparently a huge incentive to up and leave, despite still raking in over 700k. Well it is a huge incentive to leave if you're a venal money-grabbing, selfish cunt for whom 700k is simply not enough to live on that's undeniably true! You've kind of made my point for me here. He can afford it easily enough, he just doesn't see that he should, much like yourself! Which makes him exactly the kind of character I've described. But let's not kid ourselves that anyone earning those kind of figures is paying anything like 46% of his income in taxation! Why do you think George Osborne is trying (and failing) to stop the tax-dodging wealthy from getting away with it (or is that something else I've made up on the spot!)
I've no doubt the politics of envy is about to be mentioned!
|
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 17, 2014 12:13:14 GMT
Selfish, thoughtless and inconsiderate? Sounds like the scumbags that milk the system and require constant supervision to look after their own kids rather than people who actually get off their backsides and earn a living for their families. With all of the kick backs from governments you need to be earning quite a sum before you even become a net contributor. Politics of envy is all it is.  |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 17, 2014 12:15:13 GMT
Luke 20:45-21:4 [45] While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, [46] "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. [47] They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." [21:1] As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. [2] He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. [3] "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. [4] All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." Seems somehow appropriate. ....well Lukes talkin out of his arse... indeed he is |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 13:49:44 GMT
You figured out the global nature of the financial markets yet, mcf?  I'm always amazed at how sensitive the wealthy and their supporters are whenever someone dares to suggest they might be just the teensiest bit greedy and selfish by getting upset about being asked to give up a little more of their wealth! If I was that comfortably off and that greedy and selfish I wouldn't give a shite what anyone thought about me because earning bucketloads of cash would be far more important, or so you would think! Perhaps these folk might need some encouragement to find out what might actually make them content rather than the pursuit of ever greater sums of money! Ah, the politics of envy, didn't take long did it! |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 17, 2014 14:04:22 GMT
I know enough about them to keep on investing in them The vast majority are greedy and selfish Lukey whether rich or poor. You find me a few people on benefits that are willing to have them cut and a proportion sent on to the starving children in Africa and then I might even be tempted to give you the time of day on this. It's the same old shite you get from the blokes sat outside the pub demanding that the rich be taxed more as they down their 7th pint and break into another packet of fags then get all fucking tetchy when you suggest they go without to send money to Ethiopia. Hypocritical, selfish cunts. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 14:13:32 GMT
Selfish, thoughtless and inconsiderate? Sounds like the scumbags that milk the system and require constant supervision to look after their own kids rather than people who actually get off their backsides and earn a living for their families. With all of the kick backs from governments you need to be earning quite a sum before you even become a net contributor. Politics of envy is all it is. Govt figures 2013: benefits scroungers/scumbags/fraudsters = 1.1bn a year Tax dodging in 2011 = 69.9bn a year Sounds like those financial scumbags who milk the system and require constant handouts and supervision to look after their own businesses while earning hundreds of thousands rather than people who actually sit around on their backsides all day |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 14:15:01 GMT
I know enough about them to keep on investing in them The vast majority are greedy and selfish Lukey whether rich or poor. You find me a few people on benefits that are willing to have them cut and a proportion sent on to the starving children in Africa and then I might even be tempted to give you the time of day on this. It's the same old shite you get from the blokes sat outside the pub demanding that the rich be taxed more as they down their 7th pint and break into another packet of fags then get all fucking tetchy when you suggest they go without to send money to Ethiopia. Hypocritical, selfish cunts. Not the same at all. One can afford it easily, one can't. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 17, 2014 14:25:51 GMT
I know enough about them to keep on investing in them The vast majority are greedy and selfish Lukey whether rich or poor. You find me a few people on benefits that are willing to have them cut and a proportion sent on to the starving children in Africa and then I might even be tempted to give you the time of day on this. It's the same old shite you get from the blokes sat outside the pub demanding that the rich be taxed more as they down their 7th pint and break into another packet of fags then get all fucking tetchy when you suggest they go without to send money to Ethiopia. Hypocritical, selfish cunts. Not the same at all. One can afford it easily, one can't. Simple as that. Of course they can afford it. They are sat outide the pub drinking and smoking for crying out loud. These people have a choice. If they want to be all noble about it and we believe you that expecting the rich to cough up is not an option then they have to make a choice. If they are really just a bunch of mouthy cunts that can't go without beer and fags to aid starving kids in Africa then there really is no difference - they clearly don't give enough of a fuck about kids dying of starvation. It's just about where you want to draw the line in the sand. I'm not going to crticise rich people when they have earned the right to do what they want with their money as long as they obey the laws of the land. |
|
