Is essentially true; yes you can argue about the threshold where essential becomes luxury, but there come a point where you don't need more money, but desire it. I think that it's fundamentally fair that I share the 'excess' income that I have earned at a higher rate than the 'essential' income. That's why.
So, a "communist" or state run system yes? Someone centrally defines what is the acceptable level of income and everything more than that is penalised strongly? Different people have a varying interpretations of what is luxury and what is excess. Still not a reason, I don't think, that means it is fair that higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate. They are already paying a bigger share of the tax income through the higher earnings. Where does the threshold get drawn? What about my choices as to what I think I would like to spend my money on that I may not think of as a luxury? Maybe provide a mechanism where the altruistic can pay more tax if they think their level of income is excessive would be fairer.
jambalaya-- the land 'costs' are the biggest, if the council own the land, what huge costs are you referring to.
Land costs are artificial constructs, designed to make big profits for speculators, they are obscene in many places, you can build a good quality house for £80,000 without land, and in bulk costs drop proportionately-- as i said there are ideological issues with public housing, as along with many things that benefit ordinary people ahead of profiteers/ pirates
So, a "communist" or state run system yes?
Haha, you are Mitt Romney* and I claim my five pounds!
Seriously, really? Socially responsible = commy?
*many other right wing loons are available.
Socially responsible does not equal paying a higher proportion of tax. Not really sure where you manage to draw that narrow conclusion.
And no, I'm not Mitt Romney.
And communist states have a reputation for controlling what is acceptable for the natives including income, so not such a stretch, to make a point.
don't think, that means it is fair that higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate. They are already paying a bigger share of the tax income through the higher earnings.
The net result of thinking it is fair to have unevenly shared wealth is that you end up thinking this is ok [img]
[/img]and not having enough monmey to solve this
[img]
[/img]
I fail to understand why anyone wants to justofy this or symapthise with the plight of the rich rather than the plight of the poor
tax the shit out of the self serving folk cos they aint giving it away and even withall this wealth/income many will still be trying their best to avoid tax
I bet the owner of that ^^^ earns at least £45K!
Ok, ok, I'll leave it.
I fail to understand why someone thinks that a question about why it is fair to tax a higher earner a bigger proportion of their income is in any way justifying the plight of the super rich (implication of using a fanciful and fantastically expensive super yacht)?
So what level of income should be deemed "excessive" and should be taxed at a higher rate and what should that rate be? Sensible answers please and not just "politics of envy" answers.
Bikingcatastrophe - I fail to understand
This much is obvious.
I don't think, that means it is fair that higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate
The country is desperate for more money, the more you have, the more you can afford to chip in.
One of my kids pays board based on what their income is, the other 2 don't
Not fair? Lots of things aren't [superficially] fair, get over it
Sensible answers please and not just "politics of envy" answers.
We tax the rich because they have more, we tax then because the poor have less we do it to make the world a fairer place [ even out the fact we are lucky[as is everyone rich at some point] to be born in the UK rather than sub sharan africa for example - that is not hard work by us it is just pure luck]. Ultimately, if we do it enough no one lives in slums, no one has unclean water, everyone has food, everyone has education BUT a few folk may have a slightly smaller or , god forbid, no superyacht and Mit Romney may need to pay as much tax as the cleaners he employs
If you dont agree it is because you accept unequal distribution of income and wealth and those pictures show you what that really means No one wants to justify that so of course you throw some insults about envy around as you know you have no way of justifying that as fair....obvioulsy dont let this inability change your view nad havea pop at me instead.
I fail to understand why someone thinks that a question about why it is fair to tax a higher earner a bigger proportion of their income is in any way justifying the plight of the super rich (implication of using a fanciful and fantastically expensive super yacht)?
PLIGHT- i dont think that word means what you think it means
Noun: A dangerous, difficult, or otherwise unfortunate situation: "the plight of poor children".
Tell me what is their difficulty exactly not enough time on the earth to spend all their money? 😯
Are these not amongst the high earners you dont want us to tax more of have you changed your view about taxing them now ?
don't think, that means it is fair that higher earners should be taxed at a higher rate. They are already paying a bigger share of the tax income through the higher earnings.
We could get rid of the 40% tax rate, but that would leave a shortfall in tax receipts, and further cuts will only take us so far. Is it fairer to increase the basic tax rate for everyone, or to have an additional tax on disposable income, which in the interests of simplifying things is defined as anything over £45k?
How many really high earners get their money because of their own personal productivity, compared to being in a position to [s]exploit[/s] (emotive) manage the productivity of many others? Not that many I should imagine.
[b]rudebwoy[/b] - Member
jambalaya-- the land 'costs' are the biggest, if the council own the land, what huge costs are you referring to.Land costs are artificial constructs, designed to make big profits for speculators, they are obscene in many places, you can build a good quality house for £80,000 without land, and in bulk costs drop proportionately-- as i said there are ideological issues with public housing, as along with many things that benefit ordinary people ahead of profiteers/ pirates
That's my point you are suggesting the council donate the land, ie give it away out of their stock when the land has a value. That's a subsidy.
How are land prices designed ? Land has "obscene" value because it's in demand, generally because it's near employment ie wealth creation. The better the employment opportunity generally the higher the land & property prices.
Is it fairer to increase the basic tax rate for everyone, or to have an additional tax on disposable income, which in the interests of simplifying things is defined as anything over £45k?
If the tax take needs to go up, it's in everyones benefit (we all benefited from the spend) so it's only fair that we all contribute. Obviously, the rich will contribute more due to how percentages work.
Even fairer still, how about we just close tax loopholes so that people pay what they should? How about HRMC chase Vodephone? How about the ultra rich paying their share rather than hiding it all?
If the tax take needs to go up, it's in everyones benefit (we all benefited from the spend) so it's only fair that we all contribute.
That assumes everything else is fair, such as cleaners being paid a fair wage for their effort, instead of the lowest possible that their well paid bosses can get away with.
Obviously, the rich will contribute more due to how percentages work
You mean they contribute more if we ignore the percentage part of the percentage tax 😕
You are George osborne and I demand the right to beat you [ not in the way you like from public schooldays either]
You are not wrong re tax loopholes- then again given how Cameron dad made his money and how CMD got his inhereted wealth that sems unlikely
FWIW his dad was the owner /runner of one of the frist off shore tax avoidance/haven schemes so I doubt dave has a moral problem with them
My first 5 pager \o/
You lot would be brilliant down the pub.
obviously, and that's what happens, but it becomes far more difficult to define fairness when paying x percent more means a wealthy person may have to go to Mexico instead of St Lucia for their jollies, while paying the same x percent extra may mean a poor man not being able to adequately feed and clothe his children. Sensationalist I know, but essentially, as you say, that's how percentages work...so it's only fair that we all contribute. Obviously, the rich will contribute more due to how percentages work.
For what it's worth, I'd advocate some kind of sine curve for taxation rather than arbitrary steps in income, and have the 'dimensions' of the curve (terminology? Sorry. Not a mathematician) decided by referendum. But I'm only a commie, what would I know.
[img] 
[/img]
STW pub meet earlier today !
Three hours of arguing over whose round it was and how best to divide the cost of said round, one hour of debating what to drink and then a fight breaks out over what tyres to get to the bar
If i own something and build on it , how is that a subsidy??? lambalaya, land values are inflated due to many things, agricultural land has little value until the magic word planning is added then it is valued at many times more, its still the same land, nobody has made it -- its a construct, like fixing the market so you always win!
You mean they contribute more if we ignore the percentage part of the percentage taxYou are George osborne and I demand the right to beat you [ not in the way you like from public schooldays either]
Don't know what you mean in the first part but I grant you the opportunity for the second 😀 (Even though I've never set foot in a public school and grew up in a council flat).
For what it's worth, (and I'm a higher rate taxpayer by virtue of OT) I don't always agree with JY, but I'd rather live in his 'ideal world' than that of Bikingcatastrophes'.
And what world is that? To be fair, I am not sure you know enough about me to be in a position to define what sort of world is my ideal. But then again, this is the internet isn't it so as you were. 🙂I don't always agree with JY, but I'd rather live in his 'ideal world' than that of Bikingcatastrophes'.
Not sure where I am having a pop at you? But to answer your point with the one that was made to my postIf you dont agree it is because you accept unequal distribution of income and wealth and those pictures show you what that really means No one wants to justify that so of course you throw some insults about envy around as you know you have no way of justifying that as fair....obvioulsy dont let this inability change your view and have a pop at me instead.
Lots of things aren't [superficially] fair, get over it
And those words are quite true. Life is not fair. And there will probably always be an unequal distribution of wealth. Any my argument is that £45k is not a staggering salary. Yes, there are a lot of people who have material wealth far beyond what they can use and it would be great if they could do something more altruistic than buy the next set of Louis Vuitton baggage for a day trip to Necker. And close down the obvious tax loopholes. But the tax system needs to find the balance of being progressive enough to raise the required funds without appearing too unfair to those that feel most threatened by it and who then try everything they can to move their moneys elsewhere and avoid paying any tax at all.
And slow hand clap to v8ninety for the fail to understand comment. Excellent. Still chuckling at such sparkling wit.
Lots of things aren't [superficially] fair, get over it
so if it was your child starving to death you think this would be an adequate and fair response for me to deliver from my superyacht?
do you even have a moral compass?whilst shouting about how threatened i fell about the tax rate?
yes it would be nice if they would give up Louis stuff and the holiday but a quick look at reality shows they wont so we need to actually take it from them via taxation.
But the tax system needs to find the balance of being progressive enough to raise the required funds without appearing too unfair to those that feel most threatened by it and [b]who then try everything they can to move their moneys elsewhere and avoid paying any tax at all.[/b]
Or we need to stop promoting/tolerating the idea that this level of greed and selfishness is somehow socially acceptable and that we should pander to it.
Well done, chojin. 5 pages! And we're essentially on the pretty subjective "You have more/less money than me and you're not in the real world, I have a better way of organising tax" - it could run and run yet.
I do miss TJ though - he could have taken this to 10 pages easily.
Yes, thank you for asking.do you even have a moral compass?
Do you have the ability to engage in a rational debate with someone who may just have a slightly different view to you over some things without resorting to inflammatory language? Or by extrapolating the argument to an extreme in order to try and justify why you think you may be right and anyone who is discussing an alternative view is completely wrong? Yes, yes, yes, I know that's the way discussions go on STW but every now again, is it too much to ask for some rational discussion?
Do you have the ability to engage in a rational debate with someone who may just have a slightly different view to you over some things without resorting to inflammatory language?
Sensible answers please and not just "politics of envy" answers.
is it too much to ask for some rational discussion?
I have not even got of this page yet.
You seem to be setting the tone for the debate then trying to claim some sort of moral high ground.
MM interesting
Still it means we are debating how we debate rather than you defending your view,its called moving the goal post BTW. So again
Lots of things aren't [superficially] fair, get over itso if it was your child starving to death you think this would be an adequate and fair response for me to deliver from my superyacht?
Its not that hard a question - still happy to defend your view?
Lots of things aren't [superficially] fair, get over it
Well that was my comment so I'm not sure if ....
do you even have a moral compass?
Was aimed at me? - if so I think you've taken it out of context as I was referring to how I deal with my kids contributing
Not aimed at you at all Bikingcatastrophe [BC} used your answer towards me and it was aimed at BC not you
Ah ..... OK apologies
Wit? Nope, I was serious. So far you written a lot of words but failed to demonstrate an understanding beyond that of a spoilt schoolchild. IMHO, of course.
Nothing to apologise for you only asked and were not rude
Not quite sure what your problem is JY? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the "politics of envy" statement but other than that the carefully selected comments you have quoted above were in response to your taking umbrage at what I said and then having a pop without actually adding anything to the debate. So, to clarify for you, the "politics of envy" request was to seek a more rational answer than the simple "anyone who earns more than me" which this sort of debate typically gets. Which, when the sneery veneer is stripped away is just plain old envy. And I had hoped you might be above and maybe even answer the question itself rather than seeing "pops" at you that don't exist.
If my child was starving to death I doubt I would be anywhere near you in your super yacht as our worlds are unlikely to cross. But, hypothetically, would I think it a fair and humane response? Of course not. Not really sure why you think I would.
Really? Seriously?Nope, I was serious. So far you written a lot of words but failed to demonstrate an understanding beyond that of a spoilt schoolchild. IMHO, of course.
So someone who has, possibly, a different view to you is a spoilt schoolchild?
In much the same way that someone who has different view from you has the politics of envy and lacks rationality ? You seem fast to insult and quick to be hurt- if you are disrespectful to folk they are likely to do it back*
But, hypothetically, would I think it a fair and humane response? Of course not. Not really sure why you think I would.
Why would I think you like your own answer ...do i really need to answer that?
*we are quick reaching the point of looking like we are just bickering so i am out
We live in a free society. People are free to move abroad for better weather, they are free to move abroad in order to pay less tax. If they do so it should not be seen as socially unacceptable. It's naive to target the rich for more tax then cry boo hoo if they chose to move abroad. Whatever you think of Cameron he made the obvious statement to wealthy French upon the imposition of 75% tax, come here you are welcome. That's just the same statement as the Swiss and Americans have made to wealthy Brits on the imposition of 50%/45% tax rate.
The rich pay a higher rate on a larger amount, that's why the top 1% pay 25% of the tax.
So someone who has, possibly, a different view to you is a spoilt schoolchild?
That's not what I'm saying, I disagree with people all the time, but rarely with someone with such simplistic ideas. Tell me, what's so much worse about the politics of envy than the politics of greed?
We live in a free society. People are free to move abroad for better weather, they are free to move abroad in order to pay less tax.
And I'm free to think that makes them greedy.
If they do so it should not be seen as socially unacceptable.
Why?
It's naive to target the rich for more tax then cry boo hoo if they chose to move abroad.
Which is why we need a worldwide socialist revolution. 😉
So, to clarify for you, the "politics of envy" request was to seek a more rational answer than the simple "anyone who earns more than me" which this sort of debate typically gets. Which, when the sneery veneer is stripped away is just plain old envy.
Oh so you were criticising an imaginary position than no-one had actually taken (and having a little sneer or your own)? I think that's known as a straw man fallacy.
The rich pay a higher rate on a larger amount, that's why the top 1% pay 25% of the tax.
Have you got a source for that?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15819873
The top 10% (48k and over) pay 53% of the cost of running the country.
The top 10% (48k and over) pay 53% of the cost of running the country.
According to [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom ]this[/url] wiki page the top 10% own 53% of total UK wealth. Remarkable correlation 🙂 Though my data is from 2004/5.
To me it makes perfect sense that those who benefit the most financially from living and working in the UK should contribute generously to maintain the status quo.
It must be more affordable to live in London if your former employers pay your rent for life (and the cost of your tax return and your fuel costs for your other house in Yorkshire and the cost of its security systems...)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19806014
And so they should farmer John
