Quizzes & Puzzles63 mins ago
When Will The Reds Ever Learn?
36 Answers
http://
Higher rate tax rakes in very little extra, in fact it possibly lowers total tax receipts. Labour just can't help themselves can they. The envy tax helps no one but hey they'll feel a lot better having shafted the "rich". If anything we should abolish the 40% rate.
Higher rate tax rakes in very little extra, in fact it possibly lowers total tax receipts. Labour just can't help themselves can they. The envy tax helps no one but hey they'll feel a lot better having shafted the "rich". If anything we should abolish the 40% rate.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
But it is fairer. No one can honestly say the differential between the rich and poor relate to the worth of the individual. If someone has found a way to divert more of a country's wealth to themselves then they ought to pay a much larger percentage of it back again. Ought to be 100% above a certain level. It is just equity, not envy.
I don't think a tax rate of 50% is unreasonable, bearing in mind that it's 50% of earnings over £150,000, which is a large amount of money.
Yes it is true that the more you earn the more you pay regardless of the percentage, but the question is if you need to raise more tax what is the fairest way of doing it, and that method seems fairer than some.
Yes it is true that the more you earn the more you pay regardless of the percentage, but the question is if you need to raise more tax what is the fairest way of doing it, and that method seems fairer than some.
Excellent idea that could not come a moment too soon. It makes me laugh, hearing the ultra-rich whinging about the tax they have to pay. In a world where some 85 individuals have personal fortunes equivalent to approximately 50% of the global wealth and where corporations routinely avoid billions in tax payable to the exchequer, the sooner we implement such tax rises the better.
Then at least we might be slighly more "in it together".
Then at least we might be slighly more "in it together".
How odd! Only the other day Red Ed claimed he would be the saviour of the middle classes!
LazyGun, //It makes me laugh, hearing the ultra-rich whinging about the tax they have to pay. In a world where some 85 individuals have personal fortunes equivalent to approximately 50% of the global wealth…//
In an effort to avoid confusion, may I say that people earning £150,000 per annum are not ultra-rich, and neither are they among the alleged (I haven’t checked statistics) 85 individuals whose personal fortunes equate to approximately 50% of the global wealth.
Canary, would you tell me where and how what you call ‘the rich’ shaft the poor, sick, and disabled? High earners pay a huge proportion of their salaries in taxes and take very little, if anything at all, from the community pot. They’ve usually worked damned hard to get where they are - why shouldn't they reap the rewards of their labour? They pay their whack.
LazyGun, //It makes me laugh, hearing the ultra-rich whinging about the tax they have to pay. In a world where some 85 individuals have personal fortunes equivalent to approximately 50% of the global wealth…//
In an effort to avoid confusion, may I say that people earning £150,000 per annum are not ultra-rich, and neither are they among the alleged (I haven’t checked statistics) 85 individuals whose personal fortunes equate to approximately 50% of the global wealth.
Canary, would you tell me where and how what you call ‘the rich’ shaft the poor, sick, and disabled? High earners pay a huge proportion of their salaries in taxes and take very little, if anything at all, from the community pot. They’ve usually worked damned hard to get where they are - why shouldn't they reap the rewards of their labour? They pay their whack.
-- answer removed --
The most amusing aspect of this is that for all but about the last three weeks of their thirteen years in office the Labour government was quite content with a top rate of 40%. They increased the rate in April 2010 (knowing they were very likely to be booted out less than a month later) in the full expectation that an incoming Tory government would reverse the measure. They could then accuse them of “slashing taxes for the rich”.
Of course the Tories could not do as they wished because they are hide-bound by the dogma of their Coalition partners (who came a poor third in the election) and a compromise of 45% was reached. Now Labour threaten to re-introduce the 50% rate to demonstrate they will not let wealthy gits off the hook so readily. Whatever the projected revenue figures for the measure (which cannot be proved one way or the other) Labour’s ridiculous posturing can only be described as pathetic.
Of course the Tories could not do as they wished because they are hide-bound by the dogma of their Coalition partners (who came a poor third in the election) and a compromise of 45% was reached. Now Labour threaten to re-introduce the 50% rate to demonstrate they will not let wealthy gits off the hook so readily. Whatever the projected revenue figures for the measure (which cannot be proved one way or the other) Labour’s ridiculous posturing can only be described as pathetic.
earning 150k these days is hardly being uber wealthy, the same old story, many of those would most likely be the middle classes, those who likely send their child to private school, and have private health care, so take nothing out of the social pot, or not as much as some who have paid nothing into our social system. My o/h wages weren't large, good but not in this wealthy category, he worked hard all his life, and didn't take a penny, then had the good grace to pass away before getting his private pension, bah humbug.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.