Stupid things non petrolheads say....
Discussion
Jabosoc said:
TheLordJohn said:
Lol, I was going to post something similar but arguing politics with the average 'tax the rich, they're evil and deserve it' brigade is like arguing religion with a paedophile/catholic priest.
OT but one day someone is going to give me a reasonable explanation to me why higher earners pay a higher percentage of tax. Most who argue in favour of this system struggle to get their heads around the fact that higher earners are already paying more tax because 20% of a lot is more than 20% of a little.Flibble said:
Dr Jekyll said:
But the millionaire can also afford to pay more for bread and milk, yet is charged the same.
Well milk prices are driven by market forces, taxes are not. So that's not really a valid comparison.
king commune or something.Zoobeef said:
So according to the world of you I should either do 17k miles in my Audi A4 or my Noble?
The Audi does the drive to work, the shopping, the towing and the Noble is the special weekend car. Having just the Audi is what everyone not on this site does. Having just the Noble is stupid. Which one are you?
I suppose you ignored my comment about 'suited to purpose', then? The Audi does the drive to work, the shopping, the towing and the Noble is the special weekend car. Having just the Audi is what everyone not on this site does. Having just the Noble is stupid. Which one are you?
Blown2CV said:
if no matter what you earnt you could only ever afford the same as anyone else, because you pay different amounts for the same goods and services, then this would lead to the collapse of everything. To anyone that thinks this is a good idea: Go and start a fking commune or something.
+1king commune or something.The single most frustrating view around nowadays is that aired by Flibble.
The first £15k of all earnings should be tax free, after which everyone should pay a single, flat rate (30p for example) of tax for every £1 they earn.
MrBarry123 said:
Blown2CV said:
if no matter what you earnt you could only ever afford the same as anyone else, because you pay different amounts for the same goods and services, then this would lead to the collapse of everything. To anyone that thinks this is a good idea: Go and start a fking commune or something.
+1king commune or something.The single most frustrating view around nowadays is that aired by Flibble.
The first £15k of all earnings should be tax free, after which everyone should pay a single, flat rate (30p for example) of tax for every £1 they earn.
I said people who earn more can be taxed more, proportionally (and indeed are under the current system). Not that everyone should have the same spending power, which I don't agree with at all.
Your solution isn't any different, you have just adjusted the tax bands a bit. It is worse for people who earn over £25k but less than around £59k and better for everyone else. So it's basically lowering overall tax returns and squeezing the middle class.
Zoobeef said:
xRIEx said:
I suppose you ignored my comment about 'suited to purpose', then?
You said really suited to purpose like a caterfield. So if my Noble was a DB9 would you still think I should just have one or the other?xRIEx said:
Zoobeef said:
xRIEx said:
I suppose you ignored my comment about 'suited to purpose', then?
You said really suited to purpose like a caterfield. So if my Noble was a DB9 would you still think I should just have one or the other?Saying that, most people who have a shed do so because their main car is special. If someone has a £400 Mondeo and a spankers one to keep the miles down on the new one then I understand you completely.
Flibble said:
That is not my viewpoint, I'm not sure how you think it is.
I said people who earn more can be taxed more, proportionally (and indeed are under the current system). Not that everyone should have the same spending power, which I don't agree with at all.
Your solution isn't any different, you have just adjusted the tax bands a bit. It is worse for people who earn over £25k but less than around £59k and better for everyone else. So it's basically lowering overall tax returns and squeezing the middle class.
Why should they? A single rate system means people who earn more do pay more tax however are not penalised explicitly for earning more than others.I said people who earn more can be taxed more, proportionally (and indeed are under the current system). Not that everyone should have the same spending power, which I don't agree with at all.
Your solution isn't any different, you have just adjusted the tax bands a bit. It is worse for people who earn over £25k but less than around £59k and better for everyone else. So it's basically lowering overall tax returns and squeezing the middle class.
Blown2CV said:
stupid things the unwashed electorate say.
Y'know, maybe I am wanting to get into a bit of political debate with half-baked comments such as yours.Might be amazing to you but I have been politically active for quite some time and earn a reasonable amount in my job, enough to run a decent car and put a roof over my head in reasonable comfort. I'm university educated and have a reasonable knowledge of the political landscape. I am a member of a left-of-centre political party and certainly fellow party members who I have met are not "the unwashed electorate" but highly intelligent individuals who are being failed by the system.
Look at the directorships in the UK, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Look at the bankers. Most likely white, middle aged upper class graduates of Oxford or Cambridge. Most likely didn't work their way up like us poor sods who work longer hours than ever for less expendible pay. They have children who never want for anything and have their way paid through Oxford or Cambridge. They get top jobs in those companies and so the wealthy get wealthier.
As recession hits the payday loan companies profit out of those who are struggling most. Our working conditions get more and more stressful but years of the Tories under Thatcher and Major helped kill off the power of the union. Those who follow the same two party system have given away the main defence that we have against exploitation in the workplace.
If you vote Labour, Tory, Liberal Democrat or UKIP you are voting for the same tired system with a different coloured rosette pinned to their suit jacket. The rich will get richer, the poorer will continue to work longer hours under more pressure to take home less money at the end of the day.
Believe me, it is not us who are "the unwashed electorate" as it is us who want to preserve our pensions, our health service, to build affordable housing, to help those who work ridiculous hours and can't manage to both feed their families and pay the rent. So many people moaned about the system when the banks collapsed but who actually still wants change now?
MrBarry123 said:
Why should they? A single rate system means people who earn more do pay more tax however are not penalised explicitly for earning more than others.
See my example.A single rate system penalises the poor disproportionately. A single rate system with a tax free X as you suggests penalises the middle class.
So why do you want to give people who earn the most a tax cut paid for by either the poor or the middle class?
Flibble said:
See my example.
A single rate system penalises the poor disproportionately. A single rate system with a tax free X as you suggests penalises the middle class.
So why do you want to give people who earn the most a tax cut paid for by either the poor or the middle class?
How are they getting a tax cut? They would be paying a %age of their earnings. The same as everyone else.A single rate system penalises the poor disproportionately. A single rate system with a tax free X as you suggests penalises the middle class.
So why do you want to give people who earn the most a tax cut paid for by either the poor or the middle class?
Because currently the top rates of tax are 40% and 45% so they are paying tax on a significant proportion of their income at 40%+. If you cut that to 30% flat then they pay less tax overall due to the lower rate.
e.g.
Currently someone earning £100k pays £29,627 income tax, with a flat 30% rate that kicks in above £15k they pay £25,500 income tax, which is a ~£4k tax cut.
Someone earning £45k though currently pays £7,627 income tax, with the flat 30% rate they pay £9,000 income tax, which is a ~£2.4k tax increase.
e.g.
Currently someone earning £100k pays £29,627 income tax, with a flat 30% rate that kicks in above £15k they pay £25,500 income tax, which is a ~£4k tax cut.
Someone earning £45k though currently pays £7,627 income tax, with the flat 30% rate they pay £9,000 income tax, which is a ~£2.4k tax increase.
Flibble said:
Because currently the top rates of tax are 40% and 45% so they are paying tax on a significant proportion of their income at 40%+. If you cut that to 30% flat then they pay less tax overall due to the lower rate.
e.g.
Currently someone earning £100k pays £29,627 income tax, with a flat 30% rate that kicks in above £15k they pay £25,500 income tax, which is a ~£4k tax cut.
Someone earning £45k though currently pays £7,627 income tax, with the flat 30% rate they pay £9,000 income tax, which is a ~£2.4k tax increase.
Yes, but those figures are only seen because the current system is unfair and disproportionately biased towards the majority in society to win votes at an election.e.g.
Currently someone earning £100k pays £29,627 income tax, with a flat 30% rate that kicks in above £15k they pay £25,500 income tax, which is a ~£4k tax cut.
Someone earning £45k though currently pays £7,627 income tax, with the flat 30% rate they pay £9,000 income tax, which is a ~£2.4k tax increase.
Flibble said:
Because currently the top rates of tax are 40% and 45% so they are paying tax on a significant proportion of their income at 40%+. If you cut that to 30% flat then they pay less tax overall due to the lower rate.
e.g.
Currently someone earning £100k pays £29,627 income tax, with a flat 30% rate that kicks in above £15k they pay £25,500 income tax, which is a ~£4k tax cut.
Someone earning £45k though currently pays £7,627 income tax, with the flat 30% rate they pay £9,000 income tax, which is a ~£2.4k tax increase.
I didn't think that was what you were referring too. If the high earners hadn't been getting seen off in the first place then it wouldn't be cut. It more like they are getting what they earned back in a fairer system. More of a carrot to become a higher earner.e.g.
Currently someone earning £100k pays £29,627 income tax, with a flat 30% rate that kicks in above £15k they pay £25,500 income tax, which is a ~£4k tax cut.
Someone earning £45k though currently pays £7,627 income tax, with the flat 30% rate they pay £9,000 income tax, which is a ~£2.4k tax increase.
MrBarry123 said:
Yes, but those figures are only seen because the current system is unfair and disproportionately biased towards the majority in society to win votes at an election.
Depends what you call fair.Under your system someone earning £15k pays 0% tax, whereas someone earning £100k pays 25.5%, that's pretty disproportionate too.
The whole point behind it is that someone earning say £20k gets a lot more out of a few % less paid on tax than someone earning £200k. For instance if you take £15k as essential expenditure and everything else as disposable, then the £20k guy has £5k of disposable and loses £1.5k to tax, net £3.5k. The 200k guy has £185k as disposable and loses £55.5k to tax, net £129.5k. If you change those tax bands so that the 20k guy pays 20% and the 200k guy 40% then the 20k guy has a tax cut of £500 and the 200k guy has a tax rise of 18.5k. This then plays into the effect that as you get more disposable income the effect on happiness is less. When you only have £3.5k a year to spend on non-essentials you have to be pretty selective about which things get bought. That's not really the case at £100k+, at that income you can buy what you like when you like, hence losing a bit of spending power has a much smaller effect. So 20k guy is very happy, he gets an extra £500 and buys a new tv, while 200k guy is a bit miffed but not that miffed really as he's still pulling down over well over £100k net.
So yes it is biased towards improving the lot of the majority at the expense of the minority. But is a system that improves the lot of the minority, who already have it easiest, really more fair?
Don't forget the other correlated tax too, namely VAT. 20k guy spends his entire income, every month. So he pays proportionally 20% of his earnings, less cost of essentials as VAT. 200k probably invests most of his, as that's a better plan, and he has enough to buy all the things he wants with plenty left over. So he pays proportionally a very small amount of his earnings as VAT. The greater income tax burden tends to offset this in the current system, but would not in a flat system.
Anyway, that is based on the premise that taxation is fair, whereas it's actually as high as the government can get away with without losing too many votes.
Zoobeef said:
I didn't think that was what you were referring too. If the high earners hadn't been getting seen off in the first place then it wouldn't be cut. It more like they are getting what they earned back in a fairer system. More of a carrot to become a higher earner.
Not sure there's need of more of a carrot really, what are the current downsides to being a high earner that people need encouragement?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff