mansion tax

[Countdown]

NDA said:

I've never really understood why we don't have a flat rate of tax - for everyone.

I think it's because those on lower wages pay a higher proportion of their incomes on essentials such as food, energy, accommodation. So, for example, somebody on £10k spending £2k on food is spending 20% on food. Somebody on £100k spending £4k on food = 4%.

[KFC]

Countdown said:

NDA said:

I've never really understood why we don't have a flat rate of tax - for everyone.

I think it's because those on lower wages pay a higher proportion of their incomes on essentials such as food, energy, accommodation. So, for example, somebody on £10k spending £2k on food is spending 20% on food. Somebody on £100k spending £4k on food = 4%.

I'd prefer a tax free allowance that was the same for everyone, and then a flat rate tax on top of that.

[Countdown]

KFC said:

I'd prefer a tax free allowance that was the same for everyone, and then a flat rate tax on top of that.

There are pro's and cons / winners and losers to every approach. The current system is tiered (0%/20%/40%/45% give or take). Depending on where you set the allowance some people will pay more, some people will pay less....so guess who's going to be in favour of "your flat rate proposal"?

How about we set the allowance at £40k and have 80% flat rate above that? It's a flat rate so much better....no? Dare I suggest that people saying "flat rate is better" really mean " flat rate is better for me".

[heppers75]

NDA said:

I've never really understood why we don't have a flat rate of tax - for everyone..

Because very simply that is the actual definition of fair and we can't have that can we!?

[Countdown]

heppers75 said:

Because very simply that is the actual definition of fair and we can't have that can we!?

Might have said this before - there is no such thing as "fair tax" because there is simply no correlation between the tax anybody pays and the benefit they receive.

[KFC]

Countdown said:

There are pro's and cons / winners and losers to every approach. The current system is tiered (0%/20%/40%/45% give or take). Depending on where you set the allowance some people will pay more, some people will pay less....so guess who's going to be in favour of "your flat rate proposal"?

How about we set the allowance at £40k and have 80% flat rate above that? It's a flat rate so much better....no? Dare I suggest that people saying "flat rate is better" really mean " flat rate is better for me".

Well yeah, it would be better for me with the way I was thinking of doing it

I don't know the numbers... does anyone know roughly what the tax % would need to be to achieve the current tax total income if we had a tax free allowance of say £20k, then a flat rate % ?

[Countdown]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Of course. But then why give them a personal allowance at all? Or indeed any benefits? Feck 'em...if they can't be arsed to work hard at school and choose to bum around why should they be subsidised by us hardworking taxpayers.

[Camlet]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[Hol]

The money to balance the annual budget shortfall does not grow on trees, it is borrowed from the banks, in the form of Gilt Edged Bonds that guarantee them a fixed rate of interest.

No banks = no cheap government borrowing = higher taxes for all to cover shortfall.

[NoNeed]

I keep hearing this term that "the rich are becoming richer" is there any evidence of this?

I know property prices have risen well beyond inflation but that means that even somebody earning a good salary can only afford a modest house especially in the south east.

The "old money" lot have almost vanished with their property being taken over by the national trust

The only rise in wealth that is clearly visible to an average working class person like me is foreign money like rich Arabs e.t.c that like to flaunt it.


I would love to see some proof that the rich are actually getting richer and not being replaced by a foreign richer.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Doesn't it just!

I am left stunned by the people who think that we HAVE to have the ridiculously high tax take and seem blind to the profligate incompetence of almost every layer and branch of government we have imposed on us.

[Ozzie Osmond]

NoNeed said:

I keep hearing this term that "the rich are becoming richer" is there any evidence of this?

Yes.

The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at Tesco and the girl on the till has never been wider.
The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at BP and the bloke on the till has never been wider.
The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at Barratt and the bricklayer on site has never been wider.

Also anyone who has invested in the stock market through the last decade has made a very good return. At the same time anyone with cash savings (typically the smaller savers) has struggled to keep pace with inflation.

[alock]

KFC said:

I don't know the numbers... does anyone know roughly what the tax % would need to be to achieve the current tax total income if we had a tax free allowance of say £20k, then a flat rate % ?

This is a reasonable attempt:
http://www.2020tax.org

[ClaphamGT3]

REALIST123 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Doesn't it just!

I am left stunned by the people who think that we HAVE to have the ridiculously high tax take and seem blind to the profligate incompetence of almost every layer and branch of government we have imposed on us.

Or, to put it even more simply, work out a sensible tax take that maintains a vibrant economy that people aspire to be part of and then decide how far that money goes, rather then deciding how much "the state" wants to spend and then taxing accordingly. The French tried the latter which is, in no small part why London is the third largest French City by populous in the world after Paris and Lyon

[Countdown]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Or, to put it even more simply, work out a sensible tax take that maintains a vibrant economy that people aspire to be part of and then decide how far that money goes, rather then deciding how much "the state" wants to spend and then taxing accordingly. The French tried the latter which is, in no small part why London is the third largest French City by populous in the world after Paris and Lyon

I'm surprised that the French have chosen to move to London rather than a lower-tax regime such as Monaco, for example.

[ClaphamGT3]

Countdown said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Or, to put it even more simply, work out a sensible tax take that maintains a vibrant economy that people aspire to be part of and then decide how far that money goes, rather then deciding how much "the state" wants to spend and then taxing accordingly. The French tried the latter which is, in no small part why London is the third largest French City by populous in the world after Paris and Lyon

I'm surprised that the French have chosen to move to London rather than a lower-tax regime such as Monaco, for example.

If you are income-affluent rather than genuinely rich then you will need to continue to work and there aren't too many banking/legal/accountancy/insurance/property roles in Monaco. London, however, is an easy transfer with a lot of suitable roles available

[NoNeed]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Yes.

The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at Tesco and the girl on the till has never been wider.
The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at BP and the bloke on the till has never been wider.
The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at Barratt and the bricklayer on site has never been wider.

Also anyone who has invested in the stock market through the last decade has made a very good return. At the same time anyone with cash savings (typically the smaller savers) has struggled to keep pace with inflation.

I think you are confusing the middle and upper middle classes with the rich.

[NoNeed]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Yes.

The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at Tesco and the girl on the till has never been wider.
The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at BP and the bloke on the till has never been wider.
The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at Barratt and the bricklayer on site has never been wider.

Also anyone who has invested in the stock market through the last decade has made a very good return. At the same time anyone with cash savings (typically the smaller savers) has struggled to keep pace with inflation.

I think you are confusing the middle and upper middle classes with the rich.

[turbobloke]

NoNeed said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Yes.

The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at Tesco and the girl on the till has never been wider.
The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at BP and the bloke on the till has never been wider.
The gap between the annual pay of the CEO at Barratt and the bricklayer on site has never been wider.

Also anyone who has invested in the stock market through the last decade has made a very good return. At the same time anyone with cash savings (typically the smaller savers) has struggled to keep pace with inflation.

I think you are confusing the middle and upper middle classes with the rich.

While also confusing pay gaps with something that matters.

[rovermorris999]

Countdown said:

I'm surprised that the French have chosen to move to London rather than a lower-tax regime such as Monaco, for example.

The availability of work I suspect.