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

Should Britain introduce a 'Millionaires Tax'? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should Britain have a Millionaires Tax?
    Yes
    27
    43.55%
    No
    35
    56.45%

    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The wealthy are more reliant on the services than the poor. The only reason they can have nice houses and possessions is that we have a police force and judiciary to prevent others taking it for themselves.

    The reason that they run successful businesses is that we have an education stayers which prepares their workers as well as a health system to keep their workers healthy.

    We have infrastructure and a transport system which allows its workers to travel to work.

    Etc. The law and order generated from a state benefits the welathy, more than the poor.
    Bet you've never looked at our spending. Military and police cost nothing compared to our healthcare, education and social spending. Anyway, the poor would be far worse off without the police considering most crime happens by poor people to poor people.

    The rest of what you said doesn't make sense. The workers definitely benefit more from their own education and healthcare than business owners. Anyway labour is only one of the factors of production. Not that big a deal.

    You also act as if the rich own their workers. If you say they have no choice but to work for them. Why don't we encourage people to open up more businesses so workers have more choice and businesses actually have to fight for workers, rather than the other way round, maybe some of the workers can actually become rich by starting their own businesses. Although that would ruin the dillusion that rich people exploited the poor to become rich, rather than just producing the things that people actually want and improving everyone's lives.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by asdfg323)
    Bet you've never looked at our spending. Military and police cost nothing compared to our healthcare, education and social spending. Anyway, the poor would be far worse off without the police considering most crime happens by poor people to poor people.

    The rest of what you said doesn't make sense. The workers definitely benefit more from their own education and healthcare than business owners. Anyway labour is only one of the factors of production. Not that big a deal.

    You also act as if the rich own their workers. If you say they have no choice but to work for them. Why don't we encourage people to open up more businesses so workers have more choice and businesses actually have to fight for workers, rather than the other way round, maybe some of the workers can actually become rich by starting their own businesses. Although that would ruin the dillusion that rich people exploited the poor to become rich, rather than just producing the things that people actually want and improving everyone's lives.

    The point is that the ultra wealthy individuals and large corporations are more reliant on law and order than the poor.
    Without a police force, a government and a judiciary we would live in an anarchy. In which wealth counts for nothing and the fancy houses, the fancy gadgets go to the man with the biggest stick.

    No point in having a great big house and a great car if someone can just steal them off you. You need a police force. And how do we pay for that? Oh yes taxation.

    Corporations wouldn't make any money if the population was uneducated. If their workers were sick because they had no healthcare. If there wasn't a government that invested in infrastructure and travel to allow them to compete.

    If you think no taxes works well, then head on over to Somalia. Try being wealthy there.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The point is that the ultra wealthy individuals and large corporations are more reliant on law and order than the poor.
    Without a police force, a government and a judiciary we would live in an anarchy. In which wealth counts for nothing and the fancy houses, the fancy gadgets go to the man with the biggest stick.

    No point in having a great big house and a great car if someone can just steal them off you. You need a police force. And how do we pay for that? Oh yes taxation.

    Corporations wouldn't make any money if the population was uneducated. If their workers were sick because they had no healthcare. If there wasn't a government that invested in infrastructure and travel to allow them to compete.

    If you think no taxes works well, then head on over to Somalia. Try being wealthy there.
    If there was anarchy the rich would still be far better off than the poor. It would be like Saudi Arabia. Oligarchs with their 40 bodyguards living in palaces built with 100s of dead poor people in its foundations. Anyway I don't want anarchy, just not socialism.
    No-one who works at Heathrow could have ever built Heathrow because they don't have the billions to finance it and take that risk. It requires rich people. The economy would go nowhere without rich people. If you wan to get rich, acquire capital. Don't just ask rich people with factors of production to give you donations. That will never make you rich and just disincentivise rich people who are the only ones who can build up the economy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    So, the workers decide that their boss doesn't pay them enough. They decide to quit as they value their labour more.

    he next day the landlord turns up and demands a rent payment, oh **** the workers have no money, best go back to that other job where they are abused and underpaid.

    The capitalist notion of free agreement is dependant on the first word, FREE. However outiisde of the utopian heads of AnCaps people realise that those contracts can never be freely negotiated because if they worker doesn't sign then they will be condemned to a life of starvation and homelessness.
    like satre said, you are "condemned to be free".
    and you are free over yourself, not others and *their* money
    so if you might starve otherwise, you STILL are "free" to choose.
    just because a consequence for not accepting a certain wage is bad it doesn't make it not free. that's nonsense. this isn't some utopia. we're talking about facts and reality here. if you accept a contract, that means you are better off with it. therefore, it is consensual AND profitable in your life.
    your logic that it isn't "free" just because I don't like the alternative is like saying all central africans are literal slaves!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    'Only'
    So you would be Ok with having almost half of your salary disappear in taxes every year just because you'll still have a lot left over?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No. Millionaires are already taxed at unfairly high rates. That's exactly why they try to hide their money and avoid paying tax.

    These people are paying more tax and "pulling more weight" than you could ever dream of doing. Our economic and tax (therefore social) contributions pale in comparison to theirs. But you want to take more of their money?

    Robbing from the rich to give to the poor disincentivises wealth creation. Economic and social policy should focus on creating jobs and making business easier and more attractive. Lower corporation tax, more investment into domestic industry, and a smaller, more efficient government and welfare state.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The point is that the ultra wealthy individuals and large corporations are more reliant on law and order than the poor.
    Without a police force, a government and a judiciary we would live in an anarchy. In which wealth counts for nothing and the fancy houses, the fancy gadgets go to the man with the biggest stick.

    No point in having a great big house and a great car if someone can just steal them off you. You need a police force. And how do we pay for that? Oh yes taxation.

    Corporations wouldn't make any money if the population was uneducated. If their workers were sick because they had no healthcare. If there wasn't a government that invested in infrastructure and travel to allow them to compete.

    If you think no taxes works well, then head on over to Somalia. Try being wealthy there.
    As much as I identify with the right, this is all 100% true. I laugh whenever I hear middle class people sneer at how the poor should feel grateful we have an NHS and a welfare state, you could just as easily argue that the rich should be grateful their homes aren't burned to the ground and their wealth forcibly appropriated.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...s-abolish-them
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why should the rich pay more in tax its unfair if they acquired their wealth legally they have every right to it. People dont just become rich it takes a certain character who takes a risk in starting up a business, works hard and as a result becomes wealthy. I dont come from a poor background nor do i come from a well off background but i know if i ever make alot of money it will be through my own hard work and efforts, therefore i have earned and have every right to my money and it would be incredibly unjust if i have to give more than anyone else.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    No. Millionaires are already taxed at unfairly high rates. That's exactly why they try to hide their money and avoid paying tax.

    These people are paying more tax and "pulling more weight" than you could ever dream of doing. Our economic and tax (therefore social) contributions pale in comparison to theirs. But you want to take more of their money?

    Robbing from the rich to give to the poor disincentivises wealth creation. Economic and social policy should focus on creating jobs and making business easier and more attractive. Lower corporation tax, more investment into domestic industry, and a smaller, more efficient government and welfare state.

    Oh give over. 'Robbing from the rich', 'wealth creation'. You certainly have all the meaningless soundbites there.

    Your logic is laughable. Millionaires keep avoiding tax, so instead of making it more difficult to avoid tax, we should just charge them less tax?
    You do realise, that paying no tax is always more attractive than paying tax. So unless we lower tax rates to 0, they will always try and avoid tax. The answer is to make it harder for them to do so.


    'Smaller, more efficient government and welfare system'. Again, stop with the meaningless soundbites.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kravence)
    So you would be Ok with having almost half of your salary disappear in taxes every year just because you'll still have a lot left over?
    If anyone is taking home 600k a year, which is about 24 times the average salary, then yes I would think them to be an utter tw*t for complaining about it.

    If a person cannot be happy with 600k a year take home pay then there is something seriously wrong with them.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by asdfg323)
    If there was anarchy the rich would still be far better off than the poor. It would be like Saudi Arabia. Oligarchs with their 40 bodyguards living in palaces built with 100s of dead poor people in its foundations.

    That's all well and good until hundreds of poor people decide to march on the palace and there's no police force to stop them.


    No-one who works at Heathrow could have ever built Heathrow because they don't have the billions to finance it and take that risk. It requires rich people.
    It also requires ordinary workers to build it. Doesn't matter how rich you are if you have no building skills or don't have the manpower to build it.


    The economy would go nowhere without rich people. If you wan to get rich, acquire capital. Don't just ask rich people with factors of production to give you donations. That will never make you rich and just disincentivise rich people who are the only ones who can build up the economy.
    Again not true. Without their well educated and healthy workers, they could achieve nothing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If anyone is taking home 600k a year, which is about 24 times the average salary, then yes I would think them to be an utter tw*t for complaining about it.

    If a person cannot be happy with 600k a year take home pay then there is something seriously wrong with them.
    Yet you are perfectly fine with losing £400k which is about 15 times the average salary. They have every reason to complain about it.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glib)
    Yet you are perfectly fine with losing £400k which is about 15 times the average salary. They have every reason to complain about it.
    When millions in the world are dying of starvation and hundreds of thousands are being butchered in bloody wars, then no they don't have a right to complain about 'only' taking home 600k a year.

    'Only' taking home 600k a year. Wow that's an upsetting story, i'm sure there will be a short film made about this tragedy.

    If someone cannot be happy with 600k a year, there is something seriously wrong with them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    When millions in the world are dying of starvation and hundreds of thousands are being butchered in bloody wars, then no they don't have a right to complain about 'only' taking home 600k a year.

    'Only' taking home 600k a year. Wow that's an upsetting story, i'm sure there will be a short film made about this tragedy.

    If someone cannot be happy with 600k a year, there is something seriously wrong with them.
    Granted, there are millions of people who suffer and worse off. Rather than taking £400k of their income through tax, surely it would be more beneficial to donate it to Charities to support those?

    At the end of the day, they've earned that money and they can spend it how they please. They deserve every right to be p*ssed off if they are losing £400k.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glib)
    Granted, there are millions of people who suffer and worse off. Rather than taking £400k of their income through tax, surely it would be more beneficial to donate it to Charities to support those?

    At the end of the day, they've earned that money and they can spend it how they please. They deserve every right to be p*ssed off if they are losing £400k.

    No, they do not. Someone taking home 600k a year has no right to complain about unfairness.

    They will no doubt have been heavily reliant on British workers who have created their wealth, and the British education system for creating a well educated work force, the British government for creating necessary infrastructure, the police for upholding law and order, the NHS for keeping their workforce healthy.


    They are taking home 600k. If they can't be happy with that then they are seriously depressed individuals who need help.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No, they do not. Someone taking home 600k a year has no right to complain about unfairness.

    They will no doubt have been heavily reliant on British workers who have created their wealth, and the British education system for creating a well educated work force, the British government for creating necessary infrastructure, the police for upholding law and order, the NHS for keeping their workforce healthy.


    They are taking home 600k. If they can't be happy with that then they are seriously depressed individuals who need help.
    Being annoyed about losing money doesn't mean you are depressed.

    Tax is necessary, I agree, but I can't agree with taxing more of their income because they are richer. They've earned that money, and they are most likely to be in a job which contributes significantly to the economy.

    If I was a millionaire and saw this tax decision come in, I would search for ways to reduce the tax I face, legal or not. Where's the incentive to make more money if you are getting penalised for it.

    I am going to stress again, they've earned that money. Not you. They have every right to complain about losing £400k.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    When millions in the world are dying of starvation and hundreds of thousands are being butchered in bloody wars, then no they don't have a right to complain about 'only' taking home 600k a year.

    'Only' taking home 600k a year. Wow that's an upsetting story, i'm sure there will be a short film made about this tragedy.

    If someone cannot be happy with 600k a year, there is something seriously wrong with them.
    Hundreds of thousands in wars? Over what time scale, a decade? Since the turn of the century battle deaths have been measured in the low tens of thousands annually, and broadening the definition to all deaths in all conflicts we still don't even get near 1:100000 dead each year, in fact even at the bad times we're looking at half that, meaning 3 or 4 years for just 100,000 dead, let alone several hundred thousand.

    Millions from malnutrition you can get away with, although the number of malnourished people in the world is roughly one decade's population growth, so perhaps there is a solution to be seen there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glib)
    Being annoyed about losing money doesn't mean you are depressed.

    Tax is necessary, I agree, but I can't agree with taxing more of their income because they are richer. They've earned that money, and they are most likely to be in a job which contributes significantly to the economy.

    If I was a millionaire and saw this tax decision come in, I would search for ways to reduce the tax I face, legal or not. Where's the incentive to make more money if you are getting penalised for it.

    I am going to stress again, they've earned that money. Not you. They have every right to complain about losing £400k.
    Can we stop with this libertarian pipe dream that a person's wealth is a direct reflection on how hard they work.

    Chief executives can effectively choose to give themselves huge pay rises while barely increasing the wages of their staff. Those who are super wealthy can use their wealth to increase their wealth even further.

    Those taking home 600k a year have the most glorious lifestyles imaginable and the fact that you care more about them than you do about the hundreds of thousands of homeless individuals, or those who cannot afford food speaks volumes.

    People should be proud to pay taxes and give back to society. Seems there are few people more unpatriotic than those who avoid taxes.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Can we stop with this libertarian pipe dream that a person's wealth is a direct reflection on how hard they work.

    Chief executives can effectively choose to give themselves huge pay rises while barely increasing the wages of their staff. Those who are super wealthy can use their wealth to increase their wealth even further.

    Those taking home 600k a year have the most glorious lifestyles imaginable and the fact that you care more about them than you do about the hundreds of thousands of homeless individuals or those who cannot afford food speaks volumes.

    People should be proud to pay taxes and give back to society. Seems there are few people more unpatriotic than those who avoid taxes.
    No, I was brought up and still believe you get what you earn. I don't care about rich people at all, but taking more of their income for being successful is ridiculous.

    Are you currently earning money and being taxed?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.