[Drapetomanic]

High taxes on the rich won't create an economically stable, egalitarian utopia but it can be somewhat pragmatic once you get round the ridiculous idea that the rich have earned their wealth purely through hard work and intelligence, whereas the poor are idiotic failures who deserve their fate.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

So far, the votes suggest that there is more support for the idea that the rich pay too much tax than too little.

Very few people indeed think the amount as it currently stands is fair - less than 15% of voters.

[f1mad]

(Original post by rich2606)


That certainly looks like too much to me.

It'd be more if they didn't avoid paying taxes .

[Sternumator]

What does fair even mean? To me it is just a word people say when they are trying to argue they should get more money, it doesnt add anything to their arguement because the word is meaningless. Rich people say they pay an unfair amount of tax because they want to pay less and poor people say the rich dont pay a fair amount because they want more stuff. Its not a matter of principle, if the poor people became rich they would soon change their view. Thats why I don't vote, one vote doesnt make any difference so there is no point making the effort if it is just counting the number of rich and poor people who turn up.

I think the rich pay too based on effciency arguements. What really makes me angry is when a tax cut is suggested by the conservatives and labours main arguement against it is 'It will make the top 1% £... pounds a year'. Their main arguement against a policy is that it will make a group of people better off, it is crazy. I watched a video of Ed Balls about the 50p tax rate after some economists said it loses revenue, he ignored the key point of it losing revenue and just talked about how much better off it would make the rich. It seems spiteful to me.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by rich2606)


That certainly looks like too much to me.

Does this take into account the fact that the 1% pay into the 50% bracket, or have they divided it individually?

[Bornblue]

The rich pay too little tax. Especially Cameron's buds like Phillip Green and Lord Ashcroft, both billionaires yet both pay less tax than the average person.

[muddywaters51]

yes rich people should be forced to pay for poor peoples free stuff

[kopite493]

the way it works know is ridiculous 50000 should not be the higher earning once you start getting into millions or even billions though you should have a huge amount of tax

[Bornblue]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
yes rich people should be forced to pay for poor peoples free stuff

Please put the Daily Mail down darling.

[Stomm]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
That doesn't really address the issue at hand, however - it's one thing to believe that tax evasion and tax avoidance are bad, but quite another to think that the tax regime at present is fair or not.

Do you think it is?

If everyone paid income tax exactly according to their income then excluding that I think they 50% bracket needs to be reinstated, yes the current income tax bands are fair.

What I think is unfair however is how easy it is for people in usually very well paid jobs, or those that own their own businesses to avoid huge chunks of tax through various mechanisms. The argument is often used that this is to encourage entrepreneurship, but quite frankly 90% of the examples I know of it being used owe nothing to job creation or even actually producing anything, and a lot more to lining the pockets of said business owners and allowing them to give their kids cars and the like at a tiny fraction that it would cost if they had a normal salaried job, if any cost at all for that matter...


So no, the overall tax system is not fair. There are far too many loopholes in it that allow the reasonably well off to gaina whole host of what are in effect benefits for the wealthy, especially those who earn their income through the mechanism of a company whether that be one that actually does stuff with real employees, or one that is pretty much there so that a contractor is not a direct employee of some larger company or organisation...

This is what I have issue with. I mean how can a couple that are basically avoiding upwards of £30K or more each year in tax and national insurance contributions honestly complain about benefits for those on the bottom rungs of the income scale? They are in effect (currently legally) defrauding the nation of a teacher every single year, and then of course they send their daughter to a private prep school which at under £10k a year is one of the cheaper ones, but of course thanks to its charitable status is yet again another taxpayer funded benefit for the well off...

That is what quite frankly pisses me off about the tax system, the inequalities and rampant hypocracy that is inherent within the very system itself.

And if you want to know about my background, before someone starts accusing me of being an angy jealous working class person...

Well on my mother's side of the family both her parents were post-war immigrants from war-torn Europe, who ended up settling in South Wales, with my grandfather starting off as a coal miner and then moving on to become a publican, obviously a pillar of the Welsh community When my mother grew up she worked as a secretary for a while, and then became a social worker, eventually moving into doing reviews towards the end of her career.

My father's family, well apparently a great, great, great, great grandmother of mine on my father's mother's side was a Thames River Pirate. I'm guessing the 2nd cousin of mine that has researched that side of the family found the records of her being hanged or something...

Anyway other than that, my grandmother was born in New Jersey whilst her father was busy losing the family fortune speculating on the California orange harvest (they were English not American BTW). My grandfather's family was basically a long line of Methodist ministers, but my grandfather ended up becoming a teacher in a technology college, during the war he was I believe and RSM in the Royal Engineers teaching squaddies how to fix Shermans and the like...

Anyway my father went to gramar school, then onto uni, including doing a masters in economics and embarked upon a long career as an economist in the civil service..

Myself? Well as I've already mentioned I'm at home with the kids, which is largely the result of marrying a woman who was already on a career path when we met the first time I was at uni thirteen years ago now. I fluffed that up, then went back to uni, got my degree, then project managed the rennovation of our house, and when my wife went back to work it was obvious that I should be the one to stay with the kids.

She works in a bank, prior to the collapse of Leham Brothers she worked in an investment bank (that was certainly an interesting week to return to work after a year's maternity leave...), earns between £75k and £90k depending on bonuses, we have a house that is probably worth somewhere between £550k and £600k with mortgage and secured loans around £300k so we're certainly not poor, definitely stretched though. The fact that I'm currently in the process of divorcing her may or may not be relevant to the discussion, but needless to say when it comes to priorities money is not at the top of my list...

[muddywaters51]

(Original post by Bornblue)
Please put the Daily Mail down darling.

I dont read newspapers. I dont like the paper they use to make them.

[Agrippa]

(Original post by rich2606)


That certainly looks like too much to me.

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I quite agree. It is outrageous.

The argument based on this picture is only valid if you assume that everyone is being paid a fair wage for their work. It would be much more instructive for the blue circles to represent proportion of national income, rather than population.

[doggyfizzel]

The rich pay too much tax.

You have to define fair. For me that includes how much you use the services these taxes provide, and how much you are paying relative to everyone else.

The rich pay a larger proportion of their already larger amount and are less likely to use public services such as housing, transport, healthcare and benefits.

I think we should have a uniform tax rate that kicks in at £15k that taxes everyone 30%. If you can't balance the budget there, then you need to cut back services.

[justmyopinions]

My dad gets 110k a year and after tax we have 50... Like thats practically stealing, he works his a** off. However, if the government was to actually show benificial outcomes of all this tax, then it would be fine. For example, the road outside our house is full of potholes. We have to pay for carparking. The list goes on. We wouldn't mind tax if all this crap was actually sorted!!!!!!!!!!

[NR09]

(Original post by rich2606)
There's overlap between the groups they have chosen for the graph. The top 1% are also part of the top 10% for example. If you add together the top 50% to the bottom 50%, this is what adds up to 100% as there is no overlap.

Ah, I see

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by prog2djent)
That sounds a fairly average middle class salary, hardly rich at all.

Well I was saying it from my view, plus the fact above 40k they get charged a higher tax rate.

[doggyfizzel]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Well I was saying it from my view, plus the fact above 40k they get charged a higher tax rate.

Most mortgages offer 4-5 times salary. The average house price is ~£230k. So with those kind of wages you could afford to get a loan on an average house. Hardly rich to the point where they have money to burn.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by doggyfizzel)
Most mortgages offer 4-5 times salary. The average house price is ~£230k. So with those kind of wages you could afford to get a loan on an average house. Hardly rich to the point where they have money to burn.

I'm just saying from my view, i'm from working class. And seeing as 40k+ gets the higher tax rate and how they are getting a fair tax rate to some extent.

[doggyfizzel]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
I'm just saying from my view, i'm from working class. And seeing as 40k+ gets the higher tax rate and how they are getting a fair tax rate to some extent.

Well I'm just saying you point of view is wrong. This idea that someone in the highest tax rate is driving a Ferrari and flying 1st class just isn't true, and its that idea "they can afford it" which people use to justify a system which is blatantly unfair.

The average person in the top tax bracket probably has a nicer house (detached) or in a nicer area (lower crime, not swimming pool territory), a slightly nicer car (A BMW rather than Ford), and perhaps (even this is unlikely considering cost) is sending their kids to a private school. If this is worthy of people effectively being punished by a higher tax rate, are we really encouraging success?

The simply fact is the top 50% create more than they take, and are charged more for this lack of economic drain.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by doggyfizzel)
Well I'm just saying you point of view is wrong. This idea that someone in the highest tax rate is driving a Ferrari and flying 1st class just isn't true, and its that idea "they can afford it" which people use to justify a system which is blatantly unfair.

The average person in the top tax bracket probably has a nicer house (detached) or in a nicer area (lower crime, not swimming pool territory), a slightly nicer car (A BMW rather than Ford), and perhaps (even this is unlikely considering cost) is sending their kids to a private school. If this is worthy of people effectively being punished by a higher tax rate, are we really encouraging success?

The simply fact is the top 50% create more than they take, and are charged more for this lack of economic drain.

'your'..................when did I say they are driving a Ferrari, etc I never even said any of that at all.

I did also mention that they give more to the UK, did I not when you look at my original first post.

Just attacking me, without looking at the very first thing I said.