Government to bring in 45% income tax for top earners (£150k pa)
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
lol told ya
I put it in size 7 font, hopefully he can understand this time. But he still wont and will make some redundant argument for taxing the rich as much as possible. Either way DH is on and one man called Raymond Lin will never keep me from Eva Longoria
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,449
- Location
- Londontown
Raymond Lin, you're on OcUK, arguing anything against right wing politics here means you get shot down as it seems to be full of bitter arm chair politicians who think they know better than everyone else.
Eliminate the income tax altogether and bring in a tax on purchases of around 21-22% and everyone would be happy - except for people who dodge taxes like drug dealers etc
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,792
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Quite right, i am going to bed.
For the record, i don't love the poor and hate the rich. I judge people not by the size of the bank account but by the content of their character.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,376
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
liesFor the record, i don't love the poor and hate the rich. I judge people not by the size of the bank account but by the content of their character.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,792
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
LOL, it was fine in the Election thread, but in that topic the Right wing was the other extreme !
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Raymond you seem to be missing the point that, more than anything taxing the rich more and more firstly, doesn't help the economy directly anyway, at all. But it encourages richer people in better jobs, or those that own companies and employ many people, those that run companies that export to all move out of the uk.
High taxation on the rich is what screws big companies over, hurts small business massively and makes those 4-5 years a new small business start so difficult to survive. There are countries, like the US, who encourage factories to be built and things to be made, like giving AMD tax breaks to the tune that its advantageous to open their next fab in New York state rather than Israel, thats a couple thousand jobs for as long as its open, plus several thousand building houses for the workers, restaurants and services those people will use, and all the other knock on workers that are needed to keep area's going.
England has been positively screwing these companies over for decades, as a result, they've almost all gone. We have no industry anymore, we export next to nothing and our economy is terrible because we don't generate any money anymore.
Screwing the people that create jobs and run companies that employ lots of people, does not help and directly worsens the economy.
However, in terms of the elections, the rich are a smaller percentage of the population, offer a basic, really won't affect you tax cut to the poor and raise taxes on the rich to compensate and you get a lot of votes from poor people who don't realise they are screwing you over completely. The rich people leave, for better countries, the poor people are left stranded in a failing economy.
High taxation on the rich is what screws big companies over, hurts small business massively and makes those 4-5 years a new small business start so difficult to survive. There are countries, like the US, who encourage factories to be built and things to be made, like giving AMD tax breaks to the tune that its advantageous to open their next fab in New York state rather than Israel, thats a couple thousand jobs for as long as its open, plus several thousand building houses for the workers, restaurants and services those people will use, and all the other knock on workers that are needed to keep area's going.
England has been positively screwing these companies over for decades, as a result, they've almost all gone. We have no industry anymore, we export next to nothing and our economy is terrible because we don't generate any money anymore.
Screwing the people that create jobs and run companies that employ lots of people, does not help and directly worsens the economy.
However, in terms of the elections, the rich are a smaller percentage of the population, offer a basic, really won't affect you tax cut to the poor and raise taxes on the rich to compensate and you get a lot of votes from poor people who don't realise they are screwing you over completely. The rich people leave, for better countries, the poor people are left stranded in a failing economy.
At least spending £500 on a bottle of wine is their choice, and they get something out of it. People who pay large amounts of tax don't see anything for their money, despite working hard for it. Would you think it's fair for people to say that you deserve an extra 5% of your hard earned cash taken away from you just because you could afford to buy a new camera lens?
I agree with Solari about moving the 40p tax band. It has been around the same level for a very long time with no consideration for inflation and the increase of higher salaries. University has become more accessible, and when people have degrees they expect to earn more. Some salaries have gone up by huge amounts due to inflation - I can remember 12 years ago a head of department at my school told our class he earned £27k a year, I know someone now who is a head of a similar sized department earning £40k.
I really don't think that it's fair that something which wasn't intended to be within the 40p tax band is now just due to time passing. I think that if salaries increase over time, the point at which people are taxed more should increase too.
It won't be changed though, as I'd be willing to be that the government is happy more and more people are ticking over into the higher tax band and giving them more money to waste.
Flat tax rate.
Why does anyone give a toss what the rich spend their money on? It's is THEIR money.
It is ****ing outrageous that anyone has the opinion of "Well it's only 'x' they can afford it."
They shouldn't bloody well have to, you selfish scrote. They, both the poor and the rich, should pay the same percentage.
Why does anyone give a toss what the rich spend their money on? It's is THEIR money.
It is ****ing outrageous that anyone has the opinion of "Well it's only 'x' they can afford it."
They shouldn't bloody well have to, you selfish scrote. They, both the poor and the rich, should pay the same percentage.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 May 2006
- Posts
- 499
No, the rich pay to subsidise the poor, it's called social responsibility. It's one of the few things this country can be proud of.
Also who's going to get the economy starting again? it'll the working/middle classes who actually spend their money on the high street, in this country and in all probability into the back pockets of those who complain of a 45p tax rate.
