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

[teamsaint]

have to disagree with Beefoven here.
the complexity in our system really has nothing to do with the number of tax bands......in the computer age that is not even vaguely a problem.

Complexity lies elsewhere.The idea of a single flat rate is inherenly unfair if you believe that the more you have , the more you should porportionately pay. i really don't see why people on £1m a year should pay the same marginal rate as those on £15k.

I would keep the bands,amalgamated with NIC and have several, maybe 10 p , 20 p 30p 40 p and perhaps 50 p and higher.The rich have to pay. Most of the very rich aren't "earning " their money in any sense that most people would understand it.

[ahinton]

The rich have to pay. Most of the very rich aren't "earning " their money in any sense that most people would understand it.

Those who live entirely or mainly off investment income - from the "very rich" to the relatively poor - aren't doing so, to be sure, but I suspect that this may not have been what you meant; I assume that you're talking instead about people not "earning" their money if what they get paid for working is, say, at a rate equivalent to 300 times the national minimum wage but, if so, who is to say what anyone shold pay anyone else for dong anything? Subject to legal minima (such as the national minimum wage), it's surely up to the payer to decide what he/she thinks represents value for money.

The problem with your concern about people being on the same marginal rate of tax regardless of the amounts of their incomes is that it runs the risk of straying into the politics of envy arena, along the lines of "I'm going to tax you at 95% because your income is £15M p.a. and I don't think that you should be paid that much".

[Lateralthinking1]

The problem with your concern about people being on the same marginal rate of tax regardless of the amounts of their incomes is that it runs the risk of straying into the politics of envy arena, along the lines of "I'm going to tax you at 95% because your income is £15M p.a. and I don't think that you should be paid that much".

Ah yes, the politics of envy as was said to me by a supposedly Labour leaning senior Civil Servant, previously a Thatcherite. Still a Thatcherite behind all the words and stances.

How about the politics of greed? As I put forward the argument for serious redistribution, I do so knowing that others would qualify for greater benefits whereas I would qualify for none, though unemployed.

Why? Because I think of others in the round. The politics of greed on the other hand thinks of self.

Is it that a lower tax rate ahinton would make all the difference to you between surviving and not surviving? Is your situation that precarious? If not, have you thought that it is those whose situation is precarious who should be prioritised?

Or is this the politics of enjoying another annual holiday knowing that the consequence of that for others will be worrying about paying for food? Is this in fact the politics of "I'm all right Jack, they are nothing to do with me, stupid and inferior"?

The problem with the politics of envy is that it presupposes that there is something of which to be envious. How can there be envy of a stance that assumes it is on higher ground when actually it hasn't got a moral leg to stand on? I am just grateful that I will never stoop so low. It would be embarrassing.

[Lateralthinking1]

......That's getting on for fifteen points I have made since yesterday evening that no one has attempted to answer. The fact is that when it comes to the "me first" agenda, people only discuss that until it appears that it isn't to their advantage. They run out of arguments and then quickly disengage.

I always find it gob smacking how people of my educational background, some a bit more qualified, many considerably less so, believe that they are so superior to the average member of the public and indeed the poor. I'm not above them. Nor are you.

[MrGongGong]

What I found most sad at the last election was that ALL the parties were appealing to self interest, "vote for us and we will make YOU better off" the whole rhetoric of "you're worth it" , "hard working families" etc etc
I think we have more or less completely abandoned compassion and empathy , (and apologies for repeating myself)....... I was at a special school yesterday recording a soundtrack for a film, the kind of school that Camerons son would have gone to. It is very clear that his policies are adversely affecting those children to a far greater degree than the rest of society. So much for experience bringing wisdom then ? Someone with such a lack of concern and empathy (unlike the students I was working with yesterday !) shouldn't be let anywhere near the leavers of power, I wouldn't even trust him with the scissors :sadface: does this mean that as a society we are becoming more like that ? I certainly hope not

[Lateralthinking1]

I certainly hope not

Quite Mr GG. There is only one rich part of my family. Lovely people in many respects but tight like you wouldn't believe. This is no joke. In a standard pizza restaurant, they get as much pineapple as they can in the salad bowls to avoid having to pay for a dessert.

Elsewhere, if asked if everything is alright, the standard answer is "yes but we could do with some more." Then come the second and third helpings. Rather than giving money away to charity, they are behaving like homeless tramps.

This I have found is quite typical of the well-off. Other members of the family had a few coppers to rub together and fought to give their small amounts of money to others who were needy. It is not a phrase I would normally use but actually the whole ethos of the well-off makes me want to puke.

When I see it in business, it is the one thing that is guaranteed to make me shop somewhere else. By contrast, if someone gives me a reasonable deal, I will give them extra money if I can afford it and go back there again.

Even fast running out of money as I am now, I will say to others "what would you like?", "you go first", "you can take the last one". That is how I like people to be towards me. The moment I sense that they are taking advantage, I just don't want to know.

[ahinton]

Is it that a lower tax rate ahinton would make all the difference to you between surviving and not surviving? Is your situation that precarious? If not, have you thought that it is those whose situation is precarious who should be prioritised?

I'm a composer so, yes, it's a pretty precarious existence - but none of what I've written on this subject is about me and my personal situation. In any case, I've not particulary advocated a lower tax rate for all - merely put forward the commendability of a higher income tax threshold and the reintroduction of a 10% starting rate of income tax as helpful to the lower paid; clearly, the absorption of NIC into general income taxation will require some use of slightly higher income tax rates than those to which we are currently accustomed, subject to the extent of the administrative and management cost savings that will result from that most welcome merger of tax mechanisms.

Or is this the politics of enjoying another annual holiday knowing that the consequence of that for others will be worrying about paying for food? Is this in fact the politics of "I'm all right Jack, they are nothing to do with me, stupid and inferior"?

I think that my answer to that should be clear from the above.

The problem with the politics of envy is that it presupposes that there is something of which to be envious. How can there be envy of a stance that assumes it is on higher ground when actually it hasn't got a moral leg to stand on? I am just grateful that I will never stoop so low. It would be embarrassing.

The politics of envy that arises in those who want to tax certain people on high incomes simply because thay happen not to approve of their income levels is whatg it problematic here; perhaps the word "envy" should beter be replaced with "jealousy". Be that as it may, the envy and/or jealousy involved here is of people who believe that the receipt of high incomes is itself unequivocally immoral, regardless of circumstances. Personally, I simply do not subscribe to the view that people on incomes such as I receive should feel aggrieved because some other people receive 7- or 8-figure annual incomes as long as they haven't stolen any part of those incomes from what ought and would otherwise be part of mine.

[ahinton]

......That's getting on for fifteen points I have made since yesterday evening that no one has attempted to answer. The fact is that when it comes to the "me first" agenda, people only discuss that until it appears that it isn't to their advantage. They run out of arguments and then quickly disengage.

I always find it gob smacking how people of my educational background, some a bit more qualified, many considerably less so, believe that they are so superior to the average member of the public and indeed the poor. I'm not above them. Nor are you.

I agree with your view here - but that's not the same subject as the incomes that people receive. Yes, some people on high incomes are contemptuous of some of those on lower ones and that is wholly indefensible and prifoundly unwelcome, but it's a different matter from the incomes themselves.

[ahinton]

What I found most sad at the last election was that ALL the parties were appealing to self interest, "vote for us and we will make YOU better off" the whole rhetoric of "you're worth it" , "hard working families" etc etc

I take your point, but how else could this credibly and reasonably be expressed if by "YOU" the entire electorate, including the lowest paid, is meant?

[ahinton]

Quite Mr GG. There is only one rich part of my family. Lovely people in many respects but tight like you wouldn't believe. This is no joke. In a standard pizza restaurant, they get as much pineapple as they can in the salad bowls to avoid having to pay for a dessert.

Elsewhere, if asked if everything is alright, the standard answer is "yes but we could do with some more." Then come the second and third helpings. Rather than giving money away to charity, they are behaving like homeless tramps.

This I have found is quite typical of the well-off. Other members of the family had a few coppers to rub together and fought to give their small amounts of money to others who were needy. It is not a phrase I would normally use but actually the whole ethos of the well-off makes me want to puke.

When I see it in business, it is the one thing that is guaranteed to make me shop somewhere else. By contrast, if someone gives me a reasonable deal, I will give them extra money if I can afford it and go back there again.

Even fast running out of money as I am now, I will say to others "what would you like?", "you go first", "you can take the last one". That is how I like people to be towards me. The moment I sense that they are taking advantage, I just don't want to know.

Again, I take your points, but I have encountered the meannesses and other unwelcome attitudes of mind such as those that you illustrate here among people of all income and asset holding groups rather than them being confined to the wealthy.

[Lateralthinking1]

Thank you for your considered comments. We are never going to share the same worldview. There is though something in your latest that reminds me more of the ahinton we normally read. It seems to me at least to recognise some of the other ground.

Yes I do have a problem with the highest earners now having a far greater multiple salary than the lowest earners. It is the opposite of progress. You walk around a village. You notice from the layout that it was originally a manorial estate. The lord's place at the heart of it and the servants' quarters dotted around. Modern life has equalled it out a bit. I don't want to see Britain returning to that point with, say, Wayne and Coleen in the mansion and everyone within two miles in sheds tugging their forelocks.

I would only constrain high earnings in the public sector. I'd want them linked closely to delivery. A little of this is being done but nowhere near enough. I have a far greater level of tolerance for big wealth when it is accompanied by generosity. I have spoken before about the families in the seventies who were very wealthy but welcoming to me. There was no jealousy. Their sons had to slum it by sharing when they came to us. Still, we made them welcome, they appreciated it, and weren't pompous. Even then, such people were a rarity. Everyone could certainly do with more of them now. I was an only child. It was always drummed into me that I should share whenever with others. People found that very surprising and I didn't know why. Now I think I do. It was my view that sharing was the more natural way between siblings but actually I think they fight with each other for what they can get.

I accept that some ordinary people can lack generosity. Attitude can matter more than money across the board. If you can't give a lot to others financially, you can always give something else. Currently it seems that the popular view is that giving is a weakness. Even the sport of fools. Much of it is systemic. For example, the arrogance of wealth is often based on the knowledge that only they can afford legal solutions. This enables them to act in unsocial ways. Even if they lose the rational argument and any moral standing, they think they are winners because they get away with whatever they are doing. Hence they are above the law.

Direct experience of real deprivation in communities is what can change earlier attitudes. Macmillan was someone who warned the well-off not to become too grasping. He certainly wasn't opposed to wealth per se but but he had been really shocked by what he found in his Stockton constituency. He couldn't allow that to perpetuate and be comfortable with himself. We run the risk of seeing again semi-Dickensian conditions. My worry is that the Camerons of this world do not have the capacity for the same sensitivity.

[handsomefortune]

perhaps there isn't really any escape from our personal views being coloured by our individual experiences and circumstances? how to separate this is virtually impossible surely? the politics of envy have made for splendid art...in the past.

your last half dozen posts make for a terrific, if scarily familiar read lateralthinking1! in that what you observe as a forty something, having worked in the public sector, yet surrounded by 'private egos' and their notorious insecurity, naggiing fears of 'not being worth it'.... ever more disposable cash alleviating paranoid symptoms. (they hope in vain). seemingly, a clean conscience, and a genuine sense of purpose has been vastly under rated in recent times.

i also totally relate as regards rich relies 'grabbing extra pineapple chunks instead of paying for pudding' :laugh: (except i've got a pineapple hog visiting my 'hovel' tomorrow....maybe i should go out instead)?

as for ahinton's assumptions of 'jealousy' - you must be joking .... personally i wouldn't swop places for anything, and especially not for money. :erm: keep tugging your forelock and it'll just lead to hair loss! :winkeye: however, there's no comparison between earning a living creatively and working in the public sector .....so i guess i do acknowlege the stark differences, and the way patronage affects views as regards a more acute sensation of dependency on the wealthy. to an extent, the creative industries rely on the spare cash of the rich.....unfortunately. although imv this has been bigged up to unrealistic proportions in the last decade or so, and it's pretty unhealthy ... for creatives especially. even mr satchi, Himself, is apparently feeling billious, has over done the pineapple, only to find that oligarchs have eaten even more chunks, yet are still fashionably ravenous.

BUT none of this excuses the rich from paying their proportionate dues in tax though, and red herrings, threats and excuses change nothing imv. they'll still be able to afford art ....as it's a safer investment than paper money just now. characteristically, the rich are often insecure about 'good taste'....desperately needing a sticker with a wopping sum on, in order to 'evaluate' a purchase.....(as a generalisation, but still a useful rule of thumb). nevertheless, i can't help assuming that paying some hefty tax EVERY year might help the rich get in touch with their inner van gogh, and lay off the pineapple chunks..... instead of paying a dubious accountant to 'rearrange things'...albeit for an extortionate fee.

personally, i am peeved that lional shriver's recent film, (loosely) based on her creation 'we need to talk about kevin' wasn't actually another shriver story, called 'so much for that', about the wealthy in the US, and the trechery of private health care. art has a role to play in discussions about privilege, but only when creatives stop assuming that they depend on being approved of by the wealthy primarily. sorry if people find this 'off topic' but as i've pointed out initially, we can't help but be affected by our own experiences and personal opinion based on them. i guess the trade union rep from the US that made a virtual appearance at yesterday's nhs demo would make for terrific art, of some description. it might even heal a few souls sucked into the vacuum of boomtime compulsions ideally. unfortunately, the rich will never be omnipotent...whilst they ponder this thorny problem, they can still cough up some tax though. teamsaints' point about pc data making the sums owed in tax much more straight forward, perhaps illustrates our selective memory about what computers are capable of achieving in an egalitarian sense. rather than sections of the media missing the point purposely, calculating that endless articles about bill gates's charity will 'suffice'... instead of all high earners feeling a personal obligation to pay their dues. arguably, why ever have they come to expect otherwise?

[Lateralthinking1]

i also totally relate as regards rich relies 'grabbing extra pineapple chunks instead of paying for pudding' :laugh: (except i've got a pineapple hog visiting my 'hovel' tomorrow....maybe i should go out instead)?

:biggrin:

hf - I am just waiting for them to ask the local pizza house to replace the lettuce and onions with banana splits and black forest gateau.

[ahinton]

Thank you for your considered comments. We are never going to share the same worldview. There is though something in your latest that reminds me more of the ahinton we normally read. It seems to me at least to recognise some of the other ground.

Thank you - but I don't think that our view are necessarily as far apart as you may surmise.

Yes I do have a problem with the highest earners now having a far greater multiple salary than the lowest earners. It is the opposite of progress. You walk around a village. You notice from the layout that it was originally a manorial estate. The lord's place at the heart of it and the servants' quarters dotted around. Modern life has equalled it out a bit. I don't want to see Britain returning to that point with, say, Wayne and Coleen in the mansion and everyone within two miles in sheds tugging their forelocks.

Nor do I - with a vengeance, indeed! I simply do not believe in that kind of thing, which is why I couldn't care less how much money or what value assets and income other people have; I ndeed people to pay for what I do just as do others at all income levels for what they do, but all this talk of what's "reasonable and fair" pay for work done or amounts of tax that should be levied on people of any income and asset holding group is on a hiding to nothing, since it cannot by definition progress beyond the arena of individual personal opinion into a more generalistically meaningful scenario in which majorities could agree or evenbe entitled o agree on such matters.

I would only constrain high earnings in the public sector. I'd want them linked closely to delivery. A little of this is being done but nowhere near enough.

I see your point, but that, in practice, would likely either discourage people from involvement in the public sector or make those who already are so think "why am I being treated as some kind of second class citizen by some people simply because I happen to work in the public rather than the private sector?"...

I have a far greater level of tolerance for big wealth when it is accompanied by generosity. I have spoken before about the families in the seventies who were very wealthy but welcoming to me. There was no jealousy. Their sons had to slum it by sharing when they came to us. Still, we made them welcome, they appreciated it, and weren't pompous. Even then, such people were a rarity. Everyone could certainly do with more of them now. I was an only child. It was always drummed into me that I should share whenever with others. People found that very surprising and I didn't know why. Now I think I do. It was my view that sharing was the more natural way between siblings but actually I think they fight with each other for what they can get.

Indeed - I have no more patience with meanness and patronising behaviour than you do, wherever one might encounter it and I agree that there is ostensibly even less excuse for wealthy people to behave in this manner than there is for others to do so.

I accept that some ordinary people can lack generosity. Attitude can matter more than money across the board. If you can't give a lot to others financially, you can always give something else. Currently it seems that the popular view is that giving is a weakness. Even the sport of fools. Much of it is systemic.

In principle, I agree largely with what you write here.

For example, the arrogance of wealth is often based on the knowledge that only they can afford legal solutions. This enables them to act in unsocial ways. Even if they lose the rational argument and any moral standing, they think they are winners because they get away with whatever they are doing. Hence they are above the law.

