Wealth gap 'widest in 40 years'

[scorza]

No, it isn't. The amount taken from £1 varies depending on how many £'s you have. Equality is provided by flat rate taxation with a high personal allowance, not by saying "well you earn X so we'll take 20%, but you earn Y so we'll take 40%". That's not fair or equal.

But thats not how the tax system works. You only pay 40% on anything you earn above the higher limit. Nobody is ever out of pocket for earning more, just that as you become more able to, the more you support the country. Perfectly fair.

And ironically, China is also a country with a pretty much entirely state controlled economy

Not sure how much state control there actually is in the free-enterprise zones.

 

[Bear]

The more you earn the more you should contribute back into society as the more society has out into you in many ways.

Says who ?? If some one is really wealthy and sent their children to public school all their life and then they go onto get a decent job, where has the state/society contributed to anything ?

 

[Indy500]

Equality is provided by flat rate taxation with a high personal allowance

It is interesting that the government makes several times more from individual taxation than corporate taxation. Do we as individuals really make more money than corporations?

In fact, as individuals we sign a contract to do X work for X money. An even trade, in other words.

Corporations make a profit above and beyond their operating\labour costs. There would be no need for huge central taxation if "public services" were cut out of the equation, and decentralised - but at the same time there should be better enforcement against companies that get involved in dodgy practices or oligopolies.

 

[Dolph]

But thats not how the tax system works. You only pay 40% on anything you earn above the higher limit. Nobody is ever out of pocket for earning more, just that as you become more able to, the more you support the country. Perfectly fair.

That is exactly how the tax system works, it assumes that as you earn more, the money is worth less to you and so you don't mind it being taken...

Do you think it's fair to take 40p out of some of one person's pounds and 20p out of another, just because the first has more pounds than the other? And as for supporting the country, I could do much more if my money wasn't stolen from me and squandered in inefficient wastage...

 

[scorza]

That is exactly how the tax system works, it assumes that as you earn more, the money is worth less to you and so you don't mind it being taken...

Do you think it's fair to take 40p out of some of one person's pounds and 20p out of another, just because the first has more pounds than the other? And as for supporting the country, I could do much more if my money wasn't stolen from me and squandered in inefficient wastage...

Yes but they don't take 40p out of one person's pound and 20p out of another persons. They take 20p out of everyone's pound until a certain earning limit is reached and then 40p out of every pound after that. Its the same for everyone - nothing unfair about it. It costs the same to live on £25k as it does on £50k. Food, shelter, clothes etc - they don't suddenly become more expensive because you earn more. Once you're comfortably above the cost of living line, then why shouldn't you pay a higher proportion of tax?

As for government wastage, thats another topic, but in general would you agree that the public do have to pay some sort of tax

 

[Spie]

Of course progressive tax is unfair. You take a higher percentage of some people's money than others. It doesn'y get much more unfair.

Flat tax is much fairer although again the better of still pay more than the less well off.

 

[Dolph]

Yes but they don't take 40p out of one person's pound and 20p out of another persons. They take 20p out of everyone's pound until a certain earning limit is reached and then 40p out of every pound after that. Its the same for everyone - nothing unfair about it. It costs the same to live on £25k as it does on £50k. Food, shelter, clothes etc - they don't suddenly become more expensive because you earn more. Once you're comfortably above the cost of living line, then why shouldn't you pay a higher proportion of tax?

Because it's not fair to charge those who work hard and are succesful for doing so?

Graduated tax systems aren't fair, precisely because the explictly don't make everyone pay the same, they tax higher earners disproportionately to lower ones. A fair tax system is where everyone pays the same percentage.

As for government wastage, thats another topic, but in general would you agree that the public do have to pay some sort of tax

I accept it's necessary to pay some tax for essential services, that doesn't include wealth redistribution ideals or poorly run government monopolies. Provide a safety net by all means, but that's not what we have at the moment.

Put it this way, If I was to give someone less fortunate than me £100, they would get £100. If the government takes £100 from me, chances are that same person will only get £50 or £60, the rest is spent taking my money and deciding how to spend it for me. The wealth redistribution system is forced charity, nothing more, nothing less, but it's also incredibly inefficient in doing so.

 

[Bear]

It costs the same to live on £25k as it does on £50k. Food, shelter, clothes etc - they don't suddenly become more expensive because you earn more.

Thats nosense, people tend to spend what they earn. People that earn more might live in more expensive homes, therefore mortgage payments usually are more, they go on more holidays, eat at better restauraunts, drive better cars etc.

 

[scorza]

Thats nosense, people tend to spend what they earn. People that earn more might live in more expensive homes, therefore mortgage payments usually are more, they go on more holidays, eat at better restauraunts, drive better cars etc.

No what I said is 100% accurate, read it again. Yes the rich can afford proportionately better houses than us peons, so they can afford to pay proportionately more tax than us.

 

[marl]

Its all about balance, there will always be people who are rich and many many more who are poor. I think a better indicator would be some form of measurement which assesses quality of life as opposed to gaps in wealth.

 

[scorza]

Because it's not fair to charge those who work hard and are succesful for doing so?

Graduated tax systems aren't fair, precisely because the explictly don't make everyone pay the same, they tax higher earners disproportionately to lower ones. A fair tax system is where everyone pays the same percentage.

So only people in the 40% tax bracket work hard now?

The rules are the same for everyone its perfectly fair. I don't see how you can claim that the current system is unfair then advocate a flat tax system that would make the lower income people actually pay more tax in real terms.

For the record, I'm now in the 40% tax bracket. I don't find it unfair at all, its extra disposable income, not required to pay for me to live. Sure it'd be nice to go on holiday to Dubai every year, but you can't always get what you want. In fact, the most unfair thing about it is the damn self-assessment forms I have to fill in every year.

