"Wealth taxes don't work"

[trousers]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9570872/Wont-George-Osborne-learn-the-lesson-Wealth-taxes-simply-dont-work.html

 

"The basic truth is that Britain is already taxed as much as it can bear; it is spending that is out of control. Finding deeper savings in the government budget is not without its political risks. But a wealth tax would be the biggest, riskiest and craziest gamble of all."

[badgerx16]

Well, that is one person's opinion. ( possibly 2, as by starting this thread I presume that Trousers agrees ). We shall have to wait and see what the 'work experience Chancellor' manages to concoct for his next financial statement.

[Wes Tender]

Well, that is one person's opinion. ( possibly 2, as by starting this thread I presume that Trousers agrees ). We shall have to wait and see what the 'work experience Chancellor' manages to concoct for his next financial statement.

 

Three. It's my opinion too.

[badgerx16]

Three. It's my opinion too.

 

But from reading the article it may be that Georgie Porgie doesn't agree.

[solentstars]

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/germany/germany_tax.asp

[Jonnyboy]

We need to invade the tax havens. Your tax or a bullet.

[pap]

The Lib Dems are onto something with Mansion Tax in that it is not easily avoidable. Shame it's them that are proposing it, really.

 

Land tax would be better. For starters, I think it's introduction would suddenly free up a load of land that people like owning now, but would be less attractive under a taxed system.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Can someone define "wealth tax"?

[WindsorSaint]

Can someone define "wealth tax"?

 

Workers of the world work harder - the feckless need a new HD widescreen TV?

 

WS

[Patrick Bateman]

Can someone define "wealth tax"?

 

That's the thing, you know it'll be for "high" earners over £50k *roll eyes thing*

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9570872/Wont-George-Osborne-learn-the-lesson-Wealth-taxes-simply-dont-work.html

 

"The basic truth is that Britain is already taxed as much as it can bear; it is spending that is out of control. Finding deeper savings in the government budget is not without its political risks. But a wealth tax would be the biggest, riskiest and craziest gamble of all."

 

I guess if you're going to critique it you first have to define what the tax mechanism is. Then you need to understand what it's aim is: is it designed purely to raise funds? is it designed to alter economic behaviour? or is it intended to replace other methods of taxation? Then you need to explain why it is the "biggest. riskiest, and craziest gamble": is it because it won't work as policy makers intend? is it because it will be easiliy evaded/avoided? is it because you think it is morally wrong? is it because you think it will have unintended and harmful consequences? is it because you think it will be politically unpopular and risk your re-election chances? or is it because you're a bit of a NIMBY and feel like you've already paid your fair share?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Three. It's my opinion too.

 

What is your opinion? why won't it work? what is "it"?

[saint1977]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9570872/Wont-George-Osborne-learn-the-lesson-Wealth-taxes-simply-dont-work.html

 

"The basic truth is that Britain is already taxed as much as it can bear; it is spending that is out of control. Finding deeper savings in the government budget is not without its political risks. But a wealth tax would be the biggest, riskiest and craziest gamble of all."

 

Have a look at the comments thread - John Ward and Savale speak more sense that the author although intellectually there is some merit in what he is saying, even if as a Lib Dem/someone sympathetic to One Nation Tory ideas I come from a different perspective. I can see some technical arguments for the tax take dipping further and of course the Tories learned the hard way with the poll tax that the first rule of taxation is that you have to be able to collect it. Osborne is doing a sensible thing by looking at it though - after all aren't we supposed to be 'in it together' regardless of ideology? That's not to say it'll happen though.

 

Global action is needed on tax evasion - shut the tax havens. In excess of £7 trillion is avoided by less than 1% of people, many of whom were responsible for leaving the rest of us to fund their lifestyle by corrupting the banking system. Hopefully Obama will be re-elected and then there's a greater action of seeing some action. Romney would just mean more record defecits and war with Iran.

