Tax break imminent for those on high earnings?

[I1L2T3]

I already said that this should be the criteria. I just don't think your argument about loop holes has any place in this discussion.

 

Of course it does. Tax avoidance by the very wealthy won't stop just because they pay a slightly lower rate of income tax. They will still pay their tax avoidance advisers. They will still screw the country to avoid paying every penny they possibly can. It's just another tax break for people who already enjoy a multitude of ways of avoiding paying their tax.

[Cyclone]

If the situation exists as you describe it then the rate of income tax is irrelevant as they won't be paying it.

 

The rest of your emotive statement about "screwing the country" is nonsense of course. As we've already discussed nobody pays more tax than they have to, we all pay the minimum we can, are we all screwing the country, no, of course not.

[I1L2T3]

If the situation exists as you describe it then the rate of income tax is irrelevant as they won't be paying it.

 

The rest of your emotive statement about "screwing the country" is nonsense of course. As we've already discussed nobody pays more tax than they have to, we all pay the minimum we can, are we all screwing the country, no, of course not.

 

Absolutely nothing emotive about it. For example the LibDems have framed any discussion about removing the rate in terms of identifying alternative measures to tax wealth. Bang on the money IMO

 

Of course nobody pays more . You see it as some badge of honour to pay the absolute minimum. Not much to be proud of IMO. In fact you're unusually touchy and defensive about it.

[ECCOnoob]

 

Of course nobody pays more . You see it as some badge of honour to pay the absolute minimum. Not much to be proud of IMO. In fact you're unusually touchy and defensive about it.

 

 

So how much overpayment of tax do you PROUDLY make every year then?

[Cyclone]

Of course nobody pays more . You see it as some badge of honour to pay the absolute minimum. Not much to be proud of IMO. In fact you're unusually touchy and defensive about it.

 

I'm confused. Nobody pays more than required, we agree on that.

I see it as common sense to pay the absolute minimum (the amount required as identified in the previous sentence).

I'm not defensive, I'm quite happy that I pay the correct amount of tax, I am however confused about your inconsistent stance. Is it right to pay the required amount of tax, or is it wrong, required is equal to absolute minimum, you understand that right?

[convert]

Beer time again

 

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this..

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

 

 

 

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

 

 

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

 

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £50 instead of £59 (a 15% saving).

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £9!"

 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got nine times more benefit than me!"

 

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £9 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

 

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

[ECCOnoob]

A voice of sanity

[I1L2T3]

So how much overpayment of tax do you PROUDLY make every year then?

 

I pay the correct amount, no more.

[Cyclone]

I pay the correct amount, no more.

 

So you pay the minimum you can possibly get away with.

 

You're practically a criminal

[I1L2T3]

I'm confused. Nobody pays more than required, we agree on that.

I see it as common sense to pay the absolute minimum (the amount required as identified in the previous sentence).

I'm not defensive, I'm quite happy that I pay the correct amount of tax, I am however confused about your inconsistent stance. Is it right to pay the required amount of tax, or is it wrong, required is equal to absolute minimum, you understand that right?

 

It's not inconsistent at all. I pay the correct amount of income tax. I don't look for ways not to pay it. Quite simply services have to be paid for. We have increasing inequalities of wealth that need to be reversed.

 

The right amount of income tax is what your tax band states it is. IMO. The danger is of course that if all of us chose to make subjective assessments of how much tax we should pay the social contract would start to break down.