I accept it's necessary to pay some tax for essential services, that doesn't include wealth redistribution ideals or poorly run government monopolies. Provide a safety net by all means, but that's not what we have at the moment.

No but it should include things like health, education, security etc, or are we saying that only the rich should be able to enjoy these things?

Put it this way, If I was to give someone less fortunate than me £100, they would get £100. If the government takes £100 from me, chances are that same person will only get £50 or £60, the rest is spent taking my money and deciding how to spend it for me. The wealth redistribution system is forced charity, nothing more, nothing less, but it's also incredibly inefficient in doing so.

True, like I said though thats another debate. One thing I will say is that tax is not, and should be a forced charity - it is however about investing in the country. People in this country are fortunate to enjoy such a business friendly environment, they should be grateful of that and be prepared to give back.

 

[Dolph]

So only people in the 40% tax bracket work hard now?

Did I say such a thing? I don't believe so. However, you believe it's fair to penalise the successful, I do not.

The rules are the same for everyone its perfectly fair. I don't see how you can claim that the current system is unfair then advocate a flat tax system that would make the lower income people actually pay more tax in real terms.

If I said I was going to kill everyone on their 46th birthday, would that be perfectly fair?

As for the flat rate tax system, you forget I would also give a generous personal allowance...

For the record, I'm now in the 40% tax bracket. I don't find it unfair at all, its extra disposable income, not required to pay for me to live. Sure it'd be nice to go on holiday to Dubai every year, but you can't always get what you want. In fact, the most unfair thing about it is the damn self-assessment forms I have to fill in every year.

I suppose it depends whether you believe your money is best handled by the government (based on their historical record) or not... Personally I cannot see a state ever making efficient use of anything, and therefore wish them to be involved directly in as little as possible.

No but it should include things like health, education, security etc, or are we saying that only the rich should be able to enjoy these things?

How are they related to wealth redistribution? I'd also say that while the government should ensure access, it does not follow the government has to run such things. We don't, for example, need the government to run hospitals to provide healthcare.

True, like I said though thats another debate. One thing I will say is that tax is not, and should be a forced charity - it is however about investing in the country. People in this country are fortunate to enjoy such a business friendly environment, they should be grateful of that and be prepared to give back.

Giving back to the community is not the same thing as having money taken by force and squandered.

 

[cosmogenesis]

If people want to put their kids through private school then that is upto them but the state provides education for free until the age of 18, then you have to cough up.

Same as you can jump the NHS queue if you can afford it I presume which is quite bad.

 

[Shackley]

Inheritance tax is another silly idea . . .

Not entirely, the rationale behind IHT is to encourage people to spend rather than to save; then they can borrow more to maintain their high level of spending, thus getting into debt and keeping the whole capitalist, consumerist runaway train moving.

Carpe diem, sooner or later capitalism is going to hit the buffers or go off the rails.

 

[Dolph]

If people want to put their kids through private school then that is upto them but the state provides education for free until the age of 18, then you have to cough up.

Same as you can jump the NHS queue if you can afford it I presume which is quite bad.

Would you prefer everyone suffered equally? Had no option but to use a service that could be sub-standard?

 

[Dolph]

but a tax on the poor is more of a burden than tax on the rich.

Depends how you set it up. Flat rate tax with a high personal allowance (for example, setting the personal allowance at the rate of full time minimum wage) doesn't really penalise anyone unnecessarily.

You could even use a negative income tax model if you really wanted...

taxation shouldn't hit anyone disproportionately, taxing someone's earnings they need to live is a bad thing, just as taxing someone's earnings more because they earn more is a bad thing.

 

[Bear]

No what I said is 100% accurate, read it again. Yes the rich can afford proportionately better houses than us peons, so they can afford to pay proportionately more tax than us.

I suppose in that case it costs the same to live on the dole as it does on £50k Its a rediculous metric as people have other commitments, it may be factually true buts its a nonsense statement, after all who on £50k would live like they were on the dole

 

[Bear]

If people want to put their kids through private school then that is upto them but the state provides education for free until the age of 18, then you have to cough up.

Same as you can jump the NHS queue if you can afford it I presume which is quite bad.

Thats a cop out you said

The more you earn the more you should contribute back into society as the more society has out into you in many ways.

If they have paid privately all their life then where has society/the state contributed to their up bringing.

Why do you make it sound bad when someone paying for health care privately is potentially taking the pressure off the NHS.

 

[cosmogenesis]

That is not what the conversation is about, it is about taxation and poor and rich.

People earn different amounts and because of that people can spend it how they see fit. Education if they like for their kids or even paying for private health care if they so wish. Thats what earning different amounts of money is all about. If it sounds bad to you (I said no such thing btw) then I cannot help you paranoia can I ? It does not take pressure off of the NHS does it as it is performed by the NHS in many respects. Many private operations are done by the NHS as they have the main expertise and equipment.

What we are taking about is paying the right amount of tax, it would seem that the more you earn the less overall tax you pay because a accountant who knows the system can get you off of paying your dues to society.

The system is a contradiction. People with money do not use state services and even avoid them. The poor pay for the poor as the rich never have. The rich create poorly paid jobs for the poor so that taxation can be paid by the poor for the poor.

 

[scorza]

Depends how you set it up. Flat rate tax with a high personal allowance (for example, setting the personal allowance at the rate of full time minimum wage) doesn't really penalise anyone unnecessarily.

Just a minute, doesn't that violate your criteria for fairness and equality as well? Taxing people at different rates because the earn more. Surely according to you the only fair tax rate would be if every started paying the same tax rate from the first pound they earn? Why should those who earn above minimum wage be "penalised" as you'd put it?