ChatterBank2 mins ago
Higher Rate Taxes?
15 Answers
I've never understood the whole higher rate argument full stop. Apply a percentage, those who earn more pay more, simples! Why must they also pay a higher percentage? It always seems to me that it's just to be punitive, "how dare you do well"! Perhaps one of the Socialist thinkers can explain.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ZedBloke. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Because in practice a simple flat tax leaves those on lower or average earnings struglling much more.
You're attempting to cast income tax as some sort of punishment - in the way that it's used on things like cigarettes - this is false and obviously so to anybody.
The principle is those who have benefitted most from this country should contribute most to its infrastructure.
A simple flat rate at 25% would raise less money so that rate would have to go up to say 33% or 35%
So basically you're asking for those with least to pay more so the richest can have more disposable income.
Given that the gap between the richest and poorest has widened even more in recent years that doesn't seem a good idea
http://
I get the picture of a wealthy Etonian holding out a bowl overflowing with truffle oil saying "Please sir can I have some more?"
You're attempting to cast income tax as some sort of punishment - in the way that it's used on things like cigarettes - this is false and obviously so to anybody.
The principle is those who have benefitted most from this country should contribute most to its infrastructure.
A simple flat rate at 25% would raise less money so that rate would have to go up to say 33% or 35%
So basically you're asking for those with least to pay more so the richest can have more disposable income.
Given that the gap between the richest and poorest has widened even more in recent years that doesn't seem a good idea
http://
I get the picture of a wealthy Etonian holding out a bowl overflowing with truffle oil saying "Please sir can I have some more?"
That's a bit unkind jake, I work hard and pay lots of tax, we all would avoid it if we could. The current HRT band is not really what I meant here so apologies for not being clear, I was really thinking of the bands above that. Like current 50% or the past 60% or the French 75% there does seem to be a punitive element in there as I doubt the extra tax take amounts to much. I mean when Pop stars were being taxed at 95% did it really add much to the coffers in the overall scheme of things. Do you accept the general point that people will try harder and thus benefit the nation if they are allowed to keep more of what they earn?
They only pay a higher percentage on the higher amount of money they earn. They dont pay a higher percentage across all their salary.
People earning say £100,000 a year pay the same amount of tax on the first £25,000 (or whatever the figure is nowadays) as everybody else.
If is only for the amount ABOVE that that they pay the higher percentage.
People earning say £100,000 a year pay the same amount of tax on the first £25,000 (or whatever the figure is nowadays) as everybody else.
If is only for the amount ABOVE that that they pay the higher percentage.
>>>I mean when Pop stars were being taxed at 95% did it really add much to the coffers
It had the opposite effect.
Pop stars (and film stars and motor racing drivers etc) all went to live in monaco or jersey or other low tax places, meaning you got NO tax off them.
Make it too punative and you drive the high achievers out the country.
It had the opposite effect.
Pop stars (and film stars and motor racing drivers etc) all went to live in monaco or jersey or other low tax places, meaning you got NO tax off them.
Make it too punative and you drive the high achievers out the country.
I would far rather the governemt (ANY governemt) looked at reducing their spending (and the tax bill overall) by HUGE amounts.
For example our Housing benefit bill runs into BILLIONS a year, but why on earth should the government subsidise peoples rents and mortgages by such a huge amount.
Surely it only drives up rents. Get rid of housing benefit and rents may come down.
It is also open to fraud. We have people in Birmingham who each buy a cheap house, then SWAP houses and live in each others house, and claim the housing benefit for rent (not telling the benefits people they own another house).
Also there was an article in a local paper a few years ago where a guy was having his £1,000 a month mortgage paid by housing benefit.
He was only "found out" when he asked in his local paper if anyone knew the history of his "historic house" in the village, and the benefits people clamped down on him.
Why on earth should ANYONE have their huge mortgage paid for them. If they lose their job and circumstances change give them say six months "grace" on the mortgage, then make them downsize.
Benefits like Housing Benefit are one of the reasons this country is in such a huge debt.
For example our Housing benefit bill runs into BILLIONS a year, but why on earth should the government subsidise peoples rents and mortgages by such a huge amount.
Surely it only drives up rents. Get rid of housing benefit and rents may come down.
It is also open to fraud. We have people in Birmingham who each buy a cheap house, then SWAP houses and live in each others house, and claim the housing benefit for rent (not telling the benefits people they own another house).
Also there was an article in a local paper a few years ago where a guy was having his £1,000 a month mortgage paid by housing benefit.
He was only "found out" when he asked in his local paper if anyone knew the history of his "historic house" in the village, and the benefits people clamped down on him.
Why on earth should ANYONE have their huge mortgage paid for them. If they lose their job and circumstances change give them say six months "grace" on the mortgage, then make them downsize.
Benefits like Housing Benefit are one of the reasons this country is in such a huge debt.
//The principle is those who have benefitted most from this country should contribute most to its infrastructure.//
But it doesn’t work like that. In general the people who contribute most to society do not benefit from the country and take very little from it. They work for what they have, they are not on benefits, and very often as well as providing employment for others, they do not take advantage of the NHS or of free education for their children.
But it doesn’t work like that. In general the people who contribute most to society do not benefit from the country and take very little from it. They work for what they have, they are not on benefits, and very often as well as providing employment for others, they do not take advantage of the NHS or of free education for their children.
Naomi is quite correct.
The people that benefit mostly from the UK taxpayers’ largesse are those who (by either accident or design) do absolutely nothing to maintain themselves or their brood. Those benefiting most are those among them who have the most children (who will in all probability go on the be among the greatest beneficiaries themselves). It is said we have a duty to maintain such people and their offspring because they are “the future” of the nation upon whom we must all depend to look after us in our dotage. Well here’s some news: it is unlikely in the extreme that the children of such people will turn into industrious hard-working net contributors themselves. Far from “looking after” anybody else they will probably be unable to look after themselves (and their inevitable offspring).
By contrast those benefiting the least from the taxes they pay are those who pay the most. They are unlikely to require welfare payments; they will probably have their children educated privately; they will probably have private medical arrangements. In short they will probably draw very little in the way of benefit for the vast amount of tax that they each pay.
Stuck in the middle (and here’s the scandal) are those who are not “poor” enough to qualify for the huge range of benefits available but not rich enough to take advantage of privately provided services which the State provides (usually very badly) for them. They pay a substantial chunk of their salaries in tax, they have to get up in the morning to earn their keep, their children are forced into often very badly performing State schools (where children from “poor” families often ruin the education of the whole school by their behaviour) and they have to queue in overcrowded doctors’ surgeries and hospitals who are dealing with ever-increasing numbers of people from beyond these shores.
It is unnecessary to get too bogged down in numbers but here’s a simple fact: The top 1% of income earners in the UK pay 28% of the total income tax take. They earn 13% of all the income, so that means they pay twice as big a share of the tax as their share of the income.
Quite simply the entire working population is over-taxed. This over taxation is needed to fund the £2 in every £7 collected that goes in benefit payments (and yes, some of those payments go to people earning over £50k p.a.). The entire system is a shambles. The Labour party did not introduce a 50% tax rate for its entire term of office from 1997 until about a fortnight before it was thrown out. But suddenly reversing (or in fact half reversing) this measure is now deemed as “giving millionaires a tax rebate” (translated: allowing them to keep a little more of their own cash).
The country needs to get real. I needs to cut taxes (for all); it needs to reduce benefit payments (for all); it needs to divert money and resources away from those that do nothing and reward those that do their share and a number of other people’s shares as well. Then there would be no need for “higher rate” taxes.
The people that benefit mostly from the UK taxpayers’ largesse are those who (by either accident or design) do absolutely nothing to maintain themselves or their brood. Those benefiting most are those among them who have the most children (who will in all probability go on the be among the greatest beneficiaries themselves). It is said we have a duty to maintain such people and their offspring because they are “the future” of the nation upon whom we must all depend to look after us in our dotage. Well here’s some news: it is unlikely in the extreme that the children of such people will turn into industrious hard-working net contributors themselves. Far from “looking after” anybody else they will probably be unable to look after themselves (and their inevitable offspring).
By contrast those benefiting the least from the taxes they pay are those who pay the most. They are unlikely to require welfare payments; they will probably have their children educated privately; they will probably have private medical arrangements. In short they will probably draw very little in the way of benefit for the vast amount of tax that they each pay.
Stuck in the middle (and here’s the scandal) are those who are not “poor” enough to qualify for the huge range of benefits available but not rich enough to take advantage of privately provided services which the State provides (usually very badly) for them. They pay a substantial chunk of their salaries in tax, they have to get up in the morning to earn their keep, their children are forced into often very badly performing State schools (where children from “poor” families often ruin the education of the whole school by their behaviour) and they have to queue in overcrowded doctors’ surgeries and hospitals who are dealing with ever-increasing numbers of people from beyond these shores.
It is unnecessary to get too bogged down in numbers but here’s a simple fact: The top 1% of income earners in the UK pay 28% of the total income tax take. They earn 13% of all the income, so that means they pay twice as big a share of the tax as their share of the income.
Quite simply the entire working population is over-taxed. This over taxation is needed to fund the £2 in every £7 collected that goes in benefit payments (and yes, some of those payments go to people earning over £50k p.a.). The entire system is a shambles. The Labour party did not introduce a 50% tax rate for its entire term of office from 1997 until about a fortnight before it was thrown out. But suddenly reversing (or in fact half reversing) this measure is now deemed as “giving millionaires a tax rebate” (translated: allowing them to keep a little more of their own cash).
The country needs to get real. I needs to cut taxes (for all); it needs to reduce benefit payments (for all); it needs to divert money and resources away from those that do nothing and reward those that do their share and a number of other people’s shares as well. Then there would be no need for “higher rate” taxes.
1 to 15 of 15
