Discussion
IroningMan said:
I'm not sure why anyone is wasting keystrokes trying to find a workable solution or a practical, logical justification: all that matters is that the idea is vote worthy - and consequences be damned.
Precisely. "Those who have most should pay the most" - dead cert' with the electorate.Ozzie Osmond said:
IroningMan said:
I'm not sure why anyone is wasting keystrokes trying to find a workable solution or a practical, logical justification: all that matters is that the idea is vote worthy - and consequences be damned.
Precisely. "Those who have most should pay the most" - dead cert' with the electorate.turbobloke said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
IroningMan said:
I'm not sure why anyone is wasting keystrokes trying to find a workable solution or a practical, logical justification: all that matters is that the idea is vote worthy - and consequences be damned.
Precisely. "Those who have most should pay the most" - dead cert' with the electorate.The pre tax income for the top wage earners has more than doubled in the last couple of decades, while the bottom 20% has seen their income stagnate or drop. As a percentage of income the top 1% has seen their tax rate drop by a substantial amount over the same period.
SO they pay more taxes because their earning are higher. If the bottom 20% had seen their income rise at the same percentage rate, they would be paying more taxes.
santona1937 said:
turbobloke said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
IroningMan said:
I'm not sure why anyone is wasting keystrokes trying to find a workable solution or a practical, logical justification: all that matters is that the idea is vote worthy - and consequences be damned.
Precisely. "Those who have most should pay the most" - dead cert' with the electorate.The pre tax income for the top wage earners has more than doubled in the last couple of decades, while the bottom 20% has seen their income stagnate or drop. As a percentage of income the top 1% has seen their tax rate drop by a substantial amount over the same period.
SO they pay more taxes because their earning are higher. If the bottom 20% had seen their income rise at the same percentage rate, they would be paying more taxes.
The statement I gave referred to actual sums of money, such as the 30% of all income taxes paid by 1% of earners on only 13% of all income, or the council tax bands which already charge owners of high value houses more than low value homes.
Those with higher incomes and wealth also pay more in terms of taxes such as CGT, SDLT, IHT, and the VAT on most Ferraris is still more than the VAT on most Fords.
Whatever the changes are over whatever period, that you use here for the purpose of obfuscation, the fact remains that those who earn and have the most already pay the most and by a wide margin. Clearly that isn't fair, so let's have a flat rate of income tax and abolish the envy taxes in the name of fairness.
turbobloke said:
It is true, and use of percentage changes or any other statistical shenanigans won't change that.
The statement I gave referred to actual sums of money, such as the 30% of all income taxes paid by 1% of earners on only 13% of all income, or the council tax bands which already charge owners of high value houses more than low value homes.
Those with higher incomes and wealth also pay more in terms of taxes such as CGT, SDLT, IHT, and the VAT on most Ferraris is still more than the VAT on most Fords.
Whatever the changes are over whatever period, that you use here for the purpose of obfuscation, the fact remains that those who earn and have the most already pay the most and by a wide margin. Clearly that isn't fair, so let's have a flat rate of income tax and abolish the envy taxes in the name of fairness.
According to ONS if you account for all taxes paid by households, the top 10% pay 33% of taxes, by comparison every one else, bar the poorest contribute 29% of their income in taxes. Not so much of a difference. The statement I gave referred to actual sums of money, such as the 30% of all income taxes paid by 1% of earners on only 13% of all income, or the council tax bands which already charge owners of high value houses more than low value homes.
Those with higher incomes and wealth also pay more in terms of taxes such as CGT, SDLT, IHT, and the VAT on most Ferraris is still more than the VAT on most Fords.
Whatever the changes are over whatever period, that you use here for the purpose of obfuscation, the fact remains that those who earn and have the most already pay the most and by a wide margin. Clearly that isn't fair, so let's have a flat rate of income tax and abolish the envy taxes in the name of fairness.
Newc said:
santona1937 said:
According to ONS if you account for all taxes paid by households, the top 10% pay 33% of taxes, by comparison every one else, bar the poorest contribute 29% of their income in taxes. Not so much of a difference.
Socialist arithmetic at its very finest.Newc said:
santona1937 said:
According to ONS if you account for all taxes paid by households, /b], the top 10% pay 33% of taxes[by comparison every one else, bar the poorest contribute [b]29% of their income in taxes. Not so much of a difference.
Socialist arithmetic at its very finest.the top 10% pay 33% of all taxes received by the government.
The other 90% pay 67% of all taxes.
The other stats are:
the poorest contribute 29% of their income in taxes
Everyone else contributes between 30 Plus% of their income in taxes.
Two entirely different calculations.
Edited by Hol on Sunday 20th April 10:34
2222 said:
Hol said:
Everyone else contributes between 30 Plus% of their income in taxes.
Between 30% and what?On top of that there are other taxes based on how disposable income is used - and how cunning and thieving a particular government wants to be...as per Gordon Clown's 100+ stealth taxes.
If a high income individual pays stamp duty and council tax on a large home, drinks, runs a couple of high end cars, buys gadgets and flies off on holiday a few times each year, both the proportion and the amount will be considerable.
Which? (online) reckons that on average we pay 35% of our income in taxes, where direct taxes (income tax and NI) account for 20% and the rest goes on indirect taxes such as VAT, fuel duty, stamp duty, alcohol and cigarette taxes, insurance tax, CGT, council tax, etc.
turbobloke said:
2222 said:
Hol said:
Everyone else contributes between 30 Plus% of their income in taxes.
Between 30% and what?On top of that there are other taxes based on how disposable income is used - and how cunning and thieving a particular government wants to be...as per Gordon Clown's 100+ stealth taxes.
If a high income individual pays stamp duty and council tax on a large home, drinks, runs a couple of high end cars, buys gadgets and flies off on holiday a few times each year, both the proportion and the amount will be considerable.
Which? (online) reckons that on average we pay 35% of our income in taxes, where direct taxes (income tax and NI) account for 20% and the rest goes on indirect taxes such as VAT, fuel duty, stamp duty, alcohol and cigarette taxes, insurance tax, CGT, council tax, etc.
Based on the fact that it was meant as a shock tactic, I would assume its a blend of taxes as above;
In which case a higher tax payer is on 40% tax plus 4.5% NI before he does anything else, so probably closer to 70% tax.
If we knew who this group were and whether they were income earners, pensioners etc, we would have a better understanding of how real world the figures are.
I think it is really simple...
For the most part anyone on £150K+ PA is going to be within reason paying >50% of their income in direct and indirect taxation.
That is I am sorry to say ridiculous, as much as the hand wringing left wing nutters want to say otherwise it will be thus. I am sorry HALF I mean seriously HALF of your income goes to support something you neither partake in or for the most part agree with!
Get f**ked!
ETA I am on holiday and have had a few but still say get f**ked
ETA Further... To tax someone on perceived wealth is just farcical... My grandparents lived in the same house for 50 years, as it happens it was in a very nice south Nottinghamshire village and from the five figure sum they paid for it upon their death was worth the best part of half a million. Grandad had a Navy pension and nanna had a coop bond type pension thing as far as I know. They lived well and comfortably in their home. It is only an accident of geography that their home was now not worth millions.
For the most part anyone on £150K+ PA is going to be within reason paying >50% of their income in direct and indirect taxation.
That is I am sorry to say ridiculous, as much as the hand wringing left wing nutters want to say otherwise it will be thus. I am sorry HALF I mean seriously HALF of your income goes to support something you neither partake in or for the most part agree with!
Get f**ked!
ETA I am on holiday and have had a few but still say get f**ked
ETA Further... To tax someone on perceived wealth is just farcical... My grandparents lived in the same house for 50 years, as it happens it was in a very nice south Nottinghamshire village and from the five figure sum they paid for it upon their death was worth the best part of half a million. Grandad had a Navy pension and nanna had a coop bond type pension thing as far as I know. They lived well and comfortably in their home. It is only an accident of geography that their home was now not worth millions.
Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 20th April 14:31
heppers75 said:
I think it is really simple...
For the most part anyone on £150K+ PA is going to be within reason paying >50% of their income in direct and indirect taxation.
That is I am sorry to say ridiculous, as much as the hand wringing left wing nutters want to say otherwise it will be thus. I am sorry HALF I mean seriously HALF of your income goes to support something you neither partake in or for the most part agree with!
Get f**ked!
ETA I am on holiday and have had a few but still say get f**ked
Sober or not, get f**ked is at the right level. Losing more than 50% of hard-earned is indeed ridiculous. Next thing, before you can say Hey Presclot, somebody will be proposing 100% IHT.For the most part anyone on £150K+ PA is going to be within reason paying >50% of their income in direct and indirect taxation.
That is I am sorry to say ridiculous, as much as the hand wringing left wing nutters want to say otherwise it will be thus. I am sorry HALF I mean seriously HALF of your income goes to support something you neither partake in or for the most part agree with!
Get f**ked!
ETA I am on holiday and have had a few but still say get f**ked
turbobloke said:
heppers75 said:
I think it is really simple...
For the most part anyone on £150K+ PA is going to be within reason paying >50% of their income in direct and indirect taxation.
That is I am sorry to say ridiculous, as much as the hand wringing left wing nutters want to say otherwise it will be thus. I am sorry HALF I mean seriously HALF of your income goes to support something you neither partake in or for the most part agree with!
Get f**ked!
