Mansion tax

[cambsno]

Its all relative - I would say that well off is £100k+, to be classed as rich (and where tax generation focus should be) is more like £250k+ - certainly those earning £40-70k should not be clobbered as they are now.

It is regional though...remember that in London you probably cant get a 3 bed home for less than £400k (total guess), so using the 3xwage for mortage, someone earning £150k is far from rich. However, in Hull, where you can probably buy a nice 3 bed house for less than half that, say £175k, someone earning £50k is probably in a similar boat.

 

[cambsno]

You missed the point of the answer. They didn't get there on their own so when they do become rich you pay back more. The rich hoarding their wealth that society helped them build isn't a good thing.

As for 'successful' to 'rich' I don't understand where you expect the line to be drawn? £100k a year is 'successful' but £101k a year is 'rich'?

Its the rich that buy cars, boats, planes, holidays, entertaining... employ gardners, cleaners etc... so they dont hoard any more or less overall.

 

[Laudrup]

I'm puzzled by this statement. What has society got to do with how someone manages to build their wealth?

Infrastructure to help you or your staff didn't just happen overnight, research into the internet or other technologies to help you sell products or services has all been created by someone else. If you're becoming rich off the back of it then why shouldn't you pay back more?

 

[nilagin]

So there weren't any rich people before the internet came along then.

 

[Laudrup]

Its the rich that buy cars, boats, planes, holidays, entertaining... employ gardners, cleaners etc... so they dont hoard any more or less overall.

In the US, the share of national income going to the wealthiest 1% has doubled since 1980 to 20%. For the top 0.01%, it has quadrupled to levels never seen before.

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened:

http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/americas-growing-income-gap-shows-two-recoveries-in-action/

There's an estimated £20 trillion in offshore accounts, so yes I think they do hoard it.

 

[Laudrup]

So there weren't any rich people before the internet came along then.

And they built their own infrastructure? They taught themselves? Nobody helped them?

 

[barneyrubble]

Infrastructure to help you or your staff didn't just happen overnight, research into the internet or other technologies to help you sell products or services has all been created by someone else. If you're becoming rich off the back of it then why shouldn't you pay back more?

Because its available to everyone :bonk::bonk::bonk:

So you think that someone who uses the internet to sell something successfully should pay a higher percentage tax? :bang::bang:

 

[barneyrubble]

And they built their own infrastructure? They taught themselves? Nobody helped them?

But what did they get that is not available to everyone?

 

[nilagin]

And they built their own infrastructure? They taught themselves? Nobody helped them?

I'm fairly sure that whatever help they would have received they would already have repaid, fail to see why they should be taxed more, and if that same help is available to others who never got so wealthy, why should one pay extra taxes than the other.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm puzzled by this statement. What has society got to do with how someone manages to build their wealth?

Where do you think wealth comes from.?

Wealth ALWAYS comes from other people.
Wealth is like the lumps in curdled milk.
some are large lumps and some is nothing but whey.
To be come rich you must find a way of parting people from their money.

It has nothing to do with honesty, fairness or conscience.
It is everyone for him self, and take what you can.
Society is the table you play on.....

 

[Laudrup]

Because its available to everyone :bonk::bonk::bonk:

So you think that someone who uses the internet to sell something successfully should pay a higher percentage tax? :bang::bang:

Yeah why should you have to pay a penny for anything you gain the most benefit from? Amazon earned £3.3 billion and paid no corporation tax, who cares right? Let the low paid workers pick up the tab or better yet get the modest tax payers to subsidise poorer workers through tax credits to make a living wage.

 

[Laudrup]

I'm fairly sure that whatever help they would have received they would already have repaid, fail to see why they should be taxed more, and if that same help is available to others who never got so wealthy, why should one pay extra taxes than the other.

Looking at the state of the world economy, and the disparity between rich and poor does it look to have been repaid?

 

[Deleted member 49549]

If u tax oil companies more they will raise prices? Most fuel revenue goes to government.

