The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

Who will you be voting for?

  • Tory

    Votes: 38 9.9%
  • Diet Tory (Labour)

    Votes: 132 34.3%
  • Tory Zero (Greens)

    Votes: 44 11.4%
  • Extra Tory with lemon (UKIP)

    Votes: 40 10.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 9 2.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 31 8.1%
  • Cheese on toast

    Votes: 91 23.6%

  • Total voters
    385
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would a more suitable example be France, with their 75% top rate of tax? They're a similar size country, similar culture etc.

Not only did the economy not grow, but tax revenues also fell, which is logical if you think about it, as keeping just 25% of what you earn would make it much more attractive either not to bother working in the first place, or moving your talents elsewhere (hence the large French expat community in London - who will be paying taxes here don't forget, together with all of their high skills).

The 75% top tax rate is reserved for those earning over £1m a year. Are you telling me that a 75% tax rate would "make it much more attractive not to bother working"?

I wouldn't even get out of bed for £250,000 a year!

You can talk about moving talents elsewhere, but more British are living in France than French living in Britain, so that argument doesn't work.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...ope-nationalities-across-the-continent-mapped

Ultimately, I believe that those who earn obscene amounts should be paying more in tax than they currently are.
 
I can see both sides.

Are the rich paying their theoretical fair share of tax? No.
However, raising taxes will see the richest leave. One thing about this economy, good or bad, is that we are an attractive place for rich business people (esp if you have Tory mates in govt. Then you pay 0% tax!!). Pushing them out would see overall tax revenue drop. It's a toughie.
 
Somewhere in amongst tge tax argument has to be an understanding that those who earn the most employ accountants to manage finances, finding loopholes and means to pay less, little or no tax. Something not afforded to the less well paid. It is supported by the lax approach by successive governments to chase the higher amounts due and missing but to chase the smaller fish, they have done very little to tackle the existence of the loopholes.

What the tax revenue is versus what it should be shows a huge disparity, small earners juggle to stay afloat and exist in a harsh financial climate, the bigger earners do so, not because they can't pay, but because they choose not to. The threat of an exodus of talent has always been there and is exposed because as a nation we have failed consistently invest in education, preparation and readiness for the workforce. We churn out huge amounts of McEmployees and little in the way of growth and expansive professions.

That or we allow business interests to dictate the goal of education.

Both sides of the political fence are equally guilty, serving corporate interests primarily and the state/society a distance behind.

We are so entrenched in the corporate pocket that wage, therefore tax, disparity penalises the majority whose contribution to the infrastructure is greater than the minority of higher earners who benefit to an equal degree, moreso under the blackmail of business interests
 
I can see both sides.

Are the rich paying their theoretical fair share of tax? No.
However, raising taxes will see the richest leave. One thing about this economy, good or bad, is that we are an attractive place for rich business people (esp if you have Tory mates in govt. Then you pay 0% tax!!). Pushing them out would see overall tax revenue drop. It's a toughie.

If they are paying little or no tax how would their leaving have that much of a detrimental effect?
 
It's also worth noting that the tax system educates the workforce of these tax-avoiding corporations, it keeps their workforce healthy through the NHS, it tops up their workforce's wages when they are paid too little through working benefits, it pays part/all of their pensions when they retire. What are tax-avoiding corporations bringing to the party?
 
Ultimately, I believe that those who earn obscene amounts should be paying more in tax than they currently are.

The thing is, that argument implies that people who earn that amount of money somehow don't deserve it. Who are you to say that? It's obscene that someone should have to work 9 months a year unpaid. That simply can't be right, no matter how much that person earns.

Somewhere in amongst tge tax argument has to be an understanding that those who earn the most employ accountants to manage finances, finding loopholes and means to pay less, little or no tax. Something not afforded to the less well paid. It is supported by the lax approach by successive governments to chase the higher amounts due and missing but to chase the smaller fish, they have done very little to tackle the existence of the loopholes.

Which is why things like a flat tax or land value tax is so attractive as it massively simplifies the tax system, thus hopefully making fewer loopholes and fewer opportunities (or indeed incentives) to dodge things. Instead however, the tax system gets more byzantine with each passing year.
 
The thing is, that argument implies that people who earn that amount of money somehow don't deserve it. Who are you to say that? It's obscene that someone should have to work 9 months a year unpaid. That simply can't be right, no matter how much that person earns.



Which is why things like a flat tax or land value tax is so attractive as it massively simplifies the tax system, thus hopefully making fewer loopholes and fewer opportunities (or indeed incentives) to dodge things. Instead however, the tax system gets more byzantine with each passing year.

Expand on this please.
 
The thing is, that argument implies that people who earn that amount of money somehow don't deserve it. Who are you to say that? It's obscene that someone should have to work 9 months a year unpaid. That simply can't be right, no matter how much that person earns.

To be quite honest, we will never see a tax rise for the rich in this country like in other European countries, so I'm being very ambitious. At the very least, the rich should be made to pay every bit of tax they are made to, rather than employing accountants (the same accountants, by the way, who help put together the legalities of the tax system in conjunction with government) to avoid masses of tax.

You declare we need a flat tax. I disagree. Our tax system would work better without the loop holes. Like i mentioned above, we have a system which is devised by the top 5 accountancy firms in the country, who then sell their tricks to major corporations for them to exploit.
 
The thing is, that argument implies that people who earn that amount of money somehow don't deserve it. Who are you to say that? It's obscene that someone should have to work 9 months a year unpaid. That simply can't be right, no matter how much that person earns.

They don't deserve it. That your profession pays more than another is not the same as you deserving more. That and the scale to which it happens are why wealth re-distribution is required.

What is obscene is the wealth one man can have compared to that of another.
 
They don't deserve it. That your profession pays more than another is not the same as you deserving more. That and the scale to which it happens are why wealth re-distribution is required.

What is obscene is the wealth one man can have compared to that of another.

*shrug* Up to you and all. I'm not going to sit here and criticise someone about whom I know absolutely nothing. I'm certainly in no position to sit in judgement of anyone else :)
 
*shrug* Up to you and all. I'm not going to sit here and criticise someone about whom I know absolutely nothing. I'm certainly in no position to sit in judgement of anyone else :)

I'm not necessarily judging them as people. There are scummy rich people and scummy poor people, that is a given.

Although whilst you're not happy to judge their worth yourself, you're relying on a self-serving enterprise to judge their worth from their point-of-view and use this judgement to pay them accordingly.

As these are only likely to be interested in the worth a person has to them financially with no regard for other factors or simple equality, re-distribution is required.
 
I'm not necessarily judging them as people. There are scummy rich people and scummy poor people, that is a given.

Although whilst you're not happy to judge their worth yourself, you're relying on a self-serving enterprise to judge their worth from their point-of-view and use this judgement to pay them accordingly.

As these are only likely to be interested in the worth a person has to them financially with no regard for other factors or simple equality, re-distribution is required.

I know myself I'm quite happy to look at a variety of things before purchasing something (item or service), so it's not just a financial decision for me. I'm sure I'm not really any different to many people in that regard?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top