Should rich people pay more income tax?

what are you saying? If I register my company with the taxman I can reclaim VAT on equipment I bought before registration?

I'm asking whether it's an option. The answer may be no, for more than one reason.

Reply 61

cole-slaw

5

Original post by will_jg

Great idea have all the business owners take their companies over to Switzerland and Monaco.

and miss out on the British market altogether, great idea.

Reply 62

DarrenBCFC

2

There is a simple solution out of it thouh. Everyone is up in arms about the rich havnig to pay more tax it makes basic sense that people with millions are taxed on theit money and this is because it will have less financial burden on them if i was to win euromillions i would willingly pay more tax but not under a tory government i would stick my money into a bank in a tax haven such as the virgin islands till there kicked out of power then will transfer it back when Laour get back in. Yes i would be paying morw tax but atleast Labour help more people like myself who live in a deprived area

Reply 63

Twinpeaks

18

Original post by MagicJigsaw

Honestly I think this country punishes people for being successful, imagine working hard to earn a lot of money and then having half of it taken away by the government

Sigh.

Imagine working hard in a low paying job; manual skilled labour, care work, support work etc. And imagine having a low income, struggling to have a decent quality of life, struggling to provide for your family, and then imagine paying the same amount of tax as a rich person. As a person who owns a nice Audi, goes on nice holidays in the summer, skiing trips in winter, gives their children all they want.

Now that would be the kick in the teeth. The issue is that so many people on here are completely self-serving. You are all expecting big jobs when you're older (perhaps idealistically), so you are thinking from the begrudging perspective of a wealthy earner. Perhaps you should also consider the perspective of the low income work force.

It's all about perspective, and a little bit of empathy. A quality which appears to be lacking in many of you book smart people.

Tax should be proportionate to income. Obviously.

Reply 64

Twinpeaks

18

Original post by MatureStudent36

But you are motivate by greed and envy. You promote a politics of greed, envy and hate.

Probably because mummy and daddy having been sucking the tax payer dry for some time.

The irony of the first paragraph. You aren't greedy at all...

Reply 65

Thisguy11

18

Well, if society did not exists people could not earn high amounts of money, therefore we should pay back

Reply 66

2071067

2

Original post by filthynines

I'm asking whether it's an option. The answer may be no, for more than one reason.

oh well if i can claim vat on future equipment after registering ill be happy.

Reply 67

username1500433

3

Original post by cole-slaw

and miss out on the British market altogether, great idea.

sarcasm

Reply 68

fat_hampster

1

Original post by tomfailinghelp

So, you're conceding that those who earn over £150,000 per year are treated differently by the law - subject to greater taxation?

In the same way that those who kill someone are treated differently by the law?

If you're on 150K and you're upset about it, you can quit your job; so it's not like you're being forced to pay that much tax. Most people on 20K don't have the option to change to a 150K job if they chose.

Reply 69

Asolare

20

More tax than lower earners, yes.
More tax than at present? No. 45% itself is absolutely outlandish, it shouldn't exceed 40% in my eyes.

For those of you who so desire to have the rich's tax rate so high, I will kindly ask you to hop on a boat to France and give +50% of your income to the French government once you're wealthy.

Reply 70

ridersofrohan

7

I think each member of society who works should be entitled to as much of their income as possible.

In principle, I don't agree with the differing amount of income tax that people of different brackets pay. However income tax is the main source of government revenue (£152 billion) and at this moment in time, it isn't really sustainable to decrease it substantially.

Reply 71

cemetrygates

3

Original post by So Instinct

Nah, imagine earning 60k and only taking 30k home give or take.

You're mistaken, they don't charge 40% on the £60k, they do it in steps.

So ~£10,000 is tax free (personal allowance),
then £32,000 is charged at 20%,
then £18,000 is charged at 40%.

Reply 72

SeaPony

2

Your definition of 'rich' is someone's definition of middle class. Think a bit more liibtards.

Reply 73

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by Meta Cognition

Wealth taxes are one of the worst kinds of taxes which exist; they have horrible effects for an economy.

I do support an LVT, however. They're highly efficient and highly progressive. Really, in the grand scheme of things, we ought to move away from taxing income and towards a progressive consumption tax.

Corporation tax and capital gains tax, however, should be abolished outright.

There's a type of wealth tax (loosely speaking) which has been working well for millennia - it's called inheritance tax. So not all 'wealth taxes' either don't work or have generally negative results. Inheritance tax works because it is difficult to avoid/evade.

It would be sensible to try more wealth taxes. At the present time in capitalism, a massive concentration of wealth is going on. It is being more and more concentrated amongst a tiny group of very big capital owners who are evading tax worldwide.

The issue is how to redress this serious imbalance. Taxing income doesn't work for such people (or for many of the very wealthy) as they are good at hiding their income and relying on property, land and stocks hidden behind trusts placed in tax havens.

We should place big taxes on the purchases they make. For example, people buying property worth more than, say, £5m, should pay a 25% stamp duty, rising to 50% on properties of more than £10m. We should charge a massive council tax on such properties. Land purchase and income from rents should be taxed highly where these are leaving the country. Failure to pay or attempts at evasion by vesting them in trusts owned from tax havens should result in confiscation. We should tax big yachts, expensive jewels and cars that cost more than £50k.

We should also tax land and property owned from abroad generally and particularly where the property is let out or left empty and has been purchased purely for speculative reasons.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 74

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by cemetrygates

You're mistaken, they don't charge 40% on the £60k, they do it in steps.

So ~£10,000 is tax free (personal allowance),
then £32,000 is charged at 20%,
then £18,000 is charged at 40%.

People who rant about high tax rates always choose to overlook all the allowances, which mean that the 'punitive' rate is only on the higher part of income.

The UK's income tax rates remain generous by international standards, which is one reason why we are running a big public deficit.

Reply 75

tomfailinghelp

17

Original post by fat_hampster

In the same way that those who kill someone are treated differently by the law?

If you're on 150K and you're upset about it, you can quit your job; so it's not like you're being forced to pay that much tax. Most people on 20K don't have the option to change to a 150K job if they chose.

And if you're upset paying any tax at all, then you can just go to prison, so it's not like you're being forced to pay any tax at all! Nonsense.

The case of violating laws is different, because everyone regardless of their wealth is equally culpable and equally treated if they murder someone - or at least we agree that they should be. The point of equality before the law is that everybody is part of the same class or group, and nobody is (or should be) subject to different rules than anybody else - if someone pays proportionately more in terms of taxation than somebody else, clearly they are understood as part of a different group which is in some way more responsible for the preservation of the state than anybody else, which is absurd.

In any case, if you were right that graduated taxation is legitimate, on the basis that the law treats people unequally anyway - for instance, murderers are treated differently to innocents - then what basis is there for saying that treating black people, or gypsies, or homosexuals differently is not legitimate? There isn't one: there is either equality before the law or there is not, and it is pretty obvious that graduated taxation upsets that principle.

Reply 76

MagicJigsaw

14

Original post by Twinpeaks

Sigh.

Imagine working hard in a low paying job; manual skilled labour, care work, support work etc. And imagine having a low income, struggling to have a decent quality of life, struggling to provide for your family, and then imagine paying the same amount of tax as a rich person. As a person who owns a nice Audi, goes on nice holidays in the summer, skiing trips in winter, gives their children all they want.

Now that would be the kick in the teeth. The issue is that so many people on here are completely self-serving. You are all expecting big jobs when you're older (perhaps idealistically), so you are thinking from the begrudging perspective of a wealthy earner. Perhaps you should also consider the perspective of the low income work force.

It's all about perspective, and a little bit of empathy. A quality which appears to be lacking in many of you book smart people.

Tax should be proportionate to income. Obviously.

Actually I live in a council flat so I don't need to imagine, nor do I lack empathy. And I still hold the same opinion. Being envious of people with more money than you is unfortunately not a valid justification for your argument. Obviously.

Reply 77

Meta Cognition

4

Original post by Fullofsurprises

There's a type of wealth tax (loosely speaking) which has been working well for millennia - it's called inheritance tax.

Hmm, not really. Pretty much all the Nordic countries are doing fine without the inheritance tax.

Plus, inheritance tax isn't a wealth tax. It's also not true that inheritance tax is "difficult to avoid"; it's actually really quite regressive at the moment, falling mostly on the middle-class are richer parents manage to avoid it.

It would be sensible to try more wealth taxes.

No, it wouldn't. There's a pretty strong semi-consensus among economists that wealth taxes hinder capital formation and, in bad enough circumstances, can be recessionary. One country with a wealth tax, France, has had a horrible time of it.

At the present time in capitalism, a massive concentration of wealth is going on. It is being more and more concentrated amongst a tiny group of very big capital owners who are evading tax worldwide.

Let me guess, Piketty?

Sorry, but that just isn't true. All of the increase in capital's share of domestic income in countries like the US can be put down primarily to rising rents, poor regulation on smaller businesses and overly-strict IP laws.

We should place big taxes on the purchases they make. For example, people buying property worth more than, say, £5m, should pay a 25% stamp duty, rising to 50% on properties of more than £10m. We should charge a massive council tax on such properties. Land purchase and income from rents should be taxed highly where these are leaving the country. Failure to pay or attempts at evasion by vesting them in trusts owned from tax havens should result in confiscation. We should tax big yachts, expensive jewels and cars that cost more than £50k.
So. . . Do you have any evidence for these proposals?

We should also tax land and property owned from abroad generally and particularly where the property is let out or left empty and has been purchased purely for speculative reasons.

We should tax land, absolutely. Land taxes are highly progressive and efficient; property taxes not so much.

Reply 78

nase14_aldayz

13

Yes, absolutely. That is of course until I earn a ridiculous salary, then it should be immediately changed.

Reply 79

So Instinct

20

Original post by cemetrygates

You're mistaken, they don't charge 40% on the £60k, they do it in steps.

So ~£10,000 is tax free (personal allowance),
then £32,000 is charged at 20%,
then £18,000 is charged at 40%.

Indeed I was mistaken.

Should rich people pay more income tax?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you