Cyclone Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 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. Do you have any evidence to support the statement in bold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I'm not sure if you read my post properly. You haven't interpreted it very well if you did read it. I'd like to see everyone pay their share. Some do, some don't. One way of sorting out a deficit is to increase taxes. Putting the 40p rate up to 42 or 43% for a while might just help, don't you think? To be clear then, you think you should pay more? And you wish to pay more? Have you started making voluntary payments then? Or are you only happy to pay more if everyone is doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 To be clear then, you think you should pay more? And you wish to pay more? Have you started making voluntary payments then? Or are you only happy to pay more if everyone is doing so? He could buy lots of cigarettes and give them to the poor that would help the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Do you have any evidence to support the statement in bold? Are we being a a touch touchy? I'm sure if you were to look around the forum you'd find examples of people who admit to paying no income tax. You might not have to look very far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Are we being a a touch touchy? I'm sure if you were to look around the forum you'd find examples of people who admit to paying no income tax. You might not have to look very far. Is that because there are so many claimants on SF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 That is just daft. It is perfectly reasonable, it may be the reasons are insufficient (I don't believe they are) but to rule out any discussion on what extent a tax system should be progressive is dogmatic extremism. Besides according to research the overall tax regime is regressive with the highest earners (top 10%) paying 35% and the lowest earners (bottom 10%) paying 39% of their incomes on tax. http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/closethegap/whatarewecallingfor/fairtaxes Personal taxation (ie Income Tax) is progressive. What you (and the link) have thrown into the mix are flat rate taxes applied to goods and services, not to people, and simply states the obvious that any flat rate taxes will be proportionally less of their income for rich people than the less well off. However, a rich person probably buys and uses far more taxable goods and services than a less well off person and so will still contribute far more in these flat rate taxes levied on goods/services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Is that because there are so many claimants on SF? There may be some people in that category but there are others who earn substantial sums and pay no income tax. For corporate examples Private Eye is good. I lost count of the dodgy tax dealing I seen in there over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Personal taxation (ie Income Tax) is progressive. What you (and the link) have thrown into the mix are flat rate taxes applied to goods and services, not to people, and simply states the obvious that any flat rate taxes will be proportionally less of their income for rich people than the less well off. However, a rich person probably buys and uses far more taxable goods and services than a less well off person and so will still contribute far more in these flat rate taxes levied on goods/services. As long as flat taxes are not charged on essential goods then there is no problem. There are some items that are considered luxuries (witness the Jaffa cake is it a cake or biscuit etc) that do attract VAT and perhaps shouldn't but by and large VAT isn't a problem. As for the tossing in of the energy units at a higher rate to start with - firstly that's not a tax as Wildcat et al of course know, and secondly it's just a convenient way of charging for the fixed supply costs of the distribution system that everyone has to bear. I can remember when the standing charge per quarter was £xx for each meter, because everyone usually had one meter to be read, one set of supply cables to be maintained etc, and so everyone paid the same. For some reason that's not deemed as acceptable, wealthy people presumably get special gold plated meters and solid silver supply cables so they should have to pay more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
percy filth Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Personal taxation (ie Income Tax) is progressive. What you (and the link) have thrown into the mix are flat rate taxes applied to goods and services, not to people, and simply states the obvious that any flat rate taxes will be proportionally less of their income for rich people than the less well off. However, a rich person probably buys and uses far more taxable goods and services than a less well off person and so will still contribute far more in these flat rate taxes levied on goods/services. One of Britains more successful companies is Hargreaves Lansdown. The company was stated 30 or so years ago by the 2 partners and currently turns over around £1.2 billion. The directors have made themselves very wealthy indeed and took salaries of over £20million each and paying around £8 million each in income tax. The company also declared profits of over £100 million each year and paid taxes accordingly. There are also 600 employees most of whom earn very large salaries and pay huge amounts of tax in the UK. The 2 directors also were chairmen of the 2 Bristol football clubs into which they put £millions. All these people spend money in the local economy paying VAT and providing jobs for others. When tax was increased to 50% Steven Lansdown moved abroad and now pays not one penny of UK income tax. Neither does he pay VAT on his spending and has now quit his position of club chairman at the football club. Peter Hargreaves decided to simply retire and sold off his stake in Hargreaves Lansdown. Some of the business has been moved to Zurich and plans are being considered to move the whole operation there in the near future. It is impossible to estimate just how much revenue this one instance will cost the UK exchequer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 You must have read my mind Percy. Wait now for the leftys to come back with "We're better off without these financial parasites anyway" response, despite the evidence above to the complete contrary.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.