We're All In This Together .....

[ahinton]

[QUOTE=teamsaint;136866]

look forward to resuming this later.I don't really understand why you seem to think we are so far apart.
I believe on low taxes, fair taxes (which means the rich pay more than others) and good, no very good public services.
Believing in low taxes, (where it is possible) is not the same as wanting the rich to carry on tearing this country apart with their greed.
Where there is a will........

I didn't say that we are "far apart" on this; I merely pointed out some inaccuracies in one of your posts and expressed some doubts about other items within other posts of yours.

The rich do, for the most part, pay more taxes than the less well off; yes, a few manage not to, but they're not really in the majority. I don;t agree that "the rich" - whoever they are - are "tearing this country apart", although at the same time I do agree with you that greed does no one any favours, at whaever income and asset value level it might occur.

[ahinton]

Surely it is simple. Those who are paying their taxes and don't like the situation can go elsewhere if they wish.

No, it isn't simple. Those whom you mention can do lost of different things according to their wishes in order to try as best they and their advisers can to keep their tax liabilities under control.

Those who aren't paying their taxes and decide to go elsewhere should be arrested at the airport and taken to court.

At whose expense? Do you think that arresting, holding in custody and then trying such people in court when they would for the most part have access to very expensive and adept lawyers is a good idea, especially when cases against such people fail and the taxpayer has to pick up the entire bill including costs?

It is claimed our tax rates are the fourth highest in the world. I'm not sure whether I believe this.

Nor am I, frankly, although I wouldn't be entirely surprised; again, one would have to take into account all taxes, direct and indirect, in order to make intelligent and meaningful comparisons towards the end of creating a kind of taxation league table.

If I did, I might ask what good has been done by lower tax rates in the vast majority of countries with economies in an even worse state than ours. The evidence for any close correlation between low tax rates and prosperity seems flimsy.

I think that you'd have to do far more than that, to the extent that by no means all low tax countries have "economies in an even worse state than ours"; the evidence for any such correlation would accordingly be far harder to come by and make stick than you appear to suggest here.

[Anna]

I thought, the Lib Dems? pledged all those low waged, i.e. below £10,000 earners would pay no tax until they got above that figure? Never mind the high earners, what about the low paid, if the personal allowance was raised from £7,224 or whatever it is to £10,000, would not that boost the economy and benefit those whose assets from savings are fast disappearing. Why all this concern about the high earners and their tax? Surely the ordinary men and women are more deserving of your attention?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I see nothing wrong with paying tax, particularly income tax, which is the fairest form of taxation. The most unfair is the present dishonest government's enforcement of a stealth tax on public sector employees, called by the said government an increase in pension contributions, even though the present contribution levels are sustainable, but the dishonest government will not release the figures.

[teamsaint]

I thought, the Lib Dems? pledged all those low waged, i.e. below £10,000 earners would pay no tax until they got above that figure? Never mind the high earners, what about the low paid, if the personal allowance was raised from £7,224 or whatever it is to £10,000, would not that boost the economy and benefit those whose assets from savings are fast disappearing. Why all this concern about the high earners and their tax? Surely the ordinary men and women are more deserving of your attention?

but to get tax working well, and with as much fairness as possible you need to get it right across the spectrum of income and wealth.
Its absolutely right that getting tax rates fair for most ordinary people is critical.......but if the rich under pay, then the less well off must over pay.
I agree about the personal allowance. It should be as high as possible, even though , in some ways, it benefits high earners more than lower earners.I would like to see it at the same level as minimum wage for a full time worker.

Income tax is not necessarily the fairest form of taxation......it depends on the detail, rates and other factors.....and the very rich frequently find ways of avoiding it.(hence the unfairness).
Income tax is also, in my opinion, pretty corrosive. Call it a tithe, and it looks pretty unattractive. The government take your money before you ever see it, and spend it on things and in ways of which you disapprove. It can also carry, as the rich love to tell us, a big disincentive to work.

If you think income tax is the answer to our economic problems, ask yourself why it hasn't solved our public finance problems, and why governments are so keen on it.
An element of tax on income is unavoidable probably.......but how you do that needs careful thought.

These are just my honest thoughts on a very difficult subject !!

[teamsaint]

I see nothing wrong with paying tax, particularly income tax, which is the fairest form of taxation. The most unfair is the present dishonest government's enforcement of a stealth tax on public sector employees, called by the said government an increase in pension contributions, even though the present contribution levels are sustainable, but the dishonest government will not release the figures.

their reluctance to publish the figures is a scandal, As is the creation of a jobless generation while older workers slave on, or take reduced benefits.

[Flosshilde]

ONe person to whom I spoke not long ago told me that he had paid nearly £100,000 in taxes on income in the previous tgax year and that he'd implemented very little planning to reduce this sum as he'd not expected to receive anything like as much income as he did ultimately receive; he added that he felt that £60,000 or so would have been a fairer gigure and he'd not have complained about that but, as he'd paid tens of thousands more than that, he'd be implementing planning to get some of the excess back and ensure that his next tax bill would be more reasonable.

Surely even you can see what is so very very wrong about this little story. If he had earned enough to pay £100,000 in tax how would £60,000 be 'fairer'? It simply demonstrates the point that John Skelton made, that those who complain about a 50% rate simply believe that paying tax on their income is unreasonable.

[Lateralthinking1]

Perhaps what is also unfair is the way in which these people grab free education, free healthcare and state pensions. It isn't as if they are in need.

Who on earth earns over £200,000 annually anyway? A far higher percentage than people realise are employees rather than employers - doctors, surgeons, pilots, scientists, company lawyers, footballers.

You might as well say that a travelling salesman should employ someone to advise him on how to drive at 130mph without being caught. After all, the "unfair" 70mph speed limit is affecting his profits.

Apparently among those who have a problem with tax rates is a group called anarcho-capitalists. To my mind, that says absolutely everything anyone needs to know.

[ahinton]

I thought, the Lib Dems? pledged all those low waged, i.e. below £10,000 earners would pay no tax until they got above that figure? Never mind the high earners, what about the low paid, if the personal allowance was raised from £7,224 or whatever it is to £10,000, would not that boost the economy and benefit those whose assets from savings are fast disappearing. Why all this concern about the high earners and their tax? Surely the ordinary men and women are more deserving of your attention?

They did indeed pledge that and I'm all in favour of it but they're the also-rans of government so there seems to be little if any likelihood (at lest at present) of it becoming policy.

[teamsaint]

Personal allowance is up to £8105 from April 2012 (up £600 from april 2011).

They actually are implementing this pledge.(although more slowly than the lib dems would like).

This is a rare example of a government actually carrying out a really good policy, in my humble opinion.

This policy is actually good for the best off, since they get a tax reduction at their highest rate. But for all that it REALLY helps the low paid.

In an ideal world we would have a much higher PA, allied to an integrated benefits system., which would increase benefits and reward for working, whilst giving us good welfare benefits with much reduced bureaucracy........but that is a pipe dream, sadly.

[ahinton]

Surely even you can see what is so very very wrong about this little story. If he had earned enough to pay £100,000 in tax how would £60,000 be 'fairer'? It simply demonstrates the point that John Skelton made, that those who complain about a 50% rate simply believe that paying tax on their income is unreasonable.

I don't agree with your point. I do not say that he is right - or wrong - but simply expressing an opinion that differs widely from the kind of accusation made about people who would rather - and are determined if possible to - pay no tax at all. It's hardly unreasonable to have a view about how much tax one considers is a fair amount to extract from one's income, is it? My point was to diffentiate between those who think that they're expected to pay too much tax (and there are instances of such people from the poorest to the wealthiest) and those who think they have some kind of divine right to avoid paying any tax whatsoever, regardless of how much income they take.

[ahinton]

Perhaps what is also unfair is the way in which these people grab free education, free healthcare and state pensions. It isn't as if they are in need.

It might seem to be a valid point, but the entire purpose of state provision of these facilities was and still is to make them available to all. Some people complain about how those on relatively high incomes can (and often do) pay for private education and healthcare, yet now you come along and complain about the same kinds of people taking advantage of satte provision of these facilities even when they can afford to pay for them privately! You can't have it both ways.

Who on earth earns over £200,000 annually anyway?

Not so very many, of course - yet more than sufficient, it would seem, to get people here and elsewhere worked up into a lather about their tax liabilities!

A far higher percentage than people realise are employees rather than employers - doctors, surgeons, pilots, scientists, company lawyers, footballers.

Well, of course, but what is your point in mentioning this? Even so, these employers have to pay tax on each and every one of their employees, so the liabilities of the larger employers, state and othewise, is immense.

You might as well say that a travelling salesman should employ someone to advise him on how to drive at 130mph without being caught. After all, the "unfair" 70mph speed limit is affecting his profits.

Well, you might; I wouldn't! It's likely to be increased to 80mph in any case, inline with other European countries. As to affecting profits, the extent to which employers can now get employees to do work when in transit on trains, planes and the like has increased vastly and once the fully automated car becomes a reality they'll be able to extract vastly more profit from their employees than they can do now.

Apparently among those who have a problem with tax rates are a group called anarcho-capitalists. To my mind, that says absolutely everything anyone needs to know.

Among others who also do so are - er - governments. To my mind, that says absolutely everything that anyone doesn't want to know...

[teamsaint]

Originally Posted by Lateralthinking1
Who on earth earns over £200,000 annually anyway?
Not so very many, of course - yet more than sufficient, it would seem, to get people here and elsewhere worked up into a lather about their tax liabilities!

yes,we get worked up because most people are absolutely sick to death of year after year of pay freezes and cuts, increased workloads, pensions rights being slashed, unemployment, endlessly increasing costs of living, while the top 1%(or so) enjoy the fat of the land at our expense, and demand tax cuts to boot.

[ahinton]

Originally Posted by Lateralthinking1
Who on earth earns over £200,000 annually anyway?
Not so very many, of course - yet more than sufficient, it would seem, to get people here and elsewhere worked up into a lather about their tax liabilities!

yes,we get worked up because most people are absolutely sick to death of year after year of pay freezes and cuts, increased workloads, pensions rights being slashed, unemployment, endlessly increasing costs of living, while the top 1%(or so) enjoy the fat of the land at our expense, and demand tax cuts to boot.

Has it ever occurred to you (and maybe if it has done, does it really matter to you) that "pay freezes and cuts, increased workloads, pensions rights being slashed, unemployment, endlessly increasing costs of living" can affect people on all income levels otherthan those who are able to live without any need to derive an income from working? The pension rights of those on higher incomes, for example, have been reduced immensely.

[Flosshilde]

The pension rights of those on higher incomes, for example, have been reduced immensely.

I weep.