Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property
marigold

The rich should pay more tax

Warren Buffett says so Wink .
Bebo

So do I. But I have considerably less influence.
Treacodactyl

I was just reading that. To be accurate, the super-rich should pay more tax (those earning over 600,000 per year) and there should be a reduction of future benefits.
marigold

You expect a headline to be accurate? Shocked
Treacodactyl

You expect a headline to be accurate? Shocked


Perhaps I'm too used to reading the Daily Mail. Wink Laughing
Chez

"Warren Buffett and Bebo in Rich People Should Pay More Tax shocker!"
Bebo

Better than 'Warren Buffet and Bebo in Oversized Knickers'.
Chez

Thank you for that beautiful image Shocked Laughing
Penny Outskirts

Better than 'Warren Buffet and Bebo in Oversized Knickers'.


That's just wrong in so many ways Shocked
Bebo

I should have written for the News of the World. Flair for sensational headlines and no morals. I'd have been ideal. Chez

If you work for the Express you have to take a turn at doing the Saturday Nazi article, apparently. Sounded fun. dpack

Laughing

maybe warren has dark political corners Laughing
Shane

I should have written for the News of the World. Flair for sensational headlines and no morals. I'd have been ideal. You'd have been out of work, too.

Sounds like the headline should be "the rich shouldn't be allowed big, juicy tax breaks", rather than "the rich should pay more tax" - if they had to pay the current (I think) 50% on everything over 150k without being able to claim all the breaks, they would pay more tax, simply because 50% of a big number is more than 30ish% of a smaller number.
bagpuss

I should have written for the News of the World. Flair for sensational headlines and no morals. I'd have been ideal. You'd have been out of work, too.

Sounds like the headline should be "the rich shouldn't be allowed big, juicy tax breaks", rather than "the rich should pay more tax" - if they had to pay the current (I think) 50% on everything over 150k without being able to claim all the breaks, they would pay more tax, simply because 50% of a big number is more than 30ish% of a smaller number.

Buffet is talking about the American system where because of how the tax is setup he only pays about 17% tax
Shane

Nice of him to make the suggestion, it's got to be said. I presume he's not in favour of the idea being backdated, though. bagpuss

Nice of him to make the suggestion, it's got to be said. I presume he's not in favour of the idea being backdated, though.

I suspect given his writing he probably would be but he is one of those people who is going to give 90% of his wealth to philanthropic groups to do good with

This from an american ecomonic research group is a good indicator of why the richest 1% can afford to pay more tax

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/highest-income_households_can_afford_to_pay_more_in_taxes/

as currently after tax they take home 17% of the total US income which is 3% more than the middle 20%

I would love to know what that number is for the UK
Rob R

So do I. But I have considerably less influence.

I read that as 'considerably less affluence'.
T.G

The rich should pay more tax - YES ... they darn well should Shane

...within reason, I'd suggest Bebo

So do I. But I have considerably less influence.

I read that as 'considerably less affluence'.

That too.
T.G

...within reason, I'd suggest .. Well of course... and the money raised shouldn't be squandered on bl00dy rubbish (I don't mean bin collection Shocked ) Green Man

There should be no Tax Breaks for the rich, however to keep it fair, tax should be set at the same level for everybody once you get over the minimum thresh-hold or how else could it be called fair? People who earn more, will pay more. Its the sportsmen that opt out of paying income tax by setting themselves up as a company who should be 'Boo-ed off the pitch' Why do working class people worship them? bagpuss

There should be no Tax Breaks for the rich, however to keep it fair, tax should be set at the same level for everybody once you get over the minimum thresh-hold or how else could it be called fair? People who earn more, will pay more. Its the sportsmen that opt out of paying income tax by setting themselves up as a company who should be 'Boo-ed off the pitch' Why do working class people worship them?

Nah, those with more should pay proportionally more tax, they still are left with more money than the rest of us
Treacodactyl

There should be no Tax Breaks for the rich, however to keep it fair, tax should be set at the same level for everybody once you get over the minimum thresh-hold or how else could it be called fair? People who earn more, will pay more. Its the sportsmen that opt out of paying income tax by setting themselves up as a company who should be 'Boo-ed off the pitch' Why do working class people worship them?

Nah, those with more should pay proportionally more tax, they still are left with more money than the rest of us

And they may work far harder and make far more sacrifices.

What people seem to mean when they say the rich should pay more is they want other people to pay for their own lifestyle.

I wouldn't say the current system is that fair but most changes that tend to get suggested seem to make the system even worse.
bagpuss

There should be no Tax Breaks for the rich, however to keep it fair, tax should be set at the same level for everybody once you get over the minimum thresh-hold or how else could it be called fair? People who earn more, will pay more. Its the sportsmen that opt out of paying income tax by setting themselves up as a company who should be 'Boo-ed off the pitch' Why do working class people worship them?

Nah, those with more should pay proportionally more tax, they still are left with more money than the rest of us

And they may work far harder and make far more sacrifices.

Any they might not

I suspect in any section of the pay scale there will be people who work very hard and people who don't and the spread is probably fairly similar

Why should someone who has had luck and family/school connections and ended up in a job paying 100K plus pay the same percentage of tax as someone who has worked very hard but due to bad luck and lack of opportunity only earns 20K

People whose disposable income is a higher proportion of their wage should pay more tax

(pay should be fair and equitable to but that is even less likely to happen)
Treacodactyl

Any they might not

Indeed, and unless that's taken into account with everybody I can't really see how anyone can talk about fairness.
Green Man

That is why the same rate for all would ensure rich pay more. Make up complicated rules and bandings and it leaves room for people to 'fiddle' it. Still doesn't answer why footballers shouldn't get hounded out of our society for tax manipulation. bagpuss

That is why the same rate for all would ensure rich pay more. Make up complicated rules and bandings and it leaves room for people to 'fiddle' it. Still doesn't answer why footballers shouldn't get hounded out of our society for tax manipulation.

Anyone who avoids tax should be hounded out not just the footballers

The level at which you would have to set a flat tax to ensure enough revenue was generated would be a significant burden of those people who don't earn very much

Those who earn more pay a higher percentage of those earnings above a certain boundary, its not complex and its not those boundaries which enable people to get out of paying the tax its all the other complex rules which do that

Don't get me wrong I am all for a simplfied tax system but it still needs levels to ensure people on low incomes aren't unfairly penalised for having a low income
Green Man

Then just put up the tax free allowance. I think minimum wage earners should probably pay no tax at all.
I would scrap Tax Credits and push up tax free allowance.
bagpuss

Then just put up the tax free allowance. I think minimum wage earners should probably pay no tax at all.

The tax free allowance should be higher, arguably anyone doing 37hrs on minimum wage should or less pay no income tax

That doesn't change the fact that anyone earning more than say 50K should pay a higher percent on earning above that mark and those earning more than 100K should pay an even higher percent on those earnings above that point

This still leaves these people will more money than anyone who earns less than them but gives the treasury the funds it needs to run a decent service
jema

People who earn less spend proportionally more of their incomes in indirect taxation, hence a proportionally higher income tax on the richer goes to make things fairer. Green Man

I don't see that. Basic foods are VAT free. I bet most of the stuff wealthy people buy is full VAT. There is no vat on second hand cars etc. Green Man

I would change the VAT situation on foods. All raw, unprocessed, and un packaged foods Vat free, all others full Vat. Treacodactyl

Anyone who avoids tax should be hounded out not just the footballers

Do you have a pension, ISA, have any tax credits, claim any expenses etc?
jema

I don't see that. Basic foods are VAT free. I bet most of the stuff wealthy people buy is full VAT. There is no vat on second hand cars etc.
Any research will tell you the poor are hit hardest by indirect taxation. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this when they know the numbers.
Green Man

Remember that if say you were on an avarage UK wage you would be in the top 1% of the wealthiest people on Planet Earth. This make the majority of us 'Rich' Have we considered paying into a Global Tax Scheme to even things up a bit? Green Man


Any research will tell you the poor are hit hardest by indirect taxation. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this when they know the numbers.
It certainly will be true for those who smoke or drink.
Hairyloon

Have we considered paying into a Global Tax Scheme to even things up a bit?
It is a good idea; especially for the super-rich: gets rid of the problems of tax-havens.
It is something that the world needs: an income stream to deal with the global problems.
T.G

Its the sportsmen that opt out of paying income tax by setting themselves up as a company who should be 'Boo-ed off the pitch' Why do working class people worship them?

