Turn on thread page Beta

should the rich pay more tax? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GQ.)
    I would prefer it if the tax % was the same for all earners. That way the rich still get taxed more but not by a ridiculous amount. Just seems counter-intuitive. You work hard and then get about 40% of your salary taken away.
    How hard you work and the salary you get paid are not linked

    A Cleaner can work as hard as a Doctor, but the pay they receive is not even close


    Edit: Looks like someone beat me to it...

    (Original post by GQ.)
    That again comes down to how you define working hard. Yes a nurse works hard and her job is probably more "worth while". But I doubt a nurse works as hard as a banker. And by banker I mean the guys earning loads of money. They work crazy hours.
    Crazy hours? Doing what?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Should the rich pay more tax as a percentage than the poor.... Yes.

    Should the rich pay more tax than they do currently.... No

    The fact is that society will never be equal because some people are born naturally brighter than others (not more inteligent, but brighter) and as a result some people will have a better chance of been successful than others. While we can try to help those poorest (which is why i support a tiered tax rate), we should not punish people for being successful or punish somebodys children for inheriting money which somebody along the way worked hard to get.

    Aside from that there is an aspect of ideology, as a capitalist i do not condone tax rates above 50% at all and would go as far as saying tax rates above 40% should be abolished.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    Well ideally we would be able to split the rich into two disctinct groups: those who earned their money, fairly, squarely, within the rules, with honour and honesty, and without exploiting others, and those who earned their money through means other than this.

    We would tax the latter, and the former would be able to enjoy their rightly acquired wealth without the taxman paying visited uninvited.

    We should be taxing bankers, we should be taxing sportsmen, we should be taxing those whose wealth in inherited, and we should be taxing anybody whose entire precedent for making their money with the cash of the taxpayer.
    So sportsmen have earned their money unfairly, outside of the rules, without honour and honesty or by exploiting others?
    No! They provide a service (a very popular one) which often millions of people are prepared to pay to watch, how have they done any of the things which you would put in "earned their money through means other than this"?

    Do you feel the same way about other people who earn their money through entertaining the public?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've always found it amusing that the "poor" will complain about the "rich", classicism works both ways. Why should the rich pay more tax for people who are quite happy to sponge off the state?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've always thought the 'tax barriers' should be altered, but not the amount of tax that's paid. So the richest should pay 40%, but only if they're earning say £90k (I can't put an exact price down, but something akin to this). The value of money has gone down, so it seems unfair for the taxable amount to not take that into account.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    That would put footballers, bankers, politicians, etc WAY below the wages of, say, scientists, engineers, medical researchers, etc.

    Except bankers and politicians work at least as hard in fields as complex as scientists or engineers and provide services of arguably similar value. Scientists and engineers work may be more valuable in a "contribution to human knowledge" sense, but bankers and politicians are nessecary also.

    As others have said, why should the rich pay for others to not work. The VAST majority of rich people (this is a fact, don't try and dispute it) have worked for their money through spending hours and hours working and developing their businesses. It's totally unfair for these people to be expected to pay for other people who have never done any work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aequat omnes cinis)
    That would put footballers, bankers, politicians, etc WAY below the wages of, say, scientists, engineers, medical researchers, etc.

    Except bankers and politicians work at least as hard in fields as complex as scientists or engineers and provide services of arguably similar value. Scientists and engineers work may be more valuable in a "contribution to human knowledge" sense, but bankers and politicians are nessecary also.

    As others have said, why should the rich pay for others to not work. The VAST majority of rich people (this is a fact, don't try and dispute it) have worked for their money through spending hours and hours working and developing their businesses. It's totally unfair for these people to be expected to pay for other people who have never done any work.
    Tax does not equate only to job-seekers allowance. What about schools, roads, NHS, etc? What is wrong with the 'rich' making a larger contribution to their community?

    And even when it comes to Job-seekers, the percentage of people that actually want a job but are unable to find one is much higher than the Daily Mail or Jeremy Kyle would have you believe. Would you rather those that are actively looking for work do so on the streets scrounging what food they can rather than you making a small contribution towards living costs for them? I'm not sure how people can honestly value a 4th car or second home over another persons life/well being.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Nope. The rich do pay quite a lot of tax already and driving them to foreign countries could lead to far worse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    In my opinion, money earned by footballers is not earned 'fairly'.

    I'm a meritocrat, and think people's salaries should be proportion to the complexity and profoundness of their work.

    That would put footballers, bankers, politicians, etc WAY below the wages of, say, scientists, engineers, medical researchers, etc.

    There is no doubting that football is popular, but popularity should not equate to wealth. Hard work, determination, pursuit of useful trades, etc, should pay off. I want to see a world where a young bright chap at the age of 13 doesn't stand to be be more wealthy by learning to play a GAME than he would be sticking in at science, technology and engineering, and becoming a world-renowned research in those fields.

    Anybody who thinks that Wayne Rooney's yearly income should the same as what about 500 medical/scientific/engineering researchers should get is quite frankly missing something in their brain.

    Even 9 out of 10 football fans believe that footballers are obscenely overpaid.

    And yes, my opinion extends to most entertainers. I don't like the idea of musicians, comedians, etc, making money by selling products. I like they idea of them working for their money by touring, working every single night, etc. Thanks to the advent of downloading, this is quickly becoming the case, and for this, I am pleased.
    Who are you to say what job is complex and what job is not. Just because scientists and academics are more intelligent than footballers and that their jobs require more brain power does not equal a more complex job. If football was not complex to play then why the hell isn't everyone a professional footballer?

    Also I think you are missing the point. Jobs that are in the entertainment sector will always be more lucrative than academia.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
    I think it's about right as it is.
    same. I think it's about right to be honest.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think 50% is fine given the context of the economy, if we were doing better economically - I would like to see the top rate fall, to roughly 45%. To continue to prosper in an increasingly globalised world, the UK must remain competitive - cutting the top rate will help this, however, I understand completely that for political (not economic) reasons, this is not the time to cut the top rate of tax.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shiko098)
    My father being the largest contributor to that figure, and due to his earnings he is absolutely crippled with tax so when a mortgage is paid for, household bills, and tax is taken away there is next to nothing left.
    I would hardly say with a take home wage of over £41k, it could be called "crippling".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Otkem)
    No, they pay more than enough to the undeserving poor, let alone to the deserving poor.
    On the subject of the poor: "Are There No Prisons"- Ebenezer Scrooge.

    Perpare for a visit on Christmas Eve!!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Derfel)
    I've always found it amusing that the "poor" will complain about the "rich", classicism works both ways. Why should the rich pay more tax for people who are quite happy to sponge off the state?
    (Original post by Aequat omnes cinis)
    It's totally unfair for these people to be expected to pay for other people who have never done any work.
    You both are assuming tax goes just to those who don't work.
    Of course, that is no where near true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, They pay enough as it is, And to fund what? The benefit mob, Hell no.
    Offline

    15
    The big bosses should stop taking such big pay rises and bonus and distribute it to the employes instead, then it would be relatively ok.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    The big bosses should stop taking such big pay rises and bonus and distribute it to the employes instead, then it would be relatively ok.
    Would you like large scale inflation after that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The rich pay far to much already, and we will undoubtedly reach a point where many of the richest decide to leave or try tax evading measures. In fact there was a report saying the current 50% tax rate is doing more harm then good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes.

    But not ridiculous amounts. The rich would be better off paying more tax than those with low incomes.

    The more you earn = the more you get taxed = Complete logical sense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yes I support Progressive Taxation. I'll have to quote Elizabeth Warren here:

    "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
 
 
 
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
Useful resources

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.