Turn on thread page Beta

People earning over £60000 should have a 0.8 to the pound tax rate? watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Why is increasing inheritance tax pointless? To be honest, I just meant increasing revenue from inheritance tax as opposed to via income tax, whether that's achieved through increasing the inheritance tax from 40% or lowering the threshold (likely a combination of both) wasn't the point I was trying to make. I just don't really think when you want to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, improve equality in any shape or form, you can overlook the simple fact that one of the key reasons inequality exists is because plenty of people inherit wealth, even with inheritance tax at what it currently is - and for no good reason other than the fact they were born into the right family. That said, I also disagree with inheritance tax on the basis that you're double taxing, but the reality is if you want to create a society that is ever going to have something that remotely resembles equality, inheritance tax will have to play a role - and I don't think the answer really lies in penalising those who, as I said, have mostly got themselves into a better financial situation through hard work and intelligence.
    because people will take their money abroad and transfer it there before they die? or because they will give it as a gift to their children before they die? inheritance tax is pointless and one of the most avoidable - i don't even understand how the government collects revenue on this tax apart from physical assets like vehicles and mansions
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    Do you think a salary of £70,000 is "earning enough to never have to do my own taxes"?
    accounts aren't that expensive really especially if you golf/funny handshake buddies
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    It's more about the fact that first class degrees are usually awarded to single percentage points of students at top universities for law, whereas other degrees that are still academically respected by the Bar go up to the likes of 45%, and a first is quite an important advantage in getting pupillage, or so I've heard. I was studying English at Bristol but disliked it so much that I am now re-applying elsewhere for 2016 entry, probably for linguistics but possibly for philosophy.
    it is, i remember seeing the graduate list here at warwick for law and im pretty sure the 1sts list was pretty small, the 2.1 list constituted a very large proportion instead. seems like too much effort. alright gl with that, philosophy is beast.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by William Pitt)
    What world do you inhabit? I'm at Oxford and the vast majority of law students never get to be barristers or solicitors, and no one earns 70k for a start. During pupillage you're lucky to earn 20k. Aside from that, we only have 15k barristers in the whole of UK. In order for you to ever join them you either need financial assets of your parents to pay for your BPTC and their contacts to get you through the pupillage or be the best 1st class student. Even then, you are self-employed and don't think it's easy to get cases as a barrister to earn something like 70k.

    What is in question here is taxation. I'm not necessarily in favour of 0.8 tax OP proposed, but the fundamental point you should accept is that the money you'd earn as a barrister is used for trade. Trade of commodities and services they have not produced. Their contribution to the market is actually weak, and yet some get to have elevated salaries which can be used for the purchase of goods produced by the more productive parties. Redistributive taxation is aimed at fixing this problem of market failure. You cannot possibly justify no income tax on those highly elevated incomes whose receivers are not contributing as much to the wealth creation.
    I mean that people should be able to keep as much money they earn as possible. My parents should be comfortably able to afford all that is required to be a barrister. It was an example , after all, but going to the college with the highest entry reqs. at Cambridge, I should do alright.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cleverasvoltaire)
    I mean that people should be able to keep as much money they earn as possible. My parents should be comfortably able to afford all that is required to be a barrister. It was an example , after all, but going to the college with the highest entry reqs. at Cambridge, I should do alright.
    I just hope you achieve what you expect to achieve - you're clearly going to be very unhappy otherwise. Just remember what I told you earlier - I was pretty much in your position and failed Oggsford at the last hurdle, it can happen to the best of us
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    I just hope you achieve what you expect to achieve - you're clearly going to be very unhappy otherwise. Just remember what I told you earlier - I was pretty much in your position and failed Oggsford at the last hurdle, it can happen to the best of us
    Thanks very much for the advice, Ill try not to get too cocky where did you end up?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Naa man needs his p
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cleverasvoltaire)
    Thanks very much for the advice, Ill try not to get too cocky where did you end up?
    Still at skl- might reapply, if not, then Durham or London
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    Independent education aka learning by yourself outside of school during free time to widen your knowledge

    And yes, private schools can lower inequalities if a government begins a private school voucher scheme.



    Yeah but that's like asking why are footballers paid more than firefighters. Private schools can afford these type of fees because they get 10 - 45k p/y per student, a state school would be lucky to receive 4k in funding per student.

    As private schools do not have shareholders and theoretically cannot "reinvest", and they do not pay tax as they are charities, almost their entire expenditure is on staff wages or expansion/maintenance.



    Your educational ability is not limited by your wealth. Your top opportunities may be, due to lack of family reputation and contacts, but that will never ever change regardless of whatever government does to intervene.
    Some people don't even have the chance to do that due to their social backgrounds.

    That's not going to happen, that's the same as funding state schools to increase their quality. Money going in to education

    They're different jobs. It's not right however. 45k per annum per head, jesus Christ, that's insane. I doubt the quality of education is far superior to one where you pay 12k a year

    Educational ability may not be, but whether you reach the potential is another question. It's easily hindered by poor schooling which is why these schools should be targeted and standards raised. Good state schools should teach others how to get to their level of teaching and such

    If the state schools mingled with those who attend private schools, their contacts would increase by a huge margin. Friends parents and such.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ngb9320)
    People need to be looked after in our society and those at the top need to do their bit.

    Anyone who disputes is q selfish *********.

    It is as simple as that.
    :toofunny:

    So they should earn no more than someone on minimum wage?
    everyone would just do minimum wage jobs cause it's less stress
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    This thread is quite offensive to those who work their butt off to get a decent job and then continue to work hard once they have got the job and wha† do you mean by you dont "need 60,000" people have different goals and things that they want to spend their hard earned money on and its not unto you to decide what is enough for them or what is not .THEY EARNED that money, they didnt get it through sellings drugs or prostitution they studied for it and they deserve to earn however much is okay for their proffession. i think this thread is ridiculous and taking 80p off every pound they earn is technically stealing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Why is increasing inheritance tax pointless? To be honest, I just meant increasing revenue from inheritance tax as opposed to via income tax, whether that's achieved through increasing the inheritance tax from 40% or lowering the threshold (likely a combination of both) wasn't the point I was trying to make. I just don't really think when you want to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, improve equality in any shape or form, you can overlook the simple fact that one of the key reasons inequality exists is because plenty of people inherit wealth, even with inheritance tax at what it currently is - and for no good reason other than the fact they were born into the right family. That said, I also disagree with inheritance tax on the basis that you're double taxing, but the reality is if you want to create a society that is ever going to have something that remotely resembles equality, inheritance tax will have to play a role - and I don't think the answer really lies in penalising those who, as I said, have mostly got themselves into a better financial situation through hard work and intelligence.
    My point when I said increasing inheritance tax would be pointless is because the threshold is already at 325,000. The amount of people who have to pay this tax is very little due to most people not having that or before the time comes, parents may sign off their houses to their children to help keep themselves bellow the threshold.

    That what I meant. But there again, people will just keep their total worth below that before they die if they do lower the threshold.

    Ah, the complications of politics.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by War-Mac)
    My point when I said increasing inheritance tax would be pointless is because the threshold is already at 325,000. The amount of people who have to pay this tax is very little due to most people not having that or before the time comes, parents may sign off their houses to their children to help keep themselves bellow the threshold.

    That what I meant. But there again, people will just keep their total worth below that before they die if they do lower the threshold.

    Ah, the complications of politics.
    True, the threshold would have to be reduced, although you may be surprised at how much revenue is, or can be, generated through inheritance tax, despite it only affecting 2%-3% of estates at the moment. In 2012-13 the government raised £3.1bn from inheritance tax which, while only about 2.5% of the income tax revenue from the same year, HMRC estimates that each percentage point increase in inheritance tax would raise £80 million, while a £5,000 drop in the threshold from the current £325,000 would net another £50 million (and further drops would generate even better returns as you start to include significantly more estates - if you think of the wealth distribution as a bell-curve/normal distribution) as an example, using that simple system you'd think abolishing the threshold altogether would raise 325/5 * £50 million = £3.25bn but HMRC estimates it would actually raise about £12.8bn, so reducing the threshold by about half would raise significantly more revenue from inheritance tax. Then, combined with increasing the percentage taxed you'd actually start generating a sizable portion of income tax revenue.

