Since when did the HMRC lower the 40% Income Tax threshold to £34k?

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.

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.

do you even have a moral compass?

Yes, thank you for asking.

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 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?

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.

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.

Really? Seriously?

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 this 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

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?

So what’s the simplistic idea (compared to your clearly complex and highly developed position of anyone who is “rich” should pay a higher percentage of tax) and where do I mention the politics of greed?

You seem fast to insult and quick to be hurt- if you are disrespectful to folk they are likely to do it back

While not wanting to be seen to be bickering where do you get fast to insult and quick to be hurt from? Where’s the insult? Where’s the hurt? Seems to me you were the first to be taking cheap shots or did you not notice that bit? Or perhaps maybe you feel you suffer from envy of those with greater wealth than you and (incorrectly) assumed I was having a pop at you? Perhaps you’re the fragile one?

Whatever, it could have been an interesting debate, but like so many on here, it got a bit derailed and petty.

Farmer_John – Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15819873
The top 10% (48k and over) pay 53% of the cost of running the country.

That only refers to income tax which doesn’t come close to covering the cost of running the country. There’s also National Insurance, VAT, alcohol duty, corporation tax ….

where do I mention the politics of greed?

Chuckles- he is doing a caricature of your position based on the politics of envy caricature you employed. I have no idea why you need that explaining to you

Where’s the insult?

You want me to quote them again?

Where’s the hurt?

ok I accept you dont care, happy now

Seems to me you were the first to be taking cheap shots or did you not notice that bit?

thankfully the thread is in chronological order it is there for all to see whatever your protest.

Or perhaps maybe you feel you suffer from envy of those with greater wealth than you and (incorrectly) assumed I was having a pop at you?

like i would be incorrectly assuming that this is having a pop at me 🙄

Whatever, it could have been an interesting debate, but like so many on here, it got a bit derailed and petty.

it was everyone else wasnt it?

I struggle with long sentences but my tuppence worth is we need Parliament to have a genuine will to ensure we all pay our fair share whether we earn £12000 pa or £1m+. The system is seriously failing when you pay less because you earn enough to buy an avoidance scheme. It’s socially and morally wrong to permit the rich to avoid direct taxes. The rate would be lower for us all if we resourced HMRC better and allowed it to:
a) genuinely tackle the black economy and the ‘social’ acceptance of tax evasion as ‘fair game’
b) prosecute 10x more cases similar to the DWP
c) chase debts owed rather than writing debt off as uncommercial and thus promoting more cases of none payment
d) clamp down on and/or prosecute those behind aggressive tax avoidance/evasion schemes

As for the poster who looked forward to HMRC being privatised, be careful what you wish for.

+1

As for the poster who looked forward to HMRC being privatised, be careful what you wish for.

Privateers?

HMRC currently provide a service to a large number of low income/tax credit claimants. That wouldn’t be hugely profitable. Plenty of profit in targetting the easy money but none in tackling the many many hard core avoiders/none payers at the lower end of the scale. The latest ‘efficiency savings reinvested’ were c£917m to return c£20billion after 5 years and c£7billion for each year thereafter. A decent return by anyone’s standards surely?