[JPTCount]

my vote is for a tax system where we alp pay 10-15% on income with a change to VAT, with different brackets for more luxurious goods, e.g. a rolls Royce would carry 50% tax whereas a micra would have the basic rate of say 20%.

 

it means we all get to keep our hard earned earnings but depending how lavish a lifestyle u lead depends on how much u pay into the state. it would also mean that lost tax on loop holes & illegal earnings would be recouped in spending.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The whole problem with tax in this Country was summed up by that idiot Steve Coogan on QT last night. When discussing the riots in Sapin and could they happen here, he called for higher tax on the wealthy, his exact words were that it may not bring in much more money, but it sends a signal to the masses in these tough times.

 

That's the problem in a nutshell, political posturing and punishing people, rather than setting taxes at levels that bring the maximum in. I thought this arguement had been won after the disasterous tax policies of Labour and Grocer Heath in the 70's, but now the politics of envy are back. This weak Government seem unable to grasp that you can tax people less and bring in more revenue.

 

Just to chuck around the phrase "wealth tax" is just lazy. Does wealth include pension pots, or is it just that you live in a big house and have a nice car. Are the rates different for different parts of the Country, because wealth in London has a completely different threshold than wealth in Hull. Do people seriously believe that the wealthy can not drive a coach and horses through any wealth tax, reducing their rate with clever accountants. Until we see concrete propsals about how "wealth" is judged and what exactly you are taxing, it just looks to me like an extension of the council tax. I guess calling it a mansion tax is easier politically than saying "we intend to raise council tax and put in an extra band at the top".

[Smirking_Saint]

So what is wealth tax then ?

 

An offshoot of income tax ?

[OldNick]

my vote is for a tax system where we alp pay 10-15% on income with a change to VAT, with different brackets for more luxurious goods, e.g. a rolls Royce would carry 50% tax whereas a micra would have the basic rate of say 20%.

 

it means we all get to keep our hard earned earnings but depending how lavish a lifestyle u lead depends on how much u pay into the state. it would also mean that lost tax on loop holes & illegal earnings would be recouped in spending.

so people who work hard and are successful pay 40% tax and then have to pay another high tax on their spending. it is madness and just envy. People who earn big money have higher costs of living that gets passed on to the greater economy. The moment you squeeze everything will come to a stop.

I am in the luxury part of the economy and 15 -20 people earn part of their living as a off-shoot. So my products are then made more expensive, the business grinds to a halt and so the other companies do so and it starts the spiral.

 

The best luxury tax there is would be on take away food packaging, 5p on every burger box, pizza carton , plastic sandwich container would bring in millions to the exchequer.

Having a take away is a luxury

[trousers]

The whole problem with tax in this Country was summed up by that idiot Steve Coogan on QT last night. When discussing the riots in Sapin and could they happen here, he called for higher tax on the wealthy, his exact words were that it may not bring in much more money, but it sends a signal to the masses in these tough times.

 

That's the problem in a nutshell, political posturing and punishing people, rather than setting taxes at levels that bring the maximum in.

 

Yep, saw Coogan on QT last night and, as much as I admire what the chap does in his day job, his "what can I say next to bash the wealthy and/or the Tories?" approach to the program was a tad one dimensional.

 

That Rhys-Mogg chap articulated the 'tax take' conundrum very well IMO, but of course that fell on deaf ears because he's a Tory with a posh voice. His key point was you can raise or lower tax rates as much as you like but the actual tax take always tends to average out at around 38% of GDP. He said this was the case when higher rate tax went up to 98% (in the 1970s?) and when it's as low as it has been in recent times (i.e. 40%). He also trotted out the reality that the wealthiest 1% of the country pay 26% of the entire tax take in the country. Something that often gets overlooked by the 'bash the rich' brigade.

 

But, going back to what Coogan said, and sadly he is right, people don't actually care how much tax is raised by a given political gesture it's how it's perceived by the public at large. Hence the LibDem's "mansion tax" being a crowd pleaser.

 

At least Coogan wasn't the most annoying panalist......*cough* Harriett Harman *cough*

Edited 28 September, 2012 by trousers

[trousers]

so people who work hard and are successful pay 40% tax and then have to pay another high tax on their spending. it is madness and just envy. People who earn big money have higher costs of living that gets passed on to the greater economy. The moment you squeeze everything will come to a stop.

I am in the luxury part of the economy and 15 -20 people earn part of their living as a off-shoot. So my products are then made more expensive, the business grinds to a halt and so the other companies do so and it starts the spiral.

 

The best luxury tax there is would be on take away food packaging, 5p on every burger box, pizza carton , plastic sandwich container would bring in millions to the exchequer.

Having a take away is a luxury

 

I agree with Nick

[Lord Duckhunter]

Yep, saw Coogan on QT last night and, as much as I admire what the chap does in his day job, his "what can I say next to bash the wealthy and/or the Tories?" approach to the program was a tad one dimensional.

 

That Rhys-Mogg chap articulated the 'tax take' conundrum very well IMO, but of course that fell on deaf ears because he's a Tory with a posh voice. His key point was you can raise or lower tax rates as much as you like but the actual tax take always tends to average out at around 38% of GDP. He said this was the case when higher rate tax went up to 98% (in the 1970s?) and when it's as low as it has been in recent times (i.e. 40%). He also trotted out the reality that the wealthiest 1% of the country pay 26% of the entire tax take in the country. Something that often gets overlooked by the 'bash the rich' brigade.

 

But, going back to what Coogan said, and sadly he is right, people don't actually care how much tax is raised by a given political gesture it's how it's perceived by the public at large. Hence the LibDem's "mansion tax" being a crowd pleaser.

 

At least Coogan wasn't the most annoying panalist......*cough* Harriett Harman *cough*

 

People like Coogan and that chump Johnny Rotten get a free ride from Dimble, they shouldn't be on their spouting their nonsense. He was so one eyed it was unbelievable. He even started blaming the Torys for the Lib/Dem idea of pension pots being used to guantee mortgages. His rant about only Torys having a private education was embaressing, particulary when Kirsty Allsop pointed out that Harperson (who was sat next to him) was privately educated.I thought his rant about how he was a state school pupil, was a great advert for privately educating your children. Dimble needs to grow a pair and treat these b list celebs like he does politicans.

 

Contrast his nonsense with Rhyss-Mogg's points. You may not agree with them, but they were coherent and well thought through, particulary his point about the capital banks held. Coogan had a completely closed mind and just wanted to bash the rich.That's no way to run an ecomony and he should stick to making second rate comedy shows and leave political debate to people without an axe to grind.

[JPTCount]

so people who work hard and are successful pay 40% tax and then have to pay another high tax on their spending. it is madness and just envy. People who earn big money have higher costs of living that gets passed on to the greater economy. The moment you squeeze everything will come to a stop.

I am in the luxury part of the economy and 15 -20 people earn part of their living as a off-shoot. So my products are then made more expensive, the business grinds to a halt and so the other companies do so and it starts the spiral.

 

The best luxury tax there is would be on take away food packaging, 5p on every burger box, pizza carton , plastic sandwich container would bring in millions to the exchequer.

Having a take away is a luxury

 

I said everyone pays a low rate of income tax say 10%, and ppl who earn big money choose to have higher living costs, no1 forces multi millionaires to buy Ferraris and build swimming pools, they choose to because they can afford it. I know a few who apart from on thier property/yacht/children, they dont actually spend that much on luxury goods.

 

under this system someone earning £200k a year would now take home £180k, as opposed to currently taking home £100k. this would mean they have more to spend, unless they stashed it away under the bed the money would boost the economy rather than squeeze it.

 

with more disposable income ur business might even get more business, who really knows. what do u make/do btw?

 

and a tax on take away packaging is a bit open for abuse. I prefer a fat tax on all fast food & ready meals, even better if it is then used to subsidise fresh & healthy foods.

