The Student Room Group

Should Britain introduce a 'Millionaires Tax'?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Len Goodman
Why? What's the incentive in working your backside off to increase your salary if it's just going to be taken away by the govenment?


Because like it or not, all that money you make is highly dependant both on the activity of other individuals and the wider society/governance.

No man is an island and tprecisely no one has ever made money solely by themselves.
Original post by mojojojo101
Because like it or not, all that money you make is highly dependant both on the activity of other individuals and the wider society/governance.

No man is an island and tprecisely no one has ever made money solely by themselves.


Which implies a false dichotomy: altruistic ethics and the large state that comes with it, or every man being an island. Trivially class as evidenced by early man, and arguably all civilisations until the last few centuries.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Ambitious1999
They never increased unemployment it was a dirty trick by the government to refuse to accept demands by unions simply by shutting down the industries their members worked in. It was the Tory government in the 80s who refused to cooperate with unions and make fair negotiations, instead they shut down places like coal mines etc and made people jobless. If anything unions were campaigning against job cuts.


So, if it were up to you, the mines would still be open?
Original post by Ambitious1999
We should introduce a Millionaires tax because the rich are still not paying their way and pulling their weight. Evidenced by the mass poverty and austerity.

The tax would be on an escalator starting from £1 M and increasing with every £500K above that. Tax fraud investigators would keep a close eye on any person who may be using off shore accounts.

It seems drastic but money is needed to provide affordable housing, reduce university tuition fees, welfare money, repair the NHS and help in the nationalisation of the railways etc.

Most of us are working and middle class and expect the upper class to pull their weight more.


While that sounds like a nice idea in principle, it would realistically be the surest policy to encourage millionaires to relocate to Ireland. They've already got the lowest corporate tax in Europe.



Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Len Goodman
No. Tax is theft, if you earn your money you deserve to keep it.

That money is stolen off the manual labourers in the first place. For every rich person, there is a mountain of workers who have been swindled out of the products of their labour. Tax is only giving back to the people what is rightfully theirs.
Original post by mojojojo101
Because like it or not, all that money you make is highly dependant both on the activity of other individuals and the wider society/governance.

No man is an island and tprecisely no one has ever made money solely by themselves.

This.

Smh at rich people claiming they made all that money themselves. Lol no, their workers made it for them and were given pittance in return, and were expected to be grateful for it.
Original post by Abstract_Prism
That money is stolen off the manual labourers in the first place.


they sold their labour for a profit themselves. if their labour wasn't worth the amount of money that they're given, why would they accept such a contract? therefore, by definition, their time is worth less than the money they're given and therefore they are profiting just as the business owner is. it's the same thing. one just makes money because they have the skills to be in a position to make more. it's that simple. nothing to do with theft. wanna know what theft looks like? taxation.

For every rich person, there is a mountain of workers who have been swindled out of the products of their labour. Tax is only giving back to the people what is rightfully theirs.


the cold war ended 28 years ago! how are you stuck in the past with this marxist nonsense? I'm genuinely quite bewildered.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Jammy Duel
Which implies a false dichotomy: altruistic ethics and the large state that comes with it, or every man being an island. Trivially class as evidenced by early man, and arguably all civilisations until the last few centuries.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Firstly, I wouldn't equate altruism or ethics with the State, that is a rather bizarre jump.

Secondly,, I don't seehow I represented a class dichotomy all I did was suggest that the presence of multiple inter-reliant individuals is neccesary to make any sort of financial gain
Original post by Abstract_Prism
This.

