Cyclone Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Was this really a thread discussing how progressive our tax system should be? To characterise it like that is extremely generous. If you want to start such a thread then it's a worthy topic and I'll be happy to discuss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Not only that, but they are planning to lower it for their rich buddies too by dropping the 50p tax rate. Posts like this make it appear that some people think the progressive nature of the tax system exists to punish the well off. The 50p rate should stay or go based on it's results, whether it actually achieved the aim of increasing tax revenue, not stay or go based on envy of those who earn enough to be in this bracket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Was this really a thread discussing how progressive our tax system should be? To characterise it like that is extremely generous. If you want to start such a thread then it's a worthy topic and I'll be happy to discuss it. On the other hand .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Was this really a thread discussing how progressive our tax system should be? To characterise it like that is extremely generous. If you want to start such a thread then it's a worthy topic and I'll be happy to discuss it. Sorry for responding to the point you made, perhaps you should have made your point on a different thread if you now don't think it appropriate for here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Posts like this make it appear that some people think the progressive nature of the tax system exists to punish the well off. The 50p rate should stay or go based on it's results, whether it actually achieved the aim of increasing tax revenue, not stay or go based on envy of those who earn enough to be in this bracket. It only appears like that to someone who doesn't understand that it is a basic of ethics that those able to, help those that are in need. (Eg. Mark 12:41-44) Adam Smith explicitly favoured progressive taxation, it speaks volumes that 300 years later we find the tax system regressive with those most in need redistributing their wealth through taxation to those that least need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 It only appears like that to someone who doesn't understand that it is a basic of ethics that those able to, help those that are in need. (Eg. Mark 12:41-44) Adam Smith explicitly favoured progressive taxation, it speaks volumes that 300 years later we find the tax system regressive with those most in need redistributing their wealth through taxation to those that least need it. Can you please explain how those in need are redistributing the wealth they don’t have to the people that don’t need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Can you please explain how those in need are redistributing the wealth they don’t have to the people that don’t need it. Not really because I never claimed wealth people don't have was being redistributed (that is verging on absurd), but ignoring your hyperbole or strawman, you can see the evidence for what I actually said in post 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Let’s take all business owners out of the equation and we are left with no one having the ability to work or pay tax. Without business owners no one can pay tax and there would be no roads no schools, no NHS. The richest people in the country support the poorest and give them the opportunity to become successful. There are countries with rich people paying no tax, they still employ people but the poor people will never have an opportunity to become rich. There are no countries that have a good education system, NHS, police force and all the other public services we enjoy, which don’t have rich tax payers at the top paying for these things. But there are countries with rich people at the top not paying tax that don’t have all these things. So it is possible to have rich people without a public sector but it isn’t possible to have a public sector without wealth generating rich people paying for it. i'm not for one minute saying we shouldn't have a system where being successful and generating wealth is not encouraged. In fact that is a wholly desirable outcome. What I am saying is that most people could not achieve that without the right economic conditions in place. And that tax liabilities should reflect that with everybody contributing to the part taxpayer funded system by meeting their liabilities. Unfortunately some people think that once they reach a certain level they can stop contributing. But they still want the benefits of the part taxpayer funded system. Having their cake and eating it so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 see link in post 30. It doesn't explain how people with nothing are giving what they don't have to people that everything. The poorest don't pay tax, they receive money in many cases for doing nothing, if they are in a low paid job they will pay little tax. The poor will be spending most of their money on food which in most cases is vat free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Not really because I never claimed wealth people don't have was being redistributed (that is verging on absurd), but ignoring your hyperbole or strawman, you can see the evidence for what I actually said in post 30. Originally Posted by Wildcat View Post those most in need redistributing their wealth through taxation to those that least need it. Those most in need will have no wealth you claimed they are giving it to the people that do have wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.