[capitalsaint]

I've mentioned it before, but the tax system is far more complicated than the percentages. Every time the tax code is rewritten, ambiguous language is used in some parts so the avoidance industry (which is huge) has something to play with. Every decent accountant will have a tax advisor who specialises in finding loopholes which can save their clients money. More people are employed in tax avoidance than there are those who are avoiding the tax.

 

The other thing I've never understood (and I'm fairly young and not even living in the UK) is why there is so much animosity towards wealthier people, when by and large they've worked damned hard to get where they are. How many people can claim to hate the rich but at the same time remember the days when they messed around in school? Everybody has to work, that's a given, but how many of us have actually worked hard at the things that mattered when they mattered?

[Wes Tender]

What is your opinion? why won't it work? what is "it"?

 

My opinion is that there is a level at which this so-called wealth taxation becomes deemed to be unfair by those targeted by it. They then find ways of avoiding paying it, either by creative accounting/exploitation of loopholes, or they just leave the country for destinations where the tax regime is less stringent. Either way, the Exchequer is deprived on that revenue.

 

Anybody old enough to think not that far back to the Thatcher era, will recall that there was a wailing and gnashing of teeth when her Government reduced the highest tax band to 40% and at the same time abolished several other incremental bands. All the lefties naturally concluded that the Exchequer would suffer a huge loss of tax revenue in order that the rich could keep more of their money. As it turned out, the revenue received by the Exchequer actually increased quite significantly, as the level of taxation was deemed to be fair and many wealthy people who had left the country because of high taxation actually returned to the UK.

 

But people have short memories, or their opinions are set by party dogma or petty jealousy, or else they are just not bright enough to realise that there is an upper level at which it becomes self-defeating to chase additional revenue from the wealthy, many of whom are also the wealth creators.

[Jonnyboy]

Wealth creators. Leeches more like.

[Wes Tender]

Wealth creators. Leeches more like.

 

Typical of the jealous know-nothing dogmatic response I referred to above. I am talking about the entrepreneurs who start businesses from scratch either because they have a very inventive mind and set about manufacturing a successful new product, or they see a gap in the market and start a thriving business that creates employment for thousands of people.

 

But lets tax these people at punitive levels so that they take themselves and their businesses abroad, eh?

[Jonnyboy]

7 trillion stashed in global tax havens.

[teamsaint]

Typical of the jealous know-nothing dogmatic response I referred to above. I am talking about the entrepreneurs who start businesses from scratch either because they have a very inventive mind and set about manufacturing a successful new product, or they see a gap in the market and start a thriving business that creates employment for thousands of people.

 

But lets tax these people at punitive levels so that they take themselves and their businesses abroad, eh?

 

er, but corporation tax rates are at competitive levels, as are capital gains taxes on real businesses.

 

The rich always find ways to screw the rest of us, and to convince us that they pay too much tax.

[OldNick]

er, but corporation tax rates are at competitive levels, as are capital gains taxes on real businesses.

 

The rich always find ways to screw the rest of us, and to convince us that they pay too much tax.

North Korea is the best place in the world to live. Everyone lives at a base level, the state decides what you do and you worship the leader.Sounds gereat, no enterprise to worry about

[badgerx16]

I wish I could earn enough to be able to afford to pay a clever accountant to save me tax.

[trousers]

7 trillion stashed in global tax havens.

 

Exactly....tax human beings too highly and they'll seek to avoid it.... Well spotted that man...;-)

 

Edit: and that human nature applies at both ends of the 'wealth' spectrum

Edited 29 September, 2012 by trousers

[saintfully]

Exactly....tax human beings too highly and they'll seek to avoid it.... Well spotted that man...;-)

 

Or... we are ruled by a closed corporate and political elite mutually complicit in maintaining the status quo of them hoarding away loads of the worlds wealth/capital (which reduces opportunity, competition, entrepreneurship etc etc ?)

[Jonnyboy]

North Korea is the best place in the world to live. Everyone lives at a base level, the state decides what you do and you worship the leader.Sounds gereat, no enterprise to worry about

 

Yeah cos progressive taxation equals communism. Duh.

[trousers]

Or... we are ruled by a closed corporate and political elite mutually complicit in maintaining the status quo of them hoarding away loads of the worlds wealth/capital (which reduces opportunity, competition, entrepreneurship etc etc ?)

 

Get a few people together...form a truly socialist party...convince 33% of the people that bother to vote in a general election to vote for your party...bingo...problem solved.

 

That's the beauty of living in a democratic country....'the people' ultimately have the power to do something about it....that is if they could be bothered to log off Facebook, get off their arses and actually do something about it.

 

Or perhaps people prefer to moan and groan about 'the establishment' from the comfort of their sofas?

[Jonnyboy]

wonder if the non doms sat on their yachts in the BVI ponder about that epileptic chap that had his disability benefit cut off the other day and had a fatal fit.

[Whitey Grandad]

wonder if the non doms sat on their yachts in the BVI ponder about that epileptic chap that had his disability benefit cut off the other day and had a fatal fit.

 

Sorry, don't see the connection?

[trousers]

Sorry, don't see the connection?

 

It's covered under the 'all rich people are bad" generalisation.

[Jonnyboy]

It's covered under the 'all rich people are bad" generalisation.

 

Closer to the truth than your "all rich people are good and all poor people deserve it" one.

[trousers]

Closer to the truth than your "all rich people are good and all poor people deserve it" one.

 

And I thought Verbal was the king of putting words in people's mouths. Sigh

[Jonnyboy]

And I thought Verbal was the king of putting words in people's mouths. Sigh

 

Erm you started it. See post #36.

[saintfully]

Get a few people together...form a truly socialist party...convince 33% of the people that bother to vote in a general election to vote for your party...bingo...problem solved.

 

That's the beauty of living in a democratic country....'the people' ultimately have the power to do something about it....that is if they could be bothered to log off Facebook, get off their arses and actually do something about it.

 

Or perhaps people prefer to moan and groan about 'the establishment' from the comfort of their sofas?

 

Sigh... don't know if you've noticed but standing for election costs money, organising a party costs money, infiltrating the cosy media/politician relationship is nigh on impossible, printing leaflets and hanging billboards isn't free, producing TV adverts is quite pricey... and I don't know any tax-evading kings of Belize/have a mainline from union subscriptions.

 

Perhaps of you engaged your brain for more than two secconds you'd realise that 'black and white'/'common-sense'/simpleton explanations/platitudes just don't cut it anymore. Makes you look like a complacent, smug little t.it. Which I;m sure you're not???

[pap]

Get a few people together...form a truly socialist party...convince 33% of the people that bother to vote in a general election to vote for your party...bingo...problem solved.

 

That's the beauty of living in a democratic country....'the people' ultimately have the power to do something about it....that is if they could be bothered to log off Facebook, get off their arses and actually do something about it.

 

Or perhaps people prefer to moan and groan about 'the establishment' from the comfort of their sofas?

 

Sounds great in theory, but the sh!t really needs to hit the fan before people start to truly consider socialism as a means of repairing society. We've seen this before. Rebuilding after the second world war, the New Deal in depression hit America. In both cases, socialist principles were used to get societies out of the mire.

 

Voter apathy is nothing new. I think the attitude that all politicians are smarmy careerists is a relatively new conceit, but see enough Parliaments and you start to realise that it's the same dog and pony show, although with different coloured ties and slightly different crazy plans ( Labour: invade Iraq, Tories: privatise NHS ). Irrespective of who we vote for, we all get to experience the detachment from our politicians when they get elected, and then do pretty much whatever the Chief Whip tells them to.

