British public wrongly believe rich pay most in tax

[balky12]

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.

You are still keeping this percentage argument alive. It is true, but completely redundant.

In its simplest form, all that article is saying is that rich can do a lot more with their money. Which is common sense.

I do disagree with the articles findings though. The poorest people (who do not pay income tax?) how do they get up to spending 40%-50% of their gross wages on taxes? Which is more or less what a top earner would be doing?

 

[Amp34]

Kids and pensioners make up a sizeable percentage of the population so they are gona skew those ratios, the unemployed contribute by keeping wage inflation down and IFS has knocked most of the ill off their almost livable benefits and put them to work lowering wage inflation on JSA.

Isn't the monetary figure around £35k before you are a net contributor? Even with the children, pensioners and disabled it means even the average full time worker is not going to be a contributor. The simple fact is the vast majority in this country benefit from taxation of the top 20-30(ish) percent that work.

Edit: It would be interesting to know what percentage of the country are actually net contributors. What proportion earn more than £35k.

 

[balky12]

Edit: It would be interesting to know what percentage of the country are actually net contributors. What proportion earn more than £35k.

I remember reading recently that is near 50/50. Wasn't anything to back it up mind you. But yes, you don't contribute till you earn quite a chunk.

 

[Scrutinize]

I'm a top rate tax payer and I don't think the rich pay enough tax. The difference between 40%, 45% and 50% really hasn't made an impact on our lifestyle. I'd rather be slightly poorer and live in a better society. Others agree with me.

How dare the poor try to have fun! It's almost like they're human beings.

Firstly I didn't say poor, I said low income groups.

Secondly this isn't just about income tax, it is about all taxes and their impact on households and financial contribution to central/local funds.

This is amazing.... You have been completely and utterly brainwashed.

I had to quote it for posterity.

Except for the kids, you just described my old, hedonistic lifestyle. I was very much a top rate tax payer.

You misunderstand what I am saying or you chose to take it out of context. There is nothing wrong with having fun but affordability is key here.

Low income groups will often prioritise luxuries as expectation; where in reality there are more important things to fund. Then they claim poverty. People earning 20k pa for example can find themselves hard up because they have bought a car, latest mobile, sky / virgin with all the channels etc.

And we are talking about low income here. There is a world of difference between low income and true poverty in the UK by global standards.

Very few fall completely through the benefit system and end up without housing and shelter that haven't directly influenced this outcome through life choices which may include alcohol and drug dependencies amongst others. Even then they are still entitled to healthcare and support.

There are lots of support and benefits projects and services in place for people that need it.

 

[drakioned]

The Elizabeth Warren quote is awfully one-sided.

Yes, arguably, no-one succeeds in a vacuum... but no-one fails in a vacuum either.

Should failed businessmen claim their "fair share" from society for providing them with insufficiently cheap transport, uneducated workers, and lack of profligate customers?

 

[Scrutinize]

The EW quote is nothing more than a good sound bite which as you start to unpick it, loses traction rapidly.

 

[robgmun]

^

This +1

Once you release that the amount of Tax that the business itself pays, let alone the business man running it. Pays for a big chuck of that infrastructure as well. EW can go do one in my opinion. Taxes are high enough in my opinon and we don't need more

 

[AGD]

The EW quote is nothing more than a good sound bite which as you start to unpick it, loses traction rapidly.

Most people who believe they have earned their money are fools. For someone like me who is born into a well-off family, I haven't done anything to earn my good education, intelligent parents, and financial security. Someone who was born into a poor family, with difficult parents faces a much, much harder struggle.

Look at how low social mobility is and you will see that your outcomes are predominantly determined by where you start off. Our incomes are not really based on anything meritocratic.

The wealthy should not only pay more in absolute terms but also more as a proportion. If you're a millionaire, what difference does that extra 10% make to you? Maybe you'll have to skip that skiing holiday, or buy a standard car instead of a luxury one. Big deal.

 

[Scrutinize]

Most people who believe they have earned their money are fools. For someone like me who is born into a well-off family, I haven't done anything to earn my good education, intelligent parents, and financial security. Someone who was born into a poor family, with difficult parents faces a much, much harder struggle.

Look at how low social mobility is and you will see that your outcomes are predominantly determined by where you start off. Our incomes are not really based on anything meritocratic.

The wealthy should not only pay more in absolute terms but also more as a proportion. If you're a millionaire, what difference does that extra 10% make to you? Maybe you'll have to skip that skiing holiday, or buy a standard car instead of a luxury one. Big deal.

Life is not entitled equality. Some have more than others either through birth, good fortune or hard work. That is how it is. Some people are born male, some female; some are born disabled, some end up disabled, some have an IQ of 140+ some less than 100 and so on.

What life is about is responsibility. Responsibility for our own lives, consequences of our actions and responsibility to others. Money is irrelevant in this but instead becomes the easy focus or target.

What people fail to realise is that taxing those, who already contribute the most financially to society, even more; will not change inequalities.

 

[drakioned]

Most people who believe they have earned their money are fools. For someone like me who is born into a well-off family, I haven't done anything to earn my good education, intelligent parents, and financial security. Someone who was born into a poor family, with difficult parents faces a much, much harder struggle.

If you believe that you have had an advantage in the start of your life and you want to even the playing field, there's nothing to stop you writing a cheque to those who did not. Why drag other people into it?

 

[AGD]

What life is about is responsibility. Responsibility for our own lives, consequences of our actions and responsibility to others. Money is irrelevant in this but instead becomes the easy focus or target.

If you have more through circumstance and luck then why would you not want to help someone who had less through circumstance and luck? You talk about responsibility to others, surely charity is the epitome of this?

 

[AGD]

If you believe that you have had an advantage in the start of your life and you want to even the playing field, there's nothing to stop you writing a cheque to those who did not. Why drag other people into it?

Why drag anyone (through a democratic process) into a general taxation system?

 

[Glaucus]

Look at how low social mobility is and you will see that your outcomes are predominantly determined by where you start off. Our incomes are not really based on anything meritocratic.

l.

This has virtually nothing to do with opportunities/wealth and instead down to parenting. Unfortunately you can't just take kids of parents.
Known people from absolutely dive estates, single parent and zero financial help. Yet they can make it. Thanks to decent parenting.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Life is not entitled equality. Some have more than others either through birth, good fortune or hard work. That is how it is. Some people are born male, some female; some are born disabled, some end up disabled, some have an IQ of 140+ some less than 100 and so on.

What life is about is responsibility. Responsibility for our own lives, consequences of our actions and responsibility to others. Money is irrelevant in this but instead becomes the easy focus or target.

What people fail to realise is that taxing those, who already contribute the most financially to society, even more; will not change inequalities.

See France for details.

 

[balky12]

This has virtually nothing to do with opportunities/wealth and instead down to parenting. Unfortunately you can't just take kids of parents.
Known people from absolutely dive estates, single parent and zero financial help. Yet they can make it. Thanks to decent parenting.

That's the beauty with the UK. No matter where you come from, what back ground, how many parents, etc.

You get more or less the same opportunities. Free education until you are 18. Arguably free University education (don't have to pay debt back until you have finished university.) Take advantage of this, get good grades. Be in demand and do more or less whatever you please.

Then enjoy being a top earner.

 

[drakioned]

Why drag anyone (through a democratic process) into a general taxation system?

I can make a case for general taxation because there are public goods which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous.

Can you make a case for indiscriminate redistribution of wealth? Also, under your premise, if someone did struggle to make their wealth because they were born to poor parents and had a lackluster education, can they opt out?

Lastly, charity != taxes. None of my charitable giving, as far as I'm aware, went to dropping bombs or building a duck house.

 

[Amp34]

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.

They are also western nations with the lowest population density. Another unifying theme.

I firmly believe space (and environment) increase happiness so would take that list to show that population density is an important measure.

The point I am making with last paragraph? That you can overlay many things onto those "statistics"...

I'd agree though that the theme is probably largely based on a mix of both. Rich nations with prosperity for the majority of its citizens who have plenty of space to enjoy themselves and their surrounding.

 

[Scrutinize]

If you have more through circumstance and luck then why would you not want to help someone who had less through circumstance and luck? You talk about responsibility to others, surely charity is the epitome of this?

And how will paying more in tax actually target those that really need it?

Each locality will have a small % of populous that needs additional intervention. Lots of charities fill these gaps and provide support. Charities already receive substantial financial benefits as well as good will and BIK.

Our responsibility is to others, as per my quote, and we each have a choice how to fulfill that.

 

[Tunney]

So why is social mobility so low in the UK? Why do countries like Denmark and Sweden do so much better? I know that university education in Denmark is free and even comes with a grant still.

I'm not sure that I know the full answer though.

 

[balky12]

Why drag anyone (through a democratic process) into a general taxation system?

Didn't you say you were born into a well-off family and thus benefited from a good education?

The reason for a general taxation system should be glaringly obvious then?