Why is it fair that "the rich should pay more"?
Discussion
I don't object to taxation in principle. I want us to have a police force, roads, hospitals, schools and all that stuff, and it's got to be paid for somehow.
I wouldn't object to the notion that if I earned £100k a year, I'd pay twice as much tax as if I earned £50k.
How on earth, though, have we managed to arrive at an apparent consensus position which says that it's normal and fair for someone on £100k to pay a higher percentage of their earnings as the person on £50k??
Isn't this rather like going to a shop to be told that the price for a single pair of socks is £1, but if you want to buy 500 pairs, they'll be £1.50 a pair?
Wouldn't it be fairer to have a system whereby the tax bands actually decrease as a percentage when your earnings increase? After all, the more you earn, the less you're actually likely to use the services tax revenues are spent on, and if you're already paying a significantly higher amount of cash in tax, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect to pay a slightly lower percentage of your total income?
It annoys me that this does not happen.
I wouldn't object to the notion that if I earned £100k a year, I'd pay twice as much tax as if I earned £50k.
How on earth, though, have we managed to arrive at an apparent consensus position which says that it's normal and fair for someone on £100k to pay a higher percentage of their earnings as the person on £50k??
Isn't this rather like going to a shop to be told that the price for a single pair of socks is £1, but if you want to buy 500 pairs, they'll be £1.50 a pair?
Wouldn't it be fairer to have a system whereby the tax bands actually decrease as a percentage when your earnings increase? After all, the more you earn, the less you're actually likely to use the services tax revenues are spent on, and if you're already paying a significantly higher amount of cash in tax, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect to pay a slightly lower percentage of your total income?
It annoys me that this does not happen.
I completely agree.
Though you have to have a minimum, I'd say something like this would be fair:
first £1500/month aren't taxed at all, everything above is taxed equally.
That way the ones with a low income still pay (relatively) less taxes than the ones with a higher income.
I do agree that going higher it actually rises your tax percentage, as you said: you're likely to not need social services, or will ever need them for that matter, you're possibly contributing to society, even providing employment perhaps.
But yes, the votes are cast, and 50% of the population earn less than the national average.
Though you have to have a minimum, I'd say something like this would be fair:
first £1500/month aren't taxed at all, everything above is taxed equally.
That way the ones with a low income still pay (relatively) less taxes than the ones with a higher income.
I do agree that going higher it actually rises your tax percentage, as you said: you're likely to not need social services, or will ever need them for that matter, you're possibly contributing to society, even providing employment perhaps.
But yes, the votes are cast, and 50% of the population earn less than the national average.
Come on people, its obvious. Its so that the coalition government can pay for all their hollow promises. Or so yorkshire people and students would have you believe. In reality, its so that we can give lots of money away in aid abroad, even though labour got us £1.4 trillion in debt, and free healthcare to all the immigrants, even though labour got us £1.4 trillion in debt, and helps to support all the dole spoungers who refuse to get a job, but dont loose their money as all they do is threaten to kick peoples heads in and hey presto, they get money. Thats why your tax is going up
it's more that lower earners can't afford to pay their actual share
if the level of services was set at a rate that everyone could afford to pay the same share (everyone's got basic living expenses), those services would be much lower quality (hard to imagine, I know)
then the wealthy would set up fully private health care, private security, gated communities etc
it would be lovely, I'm sure
if the level of services was set at a rate that everyone could afford to pay the same share (everyone's got basic living expenses), those services would be much lower quality (hard to imagine, I know)
then the wealthy would set up fully private health care, private security, gated communities etc
it would be lovely, I'm sure
The question I've always wondered is:
If all the loopholes that rich people with clever accountants jump through were closed, by for instance making everything over £18,000 a year taxed at 30%, regardless, would the country take in more or less tax?
Mind you...
It would have to be worldwide to stop people playing silly buggers, and a single world currency too. And rates. Infact, why not just pay everyone the same. That would be fairer.
Why has nobody tried this???
If all the loopholes that rich people with clever accountants jump through were closed, by for instance making everything over £18,000 a year taxed at 30%, regardless, would the country take in more or less tax?
Mind you...
It would have to be worldwide to stop people playing silly buggers, and a single world currency too. And rates. Infact, why not just pay everyone the same. That would be fairer.
Why has nobody tried this???
What I don't understand is how they work out tax bands, where somebody earning £37400 will come away with £24740 in their pocket but somebody earning £37450 will only come away with £18555.
I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
surrey7er said:
will_ said:
It's not "fair", but the crusties always cry that it's because "they can afford to".
None of these fecktards seem to grasp the downsides of 'taxing the rich'.It smacks of bitterness and envy; qualities which are far too evident in this land...
And the planks forget that 50% of nothing is....nothing, but 25% (where I would put a flat tax rate) of a lot is a lot!
Knuckle-draggers support tax rises provided they only affect "the rich" i.e. not them...... But put a tax on everyone (such as VAT) and it's "regressive".
grim_d said:
What I don't understand is how they work out tax bands, where somebody earning £37400 will come away with £24740 in their pocket but somebody earning £37450 will only come away with £18555.
I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
That would not happen. I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
inman999 said:
grim_d said:
What I don't understand is how they work out tax bands, where somebody earning £37400 will come away with £24740 in their pocket but somebody earning £37450 will only come away with £18555.
I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
That would not happen. I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
Edited by grim_d on Tuesday 7th December 14:57
grim_d said:
inman999 said:
grim_d said:
What I don't understand is how they work out tax bands, where somebody earning £37400 will come away with £24740 in their pocket but somebody earning £37450 will only come away with £18555.
I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
That would not happen. I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
Pints said:
grim_d said:
inman999 said:
grim_d said:
What I don't understand is how they work out tax bands, where somebody earning £37400 will come away with £24740 in their pocket but somebody earning £37450 will only come away with £18555.
I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
That would not happen. I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
grim_d said:
What I don't understand is how they work out tax bands, where somebody earning £37400 will come away with £24740 in their pocket but somebody earning £37450 will only come away with £18555.
I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
Doesn't quite work that way. Basically anything you earn over the band gets taxed at the higher rate, not everything you earn. took me a wee while to get my head around that.I appreciate it's probably a rare situation to be in but it's still daft, doesn't affect me though since I'm unlikely to ever earn anywhere near that amount!
IMHO, everyone should pay the same irrelevant of their income. Say £5k a year each for arguments sake. Let's face it, we all pay for the same services whether you earn £10k, £20k or £150k a year. Then it would be fair and maybe encourage some people to apply themselves more effectively.
I know it's riddled with flaws, and the great unwashed would jump up and down in defiance, but by my reckoning it's the simplest solution.
JM2PW.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff