Rishi - be a Robin Hood, Tax the richer and give to the poorer....

[newfhouse]

Because it becomes problematic.
As soon as you start taxing the very rich more, they move their money somewhere where it doesn't get taxed.
Plus you have to define "rich". If I lived up north then on my salary I'd be very well off indeed.
I live in Surrey where I have enough to get by...

There probably is a sweet spot that maximises the tax take but I’m not convinced that’s where we are at all. I think it is also arguable that fairness is at least as important.

Rich is harder for me to judge than wealthy but they are just labels. A progressive and well thought out tax system must surely be possible. Is the current scheme really the best we can do?

 

[stowie]

There probably is a sweet spot that maximises the tax take but I’m not convinced that’s where we are at all. I think it is also arguable that fairness is at least as important.

That will be the Laffer curve which has been the darling of the neo-liberal right-wing politicians to justify reductions in higher rate taxation levels.

If you aren't convinced that it is where we are, you are in good company. No-one farking knows. The Laffer curve is much discussed with the fervour of a religious convert, but there is absolutely no evidence where this sweet spot might be. The only thing that can be really said with certainty is that there is a maximum tax take somewhere between 0% and 100% rates. Which isn't all that useful.

The fact that it is used as a justification for tweaks in individual taxation levels indicates that the politician invoking this argument is either lying or has no clue. Or both.

 

[mjr]

He's cut 5p off fuel duty, the stupid nobber. I'm sure the increased demand for oil will make Vlad very happy.

 

[Fab Foodie]

He's cut 5p off fuel duty, the stupid nobber. I'm sure the increased demand for oil will make Vlad very happy.

And not a single concession to those struggling on benefits....

 

[Deleted member 28]

Average UK salary is approx 25k. We can argue the toss whether somebody in the 40% tax bracket is wealthy or not, but what is certain is that a few percent extra income tax is not going to see many of them in the food banks....

No it isn't, it's between £31k and £38k depending on how you want to measure it (median or not).

Either way it appears those below the 40% on here feel those in it should pay more, not surprised really.

The fact they do already (the clue is in the term) doesn't mean anything, not to mention NI contributions also being more.

If all those who think they could be paying a bit more, what's stopping you from giving to certain charities etc?

 

[theclaud]

View: https://twitter.com/David__Osland/status/1506670333084020736?t=XszTjtvc7xtoVjdC9cjtWQ&s=19

 

[newfhouse]

If all those who think they could be paying a bit more, what's stopping you from giving to certain charities etc?

Nothing at all but families shouldn’t have to rely on charity to feed their children or put a roof over their heads.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Yes I am.

How much do you think you should be paying then, 50%, 60%?

Do you class yourself as wealthy?

 

[newfhouse]

How much do you think you should be paying then, 50%, 60%?

I favour a more sophisticated tax system.

Do you class yourself as wealthy?

Compared with my childhood and with most folk that sell their labour rather than using money to make more money, yes.

 

[Deleted member 28]

I favour a more sophisticated tax system.

So how much should people be paying in your 'sophisticated' system then, or is it too sophisticated to be able to put a figure on it?

Or putting it simply, do you think that YOU should be paying more on the amount YOU earn?

For balance I don't think I should pay any more because I think I contribute a fair amount already, If however the rates went up the odd couple of percent I wouldn't moan about it because as already said I doubt I'll be going to a food bank any time soon.

 

[winjim]

Sealion?
And the wealthy question?

The point is that in a discussion about tax we immediately and predictably moved to vexatious questions about what specifically constitutes wealth and what specific tax rate we should apply to that wealth, like it's some kind of gotcha and as if the entire argument for progressive taxation falls apart if you can't provide answers to the questioners desired level of precision. It isn't and it doesn't. It's a distraction, devoid of real meaning and designed to derail the discussion.

I'm a citizen of this country. I believe we should have a progressive tax system in which the rich contribute the most and which enables us to provide services to everybody and assistance to those in need. But I'm not an accountant, I'm not an economist, I'm not a statistician. If there exists some magical dividing line between wealthy and not wealthy I couldn't tell you where it is, that's the job of experts and academics. The question is unanswerable to any great degree of precision to a layman like me. Is Rishi Sunak wealthy? Certainly. Am I wealthy? Not really although I'm doing better than some people. But there's a massive gulf between me and Sunak and I wouldn't know where to draw the line.

Yeah I could pull out some stats and stick them on a spreadsheet, I've done it before for the sake of the discussion, but you wouldn't ask an economist to operate a mass spectrometer, or to climb up and fix a telecoms antenna, would you?

 

[newfhouse]

So how much should people be paying in your 'sophisticated' system then, or is it too sophisticated to be able to put a figure on it?

Yes. IANAE.

How about an amount that matches their ability if not willingness to pay and recognises that such an ability comes as a direct result of taxes that have already been invested?

Or putting it simply, do you think that YOU should be paying more on the amount YOU earn?

Yes, but note that I am also calling for a fair taxation and indeed wider political system.

For balance I don't think I should pay any more because I think I contribute a fair amount already

How do you calculate that, or is it just a feeling you have?

 

[Deleted member 28]

Yes. IANAE.

How about an amount that matches their ability if not willingness to pay and recognises that such an ability comes as a direct result of taxes that have already been invested?


Yes, but note that I am also calling for a fair taxation and indeed wider political system.


How do you calculate that, or is it just a feeling you have?

IANAE?
So you haven't got a figure in mind then?
What in your opinion is FAIR taxation?
I don't need to 'calculate' anything I just pay what's required.

Why do you find it so difficult to give a direct answer?

What does 'taxes that have already been invested' mean?

What does 'ability' to pay mean?

Someone who earns 40k per year but lives a modest lifestyle may have the ability to pay more than someone who earns 80k but spends every penny.

Please explain your vague plan.

 

[icowden]

Of course, another problem that the Government has with raising taxes is that we have just seen them waste billions of pounds on a test and trace system that didn't work, on PPE that was useless, on enriching their mates who supplied the PPE, on wiping billions of pounds worth of trade with the EU and spending more millions of pounds on new trade systems (the new customs and excise software).

The Govt has a predilection for spaffing billions of pounds up the wall. It's therefore not a vote winner to ask for more money to waste. Ironically the Tories used to be the people to trust with money, and labour the spendthrifts. I think the position may have now reversed...

 

[PaulB]

Just a reminder of the background of the man who makes these decisions for the nation. After all, he's a man of the people, isn't he?