What level of taxation is "fair"?

[nineteenforty4]

To hell with socialism and to benefits for those who choose not to work.
People have a ridiculous idea of being "entitled" to things and believe luxuries are "basic needs", with no concept of austerity or being frugal.

The biggest drag on tax money in the UK is the bureaucracy and nonsense Gov't spending.

 

[Castiel]

But that information just doesn't tie in to my experience, and I have lived there for 5 years. You pay health insurance 100% from your own pocket, and you must pay for your children's health insurance. there is normally a family plan of sorts. The employer has nothing to do with personal health insurance. The employer does cover accident insurance, but this is more to cover accidents at work and although it extends outside the work environment you are encouraged to pay for additional accident coverage, especially if you do any sporting activities. I believe their is a social charge to the employer that is used to subsidise health care, but that is independent. It is not like in N. American where the employer will typically cover health costs for the whole family. In Switzerland you must pay yourself, but there are measures to make sure everyone is covered even if you cannot afford it, e.g. unemployed. This will also cover pregnant women if they cannot afford insurance themselves.


There are a lot of charges that someone in payroll will never see. These are charges that are done at the cantonal level and wont appear in any pay check etc. E.g., I had to continuly pay a tax de sejour for being a resident.
Other charges that are common are a 'responsibilite civil,' basically a personal liability insurance that must be paid even for children.

I understand this, the 'family allowance' payments are the social payments you refer to that subsidise healthcare.

She says that you do not pay more tax for having children or being married though....it is just that married couples incomes are taxed together which is unusual in most countries they are not. She says there are basically three tax rates, Single People, Married Single Earner, Married Working Spouse. She said it may appear that married couples are on a higher rate, but it doesnt work out that way, she says normally as a percentage of income you are at your optimal point being married with a single earner and two children (as a proportion of income) She also said what you have insofar that rates depend on where you live and there are also taxes for a whole range of different things that affect what you pay....she said that even your religious denomination can mean you pay extra, she called it a Church Tax.....

Anyway, you live there, so I can't dispute what you are saying, although I still don't agree that it amounts to taxing children and neither do I agree with taxing having children.

 

[Castiel]

You weren't talking about having a stable population, you were talking about increasing the population in order to stimulate the economy.

In response to D.P. i'm not convinced that regulation or taxation are sustainable ways to manage population size. The only real way to do it in my eyes would be to make sure that people know the implications of such a choice before they make it, and understand that having a child isn't a necessity for a normal, happy life. How many people have children because it's the 'done thing'?

I wasn't on about population levels at all, but the demographic of any given population. And also abput sustaining tax income, not stimulating the economy.

 

[Castiel]

I wonder how many of the responsible parents would be happy to pay more for a better education for their children? Not private education prices but a small premium either through tax or from their disposable income. I know I would.

Many of us do.....but you make it compulsory and you have an instant disincentive right there. Also by the same logic if I can afford to send my child to a fully funded private school, why should I pay taxes toward a system I don't gain any benefit from.....the same if I have private medical insurance, private refuse collection and so on.....

Also, why should I pay taxes into a system that will also benefit single childless people if they refuse to pay into a system unless it benefits them.....

You may as well simply charge for services and only pay taxes for universal provision of Police, Army, and other services that are not optional depending on the individuals circumstances...

I would quite happily pay service charges for those services I use, and not those I don't....

Not sure how all those prospective University Students without wealthy parents might fair though...or the cancer sufferer who cannot afford the best drug treatments....and that is only two examples of the kind of mindset that begrudes one group simply because they do not benefit at the time.....

 

[wildman]

I wonder how many of the responsible parents would be happy to pay more for a better education for their children? Not private education prices but a small premium either through tax or from their disposable income. I know I would.

not if you piad higher taxation to cover it and then some unemployed bum had a gaggle of kids and sent them to the same school as your children but essentially for free i.e on the back of your higher taxation to cover schooling because you were a responsible parent in gainful employment........

sort out the benefit scum spongers first, then come hit me for more tax second....

 

[Judgeneo]

Something along the lines of

£15k tax free
35% tax after that
Maximum payment capped at 30% of total income

No exceptions (i.e. applicable to all earnings).

Exact numbers to be debated obviously.
My reasoning is the more wealthy you are, the less likey you are to be reliant on public services, so a small tax cut is acceptable. Whilst the poorest need every penny they can get.

 

[George Hincapie]

I wonder how many of the responsible parents would be happy to pay more for a better education for their children? Not private education prices but a small premium either through tax or from their disposable income. I know I would.

We already do pay for this through tax. The Government needs to make the Education system more efficient.

 

[PermaBanned]

You know what would be useful in this thread? Graphs. Of income against average quality of life and income against average time worked/free time. Then you could pick a maximum 'quality of life' where any increase in income above that doesn't actually affect you much in any way and cap it off there with taxes.

