Tax crackdown on rich announced by Danny Alexander
Discussion
rover 623gsi said:
The point is that most people would have 50% of £300k than 95% of £15k. If you're earning £300k a year, even with paying higher tax, you're still taking home a s
t load of money.
So what?t load of money.If more people 'aspired' to earn that, rather than resented the ones earning their money, perhaps we'd have a more positive society.
Once a country decides to penalise success, then that country is heading for a downward spiral.
If you think you 'deserve' higher pay, then try and change it so that you do, don't moan about people being better off than you. If you feel you deserve to be on £300k per year, please state why?
Personally, I'm on about £36k per year and work damned hard and long hours, but I do not begrudge those of infinately more than me a single penney - WTF should I?
chris watton said:
So what?
If more people 'aspired' to earn that, rather than resented the ones earning their money, perhaps we'd have a more positive society.
Once a country decides to penalise success, then that country is heading for a downward spiral.
If you think you 'deserve' higher pay, then try and change it so that you do, don't moan about people being better off than you. If you feel you deserve to be on £300k per year, please state why?
Personally, I'm on about £36k per year and work damned hard and long hours, but I do not begrudge those of infinately more than me a single penney - WTF should I?
I disagree that if more peope aspired to earn more then we'd have a more positive societyIf more people 'aspired' to earn that, rather than resented the ones earning their money, perhaps we'd have a more positive society.
Once a country decides to penalise success, then that country is heading for a downward spiral.
If you think you 'deserve' higher pay, then try and change it so that you do, don't moan about people being better off than you. If you feel you deserve to be on £300k per year, please state why?
Personally, I'm on about £36k per year and work damned hard and long hours, but I do not begrudge those of infinately more than me a single penney - WTF should I?
I don't think that asking someone to pay tax is 'penalising success'
I earn pretty much what I would expect, given the demands of my role and I'm not moaning about people earning more than me. If anyone paid me £300k a year for what I do then they'd be mental.
I too work hard and work long hours - most people do these days. But working hard and working long hours is no guarantee of success or wealth.
rover 623gsi said:
I disagree that if more peope aspired to earn more then we'd have a more positive society
I don't think that asking someone to pay tax is 'penalising success'
I earn pretty much what I would expect, given the demands of my role and I'm not moaning about people earning more than me. If anyone paid me £300k a year for what I do then they'd be mental.
I too work hard and work long hours - most people do these days. But working hard and working long hours is no guarantee of success or wealth.
But....................I don't think that asking someone to pay tax is 'penalising success'
I earn pretty much what I would expect, given the demands of my role and I'm not moaning about people earning more than me. If anyone paid me £300k a year for what I do then they'd be mental.
I too work hard and work long hours - most people do these days. But working hard and working long hours is no guarantee of success or wealth.
Aren't they being taxed already?
Do we need proscriptions, Sulla stylee before people like you are happy?
Do you want them to earn the £300k, but take home what you do and pay the rest in tax, is that your version of fair?
Edited by chris watton on Sunday 23 September 10:45
rover 623gsi said:
I too work hard and work long hours - most people do these days. But working hard and working long hours is no guarantee of success or wealth.
As CW pointed out, there are taxes already leeching people's hard-earned.In terms of the above point, you are correct. Success requires working smart as well as hard, a measured amount of risk taking, some luck, and it's not compulsory.
Working hard is noble and a positive ethic to carry through life but it has never been a sufficient criterion to guarantee success or to deny success to others working less hard but smarter - in the sense of achieving the success you mention.
It was also timely that somebody raised tonker's point about the expenditure problem.
We need to encourage success, not signal the various existing and planned disincentives that encourage mediocrity...regardless of their intended purpose.
The more successful people we have, paying shedloads of tax and buying £1m houses, the better this country will be - particularly the dependency class which depends not on the spinny words of handwringing politicians but taxes paid by wealthy individuals and successful businesses.
Sitting in a happy clappy circle wearing kaftans will never pay for benefits.
Guam said:
The really funny thing Chris is this could crucify the libs own supporters 
Most of their core are the very Middle class who could be hammered by this
Wait till they cotton on to "assetts" doesnt just mean a house
Its your Range Rover, Its Aunty Mabels Antiques she left you, Grandmas Jewellery you got 15 years ago, those stocks Edna left you.
Uncle Freds little bungalow you rented out but that has rocketed in value.
So as the taxman is emptying their jewellery boxes on the kitchen table and weighing the contents on the kitchen scales to estimate the value, they can be content in the idea that we are all in this together
Ar you using that Kidney?Most of their core are the very Middle class who could be hammered by this
Wait till they cotton on to "assetts" doesnt just mean a house
Its your Range Rover, Its Aunty Mabels Antiques she left you, Grandmas Jewellery you got 15 years ago, those stocks Edna left you.
Uncle Freds little bungalow you rented out but that has rocketed in value.
So as the taxman is emptying their jewellery boxes on the kitchen table and weighing the contents on the kitchen scales to estimate the value, they can be content in the idea that we are all in this together
You only need one
You could sell the other one to help support some poor person
How long before we get a kidney tax?
It's just another "South of England Tax" like the already iniquitous Stamp Duty.
Rather than looking at people who live in expensive houses the government could perhaps spend a bit of time looking at people who live in caravans, council houses and other cheap houses with big expensive cars parked outside....
Rather than looking at people who live in expensive houses the government could perhaps spend a bit of time looking at people who live in caravans, council houses and other cheap houses with big expensive cars parked outside....
rover 623gsi said:
but according to many, the people being targetted are not the 'wealth creators' but those on a salary of £40k a year whose property has increased in value over 20 years to £1m....
Well, according to this morning's announcement it is anyone with assets of £1M and above, so that will likely apply to both groups.Ozzie Osmond said:
Rather than looking at people who live in expensive houses the government could perhaps spend a bit of time looking at people who live in caravans, council houses and other cheap houses with big expensive cars parked outside....
For example, here in Gloucester, it seems mandatory for every 'Traveller's' offspring, once they turn 17 to have a brand new top of the range Audi convertible. Did they buy these by not paying tax? That question will never be answered, as it's a political hot potato - much easier to gun for the easy targets, and with the right sound bites, the sheep cheer – while many get away with paying zero tax (coz if you like, pick on them, then it’s, like, racist, innit…)
Oddly, this morning's report that anyone one with more than £1M of assets would be investigated has aniseed from the BBC reports to be replaced by "Clegg says no more cuts on the poor unless some form of wealth tax".
What about cuts on the rich, like reducing the number of MPs and senior civil servants, and peers by 1/3?
What about cuts on the rich, like reducing the number of MPs and senior civil servants, and peers by 1/3?
turbobloke said:
Anybody with disposable income or savings could 'afford' to pay more tax. But why should they if they already pay what they should and are lawfully avoiding paying more?
Exactly. Meanwhile PUBLIC spending continues to soar....Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 23 September 09:59
How on earth is some government official going to work out what I'm worth when I don't know myself?
Property is easy enough to put a ball park figure on but like many people the bulk of my money is tied up in a business, the value of which is largely based on what someone will pay for it. It's very hard to value a business, and that's my most valuable asset (I think...).
Property is easy enough to put a ball park figure on but like many people the bulk of my money is tied up in a business, the value of which is largely based on what someone will pay for it. It's very hard to value a business, and that's my most valuable asset (I think...).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff