1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Your views on Tax in the UK

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by fez, Apr 22, 2009.

  1. The Running Man

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 33,211

    Location: block 16, cell 12

    morally its very difficult to agree with your stance Dolph, that is completely subjective and based upon nothing but your own viewpoint...

    Is it fair that people who earn more get taxed higher? my view is that it is...

    the tax is never that significntly higher that someone who earns 100,000 a year will take home less net per year than someone who earns just 60,000 a year therefore it still pays to earn more, despite paying higher taxes.

    Even if it were a flat rate, which you seem to be angling towards, do you seriously think that the rich would stop abusing their ability to buy their way out of tax? if not, then taking the moral high ground is meaningless anyway as infact it would make next to no difference anyway...
     
  2. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,228

    Location: Plymouth

    I'm not talking about paying a larger amount, but a larger proportion. It is the latter that is unfair.

    Why should person X pay one percentage, and person y another? I'm yet to see anyone give a good reason why they consider this fair.

    That's not the point, the person on 100,000 a year is still paying a greater proportion of their income unfairly.

    It's not abuse if it's just tax reduction (that is, using the laws provided to reduce taxable income). The solution is to reduce the loopholes, but until the system is fair, using tax loopholes to reduce your unfair burden seems perfectly morally justified to me.
     
  3. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 26, 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    Why do people deserve all the fruits of talents and circumstances that were totally beyond their control? It's not as though our nation's wage structure reflects some maxim of "work harder -> earn more".
     
  4. The Running Man

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 33,211

    Location: block 16, cell 12


    because life is unfair? why should someone working in care, or in the NHS get paid so little, despite their job having a direct influence on the welbeing of others, wheras others can sit in a comfy office and reap the benefits of wealth?

    there is no job equalizer, instead we tend to penalise the wealthy (who have the ability to also increase their wealth more), because we live in a welfare society, instead of pure capitalist freemarket...thats the way it is, dislike it - please go live in the USA?

    it is blatant abuse, it scales linearly, the more money you have, proportionately the more money you can avoid spending out in taxes, through being able to find evasive means. One solution is to reduce loopholes, but it never extends far enough. and loopholes cannot be closed more quickly than another is found and abused.

    opting out of paying tax through already having wealth is not fair, and is infact massively detrimental to the country, as i noted a 5 million salaray should provide MORE taxation than over 166 people on 30k salaries. in reality is this ever collected?

    The argument for variable tax rates must surely stem from the thought process that goes along the lines; those who have the most net earnings have the most to contribute back to the state. (how well its spent is doubious, but regardless of whether you pay 25% or 50% it will still get spent just as badly). Those who obtain the least income have proportionately lower disposable income, as many costs of living are less variable and more fixed regardless of how much you earn.

    for instance, whether you are rich or poor relatively, £10 of petrol will cost you £10, ergo if you earn £100k or £20k, that £10 is more significant to the person who earns the lower amount. yet both people will still need to get to work, and both have to eat, i.e the basic cost of living does not decrease or even scale with how much you earn.

    therefore to balance the books you will always have to tax higher amounts to those who subsequently have more to give to avoid squeezing the low earners too heavily, whilst still being able to provide ample public sector services to all, regardless of actual contribution.
     
  5. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,244

    Location: Kiel, Germany

    1. Because they can afford to contribute more. 10% of a £10,000 a year income is taking money spent for food. 10% of a £50,000 a year income is taking money spent on holidays (or another luxury).

    2. Because it is right and proper that the people who are benefiting most from society put most back into it.
     
  6. fez

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 22, 2008

    Posts: 12,793

    Location: Sidcup

    I think that part of the issue is that people who earn a lot feel that they are being taken advantage of in the current taxation scheme so they look to other means to even the odds. My dad is a tax man and he says that we have got a horrendous system and that you are unlikely to get caught evading tax unless you are self employed.

    If people felt they were getting a reasonable return for their money then they might not pay an accountant to 'ignore' some of it.

    We should tax the wealthy more than the poor but we should also have a country that says "You are getting value for money."

    If I am honest, I would either leave the UK or evade tax if I was earning a large wage. If I looked at this country and saw that the education system was good, the justice system good, the transport system good and the people hardworking then I wouldnt mind contributing more to that.

    What I see is a country that is declining in nearly every respect. Education is failing, our transport system is frankly appauling anywhere that isnt a major city. Our justice system has no consistency and isnt enough of a deterrent. In what world is fraud or stealing money worse than murder. Drug dealing will get you a longer sentence than killing someone in a lot of cases.

    Basically the government is presenting a weak arguement for taxing us 85% of our earnings. Btw that is the quoted figure that we are taxed on average once all said and done.
     
  7. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,228

    Location: Plymouth

    Most people who earn high wages do so because they work hard, or have worked hard in the past, and utimately because they have managed to convince someone of their value.

    Most of the high earners I know do work hard for their money, indeed there are some who I absolutely would not trade places with even though they earn signficantly more than I do.

    Because care work requires very little skill, and the NHS skews the market dramatically?

    Why should there be a job equalizer? And I do not advocate removal of the welfare state, I advocate fair treatment. Nothing you have presented above justifies unequal treatment of income.

    Closing loopholes is fine, once the system treats everyone fairly.

    Very very few people are on a £5m salary... You may be confusing total compensation with salary. If you're using total compensation, then you need to factor in state benefits recieved by those on lower incomes as well.

    Hence why I support an NIT model, it eliminates most of these issues while remaining fair by treating all income equally.

    That's an argument for NIT or high personal allowances, not unfair and arbitary tax bands.

    We're not talking about those examples where both give 10%, but where one is made to give 10% and another 15% based on how much they earn.

    Net recipents benefit most from society, not net contributors.
     
  8. The Running Man

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 33,211

    Location: block 16, cell 12

    thats very speculative, if people did have that much good will, surely they would set aside (from what they save via the acountants) and donate it back to the government or charities?

    mostly people = greedy, they will take every penny they can get, and then some more, and give mothing back if they can avoid it...

    sure they may feel a bit cheated by "the man" but i bet they sleep just fine knowing they are paying less than what they should and dont give any more back.

    yea like most ppl do... really helps when they got a free ride education here, free NHS all their childhood.. suddenly hit it rich and its like "WTF UK i owe you nothing", thats not a "Great British" mentality is it?

    out of curiosity where would you actually go to find;

    give me some examples pls? i think its a ficticious utopia that you can never find. (maybe canada is close)
     
  9. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,244

    Location: Kiel, Germany

    And do you want to answer the point? That 10% of income is worth a lot more to someone on £10K than someone on £50k?

    Nonsense, people earning high wages are benefitting far more than people scrapping by in council housing.
     
  10. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,228

    Location: Plymouth

    Of course, that's why I support a system designed to negate that issue by guaranteeing everyone a minimum income and treats all income equally.

    Really? How do you work that out?
     
  11. fez

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 22, 2008

    Posts: 12,793

    Location: Sidcup

    I think that most people that leave this country for the reasons stated will have worked here for a number of years and paid their dues many times over. What do people paying large amounts of tax get from the sytem for their money.

    We pay our taxes and then we have council tax, road tax, tax because you are a bad person and smoke. So what do we get as a high earner?

    I dont know many people that have said bugger it, once the UK has educated me and spent some money on the NHS im out of here. Its people getting disillusioned after many years of getting very little for what they give.

    I cant really think of anything that the NHS has done for me other than take out my appendix that would have cost a huge amount. Being born is something we have dealt with for thousands of years and I know that modern medicine has increased the survival rate but it cant cost that much to deliver a baby. Anyway, isnt it your parents that have paid for that with their taxes?

    I would bet that if you got someone on £50,000 a year to pay for only what they use out of the services the government provides they would be massively better off than they are under current taxation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2009
  12. Chimerical

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 21, 2007

    Posts: 5,487

    True, there's too much of this going on.
     
  13. Jono

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 13,262

    Location: Northallerton/Harrogate

    Don't forget tax on savings (unless you put it in an ISA, and even then you're limited to a certain amount), tax on pensions, tax when you die, buy a house, buy most things, tax tax tax...

    I wouldn't mind my income being taxed so much, if it only happened once.
     
  14. Chimerical

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 21, 2007

    Posts: 5,487

    And speed cameras.
     
  15. fez

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 22, 2008

    Posts: 12,793

    Location: Sidcup

    Thats for your own safety because everyone knows that after you have slowed down to pass a speed camera you cant speed up again. ;)
     
  16. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,244

    Location: Kiel, Germany

    And that solves it how? Why is it fairer than asking those who've benefitted most, and can most afford it, to contribute a bit more?

    You need it explained to you how someone on £50k is better off than some on £10k? It's obvious they're benefitting more unless you subscribe to the utterly ludicrous position that someone is entirely responsible for their own wealth ::confused:
     
  17. Yamahahahahaha

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 11, 2008

    Posts: 3,835

    Location: London

    I think we can all agree that equality of opportunity is what matters in life.

    This encompasses Education; meaning the best and brightest get picked up and spurred on to do great things for the country. The decline in grammar schools has been met with a strong correlatory decline in social mobility.
    Health is another important factor, the poorer members of society dying younger than those of more affluent and generally better educated backgrounds.
    Access to aspirational figures, be it doctors, lawyers, and other professionals, showing kids on sink estates what they can achieve. When surrounded by cradle-to-grave benefits claimants, you would have very little concept of hard work, let alone aspiring to greatness.

    We have seen Labour and the Conservatives throw good money after bad, hand over fist at the private sector which has typically failed to deliver. People are fed up of paying for this, and quite rightly.

    The tax system is an irrelevance unless the institutions worth funding are there.

    I am happy to pay a lot of tax knowing it's going towards the benefit of society. Not some slimey arms dealer whose brother is an MP.
     
  18. Chimerical

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 21, 2007

    Posts: 5,487

    And we all know they prevent accidents from happening even though the very nature and definition of the word 'accident' makes preventing it utterly impossible. :p

    They're not really as the cost and standard of living will have increased. £50K really isn't that much either.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2009
  19. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,244

    Location: Kiel, Germany

    On what planet is a higher standard of living not being better off?

    It's twice the national average and enough to put one in the top 5% of incomes. You can earn a lot more, of course, but the argument just gets truer the higher you go.
     
  20. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,244

    Location: Kiel, Germany

    Sorry, my bad, you need to earn £58, 917 to be in the top 5% (source)