Forum menu
Ransos - only one simple problem withe the critique you laid against flat tax... you prefaced it with the words
The tax system we have now
Well, fine, lets start again, create a new paradigm
flat tax - everyone pays the same % proportion of their income (income, not earnings, so includes money from investments or share dividends and capital gains)
no tax relief at either end of the scale
single rate of VAT on luxury items,
no VAT on essential food items, domestic fuel, books or "green" items.
Thats your lot, simple and cheap to administer.
I go on holiday with old friends each year. We range in incomes from 250k pa to on the dole. When we go the rich fella pays for us to go out to a s****y restaurant for a great meal and he pays. Why? Only way we can all enjoy the food is if the rich fella pays. If not he would eat alone and the rest would be having a chippy tea.
This method makes sure we all get the nice food.
We pay for all the drinks.
Obviously at the end of the meal the rich fella has paid most but he still has the most.
HTH
It is daftto say we all have different incomes but we should all pay the same percentage of our income in tax. Rich people have more money and can afford more. Fundamentally you think this is unfair. This is fine, but a minority view, as most people think it is fairer that the burden should also be based on ability to pay, even if you disagree.
Rich people have more money and can afford more
Junky - They [b]would[/b] pay more, thats how percentages work 🙄
Someone with twice as much money, pays twice as much tax, someone with ten times as much money, pays ten times as much tax - how is that unfair?
Your own example of going for the meal is a great example - what happens if one of you said "well, you [b]still[/b] have more money than me, so why should I buy the drinks?
most people think it is fairer that the burden should also be based on ability to pay, even if you disagree.
That's only because most people aren't rich. I guess if most people think rape is ok, it's fine right 🙄
What every [s]argument[/s]discussion about tax boils down to is that everyone thinks that people richer than them should pay more tax. /thread
No, maybe people just think everyone should pay a proportionate amount of tax. If you earn far more than you actually, need, you're effectively taking it away from some other poor bugger, so maybe you should pay loads more tax to make up for the shortfall suffered by the poor bugger.
Society would be a better place if the gap between top and bottom earners was a lot, lot narrower. This is obvious.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that the World would be a far better place if this mayn was a lot poorer:
[img] 
[/img]
I disagree with everything you say *shrug*
*kiss*
You disagree with this bit?
Society would be a better place if the gap between top and bottom earners was a lot, lot narrower. This is obvious.
Then you're a fool.
🙄
I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that the World would be a far better place if this mayn was [s]a lot poorer[/s] dead/beaten around the face with a dead fish/forced to spend an evening with elf:
FTFY (though to be honest I think the latter might be a little unfair on elf)
I guess if most people think rape is ok, it's fine right
Arguing in favour of progressive taxation is compared to arguing in favour of rape.
Priceless.
I'm glad you agree ernie_lynch
night girls
I disagree with everything you say
It's ok. I respect your right to be wrong.
X
yes if i pay 20 % of my income and you pay 20% of your income it is obvious one has paid more than the other- if we just ignore the percentage part of the percentage tax 😯
All you are saying is that if we pay the same percentage we can also pay different totals which is true. It is not true to say one pays more if we look at percentages obviously as it is a percentage system. Looking at percentages in a percentage tax system makes a bit more sense as their burden is not greater. I would burden them even more than you would[ %] but we both agree they should pay more.
how is that unfair?
which bit? the amount they pay or the bit about them having ten times more money?
I guess if most people think rape is ok, it's fine right
Yes that is what i am saying good precise. Thanks 🙄
well even zulu's and your choice leads to that so the discussion is really about how much more they should pay not if.What every argumentdiscussion about tax boils down to is that everyone thinks that people richer than them should pay more tax.
though to be honest I think the latter might be a little unfair on elf
😆
I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that the World would be a far better place if [s]this mayn was[/s] tube drivers were a lot poorer
FTFY (in another futile attempt to bring this thread back on topic)
Society would be a better place if the gap between top and bottom earners was a lot, lot narrower. This is obvious.
Actually it's not at all obvious. It's obvious that society would be a better place if the gap between [s]tube drivers[/s] median earners and bottom earners was a lot, lot narrower, but what top earners earn is somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
but what top earners earn is somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
It's really not, there's a lot of evidence which shows that societies with a narrower gap between rich and poor are generally happier and healthier places. Strangely these benefits apply to the rich as well as the poor in these societies.
It's really not, there's a lot of evidence which shows that societies with a narrower gap between rich and poor are generally happier and healthier places.
Maybe - but that's surely down to a lack of poverty at the bottom end rather than a limit on earnings at the top. Are you suggesting that my criteria isn't just as good if not a better one?
Half a beast.
This totally ignores the state handouts available to the poor, but not the rich.
No it doesn't. Go and read the ONS statistics - they take account of benefits. Guess what? The poor still pay a higher percentage in tax than the rich.
Page 50. The bottom quintile pays a higher percentage in total tax of gross and disposable income, than any of the other 4 quintiles.
Maybe - but that's surely down to a lack of poverty at the bottom end rather than a limit on earnings at the top. Are you suggesting that my criteria isn't just as good if not a better one?
No, it's because more equal societies are more socially cohesive, and this benefits everyone in myriad ways. It's not just about absolute poverty/wealth.
Ransos - thanks for pointing that document out - good for my son's economics revision. I don't want to go over old ground but we are not debating the same thing. Surely P50 is ignoring the impact of benefits - hence the difference between the income and expenditure data. The tax system really cant be understood in isolation of the impact of benefits which make up up to 40% of total income for the poorest households.
But it is really worth looking at the data, whatever one's point of view because it shows what a mess the tax system really is and just how confusing it is.
We are often led to believe that direct taxation is progressive and indirect tax is regressive, but the data in the impact of the council tax is very interesting. I guess the saddest thing in this is to look at the impact of expenditure in tobacco versus the national average.
London Underground (LU) plans to axe more than 1,500 jobs and close all but 30 ticket offices, the Rail, Maritime and Transport union has claimed.
It quotes a strategy document, leaked to BBC London, which includes proposals to run driverless trains and replace drivers with "train attendants".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15422882