Forum menu
If you shut the * up I am on board with this
It'd only take a small annual donation from all STWers and I'd * off forever.
When I am talking about rich I mean anyone earning say over £100K
I think that its a load of rubbish to say "the rich usually have got their money thru abuse of power not from hard work."
Yes there are some people that abuse power to get rich in the same way there are some poor people that abuse the benefits system and never work.
The pay of CEOs of listed companies is a problem for the shareholders that allow it to happen. Why do I care if the chairman of British Airways earns £1m or £10m. Granted when you get issues such as the banking crisis where people were getting massive bonuses for high risk taking that turns out has a larger impact on society then things need to be done to control that behavior. But thats where better banking regulation should step in.
[b]
[/b]Woody - the rich usually have got their money thru abuse of power not from hard work
I think you'ge just nailed your colours to the mast for pretty much any realistic debate on economics TJ
It all comes down to what meaning is intended for the word 'fair'.
If the meaning is 'unbiased' then everyone should have the same tax allowance and everyone pay the same percentage.
It also depends what is meant by 'more'. Percentages are constant. 10% will always be 10%. However, values vary. 10% of £1,000 is £100. 10% of £100,000 is £10,000. Both are 10% but one is clearly 'more' than the other.
Personally, I would welcome a simplified single rate tax system without NI and a higher allowance.
the rich usually have got their money thru abuse of power not from hard work.
Says mr-two-houses
the rich usually have got their money thru abuse of power not from hard work.
Superb TJ. 😀
For balance I think I'll counter for the "other side" by saying:
"the poor usually don't have money thru sheer laziness and ineptitude"*
😉
.
* (Note: this is clearly [u]not[/u] true, but then neither is the first statement)
This may be a bit revolutionary, but has it occurred to you that the brain surgeon does his job, because he actually enjoys it? Possibly the money is just a bonus?Not everyone is a heartless mercenary looking to get paid as much as possible. Unlike those in the city.
You ever met a surgeon apart from being on the other side of the desk at hospital? 😀
Personally if I'd been told I was going to get paid the same as everyone else I'd still have studied the same things but then afterwards I'd have been a lumberjack and used my spare time and cash to do the stuff I enjoy in my spare time.
Jesus!This level of debate would feel nicely at home in a sixth form common room 😆
JunkYard
I never said that poor people are poor because they are lazy and I am not ranting about poor people fleecing the system. I actually think that if you need benefits then you should get far far more. What annoys me is people getting benefits who don't needed it. Someone on £60K can afford to buy or rent a home like the rest of us. Why should I have to pay for them to have subsidised housing. And why should the cancer patient be told they can't have a certain drug as it is to expensive when there's money to pay someones rent who could easily afford it themselves.
What annoys me is people getting benefits who don't needed it.
It annoys everyone but its not the massive problem or cost its made out to be by the right wing press like The Telegraph, so calm down.
Jesus!This level of debate would feel nicely at home in a sixth form common room
*tries to lift Binners' skirt with a ruler*
tonyg
You are the only one talking about a "boom", no-one else.
There is a shortage of housing in this country, that is why prices are artificially high. Why not build some more?
Sorry I was being a bit sarcastic....It's just that we are in a massive recession (possibly double dip) due to housing boom and bust in many economies. Hence we have to be very careful to control housing. I'm not against having more houses built in a reasonable way, but we have to be extremely careful how the housing market is controlled.
However lets face it for large parts of the UK we have a high population denisty and that alone will keep house prices high. Supply and demand.
*slaps Yeti's hand, then nips outside for a spliff*
Twos on that...
HoratioHufnagel
Yes it is a massive problem. Are you saying £120m isn't insignificant?
Well JY - A level economics starts this week with Paper 1 with lots of short answers and I am sure that there will be questions of taxation. If students want to write that a flat of tax with minimum threshold is not progressive and score a big fat zero, then good luck to them.
I am surprised given that you usually are keen to talk about facts when others aren't. But so be it. At least the A level students will be better prepared.
And a simple question - under the current tax system are there times when people earning more than others actually play lower marginal rats of tax?
[b]There is a strict economic definition of progressiv[/b]ity. A tax is said to be progressive when the average tax rate rises as the tax base rises. [b]So an income tax is progressive when the average tax rate rises as income rises[/b]. (We usually think in terms of annual income, though lifetime income may be the better base against which to assess progressivity.) This is the case when the marginal tax rate (the proportion of an additional pound of income paid in tax) is higher than the average tax rate (the proportion of total income paid in tax). In effect, the higher marginal tax rate pulls the average rate up towards it.[b]The simplest way to achieve progressivity in an income tax is to have a tax-free allowance before tax starts being payable.[/b] To see this, suppose the first £10,000 of income is free of tax and all further income is taxed at 20%. Someone earning £20,000 has a marginal tax rate of 20%. Their average tax rate is 10%.a Someone earning £100,000 would still face a marginal rate of 20%, but their average rate would be 18%. [b]Thus a flat tax—an income tax charged at a single constant rate above a tax- free allowance—is progressive, as long as there is a tax-free allowance.[/b] This income tax can be made more progressive by (i) increasing the tax-free allowance, (ii) increasing the single rate of tax, or (iii) introducing one or more higher marginal tax rates on higher incomes.[b] Progressivity does not, however, require that the marginal
tax rate keeps on increasing as incomes rise. [/b]
Mirrlees Review, Chapter 2, Page 24 (if facts are at all relevant?)
