Very good point, if the rich really were suffering from high tax how-come the poverty gap has been steadily increasing?.
Define socialism without opening up Wikipedia.
Actually, scratch that - go-to Wikipedia & read up on it.
What level of taxation is "fair"?
- Thread starter spudbynight
- Start date
Actually, scratch that - go-to Wikipedia & read up on it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,395
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Everyone seems to be focussed on personal taxation, what about business taxation?
If your going to spend £10 and you get £8 from source A you need £2 from other sources. If you can only get £2 from source A you need to either reduce the £10 to £4 or get more from other sources.
I proposed previously in another conversation that businesses tax rate was directly proportional to the value added in the UK. Sliding variable scale, so if you basically just import add a margin and flog on you would pay a higher % than a company who manufactured within the UK. Residence of company pays no part, by selling in the UK you are liable for this taxation method, think of it like VAT, its levied on every sale of physical goods or services.
Theory is that whilst it may be cheap to buy goods from China you would pay a high % tax on the sale and hence the true cost of the sale including taxes would be competative or possibly more expensive than making in the uk where you would suffer higher manufacturing costs but a much lower tax rate as you had added much more value in the UK. Take the Amazon example for another thread, they would add very limited value in the uk (just distribution basically) so would pay a high rate of tax and hence would have to charge more to cover tax and that would make them more comparable with Waterstones who probably buy at the same wholesale price but add more value by employing staff etc within the uk, and hence would pay a lower tax rate for the same book sold than Amazon.
As far as personal taxation goes I still cannot see how any rate will be "fair". The general population ideally need to set the bar, whats the minimum standard of living on a numnber of key measurements, once you have an idea on that you can understand the cost and tax accordingly. Who has defined this standard, numerous politicians and unelected representatives in local councils etc, they have defined these things.
As pointed out now much more often, whats the point in taxing someone then giving most of the tax back so that they can afford to live, its completely pointless and actually costs money to administer.
Tax has always been collected to meet the demands, be that a war (think 100 years war etc) or currently where its much more about minimum acceptable social levels. Taxation has always been about drawing as much as they could get away with from the population and falling somewhere short of a popular uprising, fairness has never really been of concern until very recently. I would say everyone has a different view of fair, be that in amount or %, I bet 99.99% of people would do something if it mean't they could pay less tax.
If your going to spend £10 and you get £8 from source A you need £2 from other sources. If you can only get £2 from source A you need to either reduce the £10 to £4 or get more from other sources.
I proposed previously in another conversation that businesses tax rate was directly proportional to the value added in the UK. Sliding variable scale, so if you basically just import add a margin and flog on you would pay a higher % than a company who manufactured within the UK. Residence of company pays no part, by selling in the UK you are liable for this taxation method, think of it like VAT, its levied on every sale of physical goods or services.
Theory is that whilst it may be cheap to buy goods from China you would pay a high % tax on the sale and hence the true cost of the sale including taxes would be competative or possibly more expensive than making in the uk where you would suffer higher manufacturing costs but a much lower tax rate as you had added much more value in the UK. Take the Amazon example for another thread, they would add very limited value in the uk (just distribution basically) so would pay a high rate of tax and hence would have to charge more to cover tax and that would make them more comparable with Waterstones who probably buy at the same wholesale price but add more value by employing staff etc within the uk, and hence would pay a lower tax rate for the same book sold than Amazon.
As far as personal taxation goes I still cannot see how any rate will be "fair". The general population ideally need to set the bar, whats the minimum standard of living on a numnber of key measurements, once you have an idea on that you can understand the cost and tax accordingly. Who has defined this standard, numerous politicians and unelected representatives in local councils etc, they have defined these things.
As pointed out now much more often, whats the point in taxing someone then giving most of the tax back so that they can afford to live, its completely pointless and actually costs money to administer.
Tax has always been collected to meet the demands, be that a war (think 100 years war etc) or currently where its much more about minimum acceptable social levels. Taxation has always been about drawing as much as they could get away with from the population and falling somewhere short of a popular uprising, fairness has never really been of concern until very recently. I would say everyone has a different view of fair, be that in amount or %, I bet 99.99% of people would do something if it mean't they could pay less tax.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
I consider myself rich by society standards, but I do not see why I am a major beneficiary of society. Can you enlighten me?
this.
Who provides demand for the goods?, manufactures the goods?, keeps the peace?, provides healthcare for either you or the people you rely on/employ?, who provides protection against a rabble of poor people from stealing all you own?, who cleans the environment you live in?, takes the bins away?, sweeps the floor?.
The average cleaner does more for society than most but get's one of the lowest rewards for the work done.
I'm fortunate enough to be in the top 10% of earners in the UK, but I'm happy to admit that those who succeed overall reap a greater benefit from society than those at the bottom.
You really haven't thought about it that hard if you require enlightening.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
No one in this country.
I take all of the points about the services I have received, but that isn't 'society' in the sense I thought he was aiming for. With regard to those services, I have paid for them many times over and I am happy to continue doing so for others.
I thought when he said 'major beneficiaries of our society', he was talking mainly about the body of the people.
So when he says 'are the major major beneficiaries of our society', I don't think I am. I think there are far, far more people who benefit way, way more from society than I do.
Last edited:
And therein lies a major cause of many peoples' unhappiness in the current situation.
It's a bit of a cliche, but the people who decide what is enough to live on, who should pay how much tax etc. often are simply out of touch with "real life". The standards they set (be it tax free amounts, minimum wage, whatever) seem to be based on very specific circumstances, and if you are outside of that, you substantially either win or lose, depending which end of the scale you happen to be on.
The thing is, many top earning positions simply involve making money off the hard work of others.
Last edited:
Do you think without those services & in a lawless society you could earn the same amount you do now?.
Taking into account all of the additional costs you would incur (say in in theory you owned a business)?.
The only reason society is structured the way it is, is because it allows the rich to make more money.
It's the same reason slavery was abolished - it had nothing to do with human rights, just an appreciation that slavery was not very efficient.
The rich have catapulted ahead of the working classes as standards have increased across the entire developed world (and the gap increases).
Do you honesty think that would have happened in a conservative utopia, or do you think riots, mass crime, military coups & rebellion would be the norm?.
I was referring to the top 1% who own about 30% of the country. They are overwhelmingly white, male and from families with money.
Our society is geared to benefit them out of all proportion to their numbers - courts favour those with the best (i.e. most expensive) lawyers; dodging taxes is only possible if you can afford an accountant and advisers; the police and security services suppress threats to the status quo; and politicians regularly let businessmen raid the public purse (and almost invariably join them as soon as they leave public office). Even the welfare state helps to keep them in power by dampening the inevitably negative consequences of capitalism and preventing social upheaval.
They could be taxed 90% of their income (as it was in the US during the 50s; arguably the most prosperous years of its existence) and it still wouldn't come close to undermining their wealth or influence. The rich are making out like bandits while everyone else has to pay the bill for the recession, yet the media is full of sob stories about how millionaire bankers think the UK is too hard on them.
After centuries of ruthless exploitation, the masses are finally afforded a minimum standard of living in exchange for spending their lives making money for someone else. That's unfair on the upper class? I do struggle to see how anyone could come to that conclusion independently.
Keep your filthy socialist tripe to yourself.
Seriously though, there is no accepted metric for 'quality of life.' One person may reach maximum contentedness with a salary of £20,000 living in the Outer Hebrides whilst another may reach this point with a salary of £450,000 living in a penthouse on Mayfair. How do you then decide where the cut off is? Essentially, you're dictating to people what their desires, dreams and goals are. You will be happy with £30k for the rest of your life.
And as for all that money the government would take? They don't need it. They cannot in a million years justify touching it, let alone spending it.
But here is a graph for you. The Laffer Curve. The lowest levels of taxation reap low levels of government revenue. The extremely high levels of taxation also reap low levels of government revenue. There is a balance to be found, the question is where the sweet spot is.
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!
Where's that great Youtube video about that very thing?
Ah, the old Laffer Curve, as beloved by right-wingers everywhere. It manages to be both true and utterly meaningless at the same time. Because it has no scale. Yes, if you put taxes up enough, rich people go to more trouble to avoid them. But at what point? For some people it 75%, for others it's anything. So the graph illustrates a general point whilst providing no guidance whatsoever. And how do you justify taxing the rich less just because they can avoid paying, but taxing people who are paid less at a higher rate, because they can't afford to pay to avoid.
M
M
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
i wasnt aware the unemployed pay tax (apart from VAT). i dont think you get the question
a flat tax is unfair as i dont think the people who earn millions should pay the same rate as those on min wage or low wages
remember that this recession has been caused by greedy millionaires getting the poor to take out credit they couldnt afford.
i think its fair that the people who benefit the most from a capitalist society should pay the most tax too. they reap the biggest rewards.
we all know the wealthy can avoid tax and this has to be stopped. people earning millions paying less than 10% income tax due to loopholes needs stopping now! which wont happen as its all the tory's mates.
we also need to stop the scroungers but you cant blame people who are expected to work all week for maybe £20 more than they get on the dole, which they would lose anyway.
we need to pay less to the government overall, that way we have more to spend and society benefits.
why should our tax money be spent on aid to pakistan/india when both seem to be getting our outsourced jobs too as well as spending millions on their armies and nuclear weapons programmes? there are lots of areas where we should just say no.
the multi-billion £ war in the middle east hasnt helped anyone here 1 bit. we went over for oil but in that time its doubled in price! another huge waste of cash.
disclaimer: i dont support any party - they seem equally useless and intent on being self serving morons. labour waste cash and the tories sold everything.
our country is on the brink of disaster yet we seem more concerned with everywhere apart from home.
sorry for rant - im in a bad mood
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
i wonder how many of those were miners, manufacturers and engineers that the tories made redundant....
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
but high earners also dont spend all their money and lock it away, where low earners are forced to spend all their cash due to the high cost of living now.
low earners put a high percentage of their earnings back into society than the rich.
No they don't, the rich invest their money in one way or other, either by banking it, allowing banks to loan money to individuals or businesses, or by investing in companies one way or another.
To say that the riches money does nothing for society is so wide of the mark it's unbelievable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
is it fair that being more intelligent should get you a much better life?
what about people with learning problems. should they be expected to barely get by all their lives?
in an ideal world we all pay 10% tax and earn a decent wage. this isnt an ideal world.
i feel sorry for the world my son will grow up in. so much greed. he is screwed before he starts.