Why do rich people pay more tax ?

Chaps

The worst time to live in this country in recent history was the 1970's. Years of old labour meant that top level tax was 83p in the Pound. Every scrounging turd was ripping off the tax payer. Thatcher came in and systematically reduced the level of benefit and taxes were hell of a lot lower when she left.

They are still comparitively low but are going up.

In this day and age there is absolutely no need to pay out social payments to malingering chavs. If they will not work then they are just going to have to go hungry.

It is incorrect to say it is difficult to get work, in fact it is dead easy.

I took early retirement last April and at the end of last year worked as a consultant for just four months. I made enough money, in those four months, to keep myself going right through till the end of this year. If an old man like me can do it, so can they.

Discipline is necessary in all walks of life and a few whacks on the ass will do the sods some good. We all need the motivation of money to make us work.

You have to accept the fact that if you don't work, you don't eat and if you don't eat you die.

Regards

Mick

 

I detect either a noticeable tongue in cheek approach or a complete lack of understanding of any social awareness whatsoever.

OK - its a given that nobody likes a layabout - but you have to be aware that many of these people that wont work also have children (which probably should be a crime in itself , but thats another thread) - the governmant has a duty to ensure that these children are catered for, even if they are likely to become carbon copies of their parents - they must be given a chance to ensure that this doesnt happen.

alternatively you can live in a self made bubble and judge everyone that doesnt conform to your ideals, regardless of morals or social realities.

 

as an addendum - I personally think that your admiration of Thatcher the milk snatcher is abhorrent and totally blinkered. Im happy you enjoyed lower taxes etc - my family suffered the other side - unemployment and poverty for many years.

Thatcher was a ** bitch.

**edited to delete foul language from many years of suffering under that twat of a tory government

 

IamBoy

Thaterism is basically moneterism. She jacked up interest rates without mercy to control inflation and she succeeded. You have to remember Dennis Healey, the previous Chancellor was spending so much money and taxing us so much that inflation hit 27.8%.

What moneterism does is bring reality back into the market. The taxpayer was propping up literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in uncompetitive industries. Those jobs had to go, the car industry, old metal bashing industries and minining were good examples. The rest of industry was paying out so much tax that it was in danger of becoming stiffled. You have to remember that 83p in the pound was top level tax in those days. You cannot compete internationally with that level of taxation.

She loosened up the economy and by the time she left, our economy had been transformed from a lame duck to a very healthy one.

There was no alternative, she did what had to be done.

Regards

Mick

 

The problem with these arguments is they assume a person who dosn't work is automaticaly a theiving chav. I am sure many people here have been out of work for a few months and have been glad of state help.

 

Family Values or what?

Another class of person who may not be economicly active but is sometimes working 24*7 is that of the carer. You know the family member who gives up working for a wage or sallary in order to stay at home an attend to an aged and or infirm family member.

Are they doing their duty to the family or foolishly easing the burden on the state so that others may benefit from their selfless act?

 

Debate on r4 Today - Flat tax rate

Could a flat tax really work in Britain? Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Vincent Cable and Richard Tether of Bournemouth University discuss., listen right away because you can never be too sure just how long these links are active. Good points on both side but imho Vince just edges into first place.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. As expected, the subject is starting to hit the media.

The Lib Dem spokeman is trying to stop an unstoppable tide. The issue that was completely ignored in this brief debate is that of how the UK could possibly compete with the increasing numbers of countries streamlined by a flat tax system. Of course we couldn't.

Flat tax is coming and, AFAIAC, the sooner the better.

 

flat tax, 50 tax bands. i couldn;t care less. my biggest gripe is WHAT the govornment spends the money on. the top 3 should be schools, healthcare and a social safety net. imho none of these things gets enough money spent on them and much of what is spent is wasted on unecessary crap.
cheers


julian

 

did you know out of the CAP, was it tate & lyle that has been subsidised £100 million out of taxpayers money? for what?
to allow it to keep the price higher on the market.

What a fu*** joke....pay our money to allow a private company to charge more and get more profit? something is very wrong.

abolish the monarchy, mp's, lawyers, too and I don't give a damn what benefits it brings. I don't see any of it, and I bet most don't.

I think the govt should be regulated, no I demand that it is, given the same accountability the public services have to put up with, once every 4 yrs isn't enough.

 

Someone having a bad day, Ian?

It's a beautiful day down here. Think I'll go for a walk in the woods with the family. 'Dinosaur hunting' my two year old describes it as (although only baby dinosaurs as the big ones are too scary).

You're quite right about the subsidies, of course. Sadly, a bureaucrat in Brussels sets the price of sugar for EU farmers - at four times the market price. :inferno:

The result is that European farmers produce 5 million tons too much sugar, which makes it virtually impossible for other sugar producing countries to compete.

EU milk farmers are just as bad. Each cow is subsidised $2.50/day (which is more than half the world's population earn). The excess milk is dumped on African countries whose dairy farmers are driven out of business ...

...and so it goes on.

What's the point of giving aid with one hand and starving the 3rd world with the other? Given a level playing field (and no wars) Africa wouldn't need aid. A 1% increase in their share of global trade would produce seven times as much income as Africa receives in aid.

Anyway, slightly off-topic but it makes me angry.

(Thanks to 'The Week' for the statistics).

Enjoy your day.

 

I've got no problem with paying tax at whatever rate is deemed fair by the-powers-that-be..
What I do find annoying is the attitude of the Inland Revenue..
If they think I owe them money they'll hound me to the grave and beyond, however, if they owe me it takes ages to arrive, with no interest and seemingly no recourse to anyone.
And even more annoying is that if my company employs a building firm, or a plumber, electrician or even a carpet fitter it's up to me to deduct 18% from my payment to them and pay it to the IR! All it means is I have to waste my time, and money in payment to my accountant, in order to collect tax for the IR!
Surely it's their job to be tax collectors, not mine? If they have trouble getting payments that must be their headache and not mine?
All it means is that I have trouble finding builders, as they'd prefer to work for private individuals for cash!
(Not having a go at builders, BTW, just at the inefficient lazybuggers in the Inland Revenue!)

 

As soon on the net.

TAX AVOIDANCE AND TAX EVASION

It is necessary to differentiate between tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Tax evasion: the reduction of tax liabilities by not informing the Revenue of all relevant facts. Tax evasion is illegal and criminal penalties apply, hence, if caught evading tax the director/s of the company will be fined and even imprisoned.

Tax avoidance: the reduction of tax liabilities within the framework of the law. Tax avoidance may not always succeed, but is legal; tax evasion is never legal.

I support one and detest the other.

 

Interesting. Would you tell us which?

 

Evasion or Avoidance?

Having sufficient disposable income for your needs and requirements after paying all that is required by HMIT negates the need to journey down the tax evasion route. By having a low rate of taxation (direct and indirect) or earning a large income you will with ease be able to keep on the straight and narrow.

Flat tax fans point to 'success' in Europe (I think only workable in some parts of the EU)

FT.
By Robert Anderson, Christopher Condon and Vanessa Houlder
Published: March 29 2005 03:00 | Last updated: March 29 2005 03:00

tax codeThe adoption of flat tax systems in eastern Europe - following their earlier introduction in Hong Kong and the Channel Islands - has sparked growing interest in western Europe and the US.

Advocates, led by several prominent think-tanks in western capitals, say flat taxes, involving a single rate levied on a broad base, increase tax revenues by boosting the economy and reducing avoidance.

Madsen Pirie, president of the Adam Smith Institute, the London-based think-tank, says there is a "rising tide" of interest in flat taxes in industrialised countries, where the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has reported that average income taxes are now starting to rise again. "It gives governments the opportunity to play it both ways. It allows them to escape the flak from increasing income taxes while not jeopardising their revenues."

This month, Poland's centre-left government announced that it would introduce a flat tax system by 2008. The new scheme would set taxes on all personal income and corporate profits, as well as value-added tax, at 18 per cent.

Even if, as is likely, the current government loses parliamentary elections later this year, Poland is still expected to introduce a similar scheme because the opposition favours a flat tax rate of 15 per cent.

Critics of the flat tax, including Poland's fading leftwing parties and increasingly powerless labour unions, argue that it merely shifts the tax burden from the wealthiest to lower and middle-income groups.

Advocates in government view it as a means of boosting tax revenues and attracting foreign investors.

In much of the industrialised world there has already been a marked trend towards flatter, or simpler tax systems. Over the past 20 years, the number of tax bands in most countries has been drastically reduced, according to the OECD.

Countries have also tried to broaden their tax base by reducing the number of tax exemptions and allowances.

Nine eastern European countries, from Estonia in 1994 to Romania and Georgia this year, have been particularly aggressive, setting low, flat rates on personal income and often equally low corporate taxes. But while most economists agree that lower taxes have boosted growth in eastern Europe, the impact of flat income taxes remains controversial.

The clearest benefits are easier administration and a better understanding of tax bills. Moreover, lowering the tax rate and broadening the base discourages tax avoidance and evasion.

That appeared initially to be the case with Russia, which adopted a 13 per cent flat tax in 2001. In 2002, income tax revenues rose by more than 25 per cent in real terms. Many immediately credited the flat tax.

But in January, the International Monetary Fund published research on Russia that did not agree: "Our analysis suggests that the strength of personal income tax in Russia over this period was largely driven by a rise in real wage rates, unrelated to the tax reform."

In Slovakia, where a 19 per cent flat tax was introduced last year, income tax revenues fell 21 per cent. The government covered most of the shortfall with higher excise and sales taxes.

Supply-side economists argue that an economy will benefit substantially from the increased savings and investments created when citizens are allowed to keep more of their earnings.

In eastern Europe, several flat tax countries are, indeed, booming. But the connection to flat income taxes is, as yet, flimsy.

In Slovakia, where the economy has boomed with the help of foreign investment, officials say the flat tax has helped attract the attention of investors.

But the real drawing power, according to tax specialists and company managers, comes from Slovakia's low wages and low corporate taxation. Manufacturers, they say, have almost nothing to gain from lower income taxes.

The flat tax concept also raises concerns about social justice. The OECD argues that flat tax systems are not necessarily regressive: the size of the tax-free personal allowance tends to be more important than tax rates in determining how progressive a tax system is.

In Slovakia, the overall package of tax reform that included the flat tax has proved painful to some. Upper income groups have benefited substantially while low-income groups have received some minor benefit from a doubling of the tax-free allowance.

Many middle-income earners, however, particularly those without children, lost out from higher consumption taxes. "The flat tax is . . . not necessarily good for tax revenues or in the short term for equality," says Ben Slay of the United Nations Development Project in Bratislava.

Such problems might eventually give rise to stronger opposition to flat taxes in the region, but there is little sign of that yet.

Charles Robertson, an economist for ING Bank, notes that Estonia has applied a flat tax for more than a decade without opposition. "Estonia has done incredibly well, and no political party is saying 'It is about time we tax the rich a little more'." Indeed, Estonia recently lowered its flat rate from 26 to 24 per cent.

The flat tax will probably have more time to prove itself in eastern Europe as the global debate rumbles on.

 

Thanks for that article auric. I read the paper that 7_V linked and I must admit that I the flat tax idea is certainly interesting and I'm now less inclined to reject it out of hand as a right-wing idea that just favours the rich but it's good to see someone at least putting some credible opposing views and taking apart some of the evidence that flat tax advocates use to support it.

It's a topic I'm going to watch with interest.

Michael.

 

Surely the UK already has effectively 'flat tax' at about 40%? Excluding the less obvious taxes on employment of course.

If we measured personal taxation as percentage of take home to cost of employment then at least transparency would be achieved.

Paul

 

This is a good point and raises a question that a lot of the Thatcher-haters never seem to answer i.e. how would they have handled the situation differently? Things could not have carried on the way they were.

In other words, thousands of jobs had to go in order to turn the economy round but how do you manage this? How do you tell a bunch of miners/car workers that their jobs are going when there's no alternative employment?

In fact, even if back then there had been the kind of alternative service industry emplyment available that there is today, I don't think many of these manual workers would have taken kindly to being told they were going to be retrained to work in a call centre!

I guess what I'm saying is that in the late 70's, to avoid economic disaster the country HAD to take some nasty medicine and whoever was prescribing it was going to become a hate figure in the eyes of those worse affected.

Matt.