Smh at rich people claiming they made all that money themselves. Lol no, their workers made it for them and were given pittance in return, and were expected to be grateful for it.


oh my god
do you have any understanding of "earn"?
"work" and "earn" are different things - you might "work" really ****ing hard, but what good is that work if it's not satisfying demand? and you might "earn" a lot of money even if you don't "work" very hard at all.
rich people "earn" more visibly than they "work" because their work is massively cost efficient whereas a manual labourer's work, for example, is very cost *in*efficient. this is purely based on their returns. if the businessman can justify being paid £100 an hour in that they make their companies at least that much through their contribution as a manager (and also based on subjective competitive rates of demand between potential managers) but the manual labourer cannot (because literally a trained monkey could probably do their job and hence it is not valuable), that is nothing to do with "theft" but "earn" in non-zero sum games. the gain of the businessman is not a loss for the labourer. money is not a fixed thing. it grows when resources are created (unless there is inflation). so your notion of wealth is absurd.
Original post by sleepysnooze
they sold their labour for a profit themselves. if their labour wasn't worth the amount of money that they're given, why would they accept such a contract? therefore, by definition, their time is worth less than the money they're given and therefore they are profiting just as the business owner is. it's the same thing. one just makes money because they have the skills to be in a position to make more. it's that simple. nothing to do with theft. wanna know what theft looks like? taxation.


So, the workers decide that their boss doesn't pay them enough. They decide to quit as they value their labour more.

he next day the landlord turns up and demands a rent payment, oh **** the workers have no money, best go back to that other job where they are abused and underpaid.

The capitalist notion of free agreement is dependant on the first word, FREE. However outiisde of the utopian heads of AnCaps people realise that those contracts can never be freely negotiated because if they worker doesn't sign then they will be condemned to a life of starvation and homelessness.
Original post by sleepysnooze
they sold their labour for a profit themselves. if their labour wasn't worth the amount of money that they're given, why would they accept such a contract?

Labourers aren't a unified force, they know that if they don't work someone else will take their place. They are forced to work for pittance because there is no other option. Sometimes they are able to successfully mobilise in a strike.

Original post by sleepysnooze
oh my god
do you have any understanding of "earn"?
"work" and "earn" are different things - you might "work" really ****ing hard, but what good is that work if it's not satisfying demand? and you might "earn" a lot of money even if you don't "work" very hard at all.

Sure sure, I'm not advocating that people working very hard on things that no one wants should be rewarded massively. The point I'm making is that the people who are actually doing the work to produce things that are in demand are being underpaid. That's how profit is made after all, by selling goods for less than it cost to make them, meaning that it is impossible to produce profit without underpaying people. Capitalism is thus inherently exploitative.

sleepysnooze
rich people "earn" more visibly than they "work" because their work is massively cost efficient whereas a manual labourer's work, for example, is very cost *in*efficient.

It's not inefficient at all. They just earn less because they are vastly underpaid. All profit is produced by them, and they see nearly none of it.

sleepysnooze
if the businessman can justify being paid £100 an hour in that they make their companies at least that much through their contribution as a manager (and also based on subjective competitive rates of demand between potential managers) but the manual labourer cannot (because literally a trained monkey could probably do their job and hence it is not valuable), that is nothing to do with "theft" but "earn" in non-zero sum games. the gain of the businessman is not a loss for the labourer.

That businessman is a worker, not an owner. We agree that if you produce wealth, you deserve to see that wealth. I have no problem with that businessman. I have a problem with the megarich, the billionaires, who obviously do not contribute to the firm anything near what they are receiving.

I think we agree on a number of things. People should be paid what they are worth, right? And that worth is determined by the wealth that they can produce. People should not be entitled to more than they are worth, and people should not receive less than the total wealth that they produce. So owners who underpay workers and take that wealth for themselves without having contributed that to the firm are the real thieves.
Original post by Ambitious1999
We should introduce a Millionaires tax because the rich are still not paying their way and pulling their weight. Evidenced by the mass poverty and austerity.

The tax would be on an escalator starting from £1 M and increasing with every £500K above that. Tax fraud investigators would keep a close eye on any person who may be using off shore accounts.

It seems drastic but money is needed to provide affordable housing, reduce university tuition fees, welfare money, repair the NHS and help in the nationalisation of the railways etc.

Most of us are working and middle class and expect the upper class to pull their weight more.


You are stupid!
Mr Hollande's 75% tax failed!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax
Unemployment rose, so did the deficit and revenue decreased. Like I mentioned before go learn economics as you clearly have 0 understanding. Go look up the laffer curve.
We already tax people 45%, this is too much and you wanna raise it. Also are you stupid?(answer is clearly yes) Under the Tories the rich have been paying more.



We tax more progressively than Scandinavian if you look at the ratios.
Next time do some research before you go on an idiotic socialist rant.



Original post by Ambitious1999
We should introduce a Millionaires tax because the rich are still not paying their way and pulling their weight. Evidenced by the mass poverty and austerity.
.

No , this is not evidence you moron, the rich pay the most tax in the UK, the top 1% contribute 27% of income tax!
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by mojojojo101
Firstly, I wouldn't equate altruism or ethics with the State, that is a rather bizarre jump.

Secondly,, I don't seehow I represented a class dichotomy all I did was suggest that the presence of multiple inter-reliant individuals is neccesary to make any sort of financial gain


A large state with high taxes is the ultimate outcome of an altruistic ethical system given the latter is the justification for the former. And it meant to say trivially false.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Oh dear a thread to feed the trolls of politics of envy.

I believe Hollande tried that and majority of the wealthier French decided to make London the latest Little France.

I'm sure Luxembourg, Switzerland and possibly Belgium will become the latest Little New Britain if ever such a tax came into play. Also no, UK leaving the EU won't have any impact on that, wealthier people can move wherever and whenever they please while taking their money and toys with them.
The rich pay the vast majority of the taxes already, don't even use the services as much, as well as actually producing the things people want. How about everyone else takes responsibility and pulls their own weight if they want free healthcare so they can live until they're 100. If you didn't want austerity, you shouldn't have let the govt borrow ridiculous amounts of money to waste it. We spend £45bn a year on interest for our debt. It would be like me borrowing money to buy caviar. Ok I have a good lifestyle for now. But imagine what my lifestyle will be like when I have to pay the money back.
Original post by fleky6910
You are stupid!
Mr Hollande's 75% tax failed!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax
Unemployment rose, so did the deficit and revenue decreased. Like I mentioned before go learn economics as you clearly have 0 understanding. Go look up the laffer curve.
We already tax people 45%, this is too much and you wanna raise it. Also are you stupid?(answer is clearly yes) Under the Tories the rich have been paying more.



We tax more progressively than Scandinavian if you look at the ratios.
Next time do some research before you go on an idiotic socialist rant.




No , this is not evidence you moron, the rich pay the most tax in the UK, the top 1% contribute 27% of income tax!

The reason the top 1% pay more tax here than in Scandinavia is simply because they own far more of the nation's wealth than the top 1% in Scandinavian countries do.

They are far more equal countries, with better education systems and public services as well as fewer social issues.
Original post by asdfg323
The rich pay the vast majority of the taxes already, don't even use the services as much, as well as actually producing the things people want. How about everyone else takes responsibility and pulls their own weight if they want free healthcare so they can live until they're 100. If you didn't want austerity, you shouldn't have let the govt borrow ridiculous amounts of money to waste it. We spend £45bn a year on interest for our debt. It would be like me borrowing money to buy caviar. Ok I have a good lifestyle for now. But imagine what my lifestyle will be like when I have to pay the money back.


The wealthy are more reliant on the services than the poor. The only reason they can have nice houses and possessions is that we have a police force and judiciary to prevent others taking it for themselves.

The reason that they run successful businesses is that we have an education stayers which prepares their workers as well as a health system to keep their workers healthy.

We have infrastructure and a transport system which allows its workers to travel to work.

Etc. The law and order generated from a state benefits the welathy, more than the poor.
Original post by Len Goodman
No. Tax is theft, if you earn your money you deserve to keep it.


How should we fund our army then?
Original post by Kravence
People earning 1mill a year are getting taxed pretty hard, they only take home around 500-600k afterwards.



'Only'
(edited 7 years ago)
Nice and ideal - however in layman's terms, the super-rich have such a massive controlling stake in the performance of a government (and by extension, a country as a whole) that financial penalties that they deem too harsh will be dealt with by a swift opening of a bank account in Panama. People are bastards - after an upsetting year it's high time to accept it.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you