Tax the poor - not the rich

sporedude

In Scotland our fees are paid for us I think.

cocktail

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Lower earners pay a higher percentage in tax than higher earners.

Somebody earning £20K pays a higher percentage in VAT than a higher earner buying the same products.

Under the Tories, the tax take increased but higher earner undoubtedly paid less tax. Therefore, lower earners MUST have been paying more despite the notional reduction in income tax rates.

GG

precisely, for that reason and for equality, there should be only one rate of tax for everyone.
you earn 10,000--tax say 20%=2000
you earn 50,000--tax=10,000
the tax threshold should be removed.keeps it simple.
its simply not fair to tax someone more because they can afford it.
most people who are high earners are there due to their efforts and hardwork.

perplexed.com

One thing I would like someone to explain to me is if by some chance, good fortune or even a miracle everyone in the country ( lets stick to UK for the argument's sake ) became motivated, industrious and contributed equally how could we all get to the top of the pyramid? There just isn't enough room which suggests to me that there is at present a proportion ( maybe a large one ) of people who are just as 'deserving' of reward/wealth as those who have this but there is not enough space at the top for them. Our society is too steep a pyramid to be fair.

matbe

perplexed.com wrote: »

One thing I would like someone to explain to me is if by some chance, good fortune or even a miracle everyone in the country ( lets stick to UK for the argument's sake ) became motivated, industrious and contributed equally how could we all get to the top of the pyramid? There just isn't enough room which suggests to me that there is at present a proportion ( maybe a large one ) of people who are just as 'deserving' of reward/wealth as those who have this but there is not enough space at the top for them. Our society is too steep a pyramid to be fair.

Perfect world scenario.

If you gave everyone in the UK a million pounds, by next month there would be some people with a hundred million and some people who owed a hundred million.

There are are plenty of scum chavs and !!!!less to prop up the pyramid.

mangadarkogirl

On the fees front, most LEA's pay tuition fees in the UK. However they can change their minds. I had my tuition fee payments canceled two months from my 2nd year as they wanted to invest in trades qualifications.

As always, the government in Scotland is better, and the students there don't pay for University.

reweird

The_White_Horse wrote: »

There are far more poor people, so we should take more of their money. plus more punitive rates will encourage people to earn more.

It should be:

0-10,000 = 60%

10k - 25k = 40%

25k - 50k = 20%

50k + = 10%

much fairer. and lets face it, the poor use most of theservices provided by our taxes.

Plus, private medical and private school fees should be tax deductible. There are 4000 kids without school places in London this year! If parents didn't send children private, this would be 20-30000 kids without school.

In any case, it is pure discrimination to charge people a higher rate as they earn more. why not charge men more, or blondes more, or black people more?? because it is discrimination.

There should be one rate of tax, at 25% and someone earning 10k will pay 2.5k and someone on 100k will pay 25k. That is fair. that is the only fair way.

Actually this idea might not be as crazy as first thought. It's out of the box blue thinking like this idea that might help rekick start the economy.

homelessskilledworker

The_White_Horse wrote: »

There are far more poor people, so we should take more of their money. plus more punitive rates will encourage people to earn more.

It should be:

0-10,000 = 60%

10k - 25k = 40%

25k - 50k = 20%

50k + = 10%

much fairer. and lets face it, the poor use most of theservices provided by our taxes.

Plus, private medical and private school fees should be tax deductible. There are 4000 kids without school places in London this year! If parents didn't send children private, this would be 20-30000 kids without school.

In any case, it is pure discrimination to charge people a higher rate as they earn more. why not charge men more, or blondes more, or black people more?? because it is discrimination.

There should be one rate of tax, at 25% and someone earning 10k will pay 2.5k and someone on 100k will pay 25k. That is fair. that is the only fair way.

Well I always thought that Alan !!!!!!! from the New Statesman was a fictious character, seems I was wrong. Your thought are appalling and show complete ignorance to the inbalances of wealth in the UK.
I cannot remember the figure off the top of my head, I will check later, but something like the top 5% of people in the UK have 50% of the wealth. It has been stated that if the top 5% were made to hand over 20%(now this is fact) of their wealth in one hit, that would clear ALL government debt.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

Good bit of trolling. Nice one.

i think it's quite a mediocre bit of trolling, especially as he contradicts himself by saying that there should be a sliding scale of tax, inversely proportional to earnings, and then goes on to say that the only fair way is to have 25% across the board regardless of earnings. if you're going to troll you could at least do so in a consistent manner.

cotleigh

If you drasticaly reduced the number of "services" that the government insists on providing and let people keep the money that they earn, we wouldn't need much in taxes. People could just organise and pay for their own needs.

Why should I pay for, for example, the whole rotten edifice of "social services" when I will never use them?

Pennywise

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Well I always thought that Alan !!!!!!! from the New Statesman was a fictious character, seems I was wrong. Your thought are appalling and show complete ignorance to the inbalances of wealth in the UK.
I cannot remember the figure off the top of my head, I will check later, but something like the top 5% of people in the UK have 50% of the wealth. It has been stated that if the top 5% were made to hand over 20%(now this is fact) of their wealth in one hit, that would clear ALL government debt.

Far too simplistic - as with all these kinds of idea, good in theory, but no thought to the practicalities.

But which government would they give it to? For example, your rich pop start, actor, TV presenter or footballer who's currently "living" in Switzerland, or Cayman Islands, or wherever - who do they pay it to. Not much good if it goes to the tax haven government is it? How can you force someone resident in Monte Carlo to give their 20% to the UK government?

What if the "money" isn't liquid, i.e. it may be invested in businesses or property. Are you wanting Richard Branson to hand over 20% of his shares in Virgin to a tax haven government?

You can easily find yourself handing over vast amounts of wealth to dodgy or corrupt governments making the "leaders" of those governments even more wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

The genie is out of the bottle. We have globalisation now. People are free to move jurisdictions. Or are you suggesting some other new rules that say your country of birth has to remain your country where taxes are paid, or should it be the country of your father, or what, regardless of where you live and work today?