That's what i was thinking. Increase the fuel companies cost so their customers pay less? Not sure in the logic of that!

 

[Stratman]

The 'rich' already pay more, even if there was one flat rate tax they would still pay more.

Twenty percent of £500,000 is more than twenty percent of £25,000, to be precise it's £95,000 more.

By what perverse logic is 100k not more than 5k?

 

[Yves Geza]

I read today the Lib Dems want to tax people on their possessions too. I had to check it wasn't April the 1st when I read it and that I hadn't slept through half of Feb and all of March.

Indeed! The State demands tax from peoples' earnings, demands tax when when people spend on anything and now, because that doesn't seem to provide the State with enough for all their spending plans, seem to want to tax peoples' possessions.

Which begs the simple question, whose stuff is it? Should everything belong to the State or should people possess anything for themselves?

There's an estimated £20 trillion in offshore accounts, so yes I think they do hoard it.

It sounds as though some [rich] people want to keep their own stuff their own as above! How can you argue with that?

Of course, taxing the rich is cheap soundbite politics and pathetically unachievable, at least until a State does confiscate and steal all possessions!

Taxing the rich has to be consensual and reasonable to be effective and actually take any money, because, unlike hospital cleaners or shop assistants, they're the folk who can and do simply move elsewhere to a different tax regime.

 

[barneyrubble]

Yeah why should you have to pay a penny for anything you gain the most benefit from? Amazon earned £3.3 billion and paid no corporation tax, who cares right? Let the low paid workers pick up the tab or better yet get the modest tax payers to subsidise poorer workers through tax credits to make a living wage.

No now you move the goalposts to suit your argument. We move on from personal taxation to corporate taxation :bang::bang::bang:

I think you will find that Amazon are charged a fee for using the internet, like you and me. Only theirs will be significantly higher.

 

[nilagin]

Looking at the state of the world economy, and the disparity between rich and poor does it look to have been repaid?

There will always be rich and poor, if you have money/savings you earn interest on it etc. other people make the money work for you, they get paid for it, they spend their money and pay taxes etc. etc. so yes they are repaying. The poor however are unlikely to get wealthier because they have nothing to make them wealthier. If you make them wealthier, you are likely to be giving them something for free are they going to repay that.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

The 'rich' already pay more, even if there was one flat rate tax they would still pay more.

Twenty percent of £500,000 is more than twenty percent of £25,000, to be precise it's £95,000 more.

By what perverse logic is 100k not more than 5k?

I'm guessing that people are meaning more as a percentage. Ie someone on 100,000 pa should pay a higher percentage contribution than someone in 15,000 pa.

FWIW i believe the minimum wage required to start paying income tax should be approx 12-15k pa. But judging by comments above that would not be a popular proposal!

 

[Steve Smith]

Look at it another way. If the rich didn't pay higher taxes, in order for the government to raise the same revenue, mere mortals like us would be paying higher tax than we are now.


Steve.

 

[TriggerHappy]

I'm guessing that people are meaning more as a percentage. Ie someone on 100,000 pa should pay a higher percentage contribution than someone in 15,000 pa.

FWIW i believe the minimum wage required to start paying income tax should be approx 12-15k pa. But judging by comments above that would not be a popular proposal!

Judging from the comments above, Thatcher was on to something with the poll tax :bang:

 

[cambsno]

And they built their own infrastructure? They taught themselves? Nobody helped them?

Ok, lets take Alan Sugar, had the same education as everyone else and as far as i know did well due to hard work. Branson did go to a private school, but this had no bearing on his business acumen, and he has not received help in making billions.

All of us get free eduction till 16, and free healthcare. Yes, many people are in a better position to me and have a head start, but many people with less have done better.

 

[cambsno]

Look at it another way. If the rich didn't pay higher taxes, in order for the government to raise the same revenue, mere mortals like us would be paying higher tax than we are now.


Steve.

Or they could waste less!!! Take my nan. Approaching 89, no savings (other than a few thousand for funeral), gets her sheltered bungalow and council tax paid for in full. Gets £130 a week state pension and £90 a month from her late husbands pension. So around £600 a month income. Taking off utilities and food she still has plenty of money and is now going to receive more benefit (an extra £77 per week). Ok, aside from puzzle books she has no hobbies, no car etc... but she cannot believe how much money she now has.

I dont think people mind paying more tax the richer they are, as long as it is not taking the pee. Why should someone earning more that around £45k pay any additional income at 40% is theft. £50k is not rich.

 

[rjbell]

Or they could waste less!!! Take my nan. Approaching 89, no savings (other than a few thousand for funeral), gets her sheltered bungalow and council tax paid for in full. Gets £130 a week state pension and £90 a month from her late husbands pension. So around £600 a month income. Taking off utilities and food she still has plenty of money and is now going to receive more benefit (an extra £77 per week). Ok, aside from puzzle books she has no hobbies, no car etc... but she cannot believe how much money she now has.

I dont think people mind paying more tax the richer they are, as long as it is not taking the pee. Why should someone earning more that around £45k pay any additional income at 40% is theft. £50k is not rich.

Its not £45k its £34k and as of Apr it will be £32k paying 40%, while the people earning over £150k will be paying 45% rather than 50%.

 

[POAH]

I'm interested in what level people think a person changes from successful to rich (what level of income) and why the rich should pay more for the same services, which is at the end of the day what a tax is.

Why is it that people who wok hard and earn a higher wage should be punished by a higher tax burden? And please no stupid "because they can afford it" answers.

You can work hard and still be poor - and because they can afford it lol

Being rich and paying a bit more has less of effect on the person who is poor and has to pay a bit more.

£100 a month is 1/4 of my salary to someone that takes home 2k it's a 1/20th.

Ideally we would have a government that would forget about spending billions on new nuclear weapons and spend it on welfare, schools etc.

 

[rjbell]

You can work hard and still be poor - and because they can afford it lol

Being rich and paying a bit more has less of effect on the person who is poor and has to pay a bit more.

£100 a month is 1/4 of my salary to someone that takes home 2k it's a 1/20th.

Ideally we would have a government that would forget about spending billions on new nuclear weapons and spend it on welfare, schools etc.

Problem with that is they can't all be shareholders of welfare and schools. Its obscene, if they insist on spending such money on the military why not a replacement to the 60yr old landrover that gets opened up like a can of beans when it goes over a IED, surely this is the biggest curse of casualty's?

 

[cambsno]

Its not £45k its £34k and as of Apr it will be £32k paying 40%, while the people earning over £150k will be paying 45% rather than 50%.

Please tell me you are wrong!!! I thought 1st 10k (approx) is 0%, next £32/34k is 20% and anything more is 40%.

 

[cambsno]

You can work hard and still be poor - and because they can afford it lol

Being rich and paying a bit more has less of effect on the person who is poor and has to pay a bit more.

£100 a month is 1/4 of my salary to someone that takes home 2k it's a 1/20th.

Ideally we would have a government that would forget about spending billions on new nuclear weapons and spend it on welfare, schools etc.

But if they suddenly stopped spending on nuclear, there would be the makers of the devices going bust, along with all sorts of engineering companies and scientists and the like. Plus when those firms go bust you then have otehr business affected, the sandwich van companu goes bust as do cleaning firms etc...

 

[POAH]

But if they suddenly stopped spending on nuclear, there would be the makers of the devices going bust, along with all sorts of engineering companies and scientists and the like. Plus when those firms go bust you then have otehr business affected, the sandwich van companu goes bust as do cleaning firms etc...

don't think the people that make nuclear wareheads have a huge demand lol

and TBH I don't care about the people involved with the making and upkeep of nuclear weapons either. we would be saving a heck of a load of cash in the long run that can be spent on more important things. I'll be glad when we get independance and the subs will be gone from faslane.

 

[rjbell]

Please tell me you are wrong!!! I thought 1st 10k (approx) is 0%, next £32/34k is 20% and anything more is 40%.

I don't think so? Have a read here http://http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm#1

 

[nilagin]

Its not £45k its £34k and as of Apr it will be £32k paying 40%, while the people earning over £150k will be paying 45% rather than 50%.

Plus your personal tax allowance, you can earn over £41k from this April before paying 40%, but that is still too low.
As cambsno say's they need to waste less before they even think of making people pay more.

 

[Steve Smith]

£50k is not rich.

That is twice my income (and twice the national average). I would consider it to be rich!


Styeve.

 

[rjbell]

That is twice my income (and twice the national average). I would consider it to be rich!


Styeve.

Its twice my earning too but i still wouldn't call it rich. But that word is obviously up for interpretation.

 

[cambsno]

don't think the people that make nuclear wareheads have a huge demand lol

and TBH I don't care about the people involved with the making and upkeep of nuclear weapons either. we would be saving a heck of a load of cash in the long run that can be spent on more important things. I'll be glad when we get independance and the subs will be gone from faslane.

We wouldn't. We won gave loads less individuals and companies paying tax and more on benefits.

 

[nilagin]

That is twice my income (and twice the national average). I would consider it to be rich!


Styeve.

It depends on where you live though. I'm already paying 40% tax, because I just fall into the tax bracket, I'm not rich and nor would I consider someone earning 50k.

 

[rjbell]

It depends on where you live though. I'm already paying 40% tax, because I just fall into the tax bracket, I'm not rich and nor would I consider someone earning 50k.

If you are just falling in that bracket is it not just worth paying that into a pension if you're are giving 40% away in taxes?

 

[nilagin]

If you are just falling in that bracket is it not just worth paying that into a pension if you're are giving 40% away in taxes?

I will only be over by a couple of thousand or so by the end of the tax year, for the return I'm likely to see on, investing that into another pension wouldn't really be worth it. Plus I'm likely to be earning less from July due to changes at work so not likely to fall into the 40% bracket again for a few years.

 

[Johnd2000]

You missed the point of the question. Why should they pay more? They are getting exactly the same from the govt as everyone else.

And what level - please answer that one?

From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

Not that difficult is it?

 

[cambsno]

That is twice my income (and twice the national average). I would consider it to be rich!


Styeve.

Just looked a recent BBC report - the average house is worth £238k. At 50k, you would need a mortgage between 4 and 5 times your income... so I dont class that as rich! Looking at young people today, how will they afford to buy a house???

 

[Laudrup]

Thats gibberish i'm afraid.

Everyone has the same help from the government - or access to it at least.

So why should the rich pay more. What specifics do the rich get that the "less rich" dont.

As for drawing the line - thats what I'm asking you. At what level should people pay more.

If it was gibberish then why is the gap between rich and poor increasing? What about doing what thousands of high earners do and putting your income into a trust in Jersey, which will then lend the investor back the money which isn't subject to income tax. Are people on £15k a year doing that?

As for the arbitrary need to define rich or successful or super duper mega rich, does it need exact figures, and if so why?

 

[cambsno]

If it was gibberish then why is the gap between rich and poor increasing? What about doing what thousands of high earners do and putting your income into a trust in Jersey, which will then lend the investor back the money which isn't subject to income tax. Are people on £15k a year doing that?

As for the arbitrary need to define rich or successful or super duper mega rich, does it need exact figures, and if so why?

The problem is that its the people on £40k-£100k who seem to be clobbered, not those earning £1m+ who are the sort to be putting it in Jersey. Doing a 'Jimmy Carr' is perfectly legal so there is no issue IMO otherwise there would be laws against it.

You could take 10000 people to a remote island. Give them all a house of equal value and £100k. There would be a gap between rich and poor after 1 year and that would probably increase. Thats life.