MSE News: Super-rich must give more, says Nick Clegg

KTF

jamesd wrote: »

Here's how the income tax split is today:

Politicians checking current statistics before spouting off to the media to get a few headlines. That would be a novelty...

cepheus

Some of you guys are living on a different planet:

Unequal Britain: richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest

The new findings show that the household wealth of the top 10% of the population stands at £853,000 and more – over 100 times higher than the wealth of the poorest 10%, which is £8,800 or below (a sum including cars and other possessions).

When the highest-paid workers, such as bankers and chief executives, are put into the equation, the division in wealth is even more stark, with individuals in the top 1% of the population each possessing total household wealth of £2.6m or more.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/27/unequal-britain-report

and that was two years ago! I wonder if this includes all the dodgy offshore stuff?

grey_gym_sock

this is the coalition's idea of compromise. the lib dems talk about making the rich pay a fair share, while the tories get on with actually making the middle pay the most and the poor suffer the most (i.e. the poor lose less in GBP per person, but it hurts them more).

certainly the rich should pay more, and certainly inequality is great enough that it would make a significant difference.

however, tax rises are more obviously needed in corporate taxation, not personal taxation. corporation tax is now down to 24% and osborne clearly wants to reduce it to 20% or lower. anybody who is rich enough that they are only spending a small fraction of their income (1 definition of the very rich) has naturally put most of their money in corporations, if it wasn't there already, to reduce tax. corporation tax is also the only tax the UK can expect to collect on businesses which have to operate in the UK but are foreign owned (e.g. philip green's retail business, owned by his monaco-resident wife). corporation tax is the most obvious tax to raise.

in any case, the structural deficit cannot be eliminated by tax rises and/or spending cuts. there is no chance of eliminating it without the economy recovering. and there is no chance of that if cuts are too deep, as they are now. it is insane to be cutting education, training or infrastucture spending now - those areas of government spending need to go UP now. neither businesses nor consumers are in any position to kick-start the economy. only the government can decide to.

chrismac1

This is a non-story. 100% posturing ahead of the Lib Dem conference. 0% likely impact on UK tax system.

MobileSaver

cepheus wrote: »

Unequal Britain: richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest

Most, if not all, of the "super rich" are paying MORE TAX IN ONE YEAR than the average person pays in their life time... seems like the rich are already paying more than their fair share to me!

grey_gym_sock

MobileSaver wrote: »

Most, if not all, of the "super rich" are paying MORE TAX IN ONE YEAR than the average person pays in their life time... seems like the rich are already paying more than their fair share to me!

yes, because their income is too high. if it came down to a more sensible level, they'd pay less tax. that's what you meant, right?

upton66

Clegg you're a cretin. We have a flat rate tax system, 20%. 40% and 50% - the higher your salary the more you pay already. I'm sick of hearing that the higher earners should pay even more, they already do.

Also roll on the bonuses so long as they are taxed within PAYE
If a banker or any other overpaid, greedy company director gets a £100k bonus - great, the taxman should be taking 40% or 50% of it.

For the record I'm retired on a minimum pension.

grey_gym_sock

upton66 wrote: »

We have a flat rate tax system, 20%. 40% and 50% - the higher your salary the more you pay already.

only if it's paid as a salary. if you work through a service company, as many of the highest paid do, you can pay a lot less. and if it's investment income, you could also avoid receiving most of it as personal income.

50% is high enough for the top rate. the problem is all the ways there are of getting out of paying 50%. (and that they're reducing the top rate to 45%.)

Randvegeta

yes, because their income is too high. if it came down to a more sensible level, they'd pay less tax. that's what you meant, right?

Define ridiculous? How do you know they aren't worth the money they are paid?

What bothers me is people's idea of 'rich' differs greatly. Someone making 100k may not think s/he is rich while someone making 20k may think it is. But let's be honest. 100K after tax really isn't that much but the 20k guy probably still thinks the 100k salary is disgustingly high and really just wants him to pay more taxes out of spite/jealousy rather than because they get a disproportionate (unworthy) salary.

grey_gym_sock

Randvegeta wrote: »

Define ridiculous? How do you know they aren't worth the money they are paid?

economic inequality is problem because it has lots of unpleasant social consequences. e.g. see http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

worth is not the main point. clearly some ppl, e.g. bankers who've made their banks go bust, and then paid themselves bonuses with the public bailout money, aren't worth it. other ppl clearly are both very talented and very hard-working; but how do you put a number on how much more they should be paid than an average worker? any answer is somewhat arbitrary. my answer is than when economic inequality is damaging society, inequality is too great.