The forthcoming budget

ruperts

Fella wrote: »

Really? I suspect you're infinitely better off than most people in Rwanda. How will you be sending them a fair share of your money, by cheque?

I pay taxes in proportion to the amount I earn and spend and don't see why that shouldn't be the case for everyone. So if the top 1% are earning and spending 27% of the money then it seems fair that they should pay 27% of the tax. Income tax works on this same principle and most people accept that it's a fair method, except when it comes to the wealthy and then all of a sudden it becomes unfair on them?

Not really sure what Rwanda has to do with anything when we're talking about UK tax policy but i do support foreign aid and am happy for some of my tax contributions to be sent to countries in need.

Fella

ruperts wrote: »

I pay taxes in proportion to the amount I earn and spend and don't see why that shouldn't be the case for everyone.

In that case you're advocating a flat rate of tax for everybody e.g. 30% or whatever. Which is completely different to the current system.

ruperts wrote: »

Not really sure what Rwanda has to do with anything

If we're talking about what's "fair" what does geography have to do with it? Your definition of fair appears to be that people with far more money than you should pay far more of it in tax. But you yourself, who has far more money than the starving half of the world, shouldn't pay anything more. That's a pretty convenient definition of fair.

ruperts

Fella wrote: »

In that case you're advocating a flat rate of tax for everybody e.g. 30% or whatever. Which is completely different to the current system.




If we're talking about what's "fair" what does geography have to do with it? Your definition of fair appears to be that people with far more money than you should pay far more of it in tax. But you yourself, who has far more money than the starving half of the world, shouldn't pay anything more. That's a pretty convenient definition of fair.

I'm proposing that people should pay tax in proportion to what they earn and spend, yes. Which is why I don't see it as a problem that the top 1% who earn and spend a lot more than most others should also pay a lot more tax than most others.

Again bringing up Rwanda is bizarre because we are talking about uk tax policy. You might as well use the example of a poor person in the uk who earns and spends very little in which case yes, I am perfectly happy to be paying more tax than they are. If taxes were collected globally and Rwandans were relatively low earners I'd be happy to pay more tax than them as well.

All I'm asking for is that people pay tax in proportion to what they earn and spend, which doesn't seem especially revolutionary to me given that most taxes already operate on the same principle.

You get people saying "ahh we need to tax the top 1% much less because they pay 27% of the tax omg they'll move abroad if we don't give them tax cuts", when in fact if the top-1% earn and spend 27% of the overall amount then them paying 27% of the overall tax take is perfectly fair.

michaels

I am not sure I follow - one moment you suggest that tax should be paid according to what people earn and spend (I agree) but previously you have said that is the wealthy who should pay more tax.

Wealth and income are different things, any wealth I have is because I haven't spent all my income (but will no doubt spend it later). Why should I be taxed on this wealth now and then again when I spend it (3 times altogether, once on income, once or more when saved and then again when spent) whereas if I spent it in the same year I earned it I would only be taxed on it twice?

economic

ruperts wrote: »

I'm proposing that people should pay tax in proportion to what they earn and spend, yes. Which is why I don't see it as a problem that the top 1% who earn and spend a lot more than most others should also pay a lot more tax than most others.

Again bringing up Rwanda is bizarre because we are talking about uk tax policy. You might as well use the example of a poor person in the uk who earns and spends very little in which case yes, I am perfectly happy to be paying more tax than they are. If taxes were collected globally and Rwandans were relatively low earners I'd be happy to pay more tax than them as well.

All I'm asking for is that people pay tax in proportion to what they earn and spend, which doesn't seem especially revolutionary to me given that most taxes already operate on the same principle.

You get people saying "ahh we need to tax the top 1% much less because they pay 27% of the tax omg they'll move abroad if we don't give them tax cuts", when in fact if the top-1% earn and spend 27% of the overall amount then them paying 27% of the overall tax take is perfectly fair.

then we should lower income tax for those on a higher and additional tax brackets i.e. 40% and 45% to 20%. stop making it progressive and instead a flat income tax for everyone.

westernpromise

ruperts wrote: »

The top 1% might pay 27% of the tax but they also have about 27% of all the wealth so that seems fair to me.

Wrong. The top 1% have 12% of the income, but they pay 27% of the income tax.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/616440/Table_2.4.xlsx

"Wealth" is not income. You can't spend your house.

We are disproportionately dependent for pretty well everything on a small handful of people. Many who have these people's tax money spent on them want it made quite clear to their benefactors that they are envied and hated for doing this, not appreciated.

How much do you think can be taken off the 1% and the 10% before they decide to move off elsewhere?

mrginge

Somehow I don’t think that ruperts understands the way the tax system works.

ruperts

I can't help it if people can't follow basic statements like tax should be paid in proportion to the amount earned and spent.

Fella

ruperts wrote: »

I can't help it if people can't follow basic statements like tax should be paid in proportion to the amount earned and spent.

With respect it's you that sounds like you can't follow that statement.

"In proportion" would mean that if somebody who earnt £30K paid £5K in tax, then somebody who earn't £300K would pay £50K in tax.

That is not how the system works. It's based on higher earners paying disproportionately more and low earners paying nothing whatsoever.

westernpromise

Fella wrote: »

With respect it's you that sounds like you can't follow that statement.

"In proportion" would mean that if somebody who earnt £30K paid £5K in tax, then somebody who earn't £300K would pay £50K in tax.

That is not how the system works. It's based on higher earners paying disproportionately more and low earners paying nothing whatsoever.

Low earners not only don't pay, they take.