[i]Woody - the rich usually have got their money thru abuse of power not from hard work.[/i]
TJ is Pol Pot in disguise!
While I normally disagree with you TJ, but can normally see your POV - this time 😯 Especially since in previous posts' you've indicated that 'rich' is anyone who pays 40% tax - just what planet are you on?
BR - Meaning the superrich - those earning millions - they get their money from abuse of power. There is no link with how effective they are in their role or anything else. Top execs of listed companies have seen their remuneration go up 50% in the last few years despite the recession for one example of this
As for the other comment - its the 50% taxpayers who are rich - they are in the top 10% of the nations earners that makes them rich - but not superrich.
TandemJeremy - Member
Poly - why not simply remove the loopholes in our current system?
Because (1) Most of the loopholes were created with good intent, so shutting them may be damaging. e.g. would you want to see childcare vouchers, bike to work, season ticket loans, or tax exemption on pension contributions scrapped? How about schemes which encourage high net worth individuals to invest in small early stage companies etc? Or is it only the loopholes you don't agree with you want closed?
(2) if all those who "should" pay 50% tax actually had to many of them would relocate (losing all their tax) and some of them would take jobs with them; new investors would be put off investing in the UK and the less scrupulous high earners would go from legitimate avoidance to illegal evasion.
(3) We don't actually need that much tax!
(4) The current system is massively complex, and therefore inefficient. It costs approx £4 BN a year to run HMRC.
(5) Pretty much everyone seems to agree that the more you earn the more you should pay; but not everyone agrees that should be disproportionately more. I've never heard anyone give a sensible explanation why someone on 60k a year should pay twice (in percentage terms) what someone on 15k should on their earnings; and certainly never heard why a couple on 15k each should pay about £5k less in tax than a couple with a single income earner on 30k. The proposal doesn't necessarily completely address that (by not being pure flat tax) but goes someway.
BR - Meaning the superrich - those earning millions - they get their money from abuse of power.
That's a very strong charge to be making. Can you support this claim of "abuse" with facts? Having your coffee break reduced from 15mins to 10 does not constitute an abuse.
There is no link with how effective they are in their role or anything else
What exactly do you think [i]these people[/i] actually do?
TeeJ - have you ever worked in a commercial organisation and witnessed or attempted to measure the impact that a high paid exec can have on the business...
Have you worked alongside any of these 'super-rich' who've abused their power..
2) if all those who "should" pay 50% tax actually had to many of them would relocate (losing all their tax) and some of them would take jobs with them; new investors would be put off investing in the UK and the less scrupulous high earners would go from legitimate avoidance to illegal evasion.
Tehr is absolutely no evidence of this in any meaningful way at all. Its one of those right wing myths put about.
(3) We don't actually need that much tax!
Ah right - so you want massive cuts in services then.
its the 50% taxpayers who are rich - they are in the top 10% of the nations earners that makes them rich
Even though, as I demonstrated to you last time you came out with this, a 40% taxpayer may still have an overall household income that is BELOW the national average (median).
Ninja Edit: oooh hang-on I see now you switched tack [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/child-benefit-1/page/10#post-3569989 ]from last time[/url] and are now saying 50% (Additional Rate), not just 40% (Higher Rate Payers). Sneaky!
Whixh is simply incorrect as you know.
Utter utter bullshita 50% taxpayer may still have an overall household income that is BELOW the national average (median).
there is no dispute - if you earn enough to get into the top tax band youa re one of the richest 10%
A few % of the country have the majority of its income and the vast majority of its wealth.
high earners would go from legitimate avoidance to illegal evasion.
As an excuse for not closing tax loopholes. You couldn't make it up. 🙄
Brilliant isn't it loum
there is no dispute
Apparently there is?
TSY has a good and still unanswered question TJ. Have you ever worked alongside these captains of industry that you accuse of abuse?
there is no dispute - if you earn enough to get into the top tax band youa re one of the richest 10%
Edited my response as I didn't spot your change of argument from last time. There was me thinking you were a man of constants! 😉
if all those who "should" pay 50% tax actually had to many of them would relocate (losing all their tax) and some of them would take jobs with them; new investors would be put off investing in the UK and the less scrupulous high earners would go from legitimate avoidance to illegal evasion.
To quote Michael Foot:
"....and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer 'To hell with them.' The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do."
TandemJeremy - Member
Tehr is absolutely no evidence of this in any meaningful way at all. Its one of those right wing myths put about.
Alternatively, you can read what the rabid RWers (sic) in the HRMC have to say on the topic, if facts are in any way relevant.
Absolutly constant Graham - same as I said last time. Your arguement remains as bogus then as it does now. top rate taxpayer = top 10% of earners - basic fact.
Tehr is absolutely no evidence of this in any meaningful way at all. Its one of those right wing myths put about.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/9261905/High-earners-say-au-revoir-to-France.html
[i]Estate agents report a spike in interest over the past few weeks as Hollande's victory seemed certain, with people specifically citing the election as a reason to start looking.
Winkworth in South Kensington said it has seen a 50pc increase in inquiries from French buyers since the election last weekend and has even hired a fluent French speaker to help deal with the interest.[/i]
and from the FT:
[i]
Alexandre Terrasse, a partner in corporate and property law at Jeffrey Green Russell, says he had seen a 25 per cent rise in activity from French clients over the past six months, “The 75 per cent tax is clearly a sign that the politicians will hit the wealthy and they don’t want to have to deal with that.”
Bernard Grinspan, managing partner of the Paris office of Gibson Dunn, an international law firm, says: “Some of our clients are very seriously discussing relocation – not only to London but also Singapore and New York. There’s a lot of uncertainty.”
[/i]
Absolutly constant Graham - same as I said last time. Your arguement remains as bogus then as it does now. top rate taxpayer = top 10% of earners - basic fact.
Well no. [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/child-benefit-1/page/10#post-3569989 ]Last time[/url] you said that [u]40% tax payers[/u] (i.e. above 42kish) were the top 10% wealthiest in the country, I quote:
[i]"if you earn £42000 plus yo are one of the wealthiest people in the country - top 10% or so."[/i]
Now you are saying that the wealthy 10% actually starts at [u]50% tax payers[/u] (i.e. over £150k)
Quite a big difference.
My back of a fag packet calculations suggest that if you earn between about 15 to 50k (ish) then you'll pay more tax under a fixed 30% with 10k allowance.
Everyone else pays less the highest earners paying significantly less.
Therefore shifting the tax burden onto the squeezed middle.
Correct Mistake from me above- its the 40% tax rate puts you in the top 10%.
This is a fact.
I find it very offensive the people like you who are so unaware of what life is like for the vast majority that you can claim poverty while being amongst the richest 10% of the country.
I find it very offensive the people like you who are so unaware of what life is like for the vast majority that you can claim poverty while being amongst the richest 10% of the country.
[img]
[/img]
its the 40% tax rate puts you in the top 10%. This is a fact.
If you are in the 40% tax bracket then you [i](almost)[/i] make it into the top 10% of [i]individual earners[/i] in the country. That is your "FACT"
However, the government, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Poverty Action and basically anyone who isn't you, measures poverty or lack thereof based on overall [u]household[/u] income, not [u]individual[/u] income.
And this handy IFS calculator: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/
clearly shows that a normal family (2 adults, 2 kids, below average council tax) can have one adult earning 42kpa and still be left with a household income that is BELOW the national average (median).
In fact they are easily out-earned by a couple on average wage.
I find it very offensive the people like you who are so unaware of what life is like for the vast majority that you can claim poverty while being amongst the richest 10% of the country.
And I find it offensive that you can tell a family struggling on a below average income that they are in the top 10%.
(Incidentally I don't and never have "claimed poverty" myself).
If you are in the 40% tax bracket then you (almost) make it into the top 10% of individual earners in the country. That is your "FACT"
so you agree with me then. fine. Its the truth.
[i]so you agree with me then. fine. Its the truth[/i]
And TSY's question ?....
😉
Oops !!!.
Inconvinient question to TJ. ALERT !.
😆
What a sad post! [not your's Solo]
To extend it further TJ, take a normal family consisting of 2 adults and 3 teenage kids (14-18). One adult earning around 42k (£31,048 after tax). Paying below average council tax of £1500 a year.
This [i]"top 10%" "rich"[/i] family has a household income around the 24% mark, i.e. less than 76% of the population, well below average and pretty near the poverty line.
Try the figures yourself in the IFS link.
Or explain to me why they are wrong.
so you agree with me then. fine. Its the truth.
🙄 The [i]"I know you are, but what am I?"[/i] response. Cheerio.
So you guys really think this sort of stuff is fair and we shouldn't try to do anything about it?
Pay for the directors of the UK's top businesses rose 50% over the past year, a pay research company has said. Incomes Data Services (IDS) said this took the average pay for a director of a FTSE 100 company to just short of £2.7m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866
This is during the recession. Justified rewards or those with power grabbing what they can?
The report cites the example of Barclays, where top pay is now 75 times that of the average worker. In 1979 it was 14.5. Over that period, the lead executive's pay in Barclays has risen by 4,899.4% – from £87,323 to a £4,365,636.
The top 1% of the UK own 21% of the nations wealth