Wildcat Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 How would you keep people in this country, after you have upped there taxes? No need to. We would just need to change our laws so they are more like the United States where people who are US citizens are taxed wherever they reside..... First, there are the British citizens who claim to be only semi-resident here, and therefore say they should pay little or nothing. There is a simple way to shut this down – and it is already put into practice every day in that socialist utopia, the USA. If you are an American citizen, you pay taxes to the US exchequer, wherever you live in the world. You are allowed to earn up to $50,000 abroad tax-free, and after that, you pay American taxes. You can't be a tax exile. It's impossible. You want to be part of the American club, you have to pay the membership dues. If you don't want to contribute, you have to renounce your citizenship – a wrenching move that only 500 deeply odd and unpatriotic rich people choose every year. Britain could do the same with a click of our legislative fingers. It would abolish overnight the concept of a tax exile. The second group are non-British citizens who come here and refuse to pay taxes on their global fortunes. Under New Labour, this group has been so cravenly courted that the IMF actually classified the British Isles as a tax haven for foreigners until 2008. Now, they pay a paltry £30,000 a year to count as a non-dom – and then nothing. For people so rich, it's the equivalent of handing us the small change down the back of their settees. They drive up prices for us all: we have to compete with people for (say) property in London who pay no tax. They can be dealt with just as easily. People who come for short stays – to be a student, or on secondment – shouldn't have to reorganise their entire tax affairs when they come; that would discourage visitors. But if you stay here for three years or more, you are plainly relying on British public services – so you should have to pay full taxes on your global fortune to us, or go. And for the tiny number of the super-rich who would still leave and choose eternal boredom in Monaco or the Cayman Islands? They'd be no great loss, but we should still chase them by leading a global crusade to shut down the tiny number of places that allow them to warehouse their fortunes tax-free. It's not hard when there is the political will: after 9/11, even the most shadowy tax haven shut down al-Qa'ida-linked bank accounts within a week. When Monaco refused to co-operate with France on tax laws, Charles De Gaulle surrounded it with troops and cut off the water supply. We are constantly being told by a chorus of conservatives that the financial crisis caused by their market fundamentalism can only be solved by slashing back spending. But this is unnecessary if only the overclass start to pay their taxes. Look at the country we are told is the exemplar of over-spending, Greece. In fact, it suffers the worst tax collection rate in the democratic world. According to a study by Professor Friedrich Schneider, some 25 per cent of taxes are not paid, making up $20.5bn a year. If Greece ended this culture, its financial situation would look very different. Why don't we hear this story, instead of the nonsense that they pay their teachers and nurses too much? So why aren't elected governments opting for this sensible, simple solution, supported by 78 per cent in a recent poll? The tiny number of super-rich talk louder than the rest of the population. Their money warps our politics: Labour has non-dom donors too. So the scandal isn't just that Michael Ashcroft has captured the Conservative Party. It's that his repulsive tax tango has been legal under Labour as well – and we all have to go on paying for this parasitism. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-worst-thing-about-ashcroft-is-that-his-behaviour-is-legal-1916391.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted September 18, 2010 Author Share Posted September 18, 2010 But it is though. What if people think that for example GPs are paid too much at £100k, but some other profession that earns the same are just fine. Do you just bring in a global high tax at £100k even though the "liked" profession suffers as well? GP's isn't your best example as you could reduce the salaries of those employed within the Health Service. I concede that the problem with this discussion is that there's a common consensus that the figures being earned by these people (both high and low earners) aren't really representative of what people think they should earn, but how this is addressed is a different matter. Whilst those with better brains than me try to resolve this, I would indicate a personal preference that all those earning more than £200k per year are taxed at a higher rate than they are paying now and that the money raised is used to pay some of the lower paid earners. So basically it is woefully wrong now, we can re-dress it partially by taxing those earning most more and we investigate long term solutions that addresses peoples preferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted September 18, 2010 Author Share Posted September 18, 2010 Only by sending them all to play their football in Italy, and contribute a total taxation take of zero instead of the millions they currently contribute. So you think the people in Italy are happy with the wages of professional footballers and chief execs being so much more than others. I suggest if you asked this question anywhere in the world you'd get similar answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Chief Exec West Yorks.Mid Yorks NHS Julia Squires £ 197500pa That is where our brass goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 If people believe certain types of people are getting paid too much, then taxation can address the issue. The Governmment is responsible for Taxation levels. No, it really can't. Not unless it can also stop people leaving the country and introduces differential levels of taxation for different types of employment, something that is clearly a gross interference in the free market that would force companies to leave the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Why shouldn't a democratically elected Govt. be involved? Surely the whole point of a democracy is to take control and responsibility for the environment in which we live our lives. That depends on to what level you think a central democracy can and should be involved in private arrangements, which is ultimately what private sector pay packets are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 