British public wrongly believe rich pay most in tax

[CREATIVE!11]

very progressive thinking...

To bad it will just go over most peoples heads.

I'm impressed. Went from talking about tax, to the poor rich divide, to how to perhaps improve it, to UKIP and 'MOSKS' along with democracy. Did I miss something?

LOL I admit total side tangent, but i've seen load of these threads recently how people get things totally wrong. Also believing JSA made up most of the welfare bill...

I actually just facepalm constantly.

But yes I agree totally off topic but how wrong people are on things and then get to vote is what worries me sometimes.

 

[Dolph]

A flat tax would help those at the very bottom. However, it would squeeze the middle whilst giving a tax cut to those that need it least - the very rich.

Even UKIP have back-tracked from their earlier promise to introduce flat income tax.

Just because it is popular to take a greater proportion of someone else's money than you contribute doesn't make it right, equitable or fair, it just means we lack sufficient protections against abuse of rights in this area.

 

[balky12]

I've seen it happen to, someone skim reads, sees the letters U K I P and then boom. Hell breaks loose.

Going back to our tax system, I think it is more or less in a good place. It just needs tidying up, or things combined. Things like road tax perhaps being put onto petrol prices? I do find it weird that someone who perhaps uses the roads once a week it paying the same as someone who is on the roads all day everyday (obv if using the same car)

 

[Kemik]

I agree council tax is hideously regressive as it fails completely to take into account and the bandings etc are frankly laughable.

You have a good point from a regressive point of view but if you look at it as "paying for using services provided by the council", then shouldn't the charge be the same per head/household for everyone that uses the service?

Not saying I don't think the rich shouldn't subsidise a certain amount but single Bob earning £100k shouldn't have to pay £3k+ a year in council tax while a low income family of 5 pay £600 a year considering usage.

 

[Kemik]

A flat tax would help those at the very bottom. However, it would squeeze the middle whilst giving a tax cut to those that need it least - the very rich.

Even UKIP have back-tracked from their earlier promise to introduce flat income tax.

On what basis? A personal allowance at £12k with a flat rate of 20% would mean everyone pays less. The purpose would be you remove all other allowances to promote less tax avoidance and more rich move to the UK.

 

[Judgeneo]

You have a good point from a regressive point of view but if you look at it as "paying for using services provided by the council", then shouldn't the charge be the same per head/household for everyone that uses the service?

Not saying I don't think the rich shouldn't subsidise a certain amount but single Bob earning £100k shouldn't have to pay £3k+ a year in council tax while a low income family of 5 pay £600 a year considering usage.

National transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure, the NHS etc... are all paid for uniformly, not based on usage.

I don't see why council tax should be per house, and even then its pretty regressive, the amount you pay for a bigger house compared to a small one is way out of league with the actual value difference.

Scrap the whole lot I say, make it come out of general taxation.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Of course the rich pay more tax, this is just a percentage of income. lol Equality Trust. is that even an organisation haha

 

[Tefal]

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/16/british-public-wrong-rich-poor-tax-research

Change anyone's perception here? I bet if you look at the richest 3%, 1%, 0.5% then the proportion of income as tax drops even further.

The report recommends looking again at Council Tax, which is a particularly regressive tax. Something I've been advocating for a while.

so you're title is a lie, they do pay more tax if the top 10% ius paying 35 % of thier income as tax, they are of corse paying more tax than th bottom 10 percent paying 40%.

also its funny how the public "perception" of the top ten percent was within 1% accuracy

 

[anything I don't mind]

This equality trust was setup for one purpose. To increase the coffers of the government in the name of equality. They are after more tax and they will start with the argument that its only the rich and then it affects everyone.

Some people would not be happy until "rich people" pay 95% tax.

What they don't take in to consideration is that the top half of the tax base contribute over 80% of the total tax.

The main tax that increases total tax as percentage of income is going to be the council tax as its not pegged to income, its essentially a property tax. So of course people with low income that have free houses from the state that they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford and have to pay £100 per month in council tax, this is going to dramatically increase their tax as percentage of income. VAT is going to be the same across the board so is other taxes.

If they want to fix that they need to change the council tax to a percentage of income and not a property tax like it is now.

Without council tax the rich pay much more in tax. You don't even get taxed on the first £10k and with income tax alone the rich are already paying 40% so i am not sure how they got to 35% actual including all the other taxes.

I have previously worked out my total tax it was about 40-45% of my income. including income tax, national insurance, council tax and vat. Excluding tax on individuals goods and services and other penalties and licensing.

 

[Tunney]

On what basis? A personal allowance at £12k with a flat rate of 20% would mean everyone pays less. The purpose would be you remove all other allowances to promote less tax avoidance and more rich move to the UK.

People who want to use aggressive tax avoidance schemes will continue to do so. The Laffer Curve is a myth and not backed up by the evidence. Income tax in the US is lower than the UK but still people try everything to avoid paying tax.

As for encouraging rich people to move to the UK, they already do. London has more billionaires than any other city on Earth. The problem with rich people is that often aren't paying income tax. Hence why the Lib Dems have proposed a tax on high-value residential property.

The sums simply don't add up on a 20-30% flat rate tax. The amount of tax raised would be significantly less than what's raised at the moment.

 

[krooton]

Well lets actually try to have a debate about this.

One of the main reasons why the poor pay a proportionally high amount of tax is because of council tax.

How would you reform it?

Do what ever the hell Wandsworth Council do. Cheapest council tax in the country, yet it is a chunk of zone 2 and 3 London with very nice areas.

 

[Vampyre]

Unless I'm missing the point, surely the same could be said of anything measured as a proportion of income?

 

[scorza]

As for encouraging rich people to move to the UK, they already do. London has more billionaires than any other city on Earth. The problem with rich people is that often aren't paying income tax. Hence why the Lib Dems have proposed a tax on high-value residential property.

As you say lots of uber-rich folk moving to the UK right now, specifically London and look at the effect it's having - working people priced out of London, local people forced out of their city because they can't afford to live there, the return of slum landlords.

 

[Tunney]

Do what ever the hell Wandsworth Council do. Cheapest council tax in the country, yet it is a chunk of zone 2 and 3 London with very nice areas.

I think that's just it though. Nice areas means plenty of high-band properties and owners with the ability to pay on time. It also probably means that they don't have to spend much money on things like social services.

Poorer boroughs are hit with the double whammy of less potential income per household and higher expenditure.

 

[D.P.]

Unless I'm missing the point, surely the same could be said of anything measured as a proportion of income?

Exactly my point:

• The poor pay greater percentage of their income on cigarettes on average than the rich
• The poor pay greater percentage of their income on alcohol on average than the rich
• The poor pay greater percentage of their income on fast-food on average than the rich
• The poor pay greater percentage of their income on TV subscriptions on average than the rich.
• The poor pay greater percentage of their income on lottery tickets on average than the rich.

It is really not an intelligent statement without looking at the absolute values.
If you start looking at a very artificial metric then of course some oddities arise. You need to view the whole picture, income, general taxation, AND benefits.

It is a very poor article which sadly only makes things worse for the poor. How are we going tor improve equality when such biased nonsense gets thrown about?

 

[Efour]

These poor folk sound awful... Yuck.

 

[Bear]

This is such a retarded argument because it assumes everything occurs in isolation and that the only contribution one could make would be through taxation.

Why did you choose to take that comment in isolation and spin it to make out that he said something which he didn't at least in the context he wrote it in?

 

[Xordium]

Why did you choose to take that comment in isolation and spin it to make out that he said something which he didn't at least in the context he wrote it in?

When he fails to qualify it then it is not taking it in isolation. He hasn't mentioned it and he has posted since that. However, feel free to white knight for him if you want.

Why do people take the contribution people give in tax in isolation irrespective of what else they add to society.

More importantly why do people think one thing when the figures show another. That is what the OP is about.

 

[Bear]

Unless I'm missing the point, surely the same could be said of anything measured as a proportion of income?

Exactly, someone with a lower income will always pay more for things as a proportion of their income compared with someone that has a greater income. Damn those retailers that rip off poor people by charging them more as a proportion of their income!

It's not fair that school kids have spent a greater proportion of their lives at school compared with their parents. It must be sorted out!

 

[Bear]

Why do people take the contribution people give in tax in isolation irrespective of what else they add to society.

More importantly why do people think one thing when the figures show another. That is what the OP is about.

Because the whole premise of the thread is about tax contribution and not what else they contribute to society?

The OP is all about spinning a view and the interchanging of one position with another and making out they are the same thing which it isn't.