Should we tax the rich more?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The top 10% of earners pay 53% of all income tax raised.

The other 90% of earners pay just 47%.

A common theme these days seems to be tax the rich more.

So who are "the rich"?

Why should they pay more, given how much more they already pay?

And if so, then how much more should they pay?

oldvicar

Wrong options for me Hamish, so I can't vote.

Firstly to me "rich" means a store of wealth, not just an income. It doesn't matter how much someone earns if it doesn't pay the debts.

Secondly, why focus on 'earnings'? The rich don't 'earn' their income.

Thirdly (and this should please you) if its about income and not earnings, then you need options which cover all levels of unearned state handouts, not just those over £30K.

Overall, I would say rich is best reflected by an income over USD $5000 (well above the median income in this world).

Generali

IME, the rich are those that earn comfortably more than you expect to earn after the next payrise at work.

The wealthy are those with a net worth considerably greater than you expect to acquire during your life.

Look at the howls of rage that some posters expressed when it was suggested that giving benefits to the top 15% of earners wasn't a great use of money. Most people consider themselves to be of modest means.

kabayiri

For me, the issue is down to a retention of capital within the UK.

An example.

Over the last decade or less Sir Philip Green has sent £1.2 billion+ of dividend payment to his wife. Obviously this was done for tax efficient means. Nevertheless, that money earned from UK spending is now more likely being spent on Monaco property; French Yachts; German Cars sold on the continent.

The original idea that money was just the lubricant that supported the circulation of wealth and investment around our communities no longer applies in these cases. When that happens doesn't it mean it eventually breaks down ?

abaxas

You should not discriminate against high earners or they will either change working systems for ones of less tax (ltd company) or !!!!!! off.

If you really wanted to tax them, you should use VAT as it was intended. Tax high value good instead.

ruggedtoast

oldvicar wrote: »

Wrong options for me Hamish, so I can't vote.

Firstly to me "rich" means a store of wealth, not just an income. It doesn't matter how much someone earns if it doesn't pay the debts.

Secondly, why focus on 'earnings'? The rich don't 'earn' their income.

Thirdly (and this should please you) if its about income and not earnings, then you need options which cover all levels of unearned state handouts, not just those over £30K.

Overall, I would say rich is best reflected by an income over USD $5000 (well above the median income in this world).

Exactly, actual taxable income comprises a proportion of very wealthy people's assets but it is by no means the whole picture.

If you start to look at how disproportionately skewed the world'd wealth is around a small percentage of people, they should be paying more considering they have more than everyone else put together.

The problem is that taxation is doing very little to redistribute wealth, as its either fiddled off the books, or just returned right back to the people at the top of the heap.

This isnt fair or desirable. For example a company like Vodafone, a vast unwieldy, customer unfriendly contract changing monopoly, has all kinds of creative ways at their disposal to avoid paying tax on their profits, or just hide their profits altogether. They can offshore, outsource, buy favour with politicians to get vast write offs. Very nice.

Meanwhile an innovative telecoms start up gets clobbered for every penny and struggles to survive.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The top 10% of earners pay 53% of all income tax raised.

The other 90% of earners pay just 47%.

I don't like the way this is presented (now hot you have presented it, it's often presented that way).

On a personal level, the rich often pay far less in percentage terms of income, than the lower incomes do.

A £60 tank of fuel costs approx £45 in fuel duty. That £45 is a hell of a lot more as a percentage for someone earning £1500 a month than it is for someone earning £100,000 a month.

It's all relative. The rich may pay 53% of total taxation. But the lower incomes pay a higher percentage of their salary over.

Mallotum_X

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The top 10% of earners pay 53% of all income tax raised.

The other 90% of earners pay just 47%.

A common theme these days seems to be tax the rich more.

So who are "the rich"?

Why should they pay more, given how much more they already pay?

And if so, then how much more should they pay?

What average rage of tax do the top few pay would be a more important consideration than how much they pay. If they earn 53% or more of all income then its fair. If however the top 10% earn more... then they are not paying their fair proportion are they.

itsnever2lateisit?

As has been ststed the very rich don't earn. What is needed is not higher taxation, but a reduction in opportunity for tax avoidance, be it an individual or company.

For examplw why should companies that are entirely entrepreneurial in the UK pay their VAT in another EU country?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Is this in relation to the Nick Robinson programme on BBC2 last night? I thought it raised lots of interesting points about our attitude to tax, and how difficult it is for politicians to get it from somewhere.

High end London property bought by offshore companies is an absolute disgrace- surely no politician could lose by hammering this loophole firmly shut? Alistair Campbell made a good point in his Leveson questioning about how influential our newspapers are, but they are nearly all owned by non-doms. How can this be right?

I personally wouldn't mind paying higher taxes for a better society (Scandinavian style) but I appreciate I'm in the minority.

ruggedtoast

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Is this in relation to the Nick Robinson programme on BBC2 last night? I thought it raised lots of interesting points about our attitude to tax, and how difficult it is for politicians to get it from somewhere.

High end London property bought by offshore companies is an absolute disgrace- surely no politician could lose by hammering this loophole firmly shut? Alistair Campbell made a good point in his Leveson questioning about how influential our newspapers are, but they are nearly all owned by non-doms. How can this be right?

I personally wouldn't mind paying higher taxes for a better society (Scandinavian style) but I appreciate I'm in the minority.

That raises an interesting point. Generally people operate on an in group and out group basis, that especially in country like Britain, entrenches the class system.

Imagine going back a few hundred years when all the Royal Family of Europe were related. My knowledge of Elizabethan history is pretty pitiful and I'm not going to spend hours on google finding out what was related to whom; but generally who did the King of England feel more in common with; the King of Spain or the Queen of Holland, or the guy who fed his horses every morning.

Super wealthy non doms get a lot of help in the UK because as far as the people who run the UK are concerned, super wealthy non doms are "people like us".

Brenda the nurse in Coventry striking to save her £5000 a year pension is just a pain in the neck.

I think people assume that because our politicians are "British" they feel an affinity towards British people and will when push comes to a shove act in those people's interests. But neo-liberalism doesnt care about national boundaries or feel much provincial patriotism. This is especially obvious in the US, the supposed richest country in the world where a vast proportion of the populace lives on the bread line with no adequate public or health services.