Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should the wealthy be taxed more just because they can afford to pay it? watch

  • View Poll Results: Is it fair welathy people are taxed more?
    Yes - wealthy people should be taxed at a higher rate of tax
    37.20%
    No - everyone should be taxed the same rate
    32.32%
    I don't know
    1.83%
    Yes - wealthy people should be taxed more and the current rate for welathy people needs to be increased
    17.07%
    Yes - wealthy people should be taxed more and the current rate for welathy people needs to decrease
    11.59%

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    It's just an observation really.


    People who obsess over the poor and constantly claim "oh they have it so easy, cut benefits, cut taxes, send them them to the workhouse" tend to be in the daily mail reader economic bracket.
    In my experience it's just as much the legitimately well off.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    In my experience it's just as much the legitimately well off.
    You are very welcome to your experience, but even in my mind it makes little sense that successful would end up bitter and jealous. Heck look at America, it's generally the educated middle class which votes Democrat and poor, unintelligent rednecks who vote Republican.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Those on 30k are only paying about 4k in tax, that's hardly 30% of their income.
    Plus 2k NI and 1k council tax.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Reue)
    Plus 2k NI and 1k council tax.
    Still nowhere near 30%, and that council tax also has to be paid by those earning less. If you don't want to believe that most people pay about the same relative to income does that mean you don't believe anything that comes from the ONS? Or is it only when it goes against your view of the world that you ignore it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    All this talk about tax rates is avoiding the real problem. Since Thatcher sold off everything under the sun we're paying taxes all the time, known as 'bills'. We pay water tax, gas tax, electricity tax, telephone tax etc. The money raised from these 'taxes' goes straight into the pockets of the wealthy who own these businesses. Look at the water companies- there was previously one state owned company supplying water, so they had a monopoly on the market and so the government could charge what they want. Now, that company has been sold off, and has a near monopoly on the market, lining the pockets of the wealthy owners and exploiting those at the bottom.

    It's a perpetual cycle of increasing poverty. People forget, prior to Thatcher the top rate of tax was 83%. Now it's something like 45%. Without higher taxes for the richest, the poorest will continue to get poorer as more of their money is taken from them in these 'taxes'. It's unregulated capitalism fuelled by Conservative madness which caused the economic crisis.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The question is, should the democratically elected and accountable government be allowed to set the tax rates, or should the privately owned, secret and unnaccountable companies be allowed to set the taxes?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Still nowhere near 30%, and that council tax also has to be paid by those earning less. If you don't want to believe that most people pay about the same relative to income does that mean you don't believe anything that comes from the ONS? Or is it only when it goes against your view of the world that you ignore it?
    Okay, closer to 25%.

    Council tax isn't paid by those on low incomes.

    Yes, my view of the world is very sheltered
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Just stop the wealthy being wealthy because they are wealthy and all will be well.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iam_smithers)
    Not my problem.
    excellent points raised until this litte comment that makes no tax or minimal or voluntary tax look bad.

    If there's no taxes, people are left with more money. That means there's more money to spend on everything including charity. So NGO's would have helped that 16yo sick kid.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The rich should not be taxed because they are rich; they should be taxed for the services of the nation that they use.

    People with more money, spend more money i.e. contribute more VAT; they have larger businesses, which are also taxed; they occupy more highly-skilled professions; people with large incomes face heavy income tax. In short, people with money already contribute a significant amount to tax by doing what they do to be rich in the first place and contribute greatly to our countries economy.

    The idea of a 'super' tax only seems fair to people that don't have money, and this just points to them being envious of richer people's wealth.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VannR)
    The rich should not be taxed because they are rich; they should be taxed for the services of the nation that they use.

    People with more money, spend more money i.e. contribute more VAT; they have larger businesses, which are also taxed; they occupy more highly-skilled professions; people with large incomes face heavy income tax. In short, people with money already contribute a significant amount to tax by doing what they do to be rich in the first place and contribute greatly to our countries economy.

    The idea of a 'super' tax only seems fair to people that don't have money, and this just points to them being envious of richer people's wealth.
    Absolutely right.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VannR)
    The rich should not be taxed because they are rich; they should be taxed for the services of the nation that they use.
    Unfortunately I disagree with this basic premise. It is exactly because people are rich that they should be taxed more. What national services do the rich use? There is almost nothing left that is not in private-ownership except the roads. The money they spend on services lines the pockets of the 'already rich', while the money they pay in actual tax is not enough to compensate for the disparity caused by their own supposed 'success'.

    (Original post by VannR)
    The idea of a 'super' tax only seems fair to people that don't have money, and this just points to them being envious of richer people's wealth.
    Again, this is an unfounded statement and is almost Daily Mail-esque in it's frivolity. Of course, people are going to be envious of each other, but look at the numbers. Oxfam predict 13 million people in the UK live in poverty. A 'super' tax is one of many factors which could be used to bridge the gap between rich and poor, and maybe raise a fraction of these people out of poverty. I am certain most of those 13 million do envy the wealth of the rich- simply because they need that wealth which is hoarded by the wealthy to break the cycle of poverty. That doesn't make a 'super-tax' wrong, it makes it necessary.

    A 'super' tax is fair, simply because it is unfair to leave 13 million languishing in poverty.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    Er no it isn't.

    Theft is only a thing because ownership is a thing and the same laws which say you own your wealth and property, are the same laws which say you don't own what you have to pay in tax.

    Private property is a right which extends from self-ownership of one's own labour which of course extends from self-ownership of one's own body.

    In a free society people are allowed to trade their labour with others providing both parties agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You're talking about implementing a cap, I'm talking about ethics.

    I'm saying how people should be given fair wages based on the idea that no one needs to be paid 10x more than anyone else.

    Even as a matter of ethics or morality you can't say that no one should earn 10x as much as the poorest working, in a capitalist system. All that would lead to is MNCs domiciling elsewhere, leading to lower tax receipts and thus lower public spending/welfare, and SME owners not bothering to carry on with their businesses, because they'd earn a lot more by moving to Zimbabwe or wherever.

    It essentially comes down to a question of is it ethical to give someone a reward equal to the value they produce for others?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by kbw)
    Even as a matter of ethics or morality you can't say that no one should earn 10x as much as the poorest working, in a capitalist system. All that would lead to is MNCs domiciling elsewhere, leading to lower tax receipts and thus lower public spending/welfare, and SME owners not bothering to carry on with their businesses, because they'd earn a lot more by moving to Zimbabwe or wherever.

    It essentially comes down to a question of is it ethical to give someone a reward equal to the value they produce for others?
    As this is a thought experiment then the problem is solved by having the same standard imposed internationally.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    But those people aren't in the highest tax bracket.

    Either way there's still no need for them to earn more than 10x the lowest paid individual.

    Wether someone 'cheated' their way up or not is moot. Everything is opportunity, circumstance is king.
    Who are we talking about then, other than CEOs etc.?

    Well that's an issue with the system, how things are run. It's not the individual (bar maybe some CEOs and bosses...). I don't think that you can't blame them for earning money. In a way putting 'ridiculous' (imo) amounts of tax on those higher-paid is punishing them for doing nothing. Unless they are in fact cheating people e.g. employees and consumers. :/

    'Moot' in this context= debatable or irrelevant?
    Even those with awful backgrounds can come across something in one circumstance in which things get significantly better for them (as you said I guess). However, what happens to them when the receive their new salary and are then told that 40%+ is going to be taken away? :rolleyes:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Commie_Ted)
    Unfortunately I disagree with this basic premise. It is exactly because people are rich that they should be taxed more. What national services do the rich use? There is almost nothing left that is not in private-ownership except the roads. The money they spend on services lines the pockets of the 'already rich', while the money they pay in actual tax is not enough to compensate for the disparity caused by their own supposed 'success'.


    Again, this is an unfounded statement and is almost Daily Mail-esque in it's frivolity. Of course, people are going to be envious of each other, but look at the numbers. Oxfam predict 13 million people in the UK live in poverty. A 'super' tax is one of many factors which could be used to bridge the gap between rich and poor, and maybe raise a fraction of these people out of poverty. I am certain most of those 13 million do envy the wealth of the rich- simply because they need that wealth which is hoarded by the wealthy to break the cycle of poverty. That doesn't make a 'super-tax' wrong, it makes it necessary.

    A 'super' tax is fair, simply because it is unfair to leave 13 million languishing in poverty.
    Bold Quote 1: Nothing unfortunate about it; your opinion simply differs from mine.

    Bold Quote 2: This just looks like an opinion. Could you elaborate?

    I do think that you have a point when you say that the country itself is setup so that the rich stay rich by crushing those below them; once the big players are established all new growth is stifled by them etc. This does not make right to tax people because they are rich, it makes it one of the only ways of trying to ease the pain of the people that suffer from other aspects of the broken system. Taken in this light, I do see your point. I was responding to the thread title and was treating it academically (I'm doing A-Level Philosophy so it's becoming a bit of a habit!), but answering in the context of our society, your points are far from invalid.

    By the way, I am one of those 13 million you talk about. I am not going to just sit here envying the rich; I'm going to get off my arse and go and get the money myself.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    Who are we talking about then, other than CEOs etc.?

    Well that's an issue with the system, how things are run. It's not the individual (bar maybe some CEOs and bosses...). I don't think that you can't blame them for earning money. In a way putting 'ridiculous' (imo) amounts of tax on those higher-paid is punishing them for doing nothing. Unless they are in fact cheating people e.g. employees and consumers. :/

    'Moot' in this context= debatable or irrelevant?
    Even those with awful backgrounds can come across something in one circumstance in which things get significantly better for them (as you said I guess). However, what happens to them when the receive their new salary and are then told that 40%+ is going to be taken away? :rolleyes:
    We're talking about people in the highest tax bracket, who ever they are.

    It's not about blame its about paying a fair share. You're not punishing them - they already have more money. They don't suffer.

    In that context 'moot' mean irrelevant.

    I would never dare tax someone differently based on their background alone so again that is irrelevant. People don't deserve more money based on their background and we can't identify the deserving and undeserving within the tax system. We can only raise taxes in the most moral way - by taking the majority from those who can afford to pay it.

    We live in a country with massive wealth inequality anyway and comparably massive amounts of opportunity so the rich can't exactly complain. They still have the lion's share so to speak - wether they 'deserve' it or not.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    I'm 21 and throughout my life the majority of extremely successful people I have met, have all seemed genuinely sympathetic towards people in unfortunate positions, while the only people who think that the poor are stupid and lazy are people who think that 30K a year and a couple of blue shirts make them part of the elite

    tl;dr - Lolled hard, you're an idiot.
    By 30K, are you referring to USD or GBP? Per person or couple? Because 35K GBP per person in the UK are top 25% of all earners so I wouldn't say 30K is too far off.

    The people I know aren't like that. They are sympathetic towards people that either:
    Tried, but didn't succeed in school and have to find a minimum wage job but couldn't.
    OR
    People that genuinely can't find a job because they took a useless uni degree
    But they DON'T CARE ABOUT:
    Drop oust that dropped out of school (because they took education for granted) and are now unemployed.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    It's just an observation really.


    People who obsess over the poor and constantly claim "oh they have it so easy, cut benefits, cut taxes, send them to the workhouse" tend to be in the daily mail reader economic bracket.
    I honestly don't know where you are getting those observations from. A lot of people are like that, but more educated (uni grads) are usually like that too, but they don't express it like less educated people because it ruins the reputation.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.