Should we tax the rich more?

abaxas

Lets tax the pension rich more..... :P

drc

The rich already pay more tax don't they? Someone earning £100k would pay more tax than someone earning £10k in ratio terms (i.e 40% of £100k is more than 40% of £10k? - not that the £10k earner would be paying 40% anyway).

You need to be very careful with regards to taxing people more. You don't want a situation where high earners are taxed so much that they either move abroad or that they stop working so hard because they don't get to keep the fruits of their labour.

The tax on unearned income should be looked at though.

sabretoothtigger

Who are "the rich"?

Anyone over 10k is rich.
Sorry people dont think so but we in the UK are spoiled, alot of people who say they cant cope on 'low' salaries dont know how to cook for themselves which usually means alot of expense and so on
(obviously there is the case of ridiculous house prices / rents but in general..)

Im for a flat tax rate in principle or at least direction mostly because discouraging those who earn more is a dull policy when you already are taking a percentage, if they earn a million then that is great for the UK and you want them to stay here and spend the earnings after tax also, etc

princeofpounds

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.

These are probably the most important points on the thread so far, and I'm glad they appeared so quickly and were repeated in one form or another.

A income of £100k sounds like a lot, and a net take-home of 5.4k pcm sounds great, but when all that gets you is a 2 bedroom flat to rent in Brixton at almost half your take-home earnings, you have to ask yourself is that truly RICH? Don't forget that that sort of income puts you in the top 5% of earners, but it doesn't give you a top 5% lifestyle.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-31784134.html?backListLink=%2Fproperty-to-rent%2Fmap.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DOUTCODE%255E2517%26insId%3D1%26minPrice%3D2000%26maxPrice%3D2500%23_includeLetAgreed%3Don%26houseFlatShare%3Dfalse%26locationIdentifier%3DOUTCODE%255E2517%26maxPrice%3D2500%26minPrice%3D2000%26previousSearchLocation%3DSW4%26radius%3D0.0%26searchLocation%3DSW4%26searchType%3DRENT%26sortByNewestListing%3Dfalse%26useLocationIdentifier%3Dfalse%26box%3D-0.12943%2C-0.11493%2C51.45982%2C51.46643%26popupPropertyId%3D31784134%26mapType%3DMap&fromMap=true

They truly rich do not simply earn a high salary. They own assets that produce income (or allow them to avoid costs like rent). In economic terms, we shouldn't be looking at labour as the factor of production that matters, so much as capital and land/resources.

There are many more options for avoiding tax in that structure than through income (those big city bonuses you hear about, these days even they do not escape taxation in a meaningful way - the private equity carry is about the only system left and it comes with genuine performance risks attached).

By focusing on income, the people hurt are the 'working' rich - doctors, lawyers, mid-ranking finance workers. Fortunate and ambitious people perhaps, but probably not looking at more than a comfortable retirement, 2 kids through private school and a 4/5 bed house in a nice area. They should contribute a good share, but it is hardly justifying punitive rates.

JimmyTheWig

ruggedtoast wrote: »

My knowledge of Elizabethan history is pretty pitiful

You are right, there, if you think that there was a

King of England

at the time!

OptionARMAGEDDON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Yes but they didnt work as hard at school. Most bullies and people that were d*cks at my school are now in dead end jobs with rugrats to numerous different scags. Their choice, not mine. I worked my nuts off from the start of secondary to the end of a very difficult engineering degree.

Who is laughing now?

Pete111

abaxas wrote: »

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.

Correct - My other half did that last year. She now pays 32% tax rather than 52%

Great for us - not so great for UK PLC

Pete111

princeofpounds wrote: »

These are probably the most important points on the thread so far, and I'm glad they appeared so quickly and were repeated in one form or another.

A income of £100k sounds like a lot, and a net take-home of 5.4k pcm sounds great, but when all that gets you is a 2 bedroom flat to rent in Brixton at almost half your take-home earnings, you have to ask yourself is that truly RICH? Don't forget that that sort of income puts you in the top 5% of earners, but it doesn't give you a top 5% lifestyle.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-31784134.html?backListLink=%2Fproperty-to-rent%2Fmap.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DOUTCODE%255E2517%26insId%3D1%26minPrice%3D2000%26maxPrice%3D2500%23_includeLetAgreed%3Don%26houseFlatShare%3Dfalse%26locationIdentifier%3DOUTCODE%255E2517%26maxPrice%3D2500%26minPrice%3D2000%26previousSearchLocation%3DSW4%26radius%3D0.0%26searchLocation%3DSW4%26searchType%3DRENT%26sortByNewestListing%3Dfalse%26useLocationIdentifier%3Dfalse%26box%3D-0.12943%2C-0.11493%2C51.45982%2C51.46643%26popupPropertyId%3D31784134%26mapType%3DMap&fromMap=true

They truly rich do not simply earn a high salary. They own assets that produce income (or allow them to avoid costs like rent). In economic terms, we shouldn't be looking at labour as the factor of production that matters, so much as capital and land/resources.

There are many more options for avoiding tax in that structure than through income (those big city bonuses you hear about, these days even they do not escape taxation in a meaningful way - the private equity carry is about the only system left and it comes with genuine performance risks attached).

By focusing on income, the people hurt are the 'working' rich - doctors, lawyers, mid-ranking finance workers. Fortunate and ambitious people perhaps, but probably not looking at more than a comfortable retirement, 2 kids through private school and a 4/5 bed house in a nice area. They should contribute a good share, but it is hardly justifying punitive rates.

Many good points there but slightly disingeunous on the property comparison given that's a 3 bed. Until recently I rented out a very nice 2 bed garden flat in Wimbledon for £1300 p/m, which would only be a quarter of take home pay in your example.

grizzly1911

drc wrote: »

The tax on unearned income should be looked at though.

Why?

For many in the modest camp it has already been taxed once, is still being taxed at their highest rate.

For many low to modest people it is often their to supplement or instead of a pension provision.

wymondham

No, you should not tax the rich more. Why? just because they have been successful and willing to get off their **** and do something?

We should encourage people to be successful rather than penalise them.

Instead, the tax system should be completely overhauled as it's not fit for purpose. Stop the loopholes, make it easier to understand and harder to avoid.