Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Great idea, surely?
I think it's morally right to tax the rich. The most fortunate should help the least fortunate, that's how society should function.
In the same way that we all now seem to work for the government, rather than them working for us.
you would be in favour of donating 80% of your earnings to places in Africa, South America and Asia that are really poor.
and child charities. It's not much, but at least it's something.
Plus 80% is a bit more than 45%, don't you think?
And what, exactly, is a 'fair' amount?
Provided they're not footballers or U2, they do work for it. Personally, I'd have to increase my income more than ten times to be affected, but I still think it's a little unfair. Not to mention ineffective; this hike will raise all of 1 or 2 billion - sounds a lot, but it's about 1% of our national debt. And a large number of high earners will be able to dodge it all anyway.
The VAT cut's a waste of money as well. Get Vince Cable in charge, I say!
However in many cases it won't actually count as many people earning that much will find some wheeze to get around paying it. Eg: declaring themselves to be a company or being paid in shares and stuff.
It will balance itself out. The rich will pay more without paying the full 45% due to their should-be-illegal-but-is-instead-only-unethical tried and trusted methods. So it will still impact them (and rightly) but not as badly as they think.
tax planning unethical? If you could legally reduce your tax liability, would you take the moral high ground and pay more?
If you are being paid an income (that has no risk to it), you should pay income tax, not paying corporation tax and pretending you are a company, if you aren't taking any risks like starting up your own business, etc.
Anyone managing their tax liability by the way you described above is doing so by lying, I guess. All I meant was that there are plenty of legitimate means of reducing your tax liability which most rich folk with any sense would employ...
And drastically cutting spending, too. And then keep it that way.
Brown appears to want to bring the bubble back. This is a terrible idea.
you'd decline any inheritance and make your own damn money instead of leeching off the achievements of someone else
if that amount of money is justified as the reward for hard work and dedication then anyone who wants to get that much they should earn it for themselves.
It's based on the idea of private property being, first and foremost, the property of the owner, and they can do with it whatever the hell they want. Governments don't have rights to it, or at least the right to redistribute it as they see fit. As such, it's entirely up to the parents and children how the wealth is dealt with. Whether the kids deserve it or not is the parents', not the government's, decision.
i meant that if CG believes in those values of work/reward he should earn it himself like the guys in Dragons Den, instead of being an over indulged heir
is surely smart enough to do inheritance tax planning to minimise / eliminate the liability. Similarly, unless they're way above the 150k figure for income, it's not inconceivable that a bit of planning (ie contributing the maximum possible into pensions, ISA allowances, other tax-free/efficient investments) can bring their income down below the threshold.
pay their full whack of tax
It's just I tend to deal with people who have a canny bit of money on a daily basis. My job is to give advice to try and increase their wealth in the long-run, so I tend to be biased to these people rather than the 'bigger picture'...
if i'd worked my nuts off for £150k i would be pretty pissed that i had to get taxed more for it
I don't care what you say, no one anywhere needs more than say 60-80K a year.
O, reason not the need [deed]! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life's as cheap as beast's. Thou art a lady;
If only to go warm were gorgeous,
Why, nature needs not what thou gorgeous wear'st,
Which scarcely keeps thee warm. But, for true need --
You heavens, give me that patience, patience I need!
You see me here, you gods, a poor old man [fellow],
As full of grief as age, wretched in both!
If it be you that stir these daughters' hearts
Against their father, fool me not so much
To bear it tamely [lamely]. Touch me with noble anger,
And let not women's weapons, water-drops,
Stain my man's cheeks! No, you unnatural hags,
I will have such revenges on you both,
That all the world shall -- I will do such things --
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth! You think I'll weep
No, I'll not weep:
I have full cause of weeping; but this heart
Shall break into a hundred thousand flaws,
Or ere I'll weep. O fool, I shall go mad!
no-one actually NEEDS more than 20k a year. Why not introduce an 85% tax rate on anything above that?
and still managed to save up enough to pay my own university MA fees
(Difficult to get sarcasm on the internet-centric)
If we're going on the grounds of necessity, let's just turn off our computers and get digging, fool.
45% on earnings above 150k is actually pretty reasonable. I mean it's only 5% more than these people are already paying on this income anyway. Some of the other figures that have been suggested are just silly.
we don't base stuff on need because need is actually pretty low, and if we're being fussy, its questionable whether there is a 'need' for such levels of taxation. it all depends on definitions of need, which are all entirely subjective and hence irrelevant.
ie, people who talk about need are doofuses.
who have to provide for others?
No one needs to live in a big palace in the sky above London. They could just as easily get a big palace in the sky in the north-east somewhere.
I used to be one of those mega left-wingers who was desperate to tax the rich and nationalise the fuck out of everything.
Then I started earning this kind of money and hated the idea.
Now, well, I want certain things re-nationalised and sorted (railways, NHS etc.) and am not naïve enough to think this can be achieved without more taxation and am happy to give up the extra for this.
If 17 year old me had met the me with some cash, there would have been an almighty scrap.
5K tax take so it'd hardly something that these people will be losing sleep over.