    Of course, this is theoretical and in reality you'd have to tackle the easy ways of avoiding inheritance tax. Remove exemption on business assets/agricultural land, increase the period of time before death during which money gifting is taxable (so from the 7 years it currently is to ~20) would be two. While they're sorting that out, they can also sort out the illogical mess that is council tax bands and raise more money that way.

    I say all this in relation to 'creating a more equal society' as opposed to something I actually fully agree with. I just think this makes a lot more sense than targeting high earners. That said, you wouldn't raise anywhere near as much additional revenue through this method vs. the ridiculous 80% tax rate above £60,000 a year suggestion. A very quick calculation I just did indicated that the figure the government would receive in additional yearly income tax revenue under that taxation system is nearly as much as the government currently receives in income tax from all people with up to £100,000 salaries - i.e. an increase in tax revenue of over 50%.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    True, the threshold would have to be reduced, although you may be surprised at how much revenue is, or can be, generated through inheritance tax, despite it only affecting 2%-3% of estates at the moment. In 2012-13 the government raised £3.1bn from inheritance tax which, while only about 2.5% of the income tax revenue from the same year, HMRC estimates that each percentage point increase in inheritance tax would raise £80 million, while a £5,000 drop in the threshold from the current £325,000 would net another £50 million (and further drops would generate even better returns as you start to include significantly more estates - if you think of the wealth distribution as a bell-curve/normal distribution) as an example, using that simple system you'd think abolishing the threshold altogether would raise 325/5 * £50 million = £3.25bn but HMRC estimates it would actually raise about £12.8bn, so reducing the threshold by about half would raise significantly more revenue from inheritance tax. Then, combined with increasing the percentage taxed you'd actually start generating a sizable portion of income tax revenue.

    Of course, this is theoretical and in reality you'd have to tackle the easy ways of avoiding inheritance tax. Remove exemption on business assets/agricultural land, increase the period of time before death during which money gifting is taxable (so from the 7 years it currently is to ~20) would be two. While they're sorting that out, they can also sort out the illogical mess that is council tax bands and raise more money that way.

    I say all this in relation to 'creating a more equal society' as opposed to something I actually fully agree with. I just think this makes a lot more sense than targeting high earners. That said, you wouldn't raise anywhere near as much additional revenue through this method vs. the ridiculous 80% tax rate above £60,000 a year suggestion. A very quick calculation I just did indicated that the figure the government would receive in additional yearly income tax revenue under that taxation system is nearly as much as the government currently receives in income tax from all people with up to £100,000 salaries - i.e. an increase in tax revenue of over 50%.
    I doubt a 80% tax rate would work. Lots of people would drop down positions from the less stressful job with less work just to get under the 80% tax threshold as after the tax 80% is taken off the money over the previous tax band. The little extra money you do make is not worth the additional work and time put in to earn it.

    Any way, I doubt politicians would have a 80% tax for people making £60k+ as the average salary for an MP is £67k + according to figures collected from 2010(out of date but gives a rough idea) so they too will have to pay it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    ...why does the vast majority of their wealth somehow belong to the government? how can a government claim to own half of your **** that you worked for?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cleverasvoltaire)
    Ill try not to get too cocky
    LMAO :facepalm:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    LMAO :facepalm:
    I said try. I never said I'd succeed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cleverasvoltaire)
    I said try. I never said I'd succeed.
    I've seen no attempt at all, let alone succeed.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I've seen no attempt at all, let alone succeed.
    You're right. I won't try. I withdraw my previous statement. I will be very surprised if I drop more than three marks in my impending History exam. In fact I would be disappointed if I dropped three. Happy?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I've seen no attempt at all, let alone succeed.
    They're a GCSE/A-Level student. University will do a good job of knocking arrogance out of them.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 13, 2015

4,135

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.