|
NorthernBoy
6,025 posts
126 months
|
Eric Mc said: Define "too much".
Some people think 1% tax would be too much.
Even if tax was as low as 1% there are plenty of people who would do their damndest not to pay it. I always think of the two mafia hoods who interview Mitch McGear in the film "The Firm", Their brief is - "No tax". Well, speaking personally, I'd say that my marginal rate of 52% is the wrong side of the line. For some reason people assume that no-one pays that much, but on the contrary, I know no people at work (whose pay puts them into that bracket) who manage not to. Edited to add, I was looking at the government stats today, and the top 1% of earners earn 13% of all income, and pay 27% of all income tax, so the picture of us all paying less than the average taxpayer is simply wrong. On average, we clearly pay 27 times more than the average person. That's not to say that there could not be an argument that we should pay even more, but it's dishonest to imply that we are shirking our share.
|
|
|
NDA
10,203 posts
94 months
|
Eric Mc said: .
Is the £6 million or so she's able to keep for heself not enough for her? Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment behind that question. Whether its enough for somebody is not for us, or anyone else to judge. She made a pot of cash through her own efforts, and a major portion has been kleptoed by the government. I feel her pain. I'm amused that Cameron is offering to 'roll out the red carpet' to the French so that they can avoid the 75% tax proposed by Hollande, and yet anyone avoiding tax here is a pariah. A flat rate tax seems far more fair than the punitive system we've adopted. 30% of a £1m salary is a far greater contribution in real terms than 30% of a £30k salary. Why continually punish the high earners with tax rates that are deliberately punishing them for their success? I guess it's partly to do with the 'isnt that enough for you' attitude we have. It kills ambition.
|
|
|
Guybrush
2,500 posts
75 months
|
NDA said: Eric Mc said: .
Is the £6 million or so she's able to keep for heself not enough for her? Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment behind that question. Whether its enough for somebody is not for us, or anyone else to judge. She made a pot of cash through her own efforts, and a major portion has been kleptoed by the government. I feel her pain. I'm amused that Cameron is offering to 'roll out the red carpet' to the French so that they can avoid the 75% tax proposed by Hollande, and yet anyone avoiding tax here is a pariah. A flat rate tax seems far more fair than the punitive system we've adopted. 30% of a £1m salary is a far greater contribution in real terms than 30% of a £30k salary. Why continually punish the high earners with tax rates that are deliberately punishing them for their success? I guess it's partly to do with the 'isnt that enough for you' attitude we have. It kills ambition. Flat rate seems a great idea, but I'd like to see the country's figures. There's not that great a pool of people from which to extract tax - take out the public sector and all those on benefits for a start. Incidentally, if a particular type of avoidance is so bad, then close the loophole. I guess the loophole has been there for years - the tax people aren't that daft surely - they must have known about it.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,489 posts
129 months
|
They did know about it, relevant taxpayers informed them as required.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
NDA said: Eric Mc said: .
Is the £6 million or so she's able to keep for heself not enough for her? Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment behind that question. Whether its enough for somebody is not for us, or anyone else to judge. She made a pot of cash through her own efforts, and a major portion has been kleptoed by the government. I feel her pain. I'm amused that Cameron is offering to 'roll out the red carpet' to the French so that they can avoid the 75% tax proposed by Hollande, and yet anyone avoiding tax here is a pariah. A flat rate tax seems far more fair than the punitive system we've adopted. 30% of a £1m salary is a far greater contribution in real terms than 30% of a £30k salary. Why continually punish the high earners with tax rates that are deliberately punishing them for their success? I guess it's partly to do with the 'isnt that enough for you' attitude we have. It kills ambition. I'm not against tax simplification and there are plenty of areas of UK taxation that should be simplified and streamlined. But there will be many high earners who will not want to pay tax no matter what the rate is. Even if it was (say) a flat rate of 30%, the tax avoidance industry wiould not disappear.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
When people talk abouty "flat tax", what are the really suggesting?
Are they talking about just a flat rate of Income Tax (which would be good) or coupling a the introduction of a Flat Rate of Income Tax with the abolition of other forms of taxation, such as National Insurance Contributions, Capital Gains Tax, Inhetritance Tax, Corporation Tax, VAT, Stamp Duty, Landfill Tax, Insurance Premium Tax, Excise Duties, Fuel Duties etc.
And whatever route they went down, how would the national finances fare?
|
|
|
NDA
10,203 posts
94 months
|
Eric Mc said: NDA said: Eric Mc said: .
Is the £6 million or so she's able to keep for heself not enough for her? Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment behind that question. Whether its enough for somebody is not for us, or anyone else to judge. She made a pot of cash through her own efforts, and a major portion has been kleptoed by the government. I feel her pain. I'm amused that Cameron is offering to 'roll out the red carpet' to the French so that they can avoid the 75% tax proposed by Hollande, and yet anyone avoiding tax here is a pariah. A flat rate tax seems far more fair than the punitive system we've adopted. 30% of a £1m salary is a far greater contribution in real terms than 30% of a £30k salary. Why continually punish the high earners with tax rates that are deliberately punishing them for their success? I guess it's partly to do with the 'isnt that enough for you' attitude we have. It kills ambition. I'm not against tax simplification and there are plenty of areas of UK taxation that should be simplified and streamlined. But there will be many high earners who will not want to pay tax no matter what the rate is. Even if it was (say) a flat rate of 30%, the tax avoidance industry wiould not disappear. I'm not an economist so have no idea how the economy would work, but it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to abolish all tax reliefs. You pay 30%, everybody pays 30%. 30% from a high earner is a far greater sum of money than 30% from a dust man. I really do object to being forced to pay a higher rate of tax, it feels completely immoral. I also really dislike the 'isn't that enough money for you' type of attitude we have in this country. we should be saying to the government 'isn't that enough money for you'!
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,934 posts
114 months
|
NDA said: I'm not an economist so have no idea how the economy would work, but it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to abolish all tax reliefs. You pay 30%, everybody pays 30%. 30% from a high earner is a far greater sum of money than 30% from a dust man. They very nearly did this in Australia a few years ago and only realised at quite a late stage that low paid people would be worse off and highly paid people would be much better off. As there are a lot more low paid people than highly paid people, introducing such a scheme is political suicide.
|
|
|
NDA
10,203 posts
94 months
|
Deva Link said: They very nearly did this in Australia a few years ago and only realised at quite a late stage that low paid people would be worse off and highly paid people would be much better off.
As there are a lot more low paid people than highly paid people, introducing such a scheme is political suicide. I accept your point. I think you're right. However 'highly paid people would be better off'.... Er, yes, they'd be keeping more of THEIR money, money that they've earned - and so they should. Trying to hobble the wealthy is akin to hamstringing Hussain Bolt, 'you're faster and better at running, so we'll make it more difficult for you so that those that can't run quite so fast will reach the finishing line at the same time as you...' Perhaps a more even tax system would prevent the need for people to evade or aggressively avoid tax.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
NDA said: I'm not an economist so have no idea how the economy would work, but it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to abolish all tax reliefs. You pay 30%, everybody pays 30%. 30% from a high earner is a far greater sum of money than 30% from a dust man.
I really do object to being forced to pay a higher rate of tax, it feels completely immoral. I also really dislike the 'isn't that enough money for you' type of attitude we have in this country. we should be saying to the government 'isn't that enough money for you'! So, youi want Income Tax simplified. What about the other taxes?
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,489 posts
129 months
|
Eric Mc said: NDA said: I'm not an economist so have no idea how the economy would work, but it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to abolish all tax reliefs. You pay 30%, everybody pays 30%. 30% from a high earner is a far greater sum of money than 30% from a dust man.
I really do object to being forced to pay a higher rate of tax, it feels completely immoral. I also really dislike the 'isn't that enough money for you' type of attitude we have in this country. we should be saying to the government 'isn't that enough money for you'! So, youi want Income Tax simplified. What about the other taxes? Can't speak for NDA but for my part the reply to that is minimised. Make government work harder with less money just as we have to, at least those of us in work or running businesses.
|
|
|
NDA
10,203 posts
94 months
|
Eric Mc said: So, youi want Income Tax simplified. What about the other taxes? VAT is pretty flat..... Or do you mean personal taxation? I'm about to go out for the day (so don't assume I'm avoiding your question) but I simply mean that there should be a predominantly flat rate of income tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. Of course it wont work and I'm not an accountant. But the principal of an increasing rate of tax feels, to me, to be entirely immoral. We accept the maxim 'you can afford it' in this country or 'isn't that enough for you' (when discussing whats left after the government have confiscated the majority of your income) It's why I pay more to have my bins collected than my neighbour, we all have one bin, but I pay double the amount in council tax because my house is bigger and the assumption is that I should therefore pay more.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,489 posts
129 months
|
NDA said: Eric Mc said: So, youi want Income Tax simplified. What about the other taxes? VAT is pretty flat..... Or do you mean personal taxation? I'm about to go out for the day (so don't assume I'm avoiding your question) but I simply mean that there should be a predominantly flat rate of income tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. Of course it wont work and I'm not an accountant. But the principal of an increasing rate of tax feels, to me, to be entirely immoral. We accept the maxim 'you can afford it' in this country or 'isn't that enough for you' (when discussing whats left after the government have confiscated the majority of your income) It's why I pay more to have my bins collected than my neighbour, we all have one bin, but I pay double the amount in council tax because my house is bigger and the assumption is that I should therefore pay more. Ah yes, but, that's the new definition of 'fair' where an unfair higher contribution for the same lack of service is defined as 'fair' by those who can unilaterally define 'enough' by virtue of not having it.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
I did ask previously whether people were talking aboyut a simplification of personal income tax - which is long overdue. Or were they talking about a simplification of the entire tax code - which is vast and includes a massive number of separate taxes, National Insurance and excise duties and fills tens of thousands of pages of legislation.
