For all you tax and spend guys

[Ian Anderson]

So I pose a question

Perhaps there should be an upper limit of the amount of tax you pay
After that amount you have paid your fair dues

But at the same time there should also be a minimum amount you contribute
After all everyone should pay their share

I still believe the fairest is a transaction tax on EVERYTHING that goes through the bank. Each time you deposit between 2 and 5% is deducted as your tax. 2 - 5% of GDP is more than enough to keep amy government in funds

IAn

 

[domtoni]

Ian, are you saying for those making GBP 10M, an upper tax rate limit or a total tax amount paid on say GBP 5M?

Or are you suggesting that the tax rates be cut and a tax paid on transactions through the banks?

 

[Ian Anderson]

Dom
I favour a single ax paid by everyone every time any money is credited to any account in the country.

But other than that yes perhaps a maximum tax payable sort of like Maggie's Poll tax

Everyone had to pay their way - after that you could spend your money how you want. Need more money - earn more!

Ian

 

[domtoni]

Doesn't sound like a bad idea Ian. But Maggie's poll tax was anything but popular. I can still hear the cries in the streets from people who thought it was unfair.

 

[Graham]

Doesn't sound like a bad idea Ian. But Maggie's poll tax was anything but popular. I can still hear the cries in the streets from people who thought it was unfair.

And yet it was the fairest way to tax a household in many ways...

 

[domtoni]

Wasn't it the poll tax which brought Maggie down? I guess people don't like fair taxation.

 

[Ian Anderson]

So in the UK you earn £1 000 000
Tax 40% £400 000 (Ignore the first 30k at 205)
National insurance 12.6% £126 000
This leave you with £474 000

Everything is taxed at 20% VAT £ 94 800 in VAT

Petrol sat £100 per week 52% duty £2700 in fuel duty

So the Government lets this "poor man" keep £376 500

So is it fair to be left with about 1/3 of what you earn when some sponger expects to be given a flat screen telly whilst he sits on his arse?

Is it fair that he has a total tax rate of 62.4%?

Come on no wonder people are moving money offshore to "tax havens."

Ian

 

[Graham]

So in the UK you earn £1 000 000
Tax 40% £400 000 (Ignore the first 30k at 205)
National insurance 12.6% £126 000
This leave you with £474 000

Everything is taxed at 20% VAT £ 94 800 in VAT

Petrol sat £100 per week 52% duty £2700 in fuel duty

So the Government lets this "poor man" keep £376 500

So is it fair to be left with about 1/3 of what you earn when some sponger expects to be given a flat screen telly whilst he sits on his arse?

Is it fair that he has a total tax rate of 62.4%?

Come on no wonder people are moving money offshore to "tax havens."

Ian

It's just as well he doesn't smoke and drink, 'cos then he'd be truly fucked

 

[domtoni]

So in the UK you earn £1 000 000
Tax 40% £400 000 (Ignore the first 30k at 205)
National insurance 12.6% £126 000
This leave you with £474 000

Everything is taxed at 20% VAT £ 94 800 in VAT

Petrol sat £100 per week 52% duty £2700 in fuel duty

So the Government lets this "poor man" keep £376 500

So is it fair to be left with about 1/3 of what you earn when some sponger expects to be given a flat screen telly whilst he sits on his arse?

Is it fair that he has a total tax rate of 62.4%?

Come on no wonder people are moving money offshore to "tax havens."

Ian

Ian,

I thought the following
- NI taxes were 8.5%, and the company was on 12.5%
- Perhaps not everyone making that much money would buy that must stuff to pay that much in VAT, but who knows.
- If he drives a Range Rover, Bentley or something similar, GBP 100/week in fuel is fair

But your point is well noted.

Not sure if you have seen this from Pat Condell on the recent riots :
Britain is a riot - 3 Translation(s) | dotSUB

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Sure they are. They just make less. Think about why...what happened in 2008?

Well, the financial markets collapsed and unemployment doubled.

If they idea is that "high taxes" caused this it's bunk.

Sure they are they just make less? You may want to think about that.

 

[Doug S.]

I think the rich should pay next to nothing provided they are allowed to spend it on luxury goods...I also think older people are a drain on the system, they use more facilities like hospitals, doctors and so should pay more, much more.
I'm sure when doug sits and reflects on this he will agree.

Yep, I agree...fortunately, at 62 I am in excellent health, take no prescription drugs, haven't even seen a doctor for many years except for the bi-annual cleaning of teeth and the annual "bend over" exam. Haven't needed treatment for either of those conditions for 10 years, thank goodness!!

