Al_B on 17/12/2009 at 23:36
I realise this thread has deviated horribly from it's original purpose, but given some of the recent discussions this (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8417205.stm) BBC article caught my eye.
If it's true that the top 1% of earners contribute nearly a quarter of all income tax and that the 10% of earners contribute over half then in my humble opinion that aspect of the system is working pretty well.
(I realise this isn't part of the inheritance / unearned / investment / capital gains tax argument - but I still found it rather interesting).
SubJeff on 17/12/2009 at 23:59
So you think its fair that of about 30 million people working 3 million pay as much combined tax as the other 27 million? So those 10% pay as much as 9 people and get no benefit from it and that's ok?
I realise that higher earners should pay more tax because I agree that tax should be set at fixed rates. In fact I don't mind too much that the figures stand as they are. But why make it even more one sided? Remember that the people who are paying more are fewer in number and so overall have less political pull as compared to the low payers. This means that low payers get to dictate, to a greater extent, what the government does. This is why we need sensible governments that don't pander to the masses who don't have a clue - which is what Labour does and who the Lib Dems are targeting with their policies. Its a very weird side effect of democracy.
SD on 18/12/2009 at 00:57
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
So you think its fair that of about 30 million people working 3 million pay as much combined tax as the other 27 million?
Quote Posted by "Adam Smith, 'The Wealth of Nations'"
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
Of course it's fair. Tax should be proportional to a person's ability to pay. Not only that, but rich people have more to lose from the collapse of society, so it is overwhelmingly in their interests for it to be sustained.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Remember that the people who are paying more are fewer in number and so overall have less political pull as compared to the low payers.
That's not true though, is it? When Bernie Eccleston can donate £1m to the Labour Party and get Formula 1 an exemption from the ban on tobacco advertising, it makes a mockery of your point. Money
is power; always has been, always will be.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
This is why we need sensible governments that don't pander to the masses who don't have a clue - which is what Labour does and who the Lib Dems are targeting with their policies.
You don't know the first thing about Lib Dem tax policy. You were castigating us for a policy we dropped 4 years ago ffs.
CCCToad on 18/12/2009 at 04:27
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
So you think its fair that of about 30 million people working 3 million pay as much combined tax as the other 27 million? So those 10% pay as much as 9 people and get no benefit from it and that's ok?
Not sure how it is over there, but here in the States Limbaugh harped on a similiar statistic for the longest time. Turns out that the proportion of what each bracking of the population pays in taxes isn't all that far off from the total distribution of wealth in the country.
Swiss Mercenary on 18/12/2009 at 05:17
Quote Posted by SD
First off, the definition "unearned income" isn't
my definition - it's
the definition.
Secondly, unearned /= undeserved. Please, don't put words in my mouth.
You seem to be treating it as undeserved. And as for the definition, I don't see how increasing the value of your investments by putting work into them is earned income. You're not selling goods, performing services, or working for anyone, here.
Quote:
If you're going to argue that inheritance tax can dissuade renovation of and investment in properties, then congratulations - you just happened upon one of the drawbacks of IHT. It's not a perfect tax, it just happens to be one of the least worst taxes
I'm glad we've established that, then.
Quote:
Then that's hard lines. But you're still living in the same house, and if you don't sell it, then it doesn't really matter what value the market puts on it, does it?
So, whether your home rises or falls in value, you better not move out, cause you'll be hit by the economy in one case, and you'll be hit by the taxman in second?
Let me ask you this - since you're fine with me selling my house that tripled in value, and buying the house across the street that tripled in value... Would you have a problem with me buying a house on the other side of the country, that was triple in value of my house ten years ago, but did not gain in value over the decade?
What about a yacht?
Quote:
But investment is a less useful activity than spending...
Why? The only distinction between the two is that investment gives the investor power.
SubJeff on 18/12/2009 at 07:22
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I realise that higher earners should pay more tax because I agree that tax should be set at fixed rates.
In fact I don't mind too much that the figures stand as they are. Quote Posted by SD
Of course it's fair. Tax should be proportional to a person's ability to pay. Not only that, but rich people have more to lose from the collapse of society, so it is overwhelmingly in their interests for it to be sustained.
i has reading glasses?
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
That's not true though, is it? When Bernie Eccleston can donate £1m...
You don't know the first thing about Lib Dem tax policy. You were castigating us for a policy we dropped 4 years ago ffs.
Paying to alter government policy is not power, it's corruption. Under who's watch was this? Not the Lib Dems or the Torys, eh?
And criticising a party for their overall approach to tax shouldn't be an issue. Lib Dems tax policies have,
and continue to be, a little silly imho. I was ready to vote Lib Dem a few years ago because a lot of the rest of the policies (at that time) made a lot of sense to me. But the tax policy, then
and now (as stated on the Lib Dem site,
now - "don't know the first thing" pffffft :rolleyes: ) is far too left wing for me. Even I have limits.
quinch on 18/12/2009 at 13:04
Quote Posted by SD
.....rich people have more to lose from the collapse of society, so it is overwhelmingly in their interests for it to be sustained.
Spot on.
A lot of rich people don't seem to realize that much of their acquired wealth contains a high proportion of recycled tax money through public spending. An entrepreneur, or any other middle-man professional, wouldn't get very far without the basic health and education of their workforce.
The healthier and more educated the workforce, the higher the profits. It stands to reason then that a percentage of this wealth should go back into the system whence it came.
SubJeff on 18/12/2009 at 17:18
Yes it stands to reason and no one is arguing against that. The question is "how much?"
ceebs on 20/12/2009 at 12:26
Quote:
But the tax policy, then and now (as stated on the Lib Dem site, now - "don't know the first thing" pffffft ) is far too left wing for me. Even I have limits.
Wow now theres real evidence that the Overton Window has been shifted to the right, as has been claimed in vast ammounts over the last 30 years.
Lots of people live under the assumpotion that current tax policys in the UK are centerist, but in fact they have moved sharply to the right, and through this money is being concentrated in an increasingly smaller percentage of the population. Higher earners are paying proportionally a lower ammount of tax than at any point in the last seventy years. Even Lib Dem tax policy is far to the right of what would have been considered ceneterist tax policy in the 1970s
ceebs on 20/12/2009 at 12:34
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
So you think its fair that of about 30 million people working 3 million pay as much combined tax as the other 27 million? So those 10% pay as much as 9 people and get no benefit from it and that's ok?
I realise that higher earners should pay more tax because I agree that tax should be set at fixed rates. In fact I don't mind too much that the figures stand as they are. But why make it even more one sided? Remember that the people who are paying more are fewer in number and so overall have less political pull as compared to the low payers. This means that low payers get to dictate, to a greater extent, what the government does. This is why we need sensible governments that don't pander to the masses who don't have a clue - which is what Labour does and who the Lib Dems are targeting with their policies. Its a very weird side effect of democracy.
Its hardly a wierd ide effect of democracy, it is democracy. You are saying a technocratic minority should be allowed to rule because they "Know best"? give me a break.
The reason to set it even more one sided, is that at the current tax rates, money is being concentrated in an ever smaller proportion of the population, and with that concentration you get increased crime, social decay etc. etc.