Hence they (or at least some of them) think that they are above the law; the law is the law, whatever its shortcomings might be and it applies to all of us, in principle at least. "Legal solutions" are in any case only deemed necessary if there are "legal problems " to which resolution is likewise perceived to be necessary.

Direct experience of real deprivation in communities is what can change earlier attitudes. Macmillan was someone who warned the well-off not to become too grasping. He certainly wasn't opposed to wealth per se but but he had been really shocked by what he found in his Stockton constituency. He couldn't allow that to perpetuate and be comfortable with himself. We run the risk of seeing again semi-Dickensian conditions. My worry is that the Camerons of this world do not have the capacity for the same sensitivity.

Mine too, sadly - and they ought to know better. You make a good point here.

[ahinton]

as for ahinton's assumptions of 'jealousy' - you must be joking .... personally i wouldn't swop places for anything, and especially not for money. :erm: keep tugging your forelock and it'll just lead to hair loss! :winkeye:

I never joke about such things but at the same time I'm not accusing you or anyone in particular of such jealousy or envy - only those who possess it.

however, there's no comparison between earning a living creatively and working in the public sector .....so i guess i do acknowlege the stark differences, and the way patronage affects views as regards a more acute sensation of dependency on the wealthy. to an extent, the creative industries rely on the spare cash of the rich.....unfortunately. although imv this has been bigged up to unrealistic proportions in the last decade or so, and it's pretty unhealthy ... for creatives especially. even mr satchi, Himself, is apparently feeling billious, has over done the pineapple, only to find that oligarchs have eaten even more chunks, yet are still fashionably ravenous.

Well, as a composer, I guess that I'm as guilty as the next person if not more so in being dependent upon the spare cash of the rich and poor alike.

BUT none of this excuses the rich from paying their proportionate dues in tax though

But what are they? who determines and agrees those proportions and consequent taxation rates? (which, as I've already pointed out, have vacillated violently over the years and not only because of changing forces of circumstance).

they'll still be able to afford art ....as it's a safer investment than paper money just now. characteristically, the rich are often insecure about 'good taste'....desperately needing a sticker with a wopping sum on, in order to 'evaluate' a purchase.....(as a generalisation, but still a useful rule of thumb).

Art, gold, diamonds and the like fluctuate greatly as time goes on and there are no guarantees about their values at any time.

nevertheless, i can't help assuming that paying some hefty tax EVERY year might help the rich get in touch with their inner van gogh, and lay off the pineapple chunks..... instead of paying a dubious accountant to 'rearrange things'...albeit for an extortionate fee.

These extortionate professonal fees are often necessitated and incurred by wealthier taxpayers as a direct consequence and corollary of unwarrantably complex taxation structures more than merely by overtly high rates of tax.

personally, i am peeved that lional shriver's recent film, (loosely) based on her creation 'we need to talk about kevin' wasn't actually another shriver story, called 'so much for that', about the wealthy in the US, and the trechery of private health care. art has a role to play in discussions about privilege, but only when creatives stop assuming that they depend on being approved of by the wealthy primarily. sorry if people find this 'off topic' but as i've pointed out initially, we can't help but be affected by our own experiences and personal opinion based on them.

No one is going to pay for what people like me do unless they've got the money and are prepared to spendit on something which won't generate a profit in financial terms, however much it might do so in other terms.What in any case is so "treacherous" about private healthcare, in principle?

i guess the trade union rep from the US that made a virtual appearance at yesterday's nhs demo would make for terrific art, of some description. it might even heal a few souls sucked into the vacuum of boomtime compulsions ideally. unfortunately, the rich will never be omnipotent...whilst they ponder this thorny problem, they can still cough up some tax though. teamsaints' point about pc data making the sums owed in tax much more straight forward, perhaps illustrates our selective memory about what computers are capable of achieving in an egalitarian sense. rather than sections of the media missing the point purposely, calculating that endless articles about bill gates's charity will 'suffice'... instead of all high earners feeling a personal obligation to pay their dues. arguably, why ever have they come to expect otherwise?

The problem here is not merely that of determining what are wealthy people's "dues" but what are everyone's dues; there will always be disagreement about that across the populace as a whole, doubtless fuelled at least in part by the fact of the respective inabilities of various governments of whatever hue to determine what they could or should be (and that's not a criticism of governments, because it simply can't realistically be done by anyone to the broad agreement of the majority of the taxpaying populace, however well-intentioned in that regard any particular government might be or try to be).