Clear blue water?

[asperity]

Of course I don't believe that the rich have altruistic motives to benefit the poor. But the poor aren't poor because the rich have got all the money!! Anyone can make money if they have the ability and use that ability. As for governments being good at redistributing the wealth (hearty laughs all round here!!) the government is making a really good job of redistibuting the country's wealth for the foreseeable future to the poor banks and car manufacturers. Really clever that! You can't get away from the fact that people who make money generally do so by employing people to do their work for them. They become rich by keeping a larger portion of their profits for themselves and paying the workers the minimum they can get away with. Common sense if you ask me, although I wouldn't expect a died in the wool socialist to agree with me.

[Bazj]

The trouble is Asp, the ones who are doing all the moaning about the rich are the ones who think it is a hard days work to go to the job centre to stick their hand out for the next wad of taxpayers cash

[Lt Kije]

asperity I actually agree with most of what you said I cannot say the same for Baz's post

[observer]

Riches V poverty is a relative concept; with a finite amount of wealth available; the richer some get, the poorer will become others - fairly simple equation Asp.

[asperity]

Simplistic rather than simple Obs. The point is that raising the tax level to 50% will achieve nothing economically, but it does keep the class warriors happy because they think the rich are being punished, when in actual fact it's the poor that the rich decide they don't need to employ any longer who bear the pain. Simple. The rich will still be rich, just not as rich relatively

[observer]

Wasn't aware that all those earning over ?150,000pa "employed" people, unless your talking nannys, cleaners or chauffers?! Your theory is based on Reaganomics - that the crumbs off the rich man's table will trickle down to be eaten by the lowest in the food chain; clearly something that has been dispelled by now, with the last bank CEO to jump ship. The nature of the beast is for the rich to get richer, and consequently for the poor to get poorer, as the common-wealth gets monopolised by a few.

[asperity]

And I wasn't aware that the only people earning over ?150,000 PA were bank CEOs!! So what you are saying is that people who start up and run successful businesses shouldn't reward themselves with a share of the profits that they deserve for their efforts, or if they do then they should give 61% of it to the government to waste. Bang another drum Obs because this one is ludicrous. The only reason for punitive tax rates is to feed the jealousy of the have nots over the haves, and I'm sure that you know it even if your creed won't allow you to say it.

[Bazj]

I agree with you Asp. I can't stomach this left wing nonsense of taxing those who have made their own money by hard work to satisfy the wants of those who want to work 37 hours a week and then switch off and go home.

 

People who create wealth and create jobs should not be penalised which seems to be the New Nu labour way now. The fact that even the most work shy shirking employees are protected by a myriad of laws to prevent them being sacked doesn't even enter into it with these Nu Labour fools.

[observer]

Errm, don't rope me in with "Nu"Lab Baz! Sweden had the highest tax rates in Europe - it also happened to have the highest standard of living and public service provision for ALL it's citizens. When interviewed; their richest folk were totally in favour of high tax rates for themselves, as they still remained relatively well off and they reasoned that they remained safer from crimes of envy (after all, threy invented Danegeld!). Conversely, the richest Nation on Earth (USA), has around 20% of it's population living BELOW the poverty line - it also happens to have one of the highest crime rates. Nuff said!

[asperity]

You're comparing apples with bananas Obs

[Paul Kennedy]

Sweden had the highest tax rates in Europe -

 

Not sure that is true Obs, in late 2008 they reduced both income and corporation taxes to boost jobs.

[observer]

Asp, it's all fruit, and some fruits are better than others! Paul; I know: that's why I deliberately used "had" rather than "has"!

[KeithR]

those who want to work 37 hours a week and then switch off and go home.

 

Eh .... what on earth is wrong with wanting to work 37 hours and then switch off?

[Bazj]

those who want to work 37 hours a week and then switch off and go home.

 

Eh .... what on earth is wrong with wanting to work 37 hours and then switch off?

 

Nothing at all if that is what you want to do for your wages; but don't have a go at the bloke who opens his own company and works 80 hours a week (with no minimum wage I hasten to add) andthen when he is doing well and wants to pay himself over 150 grand a year, why should he pay more tax? He is the one making all the sacrifices and taking the risks to provide work for peiople and should be encouraged... not penalised by jealousy because he trys to reap the rewards

[wolfie]

He is the one making all the sacrifices and taking the risks to provide work for peiople

 

Surely no one is forcing him to do all that?

[Bazj]

No they are not and it is just as easy to lose everything as it is to make money too

[Bonzodog]

why should he pay more tax? ........ not penalised by jealousy

 

The general presumption in this country (& most others in the West) is that those who earn more should pay more in tax. I've never been able to understand that arguement, unless it is jelousy or that "if someone else pays more then I pay less"

 

Perhaps someone who is in favour of so called progressive taxation can explain, why they are?

[Paul Kennedy]

Paul; I know: that's why I deliberately used "had" rather than "has"!

 

Just testing.

[Paul Kennedy]

He is the one making all the sacrifices and taking the risks to provide work for peiople

 

Surely no one is forcing him to do all that?

 

True, but thank God we do have such people.

[Peter T]

I don't have a problem with people earning whatever providing they "work" for it, but I do object to people avoiding paying tax on their earnings because they can afford a fancy accountant to stop them paying tax.

 

The exception being sportsmen/women, bankers and top executives of large companies. 90% tax for them.

[observer]

Not having a thirst for riches, like most folk a reasonable income and the usual home and white goods suffice, I don't class my position as envious. What I do want to avoid, is a world where the rich employ their own police minders and live behind enclosed walls; while the rest of us are afraid to walk down the street for fear of being mugged for your credit card, or worse, stabbed 250 times. Where your stepping over beggers in Town, and dodging pick pockets; all a consequence of a financially polarised society - if society is the right word for such anarchy. The reason the Government can and should tax "the rich" with a progressive taxation system, is to provide essential services for all; and as in a democracy the majority supposed to rule; 99% of the population are entitled to vote for Government that will tax the 1% of folk on ?150,000pa plus.

[Paul Kennedy]

I sense that over the coming decade (s) the economic reality of Government borrowings of ?1.4 TRILLION ( plus hidden debts which have yet to materialise) is that everybody will be paying more tax, both direct and indirect, in order to pay the borrowings off. In addition to increased taxes, State spending will have to be scaled back with difficult and unpopular decisions having to be made. Failure to do so will simply pass the problem on to future generations, which would be an act of gross irresponsibility.

 

For those who advocate further increases of taxes on the wealthy, I would just say that there simply aren't enough of them to raise sufficient tax from, in order to pay off the magnitude of debt that we as a country now have.

 

I understand that the interest that has to be paid on the national debt is now in excess of the education budget....and this is at a time when interest rates are at an all time low.

[observer]

As I've continued to say on this topic: the broadest shoulders should bare the heaviest weight. This means that tax rates should be proportional to wealth - so yes, we're all going to suffer the pain, the only question is - just how that pain is to be shared out. I've no doubt that this 50% tax rate was merely a PR gimmick to pacify "Labour" supporters, BUT we used to have rates of over 80% before, and they've given these people 12 months to rearrange their affairs (with the help of their accountants) and (as usual) avoid paying it - meanwhile, the peasants were hit with immediate tax hikes on fags, booze and petrol.

[Paul Kennedy]

Not quite, the increased petrol duty doesn't come in until September. Now interestingly, when VAT was reduced to 15% petrol duty was increased to counter the reduction, VAT returns to 17.5%....or higher...at the end of the year and unless the duty is reduced, petrol will go up another 2p...a stealth tax.

 

With regards to those on ?150,000+ incomes, large numbers of them "work" in the public sector and their pay is subject to PAYE.

[observer]

Well it appears, with an economic crisis, a flu crisis and the revealing of wholesale political corruption in parliament - the Government have descended into squabbling over who should be their next Leader - of the opposition!