ChatterBank14 mins ago
The Income Tax Question
39 Answers
A poor man earns £100 a week and pays 10 per cent of his income in tax thus contributing £10 a week to public services. A richer man earns £1,000 a week and pays ten per cent of his income in tax, contributing £100 a week. That is ten times as much tax as the poorer man. I really don't see why he should pay twelve, 15 or 20 times as much tax as the poorer man. Very simplistic I know but I fail to see how differential tax rates are 'progressive', especially as the richer man spends money and contributes vastly more in indirect taxation like VAT, may employ people and pay corporation tax and employers' NI contributions.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Paigntonian. 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.// the company feels that higher rewards for valued employees is perfectly acceptable //
Unfortunately this leads to an ever widening inequalities gap. For example; rich people being able to jump the queue with private health care.
Therefore do not be surprised if this raises a moral question. Invariably certain groups will rise up in fierce opposition.
Unfortunately this leads to an ever widening inequalities gap. For example; rich people being able to jump the queue with private health care.
Therefore do not be surprised if this raises a moral question. Invariably certain groups will rise up in fierce opposition.
inequality at an extreme level can be as damaging to society as enforced equality… it allows those at the top disproportionate power and influence over those poorer than them, which inevitably leads to poorer citizens being treated worse by a state that relies on the power and resources of the rich. In severe cases the power of the super-rich can distort or impede democracy… i would suggest britain is closer to this than it should be.
countries seem to end up happiest with limited levels of inequality…. that way there’s room for aspiration but not plutocracy. Denmark and Finland are two of the happiest countries in the world even though they are not as wealthy as their neighbours. Quality of life is not just about GDP per capita….
countries seem to end up happiest with limited levels of inequality…. that way there’s room for aspiration but not plutocracy. Denmark and Finland are two of the happiest countries in the world even though they are not as wealthy as their neighbours. Quality of life is not just about GDP per capita….
"Presumably the company feels that higher rewards for valued employees is perfectly acceptable in market circumstances. It's called a market economy."
Aye, until the cleaning crew come down with Covid and fat lad in the Beemer can't drive a mop or hoover far less wash a cup or clean the toilet after himself and the whole house of cards gets shaky.
Aye, until the cleaning crew come down with Covid and fat lad in the Beemer can't drive a mop or hoover far less wash a cup or clean the toilet after himself and the whole house of cards gets shaky.
The main reason to have higher rates of tax for higher earners is that everyone will require a minimum amount for essentials (food, accommodation, heating, travel etc). Once those requirements are met and people are earning many times the amount needed for essentials, then a higher tax rate will not significantly impact their quality of life.
In support of the above, to my mind the nil tax band should be set as high as possible to assist those on low pay. But an observation on State benefits for the poorer in our society; this subsidies companies who are able to pay minimum wage, which would otherwise not be a wage on which it was possible to live. But weaning working people off benefits and forcing employers to pay a reasonable salary does not help the mega-rich who are benefiting from our subsidised low wage economy.
In support of the above, to my mind the nil tax band should be set as high as possible to assist those on low pay. But an observation on State benefits for the poorer in our society; this subsidies companies who are able to pay minimum wage, which would otherwise not be a wage on which it was possible to live. But weaning working people off benefits and forcing employers to pay a reasonable salary does not help the mega-rich who are benefiting from our subsidised low wage economy.