Tax the poor - not the rich

wotsthat

cotleigh wrote: »

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

Because a) you benefit from social services whether you directly access them or not and b) you are fortunate enough to live in a society where the most vulnerable are protected.

The more sensible questions would be; social services - are the services they deliver effective and could they be delivered at a lower cost?

dtsazza

cepheus wrote: »

I don't think anyone should be able to consistently earn more than 100k/annum because no-one could work that hard to justify this amount. The amount of Tax should be based on their contribution to wider society not the firm they work for.

I don't agree with that at all - you don't get paid based on effort, it's how productive you are that matters, not how much sweat you emitted at your job. Consequently it's eminently possible for someone to earn this much.

Let's say someone writes a novel, and they sell it to their neighbour for £10. Assuming it's a good book, I don't think anyone would begrudge them that.

Now let's say that the same individual has sold their book to one million people over a year. Each person paid the same price for the book, got the same enjoyment, and our author is now £10 million better off.

What's happened here is that the product that the author is producing is in economic terms "utility", or in everyday terms "the happiness of reading a good story". When more people read the book, the author's contribution to societal happiness/utility increased - just as much as if a carpenter made 80,000 chairs a month instead of 80. This author is contributing a thousand times as much to society as another author that sells 1,000 books, so it's not inconsistent at all for them to earn a thousand times as much.

(In practice the author won't be able to distribute a million books themselves as they would with a single book. So they'll engage the services of others to handle packaging, distribution, payment services etc., all of whom will take a cut from the £10m. But the principle of being able to produce enough for society to legitimately earn lots still holds.)

Lady_Aga

mangadarkogirl wrote: »

Yes, this is the sort of conversation we should be having.

I think there is a line between poor and rich not being looked at here:

poor - people on the dole who don't want to work, benefit hoarders

[STRIKE]middle [/STRIKE] working class - people who aren't mega rich, average households who have two full time earners (or one part time with children) who work for anyone from public sector to minimum wage retail etc who earn around or less than £25,000 each full time. Generally living from wage packet to wage packet.

middle class - schoolteachers, dr's, dentists, police officers, magistrates etc. People whose parents probably went to grammar school/university, second-generation home-owners, people whose parents have a good pension, probably will inherit some money.

rich - comfortable, have worked their way up the ladder from the bottom, or come from a higher income family.

The government/media have done a very good job over the last 20 years to try and eradicate the working classes. We are not all the aspirational middle class now.

Half the working population earns less than £21,000 per year and are in admin, shop jobs and call centres. These are the working classes.

People do not get what they deserve in life. A working class genius versus a middle class moron may lose out every time in the job stakes because they do not have the contacts or money to fund an internship to get a foot in the door. There is not room at the top.

Our young people have been lied to. Going to university does not guarentee you a good job.

People who earn a lot of money do not necessarily work harder or contribute more to society than hospital cleaners or care assistants on minimum wage. It is a real insult to claim that the harder you work the more you will be financially rewarded.

iltisman

That nice Mr Brown had the right idea "I am going to simplify the tax system doing away with the 10% rate" = pay up 20% you poor scum.

paulmapp8306

I kind of agree with charging everybody the same rate of tax. Taht is after all fair.

BUT - a big but, maybe that tax should be on income AFTER essential outgoings.

So - Food, Utilities, Rent/mortgage. Tax everyone a higher % on whats left - say 40% or so?.

As a low earner Id be happy with that, because id have nothing left to tax !!!, and the rich would have their single rate of tax - and their more expensive homes (and therefore bills) would also not be penalised.

The_White_Horse

there are no classes. all there is is scum and non-scum. it transcends wealth, race, religion and anything else you want it to.

scum v. non-scum.

that is all there is.

but like everything, it is not black and white - it can change.

generally a teacher would be non-scum. but today, they have become scum due to their decision to strike because they can no longer get a massive pension without paying for it. tragic.

paulmapp8306

Pennywise wrote: »

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?

Personally, I think you should pay tax's to:

1. Any country where you liev
2. Any country in which you earn money.

So - you pay tax on income to the coutry it was earned in - and tax on "living expenses" etc (VAT, council tax, NI in our case0 to the country you live.

pinkteapot

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

I kind of agree with charging everybody the same rate of tax. Taht is after all fair.

BUT - a big but, maybe that tax should be on income AFTER essential outgoings.

So - Food, Utilities, Rent/mortgage. Tax everyone a higher % on whats left - say 40% or so?.

As a low earner Id be happy with that, because id have nothing left to tax !!!, and the rich would have their single rate of tax - and their more expensive homes (and therefore bills) would also not be penalised.

How on earth could that work in practice? You could have two people earning the same amount. One chooses to live in a huge house and do their weekly shop at Waitrose. They'd pay no tax. One could live frugally in a small house eating Tesco value beans cooked over a camping stove and pay 40% tax. It would encourage people to p*ss money up the wall - just what we need more of in this country.

Then you'd have to define essential. Is your entire electricity bill "essential" or is powering your TV for three hours a day optional?

I think this suggestion is actually more ill-conceived than the OP.

TWH you crack me up. I assume that the distinction between scum and non-scum isn't based on quantifiable measures but on guidelines set by you? Have you seen the news about the Occupy lot taking over a disused UBS building to set up a "Bank of Ideas" where people can go to talk and exchange thoughts. Bet you have some views on that.

The_White_Horse

i am the ultimate authority on the scum/non-distinction. when i am benign dictator all will be well in the world.

The_White_Horse

i have - it should be sealed and demolished with them in it.