Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

[enaid]

High earners on more than £100,000 a year should pay higher tax rates to help achieve greater equality between the rich and poor, the TUC has urged.

The union organisation said its research showed that an increase in the number of super rich had caused "immense harm" to the economy and society, adding that they were wealthier today than in Victorian times.
On the eve of the TUC Congress, due to open in Brighton on Monday, union leaders complained there had been a "surge" in wealth at the top which had overturned a century of progress towards greater equality.
The TUC said there should be a series of policies to reverse the trend, including a new minimum tax rate for those earning more than £100,000.
A minimum rate of tax, which the TUC argued should start at 32% for those earning between £100,000 and £150,000 and rise to 40% on salaries of more than £200,000, would not increase any tax rates, but would limit the tax relief and tax avoidance measures open to the well-off and could raise £5 billion, said general secretary Brendan Barber.
"The evidence assembled here is conclusive proof that the growth of the super rich is not just socially divisive and morally objectionable, but deeply damaging for the rest of the economy. The super rich have not created much in the way of extra wealth - they have mostly taken it from the rest of us. It's Robin Hood in reverse.
"Those suffering from the impact of the credit crunch should know that it was caused by the super rich taking risks with other people's money, pocketing the profits and passing on the inevitable losses.
"Any would-be first-time buyers should know who to blame for first the house price bubble and now the difficulties in getting a mortgage.
"It is time that the super rich started to pay a fair rate of tax. There is no point in putting up tax rates that they can avoid. The 54 billionaires living in Britain paid £14.7 million in tax on their £126 billion combined fortunes in 2006 - an average rate of a little over 0.1%. Our modest proposal for a minimum rate of tax will simplify the tax system and raise £5 billion."

[Amy]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

Animal Farm anyone?

[Guest]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

This is an interesting way of explaining how tax works and why the proposal above simply will not work, which is not surprising, given that it comes from the TUC. Remember, this is the very organisation that supported New Labour. Now we have a Labour government, they don't like it much do they?

Let’s put tax in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to £100. If they pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

. The fifth would pay £1.
. The sixth would pay £3.
. The seventh £7.
. The eighth £12.
. The ninth £18.
. The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the Restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said "I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by £20."

So, now dinner for ten only cost £80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?

The six men realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "PAID" to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

. The fifth man, like the first four now paid nothing (100% savings).
. The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% savings).
. The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% savings).
. The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
. The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
. The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got £1 out of the £20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man - "but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that’s right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved £1, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That’s true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works. Tax the rich too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

[Amethyst]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

Thats really good Cet.

I had a teeny discussion with Tools the other day, still not sure if we ended up agreeing or not but in my simplistic mind I really don't see why if you have worked hard or happen to have been born into a rich family you should be penalised more than if you haven't or weren't.

Tax avoidance is there because the tax system is wrong.

If you earn £10,000 a year you should be taxed the same percentage as someone who earns over £50,000 a year. I really don't see why it should be different.

It makes people worried about earning slightly more because they lose it in tax and thus not pushing themselves harder. I'm in a ridiculous position where I am better off staying at home than going out to work.

The Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits system is weird too - it makes everyone level. Everyone isnt level. It doesn't encourage wages to rise. I understand that without everyone having at least 24k or whatever it is they decided everyone needs would impact the economy but it would be much fairer to treat people the same.

Why just because you have worked hard should you be penalised so hard, and why should people who havent be rewarded.

Theres no encouragement for self improvement in this country and it flipping grates on me.

Yes ensure people have a decent standard of living, but that means can buy food for children and not die of pnuemonia, not buy designer labels, run a car and have a widescreen tv. The minimum income standards survey is just daft in my opinion. Birdfeeders are not an essential part of life.

This has nothing to do with bonus's for bosses of large companies either. In this country the rich bail out the poor - but its not voluntarily because they want to - its enforced by the government. We are not meant to be equal. If it continues where is the incentive.


Yes this has lots of flaws and I dont know how I would do anything different. Is simply my basic opinion.

[scoobydoo]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

I agree with the post above.

I have experienced both being on benefits and now being paid a reasonable wage. The higher earners are quite often owners Directors of small companies who provide employment - if you tax them to the hilt many of them will not be encouraged to take n all the extra stress /red tape and responsibility that running a business entails. The basics of economics are that if these people are taxed more they will have less money also to spend on goods and services.

Imo - the benefits system needs an overhaul so that those who do need help are given MORE assistance - but crack own on those who are claiming that should not be.

Twice recently I have had colleagues state that they will be better off on benefits than working - one is a person who is spending money from a house sale (like there is no tomorrow) so then when it is all gone she will get help with her rent etc.

I still think that some of the general public think it is governent money they are claiming - not tax payers.

I also think that somehow we need to promote British products - or goods that are say assembled in the UK or have over 50% british input with a simple new logo we can all recognise .

I also think the tax free savings should be extended.Why pay tax again on money that you have earnt . Also tax credit should be replaced for those in work with just a higherindividual tax band before you pay tax - why I deduct tax from employees and then they claim it back in tax credits is beyond me.

[Amy]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

People who are on benefits and are better off that way are exactly where NuLabour want them - dependant on the State.

[scoobydoo]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

But they are not in a way - they are dependant on those who work and pay tax.If the credit crunch hits hard and more people are unmpoyed in the long term the benefits system would HAVE to be changed surely?
But I agree in that I heard a comment that a "generous benefits system" does encourage votng a certain way.Not sure I believe that as I still think a majority of people would rather be working - but it did make me think.

[Amy]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

Under NulLabour people that work are there to be taxed in the same way that if you drive you are to be taxed. I believe it's called an easy target or another term would be "cash cow."

A car is classed as a perk and if you drive one a polar bear will die.

If you are on benefits you will be inclined to vote labour again because you won't be able to do anything else, which as I said earlier is just how they want it.

[Amethyst]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

I won;t vote labour even though I am better off under them because I do not agree that I should be. If the benefits system changed tomorrow I would go and get work. As it stands its not worth it for the hours and type of work I would want to/be able to do.

If I did now get a job over 16 hours a week I would be given £250 changeover money (for clothes etc) plus £40 bonus a week for a year simply because I have been claiming income support for over a year. I suppose that it is an encouragement (or bribe) but why should I be given that ? I don't deserve it, I havent earnt it, I havent done anything more than anyone else in 16 hour a week jobs at minimum wage. Its completely unfair.

Oh yes and I would only look at 16 hr jobs cause i do still want to pick the kids up and take them to school. But thats my choice. I should be poorer for it not better off.

When i had my first child I got myself a job when she was 6 months old, full time, earning a decent amount. After I took everything into account i was going to be working 35 hours a week, away from my child, for £10 a week.

Okay its working and self development and everything else beneficial you get from working other than money, but I'm a bit of a homey so I thought why the hell should I when I would rather be at home with my daughter. If I had of been a lot better off working at that point i would have done it and I possibly wouldnt be where I am now still reliant on the tax payer to feed me, basically.

(anyone thats wondering and thinking i sound like a right lazy cow scrounger lol I did do an OU course and set up my own business straight after I realised I was better off not working but more so my brain didnt go to sleep than for money - moneys never been all that important tbh)


oops gone off the tax topic onto benefits systems now sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyy tut tut

[Amy]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

There are lots that will vote Labour for just the reason I mentioned above.

[Amethyst]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

Oh yes for sure there will be and it is really annoying that people can't see as you put it earlier the ''Animal Farm'' about it all.

[Amethyst]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

Twice recently I have had colleagues state that they will be better off on benefits than working - one is a person who is spending money from a house sale (like there is no tomorrow) so then when it is all gone she will get help with her rent etc.

Can identify with that entirely. When my house is sold I have places the money has to go to instantly to take me under the threshold to receive housing benefits.

Why use the money from the sale to pay my rent when if I spend it (on ''essentials'' and debt) the state will pay it for me ? (okay apart from the morality stuff)

It shouldnt be that way to begin with.

[scoobydoo]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

As a matter of debate - it was implied that in a very poor area of glasgow most people were on Disability allowance in return for a labour vote - in other words a lot of them were capable of working.

However I bet that most of us know someone who has claimed how is not entitled - e.g work for cash and claim tax credits.It seems to me that happens a lot

If that is the case then I feel there is widespread abuse of the system that is very hard to prove.

If it was changed then in return tax bands could be implimented at a higher level so that those who did return to work would pay very little tax if any at all.Therefore encouraging employment as well



We have got ourselves into a rut .


I have just been supporting he British tourist industry by holidaying in Ilfracombe and I wa s sad to see the untidy and litter strewn streets and run down buildings -We had a good time and I would go on holiday in devon again - but just a few more people employed in putting some pride back into this and other areas would be good.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Can identify with that entirely. When my house is sold I have places the money has to go to instantly to take me under the threshold to receive housing benefits.

Why use the money from the sale to pay my rent when if I spend it (on ''essentials'' and debt) the state will pay it for me ? (okay apart from the morality stuff)

It shouldnt be that way to begin with.

I quite agree - those that save are in fact "punished"

[Amethyst]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

It is difficult because if i have a big stack in the bank through saving for years I should use it to pay my way - but those that havent get stuff paid for for them - so whats the point in saving in the first place ? If it meant you were better off because you had the foresight to save then you;d save, we have a spend spend culture because if you have savings and get in poo you are penalised and are no better off than if you hadnt.

[scoobydoo]

Re: Calls for higher tax for super rich (this could create a good debate LOL)

yes thats the point -we are all saying the same thing - it is the system that is wrong.

So what is the alternative?

And is that what we should be voting for?

I do consider myself to be a floating voter - but like to think I consider the total result of any proposals- so I would not necessarily vote for tax cuts if they were not for the good of the country ( they never materialise anyway)

Likewise I would not vote on spending on education -just for ths sake of it. The best education boils down to the teacher - not necessarily the classroom or exam passes.

But I definitely would not vote for taxing high earners .Except banking fatcats! Or words to that affect.