Would an 80% income tax be reasonable?

John-K_3

economic wrote: »

What line of work are you in out of interest?

I am a manager in an investment bank in London.

zagubov

The US demands its citizens pay tax based on citizenship rather than residency, so moving abroad to earn doesn't remove tax liability.

Wonder why the UK never adopted a similar system.

DavidF

I think certain sectors get vastly overpaid until you see their perceived value. Now forgive me for not giving sources but i recall David Beckham getting somewhere close to $250 million for his time with LA Galaxy. Now when i first heard that I thought wow, A man obviously well past his best and he is earning that much !!
But then we or in this case I read a few books on the likes of Becks and the teams who pay them especially at the end of illustrious careers. The FACT was that David Beckham's name being linked with the team no matter if and how he played made LA Galaxy a profit.
BTW I am no particular fan of David Beckham or anything I used him as an example that if googled im sure can be backed up. I also know from having read more football biographies than is healthy that most players who say make the premier league not only are "better" than their colleagues from lesser leagues but they are actually very dedicated sportsmen/athletes who from the age of 7 or younger have given up a "normal" family life in the pursuit of "making it".
Instead of thinking about how getting rid of the top 100 footballers think about how say 1 premier league team too loose all their players would fare against the rest of the league playing with their B team or youth team......Odds on that team would be down in the 1st division the very next season replaced at the top table by another bunch of hungry talented players(But not as talented as the players our fictional team lost)...
I only mention football and Beckham due to the feeling that their 1. Overpaid and 2. Are lucky ? In my moral world of course they are overpaid - everyone knows fine well that nurses should be paid £100k per week for the work they do and footballers should be on min wage..but the trouble is their are thousands of nurses and not many premiership footballers.

As far as changing the tax system - I do think everyone should be paying a bit more. I also think that unearned wealth in all it's forms should be heavily taxed. That is not just inheritance tax but also land tax and property tax....all of which im sure would be super popular lol. Last point I also think there should be zero room for sweetheart backroom deals and individuals and corporations found defrauding the taxman should face the stiffest of penalties, something that does happen in the US....albeit sporadically.

michaels

How is property unearned wealth, many people end up selling their homes for less than they paid when prices fall - should they also be taxed on the value of the house whilst they owned it?

Similarly I can't see why you would tax inheritance but not pocket money, both are giving money that was taxed when it was earned to ones children.

michaels

zagubov wrote: »

The US demands its citizens pay tax based on citizenship rather than residency, so moving abroad to earn doesn't remove tax liability.

Wonder why the UK never adopted a similar system.

I always think if you plan to move to another country you should take that nationality, if you retain your british nationality when living abroad then it is not unreasonable for them to tax you.

MobileSaver

PasturesNew wrote: »

Everything is relative, so you can only compare "like for like" and not cross-border.

Ah, so geographic luck is only valid within your own country's borders? Why is cross-border the defining line? Why not counties for example? It sounds like you are defining luck to your own specific meaning just to support your argument.

PasturesNew wrote: »

No, the men were lucky to be born male.

So there are no successful women?

PasturesNew wrote: »

if he'd been born as the son of a coal miner in a Welsh village ... he'd probably still be in a local pub churning out chicken in a basket.... and working "harder" without the high income.

Pure speculation on your part. I guess you've never heard of a singer called Tom Jones? Son of a coal miner in a Welsh village but now has a net worth of around £150 million... looks like cracks are starting to appear in your 'luck theory.'

PasturesNew wrote: »

Take that Scottish woman that won the X Factor/whatever .... with different "luck" she'd have been born into a family who encouraged her singing and in a geographic area where she'd have more opportunities. If her father had been middle class she'd have had singing lessons .... and might've been a "Top Singer" in her early 20s

And yet with all that lack of luck she still won the X Factor, became very successful and now has a net worth of over £20 million. I think you've just blown your own theory completely out of the water!

GreatApe

zagubov wrote: »

I think you're overemphasising the importance of the people who get the credit for moving us forward.

If Edison never lived would we be watching TV by candlelight?

As Michaels says even patents have a limited time
So yes while we would definitely still have progress if the giants of science and technology had never been born we still derive great benefits from the sooner advantage of these things than they otherwise would have arrived

Would we have antibiotics without Flemming? Sure.
But even if it meant the world had antibiotics just one week sooner than KT otherwise would have done that is a benefit of great importance

DavidF

MobileSaver wrote: »

Ah, so geographic luck is only valid within your own country's borders? Why is cross-border the defining line? Why not counties for example? It sounds like you are defining luck to your own specific meaning just to support your argument.



So there are no successful women?



Pure speculation on your part. I guess you've never heard of a singer called Tom Jones? Son of a coal miner in a Welsh village but now has a net worth of around £150 million... looks like cracks are starting to appear in your 'luck theory.'



And yet with all that lack of luck she still won the X Factor, became very successful and now has a net worth of over £20 million. I think you've just blown your own theory completely out of the water!

Well to be fair she "bottled" the final of Britain's Got Talent....but alas we don't even remember the winners that year lol. Mr Cowel is many things....but a shrewd businessman has to be up there as his top talent.

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

The flaw in the thinking here is to imagine that if you removed the contribution of the best people, nothing would change. All the creativity and value would come into existence all by themselves regardless of whether Microsoft is led by Bill Gates or Bilbo Baggins.

Absent the right people there wouldn't be the wealth in the economy to pay top earners what they earn.

I think there is a real difference between say Bill Gates or Edison compared to say Michael Jackson or usain bolt.

In the former case humanity certainly benefited from the inventions and creations of tjose people. If bill hadn't been born we would still have had a dominant operating system maybe one year later than we did but that one year sooner than otherwise is great progress. In the case of Michael Jackson or Usain Bolt had they not been born we would still have had a mega pop star and still have had a fastest man in the world. The progress of mankind was not moved much if at all.

Hence why I would be happy to tax Edison at 10% or even at 0% and think bolt could be asked to pay closer to 80%

MobileSaver

DavidF wrote: »

I do think everyone should be paying a bit more.

I disagree. I think the highest earners are already paying more than their fair share but I agree that those lower down the income scale should pay more than they do and no-one should expect to receive public services unless they are contributing to the public purse (with certain exceptions such as those genuinely unable to work and those say under 18.)

DavidF wrote: »

I also think that unearned wealth in all it's forms should be heavily taxed. That is not just inheritance tax but also land tax and property tax....

Un-earned wealth I would agree with. If you make a lot of money then spend it before you die or lose a large portion to the State.

I don't see the distinction between land and property tax that isn't inheritance tax? Unless you mean a land and property tax on owners who are still alive but that's ridiculous and a sure fire way to ruin the country... in one fell swoop you penalise people for bettering themselves, how exactly can that be an incentive for people to work hard, innovate and take risks and ultimately how can that be good for the country?