Wealth gap 'widest in 40 years'

Associate
Joined
21 Apr 2004
Posts
1,068
Location
Southampton
What would be the benefits/negatives of a taxation system where there is a low level basic rate for this 'safety net' idea, and then all other taxation comes directly from things that you buy rather than the amount that you earn?

I cannot really think of why it may or may not be a good idea. It would remove the disincentive for people to earn more (if arguably there is one already) and people would be treated equally.

Comments?
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
sr4470 said:
You know, you can be wealthy and have earned it through hard work ;)

Low paid workers work hard too.

Dolph said:
Which they have earnt through working. Do you believe in penalising the successful then?

I believe in higher earners paying proportionately more tax than low earners. If you want to put it in overly simplistic terms as being penalised then you can. However it doesn't stop it being fair and right.
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
hp01jpc said:
What would be the benefits/negatives of a taxation system where there is a low level basic rate for this 'safety net' idea, and then all other taxation comes directly from things that you buy rather than the amount that you earn?

I cannot really think of why it may or may not be a good idea. It would remove the disincentive for people to earn more (if arguably there is one already) and people would be treated equally.

Comments?

You'd have problems defining what the sales tax should apply to, what is and isn't essential, and how consumption relates to service usage. You'd also encourage people to save rather than spend which is a bad thing for the economy generally as you inhibit freedom of transfer for capital.
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
scorza said:
Low paid workers work hard too.

Never said otherwise (that's the second time you've suggested I have). In the capitalist system, value of employment is demonstrated by salary, higher earners are considered more valuable than lower ones, either through skills, experience or sheer dumb luck. A big part of it is hard work for the vast majority however. That doesn't mean lower earners don't work as hard, just that they are not as successful.

I believe in higher earners paying proportionately more tax than low earners. If you want to put it in overly simplistic terms as being penalised then you can. However it doesn't stop it being fair and right.

If you believe discriminating against people is fair and right I suppose. I simply cannot agree with you. There is nothing fair and right about changing the proportion of taxation based on random factors. Fairness is about treating people equally, not treating them differently.

Still, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it doesn't make any sense using any standard definition.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
17,481
scorza said:
Low paid workers work hard too.

I should know, I am one. But I don't want other people's wealth unless they give me it of their own free will. I'd rather generate my own. As long as they're not callous towards others or otherwise snobbish, I don't have a problem with wealthy folk keeping more of their earnings.
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
Dolph said:
Never said otherwise (that's the second time you've suggested I have). In the capitalist system, value of employment is demonstrated by salary, higher earners are considered more valuable than lower ones, either through skills, experience or sheer dumb luck. A big part of it is hard work for the vast majority however. That doesn't mean lower earners don't work as hard, just that they are not as successful.

I was quoting someone else that time ;)

Dolph said:
If you believe discriminating against people is fair and right I suppose. I simply cannot agree with you. There is nothing fair and right about changing the proportion of taxation based on random factors. Fairness is about treating people equally, not treating them differently.

Still, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it doesn't make any sense using any standard definition.

I'm sorry but its just not discrimination. The rules are the same for everyone - a low paid worker suddenly gets another job paid £100k a year - he starts paying 40% tax too (and no doubt starts grumbling about it).
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
sr4470 said:
I should know, I am one. But I don't want other people's wealth unless they give me it of their own free will. I'd rather generate my own. As long as they're not callous towards others or otherwise snobbish, I don't have a problem with wealthy folk keeping more of their earnings.

No-one is giving you any of their wealth. However you are entitled to have benefited from a free education, entitled to access to the NHS, entitled to be protected by the police etc etc. The issue is how do we as a nation pay for all that? Do we reduce the income tax bill for high earners and increase it for low earners, or do we keep the current fair system?
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
scorza said:
I'm sorry but its just not discrimination. The rules are the same for everyone - a low paid worker suddenly gets another job paid £100k a year - he starts paying 40% tax too (and no doubt starts grumbling about it).

It is discrimination. Take a pound from the pocket of a high rate and a low rate taxpayer, and work out what percentage of that pound has been taken from them ;)

It's discrimination based on income. The rules are not the same for everyone, they change depending on how much you earn. Take a snapshot of people at a set time and they are not all treated the same. Just because someone can move from one group to the other doesn't mean the two groups are treated equally.
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
scorza said:
No-one is giving you any of their wealth. However you are entitled to have benefited from a free education, entitled to access to the NHS, entitled to be protected by the police etc etc. The issue is how do we as a nation pay for all that? Do we reduce the income tax bill for high earners and increase it for low earners, or do we keep the current fair system?

We scrap the current unfair system and replace it with a fair one, one that doesn't discriminate, one that truely treats everyone the same.

In the meantime, we work to reduce unnecessary expenditure and dramatically improve the way the money that has to be taken is spent.
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
Dolph said:
It is discrimination. Take a pound from the pocket of a high rate and a low rate taxpayer, and work out what percentage of that pound has been taken from them ;)

Depends which pound you take. Take the twenty thousandth pound and both pay the same rate of tax on it, take the fifty thousandth and Jonny the high earner might pay 40% tax on it, but Bill the low earner doesn't get it at all!
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
scorza said:
Depends which pound you take. Take the twenty thousandth pound and both pay the same rate of tax on it, take the fifty thousandth and Jonny the high earner might pay 40% tax on it, but Bill the low earner doesn't get it at all!

Average it out. Average the income tax burden across all the pounds in each pocket ;)

Just because the system is set up as you describe it, it doesn't follow that both pay the same percentage of tax overall, which is my point ;)
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
17,481
scorza said:
No-one is giving you any of their wealth. However you are entitled to have benefited from a free education, entitled to access to the NHS, entitled to be protected by the police etc etc. The issue is how do we as a nation pay for all that?

I don't want the state's crap. We don't need it. I'd rather pay for it when I do need the education\healthcare, and it won't be from a socialist monopoly system. As for the police, what exactly have they done for me? Nothing. If I ever have to call them, it will still take 15 minutes for a response, minimum. I'm better off dealing with a criminal myself\fleeing in most situations.
 
Associate
Joined
22 Jun 2007
Posts
242
sr4470 said:
I don't want the state's crap. We don't need it. I'd rather pay for it when I do need the education\healthcare, and it won't be from a socialist monopoly system. As for the police, what exactly have they done for me? Nothing. If I ever have to call them, it will still take 15 minutes for a response, minimum. I'm better off dealing with a criminal myself\fleeing in most situations.

Off the subject I know but exactly how well staffed do you think police forces are around the country?
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
17,481
Judge Mortis said:
Off the subject I know but exactly how well staffed do you think police forces are around the country?

Too many pencil pushers, but my point is, regardless of how well staffed the police are, they can't protect everyone. Especially not with the current organisation. Its not as though I'm going to wait around for them because someone else paid the taxes for it...
 
Associate
Joined
22 Jun 2007
Posts
242
sr4470 said:
Too many pencil pushers, but my point is, regardless of how well staffed the police are, they can't protect everyone. Especially not with the current organisation. Its not as though I'm going to wait around for them because someone else paid the taxes for it...

It would frighten you if you knew how thin the blue line actually was ... you could double the size of the organisation and you still wouldn't have enough cops. This is why I get ****** off beyond belief when funding for Iraq or Afghanistan is passed as that money spent on law and order would make a real difference. That is another discussion perhaps.

I see your point though.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
17,481
Judge Mortis said:
It would frighten you if you knew how thin the blue line actually was ... you could double the size of the organisation and you still wouldn't have enough cops.

By what measure? Till we've made every other person a cop? :p
 
Associate
Joined
22 Jun 2007
Posts
242
Frontline cops are pen pushers too .... thats where the whole syatem fails. The Government's answer? PCSOs ........ Person in uniform, costs less than a cop, no powers, no appoinments and the miscreant on the street knows that.
 
Top