Should the rich pay more?

TriggerHappy said:
Yes, the rich should both pay more than those poorer than them, and also more than they do now.

Not only do the rich control an overwhelming amount of the nation's wealth, but the gap between the richest and the poorest continues to grow at an alarming rate.

This article is a particularly interesting read. I deliberately chose a Telegraph article rather than a more strongly worded analysis you'd find from the Guardian etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...rich-and-poor-growing-fastest-in-Britain.html

The biggest problem is the inevitable correlation of wealth and power in society. How do you enforce higher taxes on the rich, when the rich have the greatest influence and often the final say? This was perfectly illustrated by the French President's attempt to implement a 75% tax rate on earners of over €1m that fell on its face once it reached their Constitutional Council.

Then there's the topic of tax avoidance schemes that typically only the rich have access to. That really makes my blood boil.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree with the above.

It also depends on what you define as rich!? Is it £40k? £50k? £100k?
It means something different to every person you ask!

A challenge we face is those who are less well off always believe those with more money should pay even more and those with money think those who don't have should not be able to claim as much benefit!n

I don't begrudge any high earning individual of their money nor do I want benefits to cease.

What I do want is a robust tax system that prevents tax avoidance and more stringent checks for those who fraudulently claim benefits.
 
Last edited:
Buck said:
Don't disagree with the above.

It also depends on what you define as rich!? Is it £40k? £50k? £100k?
It means something different to every person you ask!
Click to expand...

About time someone asked that!!!

My definition of rich is earning £150k plus. Much of this depends where you live. If you work in London and live there, then its not a huge amount, as housing is so expensive. Maybe there its more like £250k. A normal 3 bed is probably £500k+. In Sunderland, £100k would be rich, where you can probably get the same for a third of that!

The tax system is too complicated. It should be simpler. Scrap council tax, NI and scrap many of the other taxes and have income tax as the main tax for individuals. Remove stamp duty on houses worth less than £500k, and double it for people with 2 houses+ regardless of value. Introduce a 30% tax rate at £40k, and 40% at £70k. Reduce by half at least the duty on alcohol sold in pubs and double it for supermarkets. Scrap inheritance tax for anything less than £1m. Scrap road tax, scrap any tax on savings under £100k.

You then crack down on benefits with 1 benefit. If out of work you get what was on your last P60 for up to 6 months, then 50% of that for 6 months. Then nothing. Scrap child benefit totally. Stop people getting disability benefit for trivial things and make sure those that need it get a decent amount. You stop handing out huge sums to 3rd world dictators!

Done!
 
cambsno said:
The tax system is too complicated. It should be simpler. Scrap council tax, NI and scrap many of the other taxes and have income tax as the main tax for individuals. Remove stamp duty on houses worth less than £500k, and double it for people with 2 houses+ regardless of value. Introduce a 30% tax rate at £40k, and 40% at £70k. Reduce by half at least the duty on alcohol sold in pubs and double it for supermarkets. Scrap inheritance tax for anything less than £1m. Scrap road tax, scrap any tax on savings under £100k.
Click to expand...

I think that would probably leave a huge shortfall in all sorts of government budgets, though I agree in principle to a simpler system.
 
I don't think charging the better off more is the way to go, instead,, they,, the government should resolve a few other issues and stop being so bloody soft and pc,,, but that isn't covered by the title of this thread so I shall refrain from going there.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I think that would probably leave a huge shortfall in all sorts of government budgets, though I agree in principle to a simpler system.
Click to expand...

Obviously I have no idea if it all adds up, but for example money for councils is collected centrally and handed out. There is also business taxes, which should be lower for the smaller businesses and larger for ones employing 10k + workers. People like Voda get told if they dont pay then they get shut down!

Also, if you think its immoral to do what Jimmy Carr did, then simply shut it!!! There is no morals with tax, you pay what you owe, and if the powers in charge are stupid enough to leave loopholes then there is nothing wrong in using them.
 
I realise this is not applicable to the specific debate here, but there is a point of view, which I tend to agree with, that being rich means having access to shelter, food and clean water.

