if a lefty went to a restaurant, ordered the same meal

Mallotum_X

bsms1147 wrote: »

A similar argument...

Why should someone earning more money pay 40% tax when someone who ears less money pays 20%? After all the person earning more would already be paying more in taxes even at 20% tax, by virtue of them earning more.

So why should they pay proportionately more?

Take the indirect taxation into account and you would see the poorer pay proportionally more.

I'm in the 40% tax bracket, id rather pay less, don't really agree with where the bands are, but in principal I do think its fair.

My personal gripe with the system is not that the poorer don't pay their fair share, but that those at the top pay lower rates than everyone.

I'm able to recognise that I have benefited from amongst other things the education system for myself and those that work with me. That a stable society allows me to have a decent income. In a "White Donkey" world we would quickly descend into chaos and that income would soon disappear...

Idiophreak

The_White_Horse wrote: »

as their friend, but was charged double, because the owner thinks they can afford more, would the lefty be ok with this?

If not, how does the lefty justify current tax rates. Why should you pay more for the same thing just because you might be able to afford more???

Why don't we just say - last year it cost £300bn to run the UK. There are currently 50 million working age people, so that is £6000 each to live here.

That way, everyone pays the SAME for the SAME services.

We can invent a no man's land area where people can go if they don't pay their share, but they get no services there. They can go there voluntarily if they wish.

A much fairer system.

If you go out with your friend for a meal, you have a lobster and fillet combo, he has egg and chips, do you split the tip 50/50?

JimmyTheWig

The_White_Horse wrote: »

as their friend, but was charged double, because the owner thinks they can afford more, would the lefty be ok with this?

As it happens, with a group of friends we used to do exactly that. Some of us were working, others were students. Some drank others didn't.
When the bill came people put in what they thought was fair. It generally worked out about right.

Why should you pay more for the same thing just because you might be able to afford more???

If a "righty" (doesn't sound the same, does it!) goes shopping with their elderly mother, do they expect their elderly mother to carry as many bags in from the car as they do? Or do they take more, just because they might be able to carry more?

lazer

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Take the indirect taxation into account and you would see the poorer pay proportionally more.

I'm in the 40% tax bracket, id rather pay less, don't really agree with where the bands are, but in principal I do think its fair.

My personal gripe with the system is not that the poorer don't pay their fair share, but that those at the top pay lower rates than everyone.

I'm able to recognise that I have benefited from amongst other things the education system for myself and those that work with me. That a stable society allows me to have a decent income. In a "White Donkey" world we would quickly descend into chaos and that income would soon disappear...

That is not actually true in the long term the rich pay more - just some of it is deferred as they save some of their income but when they do spend it they are taxed on it.
If the rich actually spent all their money they would pay more indirect tax, as VAT isn't on essentials, so it is the "luxuries" that the indirect taxes are on.

leveller2911

jjlandlord wrote: »

"Don't feed the troll" is the only thing that comes to mind...

TWH has over 5,000 "thanks" so hardly a troll ...........

Mallotum_X

The ONS shows indirect tax rates fall from over 26% on the lowest quintile to 11% for the top.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_317365.pdf

take everything into account and the ONS figures show the poorest still pay the highest combined tax rate, although theres not huge variances

James_B.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i earn a low salary. I am just looking out for my richer fellow citizens and the grossly unfair tax levied on them..

It's simply not workable. The top 1% pay 30% of all income tax. Spread even their out fairly and it'd be crippling for those at the bottom.

I can see that a flatter system could be considered fairer than the current one, which falls (in my opinion) too heavily on the highest earners (I do feel aggrieved at working nearly six months for the common good each year, and still being vilified), but the flattest that we could ever conceivably get is a flat percentage. I seem to recall that everyone paying 30% would work out at about right. It also has the benefit of making it far harder to avoid tax, if all sources attract the same rate.

James_B.

Idiophreak wrote: »

If you go out with your friend for a meal, you have a lobster and fillet combo, he has egg and chips, do you split the tip 50/50?

In my group, yes, we do tend to split it equally.

James_B.

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

If a "righty" (doesn't sound the same, does it!) goes shopping with their elderly mother, do they expect their elderly mother to carry as many bags in from the car as they do? Or do they take more, just because they might be able to carry more?

That doesn't really work as an analogy, as it conflates voluntarily bearing a larger burden with being forced to do so by the state. In your example, you could choose to view the taxation system as being akin to you being made to carry all of your neighbour's shopping, while he walks behind having a fag, as he's got emphysema from his sixty a day habit.

James_B.

Mallotum_X wrote: »

The ONS shows indirect tax rates fall from over 26% on the lowest quintile to 11% for the top.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_317365.pdf

take everything into account and the ONS figures show the poorest still pay the highest combined tax rate, although theres not huge variances

That's simply not true. The highest paid pay 47% on virtually all of their earnings. No-one lower down pays this amount. The document to which you link makes it very clear that the lowest pay no tax at all.

Your spin is disingenuous, as it would seem to consider only taxes, and not benefits. If the government takes £2k from you in taxes on your 10k salary, but gives you back £5k in benefits then you cannot claim that you have a tax rate of 20%.