The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Rakas21
The global average for corporation tax is ~22% so i think that 20% given that taxing profits is relatively unharmful in a competitive market vs business rates for example which are an actual cost to doing business in the UK.

Governments (and yes, i'll concede that the Tories are fans of it) raise VAT because its one of the easiest taxes to generate high revenues from (albeit very cyclical). Unfortunately though it is by definition something that in a competitive market raises prices, decreases demand and therefore reduces employment relative to not having VAT.


It's also regressive as a tax too as the wealthy don't buy vastly more products than say a middle class person does.

Far more progressive tax wise to tax profits than consumption, gives a massive boost to the poor and middle class


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
It's also regressive as a tax too as the wealthy don't buy vastly more products than say a middle class person does.

Far more progressive tax wise to tax profits than consumption, gives a massive boost to the poor and middle class

Posted from TSR Mobile


Indeed. The poor have a higher marginal propensity to consume.
Original post by Rakas21
Indeed. The poor have a higher marginal propensity to consume.


Which is why you take some money from the top and give it to them if you want to stimulate the economic ecosystem.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Which is why you take some money from the top and give it to them if you want to stimulate the economic ecosystem.


Indeed, which is why we tax profits, should tax wealthy assets and maintain a fair level of income tax.
Original post by Commercial Paper
The first thing to remember is that taxes nowhere near fund our public services. However, I do think if they lowered income tax they'd probably take more revenue as people would spend more money which can be collected through VAT, Corporate Tax and economic growth.

My view is:

1. National Insurance should be scrapped so we just have one very clear income tax.

2. The tax bands should increase each year with inflation.

3. The personal tax free allowance should apply to everyone and not just those earning less than £100,000 per year.

4. The personal tax free allowance should increase in line with the minimum wage so no one on the minimum wage pays income tax.

5. Benefits should be capped at the tax free allowance.

6. The 40% tax bracket should not kick in until £75,000 or where it should kick in if it had moved with inflation.

7. The 45% tax bracket should kick in at £250,000, again to ensure it moved with inflation.

8. There should be a super all-in tax of 49% on those earning more than £500,000 in basic salary (i.e. celebrities, senior bankers and corporate executives)

The problem with our tax system is that everyone is taxed heavily rather than the super top earners, who are taxed nearly the same as those on extremely modest incomes.

I've always found it bizarre that a middle class earner on £150,000+ basic salary is in the same tax bracket as a CFO on £800,000 who in turn is in the same tax bracket as a hedge fund manager on £10,000,000. No idea why our tax system doesn't account for the large disparity in earnings.

They need to address corporate tax too as many companies aggressively avoid this.

Posted from TSR Mobile


It's not difficult to make the adjustments, it's just a long play over 20 or 30 years and with some of the things I would do being politically impractical (people prefer to live the lie and pay more taxes than see the truth and pay less).

The politically difficult bit doesn't so much decrease taxes as decrease avoidance, it ultimately manifests as not overall cut, but a cut to the headline rate at the top and a cut to indirect taxation at the bottom. You abolish pretty much all taxes on individuals and institute a single flat rate of tax on all income (possibly with some exemptions). The net tax rates on any statistical group will change no more than a point or two and avoidance is practically eliminated (the top marginal rate also drops by about 10%).

The second thing you do is reduce the number of pensioners, gradually increasing the retirement age, gradual so as to less rapidly add to the unemployment, say do it like winter fuel allowance where the age increases 6 months a year, or like the increase for women to be equal to the men. This has a few benefits, the most obvious ones are lower state pension costs and more workers paying taxes and increasing GDP. You also get further growth of private pensions by giving, say with an increase in retirement age to 70, 5 more years of contributions, which coupled with also having fewer years to use it means greater consumption on retirement.

Next you continue with the stealth removal of state pension, or at least severe reduction, if anything accelerate it slightly. The whole point of the compulsory/opt-out workplace pension is to remove the need for the state pension except as a safety net down the line, wiping over a hundred billion off the welfare bill, right there you can cut taxes by over 10%.

Next you do the same with the provision of healthcare, you start by introducing tax incentives to get private healthcare because for some people not using the NHS isn't incentive enough. Do it right and the provision of healthcare will be almost entirely private certainly by the end of the century, again, keeping the NHS, or elements of it, as a safety net. There's another hundred billion.

So with those three things we've just cut spending by as much as about 30% (in reality 20-25%). Let's assume 25%, so if we take the 2016 budget as a baseline spending is now ~£580bn. Now if we also run a balanced budget taxes can be cut by 19%, or a reduction in the effective marginal tax rate of 7%. But let's not forget also that we not have about 2.5m more workers, and if we assume average income doesn't change you're looking at increase in the income of all families to be increased by about £20bn, which would then net us about £4bn or so more in taxes allowing a greater cut, about 20% instead of 19%.
Original post by United Britain
Yes but you need to look at the reasons why people have to pay tax, it funds public services such as police, fire service and health-the rich do not actually pay tax, or pay very little i know someome who was self employed as a sole trader he made 40k and kept his tax and NI contributions below £10 . Also part of the problem is the population of our country we have too many foreigners who use our services free of charge IE NHS, and they are likely to never pay into the system, my next door neighbour is African never had a job he mowes lawns cash in hand people like him are taking away ftom society. With a growing population the percentage of tax will never change


If you are so concerned by your evil neighbour then report him to the proper authorities. As for all the other filthy foreigners; the vast majority do have jobs and do pay tax and probably speak and write better English than you.
No I think it is just fine the way it is at the moment but what we need is to make sure that corporations really do pay their fair share and then think about how we spend it - we don't need that much for certain services, whereas we do need a lot for the NHS etc.
It's not the level of tax that is the problem, it's that the super rich do not pay their share and the self employed right off so much expenditure against income. They manage to do that by using loopholes in the 17,000 pages of the uk tax code. The whole system is bent and designed to confuse. If we had a simplified taxation system then avoidance would be harder and we could sack all the leaches we call accountants. It's PWC and others who are partly responsible for the mess. We should supertax the mega rich by taxing their excesses like cars, yachts and multiple houses rather than leaving them alone and taxing the poor through, say, taxation levied against insurance policies and domestic fuel.
Original post by Moral Resurgance
Too high ra. Get rid of 80% of the benefit system and restore family/community and religious values.

Which religious values? Stoning people to death? Telling people that God loves them, but that they'll go to hell if they don't comply?
Original post by Canterbury bloke
It's not the level of tax that is the problem, it's that the super rich do not pay their share and the self employed right (sic) off so much expenditure against income. They manage to do that by using loopholes in the 17,000 pages of the uk tax code. The whole system is bent and designed to confuse. If we had a simplified taxation system then avoidance would be harder and we could sack all the leaches we call accountants. It's PWC and others who are partly responsible for the mess.

The tax system is massively over complicated, and I agree should be simplified, to both help reduce avoidance and make it clear how much people pay.
Original post by Canterbury bloke
We should supertax the mega rich by taxing their excesses like cars, yachts and multiple houses rather than leaving them alone and taxing the poor through, say, taxation levied against insurance policies and domestic fuel.

What is it fair to ask the mega-rich to pay? What about the ones that live more frugally, e.g. Warren Buffet.

It often sounds like many people think that the mega-rich are an inexhaustible source of tax revenue, and should pay for everyone else. If you tax them more than they want to pay, they will move. The mega-rich can live where they want and there are plenty of tax havens ready to welcome them, with somewhat better weather than the UK.

Any tax system should obtain revenue from a broad cross-section of the community, otherwise spending decisions would be without consequences for many.
Original post by RogerOxon
Which religious values? Stoning people to death? Telling people that God loves them, but that they'll go to hell if they don't comply?


Yeah if need be if they cant live civilly.

If families and communities are sound, there is simply no need to have a massive benefit system. All the usual vices that are prevalent throughout benefit Britain will be nipped in the bud under a more traditional society. Education, work, marital life, family the whole lot will be improved. All benefits have done is create cuckoldry, sloppiness and immorality. Neapolitians even prefer the camorra/mafia controlling affairs rather than the Italian government. All the most successful ethnic groups in this country have a traditional component, Chinese, Indians, Jews they all have similar characteristics.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Moral Resurgance
Yeah if need be if they cant live civilly.

Which country / century do you live in?!
Original post by Moral Resurgance
If families and communities are sound, there is simply no need to have a massive benefit system. All the usual vices that are prevalent throughout benefit Britain will be nipped in the bud under a more traditional society. Education, work, marital life, family the whole lot will be improved. All benefits have done is create cuckoldry, sloppiness and immorality. Neapolitians even prefer the camorra/mafia controlling affairs rather than the Italian government. All the most successful ethnic groups in this country have a traditional component, Chinese, Indians, Jews they all have similar characteristics.

The point of a decent welfare state is to provide a safety net to all, regardless of their family's / community's approval, or adherence to a particular invisible friend / enemy. Whilst the system has many faults, and too many free-loaders, it does protect the vulnerable without requiring them to accept any random group's beliefs or values.
To be honest, the reasons to pay tax are losing validity by the second. The police service has been cut under the current government, the NHS is facing a crisis. Ambulance and fire services have had plenty of critique too. Overall, seems like the middle class in England are paying taxes for services they're not getting. Then there's VAT as well...Most likely it comes to inefficient spending locally and nationally, but considering we have had this Form of government for over 100 years, these kinds of inefficiencies in spending should have been abolished years ago.There really isn't an argument I can think of that justifies the need to pay such high taxes.
I'm sick of people putting **** like, tax is used for the things you take for grantedIf you actually look into the spending you'd find out that the 4 exit round about in my town, very small cost nearly 100,000 to build, while my neighbour made a tarmac drive not much smaller for just over 1000, even including staff and equipment there is clearly overspending going onAnd banks make the money in the uk, which means they earn the profits for the money, few pence to make a £10 note, now it's worth £10. Where if our goverment took the responsibly the profit would go into the system saving tax payer on average 1,700 a year in gross tax.even NHS prices are determined on drug companies etc and what they Basically the worlds run by money whores
Original post by RogerOxon
The tax system is massively over complicated, and I agree should be simplified, to both help reduce avoidance and make it clear how much people pay.

What is it fair to ask the mega-rich to pay? What about the ones that live more frugally, e.g. Warren Buffet.

It often sounds like many people think that the mega-rich are an inexhaustible source of tax revenue, and should pay for everyone else. If you tax them more than they want to pay, they will move. The mega-rich can live where they want and there are plenty of tax havens ready to welcome them, with somewhat better weather than the UK.

Any tax system should obtain revenue from a broad cross-section of the community, otherwise spending decisions would be without consequences for many.


If they are living frugally then what purpose id that money fulfilling other than massaging their ego. Using arbritrary numbers, if Buffett lives on 100k a year, why should he or anyone else have a problem with the redistribution of the millions in funds he has no intent in using?


Also, what you are saying is that the super rich are capable of holding the democratically elected governments of nations and there is nothing that can be done about it?

If that is the case then doesnt that represent an absolutely vast redistribution of wealth from the working people of a nation into the hands of the few who already possess enough wealth and power such that they can by themselves dictate a nations economic policy?6
Original post by Human115970
I'm sick of people putting **** like, tax is used for the things you take for grantedIf you actually look into the spending you'd find out that the 4 exit round about in my town, very small cost nearly 100,000 to build, while my neighbour made a tarmac drive not much smaller for just over 1000, even including staff and equipment there is clearly overspending going onAnd banks make the money in the uk, which means they earn the profits for the money, few pence to make a £10 note, now it's worth £10. Where if our goverment took the responsibly the profit would go into the system saving tax payer on average 1,700 a year in gross tax.even NHS prices are determined on drug companies etc and what they Basically the worlds run by money whores


That’s because of study’s, paperwork, planning etc.

I don’t like that sort of stuff too for simple work
Original post by mojojojo101
If they are living frugally then what purpose id that money fulfilling other than massaging their ego.

For many their wealth is based on owning a large portion of the companies that they founded, ensuring that they have a controlling interest.

Using arbritrary numbers, if Buffett lives on 100k a year, why should he or anyone else have a problem with the redistribution of the millions in funds he has no intent in using?

Because it would be theft, and would remove the incentive to invest in businesses. That would be bad for job creation.

Also, what you are saying is that the super rich are capable of holding the democratically elected governments of nations and there is nothing that can be done about it?

Everyone can chose where to spend their money. Many people, not just the super rich, can chose where they want to live, and (mostly) where they will pay tax.

If that is the case then doesnt that represent an absolutely vast redistribution of wealth from the working people of a nation into the hands of the few who already possess enough wealth and power such that they can by themselves dictate a nations economic policy?6

Money isn't being pried out of your hands. You buy things that you like, which often helps make others richer, including shareholders in large companies, e.g. your pension scheme.

Governments vie to attract investment from large companies and wealthy individuals. Would you stop them from leaving a country?
VAT on non-luxury goods too high, income tax about right for basic earners, petrol and cigarettes too low (I am a non-smoker).
Original post by KingHarold
VAT on non-luxury goods too high, income tax about right for basic earners, petrol and cigarettes too low (I am a non-smoker).


Petrol too low? It’s about 2 thirds of the cost of a litre isn’t it?

VAT is a huge earner for the government overall.

Personally I don’t like consumption tax’s
I think the highest rate of tax should be at most 40% and ideally have a flat rate of around 35% excluding the lowest earners.

I’d be open to gradually abolishing corporation tax too*





*http://www.cityam.com/233187/ignore-googles-corporation-tax-bill-and-scrap-the-tax-altogether

Latest

Trending

Trending