ETA I am on holiday and have had a few but still say get f**ked
Sober or not, get f**ked is at the right level. Losing more than 50% of hard-earned is indeed ridiculous. Next thing, before you can say Hey Presclot, somebody will be proposing 100% IHT.For the most part anyone on £150K+ PA is going to be within reason paying >50% of their income in direct and indirect taxation.
That is I am sorry to say ridiculous, as much as the hand wringing left wing nutters want to say otherwise it will be thus. I am sorry HALF I mean seriously HALF of your income goes to support something you neither partake in or for the most part agree with!
Get f**ked!
ETA I am on holiday and have had a few but still say get f**ked
Also I am a tad hammered - long lunch by the marina with Mrs H and the boy and now sat on our terrace enjoying a Duvel and awaiting a game of battleship with mini me I am bound to lose!
Tax freedom day seems only to ever move forward and never backwards.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tax-freedom-day-asi-incom...
Wiki proves me wrong but I wasn't earning when the date was later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day#Histo...
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tax-freedom-day-asi-incom...
Wiki proves me wrong but I wasn't earning when the date was later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day#Histo...
heppers75 said:
turbobloke said:
heppers75 said:
I think it is really simple...
For the most part anyone on £150K+ PA is going to be within reason paying >50% of their income in direct and indirect taxation.
That is I am sorry to say ridiculous, as much as the hand wringing left wing nutters want to say otherwise it will be thus. I am sorry HALF I mean seriously HALF of your income goes to support something you neither partake in or for the most part agree with!
Get f**ked!
ETA I am on holiday and have had a few but still say get f**ked
Sober or not, get f**ked is at the right level. Losing more than 50% of hard-earned is indeed ridiculous. Next thing, before you can say Hey Presclot, somebody will be proposing 100% IHT.For the most part anyone on £150K+ PA is going to be within reason paying >50% of their income in direct and indirect taxation.
That is I am sorry to say ridiculous, as much as the hand wringing left wing nutters want to say otherwise it will be thus. I am sorry HALF I mean seriously HALF of your income goes to support something you neither partake in or for the most part agree with!
Get f**ked!
ETA I am on holiday and have had a few but still say get f**ked
Also I am a tad hammered - long lunch by the marina with Mrs H and the boy and now sat on our terrace enjoying a Duvel and awaiting a game of battleship with mini me I am bound to lose!
It's how everyone works.
Ultimately, it's your employer/clients that pay it.
That's what the idioms fail to grasp - it costs everyone.
Justayellowbadge said:
Thing is, you aren't on 150k. You negotiated a 75k take home.
It's how everyone works.
Ultimately, it's your employer/clients that pay it.
That's what the idioms fail to grasp - it costs everyone.
To be fair JAYB I am not that person I was just using that person as a construct to make a point. It's how everyone works.
Ultimately, it's your employer/clients that pay it.
That's what the idioms fail to grasp - it costs everyone.
The point is itself nonetheless valid - removing >50% of a person's income is wrong, it just is - I cannot think of a single cogent argument that could be made to justify it,
Justayellowbadge said:
Thing is, you aren't on 150k. You negotiated a 75k take home.
It's how everyone works.
Ultimately, it's your employer/clients that pay it.
That's what the idioms fail to grasp - it costs everyone.
Not quite right, although I understand what you're trying to illustrate.It's how everyone works.
Ultimately, it's your employer/clients that pay it.
That's what the idioms fail to grasp - it costs everyone.
Self employed on 300k never "negotiated" 150k take home. S/he'll pay circa 150k in Income tax and NI. It was never "negotiated" to be 150k. He has to earn it, then pay the tax on it.
I've never really understood why we don't have a flat rate of tax - for everyone.
If it was, for example, 40%, those on very high salaries would be continue to contribute far more than those on lower salaries.
A person on £350k would pay £140,000 in tax, the person on £30k would pay £12,000. Very fair. I'm not sure why there needs to be an additional, punitive, scale on top. Politics?
In terms of the family home tax - it's legalised theft. The person paying all this extra tax doesn't receive any more services - so why pay it? What is the rationale? Oh, sorry... politics. Great reason.
Might they introduce a slider on VAT?! So I pay more at the checkout for groceries based on my income? Same logic.
If it was, for example, 40%, those on very high salaries would be continue to contribute far more than those on lower salaries.
A person on £350k would pay £140,000 in tax, the person on £30k would pay £12,000. Very fair. I'm not sure why there needs to be an additional, punitive, scale on top. Politics?
In terms of the family home tax - it's legalised theft. The person paying all this extra tax doesn't receive any more services - so why pay it? What is the rationale? Oh, sorry... politics. Great reason.
Might they introduce a slider on VAT?! So I pay more at the checkout for groceries based on my income? Same logic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff