Proposed change to the tax system, 30% rate for all....

How simple is this.

45% tax with loads of ways to dodge it.

Or 30% tax from all earnings.

Which will take more, it's very simple and using made up figures is perfectly fine to represent it. They are not and could never be construded as real figures. So you should not take them to be actual figures. Its very simple to understand and hard to take it the way you have. Ir is well known hat uk tax has pleny of loop holes to reduce tax for some people.

30% rate for everyone on all income streams
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
For the 1000th time, we don't live in a meritocracy! We have a market-driven economy which includes salary levels.
Click to expand...

I know we don't... though the proposed tax system would make things more meritocratic... (as would heavily penalising the transfer of wealth through inheritance etc..)

There can also only be a finite amount of people doing a certain job. So if people take issue with some of the more obscene bankers bonuses they should all just stop moaning and go to Uni to do a finance degree? What happens then when we run out of plumbers or teachers because everybody is training to be a banker?
Click to expand...

Why on earth would everyone train to be a banker especially in the current climate... doing a finance degree at the moment would be a pretty dumb option for most and just involve losing 1 years worth of income, getting yourself into at least 20K-30k debt and not necessarily even getting a good job out of it. Sure you might get a 'job' at a bank... but its likely to be a fairly soul destroying one that requires long hours and pays a bonus that is a small % of your salary rather than a multiple of it.
 
Glaucus said:
How simple is this.

45% tax with loads of ways to dodge it.

Or 30% tax from all earnings.

Which will take more, it's very simple and using made up figures is perfectly fine to represent it. They are not and could never be construded as real figures. So you should not take them to be actual figures. Its very simple to understand and hard to take it the way you have. Ir is well known hat uk tax has pleny of loop holes to reduce tax for some people.
Click to expand...

LOL WTF? It's OK to use made up figures to back up your argument? What could possibly go wrong with such a tactic? :D
 
It's not made up figures in that sense

I asked what was more

30% of 10mill
Or
40 of 1 mill

I didn't say this is what such a tax would tak.
 
lixxus said:
  1. ****, only benefits the rich as usual, getting the majority population to fund taxes while the rich keep their money
Click to expand...


  1. Explain how it only benefits the rich. Seems to benefit everyone to me.

    [*]again only good for the rich scumbugs
    Click to expand...

    Everyone who buys a house pays stamp duty, how can abolishing it only be good for the rich? Inheritance tax is far from a rich person only thing too - inherit the family home if your parents die young and you could end up forced to sell it just to pay the tax bill. How is that fair?
 
Because that's the same isn't it.

What point does that represent?

The idea of the figure is to represent total takings. One is clearly much higher than the other.

So when you don't have real figures and want to show something you do what? Click back and don't post.

You're being moronic.
 
I think the problem Glaucus is that 30% of more is indeed better than 45% of less... however that's facile, the difficulty is taxing everything.
 
The Halk said:
I think the problem Glaucus is that 30% of more is indeed better than 45% of less... however that's facile, the difficulty is taxing everything.
Click to expand...

The problem of taxing everything isn't the discussion, or wasn't.

It was people saying its better for the rich, how on earth can that be true, when the purposal says tax ALL revenue streams. It just not in the least. Most if not all rich people old be far worse off, as would contractors/self employed.
 
Glaucus said:
The problem of taxing everything isn't the discussion, or wasn't.

It was people saying its better for the rich, how on earth can that be true, when the purposal says tax ALL revenue streams. It just not in the least. Most if not all rich people old be far worse off, as would contractors/self employed.
Click to expand...

Of course it is - as I said it's facile.
 
The Halk said:
Of course it is - as I said it's facile.
Click to expand...

No, it's discussing a certain point. We weren't discussing the other point, although people could if they wanted. They didn't total that.

The purposal says tax All, how can that be better? It simply can't.
If people want to discuss how to achieve that or if it's even possible, then fine. Sme have. But again that's not what the debate was.
 
It's a shame that people think by screwing the rich for all we can we'll generate more tax.

That's not a way to promote investment and innovation. We need people to invest, specifically in science and manufacturing. Which, incidentally, the Government is doing with Patent Box (corporate tax at 10% on Patents and income generated from the sale of products containing patents).
 
Glaucus said:
It's not made up figures in that sense

I asked what was more

30% of 10mill
Or
40 of 1 mill

I didn't say this is what such a tax would tak.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a simple argument that anyone can use.

What is more?

30% of 10 sheep
Or
40% of 1 sheep

Therefore everyone should pay taxes in sheep, QED.

The problem comes when you use arbitrary fictional numbers that aren't relevant to anything other than a very simple maths lesson for young children to advocate a tax policy in the real world.

But I am curious...if you're not claiming that the numbers you made up are indicative of the changes in tax revenue that you claim your favoured taxation policy would cause, then why are you claiming that those numbers are an argument in favour of that taxation policy?
 
Kemik said:
It's a shame that people think by screwing the rich for all we can we'll generate more tax.
Click to expand...

Can you point out anyone in this thread who is saying that we should screw the rich for all we can?

Rhetorical question - I know you can't because nobody is saying that. You're making up an extremist position and assigning it to everyone who disagrees with you. It might be effective advocacy. It's certainly simple to do. It's not very honest though, is it?

It would be trivial to do the same from the other side:

It's a shame that people think that by oppressing the working class as much as we can and making them de facto serfs of big business, everyone will be better off (including the serfs, who are too stupid and lazy to know what's good for them).

It's useful if you want to make sides for a fight, but not so useful if you want a workable, sustainable solution.
 
This completely undermines the whole ideal of income tax. Income tax was introduced as a progressive tax, ie one that was easy on the poorest and toughest on the rich. It was recently shown that the current income tax system is infer regressive, as the richest can afford to structure their incomes so they pay very little tax. This system should be in place for the current top band of the current system. Introducing 30% on all income is a complete disgrace. Let's go paint everything red, for the motherland! #communismmk2
 
scorza said:
I have a question that makes as much sense: What's more?

30% of potato

or

Unicorn% of £1m
Click to expand...

30% of a Potato

30 is a real number and potato's exist

unicorn is a fantasy therefore a fantasy % of infinity is still 0.

Which as glaucus infers, its better to tax people something they will stomach and actually pay thus generating real revenue, rather than hike it and watch them run and then pay nothing at all when they are sat on a beach in the cayman islands smoking cubans and sipping rum based cocktails
 
Angilion said:
Well, that's a simple argument that anyone can use.

What is more?

30% of 10 sheep
Or
40% of 1 sheep

Therefore everyone should pay taxes in sheep, QED.

The problem comes when you use arbitrary fictional numbers that aren't relevant to anything other than a very simple maths lesson for young children to advocate a tax policy in the real world.

But I am curious...if you're not claiming that the numbers you made up are indicative of the changes in tax revenue that you claim your favoured taxation policy would cause, then why are you claiming that those numbers are an argument in favour of that taxation policy?
Click to expand...

Glaucus is using maths 101 to try and illustrate his point.

What he is saying is that if taxation levels targeted at the rich were at pallatable levels more would pay thus increasing over all take, as opposed to high rates which people would rather pay £1 million to a tax lawyer to get them out of paying or moving overseas to avoid them altogether.

i
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom