What level of taxation is "fair"?

Arguments can be put forward for most positions effectively as "fair" is based upon perspective at the best of times.

Would it be fair for everybody to pay a flat amount of tax? In principle yes, otherwise this is akin to me paying more for a pint than a friend who earns less.

Is it fair that the higher earners pay more tax? Possibly, based on a flat percentage somebody who earns twice my salary would pay twice the tax.

Based on the marginal rate somebody who earns twice my salary would pay 2.6 times the tax. Is this fair? Maybe, but it gets much harder to argue the case.

Both these cases can reflect that the society that gives them the opportunity to earn more than most should be repaid.

Is it fair that a large part of my tax and NI contributions will go towards funding hugely generous public sector pensions in future. Definitely not and this should be our focus, not what we actually pay but the return on our investment in society.
 
HardwareGeek said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a stupid scenario. If it was my family I'd pay the bill outright. I really don't care what happens to strangers. Their lives and well being isn't my concern or responsibility. They can wash the dishes out back :p
 
20% flat tax. That is about as fair as it gets. For income anyway. Everyone pays the same %, if you want to be richer, work harder.
 
George Hincapie said:
It is the tax that's the issue. We pay far too much generally, and I certainly pay too much out of my salary.
Click to expand...

if you followed budgets and not the headlines but the more detailed narrative you would find that they are always justifying the tax based on the spending, hence my comment.

The tax isn't the issue its the spending.

Flip the situation, define the tax and match the spending to the tax take, not do as they try to do now, set the spending and tinker with the tax to support the spending (or not as is the case when labour are in power).

Same as most individuals do, you get your income you use that to determine your spending.
 
Also not really supporting the argument that people who earn more, work harder.

If we discount the unemployed from the discussion for the moment and take lower earners vs. higher earners.

Not sure this would prove to be true.

An earlier post said they worked hard at uni to get where they are in life vs. a low earner would have had a real job for those years. Who worked harder?

Also being a higher earner tends to come with much better working conditions, a lot of other benefits, maybe early retirement. While a low earner will still be doing the same job with poor conditions until retirement. Who worked harder?

Also the type of work differs, higher earners valued for knowledge rather that doing physical work.

In my admittedly limited experience the more the job pays the less actual work you are expected to do, certainly less physical work and more sitting thinking as you go up the pay scale.
 
Glaucus said:
And why do they pay that amount in tax? Is it because we have a stupidly low tax threshold, vat is levied on some vital goods and poor people buy lots of luxuries they shouldn't be buying. How many have decent tvs for a start.

Also why shouldn't better if save money and as such don't pay vat or other taxes on that portion.

We aren't purposing current tax systems. And a different tax system would sort many of these issues out. While some of the "unfair" tax is due to people living outside their means and as such paying vat and other taxes they shouldn't be incurring.
Click to expand...

So you want to control what people spend their money on then? Is that a new pre-requisite for a flat tax? Let's make a list of Glaucus approved things that poor people are allowed to buy, I'll start:

- Bread
- Milk
 
robskinner said:
if you followed budgets and not the headlines but the more detailed narrative you would find that they are always justifying the tax based on the spending, hence my comment.

The tax isn't the issue its the spending.

Flip the situation, define the tax and match the spending to the tax take, not do as they try to do now, set the spending and tinker with the tax to support the spending (or not as is the case when labour are in power).

Same as most individuals do, you get your income you use that to determine your spending.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with spending, I'm concerned with the unfairness of the progressive tax system. I think you're getting a bit confused...
 
wildman said:
Why should thisbe the aim, if the inequality is in some cases due to the ineptness / laziness of some dregs who would rather 'sponge' from the state ? This is actually unfair as it means certain sections of society end up working to keep some people in lifestyles that are in some cases considerably more comfortable than those who are actually working and earning ?
Click to expand...

I think this is a really interesting subject, and there's a growing body of evidence that shows the greater the inequality in society the more likely it is that people are just going to give up and languish on benefits - think of it like a huge set of stairs, the steeper they are the further those at the top are away from those on the bottom (on the vertical axis anyway), but it's also much more difficult to progress up the stairs.

I suggest there's a strong correlation between the growth in the income inequality gap in the UK over the last 30 years, and the growth of the underclass in this country. No-one likes a scrounger, but what we need to do is understand why people make this lifestyle choice and get them to engage with society.

wildman said:
I am happy with your statement providing there is a caveat that prevents the kind of state benefit gouging we saw under Labours term of office. There needs to be a division between those who are 'unequal' in true terms, and those who are just professional malingerers and work shy.
Click to expand...

What happened over the 13 years of the Labour government wasn't ideal - of course they made mistakes, some obvious and some not so obvious. I will point out however that under Labour child poverty in the UK was shrinking, not by as much as they promised but it was shrinking. This trend was reversed within a year of the Conservatives taking office.
 
robskinner said:
Seems so as I am focussed on the problem and not the result.

The spending is the issue not the tax, try thinking harder you may understand, but its looking dubious.
Click to expand...


Or you could keep your comments to yourself if all you can do is confuse two separate issues, then make blatant insults when I won't agree you're right :rolleyes:
 
scorza said:
So you want to control what people spend their money on then? Is that a new pre-requisite for a flat tax? Let's make a list of Glaucus approved things that poor people are allowed to buy, I'll start:

- Bread
- Milk
Click to expand...

Where did I say I wanted to do that?
It's just when looking at tax stats you need to take these things into account and if it is because of these factors. It's not a stat you can use to say the poor are so hard done by on tax.

The only people who should be told what to spend there money on is, people on benefits and even then not totally.
 
scorza said:
What happened over the 13 years of the Labour government wasn't ideal - of course they made mistakes, some obvious and some not so obvious. I will point out however that under Labour child poverty in the UK was shrinking, not by as much as they promised but it was shrinking. This trend was reversed within a year of the Conservatives taking office.
Click to expand...

Would have happened who ever was in power though TBH, was less to do with government and more to do with the global economy nosediving.

May have been some difference between the parties, ie tordems more focussed on budget control, labour on "boosting the economy" by spending, neither a perfect solution.

In hindsight the labour approach would probably have failed harder, they couldnt stop the global impact on their own. The tordems arguably got the uk in a better position by being the first to truly adopt austerity before the rest started copying.
 
danielanthony said:
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?
Click to expand...

I actually hate this sort of snobbery attitude,it does not work like that,so just people with good jobs work long hours thats what your saying:confused:
 
robskinner said:
Would have happened who ever was in power though TBH, was less to do with government and more to do with the global economy nosediving.

May have been some difference between the parties, ie tordems more focussed on budget control, labour on "boosting the economy" by spending, neither a perfect solution.

In hindsight the labour approach would probably have failed harder, they couldnt stop the global impact on their own. The tordems arguably got the uk in a better position by being the first to truly adopt austerity before the rest started copying.
Click to expand...

I fail to see why the global economic crisis meant that George Osborne had no choice but to decide to shift tax credit and benefit calculations from the RPI to the lower CPI measure of inflation. It's all a matter of priorities isn't it, for the chancellor priority number one was scrap the 50p income tax rate, reducing child poverty is at the bottom of his list.
 
Fusion said:
That Balotelli fellow must really graft then, I wanna be like him.
Click to expand...

Of course there are exceptions to rules but in the case of your example, my point still stands.

He trains very hard, has exceptional talent and every moment in his life is dictated by the fact that his body is a valuable tool. Everything from how much he sleeps to exactly what he eats will have careful consideration to ensure he stays in the best physical shape possible. It goes MUCH further than kicking a ball about on a Sunday.. and that goes for ANY professional sport.

If you truly believe anyone who is a professional athlete doesn't work hard, then you need to take a second look. Regardless of how inflated their pay is (That is a different issue concerning the regulations/commercials of football) they worked hard to get themselves into the position to earn that kind of money.
 
Nitefly said:
Because generally speaking and to obvious extents, those who earn vastly more can afford to pay an additional proportionate amount more on the extra money earned. If this wasn't the case, those who earn less would have a much lower quality of life, which is something I wouldn't want.
Click to expand...

Even with a flat tax, you'd still pay more if you were capable of doing so.

33% of £30000 is £9900
33% of £1000000 is still £330000.

I don't understand how someone could claim a top earner would not be paying more in a flat rate tax system. I'd argue that our government probably wastes too much money to make a flat tax rate a reality, but it'd be the ideal of the situation in my opinion.
 
mollymoo said:
In Canada you pay a tad more, schooling costs money so they sort of tax you for that when you have kids, sounds like a good idea to me.
Click to expand...

Jesus, if you did that in the UK the levels of illiteracy would quadruple overnight !!!! We are already amongst the thickest in the world. If we start taxing people to send their kids to school we would actually start devolve back to Neanderthal levels due to the number of parents probably refusing to get taxed again just to educate their children.
 
scorza said:
I fail to see why the global economic crisis meant that George Osborne had no choice but to decide to shift tax credit and benefit calculations from the RPI to the lower CPI measure of inflation. It's all a matter of priorities isn't it, for the chancellor priority number one was scrap the 50p income tax rate, reducing child poverty is at the bottom of his list.
Click to expand...

CPI is more relevant to that type of expenditure? Consumer being the key rather than retail

Priority number 1 clearly wasn't that cut or he would have done it the first year.

Labour didn't implement that rate until the end of their regime, they clearly said it was a temporary fix even for them. If they had of believed it had a place as part of the UK tax regime that could have implemented it on any of their previous 13 budgets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom