Cameron suggests tax cut for richest 4% of estates

cepheus

Generali wrote: »

For me, this vilification of the 1% or the idea that they can be tapped for huge amounts of cash is a bit silly really.

If we're serious about inequality then the top third or half will have to hand substantial amounts of wealth to the rest. That effectively means that the middle classes of the West giving up most of their money to subsistence farmers in Africa, South America and Asia.

I have never seen a single argument in favour of normal people in rich countries giving up pretty much everything to people who are mind-bogglingly poor elsewhere. It's always that someone else should do the heavy lifting. I find it disappointing at best, hypocritical really.

The Africans don't require subsidies, but an end to subsidies for our farmers so they aren't priced out of the market, the right to own their own land, and to collect their own taxes free from tax avoidance of land grabbing foreign corporations

Generali

cepheus wrote: »

The Africans don't require subsidies, but an end to subsidies for our farmers so they aren't priced out of the market, the right to own their own land, and to collect their own taxes free from tax avoidance of land grabbing foreign corporations

Let me hazard a guess: you're not a farmer. Again this requirement that someone else pays for your politics.

If you believe I redistribution of wealth and income to the poor then you are allowed to hold that view: it's a free country. I find it rather hypocritical when people just want other people's wealth and income redistributed.

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

The Africans don't require subsidies, but an end to subsidies for our farmers ....

Better not vote for the Green Party then. They're in favour of "increasing subsidies for organic farming".

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

.....If we're serious about inequality then the top third or half will have to hand substantial amounts of wealth to the rest. That effectively means that the middle classes of the West giving up most of their money to subsistence farmers in Africa, South America and Asia...

When you say 'middle classes' don't you mean 'everybody'? Given the level of disparity, for example between the United Kingdom (GDP per capita $39,337) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (GDP per capita $454), I don't see how there is anybody in the UK that could be anything but 'rich' in comparison with the typical resident of the DROC?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

When you say 'middle classes' don't you mean 'everybody'? Given the level of disparity, for example between the United Kingdom (GDP per capita $39,337) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (GDP per capita $454), I don't see how there is anybody in the UK that could be anything but 'rich' in comparison with the typical resident of the DROC?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Yes I do. If the income inequality is this massive moral imperative then it should be properly addressed I would imagine.

If someone is in favour of income equality then that implies a massive transfer of trillions of dollars from OECD countries to very poor countries.

I'm not sure how that would play out with the electorate although I can guess that it wouldn't go down very well. Then again redistribution isn't a policy I support so I guess we leave the details to those that support it.

antrobus

antrobus wrote: »

Better not vote for the Green Party then. They're in favour of "increasing subsidies for organic farming".

Actually, now that I come to think of it, isn't the Green Party in favour of cutting food miles and all that malarkey? As in whacking import duties on raw materials that reflect the ecological impact of transportation, or something like that. Goodness knows how all those poor African farmers are going to be able to compete against all those homegrown subsidised organic farms, if their products are bieng hit by duties as well.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Yes I do. If the income inequality is this massive moral imperative then it should be properly addressed I would imagine.

I'm not sure how that would play out with the electorate although I can guess that it wouldn't go down very well.

Sadly, most people who want money redistributing, want it redistributing to them. That's why foreign aid is so unpopular with many people who think high taxes on high earners are good. One generates more tax revenue for them to benefit from (good) and the other takes it away from them (bad).

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

Sadly, most people who want money redistributing, want it redistributing to them. .....

Well that is sometimes true.

However, it is universally the case that, when people speak in favour of redistributing money from the 'rich' to the 'poor', or in indeed speak in terms of increasing taxes on the 'rich' to pay for the NHS or the benefit system, or care for the elderly, free playstations for underprivileged youth, flood prevention, pensions, or whatever; by 'the rich' they mean 'people who have got more money than me'.

Jason74

antrobus wrote: »

Well that is sometimes true.

However, it is universally the case that, when people speak in favour of redistributing money from the 'rich' to the 'poor', or in indeed speak in terms of increasing taxes on the 'rich' to pay for the NHS or the benefit system, or care for the elderly, free playstations for underprivileged youth, flood prevention, pensions, or whatever; by 'the rich' they mean 'people who have got more money than me'.

Sorry, but the "universal" part of that post just isn't true, albeit it's true of many who favour redsitribution. Speaking for myself, I would happily pay a higher tax rate if that money went into some of the things you mention above. I'd actively support any party who proposed a basic rate of say 25% to pay for some of the things you describe above.

I'd like to see other measures too that would probably have more of an impact on the very wealthy, but I have no problem at all with the principle of paying more tax myself in order to create more opportunity for people less well off.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

Sorry, but the "universal" part of that post just isn't true, albeit it's true of many who favour redsitribution. Speaking for myself, I would happily pay a higher tax rate if that money went into some of the things you mention above. I'd actively support any party who proposed a basic rate of say 25% to pay for some of the things you describe above.

I'd like to see other measures too that would probably have more of an impact on the very wealthy, but I have no problem at all with the principle of paying more tax myself in order to create more opportunity for people less well off.

do you equally support redistribution of your own income/wealth so you 'enjoy' the same as the average world income?
you are in the top 10% of the world income distribution.