Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
a) it's not income, it's disposable income
b) the context of "richest" is the fifth quintile, which stretchs from £66k disposable income to whatever Gopi Hinduja has...
For instance, I’m one of the tallest in our family, but I’m not tall (imho); I’m 5’11", and my son is 6’4" - he’s tall.
Context is all…
|
You also need to extend/clarify the definition of income to include increases in wealth. You can have people who have modest incomes, as most people define the term but have significant increases in personal wealth from their various asset classes e.g. property, etc. An extreme example of this is a person who owns, outright, a number of rented properties worth millions each appreciating (on average) over time yet has a low tax obligation via tax avoidance vehicles like property investment companies.
The bottom line is that our tax regime has been designed specifically for the benefit of those who have the means to contribute at the levels needed yet are of the strong opinion that they should not do. It is a conversation that needs to be had yet so many are scared to have it.