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%

    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    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.
    So we don't even know who we're talking about?

    But how is it fair if someone earns e.g. £50,000 per year (tax and reductions deducted) and then another earns a higher salary but after the high tax reductions they now earn about £50,000? :lolwut:

    Why can't we have the same tax for everyone then? It's not fair to take more from someone just because they earn/have more. How is that moral?

    I don't know if I'm confusing myself but I stand by what I'm saying. Am I deluded for thinking this? Admit it if you think I am.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    So we don't even know who we're talking about?
    We're not talking about specific people. Why should we be? Taxes are everyone's problem.

    But how is it fair if someone earns e.g. £50,000 per year (tax and reductions deducted) and then another earns a higher salary but after the high tax reductions they now earn about £50,000? :lolwut:
    That is one of the many problems with the tax system. But because everyone's situation is different it is a nigh on impossible one to solve.

    People hire accountants and do their research in order to pay the lowest legal (or sometimes even illegal) amount of tax.

    Why can't we have the same tax for everyone then? It's not fair to take more from someone just because they earn/have more. How is that moral?
    Because the ability of different people to pay that rate would be different. An apple from a poor man is more valuable than a bar of gold from a rich one - as the buddha would say.

    For example, say everyone is taxed the same amount. Now someone earning £50,000 per annum is taxed 20% and we take that to be the basic rate of tax. With tax deducted that person now has £40,000. We may agree that 20% of his income (£10,000) is a fair amount for him to pay. But £10,000 from someone earning £20,000 per annum is a crippling amount that would put them into poverty. It is very difficult to live on £10,000. Now lets say we only take 20% from the second person. They're still losing £4000. At £16,000 per year that would make them eligible for benefits. Now say, we decrease the percentage of tax for everyone (e.g. from 20% to 10%) then the poorer would be better off, but the richer would barely notice the difference. They have more than enough money to pay their way. Also we'd suddenly be earning half as much tax. It would be impossible to pay for free education, the NHS, and transport. All things we can both agree are vital. The best solution is the tax the richer individual 20% and the poorer one 10% (for example) so both parties can keep on living their lives.

    The libertarian-capitalist view that all the money someone earns automatically becomes their sole property is mistaken. Say you become rich through a delivery business. Well congratulations your hard work has paid off and you amy now live comfortably for the rest of your life. Your children will get a better start and they too are likely to become wealthy. But the roads you used to get those goods around the country? You didn't build those. The police who protected your products in transit? You didn't pay them. The education that got you the grades necessary to become successful? Free up until 18 and the money loaned to you for your entire university education. Instead you paid taxes, proportional to your wealth and will do so as long as you earn an income and have savings in the bank. You need money to make money and not everyone has it. We are all indebted to our society. No-one is entirely self made. Some people got more from their society than others, in order to keep the cycle going they need give back. That is why our tax system, which so many people on this ridiculous thread call 'unfair' is the same basic system that's used everywhere in the world. Because the people with power, the people who understand economics, long since realise that this is the only way to run a country. The tax system does need to be reformed - but not to cut the rich people slack, rather to close the loop holes people use to shirk their responsibilities No one likes paying tax, but like death it is a certain thing.

    I don't know if I'm confusing myself but I stand by what I'm saying. Am I deluded for thinking this? Admit it if you think I am.
    Your ideas are very common sense, very reasonable. It isn't deluded at all and I'd never suggest such a thing. But your looking through the eyes of someone with a bright future ahead of them. It is easy to forget that your not the only one who'll have to work for you to get that future.

    We live in a society. We live by our common endeavour. Understanding and respecting that, is Socialism.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Its interesting how many people from the MHoC are here. Not surprising but interesting. We don't really (need to) debate this kind of stuff their.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    x
    Going onto my laptop sorry. The app is crashing and it's difficult to write lots on here. :unimpressed:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    Going onto my laptop sorry. The app is crashing and it's difficult to write lots on here. :unimpressed:
    Fair enough.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    This is so difficult to argue. Sorry for late reply.

    Also, didn't they recently say that people earning over £150,000 would have 50% tax? That's like £75,000 which I agree is a huge sum but taking half of what someone has earned is just... criminal. (imo)

    Note 'earned'. Those who are earning by working (not those who are cheats or tax evaders).

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    We're not talking about specific people. Why should we be? Taxes are everyone's problem.
    Just more problematic for some rather than others. :/ Maybe we should try to tailor taxes to different people. Saying that though many people would feel that it's unfair and biased.
    Why should we make the issue a lot worse for those who are wealthier and then be more lax on those earning less?

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    That is one of the many problems with the tax system. But because everyone's situation is different it is a nigh on impossible one to solve.

    People hire accountants and do their research in order to pay the lowest legal (or sometimes even illegal) amount of tax.
    You didn't answer my question though. I asked 'how is it fair?'

    I don't agree with that (accountants), no.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    1. Because the ability of different people to pay that rate would be different. An apple from a poor man is more valuable than a bar of gold from a rich one - as the buddha would say.

    2. For example, say everyone is taxed the same amount. Now someone earning £50,000 per annum is taxed 20% and we take that to be the basic rate of tax. With tax deducted that person now has £40,000. We may agree that 20% of his income (£10,000) is a fair amount for him to pay. But £10,000 from someone earning £20,000 per annum is a crippling amount that would put them into poverty. It is very difficult to live on £10,000. Now lets say we only take 20% from the second person. They're still losing £4000. At £16,000 per year that would make them eligible for benefits. Now say, we decrease the percentage of tax for everyone (e.g. from 20% to 10%) then the poorer would be better off, but the richer would barely notice the difference. They have more than enough money to pay their way. Also we'd suddenly be earning half as much tax. It would be impossible to pay for free education, the NHS, and transport. All things we can both agree are vital. The best solution is the tax the richer individual 20% and the poorer one 10% (for example) so both parties can keep on living their lives.

    3. The libertarian-capitalist view that all the money someone earns automatically becomes their sole property is mistaken. Say you become rich through a delivery business. Well congratulations your hard work has paid off and you amy now live comfortably for the rest of your life. Your children will get a better start and they too are likely to become wealthy. But the roads you used to get those goods around the country? You didn't build those. The police who protected your products in transit? You didn't pay them. The education that got you the grades necessary to become successful? Free up until 18 and the money loaned to you for your entire university education. Instead you paid taxes, proportional to your wealth and will do so as long as you earn an income and have savings in the bank. You need money to make money and not everyone has it. We are all indebted to our society. No-one is entirely self made. Some people got more from their society than others, in order to keep the cycle going they need give back. That is why our tax system, which so many people on this ridiculous thread call 'unfair' is the same basic system that's used everywhere in the world. Because the people with power, the people who understand economics, long since realise that this is the only way to run a country. The tax system does need to be reformed - but not to cut the rich people slack, rather to close the loop holes people use to shirk their responsibilities No one likes paying tax, but like death it is a certain thing.
    1. I agree with that.

    2. Okay, so yes we need taxes so that we can have all these free services. I understand having higher tax for the richer person. However, 2 people earning the same because of tax isn't fair. (The individual with a higher paying job now earning almost the same as the person with a lower paying job. (in the next paragraphs)

    3. I agree with what you're saying but it sounds like you're saying that if you do well you should give back more. Maybe that is right. :/
    Ooh... that last paragraph just summed that up. :O

    I'm not going to lie though, I sill don't think that they should make the tax for those in the highest-paying percentile any higher than it is now. I can understand that you're giving back for everything society has given to you but you shouldn't have to feel smothered by high taxes.

    It just looks really... bad. I mean how can someone who earns a much higher salary have tax taken off their salary and end up with the same salary as someone else? That other person will have paid less for tax.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Your ideas are very common sense, very reasonable. It isn't deluded at all and I'd never suggest such a thing. But your looking through the eyes of someone with a bright future ahead of them. It is easy to forget that your not the only one who'll have to work for you to get that future.

    We live in a society. We live by our common endeavour. Understanding and respecting that, is Socialism.
    Ah okay and I wasn't accusing you of trying to say that. Thanks
    But everyone needs (should) work hard for what they want to get out of life? What do you mean, sorry?

    What is our 'common endeavour'? What are we all trying to achieve?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    This is so difficult to argue. Sorry for late reply.

    Also, didn't they recently say that people earning over £150,000 would have 50% tax? That's like £75,000 which I agree is a huge sum but taking half of what someone has earned is just... criminal. (imo)

    Note 'earned'. Those who are earning by working (not those who are cheats or tax evaders).
    I'd just like to say that I din't vote (on the poll) that people should be taxed more than they are now. I'm only arguing that it is morally correct for rich people to be taxed proportionally more than poorer people because they don't feel the same sting - as I demonstrated in my worked example.

    Just more problematic for some rather than others. :/ Maybe we should try to tailor taxes to different people. Saying that though many people would feel that it's unfair and biased.
    Why should we make the issue a lot worse for those who are wealthier and then be more lax on those earning less?
    We do tailor taxes. There are many factors that affect how much tax you pay.
    But what you need to understand is the issue doesn't become a lot worse for richer people. Taxes are a much bigger burden on poorer people who often find themselves working harder for less money. Taxes are an especially big burden on the middle-classes. Not rich enough for tax-cheating and off-shore accounts but not poor enough for lessened tax-rates.

    You didn't answer my question though. I asked 'how is it fair?'

    I don't agree with that (accountants), no.
    It isn't fair. But it rarely happens. Like I said people work out how to get the 'best deal'.


    1. I agree with that.

    2. Okay, so yes we need taxes so that we can have all these free services. I understand having higher tax for the richer person. However, 2 people earning the same because of tax isn't fair. (The individual with a higher paying job now earning almost the same as the person with a lower paying job. (in the next paragraphs)

    3. I agree with what you're saying but it sounds like you're saying that if you do well you should give back more. Maybe that is right. :/
    Ooh... that last paragraph just summed that up. :O

    I'm not going to lie though, I sill don't think that they should make the tax for those in the highest-paying percentile any higher than it is now. I can understand that you're giving back for everything society has given to you but you shouldn't have to feel smothered by high taxes.

    It just looks really... bad. I mean how can someone who earns a much higher salary have tax taken off their salary and end up with the same salary as someone else? That other person will have paid less for tax.
    The point isn't just services (though that's a massive part of it). Its that a 20% tax feels worse for someone on a low income than it does to someone on a high income. That's why people aren't all taxed the same percentage.

    Ah okay and I wasn't accusing you of trying to say that. Thanks
    But everyone needs (should) work hard for what they want to get out of life? What do you mean, sorry?

    What is our 'common endeavour'? What are we all trying to achieve?
    What I mean is even if everyone works hard, not everyone will succeed. Not everyone has the roads and the police and the schools (I mean internationally), not everyone has the parental support, the guidance, the opportunities (I mean here in the UK) to succeed. And I'm saying this as someone who expects to succeed in life - we shouldn't throw the less fortunate under the bus under the false impression that their failures are all their fault and our successes are all our personal achievements. Nobody wins without a little bit of luck. We should give what we can afford to give. Because if you are earning £150,000 a year - you're not going to starve - no matter how unfair you feel the taxes are. But, whilst you complain and grumble there will be millions who do starve to death. And I'm not talking about the developing world I'm talking right here in the UK, perhaps the most economically advanced European nation.

    Our common endeavour is simply our working together. What we are all trying to achieve is open to interpretation. I personally would see it as a comfortable life and a decent standard of living for myself, my children (if I ever have any) and everyone in the country coupled with equal opportunities between races and sexes.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not.

    France has a 75% top rate of income tax.

    75%. That is completely immoral.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I'd just like to say that I din't vote (on the poll) that people should be taxed more than they are now. I'm only arguing that it is morally correct for rich people to be taxed proportionally more than poorer people because they don't feel the same sting - as I demonstrated in my worked example.
    Oh okay. I understand and agree with that.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    We do tailor taxes. There are many factors that affect how much tax you pay.
    But what you need to understand is the issue doesn't become a lot worse for richer people. Taxes are a much bigger burden on poorer people who often find themselves working harder for less money. Taxes are an especially big burden on the middle-classes. Not rich enough for tax-cheating and off-shore accounts but not poor enough for lessened tax-rates.
    I do understand, I just don't think that in some cases it fair. Like with what I said about 2 people earning the same after reductions but it's not bad if doesn't occur regularly (what you said below).

    @ The bit in bold: Surely that's the same for the individuals but like you said they're not going to feel the difference as much?
    I agree.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It isn't fair. But it rarely happens. Like I said people work out how to get the 'best deal'.
    When does it happen, if you know? It shouldn't happen at all or things similar to that.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The point isn't just services (though that's a massive part of it). Its that a 20% tax feels worse for someone on a low income than it does to someone on a high income. That's why people aren't all taxed the same percentage.
    Even though they're not going to suffer. It just seems so unfair taking so much of what someone has earned.

    Looking at it literally (thinking about context) it sounds so much better but just looking at the reductions (superficially I guess)
    e.g.

    Someone earning £100,000 has approx. 35% tax which is £65,141.22. Just £15,000 away from being half of their salary being halved. (From http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk)

    ... it looks worse (imo).

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    What I mean is even if everyone works hard, not everyone will succeed. Not everyone has the roads and the police and the schools (I mean internationally), not everyone has the parental support, the guidance, the opportunities (I mean here in the UK) to succeed. And I'm saying this as someone who expects to succeed in life - we shouldn't throw the less fortunate under the bus under the false impression that their failures are all their fault and our successes are all our personal achievements. Nobody wins without a little bit of luck. We should give what we can afford to give. Because if you are earning £150,000 a year - you're not going to starve - no matter how unfair you feel the taxes are. But, whilst you complain and grumble there will be millions who do starve to death. And I'm not talking about the developing world I'm talking right here in the UK, perhaps the most economically advanced European nation.

    Our common endeavour is simply our working together. What we are all trying to achieve is open to interpretation. I personally would see it as a comfortable life and a decent standard of living for myself, my children (if I ever have any) and everyone in the country coupled with equal opportunities between races and sexes.
    I completely agree with what you're saying ^_^ But looking back at some of my posts I sound like a... prat basically. -_- I guess this is an eye-opening conversation.

    Ah okay, thanks for explaining.

    So basically I think that I was arguing against-

    • Increases the percentage of those in the highest-paying percentiles
    • The wealthier being taxed so much that they earn the same as someone with a much lower salary (the 2nd person would have already been taxed)


    Then we agree on everything else. *rolls eyes*

    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    Absolutely not.

    France has a 75% top rate of income tax.

    75%. That is completely immoral.
    Excuse me? Is that for real? :lolwut:

    What kind of salaries are top rate for France though? This is what I really mean by it being criminal. :facepalm:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karmacrunch)



    Excuse me? Is that for real? :lolwut:

    What kind of salaries are top rate for France though? This is what I really mean by it being criminal. :facepalm:
    Yep. It was passed in December of last year.

    €1,000,000. Not that it matters. It is never justified to demand 3/4 of what someone earns.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The wealthy should be taxed more than the poor but the tax bands should be shifted upwards. £32000 is no longer enough to live comfortably, especially in the Southeast, especially if supporting dependents. People should not start paying 40% until much higher, say £50000. This would incentivise hard-work, whilst at the moment once you get to £32000, working for small pay rises is pointless.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    Oh okay. I understand and agree with that.


    I do understand, I just don't think that in some cases it fair. Like with what I said about 2 people earning the same after reductions but it's not bad if doesn't occur regularly (what you said below).

    @ The bit in bold: Surely that's the same for the individuals but like you said they're not going to feel the difference as much?
    I agree.
    No they don't feel difference as much - I'm arguing as to why they shouldn't lol.

    When does it happen, if you know? It shouldn't happen at all or things similar to that.
    I don't. Everyone's a little different. Taxes change case by case.

    Even though they're not going to suffer. It just seems so unfair taking so much of what someone has earned.
    But like I said someone earning £200,000 losing half their earnings isn't the same as someone earning £20,000 losing half their earnings.

    Looking at it literally (thinking about context) it sounds so much better but just looking at the reductions (superficially I guess)
    e.g.

    Someone earning £100,000 has approx. 35% tax which is £65,141.22. Just £15,000 away from being half of their salary being halved. (From http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk)

    ... it looks worse (imo).
    But then who do we tax?
    (didn't really need to do the calculation seeing as 35+15 does equal 50)

    I completely agree with what you're saying ^_^ But looking back at some of my posts I sound like a... prat basically. -_- I guess this is an eye-opening conversation.

    Ah okay, thanks for explaining.

    So basically I think that I was arguing against-

    • Increases the percentage of those in the highest-paying percentiles
    • The wealthier being taxed so much that they earn the same as someone with a much lower salary (the 2nd person would have already been taxed)


    Then we agree on everything else. *rolls eyes*
    What we need is to get a living wage so people who work can actually feed themselves - pull people out of poverty and benefits and balance out the wage rates. Then, by shifting the tax barriers upwards we can ease pressure off of the 'squeezed middle'.

    Excuse me? Is that for real? :lolwut:

    What kind of salaries are top rate for France though? This is what I really mean by it being criminal. :facepalm:
    France is an odd place.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Everyone should be taxed at the same rate, zero.
    i assume you believe that there should be no government at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    1) should they pay more just because they're rich and people are jealous of the rich? no!
    2) should they pay more on the basis of a flat rate? yes
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I am a relative libertarian with authoritarian tendencies, but personally I think excessively taxing the rich is nothing more than legalised theft.

    Think about it. If you were living with your tribe, and a bunch of your neighbours came to your house, knocked on your door and demanded you give them a portion of your property because the tribal elder he wants it so he can re-distribute it among the people, you would rightly be outraged and cry "Theft!". You might even kill them if they attempt to steal your belongings.

    So why is such legalised, community theft acceptable in a nation?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    No they don't feel difference as much - I'm arguing as to why they shouldn't lol.
    I understand that now.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    But like I said someone earning £200,000 losing half their earnings isn't the same as someone earning £20,000 losing half their earnings.
    That's not my point though. I'm still saying that taking half of what someone is earning is still awful.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    But then who do we tax?
    (didn't really need to do the calculation seeing as 35+15 does equal 50)
    Everyone just sensibly. Whatever sensibly is...
    I wasn't even looking at that (100,000). Whoops. I used the site for other calculations too though.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    What we need is to get a living wage so people who work can actually feed themselves - pull people out of poverty and benefits and balance out the wage rates. Then, by shifting the tax barriers upwards we can ease pressure off of the 'squeezed middle'.
    Isn't this what the minimum wage is supposed to do? Not that I'm agreeing with the current minimum wage amounts. :/

    My only issue with this is that some people are still going to be lazy etc. How will you deal with them? Having the same wage for everyone is ideal but what will happen to those who actively help out and those who don't?

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    France is an odd place.
    Really odd. :lolwut:
    Why do you agree with me with this (If you even are in agreement?) but not the halving of someone's salary? (E.g. £200,000)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    I understand that now.



    That's not my point though. I'm still saying that taking half of what someone is earning is still awful.


    Everyone just sensibly. Whatever sensibly is...
    I wasn't even looking at that (100,000). Whoops. I used the site for other calculations too though.


    Isn't this what the minimum wage is supposed to do? Not that I'm agreeing with the current minimum wage amounts. :/

    My only issue with this is that some people are still going to be lazy etc. How will you deal with them? Having the same wage for everyone is ideal but what will happen to those who actively help out and those who don't?



    Really odd. :lolwut:
    Why do you agree with me with this (If you even are in agreement?) but not the halving of someone's salary? (E.g. £200,000)
    I'm not arguing that we should tax people 50% I'm arguing that richer people should be taxed proportionally more. If everyone had the wages to pay higher tax rates we wouldn't need to tax anyone 50%.

    The minimum wage (£6.50) is very low. Nowhere near high enough for us to be able to lower taxes for the richest. A living wage would be around £8 (it varies based on location).

    I actually don't think everyone should be paid the same (right there is the difference between Communism and Socialism) I just don't believe wages should be as varied as they are.

    It is a fact that some people work harder than others and I think in an ideal world the poorest would earn at least £20,000 and the richest £200,000 maybe £250,000 at a stretch (if there were equal opportunities for people to reach those wage brackets). Mechanisation and new technology means that the low paying labour work is getting less necessary and less common.

    I think I've already explained that last point by now.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I'm not arguing that we should tax people 50% I'm arguing that richer people should be taxed proportionally more. If everyone had the wages to pay higher tax rates we wouldn't need to tax anyone 50%.

    The minimum wage (£6.50) is very low. Nowhere near high enough for us to be able to lower taxes for the richest. A living wage would be around £8 (it varies based on location).

    I actually don't think everyone should be paid the same (right there is the difference between Communism and Socialism) I just don't believe wages should be as varied as they are.

    It is a fact that some people work harder than others and I think in an ideal world the poorest would earn at least £20,000 and the richest £200,000 maybe £250,000 at a stretch (if there were equal opportunities for people to reach those wage brackets). Mechanisation and new technology means that the low paying labour work is getting less necessary and less common.

    I think I've already explained that last point by now.
    ... and I agree.

    I wasn't suggesting that we lower them or at least lower them a little. Just not have them increased or ridiculously high like France... Which is what you've said as well.

    Why shouldn't they be very varied? Some jobs demand a lot more than others.

    What about those who don't work hard though? Are they still included in that pay-bracket you're proposing? If you made the maximum salaries lower... Would that mean that the cost of living would lower and other resources etc.?

    I don't know why we're still arguing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I'm not arguing that we should tax people 50% I'm arguing that richer people should be taxed proportionally more. If everyone had the wages to pay higher tax rates we wouldn't need to tax anyone 50%.

    The minimum wage (£6.50) is very low. Nowhere near high enough for us to be able to lower taxes for the richest. A living wage would be around £8 (it varies based on location).

    I actually don't think everyone should be paid the same (right there is the difference between Communism and Socialism) I just don't believe wages should be as varied as they are.

    It is a fact that some people work harder than others and I think in an ideal world the poorest would earn at least £20,000 and the richest £200,000 maybe £250,000 at a stretch (if there were equal opportunities for people to reach those wage brackets). Mechanisation and new technology means that the low paying labour work is getting less necessary and less common.

    I think I've already explained that last point by now.

    This^
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    I am a relative libertarian with authoritarian tendencies, but personally I think excessively taxing the rich is nothing more than legalised theft.

    Think about it. If you were living with your tribe, and a bunch of your neighbours came to your house, knocked on your door and demanded you give them a portion of your property because the tribal elder he wants it so he can re-distribute it among the people, you would rightly be outraged and cry "Theft!". You might even kill them if they attempt to steal your belongings.

    So why is such legalised, community theft acceptable in a nation?
    Ye well... Property is theft! :eviltongue:










    I don't really, just thought I would throw in some lefty extremism for balance.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.