They avoid tax because they can. It’s irrelevant what tax system you have.

🙄

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. 😉

FFS when peole spped we dont increase the spped limit

Tax is the only thing where we are meant to change the rules due to the naughty kids and then they suggest this will actually lead to us getting more money if we do this.

We could have zero crime by just simply having no laws

OK TJ – last request for honesty as really not worth the effort.

Progressive taxes – distributes from the richer to the poorer.
Negative taxes – the opposite.

Is a flat rate of tax with a minimum threshold, progressive, neutral or negative? Simple question, no need to personalise the response. But it is important to clarify, otherwise the debate really is dishonest!

Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider it though. 😉
Not really a good analogy either as the rich aren’t likely to crash into the poor.

THM – it IS LESS PROGRESSIVE THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW THUS IT IS MORE REGRESSIVE IE THE RICH PAY LESS TAX. 50 billion tax cut to the rich

this is the bit you seem unable to understand.

With that I really will just ignore you as you are so dishonest in these debates. be a Thatcherite if you want to be – just don’t deny it and do not try to tell others that thatcherite muyths are facts

I think that combining NI and the lower rate of income tax into a single tax rate would be a good idea. A flat rate of tax for everybody (plus the personal allowance) seems like a good idea as long as it is watertight when it comes to avoiding paying tax. There is a big difference between percentages and absolute amounts…..

Or its down to the “squeezed middle” wanting to see rich people pay their fair share of tax.

I have just looked at the countries operating a flat tax system…some real success stories there. 🙄

Oh I do randomjeremy. A flat rate tax reduces the amount of tax paid by the rich

Either services need to be cut as in this proposal or the poor need to pay more tax to make up this shortfall

You cannot reduce taxation for the rich without either cutting service or increasing taxation elsewhere

Thats a very good swerve TJ and quite different from your opening line on what a flat rate of tax does. So be honest.

We may well agree that in comparison with the current system this proposal may well be less progressive. But the difference (while being subtle) is an important one. But never let fact…oh forget it, life is too short!!!

Funny how the mood of the forum suddenly changes!

edit

TJ does £13500 make me rich then? Cos my tax under this goes down. I really don’t think I am btw, still junky thinks I’m selfish and you think I’m rich!!

Weird world, I feel like I’m missing something that I don’t understand.

Surely Hollande has proved in the last couple of weeks that excessivley high taxation results in an overall reduction in tax take, due to the ‘fat cats’ fleeing abroad?

or has there not been a sudden surge of interest in West London Apartments within easy reach of the Eurostar terminal?

as Boris said – ‘Bienvenue a Londres’ 😉

What would this proposal do for employment in the accounting sector?

Surely we’d get a stonking saving from not having to employ vast numbers of people in HMRC (PAYE, self-assessment and NI)?

Not for the first time I’m disagreeing with TJ, as long as the ‘start’ amount is set at a decent number (say £10k) and both income tax and NI are abolished then even the poorly paid will be no worse off.

Also need to ensure that the rate applies to all income, including investment, Capital Gains, divi’s etc – and that everyone gets the same tax-free amount (unlike now!).

She would have married someone brighter if she was?
She married beneath her , all women do etc

I am sorry I should adopt a more tolerant approach to injustices lest a troll mocks me on the internet 😉

Why do you think they are not ? DS taught me this style of debate

Is it flat rate with a threshold? You can argue this either way..if you pay tax you pay the same as everyone else whether you earn £1 above the threshold or £20 billion. Its not called flat rate because it is progressive now is it ? If you pay tax you pay a flat rate. Selling this as “progressive” is spin and you know it. It is not designed to redistribute wealth or to make the rich pay more than the poor [ above the threshold] and you know this to. Bit of a MLEH point as we could argue it from either way so lets just agree that it is a flat rate with a threshold and discuss the effects of this?
On that point we can be fairly sure redistributing wealth is not one of the effects of this.

It is not progressive without a threshold…what were you saying about honesty and lack of understanding ?
Ok I give up you and TJ can have the floor on this one

Nah I would have to want to be a rich amoral asshole to be envious what I want is for people all over the world to eat and not die from preventable disease because some rich person has to have a £20 billion pound fortune because they worked hard…. I can see why this moral code is repellent to some 🙄

If I believe this argument [ I don’t] why not just change the law to make sure you get the 50% as 50 % is bigger than 30% hence why the rich want it lowered…they don’t want it lowered because they want to pay more tax do they…FFS how can anyone buy that as the reason for the change

Well you did just think of yourself didn’t you what would you call it?*
FWIW I have no issue witha large personal allowanc elike the lib dems say to change the burden form the really poor [ I think you are poor if that helps emsz] to the more well off. i do not support aflat rate tax as it it doe sshift the burden from the rich to the less well off/poor.
Do we need th graph that shows how much more the rich pay to prove this point or can we just accept if a billionairre plays 15 % less then asomeoen poorer has to pay more to counter this.
PS emsz the 30% tax rate is higher than basic rates so I assume middle /avergae earners would be worse off

* i was more lamenting the fact that Thatcher changed people’s perception from thinking about the common good to thinking about their own personal self interest than I was meaning to say anything personal about you. I did not mean to offend so apologies if I did

JY – please read my first post (including the bit about the threshold) and do the basic maths. Its really very simple. What I was saying about honesty, was let’s respect it!!! 😉

I did and I even quoted it and replied to it 🙄
Again Can we call it a flat rate with a threshold as that it what it is ?
FWIW if flat rate was progressive we would have no need for the word and tax coulld be divided into two types
regressive and progressive with flat rate as a sub set of progressive….that is how they teach economics isnt it? 😛
Anyway you and TJ have the floor on this I cant be arsed beyond what i have posted

Junky, when you put it like that I suppose j was being selfish! Duh!

I think I need to apologise too, sorry. 😳

Edit – Strange layout…

If you want to boost grow, reduce VAT to 15% and take a serious relook at the construction market and homes building.

Where does this “the rich wouldn’t dodge tax if we lowered it” argument come from? It’s cobblers. If you were getting paid 300 million a year and a nice friendly tax-loophole-finder accountant said “oh you can save £50 quid if you do this”, how many people would say “no no it’s ok I’ll pay the £50”?

not many

edit emsz has broken the internet