GP's isn't your best example as you could reduce the salaries of those employed within the Health Service. I concede that the problem with this discussion is that there's a common consensus that the figures being earned by these people (both high and low earners) aren't really representative of what people think they should earn, but how this is addressed is a different matter. Whilst those with better brains than me try to resolve this, I would indicate a personal preference that all those earning more than £200k per year are taxed at a higher rate than they are paying now and that the money raised is used to pay some of the lower paid earners. How do you justify this arbitrary figure? So basically it is woefully wrong now, we can re-dress it partially by taxing those earning most more and we investigate long term solutions that addresses peoples preferences. This doesn't actually address the issue you raised though, you've changed your argument from one of targeting specific professions to one of targeting everyone paid over an arbitrary amount, as you intended all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojai Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 The average salary of full-time employees in the UK was 25,500 in 2009. All the professions where the median salary is well below the national average are perceived to be more deserving of a higher salary, and, generally speaking, the further away from the median salary, the higher the % difference in actual and suggested pay. Those professions where the median salary is closest to the national average have the smallest % difference between actual and suggested salary. Conversely, all professions where the median salary is well above the national average are adjudged to be overpaid, and again, generally speaking, the further away from the median salary, the higher the % difference in actual and suggested pay. All this says to me is that most people believe that £20-30,000 pa is an acceptable salary for any job, anyone who is paid less than this must surely be underpaid, anyone who is paid more is overpaid. Personally, it seems to me to have less to do with the content of the job and more to do with the mentality of 'they get paid x times more than me, but there job is no where near x times as difficult or; they get paid x, but I wouldn't do that job for less than x.' To me the actual levels of pay seem fair relative to the job content, the level of training and/or experience required, the cost of persuing such a position, the revenue generated, and the supply/demand conditions of labour. FTSE-100 chief executive V. High level of responsibility V. High failure rate Usually Masters level qualifications and professional accreditation High personal and financial cost Significant impact on bottom line Companies seek to attract top candidates Premiership footballer Fair level of responsibility V. High failure rate V. Short career No professional qualifications required, but a high 'natural' skill level Fairly high personal cost Significant impact on bottom line Clubs seek to attract top candidates Bond trader High level of risk Usually strong Undergraduate qualifications required High personal and financial cost Significant impact to bottom line Companies willing to pay for top candidates Demand higher than supply Prime minister V. High level of responsibility No professional qualifications formally required, but usually necessary High personal and financial cost Usually limited time-period Secondary school head High level of responsibility Masters level qualification sought and/or significant experience High financial cost Significant impact on success Schools willing to pay for proven success Train driver Moderate level of procedural responsibility No qualifications or experience required Low cost Little bottom line impact Demand higher than supply Social worker Fair level of responsibility Undergraduate degree and professional accreditation in senior positions and/or experience Moderate financial cost Significant impact on success Demand much higher than supply Nurse Moderate/high level of procedural responsibility Minimum Diploma level qualification Moderate personal and financial cost Moderate impact on success (depending on level) Demand higher than supply Technician This is such a general job title, it could be anything. Airline cabin attendant Moderate/low level of responsibility No qualifications required Moderate/high personal cost Moderate/high impact on success Secretary/PA Moderate/low level of responsibility Basic diploma/undergraduate qualifications and/or experience preferred Moderate/low financial cost Low impact on success Supply higher than demand Hospital porter Low level responsibility No qualifications required Moderate impact on success Call centre worker Low level of responsibility No qualifications required Low personal cost Low impact on bottom line Supply higher than demand Care assistant Low/moderate level of responsibility No qualifications required Low personal cost Low/moderate impact on success (difficult to assess) Demand higher than supply Retail cashier Low level of responsibility No qualifications required No cost Low impact on success Supply higher than demand I have to agree that private sector salaries have nothing to do with a neo-liberal Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 No, it really can't. Not unless it can also stop people leaving the country and introduces differential levels of taxation for different types of employment, something that is clearly a gross interference in the free market that would force companies to leave the country. You make what in my opinion is an incorrect assumption, in that the citizens of other countries welcome these sorts of disparities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted September 19, 2010 Author Share Posted September 19, 2010 How do you justify this arbitrary figure? This doesn't actually address the issue you raised though, you've changed your argument from one of targeting specific professions to one of targeting everyone paid over an arbitrary amount, as you intended all along. This simply isn't true. What is clear is that people aren't in agreement with what certain types or professions are paid, I conceded it is easy to agree with the problem but to resolve it is more problematic. In the interim I suggested a solution that taxes those paid over a certain amount whilst we collectively bang our heads together to find a solution that meets the wishes of the people who have spoken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.