I have no idea Neutral

As I see it most people who work dead-end jobs if given the chance to play a game they purport to love/worship/adore if offered a chance at say 100k capped would snap your hand off... playing a game and earning above a decent income instead of working in a factory for your whole working life... Itd never happen mind, they don't know they're born footballers.

The excess revenue, the clubs would have, could then be and should be inputted at the grassroots end such as proper public facilities, school sports facilities, minor clubs; larger clubs should help to sponsor/fund smaller teams, from villages and communities.

They say, amongst other things that they buy international players because we don't produce enough, well this would help to see if that truly was the case.

They all claim it's a sport for the people, well then put your money where your mouth is.
Green Man


It is something that the world needs: an income stream to deal with the global problems.
It will happen one day, but not till we are on a level playing field as far as wages and life-style are concerned. This is happening quicker than I think anybody in the West realises. Shocked
Green Man

Consider this when thinking the rich should pay more tax, bear in mind business owners are generating ALL the tax in this country. Public sector workers and employees never really had it in their wallets to pay in the first place. bagpuss

Consider this when thinking the rich should pay more tax, bear in mind business owners are generating ALL the tax in this country. Public sector workers and employees never really had it in their wallets to pay in the first place.

When did we start talking about public sector workers

Highly paid individuals either paid by the government or a private company should pay a higher percentage of their wage as income tax than those who have a low wage
jema

Consider this when thinking the rich should pay more tax, bear in mind business owners are generating ALL the tax in this country. Public sector workers and employees never really had it in their wallets to pay in the first place.

I find that an odd argument, if a business disappeared the demand would still be there and the same business would generally reappear with probably the same workforce generating that wealth. owners play a role but it is not the be all and end ask of things.
bagpuss

Anyone who avoids tax should be hounded out not just the footballers

Do you have a pension, ISA, have any tax credits, claim any expenses etc?

I got an interesting set of definitions from a friend who is a Tax accountant

There is careful tax planning, isas, tax credits, expenses (I am not in the UK tax system don't do this anyway) which is allowed as are larger benefits for say investing in businesses, different tax on savings and dividends etc

There is tax avoidance which normally involves sticking to the letter of an obscure loophole but really going against the spirti which is illegal and generally dealt with by fines and wrist slaps

There is tax evasion which is not paying tax you clearly owe and this on a small scale is also dealt with by fined but can also end up in the criminal justice system and slaps on the wrist

Argubly Footballers and people like Philip Green are only engaging in careful tax planning but those rules should be adjusted to ensure they pay a greater proportion of their income in tax

I would all for a simplification of the tax system to remove some of the loop holes but I still think that people who earn more should pay a larger percent on those earning above a certain barrier
Green Man



Highly paid individuals either paid by the government or a private company should pay a higher percentage of their wage as income tax than those who have a low wage
The Government can't pay anybody till it has clawed it from business. Self employed and business pay for everything from the taxes paid. I can't see why taxing them even more could in any way be considered fair.
bagpuss



Highly paid individuals either paid by the government or a private company should pay a higher percentage of their wage as income tax than those who have a low wage
The Government can't pay anybody till it has clawed it from business. Self employed and business pay for everything from the taxes paid. I can't see why taxing them even more could in any way be considered fair.

And the self employed and business people wouldn't have roads, emergencies services, electricity, any sort of infrastructure or support be that practical or financial without the government so it really is a two way street

You should move to the US I suspect you would love the tea party movement
Bebo


Any research will tell you the poor are hit hardest by indirect taxation. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this when they know the numbers.
It certainly will be true for those who smoke or drink.

Or use petrol, electricity, gas or oil. Which we all do.

How about the unfair taxation on all women of childbearing age?
Green Man

A Plan :- all employees and public service workers should have to pay no tax at all, but have their take home pay set at its current level. This would save bs in administration. Then just tax the business owners and the self employed at a higher level. Idea Question Green Man

gas or oil. for home heating is only taxed at 5% and our homes are much smaller than the rich in general. Shane

That doesn't change the fact that anyone earning more than say 50K should pay a higher percent on earning above that mark and those earning more than 100K should pay an even higher percent on those earnings above that point Erm, do you mean something like:

0 - 37,400: 20%
37,400 - 150,000: 40%
Over 150,000: 50%
Green Man



How about the unfair taxation on all women of childbearing age?

I'm not sure of what you mean (I'm not saying your wrong, just need it explained)
bagpuss

That doesn't change the fact that anyone earning more than say 50K should pay a higher percent on earning above that mark and those earning more than 100K should pay an even higher percent on those earnings above that point Erm, do you mean something like:

0 - 37,400: 20%
37,400 - 150,000: 40%
Over 150,000: 50%

I am all for the current levels

I would personally but in another one say 75% of anything over 1millon but it would never happen
Bebo

The fact that VAT is charged on tampons. Which are pretty much an essential.

I'm pretty sure they charge it on toilet roll as well, which I think everyone rich and poor use. Except re-enactors I expect (didn't the Romans use a stick?)
Shane

Its the sportsmen that opt out of paying income tax by setting themselves up as a company who should be 'Boo-ed off the pitch' Why do working class people worship them? Granted, it seems a bit rich at first glance for millionaire sports stars to take adantage of the rules to save a fortune in tax, but if you removed the possibility of setting yourself up as a company you'd destroy the market for agency workers in the UK's various service industries. The job vacuum that created would be filled by an expansion of existing overseas service centres, with a net loss of jobs (and tax revenue) from the UK.

I should declare a vested interest as a high earner who left the UK mainly due to the miserable disposal income that was left at the end of each month. And no, I didn't lead an excessive lifestyle.
bagpuss

Its the sportsmen that opt out of paying income tax by setting themselves up as a company who should be 'Boo-ed off the pitch' Why do working class people worship them? Granted, it seems a bit rich at first glance for millionaire sports stars to take adantage of the rules to save a fortune in tax, but if you removed the possibility of setting yourself up as a company you'd destroy the market for agency workers in the UK's various service industries. The job vacuum that created would be fulfilled by an expansion of existing overseas service centres, with a net loss of jobs (and tax revenue) from the UK.

I should declare a vested interest as a high earner who left the UK mainly due to the miserable disposal income that was left at the end of each month. And no, I didn't lead an excessive lifestyle.

Are you willing to say what your net and gross monthy incomes were?
Green Man

The fact that VAT is charged on tampons. Which are pretty much an essential.

I'm pretty sure they charge it on toilet roll as well, which I think everyone rich and poor use. Except re-enactors I expect (didn't the Romans use a stick?)

LOL, I know its crazy what VAT is on. Compost for goodness sake! this always angers me.
Shane

I would personally but in another one say 75% of anything over 1millon but it would never happen I suspect that would result in higher earners finding a way to declare the extra income as earned overseas and not subject to UK taxation (or something). If you pay enough for an accountant, he'll always find a loophole. Another reason that a punitive tax structure is more likely to be a net loser (IMO). Green Man



I would personally but in another one say 75% of anything over 1millon but it would never happen

In the late 70's Super Tax was about 90%. All the millionaires moved out.
Treacodactyl

I would personally but in another one say 75% of anything over 1millon but it would never happen I suspect that would result in higher earners finding a way to declare the extra income as earned overseas and not subject to UK taxation (or something). If you pay enough for an accountant, he'll always find a loophole. Another reason that a punitive tax structure is more likely to be a net loser (IMO).

Actually I think they're looking at the levels as the 50% tax rate doesn't collect much which would suggest a 75% rate would be just a token gesture that would cost more to implement than it raises.
Hairyloon

Why not allow people the option of providing services instead of paying taxes?
Cut out the middle man so to speak.
Shane

I should declare a vested interest as a high earner who left the UK mainly due to the miserable disposal income that was left at the end of each month. And no, I didn't lead an excessive lifestyle.

Are you willing to say what your net and gross monthy incomes were? Somewhere in the middle of 40% and 50% cutoffs Wink

There's an old, old thread on here somewhere where I was lamenting about how much it cost to work in London, but the search function keeps giving me a network error, so I can't dig it up. The summary was that although I could earn more by working in London, the costs associated with accommodation and transport more than wipe out the benefit, especially when you have a family to look after too. We only had a small house and one, reasonably efficient car, but the costs kept creeping up year after year, so when faced with a choice of twenty years of just about getting by or paying the mortgage off in three, it was a fairly easy decision.
Green Man

Or pay no tax and pay for our services. Rich would be quids in again. Shane

Or pay no tax and pay for our services. Rich would be quids in again. Indeed. That would benefit the rich even more than even a flat tax structure - pay for the services and keep the change versus pay a percentage of everything you earn. oldish chris



I would personally but in another one say 75% of anything over 1millon but it would never happen

In the late 70's Super Tax was about 90%. All the millionaires moved out. You mean that by 1979 there were no millionaires in the UK at all? Not one? RichardW

It all needs simplifying (as do the VAT & benefits systems).

Ditch ALL the allowances / schemes.

Have a high ish tax free band to cover low earners & then a simple sliding scale above that.

No wide tax bands just a smooth sliding scale once you earn over the tax free bit.

Save loads in admin which will help offset any losses in tax collection.
bagpuss

surely a sliding scale would be more difficult as how much you pay would vary for everyone RichardW

surely a sliding scale would be more difficult as how much you pay would vary for everyone

Perhaps more complex for a person to do yes but a computer would so so easily. Not many now would be paid by a manual payroll any way. Plus a log table would soon give you the correct amount. Have the pay split into say 500-1000 amounts for each change in amount paid.

It could be as simple as earn X & you will pay Y. One single simple TAX payment that covers every thing.

Its time ALL taxes, NI, VAT, benefits, pensions, road fund & fuel tax ect ect had a major overhaul in the UK.

We have such a complex system that it taxes loads of people to administer it for the Gov. Reduce that load & then you need less income to run the country or can do more with what you do have.

Its become so complex that even "simple" tax matters need an "expert" yet each expert can & will give different advice for the same set conditions.

Remove all the schemes & allowances & you remove the ability to avoid tax.
jema

I'm all for simplification, but I don't think a sliding scale fits the bill.

The more bands you have the more bands people will be on the threshold of and hence drawn into the temptation to fiddle their way below the band.

I concentrate on improving individual income tax by removing national insurance completely from individual taxation.

Income tax would have to rise to compensate but there would be no holes in the progression level as NI limits would not be there.

I'd also do a lot about the private pensions scam, but that's another issue.
Green Man

No millionaires in the UK at all? Not one?

Ok, I admit Cliff Richard stayed. lol
Shane

I thought he moved to Portugal and set up a vineyard? Andrea

I thought he moved to Portugal and set up a vineyard?

Nah. That was me.
bagpuss

surely a sliding scale would be more difficult as how much you pay would vary for everyone

Perhaps more complex for a person to do yes but a computer would so so easily. Not many now would be paid by a manual payroll any way. Plus a log table would soon give you the correct amount. Have the pay split into say 500-1000 amounts for each change in amount paid.

It could be as simple as earn X & you will pay Y. One single simple TAX payment that covers every thing.

Its time ALL taxes, NI, VAT, benefits, pensions, road fund & fuel tax ect ect had a major overhaul in the UK.

We have such a complex system that it taxes loads of people to administer it for the Gov. Reduce that load & then you need less income to run the country or can do more with what you do have.

Its become so complex that even "simple" tax matters need an "expert" yet each expert can & will give different advice for the same set conditions.

Remove all the schemes & allowances & you remove the ability to avoid tax.

Saying a computer will do it I think suggests that computers always get it right and it will all be fine and dandy is a little bit short sighted
RichardW

[quote="bagpuss:1151393"]
Saying a computer will do it I think suggests that computers always get it right and it will all be fine and dandy is a little bit short sighted

They always give the correct answer to the question asked, as its asked when compared to the pre installed condition set. If the human cant get his act together its not the computers fault.

If it does not give the expected answer then either the question asks something different to what you think it asks or the condition set has been incorrectly configured.


As the levels of change would be close together there would be no incentive to get into a lower level. You will still have more money to spend even if you just go into the next level.

Plus with no schemes or allowances what would you do with the money that you needed to drop by? You cant use a scheme to get it non tax able.


Failing that we have ONE rate for all income above the basic tax free amount.
bagpuss


Saying a computer will do it I think suggests that computers always get it right and it will all be fine and dandy is a little bit short sighted

They always give the correct answer to the question asked, as its asked when compared to the pre installed condition set. If the human cant get his act together its not the computers fault.

If it does not give the expected answer then either the question asks something different to what you think it asks or the condition set has been incorrectly configured.


As the levels of change would be close together there would be no incentive to get into a lower level. You will still have more money to spend even if you just go into the next level.

Plus with no schemes or allowances what would you do with the money that you needed to drop by? You cant use a scheme to get it non tax able.


Failing that we have ONE rate for all income above the basic tax free amount.

As has already been discussed on this a single flat tax rate is grossly unfair to anyone on a low wage

I am still struggling to see how a sliding scale is better. If a computer can be programmed to handle a sliding scale it can also be programmed to calculate our current tax system (I suspect this is something people actually make a lot of money out of) why is a computer doing it now impossible but with a sliding scale so good you don't need much in the way of staff to ensure its being done correctly
Treacodactyl

I am still struggling to see how a sliding scale is better. If a computer can be programmed to handle a sliding scale it can also be programmed to calculate our current tax system (I suspect this is something people actually make a lot of money out of) why is a computer doing it now impossible but with a sliding scale so good you don't need much in the way of staff to ensure its being done correctly

I think you're being very short sighted. A sliding scale would be very easy to program, probably just a simple formula that can be thoroughly tested and proved.

The current system relies on too many laws, judgements etc and even senior tax inspectors do not understand it and will disagree.
bagpuss

I am still struggling to see how a sliding scale is better. If a computer can be programmed to handle a sliding scale it can also be programmed to calculate our current tax system (I suspect this is something people actually make a lot of money out of) why is a computer doing it now impossible but with a sliding scale so good you don't need much in the way of staff to ensure its being done correctly

I think you're being very short sighted. A sliding scale would be very easy to program, probably just a simple formula that can be thoroughly tested and proved.

The current system relies on too many laws, judgements etc and even senior tax inspectors do not understand it and will disagree.

Simplification of the tax system is important certainly but I miss where simplifying the tax system and just having say 3 boundaries is any more complicated than having a sliding scale

I am with Jema of the get rid of NI though, that does complicate matters
Green Man

And get rid of Tax credits after thresh-hold has been lifted. That is an administration nightmare. bagpuss

And get rid of Tax credits after thresh-hold has been lifted. That is an administration nightmare.

Certainly, people shouldn't have to claim money back, the personal allowance should be high enough that it isn't needed
Green Man

When I first heard of the scheme, I thought that's how it would work. Only idiots could have thought up the current system. I once got told as I struggled to hear on the phone line, over the screams of my fighting children, that I didn't qualify as I wasn't a parent. Mad Shane

I thought he moved to Portugal and set up a vineyard?

Nah. That was me. Ahem: Cliff's juice Shane

Only idiots could have thought up the current system. Or people who wanted to employ a quarter of the country on the public payroll. Green Man

He was going through his Christian phase in the late 70's. RichardW




As has already been discussed on this a single flat tax rate is grossly unfair to anyone on a low wage



Why?

If all of their income is tax free as a low wage would be under the tax start point?
Green Man

I still think it should only be business owners and those self employed who pay tax. Would save Multi bs in admin.
My next step to world domination would be only those that pay tax can vote. (This may be too far?)
bagpuss




As has already been discussed on this a single flat tax rate is grossly unfair to anyone on a low wage



Why?

If all of their income is tax free as a low wage would be under the tax start point?

where would you put that point?
arvo

I'm not massively sure about doing away with NI though. I think its quite good (especially in the current climate) to have a largely ring-fenced pot of money that can only be spent on health and welfare, not on hubristic building projects for the wealthy or bombs. bagpuss

I still think it should only be business owners and those self employed who pay tax. Would save Multi bs in admin.
My next step to world domination would be only those that pay tax can vote. (This may be too far?)

Have you really thought about how that would work

What about employed people who have savings and shares or invest capital in businesses should they not pay any tax

and I won't even bother to state why the voting comment is stupid because I suspect you know that already
bagpuss

I'm not massively sure about doing away with NI though. I think its quite good (especially in the current climate) to have a largely ring-fenced pot of money that can only be spent on health and welfare, not on hubristic building projects for the wealthy or bombs.

Interesting reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance_Fund

Not sure I entirely understand

I would happy for a fixed pot of the treasury fund to be considered like this but the way NI is collected is still kind of regressive and one of the complexities which can cause issues for people close to the various tax boundaries
Green Man



Have you really thought about how that would work

What about employed people who have savings and shares or invest capital in businesses should they not pay any tax

and I won't even bother to state why the voting comment is stupid because I suspect you know that already

LOL I was only joking about the Vote thing.
I would tax the companies before they paid out on share dividends and bank savings get tax deducted by the banks.
bagpuss



Have you really thought about how that would work

What about employed people who have savings and shares or invest capital in businesses should they not pay any tax

and I won't even bother to state why the voting comment is stupid because I suspect you know that already

LOL I was only joking about the Vote thing.
I would tax the companies before they paid out on share dividends and bank savings get tax deducted by the banks.

the bank savings tax does get deducted by the bank but it works in the same way as all the other income tax does so without this system you would need to rethink savings income tax or stop taxing income from savings
Green Man

Just have a standard savings tax. You might like this as wealthy people get higher interest so they will pay more? bagpuss

Just have a standard savings tax. You might like this as wealthy people get higher interest so they will pay more?

currently savings tax is staggered in the same way as all the other tax is, I quite like that system actually
Green Man

No, too much administartion. Same rate for everybody will be much more efficiently 'harvested'. bagpuss

No, too much administartion. Same rate for everybody will be much more efficiently 'harvested'.

just grossly unfair for anyone with just a small amount of savings just as a flat tax is grossly unfair for anyone with a low income
Green Man

No, too much administartion. Same rate for everybody will be much more efficiently 'harvested'.

just grossly unfair for anyone with just a small amount of savings just as a flat tax is grossly unfair for anyone with a low income
The level of tax paid at today's low intrest rate isn't worth arguing about.
bagpuss

No, too much administartion. Same rate for everybody will be much more efficiently 'harvested'.

just grossly unfair for anyone with just a small amount of savings just as a flat tax is grossly unfair for anyone with a low income
The level of tax paid at today's low intrest rate isn't worth arguing about.

Interest rates aren't always going to be this low plus if you have savings of the order for 50-100K which a person on a salary of 100K plus might even 2% starts to become more substantial over time
Green Man

With that level of savings you will be in a different interest bracket so will be paying more anyway. Treacodactyl

Re: The rich should pay more tax

marigold wrote:
The rich should pay more tax


The French are at it now.
marigold

Re: The rich should pay more tax

marigold wrote:
The rich should pay more tax


The French are at it now.

Yeah, I noticed that earlier. I was also thinking how stupid it is that people who are paid from taxes (teachers, doctors, nurses, roadsweepers, police, firemen etc) pay tax themselves and get benefits such as child benefit and tax credits. The whole system needs a huge overhaul and simplification. But I doubt that will ever happen, instead yet more complexity will be introduced...
oldish chris

Re: The rich should pay more tax

marigold wrote:
The rich should pay more tax


The French are at it now.

Yeah, I noticed that earlier. I was also thinking how stupid it is that people who are paid from taxes (teachers, doctors, nurses, roadsweepers, police, firemen etc) pay tax themselves and get benefits such as child benefit and tax credits. The whole system needs a huge overhaul and simplification. But I doubt that will ever happen, instead yet more complexity will be introduced... In the case of Civil Servants, the employer doesn't, however, to make sure that the correct money is paid, a computer works everything out, using exactly the same calculations as everyone else. You'd be amazed how quickly and cheaply computers can do this sort of thing Wink Similarly, money can be transferred to and fro as quick as a flash, again at a very low cost.
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Home Home Home Home Home