I guess the point is that "rich" needs to be defined, as Buck mentioned.
 
cambsno said:
Also, if you think its immoral to do what Jimmy Carr did, then simply shut it!!! There is no morals with tax, you pay what you owe, and if the powers in charge are stupid enough to leave loopholes then there is nothing wrong in using them.
Click to expand...

I dont begrudge the individuals who make use of the schemes available to them. I begrudge consecutive governments that have known for decades of such systems existing but doing nothing to close the loopholes that allow them.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
What's that old cliche? 95% of the wealth belongs to 5% of the population. That disgusts me.
Click to expand...

that's money already owned, not earnings.

also those 5% pay around 80% of the tax in this country - we hammer them much more and they'll leave or get interested in legal loopholes
 
The difference between rich and poor isn't that great. Having just come back from Brazil I have seen the real difference. There I was fortunately enough to stay in my daughter - in -laws bungalow in a gated armed estate. there several properties around the place had helicopters with their own landing pads. At the other end of the scale the poor were very poor , many didn't even have shoes to wear and lived in something just above a tin shed.

Yes over here in the UK there are the rich but what do they do with the money? invest it of course, which in turn does leads to job employment if invested in business.
The poor arn't that badly off, the benefits often are worth more than going out to work and earn the money.

So back to the original question, The rich already may pay their fair share its the tax dodgers that cause the problems.

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
I don't think high earners should be penalised for working hard. The guys who need to pay up are the blood-sucking bankers and profiteering industrialists and corporations.
 
The23rdman said:
I don't think high earners should be penalised for working hard. The guys who need to pay up are the blood-sucking bankers and profiteering industrialists and corporations.
Click to expand...

Vive la révolution!
 
martin73 said:
I don't think charging the better off more is the way to go, instead,, they,, the government should resolve a few other issues and stop being so bloody soft and pc,,, but that isn't covered by the title of this thread so I shall refrain from going there.
Click to expand...

soft and PC? Are you a Nazi? How could this excuse for a government be any further right than they are? I am shocked.

We wouldn't be having these discussions and worrying about cuts and austerity if we'd had the balls to do what Iceland did.
 
The23rdman said:
soft and PC? Are you a Nazi? How could this excuse for a government be any further right than they are? I am shocked.

We wouldn't be having these discussions and worrying about cuts and austerity if we'd had the balls to do what Iceland did.
Click to expand...

The fact that many people are finding its easier to stay on the dole than get a job is wrong. We should pay benefits out to those in need, not to those who cant be bothered. We are too obsessed with protecting Human Rights for criminals. This country is too soft and PC.
 
The23rdman said:
soft and PC? Are you a Nazi? How could this excuse for a government be any further right than they are? I am shocked.

We wouldn't be having these discussions and worrying about cuts and austerity if we'd had the balls to do what Iceland did.
Click to expand...

From that report Dean, Iceland creditors had amassed 209b which was 11 times Iceland's GDP....can you imagine if that was tried with the US?...it would be catastrophic. OK the banks (really we should call them financial institutions as the word bank gets folk confused with the corner shop lending building that has a cash point) have far to much power but they also generate growth and are able to create stability, not all is bad when it comes down to money.
 
The23rdman said:
I don't think high earners should be penalised for working hard. The guys who need to pay up are the blood-sucking bankers and profiteering industrialists and corporations.
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with profitable corporations? The issue I have is corporations like amazon who pay no tax.

Bankers are just an easy target. Yes, sure, some earn a LOT of money. Yes, sure, they did play a part in the economic mess. BUT, there were other factors, the Euro for example is hindering things. Bankers for years have paid billions in taxes, no-one was complaining then! Even though some may get paid vast amounts, much of it will be spent in pubs, restaurants, leisure activities, shopping which all go to providing work and jobs.
 
cambsno said:
The fact that many people are finding its easier to stay on the dole than get a job is wrong. We should pay benefits out to those in need, not to those who cant be bothered. We are too obsessed with protecting Human Rights for criminals. This country is too soft and PC.
Click to expand...

Simon, you really need to do a little research if you think the small percentage of people claiming dole whilst sitting around on their arses makes any difference at all. The media and government spin is exactly the same as the tactics the Nazi's used and you have fallen for it because it panders to your own insecurities and right wind sensibilities.
 
I'm out of this conversation before I say something I wont regret.
 
I have some opinions either way here.

I think that higher earners should definitely contribute more than low earners, because they have more to give, but only up to a point.

I'm in the 40% tax bracket at the moment and so I pay more tax than my sister and brother in law who are both in the 20% bracket. Thats fair.

What kills me is that if I show the incentive to work harder and bring in more money I now lose almost half of that extra dosh. I work really hard and I have three different incomes, one is my main income for my 40 hour a week job. The other two are me striving to work harder and harder to bring in extra money for my family being entrepreneurial - with photography and educational content development.

I hate that theres the potential that if I do really well in life I'm penalised for it - I think the hard working people who want to put more effort in to bringing in money for their family should actually be given a tax break, not paying more.
 
The23rdman said:
Simon, you really need to do a little research if you think the small percentage of people claiming dole whilst sitting around on their arses makes any difference at all. The media and government spin is exactly the same as the tactics the Nazi's used and you have fallen for it because it panders to your own insecurities and right wind sensibilities.
Click to expand...

I dont think calling people Nazis because they disagree with you is helpful!!

There are people on housing estates where half have not worked for years, even if the actual cost to the country is relatively small, its the principle, why should I have to work?
 
onomatopoeia said:
No, you don't. When you reach the 40% income tax band, NI contributions go down to 2% at the same time so you pay 42% of your income above the threshold.
Click to expand...

For Self Employed Class 4 NI contributions, you pay 9% then an additional 2% above the threshold.

So if you are paying 40% tax on part of your earnings, you will be paying 11% NI on it as well, approximately 51% total deduction.
 
KayJay said:
Let's get something clear. All rich people are not loophole exploiters. All benefit recipients are not cheats. Continue.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be "Not all"? All are not implies that none are...

gumbo-67 said:
Mark as i said this is all new to us and as we have been informed we have to pay employee and employer NI due to the nature of the job. . very complicated
Click to expand...

Terri, if P's been earning abroad, are there not tax breaks as long as he's not back for more than 90 days during the year? There may be a minimum period before he qualifies - ask an accountant!
 
For me, there are two reasons why the rich should pay more:

1) Because they can afford to.
2) Because they have the most to lose, should society break down.
 
Johnd2000 said:
For me, there are two reasons why the rich should pay more:

1) Because they can afford to.
2) Because they have the most to lose, should society break down.
Click to expand...

Just because they can afford too is not a valid reason.
 
HMRC take advice from the top accountancy firms when creating new rules. These accountancy firms give advice with loopholes already planned and built into these suggested rules, which is then excuted with those wealthly enough to use such accountancy firms. Politicians are often wealthy, so why change a good thing eh?

The whole tax system is far too complicated, even for HMRC. I think this is primarily where the problem lies in addition to what I believe is the huge mismanagement of public funds by Goverments, Councils etc.

As for the rich, well a single tax rate for all automatically taxes the rich more and poor less. Having additional and higher rates for the rich does seem more like a penatly than anything else.
 
pepi1967 said:
Just because they can afford too is not a valid reason.
Click to expand...

It's reason enough for me. Someone has to pay for the things that any civilised society needs (police, schools, hospitals) and there's no point trying to get more out of the poorest. They don't have any more to give.

Over the last 5 years, the rich have increased their income while the poor have been bled dry.
 
Johnd2000 said:
It's reason enough for me. Someone has to pay for the things that any civilised society needs (police, schools, hospitals) and there's no point trying to get more out of the poorest. They don't have any more to give.

Over the last 5 years, the rich have increased their income while the poor have been bled dry.
Click to expand...

Well maybe get the tax dodgers to pay their share may be a start.
 
The23rdman said:
soft and PC? Are you a Nazi? How could this excuse for a government be any further right than they are? I am shocked.

We wouldn't be having these discussions and worrying about cuts and austerity if we'd had the balls to do what Iceland did.
Click to expand...

or if Labour hadn't bought the public's votes based on giving them everything they wanted without being able to pay for it.

I don't agree with a lot of decisions being made but I appreciate they are tough choices based on inherited problems
 
Johnd2000 said:
For me, there are two reasons why the rich should pay more:

1) Because they can afford to.
2) Because they have the most to lose, should society break down.
Click to expand...

1. they already do pay more. They shouldn't have to pay more than more.

Why should someone who works extra hard be the one penilised for doing so?

If they pay more than more they should get more back.

The thing is its different if they happen to just be well paid in whatever sector they are in compared to if they earn more just because they worked bloody hard to do it.

For example, I spent every evening for about a year developing content to sell to education, its not that i was blessed with a high paid job, its that I worked extra to get the extra. Other people sat on their arse every evening for a year - they don't deserve to have as much as I do because they didn't put the same amount of effort in to get it.
 
Martyn... said:
For Self Employed Class 4 NI contributions, you pay 9% then an additional 2% above the threshold.

So if you are paying 40% tax on part of your earnings, you will be paying 11% NI on it as well, approximately 51% total deduction.
Click to expand...

That would seem to contradict this : http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/working/intro/class4.htm#1

It is of course possible that the HMRC web page on Class 4 NI contributions is actually wrong.
 
joescrivens said:
1. they already do pay more. They shouldn't have to pay more than more.

Why should someone who works extra hard be the one penilised for doing so?

If they pay more than more they should get more back.

The thing is its different if they happen to just be well paid in whatever sector they are in compared to if they earn more just because they worked bloody hard to do it.

For example, I spent every evening for about a year developing content to sell to education, its not that i was blessed with a high paid job, its that I worked extra to get the extra. Other people sat on their arse every evening for a year - they don't deserve to have as much as I do because they didn't put the same amount of effort in to get it.
Click to expand...

With respect Joe, I don't think being in the 40% tax bracket puts you in the category of 'rich' by most people's definition so people aren't suggesting that you'd be paying more. I also don't think you can assume that there's always a correlation between how hard you work and how much you earn.
 
joescrivens said:
1. they already do pay more. They shouldn't have to pay more than more.

Why should someone who works extra hard be the one penilised for doing so?

If they pay more than more they should get more back.

The thing is its different if they happen to just be well paid in whatever sector they are in compared to if they earn more just because they worked bloody hard to do it.

For example, I spent every evening for about a year developing content to sell to education, its not that i was blessed with a high paid job, its that I worked extra to get the extra. Other people sat on their arse every evening for a year - they don't deserve to have as much as I do becaue they didn't put the same amount of effort in to get it.
Click to expand...

So you have no compassion at all for others? You'd happily see people starving? You'd happily see a neighbours kid die because they can't afford medical treatment? You see no value in maintaining a reasonable education system for all?

I pity you. I really do.
 
Johnd2000 said:
So you have no compassion at all for others? You'd happily see people starving? You'd happily see a neighbours kid die because they can't afford medical treatment? You see no value in maintaining a reasonable education system for all?

I pity you. I really do.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't happily see anyone suffer as a direct result of my actions but neither do I want to pay more tax because I earn more then the next bloke.
 
Johnd2000 said:
So you have no compassion at all for others? You'd happily see people starving? You'd happily see a neighbours kid die because they can't afford medical treatment? You see no value in maintaining a reasonable education system for all?

I pity you. I really do.
Click to expand...

that was an excellent leap of assumption.

I'm saying that the rich should pay more, but only up to a point. Punishing you for going out and getting more money in is not a nice way to live
 
TriggerHappy said:
With respect Joe, I don't think being in the 40% tax bracket puts you in the category of 'rich' by most people's definition so people aren't suggesting that you'd be paying more. I also don't think you can assume that there's always a correlation between how hard you work and how much you earn.
Click to expand...

well, i would say i wasn;t 'rich' either. but the same principle applied.

if I get richer and richer due to pure hard work, then I start to be penalised more for it.

That just doesn't fit. At some point I think a harder working person should actually get something back for putting so much more in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top