[KasanDude]

(Original post by Alkain1607)
Where will the Government get this money? Taxation, so it is necessary to tax more to ensure that the poor get equal opportunity and can actually survive.

Taxation is only one of the possible sources of income for a country. Foreign direct investment is a much more desirable source of money, in my opinion. Also, ask yourself what the basic amenities people need to survive. Clothing, food, water and shelter. Water and shelter could easily be taken care of with a government incentive scheme which would make it adventageous for people with money to invest in cheap property development. Ethically this would seem more agreeable as the money would be visably spent in an area where it is needed without the government taking all of it and then distributing it on its own accord (when is the government every correct anyways...)

Food products and basic clothes are tax free so that takes care of that. However, some people still haven't enough money to feed themselves. This is, again, where FDI would come in. If the government simply took the money through income tax, they'd slowly give it away as income support. If they enticed investors into the correct markets in the country (such as transportation or the food industry) the money which they would otherwise give away would be used to create permanent jobs for the otherwise unemployed. It is better to give a man a fishing rod than a fish.

Also, I do not take issue with tax per say, but I don't like it when people automatically say "tax the rich, they can afford it." Clearly there are options where everyone would "win."

[yummychocolate]

(Original post by Alkain1607)
x

As of now I live on under 9,000 a year of which approx 3,000 is univeristy fees and 5,000 rent. Granted I live alone so my expenditure is less but then why can't working families with an income live on their benefits of up to 25,000?

At 16 I got a retail job with absolutely no qualifications. It's definately possible to get a job without any qualifications and work your way up. Reatil and sales are a great example of charm > intelligence. You could have all the degrees in the world, but if you cant sell you're out. But I agree atm there aren't many jobs.
Sadly if we DONT have the money they we can't fund benefits, and it has to take a cut. If you haven't noticed most areas have taken a cut - university funding, NHS budgets, pensions and now benefits. Unless you want us to follow Greece's example?
Actually I'm against minimun wage, it increases wages at the cost of cutting jobs, effectively causing unemployment. If you're interested look into supply and demand of labour markets.

Whether you think it's wrong or not is up to you. I'm just explaining the economics behind it, supply and demand. The harder your job is to do, the harder it is to replace you = less supply but high demand.
Sales assistant < Doctor < Footballers
Would footballers earn any money if we stopped going to their games? And not all of them earn the same because some are more favoured by the public. If you have problems with how much public figures earn, technically it's your (public's) fault. It comes with living in a free market capalist society.

Not really considering they don't have the money, skills and knowledge to do the jobs that the rich do. So there will be an overall decrease in income, meaning less tax to be redistributed to those in need.
Not many people have a problem with being taxed because we dont mind helping the less fortunate, money is fed into improving the transport links, NHS, etc.
But honestly my parents did reduce their hours when the tax rates rose and spent time with me because the opportunity cost the new net income.

Actually you will be surprised how easily it is if you have the money.
Speaking from experience, the extremely unhappy move to UAE where there is NO income tax. They often leave behind their kids in UK (if of university age) or just the dad bmoves ecause it's not a permanent move. These people leave with the focus of making money for their children and come back after X years. The brain drain is a serious problem, hence why the 50p tax was cut.

Geneva I believe taxes a maximum of 51% how is that much more than the UK when we taxed 50%? Higher tax rates are required in smaller countries, compare Geneva's population of 190,000 to UK's 62,000,000. They need to tax much more to generate funds to improve their roads, education, etc. And because the population is smaller, they will personally see the benefit much more than when it's spread out over the UK.

How would you tax someone who doesn't earn money in the UK? They become outside our juridiction. And taxing someone for leaving- I'm sorry but that's wrong to punish people who leave for their benefit as well as an infringement of their human rights (freedom of movement).

You're stating my point exactly, if they cant work the poor are entiled to numerious benefits to live on. But the wealthy do not qulaify.
Plus the NHS will cover their full treatment cost if the poor are financally unable to. The difference is that the poor have benefits acting as a safety net. That's my point, the wealthy have a lot more to lose where people on benefits stand to gain more.

I don't recieve benefits so correct me if I'm wrong. You get a lump sum of money and it's up to you how you live. Refer back to the video, the lady chose to buy a large house in an expensive area with a large screen TV. Imagine how much money she could have saved if she downsized and put the excess money into a private pension or save for her children's future?
I'm not saying all people are like her, those who live within their means can survive and I have no problems with them.

Why do you feel entitled to Sky TV? It's outside your basic necessities. How can you justify living a live more luxurious lifestyle at the cost of hard working taxpayers? Like I said before:

(Original post by yummychocolate)
I am for supporting the underprivileged but not making benefits a luxurious lifestyle whereby it overcomes the incentive to work hard and improve their life. If they can sustain their lifestyle at the cost of the taxpayers why would they stop?

No offence I don't believe you should live comfortably on benefits. Why should you live a comfortable lifestyle at the cost of others? You should be able to feel the pinch so that you try to improve your life. Benefits are not a permanent solution; it's a short term solution when you fall in times of need, not a lifestyle. Take your case, you've still benefited from a good state education (funded by taxpayers) and hopefully become a layer after 3 years and achieve social mobility. So tell me what's wrong with the system?

Does having an iPad really make you happy when it's basically a flashy laptop? Does having 5 laptops instead of 1 make you happier? Does it really matter if you have a large TV screen or a small screen? Why do you feel the need to compare what you have to the people who have more? There will always be people who are better and worse off than you.

(Original post by KasanDude)
Taxation is only one of the possible sources of income for a country. Foreign direct investment is a much more desirable source of money, in my opinion. Also, ask yourself what the basic amenities people need to survive. Clothing, food, water and shelter. Water and shelter could easily be taken care of with a government incentive scheme which would make it adventageous for people with money to invest in cheap property development. Ethically this would seem more agreeable as the money would be visably spent in an area where it is needed without the government taking all of it and then distributing it on its own accord (when is the government every correct anyways...)

Food products and basic clothes are tax free so that takes care of that. However, some people still haven't enough money to feed themselves. This is, again, where FDI would come in. If the government simply took the money through income tax, they'd slowly give it away as income support. If they enticed investors into the correct markets in the country (such as transportation or the food industry) the money which they would otherwise give away would be used to create permanent jobs for the otherwise unemployed. It is better to give a man a fishing rod than a fish.

Also, I do not take issue with tax per say, but I don't like it when people automatically say "tax the rich, they can afford it." Clearly there are options where everyone would "win."

I like your thinking. I especially agree with the last line, a solution that works for all members of society would be more sustainable.

What people fail to realise is that the tax system harms the middle class the most. The 40% tax rate begins at 34,000, hardly rich. These people cannot afford lawyers to find loopholes like the rich and are not protected by the Government like the poor.

[ihatepoems]

I think beyond 30%, income tax becomes too high to remain justifiable. Income tax is just one piece of the puzzle, there; National Insurance, Road Tax, Council Tax, VAT, Fuel Duty and the list goes on. By the time you deduct all the above what are you left with?! 30% become more like 40%. Farcical.

[ufo2012]

Raise the minimum rate of income tax to at least £15K, at least that way those earning lower wages won't be as hard off.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

Too many people invent terms... Just say tax ...and regarding simply a percentage, that sounds like a good idea... Rich people give more but it's equal proportionally to a person who doesn't make as much

[manchesterunited15]

Under 15k - 0%

15k-100k - 30%

100k - 500k - 50%

500k+ - 60%

Fact is no-one needs over 500k.

[The_Great_One]

We need more rich people so we should reduce tax to attract them. You should never penalise success.

[The_Great_One]

We need more rich people so we should reduce tax to attract them. You should never penalise success. Some people in this country dont want to pay for anything and expect rich people to pay for everything. Why should the 1% pay for the mistakes of the 99%

[Jack22031994]

(Original post by manchesterunited15)
Under 15k - 0%

15k-100k - 30%

100k - 500k - 50%

500k+ - 60%

Fact is no-one needs over 500k.

Why? Evidence to back
It up? rather than just stating no one "needs" over that amount


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Hernán Cortés]

(Original post by JollyGreenAtheist)
There's a common myth that poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough. This may be the case for some people, but mostly, people are poor because they were born poor and never received the opportunity to be socially mobile.

Absolute *******s.

There are plenty of opportunities to develop and self improve all over this country, but most people either choose not to take them because they are too lazy or because they are too naive to spot them..

Punishing the people who are successful and have achieved this by taxing them so much will only force them out of the country, taking the wealth they create with it. Leaving significantly less opportunities for people to move up in society.

Pandering to idiots like we have been doing will ruin this country.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Hernán Cortés)
Absolute *******s.

There are plenty of opportunities to develop and self improve all over this country, but most people either choose not to take them because they are too lazy or because they are too naive to spot them..

Punishing the people who are successful and have achieved this by taxing them so much will only force them out of the country, taking the wealth they create with it. Leaving significantly less opportunities for people to move up in society.

Pandering to idiots like we have been doing will ruin this country.

People want higher taxes for richer people for good reasons.

#1 - It generally means lower taxes or more public services for themselves as reducing taxes on the rich leads to spending cuts or tax increases on others.

#2 - It doesn't affect them do you care about the taxes on tobacco if you are a non smoker? Of course not.

#3 - People feel the rich have more spare change to tax whereas other people do not.

[Hernán Cortés]

(Original post by internetguru)
People want higher taxes for richer people for good reasons.

#1 - It generally means lower taxes or more public services for themselves as reducing taxes on the rich leads to spending cuts or tax increases on others.

#2 - It doesn't affect them do you care about the taxes on tobacco if you are a non smoker? Of course not.

#3 - People feel the rich have more spare change to tax whereas other people do not.

So you are basically saying that the only reason people believe in taxing the rich is because of their own selfishness rather than reasoning? This is the 'good reason' you speak of?

The rich don't use state schools, they don't use the NHS, the don't over populate prisons (or consume a lot less than the poor do). Yet despite the fact that they already pay a good chunk of tax towards these services, and at the same time pay for their own private ones, you think it is fair to tax them even more?

[internetguru]

(Original post by Hernán Cortés)
So you are basically saying that the only reason people believe in taxing the rich is because of their own selfishness rather than reasoning? This is the 'good reason' you speak of?

The rich don't use state schools, they don't use the NHS, the don't over populate prisons (or consume a lot less than the poor do). Yet despite the fact that they already pay a good chunk of tax towards these services, and at the same time pay for their own private ones, you think it is fair to tax them even more?

Politics isn't about fair it never has been. Since the beginning of elections the vast majority of people have always voted for the party which benefited themselves the most.

Wealthy? vote Conservative. - less taxes
Poor? vote Labour. - more benefits
Student? vote Lib Dem. - no tuition fees

[994A]

Frankly yes they should. I can see why it’s frustrating that the people who earn more pay a lot of their earnings and some of that does go to benefit scroungers and fraudsters but it also goes towards education NHS and people who are really in need of their benefits. The people who complain about paying taxes are the tight toffs who want to keep their money for themselves and aren’t about helping others. I’m almost 100% sure if you ask any low earner who pay minimal tax or if any, they would be more than happy to earn £150, 00 and pay 40% because they would still end up with more. The problem with Britain is not that taxes are too high or unfairly distributed, it is that the people paying the higher tax are selfish and elitist and would rather not help the people in their society who really are in need.

[TimHuak]

Yes I'd love to see higher taxes on the rich. I need somebody to pay for my free stuff.

Who else is going to pay for my healthcare, Art History degree, iphone, bills and cable TV?

[Dennerers]

Anyone can become rich, anyone. they just need to work hard. there is no point in taxing more to the rich. Equal tax!

[Suetonius]

Of course not. Nobody aspires to be taxed. Why would someone persevere and compete within a free market while bearing the knowledge that they'll be penalised for it? It would lead to less aspiration. It might level the playing field, sure. It might reduce "inequality", but only at great expense. Not only would less wealth be generated in the private sector - where is belongs - but more would be taken out of it. Taxing the rich doesn't just lead to the rich being poorer than they otherwise would be. On the contrary, it would lead to everybody but the very rich getting poorer. All a CEO needs to do in order to preserve his/her salary in such conditions is to reduce the average salary for others within the company. The average employee will receive the pay cut because their boss has been taxed more, which is obviously very damaging for the lower "classes". Funnelling money from "the rich" into the State doesn't reduce inequality or promote public services. That's do-gooder propaganda and wish thinking which has been repeatedly and universally discredited. Very often, the huge wealth accumulated by business elites only exist because they've been assisted by the State.

[akj08]

Yes they should. The truth is that the super rich depend on the workers underneath them (especially at the very bottom around minimum wage) to create their wealth. These workers are doing the hard labour and producing the goods/services/whatever at a wage which allows a high profit margin. These low-paid workers rely on the state the most, and therefore in order to ensure that they are educated, healthy and supported (i.e. in the best form to work productively) we must maintain these systems through tax. Rightly, significant contribution comes from the people who have benefited most from the system and are most able to afford it.

The state and private sectors are co-dependent, despite what the 'top dogs' in the business world would like to suggest.

In countries like Germany for example, all income over a few million is taxed at 100%, which basically limits the top salaries. It's a fairer system in my opinion, as no-one really needs, or can reasonably spend, more than that. It prevents the mindless greed in tax evasion and the bonus culture that exists in banking etc. in this country, and you can't really say the German economy is any worse for it.

[oz40]

I don't think there should be higher taxation unless you earn more than £160,000 a year IMO.

[py0alb]

The two usual stupid arguments.

"its just not fair to tax rich people more than others"

nonsense. The rich receive more indirect assistance from the state, therefore its not unfair that they should pay more for it.

"It provides a disincentive to hard work, innovate and take chances"

completely inaccurate. In fact the exact opposite is true: entrepreneurship is only possible with a safety net of bankruptcy rights and unemployment insurance.