And with a higher threshold/flat tax rate, you would quite likely not have to share
(This would have course also require a severe shakeup of the countries housing situation!)
What level of taxation is "fair"?
- Thread starter spudbynight
- Start date
And with a higher threshold/flat tax rate, you would quite likely not have to share
(This would have course also require a severe shakeup of the countries housing situation!)
And with a higher threshold/flat tax rate, you would quite likely not have to share
(This would have course also require a severe shakeup of the countries housing situation!)
Actually I would probably be worse of depending on rates.
It would need a massive shale up of everything, which is why I hinted at other things. But I'm bot going to write an essay on what I think should be done.
But in a jot, if your on benefits the state becomes your guardians and dictates a lot of stuff to you.
High tax free threshold Bd then flat tax after that.
Any other tax revenue should be collected in the simplest, easiest and cost effective way to collect. Bye bye VED.
Not all but 80% do, trust me in my job role I see this all the time.
Your job role is?
This is possibly the most pointless thread ever in that 'fairness' derives to nothing but a clash of values (as with other terms such as 'liberty').
Therefore most of those who perceive to gain the most from pushing their definition of 'fairness' will do so. Exceptions being working-class people who are propogandised into believing the wealth trickles down myth or middle-class folks who have a higher altruistic personality, etc.
In the absence of being able to find out what exactly is "fair" we can only hope to arrive at a consensus. One which I hope will find progressive tax rates are most beneficial for the UK as a whole, in the long-run, over kowtowing to the few who stand to disproportionately gain from flat-tax schemes and other short-termist ideas.
Therefore most of those who perceive to gain the most from pushing their definition of 'fairness' will do so. Exceptions being working-class people who are propogandised into believing the wealth trickles down myth or middle-class folks who have a higher altruistic personality, etc.
In the absence of being able to find out what exactly is "fair" we can only hope to arrive at a consensus. One which I hope will find progressive tax rates are most beneficial for the UK as a whole, in the long-run, over kowtowing to the few who stand to disproportionately gain from flat-tax schemes and other short-termist ideas.
You have to remember people in the west tend to punish those who are rich and/or successful.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,073
IMHO, there seems to be a somewhat elitist attitude on these forums sometimes, bias towards higher earners etc.
Anyone who would choose not to pay a little more in tax when they are in a privileged position and see others who are worse off suffer is not the sort of person we should be rewarding.
Not sure how this position can even be argued, to personalise it to me, would be along the lines of, i will not pay more tax for hospitals or homeless shelters etc, i need it all so i can buy pc parts and luxury cars, WTF!
Now i understand this is more a moral argument and not a particularly realistic one in the world we live in atm, but it should be something to aim for, greed is not good.
I agree that working should always be better than being unemployed, so a benefits culture is unacceptable, we should also provide a 3rd way to prevent de facto wage slavery if there were wide enough support for it.
Ps. Government wastage of tax revenue and general inefficiency aside.
Anyone who would choose not to pay a little more in tax when they are in a privileged position and see others who are worse off suffer is not the sort of person we should be rewarding.
Not sure how this position can even be argued, to personalise it to me, would be along the lines of, i will not pay more tax for hospitals or homeless shelters etc, i need it all so i can buy pc parts and luxury cars, WTF!
Now i understand this is more a moral argument and not a particularly realistic one in the world we live in atm, but it should be something to aim for, greed is not good.
I agree that working should always be better than being unemployed, so a benefits culture is unacceptable, we should also provide a 3rd way to prevent de facto wage slavery if there were wide enough support for it.
Ps. Government wastage of tax revenue and general inefficiency aside.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 4,245
- Location
- Inverkip
Fair would be not getting taxed on items you buy when you have already paid a large chunk of your wages to the taxman.
So much is wrong with that post, I can't even articulate a proper response.
Personally, I feel the fact that there has been no restrictions on the B2L market has had massive negative consequences for working folk. Extortionately high rents pumped up by estate agents and greedy landlords getting as much as they can - call it jealousy, but sounds like greed to me (IMHO).
/backtotaxtopic
The level is not as important at determining fairness as equal treatment. stepped bands and allowance removal are intrinsically unfair and should be prohibited at a constitutional level.
Once that is done, then democracy can easily determined the level of taxation the population is happy with, especially if you combine the tax and benefit system via negative income tax.
Once that is done, then democracy can easily determined the level of taxation the population is happy with, especially if you combine the tax and benefit system via negative income tax.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
Is it fair for someone who worked hard at school, worked hard at university and got a good job with long hours should pay more of a percentage of their income than someone who couldn't be bothered and as a result is only qualified to stack shelves at Tesco's?
Of course, you're scum for trying to improve yourself and making the lazy gits look bad.
It's a myth to suggest that success is completely proportional to effort, there are lots of other obvious factors that play a big part.
For me personally, my belief is that the percentage of income tax paid should rise with salary- a basic principle which is broadly employed today. I wouldn't support a flat rate of tax. As has been said though, it's an utterly subjective argument with no hard answers, as with most political questions. Nor can logic alone tie up the issue, as many principles defy pure economic logic.
In order to change our tax system, I believe we would have to utterly restructure the way things are funded.
I don't believe it's "fair" that the 'rich' are taxed over 50% (Honestly, that's insane.. you'd have to question why you bothered working harder)... and that's why there are accountants that know exactly how to work the loop holes. If you had the choice to pay 50% tax or 10% (for example) through a few legal methods... I seriously doubt anyone here would stump up the cash to go 50.
The poor are helped out where possible by council schemes (for free) that allow the very expensive installation (to the council) of heating and windows that mean they afford their bills. They get benefits which barely allow them to live, and coupons. I don't care how anyone colours it, it is demoralising to be in that situation, and I wouldn't want to be there. (We also have people that aren't lucky to have council houses, can barely survive and live in such squalor it's harkens back to old times. Yes they do exist. And then of course the homeless.
So.. where does that leave the other bit... the bit in the middle, those without council houses, making there way through the world, often on credit. Some live month to month, they can be flexible with their money in general. Not forgetting the lower + upper middle class, who probably pay a vast amount of tax, often don't use accountants.
So, what's fair? I have no idea. What's practical? Hell know's how we get out of this ****.
What would help? Getting the economy going so everything didn't cost so damn much in the first place, and make people's money go further.
What I do believe is that in order for the UK to go forwards, it first has to become pretty much debt free. If we managed to pay back our debt's then the need to tax citizens so much wouldn't be necessary, our financial rating would increase and our money would be worth more, be would become prosperous.
I don't believe it's "fair" that the 'rich' are taxed over 50% (Honestly, that's insane.. you'd have to question why you bothered working harder)... and that's why there are accountants that know exactly how to work the loop holes. If you had the choice to pay 50% tax or 10% (for example) through a few legal methods... I seriously doubt anyone here would stump up the cash to go 50.
The poor are helped out where possible by council schemes (for free) that allow the very expensive installation (to the council) of heating and windows that mean they afford their bills. They get benefits which barely allow them to live, and coupons. I don't care how anyone colours it, it is demoralising to be in that situation, and I wouldn't want to be there. (We also have people that aren't lucky to have council houses, can barely survive and live in such squalor it's harkens back to old times. Yes they do exist. And then of course the homeless.
So.. where does that leave the other bit... the bit in the middle, those without council houses, making there way through the world, often on credit. Some live month to month, they can be flexible with their money in general. Not forgetting the lower + upper middle class, who probably pay a vast amount of tax, often don't use accountants.
So, what's fair? I have no idea. What's practical? Hell know's how we get out of this ****.
What would help? Getting the economy going so everything didn't cost so damn much in the first place, and make people's money go further.
What I do believe is that in order for the UK to go forwards, it first has to become pretty much debt free. If we managed to pay back our debt's then the need to tax citizens so much wouldn't be necessary, our financial rating would increase and our money would be worth more, be would become prosperous.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
Whichever results in me paying the least amount
kd
kd
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,395
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
IMO its not the tax thats the issue its the spending
Tax should be set at a long term level that puts us in a competitive position globally not messed with annually.
Then the spending should be set to match the tax take within a certain tolerance that has to balance within a regular a rolling period, eg 5 years rolling.
Stop taxing income, start taxing total wealth. An annual return to be made, listing in sections different types of assets. Some assets that do not have a clear market value can be referenced to an index for asset types. E.g. an annual housing index, per region.
Take a guy with 2 buy to let properties, he would get taxed on the gain on the 2 buy to lets. Your taxing his wealth not his income. That wealth he will probably convert to cash at a later date (and potentially lie to get out of paying tax)
By taxing wealth you do not need different allowances for all sorts of things and limits all over the place. You have a national wealth thats taxed, and everyone pays a % of their wealth. Those that work hard and increase their wealth will pay more tax, those that do not will pay less tax.
Tax should be set at a long term level that puts us in a competitive position globally not messed with annually.
Then the spending should be set to match the tax take within a certain tolerance that has to balance within a regular a rolling period, eg 5 years rolling.
Stop taxing income, start taxing total wealth. An annual return to be made, listing in sections different types of assets. Some assets that do not have a clear market value can be referenced to an index for asset types. E.g. an annual housing index, per region.
Take a guy with 2 buy to let properties, he would get taxed on the gain on the 2 buy to lets. Your taxing his wealth not his income. That wealth he will probably convert to cash at a later date (and potentially lie to get out of paying tax)
By taxing wealth you do not need different allowances for all sorts of things and limits all over the place. You have a national wealth thats taxed, and everyone pays a % of their wealth. Those that work hard and increase their wealth will pay more tax, those that do not will pay less tax.
Suspended
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 5,707
- Location
- Buckingamshire
It is the tax that's the issue. We pay far too much generally, and I certainly pay too much out of my salary.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,073
You might view this differently if for example it was framed as a restaurant bill?
Say you have just had a family meal, you, your parents, gran and brother.
And the bill has to be split 50/30/15/5 %, you have to choose.
Would you really choose the 5% and leave your retired parents, gran on state pension and unemployed brother to pay for the lions share of the bill? or knowing you are better of than them take the 50% share?
Does it make the choice to take the 5% option any easier if the other people were strangers, as other tax payers in the UK are to you?
Or would you make them all pay for what they ordered, knowing they either cannot afford it or you would be watching them eat the cheapest thing on the menu all through dinner or sitting there with an empty plate?
Not a bulletproof example i know but you get the idea.