If you don't like the tax rules here go elsewhere, if you're earning that sort of money i'm sure you'll have no problem getting a job elsewhere.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
what tosh, there is social responsibility, thats one thing, this is ENTIRELY different. This is simply election propaganda. There are more poor people, so you can screw the 5% who this tax will effect and they have no power to stop it as if they all change their vote to someone else, it won't swing it.
Theres a point where social responsibility ends and simply becomes taking advantage.
People, of whom many are simply incredibly hard working who sacrifice a lot by working far more hours than your average worker, are already paying enough tax for them and several other people. At what point can you keep saying its fair.
Whats the average person pay in tax, 20% from what 6k to 20k, ? i honestly can't remember where what starts . But say the average working at 25k a year pays and call it around 4k a year. Call that the "average" contribution.
Now a guy making 150k a year is paying that 4k, +twice that again up to 40k, and from 40-150k he's paying 45k in tax, so that person is already paying what must be at least 60k in tax. He's paying the tax contribution of 15 other "average" people. You really think its fair that this person, who say a lawyer or doctor whose putting in those 80-90hours a week, FAR more than the average person should pay that much extra, and then, pay even more to fund another tax cut on the poor?
Its getting to a point that its beyond a joke.
Even if they pay the same tax rate, say everyone was on a flat 20%. The person making 25k is paying 5k in tax, a guy making 150k is still paying 30k in tax, over 6 times as much. Its not equal even if the tax rate is the same for everyone.
Social responsibility would be filled just fine with the 6 times as much tax they pay if they were taxed at the same rate.
people forget all to often that the same rate, on a LOT more cash = a lot more tax.
The point is though, this is unnecessary, and won't in any way help the economy. Without generating new money, spending it will do smeg all.
The more you encourage rich people to leave, and people to not want to bring new business to the uk, the more you hurt the uk.
To say that rich people are good enough at their jobs that if they don't like being screwed they can just smeg off is about the worst thing you said.
So someone, whose paying for 15 other peoples tax contribution, is working hard and is good at their job, is FAR more than forfilling this social responsibility you talk of, but if we screw them more they should have to leave their home and job because thats the only way they will get fair treatment? So by social responsbility you meant, social responsbility only to the poor and screw anyone else, thats really nice and something certainly to be proud of. Did it ever occur to you that if you screw all the rich people and all the rich people leave, that this country will collapse completely? no it didn;t, clearly.
Last edited:
drunkenmaster - I wish i could have put it so eloquently 
Well said.
The smell of harcore socialism here is burning my nose Social responsibility is fine, but then there's taking the **** - which either discourages people from bettering themselves, or drives them away!
Well said. The smell of harcore socialism here is burning my nose
Social responsibility is fine, but then there's taking the **** - which either discourages people from bettering themselves, or drives them away!
Last edited:
No, if they announce big tax cuts later today, but don't announce how they will fund them (deferred tax rises) at the same time, the pound will collapse as markets will have no faith in the government's level of borrowing and ability to pay it back. They have to announce the tax rises at the same time.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 May 2006
- Posts
- 499
Can you honestly say that you believe that is viable in the short to medium term? If you want to bankrupt a country thats a pretty good way to do it. Flat tax systems, whilst a nice concept, do not work. Everybody would have to be taxed at a mid point and you're killing the lifeblood of the economy, aka the working classes, as its their disposable income which is needed and unless wages rose at an unheard of level you'd pretty much guarantee first poverty a then a depression worse than the 30s.
And telling them to like it or lump it, yes. If they leave to get a better job then the job they're leaving would need to increase its salary in order to remain competitive thereby making the tax increase more bearable or even null. It's a free market of labour and people have the right to come and go as they please, just because they're here doesn't mean they have an automatic right to say i don't want to pay a little more, whilst you're seeing thousands of home repossessions a year and job losses which aren't coming from the 40%ers.
The market needs liquidity and those earning in 6 figures a year aren't gonna make the sort of difference that the tax revenue will. In fairness, i doubt their lifestyles would change at all, just their investment portfolio would be a little thinner or have less in a savings account.
Long term the whole tax system needs to be looked at and rewritten but you cannot do that when you've got looming problems.
Last edited:
On the contrary, the poor spend it back rather quickly so makes do difference to our bottom line. They survive and it is free to the tax payer as the government claws it back. Also, IMHO the 150K earners and above should get 60% income tax, they got off easy
Associate
- Joined
- 4 May 2006
- Posts
- 499
On the contrary, the poor spend it back rather quickly so makes do difference to our bottom line. They survive and it is free to the tax payer as the government claws it back. Also, IMHO the 150K earners and above should get 60% income tax, they got off easy
Do you know anybody who earns 150k+? I only know a couple but i know they both worked they're balls off to get there, same as most who do, they get paid that much for a reason.
On the contrary, the poor spend it back rather quickly so makes do difference to our bottom line. They survive and it is free to the tax payer as the government claws it back. Also, IMHO the 150K earners and above should get 60% income tax, they got off easy
No need for insults. Why? Becuase they worked harder then you? Why should they get so ****ed over because people like you feel they've been treated unfair instead of coming to terms with the fact that they've made their own bed.