Wildcat Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 It doesn't explain how people with nothing are giving what they don't have to people that everything. See my amended post, I never made that claim, that is a strawman of your own invention. 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. Everyone pays VAT and pays the fuel tax that inflates the cost of food and items they need to live on. The rich also avoid a large proportion of their income by tax avoidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Those most in need will have no wealth you claimed they are giving it to the people that do have wealth. Whilst those in most financial need will have no wealth and be in debt, we are talking about a sliding scale, I explicitly clarified what I was saying with reference to those with lowest 10% of income. You are imposing a construction of your own as a strawman to make your argument sound reasonable, that is dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 We already operate a progressive tax regime, so any demand that higher earners pay more is completely unreasonable. Doesn't work like that. The tax regime should flex in response to changing conditions. It isn't set in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Whilst those in most financial need will have no wealth and be in debt, we are talking about a sliding scale, I explicitly clarified what I was saying with reference to those with lowest 10% of income. You are imposing a construction of your own as a strawman to make your argument sound reasonable, that is dishonest. The lowest 10% about six million people would be on the lowest wages or not working and will have no wealth; most of their money will be spent on food at zero vat. They will take significantly more out of the system than they pay in. The wealthiest 10% will be in the 50% tax bracket and will spend most of their money on luxuries at 20% vat they will pay significantly more in than they take out. So a statement like this is ridiculous. 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 Doesn't work like that. The tax regime should flex in response to changing conditions. It isn't set in stone. The amount we spend should flex in response to changing conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Doesn't work like that. The tax regime should flex in response to changing conditions. It isn't set in stone. Precisely so. And all evidence suggests that if the 50p rate were reduced to 40p, we'd actually take in a larger total amount of income tax. Surely that's a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 There are plenty of us that pay plenty of tax, who still think that the richest should pay more. Let me guess though - those that you want to pay more already eran more than you do and pay more tax than you do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Let me guess though - those that you want to pay more already eran more than you do and pay more tax than you do.... It would be pretty daft if that wasn't the case, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 Precisely so. And all evidence suggests that if the 50p rate were reduced to 40p, we'd actually take in a larger total amount of income tax. Surely that's a good idea? But people on 50% income tax pay only 2% NI. Whilst the people on 40% pay 12% NI. Fair enough reduce the 50% tax rate to 40%, but increase NI to 12% for people in that higher bracket. Income tax is progressive I'll give you that, but that isn't a bad thing. To the contrary, if anything it isn't progressive enough. But we have many regressive taxes out there. National Insurance for one. VAT as another. Premium pricing on the first units of electricity and gas. Council tax. Rain tax. Radiowave tax etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Precisely so. And all evidence suggests that if the 50p rate were reduced to 40p, we'd actually take in a larger total amount of income tax. Surely that's a good idea? Are you sure you meant to say that? If you did then you have been misled. http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/04/the-impact-of-the-50p-income-tax-rate/ The 50p tax rate is expected to raise more than £12billion: http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/09/what-are-the-arguments-against-scrapping-the-50p-tax-rate/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.