Fairness

[che_don_john]

Course people pay more tax if they earn a lot it is fair enough those who benefit the most from society pay the most to society

That implies though that 'society' has handed them a decent living, which isn't necessarily the case (in fact, it's rarely the case at all). What if they just knuckled down in school and got better grades? Or what if they just work that little bit harder than us?

I don't earn a lot because I'm not prepared to work long hours, I don't want to commute to London and I don't want too much responsibility; but some people do, so it's only fair that they get paid more. But if taxation is engineered to the point where such people's financial gain is reduced and things are levelled off, then there'll be absolutely no incentive to work harder and earn more.

The government (or whichever party aspires to be it) needs to worry less about squeezing even more money out of hard working high-earning people who already pay tax, and start focusing on getting money from those who have already avoided paying what they were supposed to pay.

who has avoided what they are supposed to have paid?

Well I can't name names of individuals because I don't work for the Inland Revenue! But as blueinsa said, the government has themselves admitted that unpaid tax runs into the billions (which they are most likely rounding down), and not all of it is from corporations either (who are easier to name - the likes of Amazon and Starbucks, for example).

 

[Chippy_boy]

When? Not that I am arguing with the sentiment some of the tax levels paid by very rich businessmen is awful, plenty of billionaires paying less than 5%

If there's anyone on huge incomes paying 5% tax then that's surely wrong, I would agree. Clamping down on this is certainly the right thing to do and I don't think anyone has a problem witht that. In fact Cameron has been leading the way on it, domestically and on the world stage.

But what about people on say £120k a year? These aren't necessarily "rich" people and yet today they already pay many times more tax than people on somewhat less. Not marginally more tax, many times more. Someone on £120k pays about 5 or 6 times as much as someone on £30k.

It is not "more fair" to make them pay even more.

If someone on £120k a year doesn't think they're rich then they're either a moron or have some dirty habits.

The tax systems in EVERY democratic country have the same method whereby tax rates increase at set levels of incomes and this is what causes the "easily-misunderstood" percentage comparisons often quoted. Actually you could easily turn it round the other way and say a low earner pays just 1/5th or 1/6th tax that a comparative high earner would to demonstrate an economy that supports the majority of workers.

What's "easily-misunderstood"? It is what it is.

Everyone gets that the more you pay, the more tax you pay. Of course, understood.

This thread is about fairness. I do not accept the stereotypical labour, lazy viewpoint that taking even more money off people to give it to others is automatically and by its very definition "more fair".

 

[Chippy_boy]

That implies though that 'society' has handed them a decent living, which isn't necessarily the case (in fact, it's rarely the case at all). What if they just knuckled down in school and got better grades? Or what if they just work that little bit harder than us?

I don't earn a lot because I'm not prepared to work long hours, I don't want to commute to London and I don't want too much responsibility; but some people do, so it's only fair that they get paid more. But if taxation is engineered to the point where such people's financial gain is reduced and things are levelled off, then there'll be absolutely no incentive to work harder and earn more.

The government (or whichever party aspires to be it) needs to worry less about squeezing even more money out of hard working high-earning people who already pay tax, and start focusing on getting money from those who have already avoided paying what they were supposed to pay.

who has avoided what they are supposed to have paid?

Well I can't name names of individuals because I don't work for the Inland Revenue! But as blueinsa said, the government has themselves admitted that unpaid tax runs into the billions (which they are most likely rounding down), and not all of it is from corporations either (who are easier to name - the likes of Amazon and Starbucks, for example).

Sticking to the point of this thread, yes that's unfair and yes it is billions and yes it needs to be clamped down on. No-one is disputing that.

Incidentally however, and not part of this thread's debate, clamping down on this will raise at most £5bn/year. And the Institute of Fiscal Studies have suggested that raising that much is highly aspirational. And putting this into perspective, the total tax receipts for the government run at around £500bn at the moment (£492bn in 2014.)

Now 1% additional tax collected is not to be sniffed at, but it isn't going to change the fiscal landscape much even if we do collect all this £5bn.

People need to stop thinking "if only we clobbered these rich cheats who aren't paying, everything would be sorted". It won't make much difference.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

If there's anyone on huge incomes paying 5% tax then that's surely wrong, I would agree. Clamping down on this is certainly the right thing to do and I don't think anyone has a problem witht that. In fact Cameron has been leading the way on it, domestically and on the world stage.

But what about people on say £120k a year? These aren't necessarily "rich" people and yet today they already pay many times more tax than people on somewhat less. Not marginally more tax, many times more. Someone on £120k pays about 5 or 6 times as much as someone on £30k.

It is not "more fair" to make them pay even more.

If someone on £120k a year doesn't think they're rich then they're either a moron or have some dirty habits.

The tax systems in EVERY democratic country have the same method whereby tax rates increase at set levels of incomes and this is what causes the "easily-misunderstood" percentage comparisons often quoted. Actually you could easily turn it round the other way and say a low earner pays just 1/5th or 1/6th tax that a comparative high earner would to demonstrate an economy that supports the majority of workers.

What's "easily-misunderstood"? It is what it is.

Everyone gets that the more you pay, the more tax you pay. Of course, understood.

This thread is about fairness. I do not accept the stereotypical labour, lazy viewpoint that taking even more money off people to give it to others is automatically and by its very definition "more fair".

Your thread is about "fairness" and you are quoting comparisons of tax paid by using an irrelevant formula and saying it is weighted unfairly towards lower paid workers. The formula is irrelevant because if I was to compare a very low paid worker who pays no tax against anyone who does pay tax, the increase is infinite. In other words you can pick your values to suit your argument.

Hence why I say the comparison is easily misunderstood.

Why not tell us the tax system you think is fair, because unless you want a straight flat tax rate for all earnings (which hasn't been tried in any modern democratic country as far as I know), your formula will produce these types of comparisons whatever you do.

 

[blueinsa]

who has avoided what they are supposed to have paid?

Well I can't name names of individuals because I don't work for the Inland Revenue! But as blueinsa said, the government has themselves admitted that unpaid tax runs into the billions (which they are most likely rounding down), and not all of it is from corporations either (who are easier to name - the likes of Amazon and Starbucks, for example).

Sticking to the point of this thread, yes that's unfair and yes it is billions and yes it needs to be clamped down on. No-one is disputing that.

Incidentally however, and not part of this thread's debate, clamping down on this will raise at most £5bn/year. And the Institute of Fiscal Studies have suggested that raising that much is highly aspirational. And putting this into perspective, the total tax receipts for the government run at around £500bn at the moment (£492bn in 2014.)

Now 1% additional tax collected is not to be sniffed at, but it isn't going to change the fiscal landscape much even if we do collect all this £5bn.

People need to stop thinking "if only we clobbered these rich cheats who aren't paying, everything would be sorted". It won't make much difference.

Yet folk want blood and blame anyone on benefits for taking less than a qtr of that amount?

Again, not defending benefit fraud, merely putting it into perspective and wondering why we don't have day time tv shows dedicated to ridiculing those that wont pay tax?

 

[EalingBlue2]

If someone on £120k a year doesn't think they're rich then they're either a moron or have some dirty habits.

The tax systems in EVERY democratic country have the same method whereby tax rates increase at set levels of incomes and this is what causes the "easily-misunderstood" percentage comparisons often quoted. Actually you could easily turn it round the other way and say a low earner pays just 1/5th or 1/6th tax that a comparative high earner would to demonstrate an economy that supports the majority of workers.

What's "easily-misunderstood"? It is what it is.

Everyone gets that the more you pay, the more tax you pay. Of course, understood.

This thread is about fairness. I do not accept the stereotypical labour, lazy viewpoint that taking even more money off people to give it to others is automatically and by its very definition "more fair".

Your thread is about "fairness" and you are quoting comparisons of tax paid by using an irrelevant formula and saying it is weighted unfairly towards lower paid workers. The formula is irrelevant because if I was to compare a very low paid worker who pays no tax against anyone who does pay tax, the increase is infinite. In other words you can pick your values to suit your argument.

Hence why I say the comparison is easily misunderstood.

Why not tell us the tax system you think is fair, because unless you want a straight flat tax rate for all earnings (which hasn't been tried in any modern democratic country as far as I know), your formula will produce these types of comparisons whatever you do.

Is it fair that yaya you're earns more in a day than a casualty nurse earns In a year?

Is it fair that bank bosses early billions bankrupting the country?

Is it fair that where you are born and brought up determines your education?

Life isn't fair it never will be, some of us are lucky in life some aren't, some make that luck others just get it.

The only question is whether you believe in a society or whether you believe it is all about you,

 

[Chippy_boy]

If someone on £120k a year doesn't think they're rich then they're either a moron or have some dirty habits.

The tax systems in EVERY democratic country have the same method whereby tax rates increase at set levels of incomes and this is what causes the "easily-misunderstood" percentage comparisons often quoted. Actually you could easily turn it round the other way and say a low earner pays just 1/5th or 1/6th tax that a comparative high earner would to demonstrate an economy that supports the majority of workers.

What's "easily-misunderstood"? It is what it is.

Everyone gets that the more you pay, the more tax you pay. Of course, understood.

This thread is about fairness. I do not accept the stereotypical labour, lazy viewpoint that taking even more money off people to give it to others is automatically and by its very definition "more fair".

Your thread is about "fairness" and you are quoting comparisons of tax paid by using an irrelevant formula and saying it is weighted unfairly towards lower paid workers. The formula is irrelevant because if I was to compare a very low paid worker who pays no tax against anyone who does pay tax, the increase is infinite. In other words you can pick your values to suit your argument.

Hence why I say the comparison is easily misunderstood.

You're talking nonsense. There's nothing to misunderstand. The figures are what they are. Pick any salary levels and they show those on higher earnings paying disproportionately more in tax. That's it.

Why not tell us the tax system you think is fair, because unless you want a straight flat tax rate for all earnings (which hasn't been tried in any modern democratic country as far as I know), your formula will produce these types of comparisons whatever you do.

I have my own views, but that's really not the point. The point is, MORE TAX does not automatically mean MORE FAIR.

 

[Chippy_boy]

What's "easily-misunderstood"? It is what it is.

Everyone gets that the more you pay, the more tax you pay. Of course, understood.

This thread is about fairness. I do not accept the stereotypical labour, lazy viewpoint that taking even more money off people to give it to others is automatically and by its very definition "more fair".

Your thread is about "fairness" and you are quoting comparisons of tax paid by using an irrelevant formula and saying it is weighted unfairly towards lower paid workers. The formula is irrelevant because if I was to compare a very low paid worker who pays no tax against anyone who does pay tax, the increase is infinite. In other words you can pick your values to suit your argument.

Hence why I say the comparison is easily misunderstood.

Why not tell us the tax system you think is fair, because unless you want a straight flat tax rate for all earnings (which hasn't been tried in any modern democratic country as far as I know), your formula will produce these types of comparisons whatever you do.

Is it fair that yaya you're earns more in a day than a casualty nurse earns In a year?

Is it fair that bank bosses early billions bankrupting the country?

Is it fair that where you are born and brought up determines your education?

Life isn't fair it never will be, some of us are lucky in life some aren't, some make that luck others just get it.

The only question is whether you believe in a society or whether you believe it is all about you,

Absolutely that is NOT the only question, although in certain respects you seem to be agreeing with me!

But the two other questions are "how do we actually pay for this society that you obviously believe in". And "how much more should the better off have to pay".

The real irony in all of this is that it's shown time and time again that you actually generate more tax revenues by cutting rates of tax. In their struggle to be "more fair", Labour end up fucking up the economy by taxing everyone too much and then "society" - all of us - suffer.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Simple answer is id love to pay £76,000 a year income tax, fucking love it and id guess the vast majority would too!

Course you would. But just because you would "fucking love it" doesn't mean its automatically "fair". I'd love it if someone gave me all their savings.

I don't condone benefit fraud or tax evasion, so what's your point?

Tax evasion doesn't justify taxing honest rich people more. Nor does benefit fraud justify cutting honest peoples' benefits. Basically, tax evasion and benefit fraud have got nothing to do with the thread.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

What's "easily-misunderstood"? It is what it is.

Everyone gets that the more you pay, the more tax you pay. Of course, understood.

This thread is about fairness. I do not accept the stereotypical labour, lazy viewpoint that taking even more money off people to give it to others is automatically and by its very definition "more fair".

Your thread is about "fairness" and you are quoting comparisons of tax paid by using an irrelevant formula and saying it is weighted unfairly towards lower paid workers. The formula is irrelevant because if I was to compare a very low paid worker who pays no tax against anyone who does pay tax, the increase is infinite. In other words you can pick your values to suit your argument.

Hence why I say the comparison is easily misunderstood.

You're talking nonsense. There's nothing to misunderstand. The figures are what they are. Pick any salary levels and they show those on higher earnings paying disproportionately more in tax. That's it.

Why not tell us the tax system you think is fair, because unless you want a straight flat tax rate for all earnings (which hasn't been tried in any modern democratic country as far as I know), your formula will produce these types of comparisons whatever you do.

I have my own views, but that's really not the point. The point is, MORE TAX does not automatically mean MORE FAIR.

I'm talking nonsense am I? Maybe I should give up my day job then and join the benefits queue. Then again, I seem to be earning quite well so must be doing something right.