Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
I think the article you linked to which rambles on about productive people is an insult to low earners, as who is to say someone on 45k a year is more productive than someone on 10k a year?
|
Err the people paying them the 45k a year are the ones to say someone on 45k a year is more productive. Most people are paid by their employer according to the value they provide the company.
---------- Post added at 08:44 ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Whats wrong with it.
|
Redistributing wealth transparently through the tax system isn't the government's job. If they want people on lower incomes to pay less tax they can stop spending their money and reduce taxes on them without taking it from other tax payers.
---------- Post added at 08:47 ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
If you move into the higher tax band, your entire salary doesnt suddenly get taxed at 40%, its just the little bit above the threshold. So as a % of earnings the pain felt by those affected by this is significantly less than the pain would be to lower earners for scrapping the 10k threshold. So its shifting a burden onto a part of society with more ability to pay it.
|
It's yet another tax on higher earning people, part of a long series of taxes that make it less and less worthwhile to aspire to earn higher amounts. Again if the government wants to make the tax system fairer they can start spending it more wisely instead of having parts of the coalition obsessing over progressivism and other parts playing one-upsmanship with the opposition over who can tax the most and spend the most in some areas.
EDIT: Of course there's also been a load of regressive tax increases as well - our tax burden as a % of the economy has increased by 25% thanks to the previous government, public sector spending by 50%.