Paradise Papers

westernpromise

Nick_C wrote: »

The people who avoid paying tax very often pay far more tax than people who don't look for ways to minimise their payments.

The top one per cent pay 27% of all income tax collected.

The top 10 per cent pay 27% of all taxes collected.

The top 10 per cent also pay 59% of all income tax, while the top 55% pay all of it. About 45% pay absolutely no income tax at all, but some of them certainly believe that despite their paying nothing other people should pay even more.

In fact there is a good argument that all public sector workers in reality pay nothing. Their entire salaries are funded by tax taken from others so they don't produce a thing of taxable value; they just receive the taxes paid by others. When you subtract the value of their gold-plated final salary pensions these alone will far exceed the value of any nominal tax they may have paid. So the only real taxpayers are private sector taxpayers; everyone else is just a mouth to feed.

westernpromise

leslieknope wrote: »

that's the whole point of having MPs, councillors, budget discussions etc.... to hold the people spending your tax responsible. if they're not spending it wisely (and am not going to argue that point right now) then you hold them accountable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41886607

the fact something like this is completely legal is beyond ridiculous. but i'll take my niceness elsewhere.

The flaw in this argument is that only people who actually pay tax have to care about whether it is wisely spent. As taxpayers are a minority this means that the greedy, idle, and entitled can just vote themselves more and more of other people's money and they couldn't give a t055 if it's wasted because 1/ they want it wasted - on themselves, and 2/ if so much is wasted there's not enough, just tax someone else, innit.

Tromking

westernpromise wrote: »

"Morally appropriate" always means that other people should pay more. Nobody ever volunteers to pay more themselves, nor does anyone ever suggest that the 44% of people who pay NO income tax should pull their fingers and contribute something.

This would look too much like spite and envy from the idle if it were put thus, so the spiteful and envious idle instead dress greed and entitlement up as a deeply moral position so that they can applaud themselves while demanding more of other people's money and contributing roughly nothing themselves.

The bad news for such people is that no matter what happens they'll die poor.

Wow!
Talk about a window on someone’s odious and morally repugnant attitude toward his/her fellow citizens.

westernpromise

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

Au contraire. If you have an Oxbridge degree and some family connections, it gets you an £80k a year gig at The Guardian.

An Oxbridge graduate who's older than 30 and on £80k a year has failed.

westernpromise

In fact people who pay no income tax should be disenfranchised. It is utterly immoral that someone who contributes none of their income to public spending should have the vote, because they will simply vote for more and more stuff for themselves - to which they have not the slightest intention of ever contributing a penny.

The House of Lords and the honours system should be scrapped and replaced with a system based on how much income tax you've ever paid. A million quid gets you a knighthood and £10 million gets you a seat in the Lords but only for 5 years.

We would then have the public finances overseen, managed by, and accountable to the people who actually fund them.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

In fact people who pay no income tax should be disenfranchised. It is utterly immoral that someone who contributes none of their income to public spending should have the vote, because they will simply vote for more and more stuff for themselves - to which they have not the slightest intention of ever contributing a penny.

However of those 45% that pay no taxes, almost all of that money goes into the economy where it keeps the economy moving and generating tax at each stage (because they don't have a surplus to save). Those top rate tax payers are more likely to be holding onto money in some capacity (because they have a surplus), quite likely into some tax free offerings. So they pay tax to get the money, stash it away where it doesn't go into the economy or generate any further tax. It's only these top 55% (and more likely the top 10%) that are actively taking money out of the system.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

The House of Lords and the honours system should be scrapped and replaced with a system based on how much income tax you've ever paid. A million quid gets you a knighthood and £10 million gets you a seat in the Lords but only for 5 years.

That's a horrifying prospect. I can't think of any way to generate a worse possible House of Lords.

westernpromise

I can: the one we've got. Write a report whitewashing Labour anti-semitism and you get a peerage.

Nick_C

westernpromise wrote: »

... there is a good argument that all public sector workers in reality pay nothing. Their entire salaries are funded by tax taken from others so they don't produce a thing of taxable value; they just receive the taxes paid by others. When you subtract the value of their gold-plated final salary pensions these alone will far exceed the value of any nominal tax they may have paid. So the only real taxpayers are private sector taxpayers; everyone else is just a mouth to feed.

Well it's an argument but I'm not sure it's a good one!

So a dustman working for the Council makes no contribution to the exchequer. What happens when the Council contracts the service out to the private sector? Is that same dustman still not paying tax?

What would happen if the council stopped providing a refuse service and people paid private contractors directly? Are the employees paying tax or not?

What about Council services that are paid for directly, with no subsidy. Are the workers providing those services paying tax?

What about people in the not for profit sector whose companies receive public funding? Are they also not paying tax?

Nick_C

westernpromise wrote: »

In fact people who pay no income tax should be disenfranchised. It is utterly immoral that someone who contributes none of their income to public spending should have the vote, because they will simply vote for more and more stuff for themselves - to which they have not the slightest intention of ever contributing a penny.

I agree! No representation without taxation.