 

[D.P.]

You weren't talking about having a stable population, you were talking about increasing the population in order to stimulate the economy.

In response to D.P. i'm not convinced that regulation or taxation are sustainable ways to manage population size. The only real way to do it in my eyes would be to make sure that people know the implications of such a choice before they make it, and understand that having a child isn't a necessity for a normal, happy life. How many people have children because it's the 'done thing'?

I agree with you, I wasn't advocating enforced control of permitted children or trying to makes taxes so high that it would force man not to have children. I was pointing out that subsiding children and trying to push towards massive population growth is ultimately not the best thing.

I agree that instilling a better understanding of the consequences is a preferable method but I am not sure it is very effective. It is very sad to see that so many people have children just because they think they are supposed to.




To be clear for everyone, I am not advocating for taxation on parents just that it has some merits. It is more of a hypothetical conjecture, much like have a tax system where everyone on pays for the costs they incur would theoretically be fair but that is not practical or in anyway viable.

 

[PermaBanned]

I agree, but then you have to consider that if your main method of population control is education then the only people who will be having children will be thick people. Damn you Darwin!

 

[D.P.]

I agree, but then you have to consider that if your main method of population control is education then the only people who will be having children will be thick people. Damn you Darwin!

Which is part of the problem we have today, where higher educated and career-driven people that are aware of the consequences and worry about the financial stability and environment they could offer their children are less and less likely to have children.

Yes, it is very much a Daily Mail headline but the underlying statistics show this to be the case to an extent.

Most of my friends do not want to have a family, or a very conscientious of the potential consequences or are making compromises by only have 1 child. E.g., if my long term girlfriend was to take maternity leave that would be the end of her career as she is at a critical stage with a once in a life time opportunity to prove that she can excel.

The fact of the matter is, those couples who are concerned about the future are likely to have less children, those that only care about what is on TV in the evening have children in a relatively care free manner knowing that society will pick up the pieces. Which is a real shame for these children to have to grow up in such an environment.

 

[Castiel]

Which is part of the problem we have today, where higher educated and career-driven people that are aware of the consequences and worry about the financial stability and environment they could offer their children are less and less likely to have children.

Yes, it is very much a Daily Mail headline but the underlying statistics show this to be the case to an extent.

Most of my friends do not want to have a family, or a very conscientious of the potential consequences or are making compromises by only have 1 child. E.g., if my long term girlfriend was to take maternity leave that would be the end of her career as she is at a critical stage with a once in a life time opportunity to prove that she can excel.

The fact of the matter is, those couples who are concerned about the future are likely to have less children, those that only care about what is on TV in the evening have children in a relatively care free manner knowing that society will pick up the pieces. Which is a real shame for these children to have to grow up in such an environment.

I sit firmly in the 'one child' demographic...however, statistics show that the higher educated, wealthier, career orientated people are delaying having children rather than not having them at all. The age that the professional classes are having children has increased from an average age of 24 to 35....thus we see more strain put on IVF and other fertility programs......

However, taxing or further disincentivising the very demographic that you want to be having children is ultimately counter productive, far better to address the social benefit and educational systems that encourage the higher birthrates in the less productive/educated demographic......

We need to increase the overall education and social conscience of the future generations, so that ultimately financial and social independence is increased and the need for social benefits and dependence on the state is decreased.

This way society becomes more efficent and resource friendly, while maintaining the taxation required to maintain or hopefully improve living standards.

 

[GreatAuk]

Fairness is a tough one... A fair tax system also might not necessarily be the best system in terms of effect on business etc...

But, What I think would be fair is:

Tax free allowance designed to cover all the basics (accommodation, food, bills, etc) if you lived in the cheapest area in the country. I don't think it would be 'fair' to make people living in cheap areas pay tax that goes towards giving people in more expensive areas the freedom to keep living there.

After that allowance there'd be a flat level of tax on all forms of income. This would be however much is required in order to pay for whatever government expenditure is deemed necessary by the government.

I think a fair system would be then to get rid of most other taxes, apart from a low level (I don't really know what level) on all business's profits (After all the country has provided police, defense, etc for them, but not hospitals and schools as it does for people). So no VAT or anything like that. Also, some special taxes would be fair - a flat rate road tax to cover the use of roads, and fuel tax because there are good reasons for discouraging people from using lots of fuel.

Hmm, I don't know what to do about gifts... In some ways, money/property that already belongs to someone else has already been taxed, it belongs to someone to do with as they wish, and I don't think it should be the governments responsibility any more. But then in another way it is like an income really - whether people think about it or not, being a grandchild to a wealthy grandad is a sort of service, and gifts might be seen as payment for that service (sure, it might not seem like a service, but then should we not tax people who really love their jobs? That would seem perverse). I think I'll have to go for taxing gifts at the business rate as a sort of profit from the "namehere business".

But yeah, basically a tax free allowance, flat rate above that, a few special taxes, no VAT, and a small tax for businesses.




Or maybe I'm not being radical enough. Maybe a real fair tax would be absolutely minimum, but universal. So police, defence, and anything else absolutely essential to allowing the existence of the country and the rule of the government within it come from a single fee on every person in the UK, from babies to pensioners (children can pay off their tax debt (with interest) at whatever rate they want, but don't have to start until they're adults, get an extension if they are still in education).

Everything else would be charged for or insured for - School fees, fire service insurance, etc.

If you can't pay your bills or taxes, then you could get a government loan, but then if you can't pay it back the government gets to use you as a slave whenever you aren't at your usual job, and pays off your loan at whatever rate they want (you'd have to sign a contract at the start saying what this rate is). If that rate isn't enough to cover your loan repayments then I suppose higher paying options like conscripted slave mercenary, non essential organ donor (would be payed by the health companies), new drug tester, etc would be available.

Maybe living in that system would be a choice - you could live in a completely unregulated zone with no police or army or anything if you wanted - say they just deregulate some large chunk in the middle of England, or they could deport you to any country that would have you, and if nobody wanted you then tough.

I think some services would have to be owned by the government (and rented to companies that would bid on the basis of how much it would charge the users combined with ability to deliver, and with fines if the company didn't keep the service in good repair) or else unfair monopolies would develop, such as roads, water, electric grid, train lines etc, but the users would pay enough to completely support these networks.

The consequences for not being able to pay your subscription to be a UK citizen sound dire, but then in purely material terms it's probably fair.

edit: I'm not sure a democratic government can ever really be fair in a purely material way because they wouldn't get voted it, so you'd have to have some kind of undemocratic government installed. I much prefer the system we have today to the idea directly above btw, it just sounds quite fair in a material way. Maybe in a truly fair system luck would also be accounted for - gains and losses due to luck (be it dice, lottery, genes, the bus breaking down and you missing work and not getting paid, etc) would all be taken/covered by the government. I'm still not really sure what fairness actually entails in my own mind. Equal opportunity and treatment in essence I suppose, but deciding what that entails, and how much personal freedom to throw into the mix is unclear to me.

 

[Tute]

For me, a tax-free allowance of something like half the average national wage, and then 25-30% on all earnings above that, no exceptions.

I certainly do not agree with making the wealthiest pay as much as they do. I can understand why it is done like it is, but at the end of the day, these are also the people most likely to rely on private services hence they are paying for something they may well not end up using. Hence the flat rate.

Even with what i've suggested above, they would still pay by far and away the most into the pot.

Council tax would stay fixed, maybe rubbish collections done on weight, with incentives to recycle, like a small cut in the amount you pay. VED would be scrapped and added to fuel - so the more you use the roads, the more you pay. Bugger all this AGW rubbish until it's proven to be actually occurring.

 

[PermaBanned]

EDIT: Hmm, completely the wrong thread, sorry.

 

[hurfdurf]

I certainly do not agree with making the wealthiest pay as much as they do. I can understand why it is done like it is, but at the end of the day, these are also the people most likely to rely on private services hence they are paying for something they may well not end up using. Hence the flat rate.

This would make sense if a lot of the wealthy people were wealthy purely on their own merit. Sadly, with the gross inequality most wealthy people are simply born into it, therefore it is a tad unfair to not take from them more because they do not deserve it.

 

[edscdk]

It doesn't take the entire population working to sustain the entire population. What if we reach a point where increasing population just leads to greater and greater unemployment rates? For starters it wouldn't lead to economic growth, it would probably hinder it. And secondly what's stopping us from embracing that as a good thing? A system which forces people to work to eat? What if we don't need people to work? Should we share the work out between everybody? Say everybody does a three day week?

We can only give our unemployed such a good life style because we have workers who earn next to nothing to produce all our goods and food... Without the unseen millions who work almost as slaves we would not live in such luxery...

 

[Jokester]

This would make sense if a lot of the wealthy people were wealthy purely on their own merit. Sadly, with the gross inequality most wealthy people are simply born into it, therefore it is a tad unfair to not take from them more because they do not deserve it.

They do not deserve it so they shouldn't have it? What nonsense.

 

[hurfdurf]

They do not deserve it so they shouldn't have it? What nonsense.

Shouldn't have all of it, no. For them to live in a country where they are safe to spend the money amongst a healthy, happy population means they must sacrifice a large chunk of it.

 

[Kemik]

We can argue about taxation rates until the cows come home, but I might as well be first and say that a flat tax rate would be grossly unfair.

As it goes, I don't think it's too unfair now in relation to income tax.

A flat rate of tax would generate more income from the top earners than the current tax system.

That's on the assumption that the personal allowance is moved to around £12k and most reliefs are removed/simplified.