The latter is also necessary but a gargantuan, if not impossible, task.
|
|
|
NDA
10,203 posts
94 months
|
turbobloke said: Ah yes, but, that's the new definition of 'fair' where an unfair higher contribution for the same lack of service is defined as 'fair' by those who can unilaterally define 'enough' by virtue of not having it. Quite.
|
|
|
johnfm
9,018 posts
119 months
|
There is a detailed examination of how a flat tax system would be implemented in the Uk. Google it. It is about 120 pages.
This whole discussion hasn't yet touched on the distinction, pros and cons of taxing income v taxing wealth - which is a whole different can of worms.
|
|
|
el stovey
13,476 posts
132 months
|
Eric Mc said: I'm not against tax simplification and there are plenty of areas of UK taxation that should be simplified and streamlined. But there will be many high earners who will not want to pay tax no matter what the rate is. Even if it was (say) a flat rate of 30%, the tax avoidance industry wiould not disappear. That's right, even if you have a flat rate of 30%, new elaborate schemes will arrive to divert money early on so you only pay 30% of a fraction of what you actually earn. People who are happy being in often untested aggressive tax reduction schemes will always be happy to be in them.
|
|
|
AstonZagato
3,228 posts
79 months
|
Eric Mc said: When people talk abouty "flat tax", what are the really suggesting?
Are they talking about just a flat rate of Income Tax (which would be good) or coupling a the introduction of a Flat Rate of Income Tax with the abolition of other forms of taxation, such as National Insurance Contributions, Capital Gains Tax, Inhetritance Tax, Corporation Tax, VAT, Stamp Duty, Landfill Tax, Insurance Premium Tax, Excise Duties, Fuel Duties etc.
And whatever route they went down, how would the national finances fare? Wouldn't you have Capital Gains at the same rate as the single rate Income Tax? It would radically simplify everyone's tax return and no-one would need to play games turning income into gains.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
AstonZagato said: Eric Mc said: When people talk abouty "flat tax", what are the really suggesting?
Are they talking about just a flat rate of Income Tax (which would be good) or coupling a the introduction of a Flat Rate of Income Tax with the abolition of other forms of taxation, such as National Insurance Contributions, Capital Gains Tax, Inhetritance Tax, Corporation Tax, VAT, Stamp Duty, Landfill Tax, Insurance Premium Tax, Excise Duties, Fuel Duties etc.
And whatever route they went down, how would the national finances fare? Wouldn't you have Capital Gains at the same rate as the single rate Income Tax? It would radically simplify everyone's tax return and no-one would need to play games turning income into gains. Up until 2008, there was no separate Capital Gains Tax rate at all. People paid CGT at their top rate of Income Tax. In order to "simplify" CGT, Darling introduced special CGT rates. As you can see, the act of simplifying a tax can sometimes make it more complex.
|
|
|
AstonZagato
3,228 posts
79 months
|
el stovey said: Eric Mc said: I'm not against tax simplification and there are plenty of areas of UK taxation that should be simplified and streamlined. But there will be many high earners who will not want to pay tax no matter what the rate is. Even if it was (say) a flat rate of 30%, the tax avoidance industry wiould not disappear. That's right, even if you have a flat rate of 30%, new elaborate schemes will arrive to divert money early on so you only pay 30% of a fraction of what you actually earn. People who are happy being in often untested aggressive tax reduction schemes will always be happy to be in them. Most avoidance schemes I've looked at are pretty hokey and have no clear resolution for years. As far as I can work out, your money is tied up, you spend the next few years looking over your shoulder and you can't spend the money you've "saved" as, in all likelihood, you will end up paying it to HMRC anyway. There comes a point where that hassle isn't worth it. 15% definitely not. 30% almost certainly not. 50% possibly. 80% definitely. The Laffer curve in action. As we all know “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing". By taxing the rich, there is less hissing from the poor (who are numerous).
|
|
