Would an 80% income tax be reasonable?

DavidF

MobileSaver wrote: »

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.)



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?

The other unearned wealth concerns something that we hear a lot about these days and has just started to get traction cross party. Basically it is where planning permission gains either farmers or the industry that has sprung up whereby speculators buy up agricultural land at £x per hectare and then planning permission is given and the returns is in the 100.s of %...that type of thing is one reason it is so expensive for anybody to buy and build.

GreatApe

John-K wrote: »

Each time I change jobs I consider a whole host of factors. The city I would live in, travel time to see friends and family, wage after Tax, and so on. Importantly, the same decision is made by similar owners who are currently in Geneva, Paris, New York, or Tokyo.

At 80% Tax, do you honestly not see that I would likely take the next job in Geneva, and that staff currently there would not take the job here?

Do you genuinely think that London is so much better than New York that it’s worth a 60% pay cut to choose here?

Why with such skill and dedication wouldn't you just move over to starting your own company to produce something new useful and innovative where I would only tax you 0% ? You don't need to run away we just want you to be more innovative.

MobileSaver

DavidF wrote: »

Basically it is where planning permission gains either farmers or the industry that has sprung up whereby speculators buy up agricultural land at £x per hectare and then planning permission is given and the returns is in the 100.s of %

I don't agree that that is un-earned. The speculators took a risk and sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't. Penalising risk takers is not a good idea, you simply stifle innovation and reduce opportunities.

Why just pick on land? Why not heavily tax stock market gains too? All the "speculators" did was invest in say a drugs company that was then "lucky" enough to develop a life-saving drug which sent the share price soaring so let's now penalise the investors 80% tax for making so much "un-earned money"... what could possibly go wrong?

MobileSaver

GreatApe wrote: »

Why with such skill and dedication wouldn't you just move over to starting your own company to produce something new useful and innovative where I would only tax you 0% ?

I'm guessing you are still a teenager at school? You have a very simplistic and naive view of the world where Michael Jacksons and Usain Bolts are two a penny; get rid of one and another just pops us from somewhere will all the same magical attributes.

Similarly in your world investment bankers have magical properties that allows them to just set up brand new companies producing something innovative at the drop of a hat... even J.R.R.Tolkien didn't come up with such outlandish stories.

DavidF

MobileSaver wrote: »

I don't agree that that is un-earned. The speculators took a risk and sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't. Penalising risk takers is not a good idea, you simply stifle innovation and reduce opportunities.

Why just pick on land? Why not heavily tax stock market gains too? All the "speculators" did was invest in say a drugs company that was then "lucky" enough to develop a life-saving drug which sent the share price soaring so let's now penalise the investors 80% tax for making so much "un-earned money"... what could possibly go wrong?

Personally I think the national interest (which in case nobody noticed trumps everything else) would be better served to end this market. Make it a straight transaction between government/council/builder/landowner ....whoever is buying and selling. No middle men. At the end of the day the "power" to turn say green belt into a building plot comes from government..the public at the end of the day. We could concede that speculators to date should get their rewards but I think change on this front and even selling houses will come and possibly not from the government that you think.
The conservative's revealed in the last election that even they now realise that inherited wealth is causing issues....issues that eventually will NEED to be addressed.
I give it 20 years and we will be reflecting on when a person could pass wealth onto their kids without at least a 50% tax of some sort.

GreatApe

John-K wrote: »

I do not believe you, I think that you have just made that up. Can you link to these studies?

I know you didn't ask me but...
Everything in life is luck

You didn't choose you'd genetics nor your temperament you couldn't change those thing for all the earth. Even conscientiousness (propensity to want to do a good job) is mostly out of our control some people just are and some people just aren't very conscientious. Likewise even general intelligence IQ is mostly genetic and very early wiring in the brain (likely between the ages of pre birth to maybe 2 years old)

There is even a strong argument (scientific) that free will itself is just an illusion

This more or less means everything is luck. Even you as a self aware being is luck. Rewind the clock and press play again and you wouldn't even be you this time around. Rewind the clock a million times and each one will be a different person

Having said that the fact that almost everything is chance need not play a role in deciding taxation rates. Some would argue because luck plays the biggest part in our lives we should aim for communism or some sort of utopia where all humans are equal in outcome is just stupid. For one thing why stop at humans why not all mammals or all animals or all life or even all matter.

I can accept the fact that luck and chance is everything while still being a conservative free market capfolost fan.


Also the opposite I find funny when people refute this. I just ask them if its not luck/chance then why aren't you wealthier smarter better looking funnier healthier than you are?


Also stay around we need more interesting people on this sub forum

GreatApe

MobileSaver wrote: »

I'm guessing you are still a teenager at school? You have a very simplistic and naive view of the world where Michael Jacksons and Usain Bolts are two a penny; get rid of one and another just pops us from somewhere will all the same magical attributes.

Similarly in your world investment bankers have magical properties that allows them to just set up brand new companies producing something innovative at the drop of a hat... even J.R.R.Tolkien didn't come up with such outlandish stories.

Well obviously the need/demand for music and the need/demand to celebrate human athletic abilities is there irrespective of any one singer or athlete

Rewind the clock as far back as you like but let's say 1950 and kill all the known music and althetic champions we know. The results wouldn't be a world devoid of music or sport stars. We would still have those. With regards to music we may have wholely different styles and different people but the love/need for music would mean there would be megastars on this parallel universe too.

And yes a highly paid investment banker I would imagine should have high IQ high contentiousness and drive so should have it in them much more so than the average man. Also with more resources than the average person. You also don't need to change the world there will only be a dozen bill gates or Elon Musks in the world at any one time but millions of smaller scale businessmen improving productivity or creating new things in their own corner of the economic world. If tax is the primary concern I'm happy for the enterpenours relief to go from 10% tax to 0% tax can't get much better than that! Also he could just choose to stay where he is its all upto him.

Also this is just a discussion between people who lole to think abit thee things. I'm not out there calling for higher taxes. If anything I post more often than not the solution to help the poor the middle and even the rich is technology software and machines not higher taxes and more government

[Deleted User]

Didn't we have 98% "super tax" in the 1960's or is my memory playing tricks on me?
Just checked and we did it was a top rate of 83% plus a 15% super tax.
So in answer to the OP I don't see any problem with a super tax maybe the 40% plus another 25% ?

GreatApe

DavidF wrote: »

Personally I think the national interest (which in case nobody noticed trumps everything else) would be better served to end this market. Make it a straight transaction between government/council/builder/landowner ....whoever is buying and selling. No middle men. At the end of the day the "power" to turn say green belt into a building plot comes from government..the public at the end of the day. We could concede that speculators to date should get their rewards but I think change on this front and even selling houses will come and possibly not from the government that you think.
The conservative's revealed in the last election that even they now realise that inherited wealth is causing issues....issues that eventually will NEED to be addressed.
I give it 20 years and we will be reflecting on when a person could pass wealth onto their kids without at least a 50% tax of some sort.

The real rate of return on investments is likely to be negative in the long run so its a concern the market will sort out for you

If general AI or even just multiple specific AIs are invented we enter the 'star trek economy'
What are homes or most current businesses worth when we have robots that can build robots that can build robots that can build homes or mine materials or build mega solar farms or do all your accounting or clean your home or do surgery or all of the above

GreatApe

DavidF wrote: »

Personally I think the national interest (which in case nobody noticed trumps everything else) would be better served to end this market. Make it a straight transaction between government/council/builder/landowner ....whoever is buying and selling. No middle men. At the end of the day the "power" to turn say green belt into a building plot comes from government..the public at the end of the day. We could concede that speculators to date should get their rewards but I think change on this front and even selling houses will come and possibly not from the government that you think.
The conservative's revealed in the last election that even they now realise that inherited wealth is causing issues....issues that eventually will NEED to be addressed.
I give it 20 years and we will be reflecting on when a person could pass wealth onto their kids without at least a 50% tax of some sort.

Didn't we spend most of the 20th century figuring out that what is in the 'national interest' doesn't seek to work

The west works by putting the individual above the state all the other cases of putting 'the national interest' first did not end well. As the commies used to say we were just one murder away from Paradise