This discussion is closed.
joka85
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#1
Do you think it is fair that those who earn more pay a greater proportion of their income as tax, bearing in mind that they already do without the progression:

If taxes were a universal 25%

i.e. if i earn £100,000...i pay £25,000
If i earn £10,000...i pay £2,500

Now...why should the 100 thousand pound guy pay £40,000 (a great PROPORTION as well as a greater amount...)

does he really use public services that much more...i sincerely doubt it.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 16 years ago
#2
One of the roles of the government is to reduce inequity, progressive taxation does that quite well, so yes.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 16 years ago
#3
I don't think the tax is fair but they need to limite the saleries of the stupidly high earners like director's earning £450,000 a year or football players, these people can surely afford 60% of their salaries to go on income tax.

In the 1970's it wasn't un common to pay 80% income tax on the highest earners.
0
joka85
Badges: 0
#4
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#4
you also need incentives...and taxing progressively dampens them...hence the need for offshore accounts and tax planning...

the government wastes a lot of money...someone earning a 100k doesn't need child benefit allowance...but gets it anyway...i'm sure he'd rather not pay the tax for it in the first place...
0
G4ry
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 16 years ago
#5
(Original post by amazingtrade)
I don't think the tax is fair but they need to limite the saleries of the stupidly high earners like director's earning £450,000 a year or football players, these people can surely afford 60% of their salaries to go on income tax.

In the 1970's it wasn't un common to pay 80% income tax on the highest earners.
They have to be careful because there still needs to be incentive for people to work. If you're taking that proportion of money away in tax, there is little incentive to earn that amount of money.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 16 years ago
#6
(Original post by G4ry)
They have to be careful because there still needs to be incentive for people to work. If you're taking that proportion of money away in tax, there is little incentive to earn that amount of money.
Yeah but as Maslow says once you earn a set amount money can't motivate you anymore. Its the other stuff that motivates you such as job satifaction, the team etc.
0
joyabbott
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 16 years ago
#7
You only pay 40% on the 'additional' earnings over and above the 25% bracket...

Whilst I don't like this idea, at least it's not 40% on everything - otherwise there'd be no point earning above the bracket as you'd come off worse.
0
G4ry
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 16 years ago
#8
Who's Maslow? People who earn millions a year are stilll motivated to earn more money. It's not true that people lose their incentive when they reach a certain number. This is true for certain people i admit.
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#9
Report 16 years ago
#9
Of course it's fair.

(Original post by fishpaste)
One of the roles of the government is to reduce inequity, progressive taxation does that quite well, so yes.
The main government macroeconomic objectives are: sustainable growth, low and stable inflation, low unemployment and a balanced current account. Some governments may aim to do something about equity but it isn't accepted as a universal government objective. It may actually be beneficial to increase the gap between the rich and poor in order to increase incentive to work.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 16 years ago
#10
(Original post by joka85)
Do you think it is fair that those who earn more pay a greater proportion of their income as tax, bearing in mind that they already do without the progression:

If taxes were a universal 25%

i.e. if i earn £100,000...i pay £25,000
If i earn £10,000...i pay £2,500

Now...why should the 100 thousand pound guy pay £40,000 (a great PROPORTION as well as a greater amount...)

does he really use public services that much more...i sincerely doubt it.
whey someon who agrees with me, you know the liberals want the higher tax rate at 50% and a supertax abover 100,000 a yr
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 16 years ago
#11
(Original post by fishpaste)
One of the roles of the government is to reduce inequity, progressive taxation does that quite well, so yes.
since when is a role of government to reduce inequality.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 16 years ago
#12
(Original post by amazingtrade)
I don't think the tax is fair but they need to limite the saleries of the stupidly high earners like director's earning £450,000 a year or football players, these people can surely afford 60% of their salaries to go on income tax.

In the 1970's it wasn't un common to pay 80% income tax on the highest earners.
what so even if these people have five kids or something.
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#13
Report 16 years ago
#13
I think it fair to tax the richer more than the poor. Having a tax rate of 25% for a poorer person would have a much harder impact than on someone who is richer. The % may be the same but the real impact varies.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 16 years ago
#14
(Original post by Harry Potter)
Of course it's fair.



The main government macroeconomic objectives are: sustainable growth, low and stable inflation, low unemployment and a balanced current account. Some governments may aim to do something about equity but it isn't accepted as a universal government objective. It may actually be beneficial to increase the gap between the rich and poor in order to increase incentive to work.
It's one of the objectives in Britain though.

If the gap is too large, then there is technically poverty, relative in the country. Also, the UK still has quite low incomes in certain sectors/regions, which need to be increased to a better standard, in an absolute sense. One way to do this is to push the supply side using income from taxation. This would warrant a progressive tax, because taking from the poor to give to the poor wouldn't be as effective. Also, reducing income inequity would reduce the regional divide that Britain has, taking from the south east, and rescuing declining areas like the north east/west/wales.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 16 years ago
#15
(Original post by amazingtrade)
Yeah but as Maslow says once you earn a set amount money can't motivate you anymore. Its the other stuff that motivates you such as job satifaction, the team etc.
absolute monkey, ill be motivated by money, the more you pay, the more you get. I think lawyers prove this wrong
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 16 years ago
#16
(Original post by pkonline)
I think it fair to tax the richer more than the poor. Having a tax rate of 25% for a poorer person would have a much harder impact than on someone who is richer. The % may be the same but the real impact varies.
and, they benefit the same (actually rich probably less so) so in reality it should be a set amount. not a set proportion, let alone double the set proportion.
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 16 years ago
#17
(Original post by joka85)
Do you think it is fair that those who earn more pay a greater proportion of their income as tax, bearing in mind that they already do without the progression:

If taxes were a universal 25%

i.e. if i earn £100,000...i pay £25,000
If i earn £10,000...i pay £2,500

Now...why should the 100 thousand pound guy pay £40,000 (a great PROPORTION as well as a greater amount...)

does he really use public services that much more...i sincerely doubt it.
Essentially what you are adovcating it. Let the rich-poor gap grow bigger, have to up the standard tax rate in order to get the same revenue (or similar) which would damage poorer people even more - and benefit the richer people.

By using your system you will have further inquality, and more people under the povety line. As much as they do use the same amount of public services there has to be a search for at least some greater good - which can only be acheived through progessive taxation.

There is a reason people rioted over the poll tax.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 16 years ago
#18
(Original post by fishpaste)
It's one of the objectives in Britain though.

If the gap is too large, then there is technically poverty, relative in the country. Also, the UK still has quite low incomes in certain sectors/regions, which need to be increased to a better standard, in an absolute sense. One way to do this is to push the supply side using income from taxation. This would warrant a progressive tax, because taking from the poor to give to the poor wouldn't be as effective. Also, reducing income inequity would reduce the regional divide that Britain has, taking from the south east, and rescuing declining areas like the north east/west/wales.
well, thats discrimination, you are discriminating on the basis of geography and relative wealth.
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 16 years ago
#19
(Original post by JSM)
and, they benefit the same (actually rich probably less so) so in reality it should be a set amount. not a set proportion, let alone double the set proportion.

There is a moral obligation for (most) people to not drive the poorer even poorer.
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 16 years ago
#20
(Original post by JSM)
since when is a role of government to reduce inequality.
Governments target is usually to maxamise social welfare (in economic terms)...surely equality falls under that
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (530)
66.75%
No (264)
33.25%

Watched Threads

View All