We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Should we tax the rich more?
Comments
-
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?
Well done Hamish. You watched BBC 2 last night. :rotfl:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017x34r/Your_Money_and_How_They_Spend_It_Episode_2/
Feel free to circulate the ideas and arguments as your own.0 -
Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »Is this in relation to the Nick Robinson programme on BBC2 last night?
Yes indeed.
I found it interesting that the top 1% of earners pay 25% of the overall tax.
This is a % which has drastically increased in recent years.
The reason? Not because of tax rises, but because the flood of wealth being transfered to the superrich.
I watched another documentary recently, The Flaw.
It explained how in the last 30 years capitalism had morphed from
people earning good salaries and high consumption, which in turn fueled the businesses etc, into a system where the rich declined to pay increased salaries, stopped investing in manufacturing etc and invested in financial instruments because of the greater, bubble creating returns.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »
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.
The whole point about the Elizabethan era was that there was a Queen - oddly enough, one called "Elizabeth".
The King of Spain, Philip, who also ruled the Netherlands for part of her reign, was her brother-in-law. He had married Elizabeth's older half-sister, Queen Mary I.
There was no close blood relationship between Elizabeth and Philip. Mary and Philip were closely related - Mary's mother, Katherine of Aragon, and Philip's grandmother, Joanna of Aragon, were sisters, so Mary and Philip were first cousins once removed. He was about 10 years younger than she was.
Philip and Elizabeth were, at most, about 8th cousins, I reckon....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Let's rephrase the question.
"Should the rich pay more money to the poor and the !!!!less, so they in turn can buy more meaningless pap which makes the rich richer".
Does this sound absurd?
Well, replace "rich" with "China" and "poor and !!!!less" with "American and European consumers" and it sounds more familiar
0 -
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).
This post has been reviewed by the 70% club committee and has been awarded a Gold medal
The committee have asked me to point out the following:
1. This is the first gold medal to have been awarded by the 70% club.
2. As such you are now entitled to have the message 'Favoured by Guru Baba Macaque ADHD' prominently displayed on your Surplice.0 -
Why do we think it is right to tax work (=income)? Shouldn't we rather tax pollution? Consumption? Charge for the use of limited resources?
Petrol prices are up, government plans to build more roads, for which most of the money has to come from income tax. That won't lead to a sustainable economy.
They do consumption tax = VAT and fuel duty and VAT on fuel contribute massively, not to mention the VAt on the purchase price and the VAT on repairs. The ever rising cost of fuel reflects demand v supply and shortly many won't be able to afford fuel costs full stop.
I agree that building roads/railways before there is actually a way of paying for them is nuts e.g. the country has a balance of payments surplus built on more than gambling in the finance markets."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Let's rephrase the question.
"Should the rich pay more money to the poor and the !!!!less, so they in turn can buy more meaningless pap which makes the rich richer".
Does this sound absurd?
Well, replace "rich" with "China" and "poor and !!!!less" with "American and European consumers" and it sounds more familiar
If they don't share we will stop buying at some point.
Just like the wealthy landowners of old -they paid the workers wages, who in turn shopped in his shop, brought ale in his pub, paid rent on his cottage. the landowner being happy to take the value added bit which he eventually recirculate too along with a bit of tax paid."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
models who earn silly amounts - perhaps who ever pays them that. Footballers and t.v presenters and the like who earn mega bucks - but perhaps it boils down to who you think 'works' for a living - what is work - hard graft,having brains,having the looks ??0
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »If they don't share we will stop buying at some point.
Just like the wealthy landowners of old -they paid the workers wages, who in turn shopped in his shop, brought ale in his pub, paid rent on his cottage. the landowner being happy to take the value added bit which he eventually recirculate too along with a bit of tax paid.
The modern day landowner like Sir Philip Green wants the workers to shop in his shops, and then squirrels away 1,200 million pounds to his wife in far away Monaco.
Of course, he is then surprised and disappointed when these workers spend less in his shops because they have less.
Doesn't compute, does it?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards