Should we tax the rich (>£250k a year) more?
Here's why I think we should:
1) It brings in far more tax revenue than taxing the poor since a larger amount of income is being taxed. It could allow millions of ordinary people to not have to pay tax at all.
2) The fact is that rich people (>£250k annual income) spend a smaller proportion of their income than poorer people. It's not like the money is being used to benefit the economy through consumption.
3) The majority of rich people aren't going to move countries just for lower taxes. The costs of moving homes, leaving those families and he environment they have been familiar with for decades means they aren't usually going to leave. It's not like Scandinavian millionaires are leaving in huge droves and they pay far more tax than equally rich people in the UK
4) Those who make the argument that rich people worked hard for their money ignore the fact that the average minimum wage worker works extremely hard to make ends meet. The fact is that not everyone can or has the ability to earn £250k a year, and the fact is that those earning more often rely on those below them working hard for lower pay. A banker earning £500k a year doesn't work harder necessarily than a shopkeeper in Newham working 16 hour shifts 7 days a week to care for his family.
5) Our basic services such as education and healthcare are under threat from low funding and millions of hard working people across the country are struggling to make ends meet. The tax revenue we could get by bringing a 55% tax on earnings above £250k could help pay for vital public services.
1) It brings in far more tax revenue than taxing the poor since a larger amount of income is being taxed. It could allow millions of ordinary people to not have to pay tax at all.
2) The fact is that rich people (>£250k annual income) spend a smaller proportion of their income than poorer people. It's not like the money is being used to benefit the economy through consumption.
3) The majority of rich people aren't going to move countries just for lower taxes. The costs of moving homes, leaving those families and he environment they have been familiar with for decades means they aren't usually going to leave. It's not like Scandinavian millionaires are leaving in huge droves and they pay far more tax than equally rich people in the UK
4) Those who make the argument that rich people worked hard for their money ignore the fact that the average minimum wage worker works extremely hard to make ends meet. The fact is that not everyone can or has the ability to earn £250k a year, and the fact is that those earning more often rely on those below them working hard for lower pay. A banker earning £500k a year doesn't work harder necessarily than a shopkeeper in Newham working 16 hour shifts 7 days a week to care for his family.
5) Our basic services such as education and healthcare are under threat from low funding and millions of hard working people across the country are struggling to make ends meet. The tax revenue we could get by bringing a 55% tax on earnings above £250k could help pay for vital public services.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by desaf1
Here's why I think we should:
1) It brings in far more tax revenue than taxing the poor since a larger amount of income is being taxed. It could allow millions of ordinary people to not have to pay tax at all.
2) The fact is that rich people (>£250k annual income) spend a smaller proportion of their income than poorer people. It's not like the money is being used to benefit the economy through consumption.
3) The majority of rich people aren't going to move countries just for lower taxes. The costs of moving homes, leaving those families and he environment they have been familiar with for decades means they aren't usually going to leave. It's not like Scandinavian millionaires are leaving in huge droves and they pay far more tax than equally rich people in the UK
4) Those who make the argument that rich people worked hard for their money ignore the fact that the average minimum wage worker works extremely hard to make ends meet. The fact is that not everyone can or has the ability to earn £250k a year, and the fact is that those earning more often rely on those below them working hard for lower pay. A banker earning £500k a year doesn't work harder necessarily than a shopkeeper in Newham working 16 hour shifts 7 days a week to care for his family.
1) It brings in far more tax revenue than taxing the poor since a larger amount of income is being taxed. It could allow millions of ordinary people to not have to pay tax at all.
2) The fact is that rich people (>£250k annual income) spend a smaller proportion of their income than poorer people. It's not like the money is being used to benefit the economy through consumption.
3) The majority of rich people aren't going to move countries just for lower taxes. The costs of moving homes, leaving those families and he environment they have been familiar with for decades means they aren't usually going to leave. It's not like Scandinavian millionaires are leaving in huge droves and they pay far more tax than equally rich people in the UK
4) Those who make the argument that rich people worked hard for their money ignore the fact that the average minimum wage worker works extremely hard to make ends meet. The fact is that not everyone can or has the ability to earn £250k a year, and the fact is that those earning more often rely on those below them working hard for lower pay. A banker earning £500k a year doesn't work harder necessarily than a shopkeeper in Newham working 16 hour shifts 7 days a week to care for his family.
We rely on people having capital to invest into new companies/ideas in order to compete with already existing companies/ideas, forcing companies to reduce prices for consumers to remain competitive / provide better goods. Without available capital for such investment you get stagnation; large corporations being free to increase profits and not increase efficiency / quality to the detriment of employees and consumers.
The issue with your argument is that you clearly do not understand capitalism and how basic economics works.
Supply and demand is how wages are decided. A job that very little people can do (eg. high skilled jobs) have low supply, if there is high demand for that job then they will be offered high wages. Cashiers may work harder but there is not a low supply of people who are able to be cashier; consequently lower wages. Obviously there are other factors such as how much money is in that sector but mostly it works this way. Also maybe these people who earn less don't work as hard now but to get to where they are took years of studying or hard work before getting the job. The issue is that people only work because of incentives, mostly the wages they get, taxing these jobs too much will lower incentives to get the job, and thus more people will be less skilled, or skilled people will leave the country, brain drain. That will have a horrible affect on the economy and will create a lot of problems. We saw this happen in Russia when they were communist so we know it is what happens.
Supply and demand is how wages are decided. A job that very little people can do (eg. high skilled jobs) have low supply, if there is high demand for that job then they will be offered high wages. Cashiers may work harder but there is not a low supply of people who are able to be cashier; consequently lower wages. Obviously there are other factors such as how much money is in that sector but mostly it works this way. Also maybe these people who earn less don't work as hard now but to get to where they are took years of studying or hard work before getting the job. The issue is that people only work because of incentives, mostly the wages they get, taxing these jobs too much will lower incentives to get the job, and thus more people will be less skilled, or skilled people will leave the country, brain drain. That will have a horrible affect on the economy and will create a lot of problems. We saw this happen in Russia when they were communist so we know it is what happens.
Original post by desaf1
2) The fact is that rich people (>£250k annual income) spend a smaller proportion of their income than poorer people.
[Citation needed]
Then they would move somewhere with lower taxes.
Original post by desaf1
Here's why I think we should:
1) It brings in far more tax revenue than taxing the poor since a larger amount of income is being taxed. It could allow millions of ordinary people to not have to pay tax at all.
2) The fact is that rich people (>£250k annual income) spend a smaller proportion of their income than poorer people. It's not like the money is being used to benefit the economy through consumption.
3) The majority of rich people aren't going to move countries just for lower taxes. The costs of moving homes, leaving those families and he environment they have been familiar with for decades means they aren't usually going to leave. It's not like Scandinavian millionaires are leaving in huge droves and they pay far more tax than equally rich people in the UK
4) Those who make the argument that rich people worked hard for their money ignore the fact that the average minimum wage worker works extremely hard to make ends meet. The fact is that not everyone can or has the ability to earn £250k a year, and the fact is that those earning more often rely on those below them working hard for lower pay. A banker earning £500k a year doesn't work harder necessarily than a shopkeeper in Newham working 16 hour shifts 7 days a week to care for his family.
5) Our basic services such as education and healthcare are under threat from low funding and millions of hard working people across the country are struggling to make ends meet. The tax revenue we could get by bringing a 55% tax on earnings above £250k could help pay for vital public services.
1) It brings in far more tax revenue than taxing the poor since a larger amount of income is being taxed. It could allow millions of ordinary people to not have to pay tax at all.
2) The fact is that rich people (>£250k annual income) spend a smaller proportion of their income than poorer people. It's not like the money is being used to benefit the economy through consumption.
3) The majority of rich people aren't going to move countries just for lower taxes. The costs of moving homes, leaving those families and he environment they have been familiar with for decades means they aren't usually going to leave. It's not like Scandinavian millionaires are leaving in huge droves and they pay far more tax than equally rich people in the UK
4) Those who make the argument that rich people worked hard for their money ignore the fact that the average minimum wage worker works extremely hard to make ends meet. The fact is that not everyone can or has the ability to earn £250k a year, and the fact is that those earning more often rely on those below them working hard for lower pay. A banker earning £500k a year doesn't work harder necessarily than a shopkeeper in Newham working 16 hour shifts 7 days a week to care for his family.
5) Our basic services such as education and healthcare are under threat from low funding and millions of hard working people across the country are struggling to make ends meet. The tax revenue we could get by bringing a 55% tax on earnings above £250k could help pay for vital public services.
Given that on such incomes already pay an income tax rate of 47% i certainly don't think we should increase it. We should not punish people for success.
1) Equally, by keeping income taxes at moderate levels we can attract more rich taxpayers. There are also other ways we can achieve our goal of removing the burden of taxation from the average person (a goal i share with you), such as cutting spending or taxing assets.
2) A valid point but only in the short run. Albeit it's one i have a lot of sympathy with and why i don't share my fellow right wingers beliefs in slashing taxes for the rich.
3) Actually, people with higher incomes do have a much greater flexibility in the workforce and often the nature of their jobs may demand it (It probably helps that somebody at that income level will likely have multiple homes).
The point about Scandinavian millionaires is perhaps the weakest point you make because you take a static view of looking at how they act now in a stable tax regime (taxes were raised many years ago) rather than looking at how many did leave when the tax rise took place. We know from France for example that it did cause some people to leave for places like London.
4) This point is emotional and irelevant.
5) Ignoring the fact that i would argue the distribution of funds in education is of far greater concern than the actual level of central government funding right now i bring you back to my reply to point 1 which was in health especially we need not burden people with greater taxation when we can simply reduce the number of services the NHS provides. The NHS is like an obese person who's eaten 5000 calories per day and has been forced onto a diet of 2000 calories.. it needs to be forced to hold the course and make adjustments. We still have a health service wasting money on providing second abortions, IVF and adult transgender surgeries for example. We still need to means test more pensioner benefits.
Original post by Drewski
[Citation needed]
He's talking about the fact that the rich have a higher marginal propensity to save or consume abroad.
The rich already pay an exorbitant amount of tax. It's near the region of 50% iirc.
Original post by angelike1
Then they would move somewhere with lower taxes.
Not necessarily. The tax rate is much lower in Serbia than the UK - are you going to move there?
However, there is a limit to how much tax should be taken because when rates go above a certain point less and less people can be bothered to do so many hours. For example, high earners with 3 children on £60k today have to pay - on the last £10k - 40% tax, 2% national insurance and the equivalent of 25% on paying back their child benefit. Consequently they only see £3.3k of the last £10k and might be tempted to work one day less a week or buy more holiday!
Original post by AW_1983
The 'rich' generally don't need an income. If you penalise high earners, you just stop people joining the rich. If you actually want to tax the rich, you need to find efficient and stable ways to tax wealth.
This.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Grant Thornton Audit School Leaver 2024
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Grant thornton 2024 entry
- Grant Thornton final interview
- Pay at the Bar
- Grant Thornton School Leaver 2023 entry x
- Grant Thornton 2024 Assessment Centre
- Should I work for a Big 4 firm?
- UK Medical School Debt is about £184.5k over 30 years
- The Rot Of The Lottery
- The Education system more like the biggest scam
- 2024 Grant Thornton apprenticeship application thread
- Is it bad my dad charges me and my boyfriend this much rent?
- Grant Thornton 2024 Graduate role
- Bank of America Degree Apprenticeship 2024
- Is earning 25k a year considered poor?
- Boyfriend all of a sudde wants to get married after I started making a lot of money?
- Make it More Breakfast-ey !!
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?