British public wrongly believe rich pay most in tax

The "poor" scroungers are a tiny spec in the total cost of whole system.

[joke] But if you take it as a percentage of their income they are a huge part in the total cost [/joke]

Sorry I had to! :p

EDIT: Before someone gets their pants in a bunch; that was a stab at people arguing over semantics *not* people on benifits.
 
Last edited:
The report that OP is based on shows clearly that the greatest percentage of the poorest's tax burden comes from VAT, alcohol/tobacco/fuel duty, and other consumption-based taxes. These are exclusively a function of lifestyle and number of children.

Why should the richest subsidise the poorest's lifestyle choices ? Where is the incentive to try harder ?
 
I think we should abolish income tax. Then increase VAT. Very hard/ near impossible to avoid a tax on things you need to buy. Income tax if very complicated and people will always find ways around it.

What a ridiculous proposition. The VAT rate would need to be massively increased to accommodate for the loss of income tax, which would then hit the poorest disproportionately hard.

How about some actual facts from the Office of National Statistics...?

taxesbenefitsinfographic.png


I'll admit that the above infographic uses quintiles rather than deciles so the extremes of poorest and richest are perhaps not adequately highlighted, however it does show that there is already a lot of wealth redistribution going on in the UK tax system.

Also highlighted by this chart from the full ONS report ( http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_317365.pdf):


taxes2.jpg
 
What a ridiculous proposition. The VAT rate would need to be massively increased to accommodate for the loss of income tax, which would then hit the poorest disproportionately hard.

How about some actual facts from the Office of National Statistics...?

Great post. The article quoted in the OP seems to twist the stats a little.
 
If poor people think the rich pay the most tax, then frankly, they're idiots.

They are idiots, that's why things are getting progressively worse for those at the bottom/middle.

Most of this forum are working class and yet they fight tooth and nail to defend the obscene wealth of those at the top.
 
Last edited:
It's funny, because I've always found the more money I earn the more tax I pay.

They are idiots, that's why things are getting progressively worse for those at the bottom/middle.

Most of this forum are working class and yet they fight tooth and nail to defend the obscene wealth of those at the top.

I'd say the vast majority are higher than average earners and pay a hefty amount of tax.
 
What a ridiculous proposition. The VAT rate would need to be massively increased to accommodate for the loss of income tax, which would then hit the poorest disproportionately hard.

Not as ridiculous as you would perhaps originally conclude.

Now all of what you earn is yours. Everything. Do with it as you please (save/ spend). Yes VAT will have to increase, quite drastically actually. People often ask the wrong question when it comes to tax, 'what do they pay in' what you should be asking is a balance of 'what do i put in and what do i get out'. Majority of UK public spending is on income transfers from the Government to people in need. Already nearly half of the UK population gets more back from the government than it pays in. Progressive public spending can eliminate any regressive affects a new tax system MIGHT bring in. Give higher tax credits / benefits per say. This will also enable the Government to make already existing taxes more progressive, such as NI, to refelct peoples ability to pay.


But lets go onto the other benefits that get overlooked when people scream 'IT'S NOT FAIR' ! Firstly, people have the ability to save more from choosing whether to consume now or later. Income from saving will no longer be taxed so returns will be higher. Secondly, investment should increase, funded by the increased savings. Thirdly, people are likely to work more, as the marginal tax rate is zero, so all extra income is their own. Fourthly, the tax base would be widened as consumption taxes capture spending funded by people’s wealth (which is untaxed) as well as by their income. Finally, collecting VAT tax is a hell of a lot cheaper than collecting income tax. More savings there.

It would be possible to go one step further and remove income tax from business. That would mean abolishing corporation tax. Dropping this would make the UK ultra competitive on a global scale. If a businesses had no tax to pay on earned profits, production costs would fall, as would the cost of capital. Most importantly, the incentive to export would be very strong, as the consumption tax is only paid on goods consumed in this country.

Bascially double the consumption (VAT) rate to 40%. Abolish income and coporation tax. We will overall collect more in taxes. Can give more to the poorer people in society. Also with most tax if not all tax coming from consumption it also opens up lots of new policy options for governments wanting to influence demand for goods and services.

In order to do this though. We would have to come out of the EU... or be EU's science project.
 
Not as ridiculous as you would perhaps originally conclude...

Sorry - but that argument is so fundamentally flawed that I don't know where to begin. If you raised the VAT rate to 40% then:
a) It would cause a massive short-term hole in tax revenues because people would defer spending on items which are now priced much more highly.
b) Tax revenues thereafter would be horribly volatile
c) People will still find ways to avoid paying the 'consumption taxes' (e.g. smuggled/black-market imports from countries with much lower VAT rates).

If you also abolished Corporation Tax then yes, many companies would relocate to here, but would be paying no tax at all (I presume that there is no NI either in your 'tax utopia'?) apart from VAT on goods & services which they consume (which would be tiny in comparison to the lost Corporation Tax & NI). How would that help us...?
 
Sorry - but that argument is so fundamentally flawed that I don't know where to begin. If you raised the VAT rate to 40% then:
a) It would cause a massive short-term hole in tax revenues because people would defer spending on items which are now priced much more highly.
b) Tax revenues thereafter would be horribly volatile
c) People will still find ways to avoid paying the 'consumption taxes' (e.g. smuggled/black-market imports from countries with much lower VAT rates).

If you also abolished Corporation Tax then yes, many companies would relocate to here, but would be paying no tax at all (I presume that there is no NI either in your 'tax utopia'?) apart from VAT on goods & services which they consume (which would be tiny in comparison to the lost Corporation Tax & NI). How would that help us...?

People would just stop buying things altogether would they? Who knows. I doubt it though.

People really going to go to that length to 'smuggle' items? By the time someone smuggles an item, puts their service charge ontop and sells it to people in the UK, it really going to be that much cheaper? Again, maybe, but for most everyday items is the hassle really going to be worth it? Remember, you just saved a lot of money from income tax. Consumption tax is very hard to avoid by its very nature.

I mentioned NI becoming more progressive. Maybe change NI? Maybe make it so it's a tax that for example directly funds only the NHS? Make it more proressive so that the poorest in society dont pay it perhaps, and the rich pay more than they do currently? Will bring transparency to our tax system too.

I think I have brought a better level of conversation into this thread than most who are arguing over the OP article which is fundementally common sense.
 
I don't agree with you. Look at the countries with the happiest citizens. They're almost all high tax countries.

This is obviously an over-simplification. There any many other factors that make these countries happier. However, high tax (and therefore higher public spending) is a unifying theme.

Is there any analysis showing causation? Or do you believe that a reduction in the number of pirates has caused global warming? Yarr.

The culture in those countries is very different and wouldn't be accepted here. As another unifying theme, their prisons are focussed far more towards rehabilitation than ours and would be considered "too soft" by most in this country.

You can't just point at one thing they do and suggest we would be better off if we did it without establishing a causative link.
 
Is there any analysis showing causation? Or do you believe that a reduction in the number of pirates has caused global warming? Yarr.

Read the original study. The things that ultimately made people feel content - good schools, good healthcare, good social care, low crime - are directly linked to high public spending.

As I said, it's not the only factor but it is an important factor.
 
One problem with tying council tax to income levels would be that poorer areas would have lower council tax totals than richer areas.

There is no good solution. Studies have shown that when tax is increased on the rich they move to other countries and the total tax "revenue" actually comes down as a result. The optimal level is the level at which the tax leads to the most total tax "revenue". So its not always as simple as just TAX THE RICH to solve the problems of inequality.

Then there are the arguments against redistribution as it seems it does not matter how much money the government takes from the productive half of the economy it does not seem to help the poor any more when it comes to social mobility. The real drivers of social mobility is not then government spending money or government giving away other people money etc. It is the private industry and the free market that has been most successful at bringing people out of poor backgrounds in to richer life styles. Although socialists and anti-capitalist refuse to accept that. There has never been any other mechanism as successful as the free enterprise system of trade, division of labour and the price mechanism that has resulted in the highest social mobility. Look at developing countries that have embraced the free market they are seeing much higher rates of social mobility than the ones stuck in the state redistribution of wealth model.

IT goes back to that old saying, give a man fish and you feed him for a day and teach him how to fish and you feed him for life. Just giving money to poor people doesnt increase social mobility, it actually deters it. What encourages social mobility is giving people the opportunities and tools and freedom to make a better life for themselves.
 
Last edited:
It also brings the largest inequality, and these studies are based on financial gain. This is the wrong marker to judge against.

To be honest i see the folks in town with there bottle of white lighting sitting in the park laughing and joking and smiley. Then there is me with a odd day off work in the week and i think to myself, lucky buggers.
 
One problem with tying council tax to income levels would be that poorer areas would have lower council tax totals than richer areas.

The original report that the OP was based on recommended that new high-end council tax bands are created and that all bands are assessed based on current property values. In this way you can at least maintain the total tax revenue for an area but redistribute the contributions better.

The other important recommendation is to lift the NI contribution ceiling.

I would accept both of these even though I am up at the top of the pile. What I won't accept (as a non car-owner, non TV-owner, and childless person) is being taxed more so that poorer families can have lifestyle choice luxuries (children, fancy clothes, best mobile phones, fags, alcohol, big TVs with Sky etc.).

Finally, the best driver of social mobility is, imo, the offer of a free/subsidised top quality education to those who are capable of, and willing to, work hard to benefit from it. I was awarded an Assisted Place at a great school by Thatcher's government and it propelled me up the social ladder.
 
There is no good solution. Studies have shown that when tax is increased on the rich they move to other countries and the total tax "revenue" actually comes down as a result. The optimal level is the level at which the tax leads to the most total tax "revenue". So its not always as simple as just TAX THE RICH to solve the problems of inequality.

Which studies are you referring to? The increase in the top rate of income tax to 50% raised an extra £1.1 billion in 2010-2011 according to HMRC. That was less than HMRC estimated it would raise but still a positive figure. It was reasoned that most of the discrepancy was due to firms pushing through bonus payments early to avoid the tax increase.

Then there are the arguments against redistribution as it seems it does not matter how much money the government takes from the productive half of the economy it does not seem to help the poor any more when it comes to social mobility.

That's untrue. Here's a study on social mobility. Denmark comes top for social mobility. The USA is near the bottom and the UK is bottom.
 
It's funny, because I've always found the more money I earn the more tax I pay.

Really? I find that while I end up paying a bit more in income tax my council tax stays the same, as I suspect does my VAT bill since I tend to save the extra money rather than spend it. Overall, the % of my income that I lose through taxation goes down when my income goes up.
 
Back
Top Bottom