What other countries do is of no relevance, flat tax (as a percentage) is the fairest system
Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
What other countries do is of no relevance, flat tax (as a percentage) is the fairest system
Is your flat your main residence? If so no worries. If not then it is likely you won't hit the threshold if the profit is only going to be £5k though it may all be liable if you have used the allowance already this financial year.
Fair is a subjective word. There is no point at all using it with regards to taxation.
Fair is not a subjective word.
Fair for income tax is when everyone pays the same as a percentage of their income.
Fair for local tax is when everyone pays the same amount in tax as they are an equal drain on services (thus poll tax was the fairest system)
So your subjective view for the word fair when it comes to taxation means everyone pays an equal amount. That's fine. However that doesn't make it fair from someone elses point of view. For example some people may believe that the only fair tax is that which is based on ability to pay. For them, your tax views, as it ignores ability to pay, would not be fair.
Of course we don't want independence we'd be absolutely ****ed.
Taxing things that have already been taxed happens all the time. Or do you not pay VAT, Stamp Duty, Alcohol duty, Fuel duty, Council tax and so on? That's a silly argument.
How are "family homes" fair?
How is giving people huge sums of unearned income fair? Why is it fair that the children of the rich get a massive unmeritocratic leg up in life? As for ability to pay, it's a massive chunk of unearned income! Ability to pay doesn't come into it, because you're not taxing something anyone has earned.
What a silly thing to say.
That could be avoided with suitable reform.
There is nothing fair about taxing based on ability to pay, as it assumes what someone is able to pay - thus tries to impose a lifestyle on them that they may not want.
Under that system someone earning say £1mil would be "able to pay" 750k as tax, as 250k is enough to live on comfortably ... but what if that person wants to live a lavish lifestyle that sees him spend £500k?
Flat percentage tax is inherently fair due to it being the same for everyone, with no bias towards how they want to live or how much they earn.
The point I was trying to make is that different people have different ideas about what is and isnt fair. Which is why fair is the wrong word to use. (Which is also why I used it so much in repsonse to Mr_Jack's usage when it came to IHT).
It doesn't matter what different people view as fair, there is only one possible definition for fair tax and it is the definition I gave.
Saying "ability to pay" is fair is like saying "positive discrimination" is NOT still discrimination
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
What a load of crap. You're just jealous.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
I'm simply saying that Cameron looks like a toff and Clegg looks like he should be dribbling. I'm not making any point other than that. Brown looked like he had had a stroke most of the time, but at least he had presence. Stop bringing my political affiliations into everything I say.
Erm, because it is pretty much a fundamental drive of parents to try and provide for their children? Are you a parent?
It isn't. But then neither is it unfair. Why is it anything at all to do with you?
It isn't. But then neither is it unfair. Why is it anything at all to do with you? What right do you have to dictate what others should do with their money?
Which pretty much shows how little you understand of how difficult the current IHT rules can make it for some people.
It seems to be the case though. Especially as you don't seem to be able to explain what right you have to take the money in the first instance.
It could also be avoided by abolishing IHT totally.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Of course that's fair. At the risk of repeating myself from last night, why should someone that earns more pay more? That makes no sense to me at all. Everyone should pay the same % tax.
The government tried it it was found quite comprehensively to be an uncollectable tax that no one wanted.
I've already explained this Rypt please come up with a solution as to how you know where people live?
What about student towns like york canterbury where the people that were there at the last registration might not be there the following year?
You are presuming like Thatcher that people stay in the one location and like paying tax
Or are you going to tax per month or per day? As apposed to taxation based on rateable value of buildings which have a good chance of being where they were last time.The above coupled with 98% of the population against you = unworkable taxation system.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
I broadly agree with this. Raise the tax threshold to a livable income and then a flat tax after that.