Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Of course, this all hinges on the definition of "fair". Fair for who, you might say. I do genuinely fail to understand why the (growing) number of people who have more wealth than any individual can reasonably spend in their lifetime should not distribute some of these monies to help their fellow citizens.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I'm sure you sould be very good at spending other people's money for them.

They've earned it, so it's their money and they can spend it as they wish.

There will always be poor people, no matter how much money you throw at the problem. Haven't the Communists proved that to you by now?

At this rate, we might get Corbyn in power so he can prove that all over again. People never learn, do they? :(

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

What do you think would be an acceptable tax rate and which services do you think shouldn't be publically funded?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

An acceptable tax rate should apply to everyone so let's keep it simple.
Everyone pays 10% paye, any unearned income (profit on shares, golden handshakes etc) 20%. That would be per person who resides in the country or earns money in it before leaving. The money raised on that alone would fund most services in this country.

Action against companies would have to be different as at present EU law is used for tax avoidance in this country.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I don't know how much that would actually raise in comparison to now but I suspect it would be less since even the lowest tax rate payable is 20%. I can't see how that wouldn't be a massive cut.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Consider this, just a small example. A football player earning the millions they do having to pay 10% PAYE rather than a shell company being created around them to avoid paying tax.

If everyone had to pay 10% on monies they received before any relief claim on a PAYE basis. This country would be so much richer.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I love the simplicity you apply to this. I'll bite: tell me how someone how someone with assets in the billions has "earned" this amount of wealth?

Then tell me why, from a moral perspective, such wealth is justified in this small group of individuals?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

If a person has assets worth billions consider how much the 20% tax on the unearned interest on those billions will be. Certainly more than now.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

I like your thinking on the avoidance aspect. You would need a variable scale to accommodate the differing degrees of wealth.

---------- Post added at 15:42 ---------- Previous post was at 15:40 ----------

The definition of earnings is too nuanced, deliberately so. You would need to implement via a Wealth Tax rather than an Income tax.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Why would I need to implement a wealth tax? I do not wish to tax their wealth, just what they earn on it.

If they use it to fund companies investment etc I have no problem with it. Unearned income is where the money is just used as an investment and taxed at 20%. Don't forget no tax relief just like those on PAYE don't have now.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

So, to clarify, you're advocating those on a minimum wage should pay 10% tax & also NI?

Are there any tax free allowances or would those be scrapped?

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

No tax free allowances, no separate NI. Income would still exceed present without hurting anyone.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

But that would mean someone on £12,500 pa who presently pays no income tax and pays £464 in NI, would end up paying £1,250 per year, losing £65.50 per month of their take home pay (which is a fair percentage of their take home pay of £1,003). Anyone earning under £15,750 would be worse off.

Someone on £85k would pay around £27k in tax and NI pa under the current system, but under your proposed system they would only pay £8.5k - so they would gain £1,500 per month whilst someone on 1/7th of that salary loses money; doesn’t seem very fair...

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

Of course they've earned it, and if the wealth just came to them without trying, why don't you have a go at it?

The ability to earn a lot of money by working hard, taking financial risks and responsibility is what motivates people, and in the end, this benefits everyone.

Maggie Thatcher's government proved that when you lower tax rates for the rich, you increase money raised from tax. Things are not as simple as you seem to think. Lower tax regimes encourage investment and increase tax take.

If you pay everyone the same, you are applying Communist principles, and look what happened to all Communist countries throughout the world. Everyone became poor. Because there were no incentives any more. Why should Fred work harder than Jo if both would still earn the same?

The only exception is modern day China, which has permitted entrepreneurism and wealth creation.

I am surprised you cannot see this.

Re: Government & Post Election Discussion
 

A few people have earned large fortunes from nothing. Many more people have earned large fortunes because they had a wealthy, well-connected family to help them get started. Their ability to earn from a similar input of hours and graft is therefore much higher.

Very few people seriously advocate Communist-style wage parity these days - those who complain about massive pay disparity are not doing that. This isn’t a binary argument. And Thatcher, incidentally, seeing as she’s been brought into this, always said she believed in equality of opportunity. A great deal of wealth inequality arises from opportunities being unequal.