However, if it were determined that older people needed to pay more for medical insurance (as they do for life insurance, based on actuarial tables developed over the past two centuries), I would be glad to contribute my share if it were for the general good of our society, even though I don't really need those medical services...yes, IMHO the good of the society outweighs the greed of the few.

Here it is



Let's see if Doug will see it !

I see it, Keith :idea: ! I frequently say "Sarcasm is only one of the fine services I offer", glad to see you do, too!

I still believe the fairest is a transaction tax on EVERYTHING that goes through the bank. Each time you deposit between 2 and 5% is deducted as your tax.

Ian, here in the USA there is a HUGE population who do not have bank accounts. Try to write a check in an Asian restaurant, you can't they don't believe in banks. The vast majority of "undocumented immigrants" (understatment is yet another of my many fine services) take their paychecks to a check-cashing store, where they do pay a small percentage of the proceeds in order to get cash, and their cash never seen the inside of a bank teller's drawer....however, a LOT of it does get turned into money orders and sent back to Mexico.

I, for one, would like to function on more of a cash basis than I do, but unfortunately the financial institutions have really made cash unnecessary with the prevalence of debit cards. There are very FEW panhandlers in downtown Houston these days, most of the citizens they target say the same thing I do...."Sorry, I don't carry cash anymore, I use a debit card."

I guess my point here is that there will ALWAYS be those who want to circumvent the procedures in place that are meant to ensure that they pay their FAIR share of the cost of running our country. The wealthy circumvent it by hiding their assets and hiring attorneys, accountants, and legislators to make sure their "visible" income is only a small percentage of their gross income. The undocumented immigrant population, which is HUGE here in the Houston area, willingly gives up 2 or 3% of their paycheck to the check cashing stores in order to avoid having to use the services of a bank. Bartering is coming back as a way of life in the midwest, where a rancher can trade a yearling calf for a whole bunch of dental work, a farmer can trade a truckload of wheat for repairs to his car, a carpenter can trade his labor for an old pickup that the farmer/rancher no longer needs. These transactions would avoid your taxation method, and they are becoming more and more prevalent than you would realize.

Regardless of the taxation method, it is still MHO that the wealthy and large corporations, who can well afford it, should gladly pay what they feel is a disproportionate share in exchange for the protections that America offers....where else in the world can they find a nation whose legislators protect their profits, ensure their profits (insurance companies are granted rates that ENSURE their profits), and where there is even a prominent and powerful political party that believes these protections and assurances need to be increased, and holds the entire country hostage in the process of negotiating for increases for those very protections and assurances.

Gotta love America, the land of opportunity.....I'm just sayin', ya gotta pay for the benefits (and the wealthy benefit disproportionately more than the poor) that opportunity provides--where else are you going to find what I've described?

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Ian Anderson]

Ian, here in the USA there is a HUGE population who do not have bank accounts. Try to write a check in an Asian restaurant, you can't they don't believe in banks. The vast majority of "undocumented immigrants" (understatment is yet another of my many fine services) take their paychecks to a check-cashing store, where they do pay a small percentage of the proceeds in order to get cash, and their cash never seen the inside of a bank teller's drawer....however, a LOT of it does get turned into money orders and sent back to Mexico.
!!

Doug

They still get taxed
The cheque cashing company will eventually deposit the cheque in a bank - it gets taxed!

~~In order to get a money order the money goes into a money transfer company (post office / bank / money changer etc) itis a deposit - gets taxed

Trust me it will work

Ian

 

[Ian Anderson]

Ian,

I thought the following
- NI taxes were 8.5%, and the company was on 12.5%
- Perhaps not everyone making that much money would buy that must stuff to pay that much in VAT, but who knows.
- If he drives a Range Rover, Bentley or something similar, GBP 100/week in fuel is fair

But your point is well noted.

Not sure if you have seen this from Pat Condell on the recent riots :
Britain is a riot - 3 Translation(s) | dotSUB

Thanks Dom
If he owns the company he is payin both the employers and employeeds NI so gets even less as a % of what he earns!

And as Gravy says if he smokes or drinks he's well and truly screwed!

Ian

 

[domtoni]

Thanks Dom
If he owns the company he is payin both the employers and employeeds NI so gets even less as a % of what he earns!

And as Gravy says if he smokes or drinks he's well and truly screwed!

Ian

I saw where a decent bottle of drinkable wine went from GBP 3 to now almost GBP 4.50. Beer in a pub went from GBP 2.00 to 3.00. Cigarettes are now at GBP 6 a pack (or is it more, don't smoke). Talk about a screw job !!

 

[Doug S.]

Doug

They still get taxed
The cheque cashing company will eventually deposit the cheque in a bank - it gets taxed!

~~In order to get a money order the money goes into a money transfer company (post office / bank / money changer etc) itis a deposit - gets taxed

Trust me it will work

Ian

Hmmmm.....you know, Ian, I hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks for explaining it better :thumbsup: ! The "undocumented immigrant" will not pay out of his pocket (unless the check cashing company passes the tax along to him/her), but the $$ will be taxed, never-the-less.

Sounds to me like it is getting taxed twice in the scenario described above, though....am I missing something still?

Cheers! Doug

 

[Nick]

I beg the question. Back in the 70s when the UK top tax rate was 92%, why did the monied people leave the country?

We seemed to survive their leaving.

It dosn't need a 92% rate for them to leave.

In October 2007, Hamilton announced his intention to live in Switzerland, stating that this was because he wished to get away from the media scrutiny that he experienced living in the United Kingdom. Hamilton admitted under questioning on the television show Parkinson, which was broadcast on 10 November 2007, that taxation was partly responsible for his decision.

More importantly to me how many stayed and helped their country out of a difficult time, those are the ones I admire.

Pity Lewis didn't think more about how this country and it's tax payers helped his dad when he was in need.

"Anthony Hamilton's parents emigrated from Grenada to the United Kingdom in the 1950s"

Every article and facts I have ever seen from all political sides of the press shows that despite continuous complaints about high taxation, and claims it will destroy the rich, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to get wider.

 

[Graham]

We seemed to survive their leaving.

It dosn't need a 92% rate for them to leave.

In October 2007, Hamilton announced his intention to live in Switzerland, stating that this was because he wished to get away from the media scrutiny that he experienced living in the United Kingdom. Hamilton admitted under questioning on the television show Parkinson, which was broadcast on 10 November 2007, that taxation was partly responsible for his decision.

More importantly to me how many stayed and helped their country out of a difficult time, those are the ones I admire.

Pity Lewis didn't think more about how this country and it's tax payers helped his dad when he was in need.

"Anthony Hamilton's parents emigrated from Grenada to the United Kingdom in the 1950s"

Every article and facts I have ever seen from all political sides of the press shows that despite continuous complaints about high taxation, and claims it will destroy the rich, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to get wider.

Nick, I agree. It's a point of fact that since the great collapse of a few years ago, the divide between rich and poor is larger than ever....

 

[domtoni]

Poverty begins with the spirit, and people who are rich or poor suffer from it. But you can't take someone who has an entitlement mentality and give him a job and expect him to do well just off the bat. More money isn't going to solve the problem. The UK has perhaps the best social safety net in the world, and riots are the result?

There is more wrong.

And Lewis isn't the only rich Brit living in Monaco. One way to stop this is like the US treats its expats. US expats pay local taxes, submit an annual tax return to the US and then pay what they earn over and above local taxes to the USA. How many UK expats are living in no or low tax areas and are not contributing to the UK tax base?

But if you listen to BBC2's Jeremy Vine, some contend that even these folks get the OAP GBP 250 winter fuel allowance. Not sure if that is true or not.

 

[Mark]

Why would anyone be happy to pay 90%+ tax? Why? If you earn enough to qualify for that sort of tax level, you'd be a fool to stick around IMO. All this talk I hear about 'doing the right thing' and supporting the country you live in etc etc, is utter bunkum.

We may admire someone who does stay and endure that tax level, but I assure you they will have their own reasons for doing so and it will most likely not be through a desire to support society, even if that is the claim.

If I earnt enough to incure that sort of Tax, guess here I'd be living........People who 'make' that sort of money IMO managed to do it despite the country they live in, not usually thanks to the country they live in.

I seriously hate the suggestion that anyone with more than someone else should contribute more out of some kind of Moral obligation. I find that offensive, but accept it will never change.

It's the old " look at that fat cat in his Jaguar" syndrome. Jealousy disguised as moral fortitude. Sicko's.

 

[Mark]

Are we really suggesting that it is wrong for a high rate tax payer to be entitled to claim the winter fuel allowance when he gets old? He paid for it!

Paying more in tax to 'support' the nation should not result in a loss of rights or entitlement should it?

Should high-rate payers be excluded from access to the national health service? Should they be forced to pay for private health care, simply because they can afford it and it would alleviate some of the burden on the NHS?

There should never been any form of penalty levied against success. No matter how much you do or don't earn, there are many people who spend money on frivelous things. GT40's for example! If you take the view that those with more should contribute proportionately more 'morally', then I cannot see how we can argue that any unnecessary luxury is reasonable or morally acceptable. Put on an orange robe and sit cross-legged half-way up a mountain!

If a member of my staff cannot afford to pay their mortgage payment, should I be obliged to pay it for them, just because I may have dispossable income left over?

I just don't get it guys. Help me to understand why fair can only work one way.