This really hacked me off yesterday

[tedebear]

Are you asking me if you were agreeing with me?

no ??

 

[fatboy]

Is it actually morally acceptable for the huge inequality between rich and poor, when the links between effort and reward are very often not clear

There are many many thousands of people earning 1,2,3,4,5 million pounds a year - are they working any harder than doris on the checkout at tescos? Or Sam the fireman who risks his life regularly? Its basic unfairness.

I know many many people who work in the city, their nights out are covered by expense accounts, they get bonuses of £10'000s but are not working any harder than most people on 12k a year.
We all know a lot of how well you do in a career is to do with social background, education and of course luck. There is no level playing field, people dont start from the same level, a truely fair tax system recognises this.

The point of a progressive tax system is it is fair, in that it helps redistribute wealth. Im not talking about the general professional who has been working for 15 years and is now on 60k a year, but there most definately should be a higher rate of tax than 40% for those earning, say £200,000. An additional 10% on earnings over that amount should not be a burden to them, and if this puts them off working in the UK, well sod them, take their greedy arses and f*** off somewhere else.

Don't agree with that at all.

Someone who has studied for years to achieve a professional qualification for example, doctors, lawyers, accountants have worked very hard to get where they are.

How hard has Doris worked to get her job in Tesco?

 

[Highfields Seagull]

Is it actually morally acceptable for the huge inequality between rich and poor, when the links between effort and reward are very often not clear

There are many many thousands of people earning 1,2,3,4,5 million pounds a year - are they working any harder than doris on the checkout at tescos? Or Sam the fireman who risks his life regularly? Its basic unfairness.

I know many many people who work in the city, their nights out are covered by expense accounts, they get bonuses of £10'000s but are not working any harder than most people on 12k a year.
We all know a lot of how well you do in a career is to do with social background, education and of course luck. There is no level playing field, people dont start from the same level, a truely fair tax system recognises this.

The point of a progressive tax system is it is fair, in that it helps redistribute wealth. Im not talking about the general professional who has been working for 15 years and is now on 60k a year, but there most definately should be a higher rate of tax than 40% for those earning, say £200,000. An additional 10% on earnings over that amount should not be a burden to them, and if this puts them off working in the UK, well sod them, take their greedy arses and f*** off somewhere else.

 

[finbar]

Yes, they have probably studied hard. What this has to do with tax rates is 90% irrelevant. They are being p.a.i.d more because of it, that is their reward. However...

Can these people afford to pay 10% extra of anything over 200k they earn? I would argue they can. All those 10% s cumulatively would be enough to cover something like tuition fees for students etc etc etc.

The debate really comes down to your political point of view i believe. On one side is the right wing view of ultra low taxation and zero public services, the other is ultra high taxes which leads to zero entrepreneurship (sic). I think it is generally accepted the best approach is in the middle.

From my perspective (ive studied hard, have a degree, earn well) i would be more than happy to give something extra back if I were earning a salary of 200k p/y. I recognise i was lucky to go to university, and although i had to take out student loans, i pissed most of them up the wall so am not complaining. I didnt go to university to improve the world, but my own life. Thats happened, and now I believe the richest people should pay more percentage wise.

 

[Zeitgeist]

Hasn't trying to push those on sickness benefit into work been tried before? It seems like a pre election gimic by B.liar to try and steal the tories thunder. It's a fact more money is lost due to tax scams and the like by the "fat cats"of this country than due to benefit fraud. The government and their agencies are quite content to go for easy targets, ie: The single mother who is struggling to make ends meet and has earned a few extra pounds without declaring it, rather than some corporate fraudster on a blatant tax avoidance scam. Contrary to what some may believe in the Daily mail, not all claimants are spongers on the state. Some have ended up there through no fault of their own due to circumstance.

Regarding tax, those on basic P.A.Y.E. are the ones carrying the real tax burden of this country. They don't have the oportunities to avoid their tax, unlike the higher earners mentioned previously and the self employed.

 

[Pavilionaire]

If your gross salary is £200K you'd already be paying c. £80K to the government in tax, c. £5K National Insurance AND the government would also be getting a whopping £25K National Insurance from your employer.

So you get £115K and the government gets £110K from your employment - virtually 50-50.

If tax rates were increased, even by 1 1/2%, the government would then be earning more than you - how is THAT fair?

 

[Blackadder]

I don't have a problem with those earning more paying 40%.

I do, however, think that the threshold where people start paying 40% is too low. It has been lowered in real terms in successive budgets under the current government.

There are quite a few people being caught by the 40% tax trap who wouldn't consider themselves that well off!

 

[Lammy]

Is it actually morally acceptable for the huge inequality between rich and poor, when the links between effort and reward are very often not clear

There are many many thousands of people earning 1,2,3,4,5 million pounds a year - are they working any harder than doris on the checkout at tescos? Or Sam the fireman who risks his life regularly? Its basic unfairness.

I know many many people who work in the city, their nights out are covered by expense accounts, they get bonuses of £10'000s but are not working any harder than most people on 12k a year.
We all know a lot of how well you do in a career is to do with social background, education and of course luck. There is no level playing field, people dont start from the same level, a truely fair tax system recognises this.

The point of a progressive tax system is it is fair, in that it helps redistribute wealth. Im not talking about the general professional who has been working for 15 years and is now on 60k a year, but there most definately should be a higher rate of tax than 40% for those earning, say £200,000. An additional 10% on earnings over that amount should not be a burden to them, and if this puts them off working in the UK, well sod them, take their greedy arses and f*** off somewhere else.

I think you need to go and live in China!!

 

[Lammy]

I don't have a problem with those earning more paying 40%.

I do, however, think that the threshold where people start paying 40% is too low. It has been lowered in real terms in successive budgets under the current government.

There are quite a few people being caught by the 40% tax trap who wouldn't consider themselves that well off!

I agree with this point.

 

[Wilko]

I don't have a problem with those earning more paying 40%.

I do, however, think that the threshold where people start paying 40% is too low. It has been lowered in real terms in successive budgets under the current government.

There are quite a few people being caught by the 40% tax trap who wouldn't consider themselves that well off!

I was going to make much the same point. The threshold for the 40% payment should be higher thus targetting those who really are earning BIG money.

The tax debate will never be resolved though because as someone mentioned earlier it depends on your political opinion, should tax payments be equal across the board or should it be meritocratic ??

I guess one problem is at the high end of the wages structure you have a division of people who have worked bloody hard to get a top job, those who have inherited a top job from 'daddy' and then an abundance of talentless celebrities - is it really fair to pop them all in the same tax bracket basket ?

 

[finbar]

I think you need to go and live in China!!

Why is that then?

Please explain exactly why because i think the top rate of tax for those earning over 200k should be higher that i should go and live in china?

I think you need to read more

 

[Lammy]

There are many many thousands of people earning 1,2,3,4,5 million pounds a year - are they working any harder than doris on the checkout at tescos? Or Sam the fireman who risks his life regularly? Its basic unfairness.

If everyone is working as hard as each other why not pay them all the same?

That is how China works. I suggest you try it for yourself.

Personally I'd much rather live in a society that rewards entrepreneurship that creates employment for others. Let's encourage the best minds in the world to work in our country by taxing them to high heaven....

 

[finbar]

If everyone is working as hard as each other why not pay them all the same?

That is how China works. I suggest you try it for yourself.

Personally I'd much rather live in a society that rewards entrepreneurship that creates employment for others. Let's encourage the best minds in the world to work in our country by taxing them to high heaven....

Duh, im not suggeting everyone earns the same (which isnt how it is in china, but anyway).

What is it about people like you that makes you think because someone advocates the top earners paying more they are a communinist/maoist?

and also, you say "Let's encourage the best minds in the world to work in our country by taxing them to high heaven" - no, that wont work, that why im suggesting an extra 10 percent on anything OVER 200k.

and another quote - "Personally I'd much rather live in a society that rewards entrepreneurship that creates employment for others. " Well thats now russia (so you cant say that). I suggest you try it for yourself.

 

[Highfields Seagull]

If your gross salary is £200K you'd already be paying c. £80K to the government in tax, c. £5K National Insurance AND the government would also be getting a whopping £25K National Insurance from your employer.

So you get £115K and the government gets £110K from your employment - virtually 50-50.

If tax rates were increased, even by 1 1/2%, the government would then be earning more than you - how is THAT fair?

That's not true. You wouldn't be paying 40% on all of your salary, but on the amount over the 40% threshold.

IMHO they should raise the 40% tax threshold (as said by others, the threshold keeps getting lower in real terms) and introduce a higher tax band as well.

 

[Lammy]

Duh, im not suggeting everyone earns the same (which isnt how it is in china, but anyway).

What is it about people like you that makes you think because someone advocates the top earners paying more they are a communinist/maoist?

and also, you say "Let's encourage the best minds in the world to work in our country by taxing them to high heaven" - no, that wont work, that why im suggesting an extra 10 percent on anything OVER 200k.

and another quote - "Personally I'd much rather live in a society that rewards entrepreneurship that creates employment for others. " Well thats now russia (so you cant say that). I suggest you try it for yourself.

communism, Communism [Show phonetics]
noun
the belief in a society without different classes in which the methods of production are owned and controlled by all its members and everyone works as much as they can and receives what they need.

i.e. everyone gets the same, no matter what job they do.

The statement you made about a millionaire working just as hard as a tesco checkout lady being unfair is basically a communist thing to say. You have totally disregarded how the millionaire came to be. I would suggest it is from a lot more stress, hard work, risk taking and nouce than someone working on a checkout. Thus, totally fair.

Russia, btw is a capatalist country the same as the USA and the UK.

China on the other hand is Communist.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The 40% tax threshold starts at about £ 35k. Small fry , no big hitters. If you have a mortgage on a bog standard semi , kids etc a man would need to earn £ 40000 a year as a minimum bench mark to just survive.

People who get off their arses and try and make something of themselves through sheer bloody hard work, skill, dedication and endeavour should not be forced out of this country.

Same wage for everyone , MY ARSE !.

 

[Simster]

China on the other hand is Communist.

In name only, Lammy.

I agree with those who point out that the 40% tax bracket is too low, and I too think we should have a 50% bracket on income over £200k.

If you accept that we don't all start on a level playing field, then how can you not accept that a progressive income tax is the best way of redistributing wealth? If we had a standard tax rate of 25%, then those earning £20k pa are paying proportionately more of their disposable income than those earning £2mill pa. After all, after neccessities like food & clothes, that 25% represents maybe 40% of what is left to the former but only about 25.1% to the latter.

And for this mess, I blame Nigel Lawson and weak governments since then - Lawson abolished the top rate of income tax in the '80s when we couldn't really afford to do so, and successive governments have been too scared to put it back again. So instead, we've had to put up with unfair stealth taxes all over the shop.