Scottish houses over £250,000 will not sell!

tberry6686

redcard wrote: »

Why shouldn't you pay more? I don't see why you should be exempt from any tax increases.

As long as the tax increases are across the board I have no problem with this.

MobileSaver

redcard wrote: »

Letting the top earners away with paying minimal tax

MobileSaver wrote: »

the top earners in 2014 will pay more income tax in just this one year than you will pay in your entire working life.

redcard wrote: »

Not quite sure you have much of a point there. There's nothing of substance worth arguing against.

As you clearly need it spelling out for you...

Your assertion that the top earners pay minimal tax and do not pay their fair share is simply ridiculous.

redcard

MobileSaver wrote: »

As you clearly need it spelling out for you...

Your assertion that the top earners pay minimal tax and do not pay their fair share is simply ridiculous.

So you're defining fair share as the equivalent tax paid by the average earner over their lifetime?

Could you let me know how you arrived at this conclusion? Because I get the feeling it's just a meaningless sound bite you made up.

There must be some maths behind your reasoning, right?

tberry6686

redcard wrote: »

tberry6686 thinks the tax take in this country is 'very high' but he doesn't seem too miffed about it. So why not increase his tax liability a tiny bit more, maybe until he's a 'little miffed'? He wouldn't even notice.

Actually I am more than a little miffed about it - to the point I am considering emigration should there be any more increases in the taxation that I already pay.

redcard

tberry6686 wrote: »

Actually I am more than a little miffed about it - to the point I am considering emigration should there be any more increases in the taxation that I already pay.

So we're at the point where one more increase would put you over the edge?

That sounds weird to me. You've had tax rise after tax rise after tax rise to the extent that you can now only cope with one more?

Why not get out earlier? It's bonkers that you're basically on the edge of the cliff, hanging on by your fingertips, with nowhere else to go.

Why were you not considering emigration 2 or 3 increases back?

N1AK

redcard wrote: »

What fair means is purely subjective,

Then stop using it if you don't want people to constantly take exception with it.

I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that someone who pays 50x as much tax as the 'average' person is already contributing heavily. Neither do I think that automatically means that they shouldn't be contributing more.

Ultimately there isn't a correct amount to tax the wealthy. It isn't like a mathematical equation. Opinions on people's moral duty, freedom, responsibility, liberty etc lead to vastly ranging opinions.

It's no much right to believe that people should only be required to pay an equal portion of the total cost of government than it is to think that people should only be able to keep a small fraction of what they earn with the rest being the property of the society that facilitated it.

It's wrong to assume that the rich aren't already bothered by the tax burden on them just because they aren't taking to message boards en masse. It's very hard to tell how much impact, if any, tax has on the likelihood of higher earners emigrating or new high paid jobs being created outside the UK rather than inside.

N1AK

redcard wrote: »

That sounds weird to me. You've had tax rise after tax rise after tax rise to the extent that you can now only cope with one more?

I refer you to the logical fallacy 'argument of the beard'. There's a reason we use the expression "the stick that broke the camel's back". Just because someone has tolerated many small increases in something they dislike in the past, doesn't mean that they will continue to suffer an unlimited number of small increases in future nor that the next small increase will not be the one that galvanizes them to act.

redcard

N1AK wrote: »

I refer you to the logical fallacy 'argument of the beard'. There's a reason we use the expression "the stick that broke the camel's back". Just because someone has tolerated many small increases in something they dislike in the past, doesn't mean that they will continue to suffer an unlimited number of small increases in future nor that the next small increase will not be the one that galvanizes them to act.

I was asking him specifically, not a faceless bunch of businessmen.

I'm interested why a successful entrepreneur, with intelligence, acumen, and foresight would wait until their hand is forced and have to make a decision from a position of weakness.

If your supplier screws you over one month, surely you don't use him the next month? And you certainly don't wait until he screws you over 17 more times before thinking about doing something.

wotsthat

redcard wrote: »

If your supplier screws you over one month, surely you don't use him the next month? And you certainly don't wait until he screws you over 17 more times before thinking about doing something.

Funny basis for a tax system - if people don't F off somewhere else then they're not being taxed enough.

redcard

wotsthat wrote: »

Funny basis for a tax system - if people don't F off somewhere else then they're not being taxed enough.

If your business plan involves moving abroad when taxes get too high then surely the fact that you haven't moved abroad means taxes aren't too high.

Like duh!