Tax the poor - not the rich

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

I actually partly agree with you on this one, and would quite like a flat tax. For the sake of argument though, two sensible reasons for charging a higher rate of tax to those that earn more:

• There is a theory that as your income levels rise, the spending of the individual decreases in relation to the increase of income. So to get this money in to the economy, it's taxed. I believe this is known as the 'Marginal Propensity to Consume.'
• There is another, quite interesting theory, that the wealthy in our society have more of a vested interested in aspects within society that are funded through taxation, i.e. the infrastructure of the country. I guess in real simple terms, if you're a rich factory owner who owns a massive factory, with 500 employees, it's in your interest that your employees have availability to health provision, that the police protect your property, that the legal system protects your factory. Therefore, the theory goes, that the rich factory owner pays more tax than his employees: he has more to lose if society goes 'wrong' because of a lack of funding.

Don't know if I fully agree with either of these, but there we go. We had some interesting lectures on this at Uni. However, I realised that I had forgotten the details and therefore looked on Wikipedia. Wish wiki had been invented when I was Uni.

Thank you. I found that really interesting.

Cleaver

lostinrates wrote: »

Thank you. I found that really interesting.

No probs.

By the way, I think both your intellect and natural beauty combined make you an astounding human being.

(I'm trying to get in to your signature).

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

(I'm trying to get in to your signature).

You made it but I had to do a ruthless edit, 350 characters indeed.:mad: I went looking for something else you wrote but it had been deleted .

Its an experiment rather than an exercise in narcism.

technik_2

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Indeed it is. On the same logic that tax should be paid at the same percentage of everyone's income, the same must be true for housing costs, food, fuel, holidays etc.

As someone not in the higher rate tax band I look forward to you rich types agreeing to subsidise everything else i spend money on as fair recompense for me having to pay as much tax as you.

explain how paying 25% on £25,000 as compared to 25% on £100,000 (as an example) means you'd be "paying as much tax" as the person earning £100k?

basically you wouldn't be because they'd be paying as much tax as your gross income.

with that in mind it seems ludicrous to even dare suggest those earning more should stump up even more cash because everyone else is somehow entitled to it.

icefall

Its the title of this thread that keeps catching my eye

aliballi

Generali wrote: »

The University of Buckinghamshire (a private uni) does a teaching degree and a PGCE. There's nothing to stop you doing your practice in a fee paying school. [QUOTE/]

But that's just a one off. All other Teacher training courses are funded by tax payers, which was the point I was making, rather than just one stand alone private teachers training course.

nickj_2

if you tax the poor , then they will be unable to buy goods or services provided by the rich - thus making them poor too - it's a win win , everyone will end up poor

Generali

aliballi wrote: »

But that's just a one off. All other Teacher training courses are funded by tax payers, which was the point I was making, rather than just one stand alone private teachers training course.

Don't students fund their own courses these days?

besonders1

well there the solution for rich people - don't be so rich and you'll pay less tax LOL

treliac

nickj wrote: »

if you tax the poor , then they will be unable to buy goods or services provided by the rich - thus making them poor too - it's a win win , everyone will end up poor

Most of us feel it already!