 

Life, as we live it, is little more than a well designed distraction. Most people are the bipedal equivalent of sharks; have to keep swimming to breathe. We don't a great deal of time between swims, and when we do, we're more likely to have some fun for ourselves than ponder all the different ways we're being greased up and put over a barrel. Yet, to continue the shark analogy, we're still swimming, still breathing and it's only when enough people can't do either that you'll truly see proper scrutiny of the inherent inequalities of society.

 

Wealth redistribution between rich and poor is inevitable. You only need to look at history to see that the "have nots" frequently turn over the "haves" when the differences between them get too stark. It normally ends in violence. I suppose the real question is whether we have the wit to buck the trend and deliver fairness without a bloody revolution.

[Wes Tender]

er, but corporation tax rates are at competitive levels, as are capital gains taxes on real businesses.

 

The rich always find ways to screw the rest of us, and to convince us that they pay too much tax.

 

The Corporation tax is a tax on the business, not on the wealth of the individual who started it and made it a global brand, making him a multi-millionaire/billionaire.

 

OK. So tell me what percentage of a person's wealth is reasonable? A third, a half, two-thirds, everything above a certain level? And what would that level be?

 

Please also accept that as well as taxation on income, there is also taxation on expenditure too.

 

And then tell me what level percentage of your income you'd expect to pay. Then explain why those on higher incomes should pay a higher percentage than you?

 

Don't tell me; it's because they can afford it, eh? Nothing to do with what is fair and equitable, just jealousy.

 

And if they therefore decide to take themselves and their businesses elsewhere, then who can blame them?

[trousers]

Erm you started it. See post #36.

 

So, by me saying that some people generalise about rich people means that I generalise about poor people. Great logic...

[trousers]

Sigh... don't know if you've noticed but standing for election costs money, organising a party costs money, infiltrating the cosy media/politician relationship is nigh on impossible, printing leaflets and hanging billboards isn't free, producing TV adverts is quite pricey... and I don't know any tax-evading kings of Belize/have a mainline from union subscriptions.

 

Perhaps of you engaged your brain for more than two secconds you'd realise that 'black and white'/'common-sense'/simpleton explanations/platitudes just don't cut it anymore. Makes you look like a complacent, smug little t.it. Which I;m sure you're not???

 

No, you were right first time. I'm all of those things.

[Jonnyboy]

So, by me saying that some people generalise about rich people means that I generalise about poor people. Great logic.

..

 

Don't get personal please.

[OldNick]

Yeah cos progressive taxation equals communism. Duh.

No but if everybody has the same you dont have the pathetic jealousy that seems to be rife in our society.

iam fully behind anyone stopping people like Sir Phillip Green who pays no tax but earns his money from the UK. To tax the people who set up the businesses that earn the money that makes the country wealthy enough so we can have a welfare system by creating exports, is wrong IMO. I do wonder where people think the countries wealth comes from to pay for the system. Governments or the public sector do not earn the country money, it spends it. We at present are desperately trying to balance the economy, so that the private sector grows, that in turn creates exports and jobs to offset the losses in the public sector.

Taxing those people who are prepared to take the risks is madness IMO, as the incentive is gone.

It has also been proven that the more you tax the less revenue is brought into the exchequer.

I notice France are going to tax the very top people 75%, just watch that country slip back as people go elsewhere or the black econmy takes hold

[Whitey Grandad]

Wealth redistribution between rich and poor is inevitable. You only need to look at history to see that the "have nots" frequently turn over the "haves" when the differences between them get too stark. It normally ends in violence. I suppose the real question is whether we have the wit to buck the trend and deliver fairness without a bloody revolution.

But the have nots never end up any havier. They just go from have-nots to have-nothing's.

[Wes Tender]

Perhaps of you engaged your brain for more than two secconds you'd realise that 'black and white'/'common-sense'/simpleton explanations/platitudes just don't cut it anymore. Makes you look like a complacent, smug little t.it. Which I;m sure you're not???

 

I think that it ought to be pointed out that this forum is actually an appendage to the main forum, which is concerned with matters regarding our football club, just to put some perspective on this thread in the "Lounge".

 

It isn't an Oxbridge debating society for Undergraduates studying for degrees in Politics.

 

Just as posters on the main forum express their opinions on the players, the team, the manager, the owners, etc, it does not become a necessity for anybody saying that a player is crap to indulge in some deep-rooted analysis of his social background, some psycho-analysis, or discussion about his career development in order to validate their opinions. They are entitled to say that they have seen him play and don't rate his abilities. The main football forum is all about opinions and people should be entitled to express them freely without being insulted by those who do not agree.

 

But if on this subject you are to make personal remarks about other posters for what you consider to be 'black and white'/'common-sense'/simpleton explanations/platitudes, then it seems a bit odd that you yourself are content to respond with one-liner platitudes without giving us simpletons the benefit of your intellectual prowess and telling us exactly at which level the wealth creators and wealthy should be taxed, the rate which they will consider fair and which will not become a disincentive to them to remain in the UK, or to avoid paying it.

 

And what is your opinion about the electorate? How knowledgeable do you believe them to be about such matters? When it comes to vote at an election, most have only these 'black and white'/'common-sense'/simpleton explanations/platitudes to guide them, as that is what they are fed by the media and the political parties. They realise that the majority of the electorate would have their eyes glaze over were they to be confronted with intellectual diatribes based on one set of statistics after another. But on the other hand, they obviously have to be careful not to be too simplistic, lest they be seen as complacent, smug little t*ts.

 

So enlighten us then; what should be the top rate of taxation in this country?

[teamsaint]

The Corporation tax is a tax on the business, not on the wealth of the individual who started it and made it a global brand, making him a multi-millionaire/billionaire.

 

OK. So tell me what percentage of a person's wealth is reasonable? A third, a half, two-thirds, everything above a certain level? And what would that level be?

 

Please also accept that as well as taxation on income, there is also taxation on expenditure too.

 

And then tell me what level percentage of your income you'd expect to pay. Then explain why those on higher incomes should pay a higher percentage than you?

 

Don't tell me; it's because they can afford it, eh? Nothing to do with what is fair and equitable, just jealousy.

 

And if they therefore decide to take themselves and their businesses elsewhere, then who can blame them?

 

Tax is best levied on a mix of income, spending and wealth.

Our mix, in my very well thought out opinion(!!) is too much towards income , especially at the lower end of income, and not enough on wealth. All those wealth creators who are SO opposed to tax and SO in favour of the jobs they create, can easily avoid tax by reinvesting their profits in creating new jobs.

Wealth tax percentage. Don't know. Very high for the rapacious bastards in the banks, and the aristocrats whose forbears stole the land .

Lower elsewhere.

rich people should pay a higher percentage than poorer people because that will make for a better world. Level taxes for all will lead, and are leading to increasingly unequal societies, and ALL the evidence is that the more unequal the society, the worse they work.

 

The jealousy bit is a load of nonsense...its about making it all work.

[Whitey Grandad]

Tax is best levied on a mix of income, spending and wealth.

Our mix, in my very well thought out opinion(!!) is too much towards income , especially at the lower end of income, and not enough on wealth. All those wealth creators who are SO opposed to tax and SO in favour of the jobs they create, can easily avoid tax by reinvesting their profits in creating new jobs.

Wealth tax percentage. Don't know. Very high for the rapacious bastards in the banks, and the aristocrats whose forbears stole the land .

Lower elsewhere.

rich people should pay a higher percentage than poorer people because that will make for a better world. Level taxes for all will lead, and are leading to increasingly unequal societies, and ALL the evidence is that the more unequal the society, the worse they work.

 

The jealousy bit is a load of nonsense...its about making it all work.

 

That's a bit of a feeble argument really. 'Better world', 'unequal society'? What is more equal than everybody paying the same? It will all work at least as well with lower taxes all round. Take a look at Hong Kong. And creating new jobs leads to more taxes.