Richest 1% to own more than rest of world

[viv1969]

OK, but if you are not against it, then are you for the wealthy paying more tax as a percentage of their income?

Yes absolutely, but only to a certain degree.
However, many people would continue to up the tax thresholds until the mega wealthy were paying 90+%, and I don't agree with that.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Yes absolutely, but only to a certain degree.
However, many people would continue to up the tax thresholds until the mega wealthy were paying 90+%, and I don't agree with that.

Then we agree!

 

[viv1969]

Then we agree!

Shhhhhh.....Someone will hear you!

 

[Bernie174]

I didn't say you suggested that, please read what I said, not what you think I did.
But what you did say was the rich paying more 'it's the right thing to do', in relation to Viv's comments.
So if that's the case, where do you draw the line?
If you cared that much about the so called poor, then you'd be doing what I did suggest and volunteer to give everything above the minimum wage to the 'needy'.
It's very easy to suggest tax the hell out of the rich, or complain that they earn large amounts, but when the same thing is suggested a bit lower down the chain, it's not such as good idea is it? Given that it's unlikely you, or anyone else would go along with the idea, why should it then apply to the top earners?

 

[Deleted member 49549]

I didn't say you suggested that, please read what I said, not what you think I did.
But what you did say was the rich paying more 'it's the right thing to do', in relation to Viv's comments.
So if that's the case, where do you draw the line?
If you cared that much about the so called poor, then you'd be doing what I did suggest and volunteer to give everything above the minimum wage to the 'needy'.
It's very easy to suggest tax the hell out of the rich, or complain that they earn large amounts, but when the same thing is suggested a bit lower down the chain, it's not such as good idea is it? Given that it's unlikely you, or anyone else would go along with the idea, why should it then apply to the top earners?

Please can you explain the logic of how you got from my statement to the bolded part above? I cannot see how any reasonable person could make that leap. Is your role here a contrarian - or do you wish to take an honest part in the debate?

And, if I may use your own words against you - 'please read what I said'. I have already stated I would be happy paying more tax.

 

[viv1969]

Please can you explain the logic of how you got from my statement to the bolded part above? I cannot see how any reasonable person could make that leap. Is your role here a contrarian - or do you wish to take an honest part in the debate?

And, if I may use your own words against you - 'please read what I said'. I have already stated I would be happy paying more tax.

Problem's right there.

 

[big soft moose]

Never mind this taxation rubbish i say we drag the borgouis fat cats from their silk sheeted beds and put them up against a wall somewhere... then their wealth can be syphoned off to keep party leaders in alcohol, drugs and whores shared with the working man

 

[simon ess]

All I know is this -

Today, I've had access to clean water, I have shelter and I have eaten.

I'm not even close to poverty.

I'm very lucky and very happy.

When a rich person gives me a job I'll be even happier.

 

[Bernie174]

It's very simple, and I don't see how a reasonably intelligent person fails to make the connection.
I asked, as you are so happy to pay more, if you'd be happy to pay everything above the average wage to subsidise the 'poor'? Simply because that is the logical extension of what you are saying. Why should someone who earns more pay a bigger proportion of their earnings to support others? You might be happy to, I wouldn't. Nor would I suspect many others.
If not where do you draw the line?
The point of this being that thats not an incentive to work hard and to better yourself. It's the opposite.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

It's very simple, and I don't see how a reasonably intelligent person fails to make the connection.
I asked, as you are so happy to pay more, if you'd be happy to pay everything above the average wage to subsidise the 'poor'? Simply because that is the logical extension of what you are saying. Why should someone who earns more pay a bigger proportion of their earnings to support others? You might be happy to, I wouldn't. Nor would I suspect many others.
If not where do you draw the line?
The point of this being that thats not an incentive to work hard and to better yourself. It's the opposite.

I think that taxes should be progressive, and from that you make the leap that I should give all my earnings over and above minimum wage to the poor. And even more confusingly you think this is a logical extension?

 

[LCPete]

It's not the rate of tax but as already stated the super rich pay little or no tax at all

 

[SFTPhotography]

It's not the rate of tax but as already stated the super rich pay little or no tax at all

Define super rich?

Given I heard the top 1% pay in 48% to the exchequer I'd say whatever they pay is more than plenty as they get 1% of the vote, not the 48% of the exchequer they pay for.

 

[LCPete]

Define super rich?

Given I heard the top 1% pay in 48% to the exchequer I'd say whatever they pay is more than plenty as they get 1% of the vote, not the 48% of the exchequer they pay for.

Talking about roughly the top 1 percent
Yes but the top earners dont pay the 48 percent due to tax avoidance schemes

 

[nilagin]

I'm not sure how paying tax benefits fewer people?

Let's say one person has to pay £20k extra in tax, that money goes straight to the treasury and only benefits those that get paid it in benefits or whatever. However, if the spend that £20k in various places, more benefit from it as it keeps people employed, money still filters through the system in tax to the treasury, but more people have earned out of it.

 

[viv1969]

Talking about roughly the top 1 percent
Yes but the top earners dont pay the 48 percent due to tax avoidance schemes

All of them? Really?

 

[LCPete]

All of them? Really?

Not all of them of course but its common knowledge that a significant number don't pay the correct amount of tax

 

[nilagin]

What people are saying is that the more you earn, the more tax you should pay as a percentage of your income.

You do, the 1st 10k is tax free, anything after that up to £31,865 (+£10k personal allowance) is taxed at 20%, anything above £41,865 is taxed at 40% and anything above £150k is taxed at 45%.

 

[yorkshirechap]

Not all of them of course but its common knowledge that a significant number don't pay the correct amount of tax

Unfortunately, "correct" is entirely subjective. Technically, anything legal is "correct", including avoidance. For many higher earners, how much tax they pay comes down to a moral choice based on their own political leanings.

A lot of high earners engage in private philanthropy with money that would otherwise have gone to HMRC, having falling outside the scope of tax relief for charitable donations. Not everyone that is well off, is greedy. Avoiding taxes also does not necessarily make someone greedy, they may just simply prefer to allocate the funds to good causes themselves, rather than trust HMRC to get their money to the people or services that need it. Afterall, it is common knowledge how much money is wasted by governments.

Just offering an alternative point of view.

 

[boyfalldown]

Let's say one person has to pay £20k extra in tax, that money goes straight to the treasury and only benefits those that get paid it in benefits or whatever. However, if the spend that £20k in various places, more benefit from it as it keeps people employed, money still filters through the system in tax to the treasury, but more people have earned out of it.

Except your tax doesn't only pay benefits. As well as that it pays schools, the NHS, police, fire service (to name a few)etc etc. That benefits everyone and cretes just as many jobs and people earning from it. The arguement that avoiding tax benefits anyone but the avoidee is misplaced

 

[Bernie174]

It's a bit more complicated than tax pays for schools Police and fire service, and a fair number of other things. A large amount of those services are paid for from Council Tax and Business Rates, rather than central Government funding. The NHS was supposed to be paid for from NI contributions, but is massively propped up by income tax.

Which leads us to local taxation and how fair or otherwise that is. The Poll Tax was lambasted for being 'unfair', but no one has ever given me any form of explanation as to why it is. I live alone, and pay 3/4 of what a family of 4, all earning money do. Is that fair? I am obviously going to say no, I don't use 3/4 of the services they do. But is it fair to a window/er pensioner who lives alone, but in a family sized house that he/she is sentimentally attached to? No, it certainly isn't.
So while the idea of Council Tax was to make it fairer, it hasn't, it disadvantages those who live alone and massively advantages big families. And of course we subsidise those who can't be bothered to work.

The super rich obviously pay considerably more Council tax, assuming they own a large property, but the Libs and Lab want a Mansion tax on top. Again its a disincentive to anyone wanting to work hard and better them selves.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

You do, the 1st 10k is tax free, anything after that up to £31,865 (+£10k personal allowance) is taxed at 20%, anything above £41,865 is taxed at 40% and anything above £150k is taxed at 45%.

And do you agree with this progressively higher tax rate?

 

[boyfalldown]

You do, the 1st 10k is tax free, anything after that up to £31,865 (+£10k personal allowance) is taxed at 20%, anything above £41,865 is taxed at 40% and anything above £150k is taxed at 45%.

You forget, you also progressivly lose your tax free allowance above £100k

 

[viv1969]

Not all of them of course but its common knowledge that a significant number don't pay the correct amount of tax

They may not pay as much as you'd wish, but those using (at this moment) legal avoidance methods are doing nothing incorrect.

 

[big soft moose]

Let's say one person has to pay £20k extra in tax, that money goes straight to the treasury and only benefits those that get paid it in benefits or whatever. However, if the spend that £20k in various places, more benefit from it as it keeps people employed, money still filters through the system in tax to the treasury, but more people have earned out of it.

yes bu the various things the treasury funds with taxation benefit us all (NHS, armed forces, transport etc) and most of that gets spent on either salaries or resources (and the resources are purchased from other firms who spend the money on saries or resources and so fourth) - even the money the government 'wastes' on consultants etc still goes back into the economy when the consultant spends it on his living expenses

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Oliver Wendall Homes: “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.”

“For every pound I earn I will pay around 7 pence for immediate access to professional healthcare for my family, 5 pence for my children’s education, 2 pence for living in relative security and 11 pence for pensions and social security for my compatriots.....If it were a club only a fool would not join.” Richard Brooks

 

[nilagin]

yes bu the various things the treasury funds with taxation benefit us all (NHS, armed forces, transport etc) and most of that gets spent on either salaries or resources (and the resources are purchased from other firms who spend the money on saries or resources and so fourth) - even the money the government 'wastes' on consultants etc still goes back into the economy when the consultant spends it on his living expenses

I don't think you understand. The tax man still gets his money in the end, it has just helped more people and the economy along the way. 45% is more than enough tax to pay and as already pointed out by others, these people will likely be paying a lot more in council tax which not only gets spent in their own area but also subsidises less well off areas.

 

[big soft moose]

I don't think you understand. The tax man still gets his money in the end, it has just helped more people and the economy along the way. 45% is more than enough tax to pay and as already pointed out by others, these people will likely be paying a lot more in council tax which not only gets spent in their own area but also subsidises less well off areas.

I understand your point - mine was that yours is flawed because it would help those people after the tax man had received it too

 

[nilagin]

Yes but people want them taxed even more. Which is wrong. Years ago NI had a top limit. That was scrapped by Labour and it became a stealth tax to get more money off people as their money went up.

 

[nilagin]

I understand your point - mine was that yours is flawed because it would help those people after the tax man had received it too

So under my method it's helped people twice to yours only once.

 

[LCPete]

They may not pay as much as you'd wish, but those using (at this moment) legal avoidance methods are doing nothing incorrect.

We will have to agree to differ I think
as far as I'm concerned its a moral issue
people on here are talking about taxing the rich more if they paid the correct taxes it wouldn't be necessary

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Except your tax doesn't only pay benefits. As well as that it pays schools, the NHS, police, fire service (to name a few)etc etc. That benefits everyone and cretes just as many jobs and people earning from it. The arguement that avoiding tax benefits anyone but the avoidee is misplaced

Not only that, but there is a fundamental error in Nilagins logic. He states that

that money goes straight to the treasury and only benefits those that get paid it in benefits or whatever.

He neglects to realise that that money will be spent immediately into the local economy, and those transactions will also be taxed..

 

[nilagin]

Not only that, but there is a fundamental error in Nilagins logic. He states that



He neglects to realise that that money will be spent immediately into the local economy, and those transactions will also be taxed..

If tax money can be re-injected that quickly, by the time it has happened, with my method the money will probably have been round the system at least once or twice.

 

[BillN_33]

it's wealth not the strict definition of "earned income" that makes the difference

 

[Deleted member 49549]

If tax money can be re-injected that quickly, by the time it has happened, with my method the money will probably have been round the system at least once or twice.

What is your logic that that is the case? If I follow your line of reasoning, the imaginary tax payer we are talking about gets to keep the £20k instead of paying it as tax.

I would suggest that there are few sources of income that are redistributed around the economy as quickly as a benefits payment, and certainly compared to the imaginary £20k it will far more likely be spent immediately in the local economy. Whereas the £20k will very likely be sat in a financial account somewhere, or spent in an area outside the local economy.

 

[nilagin]

What's with all this local economy twaddle, A high earner living in London with a £20k tax bill doesn't get spent on benefits locally, that money could go anywhwere. Even if the money sits in a bank, it's still earning interest which is taxed, it's meaning the workers in that bank get employed and pay tax and NI, they spend their money paying VAT, that money spent means more peoples wages are paid, more tax and NI raised, leading to more money spent and so on and so on. The only chance of money going into the local economy immediately, is if the person goes and spend the money into the local economy themselves.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

What's with all this local economy twaddle, A high earner living in London with a £20k tax bill doesn't get spent on benefits locally, that money could go anywhwere. Even if the money sits in a bank, it's still earning interest which is taxed, it's meaning the workers in that bank get employed and pay tax and NI, they spend their money paying VAT, that money spent means more peoples wages are paid, more tax and NI raised, leading to more money spent and so on and so on. The only chance of money going into the local economy immediately, is if the person goes and spend the money into the local economy themselves.

No, the money cant go 'anywhere' - do you really think that?

 

[nilagin]

No, the money cant go 'anywhere' - do you really think that?

So you really think your income tax goes directly and immediately to someone on benefits living in your town. The only tax you pay that goes immediately into your local economy is your council tax.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

So you really think your income tax goes directly and immediately to someone on benefits living in your town. The only tax you pay that goes immediately into your local economy is your council tax.

No, I am disputing your assertion that the money can go 'anywhere'.

 

[nilagin]

No, I am disputing your assertion that the money can go 'anywhere'.

No matter where a person lives, their tax is collected by IR and then dispersed around the country or where ever the government decides to spend it for that matter. There is nothing to say it will get spent immediately in the local economy.