What is “Politics of envy”?
Discussion
R Mutt said:
And less tax levied on those luxuries to the detriment of the treasury. After all, the additional revenue goes to the poor, right?
The taxation that would be raised through those luxuries would obviously not outstrip the reduced income tax take. Also, obviously, only a portion would be spent on luxuries - more would be put into savings accounts and investments in order to increase the individual's wealth.Oh, and the additional revenue does not just go to the poor. It is not a rob Peter to pay Paul scenario. It would go to properly funding things like education, hospitals etc. that are necessary for society to function.
El stovey said:
Mark Benson said:
No idea, I'm not an actuary.
If it were up to me I'd set it initially at a rate that would raise the same amount of tax as we currently collect, then adjust for savings in admin, less avoidance etc. as necessary.
No I don’t know either. I used to work in a country with a flat rate and it was great but social provisions were done by charities and philanthropic organisations. If it were up to me I'd set it initially at a rate that would raise the same amount of tax as we currently collect, then adjust for savings in admin, less avoidance etc. as necessary.
It raises much less money than tax bands but because it was a small country with little defence spending or welfare it worked. There was much more really poor people though.
I think a flat rate would need to be quite high in the uk with all the legacy costs the country has.
The people hardest hit would be those who can take advantage of the current complexities - one tax rate on all wealth earned and no allowances other than the basic threshold leave a lot fewer places to hide.
I'm not saying this is a panacea, but I think it warrants consideration.
Integroo said:
Flat rate is intrinsically regressive and unfair, and proposed solely by the selfish. Effectively, you want to pay less tax to buy more luxuries at the expense of those who rely upon social welfare to survive.
It's less progressive, but not regressive.All that money is going to end up in a poorer persons pocket either way, they would probably prefer to get it as salary for building supercars than welfare for sitting at home all day.
Integroo said:
Mark Benson said:
No idea, I'm not an actuary.
If it were up to me I'd set it initially at a rate that would raise the same amount of tax as we currently collect, then adjust for savings in admin, less avoidance etc. as necessary.
You realise this is effectively massive tax cuts for the uber-wealthy and massive tax increases for those near the bottom (or, if you have a large tax free allowance, the middle classes)?If it were up to me I'd set it initially at a rate that would raise the same amount of tax as we currently collect, then adjust for savings in admin, less avoidance etc. as necessary.
Mark Benson said:
You're wilfully simplifying things to suit your politics, which seem to be the epitome of 'polics of envy' or at least a deep mistrust of the usual Corbynite hate-figures.
I am not - by definition, a flat tax rate would result in massive tax cuts for those with the highest incomes. If you want to take the same amount of tax as we do currently, then those at the bottom would have to pay more than they do now. Oh, and I am far from a 'Corbynista'.
TeamD said:
Roman Rhodes said:
98elise said:
Integroo said:
TeamD said:
How is it that people cannot understand that higher tax rates for higher earners are nothing less than punitive actions based on "envy"?
If I earnt £140k/pa (which I don't) then I would already pay more tax than Bob down the street who earns £20k/pa by virtue of the fact that it is based upon percentages. Tax banding is just a raiding exercise by folk that want more money for doing less.
If you want a flat rate tax band you want the rich to pay less than they do now and the poor to pay more than they do now. Alternatively I suppose you could set it at a level that the poor pay the same as they do now but the rich pay less than they do now, but massive swingeing cuts to essential services would be required, services that the poor rely upon more than the rich. Which is it? If I earnt £140k/pa (which I don't) then I would already pay more tax than Bob down the street who earns £20k/pa by virtue of the fact that it is based upon percentages. Tax banding is just a raiding exercise by folk that want more money for doing less.
Only when it come to taxes does if become "fair" that your bill is defined by what you earn.
Flat rate is just about justifiably as fair, but progressive tax rates is not.
Going back to 98elise's question, would it make more sense to you if instead of being a pub it were a hospital, does a rich persons operation cost any more than a poor persons? And why is it that supporters of unfair taxation regimes refuse the accept that the rich person has already paid more than the poor person and that having another pop at the wealthy by making them pay even more is just plain nasty.
Integroo said:
Mark Benson said:
You're wilfully simplifying things to suit your politics, which seem to be the epitome of 'polics of envy' or at least a deep mistrust of the usual Corbynite hate-figures.
I am not - by definition, a flat tax rate would result in massive tax cuts for those with the highest incomes. If you want to take the same amount of tax as we do currently, then those at the bottom would have to pay more than they do now. Oh, and I am far from a 'Corbynista'.
I know a couple of high-earners well enough to discuss earnings and both (due to owning businesses) pay less in tax than I do.
Flat tax is also about simplification of the system. Take away the ways accountants can find to minimise people's tax burden and at the same time take the complexity from the collection end and you should end up with less avoidance and cheaper collection.
But you wouldn't be seen to be punishing high earners, which seems to be the driving force behind so much of today's politics.
otolith said:
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
I said that "It's testing the belief that some people earn too much, that this is immoral, and that they should have it taken away, even if doing so doesn't benefit anyone else".
You said "A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit."
The statement they agreed to was "A 50p top tax rate should be introduced regardless of what it brings in - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes"
Your interpretation ignores both the caveat "regardless of what it brings in" and the justification "it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes". You use an argument "in order that the less well off benefit" which is explicitly excluded from consideration by "regardless of what it brings in".
Conveniently ignoring the fact that “the belief that some people earn too much, that this is immoral, and that they should have it taken away, even if doing so doesn't benefit anyone else” is entirely your spin and features nowhere in the survey! You said "A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit."
The statement they agreed to was "A 50p top tax rate should be introduced regardless of what it brings in - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes"
Your interpretation ignores both the caveat "regardless of what it brings in" and the justification "it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes". You use an argument "in order that the less well off benefit" which is explicitly excluded from consideration by "regardless of what it brings in".
Keep banging your head and your blinkers might fall off!
Mark Benson said:
So you increase the tax-free allowance to ensure that those at the bottom don't pay more. And do you really think 'da wich' pay the top rates of tax? If hiring an accountant can save you more in tax than they cost then that's what you do.
I know a couple of high-earners well enough to discuss earnings and both (due to owning businesses) pay less in tax than I do.
Flat tax is also about simplification of the system. Take away the ways accountants can find to minimise people's tax burden and at the same time take the complexity from the collection end and you should end up with less avoidance and cheaper collection.
But you wouldn't be seen to be punishing high earners, which seems to be the driving force behind so much of today's politics.
No, you miss the point. Let's say the tax-free allowance is £20k and you implement a 20% tax. Then people like me are paying 20% rather than 40% or 45% on large chunks of our income, and tax take decreases significantly. If you set the flat rate at a level that means we take in the same amount of tax at the moment, then those in the middle-band i.e. just above the tax free allowance will be paying significantly more than they do now given those at with the highest income will pay a lot less. I know a couple of high-earners well enough to discuss earnings and both (due to owning businesses) pay less in tax than I do.
Flat tax is also about simplification of the system. Take away the ways accountants can find to minimise people's tax burden and at the same time take the complexity from the collection end and you should end up with less avoidance and cheaper collection.
But you wouldn't be seen to be punishing high earners, which seems to be the driving force behind so much of today's politics.
Yes, the uber-wealthy have lots of ways to dodge tax, but they still pay considerable amounts (so people keep reminding me, that high earners pay their fair share already). The well-paid - those in the six figure salary range, but without millions in assets - pay PAYE the same as everyone else. I don't disagree that there are loopholes to be closed, mainly around contractors/IR35/1 man companies etc, but these can be closed without a flat rate tax.
It's simple maths.
Integroo said:
Mark Benson said:
The people hardest hit would be those who can take advantage of the current complexities - one tax rate on all wealth earned and no allowances other than the basic threshold leave a lot fewer places to hide.
This is very unlikely to be true. Underpinning his large tax break for lower earners there will have to be large tax increases for others. Who does a flat tax rate target for these increases?
Roman Rhodes said:
I would be useful if he explained how tax bands make it easier to avoid paying tax.
Underpinning his large tax break for lower earners there will have to be large tax increases for others. Who does a flat tax rate target for these increases?
I think his problem is he seems to believe that all high earners engage in aggressive tax schemes, which in reality are limited to the very wealthy - huge numbers of people in the 40% and 45% tax brackets are paid PAYE and pay a lot in income tax. Underpinning his large tax break for lower earners there will have to be large tax increases for others. Who does a flat tax rate target for these increases?
Oh, and it is also not clear to me why he believes tax bands are complicated.
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
I said that "It's testing the belief that some people earn too much, that this is immoral, and that they should have it taken away, even if doing so doesn't benefit anyone else".
You said "A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit."
The statement they agreed to was "A 50p top tax rate should be introduced regardless of what it brings in - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes"
Your interpretation ignores both the caveat "regardless of what it brings in" and the justification "it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes". You use an argument "in order that the less well off benefit" which is explicitly excluded from consideration by "regardless of what it brings in".
Conveniently ignoring the fact that “the belief that some people earn too much, that this is immoral, and that they should have it taken away, even if doing so doesn't benefit anyone else” is entirely your spin and features nowhere in the survey! You said "A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit."
The statement they agreed to was "A 50p top tax rate should be introduced regardless of what it brings in - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes"
Your interpretation ignores both the caveat "regardless of what it brings in" and the justification "it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes". You use an argument "in order that the less well off benefit" which is explicitly excluded from consideration by "regardless of what it brings in".
Keep banging your head and your blinkers might fall off!
You make no attempt to reference "it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes"
You basically give a reason you want higher taxes for the rich, not an explanation of why some people want higher taxes even if they don't bring the benefits you want them for.
You're either incapable of comprehension or incapable of backing down when you're wrong.
otolith said:
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
Roman Rhodes said:
otolith said:
I said that "It's testing the belief that some people earn too much, that this is immoral, and that they should have it taken away, even if doing so doesn't benefit anyone else".
You said "A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit."
The statement they agreed to was "A 50p top tax rate should be introduced regardless of what it brings in - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes"
Your interpretation ignores both the caveat "regardless of what it brings in" and the justification "it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes". You use an argument "in order that the less well off benefit" which is explicitly excluded from consideration by "regardless of what it brings in".
Conveniently ignoring the fact that “the belief that some people earn too much, that this is immoral, and that they should have it taken away, even if doing so doesn't benefit anyone else” is entirely your spin and features nowhere in the survey! You said "A simple one would be that those who can afford to pay more should do so in order that the less well off benefit."
The statement they agreed to was "A 50p top tax rate should be introduced regardless of what it brings in - it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes"
Your interpretation ignores both the caveat "regardless of what it brings in" and the justification "it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes". You use an argument "in order that the less well off benefit" which is explicitly excluded from consideration by "regardless of what it brings in".
Keep banging your head and your blinkers might fall off!
You make no attempt to reference "it is morally right that the rich should pay higher taxes" Seems quite morally justifiable that the greatest burden should fall on those most able to pay.
You basically give a reason you want higher taxes for the rich, not an explanation of why some people want higher taxes even if they don't bring the benefits you want them for. See above.
You're either incapable of comprehension or incapable of backing down when you're wrong. The fact that I don't accept your jurisdiction regarding comprehension or who is right or wrong hopefully won't surprise you.
Integroo said:
Mark Benson said:
So you increase the tax-free allowance to ensure that those at the bottom don't pay more. And do you really think 'da wich' pay the top rates of tax? If hiring an accountant can save you more in tax than they cost then that's what you do.
I know a couple of high-earners well enough to discuss earnings and both (due to owning businesses) pay less in tax than I do.
Flat tax is also about simplification of the system. Take away the ways accountants can find to minimise people's tax burden and at the same time take the complexity from the collection end and you should end up with less avoidance and cheaper collection.
But you wouldn't be seen to be punishing high earners, which seems to be the driving force behind so much of today's politics.
No, you miss the point. Let's say the tax-free allowance is £20k and you implement a 20% tax. Then people like me are paying 20% rather than 40% or 45% on large chunks of our income, and tax take decreases significantly. If you set the flat rate at a level that means we take in the same amount of tax at the moment, then those in the middle-band i.e. just above the tax free allowance will be paying significantly more than they do now given those at with the highest income will pay a lot less. I know a couple of high-earners well enough to discuss earnings and both (due to owning businesses) pay less in tax than I do.
Flat tax is also about simplification of the system. Take away the ways accountants can find to minimise people's tax burden and at the same time take the complexity from the collection end and you should end up with less avoidance and cheaper collection.
But you wouldn't be seen to be punishing high earners, which seems to be the driving force behind so much of today's politics.
Yes, the uber-wealthy have lots of ways to dodge tax, but they still pay considerable amounts (so people keep reminding me, that high earners pay their fair share already). The well-paid - those in the six figure salary range, but without millions in assets - pay PAYE the same as everyone else. I don't disagree that there are loopholes to be closed, mainly around contractors/IR35/1 man companies etc, but these can be closed without a flat rate tax.
It's simple maths.
But, having said that I'm sure that with some thought and planning, most people in the middle range would be no worse off while those at the bottom better off (especially as it would do away with in-work benefits, the svings of which could contribute to keeping the flat rate down or the threshold up, preferably the latter).
Lets say £27k tax-free, then 50% on all eanings above that.
Currently someone on £60k PAYE in 2019/2020 will take home £43,339 - that same £60k tax payer on the above rates would take home £43,500.
At £30k, the take home would be £23,938 take-home currently vs £28,500 on a flat rate.
At £45k take home is currently £34,138 on a flat tax it would be £36,000.
At £100k the current take home is £66,539, under a flat system it would be £63,500.
At £150k current take home is £90,536, flat would be £88,500.
and at £200k current is £117,036, flat would be £113,500
Whether the above would increase, decrease or equal the current tax take I don't know.
But to say there are massive savings for the wealthy while the middle and low income earners are hit hard doesn't bear out with the calculations.
Roman Rhodes said:
You use an argument "in order that the less well off benefit" which is explicitly excluded from consideration by "regardless of what it brings in". Simple maths. Currently you (rich) pay in £3 and I (poor) pay in £2. £5 paid in. Change that to you pay in £4 and I pay in £1. £5 paid in but I am better off.
You still don't get it. If it doesn't raise any more money, you're not getting £4 from me. Or maybe you are, but Fred has said "screw this" and gone part time. It's not raising any more money. You still have to pay £3. It's not a question of "Should the rich pay more and the poor pay less so that the overall tax take is the same". That's a scenario you have invented in your own head. It's the scenario relevant to the preceding question.
You have changed my mind, though, I am now willing to consider the possibility that the Labour voters questioned were a bit thick and didn't understand it either.
Mark Benson said:
It's not simple maths, that's the point.
But, having said that I'm sure that with some thought and planning, most people in the middle range would be no worse off while those at the bottom better off (especially as it would do away with in-work benefits, the svings of which could contribute to keeping the flat rate down or the threshold up, preferably the latter).
Lets say £27k tax-free, then 50% on all eanings above that.
Currently someone on £60k PAYE in 2019/2020 will take home £43,339 - that same £60k tax payer on the above rates would take home £43,500.
At £30k, the take home would be £23,938 take-home currently vs £28,500 on a flat rate.
At £45k take home is currently £34,138 on a flat tax it would be £36,000.
At £100k the current take home is £66,539, under a flat system it would be £63,500.
At £150k current take home is £90,536, flat would be £88,500.
and at £200k current is £117,036, flat would be £113,500
Whether the above would increase, decrease or equal the current tax take I don't know.
But to say there are massive savings for the wealthy while the middle and low income earners are hit hard doesn't bear out with the calculations.
Wait - you're advocating a flat rate that is higher than the current top rate of tax banding, with a large tax free allowance? But, having said that I'm sure that with some thought and planning, most people in the middle range would be no worse off while those at the bottom better off (especially as it would do away with in-work benefits, the svings of which could contribute to keeping the flat rate down or the threshold up, preferably the latter).
Lets say £27k tax-free, then 50% on all eanings above that.
Currently someone on £60k PAYE in 2019/2020 will take home £43,339 - that same £60k tax payer on the above rates would take home £43,500.
At £30k, the take home would be £23,938 take-home currently vs £28,500 on a flat rate.
At £45k take home is currently £34,138 on a flat tax it would be £36,000.
At £100k the current take home is £66,539, under a flat system it would be £63,500.
At £150k current take home is £90,536, flat would be £88,500.
and at £200k current is £117,036, flat would be £113,500
Whether the above would increase, decrease or equal the current tax take I don't know.
But to say there are massive savings for the wealthy while the middle and low income earners are hit hard doesn't bear out with the calculations.
How bizarre. I have never heard of anyone advocate for a flat rate of income tax that is not considerably lower than the current top rate of tax, c. 20%. I certainly have never heard of any advocating for a flat rate of income tax that is at 50%.
Integroo said:
Mark Benson said:
It's not simple maths, that's the point.
But, having said that I'm sure that with some thought and planning, most people in the middle range would be no worse off while those at the bottom better off (especially as it would do away with in-work benefits, the svings of which could contribute to keeping the flat rate down or the threshold up, preferably the latter).
Lets say £27k tax-free, then 50% on all eanings above that.
Currently someone on £60k PAYE in 2019/2020 will take home £43,339 - that same £60k tax payer on the above rates would take home £43,500.
At £30k, the take home would be £23,938 take-home currently vs £28,500 on a flat rate.
At £45k take home is currently £34,138 on a flat tax it would be £36,000.
At £100k the current take home is £66,539, under a flat system it would be £63,500.
At £150k current take home is £90,536, flat would be £88,500.
and at £200k current is £117,036, flat would be £113,500
Whether the above would increase, decrease or equal the current tax take I don't know.
But to say there are massive savings for the wealthy while the middle and low income earners are hit hard doesn't bear out with the calculations.
Wait - you're advocating a flat rate that is higher than the current top rate of tax banding, with a large tax free allowance? But, having said that I'm sure that with some thought and planning, most people in the middle range would be no worse off while those at the bottom better off (especially as it would do away with in-work benefits, the svings of which could contribute to keeping the flat rate down or the threshold up, preferably the latter).
Lets say £27k tax-free, then 50% on all eanings above that.
Currently someone on £60k PAYE in 2019/2020 will take home £43,339 - that same £60k tax payer on the above rates would take home £43,500.
At £30k, the take home would be £23,938 take-home currently vs £28,500 on a flat rate.
At £45k take home is currently £34,138 on a flat tax it would be £36,000.
At £100k the current take home is £66,539, under a flat system it would be £63,500.
At £150k current take home is £90,536, flat would be £88,500.
and at £200k current is £117,036, flat would be £113,500
Whether the above would increase, decrease or equal the current tax take I don't know.
But to say there are massive savings for the wealthy while the middle and low income earners are hit hard doesn't bear out with the calculations.
How bizarre. I have never heard of anyone advocate for a flat rate of income tax that is not considerably lower than the current top rate of tax, c. 20%. I certainly have never heard of any advocating for a flat rate of income tax that is at 50%.
But with those figures, the numbers work in terms of overall take-home. Whether they would work in terms of national budget I don't know but there would be huge savings in in-work and out-of-work benefits plus the cost of administration.
I'd actually be slightly worse off under the above scenario, but I believe most people would feel they were treated more fairly and we'd positively encourage people to work instead of trap them on benefits.
Integroo said:
Wait - you're advocating a flat rate that is higher than the current top rate of tax banding, with a large tax free allowance?
How bizarre. I have never heard of anyone advocate for a flat rate of income tax that is not considerably lower than the current top rate of tax, c. 20%. I certainly have never heard of any advocating for a flat rate of income tax that is at 50%.
It's the same principle as other proposals - just that as you increase the allowance, the flat rate has to increase.How bizarre. I have never heard of anyone advocate for a flat rate of income tax that is not considerably lower than the current top rate of tax, c. 20%. I certainly have never heard of any advocating for a flat rate of income tax that is at 50%.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff