Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amb1)
    Isn't tax a percentage of the money you earn?
    Yes. The percentage increases with how much you earn though.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddiedaboss)
    The problem with taxing the rich too highly is that they'll leave the UK to live elsewhere which is definately not in the best interest's of the UK.

    A good example is Robbie Williams moving to LA for tax purposes.

    The effects of losing the rich may be similar to the effects 'white flight' has had on many urban areas.
    Well we're not too bothered about Robbie Williams but I agree with your point, we certainly don't want successful professionals leaving the country in droves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    I just learnt about this today - it's insane. How can you justify taking more money of people who earn more
    % taken from each income group should be the same - But that's Labour for you, screw the rich, feed the poor.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZJuwelH)
    Bringing it back to economics:

    One argument is that propensity to spend declines as income increases: rich people save more. This is a leakage from the economy. So if some of their income was taxed (which would possibly be saved or spent on imports otherwise) and the revenue transferred to the poor who are more likely to spend it, the economy will grow.

    Straight out of the good old AS Level Circular Flow if Income lessons there!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It makes sense to have a higher rate of tax on the rich as what can you buy with 20 million you cannot with 19?

    Like i say the money lovers in the forum will lead a sad a lonley life.
    Money is insignificant the quicker people realise that the better
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yogafan)
    It makes sense to have a higher rate of tax on the rich as what can you buy with 20 million you cannot with 19?
    What can you buy with £1m that you cannot with £0??

    Money is insignificant the quicker people realise that the better
    It might be nice if this were true but it's not!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    I just learnt about this today - it's insane. How can you justify taking more money of people who earn more?

    The people who say "they don't need the money", "it could go to help other people more" are too nieve and think they are "good samaritans" to take into account the fact that these rich people have money for a reason - they have been given it! You don't get given a £50,000 salary for nothing, you work hard at school, get a good degree and get a good job where you work hard 5 days a week. You deserve this money, just like a slacker who has failed in school though messing round, never gone to university, and who works in a much lower paid job earns their much lower salary.

    In my opinion, this is the way the market should work - if you don't like it, tough, you're lazy and you deserve what little you get. It may not be nice, but it's justice. These progressive taxes are leaning towards communism - something that simply doesn't work.

    And if people start with the "No one needs a swimming pool in their garden", please define 'need', becuase I'm sure there are things even the poorest homeowners buy that they don't genuinely need to survive. It's simply a case of work harder, have a better lifestyle.

    Agree? Disagree?
    May I gently remind you that there have been plenty of people who have made a dramatic contribution to cultural history who weren't particularly economically productive in their own lifetimes. Poets, artists etc. Or don't they enter the equation.

    Someone one said to Robert Graves, 'There's no money in poetry.'
    His response, 'No, there's no poetry in money.'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've never seen a poor rich person, ie. someone who earns a very high salary going without their nice big car, swimming pool and a nice big house. So what's the problem of taxing them a little bit?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bratcat)
    Someone one said to Robert Graves, 'There's no money in poetry.'
    His response, 'No, there's no poetry in money.'
    And what a pointless response that was.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yogafan)
    Straight out of the good old AS Level Circular Flow if Income lessons there!
    Your point being? It was just an economic argument I was offering for progressive taxation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    I just learnt about this today - it's insane. How can you justify taking more money of people who earn more?

    The people who say "they don't need the money", "it could go to help other people more" are too nieve and think they are "good samaritans" to take into account the fact that these rich people have money for a reason - they have been given it! You don't get given a £50,000 salary for nothing, you work hard at school, get a good degree and get a good job where you work hard 5 days a week. You deserve this money, just like a slacker who has failed in school though messing round, never gone to university, and who works in a much lower paid job earns their much lower salary.

    In my opinion, this is the way the market should work - if you don't like it, tough, you're lazy and you deserve what little you get. It may not be nice, but it's justice. These progressive taxes are leaning towards communism - something that simply doesn't work.

    And if people start with the "No one needs a swimming pool in their garden", please define 'need', becuase I'm sure there are things even the poorest homeowners buy that they don't genuinely need to survive. It's simply a case of work harder, have a better lifestyle.

    Agree? Disagree?
    Hey, what do you know, William Foster isn't the only right winger on UKL. Welcome to the board!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZJuwelH)
    Your point being? It was just an economic argument I was offering for progressive taxation.
    When you get to your final year at Uni, 2nd if its a good one, then you'll realise that what you get tought at AS isn't entirley correct and need developing further.

    And in response to the What can you buy with £1 million you cant with £0, if you dont know the answer to that then i fear for your life, its got off to a bad start.

    Andy why is money important?
    I would rather do a job i love for free than a job i hate, anyone who simply does a job for the money isnt leadingbeing true to themselves
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    Where have you plucked this idea from that seemingly everybody in receipt of state benefits is a 'slacker' or a 'failure'?

    Have you never stopped to realise that there are certain barriers to prosperity which prevent the deprived from improving their economic status?

    Progressive taxation does not result in a shakeup of the economic hierarchy, it is just a fairer redistribution of resources - the poor will still be poor and the rich still rich, except the gap will narrowly close.

    Why shouldn't you care for your fellow man? I'll tell you why - because people like you stand for self-interest and couldn't care less about the plight of others. Some of the most wealthy and succesful entrepreneurs have opened their eyes to the benefits of philanthropy and social justice to the whole of society (not just its lower reaches) - hopefully, one day, you will.
    Everyone is selfish. If you say you want someone else to feel better, it's not because you want them to feel better, it's because when they feel better, you do. Whatever we do, we do for ourselves. Yes I'm selfish, we all are.

    This is capitalism. People work harder for their money if they know they will get more. Poor incentives are being sent to the more "productive" (based on incomes) people because more of their work's pay goes to other people. There is a perfect Alan Smith quote to sum this up, but I've forgotten it - something about people providing more economic welfare when they seek to improve things for themselves than when they actually seek to improve economic welfare.

    (Original post by Yogafan)
    Your one big idiot, just because you earn a large amount doesnt not mean you have earnt it nor does it mean you deserve it!
    What if you inherit the money? how have you earnt it?
    Wot if you were lucky?
    The vast majority of fortunes are not made by hard graft but a simple case of being in the right place at the right time.
    You have a lot lot learn about the real world.
    Albert Einstien was expelled from school, so was Bill Gates, they both failed there exams, does this mean they dont deserve rewards just because they had fun in school?!

    Any one who lives just for money is, in my eyes, lonely and pathetic
    I see money inherited and things such as the national lottery as faliure of the market... and I agree with you that they don't deserve that money. It's an allocation of (a huge amount of) recourses to people that didn't earn them. The wealth they accquire from this is being diverted from other people who genuinely earn this and it is wrong.

    Albert Einstein is an exception. If you are right about him being expelled, which I very much doubt myself (he was considering special relativity at the age of 16), then despite this he earned his money through higher productivity (in the form of generated media interest and advances in physics). So he still deserved being rich. The same with Bill Gates.

    People don't live for money - they live for what money can buy. Money isn't an achievement, but it is exchangable with wealth which is.

    May I gently remind you that there have been plenty of people who have made a dramatic contribution to cultural history who weren't particularly economically productive in their own lifetimes. Poets, artists etc. Or don't they enter the equation.

    Someone one said to Robert Graves, 'There's no money in poetry.'
    His response, 'No, there's no poetry in money.'
    Poets and artists are economically productive if they sell their works. If they don't, then no one wants what they produce, they don't sell, and they are not productive. A contribution to cultural history is productivity - economic productivity is just when you make something someone wants.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I've never seen a poor rich person, ie. someone who earns a very high salary going without their nice big car, swimming pool and a nice big house. So what's the problem of taxing them a little bit?
    Knocking on a rich person's door and saying "you can spare some, come on", that's just cheeky. If they have more money, granted they will feel the negative effects of giving a £20 note away less, but it's still their hard earned £20 note to give.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yogafan)
    When you get to your final year at Uni, 2nd if its a good one, then you'll realise that what you get tought at AS isn't entirley correct and need developing further.

    And in response to the What can you buy with £1 million you cant with £0, if you dont know the answer to that then i fear for your life, its got off to a bad start.

    Andy why is money important?
    I would rather do a job i love for free than a job i hate, anyone who simply does a job for the money isnt leadingbeing true to themselves
    Well very little is correct in economics, it's just a viewpoint, a theory, as most things are.

    I assume the other two paragraphs don't apply to me as I don't remember saying anything like that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)


    Poets and artists are economically productive if they sell their works. If they don't, then no one wants what they produce, they don't sell, and they are not productive. A contribution to cultural history is productivity - economic productivity is just when you make something someone wants.
    Van Gogh...sold one painting in his lifetime...and now

    .....American businessmen snap up Van Goghs
    For the price of a hospital wing

    What a barren, culturally impoverished little world we would live in if everyone were judged purely on the basis of their economic productivity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    I just learnt about this today - it's insane. How can you justify taking more money of people who earn more?

    The people who say "they don't need the money", "it could go to help other people more" are too nieve and think they are "good samaritans" to take into account the fact that these rich people have money for a reason - they have been given it! You don't get given a £50,000 salary for nothing, you work hard at school, get a good degree and get a good job where you work hard 5 days a week. You deserve this money, just like a slacker who has failed in school though messing round, never gone to university, and who works in a much lower paid job earns their much lower salary.

    In my opinion, this is the way the market should work - if you don't like it, tough, you're lazy and you deserve what little you get. It may not be nice, but it's justice. These progressive taxes are leaning towards communism - something that simply doesn't work.

    And if people start with the "No one needs a swimming pool in their garden", please define 'need', becuase I'm sure there are things even the poorest homeowners buy that they don't genuinely need to survive. It's simply a case of work harder, have a better lifestyle.

    Agree? Disagree?
    I remember my teacher looking at me funny when I said the system wasn't fair. I just seems to me like the government thinks the money you've worked for is theirs and YOU should be happy you're getting any of it.

    "Alan Smith quote to sum this up, but I've forgotten it - something about people providing more economic welfare when they seek to improve things for themselves than when they actually seek to improve economic welfare." Yeah I've heard that one, and it's true. Do you think Bill Gates would have setup Microsoft and pretty much put a computer in every home, if he weren't gonna make much money out of it. If you have the money then you probably deserve it, that's the way life goes.

    And even a lottery winner deserves their money, they gambled the £1 and won, it was their £1 and they invested it with a 1 in 14,000,000 chance!

    I don't even buy the argument about not deserving inherited money. A relative got that money, died, couldn't take it with him so gave it to you.

    One other point, if you do a job you hate then you really do deserve the money.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People have been using the word "earn" without distinction, without question of where the money came from or what they did to get it.
    Behind every great fortune lies a great crime, said Balzac.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hattori)
    I remember my teacher looking at me funny when I said the system wasn't fair. I just seems to me like the government thinks the money you've worked for is theirs and YOU should be happy you're getting any of it.

    "Alan Smith quote to sum this up, but I've forgotten it - something about people providing more economic welfare when they seek to improve things for themselves than when they actually seek to improve economic welfare." Yeah I've heard that one, and it's true. Do you think Bill Gates would have setup Microsoft and pretty much put a computer in every home, if he weren't gonna make much money out of it. If you have the money then you probably deserve it, that's the way life goes.

    And even a lottery winner deserves their money, they gambled the £1 and won, it was their £1 and they invested it with a 1 in 14,000,000 chance!

    I don't even buy the argument about not deserving inherited money. A relative got that money, died, couldn't take it with him so gave it to you.

    One other point, if you do a job you hate then you really do deserve the money.
    One name: Saddam Husein.

    Btw: did you read my first post in this thread?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Some of you seem to say that the rich don't deserve their money, and in some cases, although not the majority, this is true. But do the poor deserve to be given they money others have worked for, for doing nothing?
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

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.