Tax up to 45% for the rich

[P J]

It is reported today that the Chancellor is to up the tax on people earning ?150000 a year to 45%. I'm sure Observer will see this as a step in the right direction whereas no doubt the opposition parties will oppose it as ,well, they are the opposition parties

[wolfie]

I hate to admit it but it seems there is something we agree on

[Matty]

is this for the people successfully avoiding the 40% rate?

[observer]

45% is a rather pathetic "toe in the water" figure, when one considers that, prior to the advent of Thatcher, super-tax was at over 80%. However, it would seem they've now backed Wavy Davy into a corner and drawn clear battle lines for the next Election: as ALL Parties and commentators agree,there will be a huge tax bill to pay, the question will be WHO is going to pay it? So can anyone earning less than ?150,000 pa afford to vote Tory?!

[inky pete]

Brilliant! A tax rate which no-one will pay.

 

Everyone I know who earns anything like ?150K employs an accountant to minimise their tax bill. Some take their income via ownership of Ltd companies, some via payments into overseas accounts, others by various other means which I don't pretend to understand.

 

Nobody, but nobody, in that earnings bracket does it through PAYE.

[Dizzy]

So sooner or later 'we' at the lower end of the wage bracket will have to pay up and bail 'someone' out again

[observer]

We'll all pay sooner or later, the smokers, drinkers and drivers probably sooner than the rest. Fair point Inky, about tax evasion, top earners already pay less than 10% through loopholes etc: so it will be a measure of how serious this spin is, as to how they plan to close all the loop holes and really go after the big fish.

[Dizzy]

.... and if they close the loopholes do you think the rest of us will actually benefit from it. Course we blummin wont

[observer]

It's a fairly simple equation Diz: if 9 folk get ?100 pw and 1 gets ?1,000 pw - one can lessen the hardship on the nine by say taxing at 20% = ?180 pw, and taxing the one guy at say 50% -?500 pw - it's called being fair and equitable. :rolling: And as I infered, the proof of the pudding will be in the measures adopted or otherwise to ensure the rich cough up!

[Peter T]

What is to be achieved by implementing these changes in a few years time, when we have the problems now?

Or don't they care because they probably won't be in office.

[milly]

All the high earners will take their money elsewhere. The Government won't get an extra penny and the country will go bust.

[observer]

..... and good riddance, sure a few pop singers/ footballers will be missed; and like everyone else they are replacable, hopefully on lower rates.

[Bazj]

Tax the footballers. No one should be paid ?150,000.00 a week regardless of what they do.

 

There should be a premier league tax to strip some of the billions that is washing around in their bank accounts.

[Bonzodog]

it's called being fair and equitable.

 

No Obs, it's not called "fair & equitable". This is one area where we disagree strongly. No-one has ever been able to explain to my satisfaction why person A should pay more for the services he recieves than person B. Pubs don't charge me differently for my pint than they do you, based on our relevent incomes; ditto supermarkets for tins of beans or ISPs for internet access.

Please tell me, why should the govt charge differently for their services provided?

Unless of course that it's not about a fair policy of charging but about the re-distribution of income & wealth; ie taking from person A to give to person B

[Bonzodog]

Tax the footballers. No one should be paid ?150,000.00 a week regardless of what they do.

 

There should be a premier league tax to strip some of the billions that is washing around in their bank accounts.

 

So you mean that someone should not be able to give someone else money. In this respect then Man U should not be able to give a player over a certain amount? Then the player is going to go abroad, yes?

And in the same arguement, you should not be able to buy a Harry Potter book once JKR has been paid more than a certain amount; or you should not be able to pay an electrcian to do a job once he has earned over the amount.

Get real! You wouldn't like it if the govt said you couldn't spend your money where you wanted to (provided it was legal) why do you want to impose it on others. This is the policy of envy!

[Dizzy]

It's a fairly simple equation Diz: if 9 folk get ?100 pw and 1 gets ?1,000 pw - one can lessen the hardship on the nine by say taxing at 20% = ?180 pw, and taxing the one guy at say 50% -?500 pw - it's called being fair and equitable. :rolling: And as I infered, the proof of the pudding will be in the measures adopted or otherwise to ensure the rich cough up!

 

Doesn't sound simple, fair or equitable to me Obs

 

WHY should someone who has perhaps studied exceptionally hard (or just been lucky enough ) to get a really really well paid job be taxed by the government at a much higher rate than others who have not got their dream pay packet

 

Rather than get upto 50% taken of them in tax they might as well just just opt for a lower salary with less tax to pay as they'd finish up with the same in their pocket......

 

Maybe even a job share 2 employees for the tax price of 1

[disgusted]

TY Dismayed & Bonzo, I thought there was a collective lunacy affecting the forum for a bit there.

[observer]

Whilst I'm sure your not bothered Bonz; the natural consequences of a lack of a redistributive tax system is an ever widening wealth gap, increasing poverty and eventually increasing levels of crime. So instead of the so-called politics of envy, you finally get the crimes of envy, and eventual anarchy and revolution. Conversly, in a society that has pretensions to being civilised, we aspire to the 21st century concept that everyone should have equal access to education and health for example; things that have to be paid for; if folk had to pay the real cost per person - a sizable minority wouldn't be able to afford it - thus taking us back to some kind of third world plutocracy. So Diz; being fair and equitable by taxing from each according to their means in order to make common provision for need; is a mechanism for maintaining a stable and civilised society.

[Dizzy]

So Diz; being fair and equitable by taxing from each according to their means in order to make common provision for need; is a mechanism for maintaining a stable and civilised society.

 

Well Obs if they took 40%+ of my hard earned wages I certainly wouldn't feel like being very civilised at all.

 

Funny thing is that all the people who want the extra tax to be taken from the better paid wage brackets are those at the lower end of the pay scale

 

Another case of some hoping to being bailed out and saved by others I guess

[observer]

Well it's either that, or live in a castle and pull up the draw bridge! BTW. as Baz says, I don't think we'd miss premiere league footballers, and just to note, tax owed by several failed football clubs has been written off by the Inland Revenue, believe one club owed ?25million!

[Paul Kennedy]

[quote="Dismayed

Well Obs if they took 40%+ of my hard earned wages I certainly wouldn't feel like being very civilised at all.

 

 

Think you might find that they already do Dismayed, albeit you might not realise, in addition to income tax, there is national insurance (tax), VAT and council tax to name but three....and some others will be the duty (tax) on petrol, tobacco, alcohol, road tax, TV licence tax, air passenger tax...........Always best to think along the lines that if it can be taxed it will be taxed.....tax one of the 2 certainties of our lives.

[Bonzodog]

the natural consequences of a lack of a redistributive tax system

 

Well at least you're confirming my view: that the so called "progressive" taxation is about redistribution & not some rose tinted enlightenment about being fair; good for you, Obs!

 

And you may be surprised that I too believe that certain govt provided services should be universal, free at the point of use & paid for out of general taxation - eg defence, emergency services, health & education; although we may or may not agree on the level of these services.

And I believe that this could be achieved by a system of all paying the same level of taxes. Obviously a 5 year old child cannot pay for his education, but this is provided free of charge, on the assumption that during his working life he is going to pay income tax.

The way this can be achieved is by cutting out the vast vast amount of govt spending which is wasteful or unessential.

The overal reduction is taxation would encourage both consumer spending & investment in UK industry & employment.

[observer]

...... and the money monopolised by the top earners would somehow trickle down the food chain to the rest of us? The basics of "Reaganomics", aspects of which have now got us into the current financial mess, and now totally discredited. Even a rudimentary knowledge of history, reveals that progression towards "civilisation" and social stability, is enabled by the gathering of financial resources into a common pot for expenditure on common services, security and goals. One only has to visit a third world Country to see the poverty created by the monopoly of wealth, and the lack of infrastructure that one relates to a wholesome "civilised" Nation.

[Bonzodog]

...... Even a rudimentary knowledge of history, reveals that progression towards "civilisation" and social stability, is enabled by the gathering of financial resources into a common pot for expenditure on common services, security and goals. :

 

Well I would use the phrase "assisted by" rather than "enabled by" as the latter suggests this was the prime rather than merely one of the reasons; but I'm OK with the general sentiment. However what we are argueing about is the proportion of the fiscal burden supplied by each individual, not that a common pot is essential for the benefit of society. .......... you're twisting an arguement again, Obs!

[asperity]

HOW THE TAX SYSTEM WORKS Suppose that every day, 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.The tenth man (the richest) would pay ?59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by ?20.' Drinks for the ten 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 everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).The sixth now paid ?2 instead of ?3 (33%savings).The seventh now paid ?5 instead of ?7 (28%savings).The eighth now paid ?9 instead of ?12 (25% savings).The ninth now paid ?14 instead of ?18 (22% savings).The tenth now paid ?49 instead of ?59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a pound out of the ?20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got ?10!' 'Yes, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a pound, too.It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get ?10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had 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 for even half of the bill. And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might startdrinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics For those who understand, no explanation is needed.For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

 

With acknowledgement to the above named professor.