Tax Man Cometh
-
'Everyone pays the same percentage': person on £10k pays £2k tax, person on £1m pays £200k tax 'If you earn the same, you pay the same': two people on £1m pay the same amount, however they earn it (e.g. dividends, capital gains, earned income, interest), but that could be any amount and doesn't have to be 100 times what the person on £10k pays
-
There would be plenty of prisons. I just said they would not be paid for out tax. I suggest we make the Prisoners pay their own keep. Either they sell assets or work within the prison system. It is their choice to break the law, so it was their choice to go to prison. Whilst there they could choose whether they want a nice single cell with three meals from a menu each day, or get crammed in 4 deep in a 8 by 12 box with gruel slopped into a bucket twice a day. It would a) save us a fortune, and b) reduce the crime rate.
--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Either they sell assets
Police sieze all assets that are made from criminal activities anyway, so you would have to make them work while in prison.
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
-
Sounds like communism to me. How about NO taxation beyond defence and social care costs (Medical care, road up-keep, policing etc). If we weren't paying for Foreign Aid, The EU, Feckless Breeding, Prisons, Elective medical services, Fighting America's Wars and The Arts we could reduce Income Tax to Zero.
--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Fighting America's Wars
It's the other way around, don't you know. If America weren't there to defend Europe, who would?
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
I would say VAT at 20% is fine, it enables everyone to contribute and those that consume more, pay more. It is a progressive tax. I would abolish all NI, it is a con and ERs NI stops employers from hiring as it adds 12% onto the salary bill. Annual tax free allowance of £12,000, then 25% until income reaches £500,000 pa (This encourages entrepreneurship and rewards those who work hard and innovate by having no 40% band at the point where life starts becoming easy. After £500,000 a straight 50% would be fine. Raise inheritance tax to £2,000,000 as this is a pernicious tax that taxes wealth on which tax has already been paid. Reduce Capital Gains Tax to 10% and have larger allowances, again to encourage growth and investment. Abolish Stamp duty on housing. Abolish Road Tax. Abolish Airport Tax. Give tax credits to start-ups and exporters. Encourage share ownership. Abolish State pensions but enforce private pensions in law. Bring back Grammar Schools. Invade France. Reverse decimalisation and re-introduce the Guinea, the Groat and the Half Crown. (For no other reason than it would annoy Johnny Foreigner). Re-nationalise the Trains but make those in charge legally responsible for them. Bring back hanging. Bring back corporal punishment in schools. Reclaim the Empire. Rule Britannia!
--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]
Although I can't agree on VAT (also a tax on income that has already been taxed) I'll be sure to pass these recommendations on the relevant policy groups. Some of them however are already covered under the general category of Common Sense, clearly "Invade France" being one of those :-D and some of them are already policy, "Bring back Grammar Schools." for one.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
In your scenario the person making 10k pays 20% tax, right? Are you then saying that someone earning 1M should pay more than 20% tax?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
To an extent I agree with this however who chose to make the donation, who had the children? As you note if there where no exemptions all would start out equal and choose where their money went. My personal view is that purchase and corporate taxes should be much higher and personal taxes lower with greater allowances before tax has to be paid. Apart from that, tax breaks can take a flying hike.
Reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
To an extent I agree with this however who chose to make the donation, who had the children? As you note if there where no exemptions all would start out equal and choose where their money went.
If you want TRULY fair each person pays the same amount not the same percentage. After all, you're paying for government services... no different from a telephone bill or buying milk at the store. You don't automatically pay more for those things if you earn more... why shouldn't the government services (taxes) be the same?
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
-
They say that children are expensive in the first 18 years. The next 5 or 6 can cost a load too. Driving lessons, Car, Deposit on Flat so he can move in with dollybird for far more sex than you are getting...
--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
They say that children are expensive in the first 18 years.
They are even more expensive after 18.
Dalek Dave wrote:
...for far more sex than you are getting...
That was happening with my oldest when she was sixteen.
-
Quote:
That's the basis of all progressive/redistributionary tax systems.
I know, and it's insane. That is NOT fair. You really believe that taxing people at different percentages is fair? I simply cannot understand that.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
To an extent I agree with this however who chose to make the donation, who had the children? As you note if there where no exemptions all would start out equal and choose where their money went. My personal view is that purchase and corporate taxes should be much higher and personal taxes lower with greater allowances before tax has to be paid. Apart from that, tax breaks can take a flying hike.
Reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol
Nah, get rid of corporate taxes or personal taxes. It results in double taxation.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
Dalek Dave wrote:
Fighting America's Wars
It's the other way around, don't you know. If America weren't there to defend Europe, who would?
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Quote:
That's the basis of all progressive/redistributionary tax systems.
I know, and it's insane. That is NOT fair. You really believe that taxing people at different percentages is fair? I simply cannot understand that.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
That's because they see it as unfair that someone else has more money than they.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
They say that children are expensive in the first 18 years. The next 5 or 6 can cost a load too. Driving lessons, Car, Deposit on Flat so he can move in with dollybird for far more sex than you are getting...
--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
... for far more sex than you are getting able to...
FTFY :sigh:
"The ones who care enough to do it right care too much to compromise." Matthew Faithfull
-
Sounds like communism to me. How about NO taxation beyond defence and social care costs (Medical care, road up-keep, policing etc). If we weren't paying for Foreign Aid, The EU, Feckless Breeding, Prisons, Elective medical services, Fighting America's Wars and The Arts we could reduce Income Tax to Zero.
--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]
-
Quote:
That's the basis of all progressive/redistributionary tax systems.
I know, and it's insane. That is NOT fair. You really believe that taxing people at different percentages is fair? I simply cannot understand that.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Do you think it's unfair that when you make a bad challenge, you get a yellow card and other people don't? Fairness is about treating people the same when they make the same choices and end up in the same position. Rich and poor are not like male and female, people move between categories and they do so through choices and actions. You can argue that you would prefer flat rate tax, but there is nothing intrinsically unfair about a system where you can end up paying a different amount based on how much you make. As Mike points out above, there isn't really a good argument for a flat percentage. You are using the same services, you should pay the same amount. Obviously that's insanely regressive and impractical, which is why advocates of the right try to push flat percentage. My main justification for progressive taxation is socialist: we need to pay for certain services, and it's better for society if they're mostly paid for by people who can easily afford it. But there is also an economic one: when you get rich, you've done so thanks to the services, protection and regulated labour provided to you by the state.
-
Do you think it's unfair that when you make a bad challenge, you get a yellow card and other people don't? Fairness is about treating people the same when they make the same choices and end up in the same position. Rich and poor are not like male and female, people move between categories and they do so through choices and actions. You can argue that you would prefer flat rate tax, but there is nothing intrinsically unfair about a system where you can end up paying a different amount based on how much you make. As Mike points out above, there isn't really a good argument for a flat percentage. You are using the same services, you should pay the same amount. Obviously that's insanely regressive and impractical, which is why advocates of the right try to push flat percentage. My main justification for progressive taxation is socialist: we need to pay for certain services, and it's better for society if they're mostly paid for by people who can easily afford it. But there is also an economic one: when you get rich, you've done so thanks to the services, protection and regulated labour provided to you by the state.
Quote:
Do you think it's unfair that when you make a bad challenge, you get a yellow card and other people don't?
No, but what does that have to do with anything?
Quote:
Fairness is about treating people the same
That part is true.
Quote:
but there is nothing intrinsically unfair about a system where you can end up paying a different amount based on how much you make.
No, that's the exact definition of unfair.
Quote:
You are using the same services, you should pay the same amount.
Well that doesn't hold at all with what you have said. So, a poor person should pay $100 for having road services and a rich person should also pay $100 for road services since they both drive the same amount. You said rich people should pay more than poor people, so what is it?
Quote:
it's better for society if they're mostly paid for by people who can easily afford it.
And with a flat tax rate, that would still hold true. So, this does not support your argument.
Quote:
when you get rich, you've done so thanks to the services, protection and regulated labour provided to you by the state.
Ah, finally we get to the answer. You are just as arrogant as Obama, thinking that you actually somehow helped in the success of rich people. Keep dreaming. Yes, I would agree that without the services it would make economic growth more difficult but to claim some right on rich people's money is absurd and tyranical. So, if I rented your garage from you to run my business and we agreed upon $500 a month payment, but then I became extremely successful would you try to claim more of my money and now charge $5000 a month just because I did well?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Do you think it's unfair that when you make a bad challenge, you get a yellow card and other people don't?
No, but what does that have to do with anything?
Quote:
Fairness is about treating people the same
That part is true.
Quote:
but there is nothing intrinsically unfair about a system where you can end up paying a different amount based on how much you make.
No, that's the exact definition of unfair.
Quote:
You are using the same services, you should pay the same amount.
Well that doesn't hold at all with what you have said. So, a poor person should pay $100 for having road services and a rich person should also pay $100 for road services since they both drive the same amount. You said rich people should pay more than poor people, so what is it?
Quote:
it's better for society if they're mostly paid for by people who can easily afford it.
And with a flat tax rate, that would still hold true. So, this does not support your argument.
Quote:
when you get rich, you've done so thanks to the services, protection and regulated labour provided to you by the state.
Ah, finally we get to the answer. You are just as arrogant as Obama, thinking that you actually somehow helped in the success of rich people. Keep dreaming. Yes, I would agree that without the services it would make economic growth more difficult but to claim some right on rich people's money is absurd and tyranical. So, if I rented your garage from you to run my business and we agreed upon $500 a month payment, but then I became extremely successful would you try to claim more of my money and now charge $5000 a month just because I did well?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
What it has to do with anything is that it's exactly analogous: you are playing by the same rules as everyone else, if your actions put you in a different position then that is not unfair.
Well that doesn't hold at all with what you have said. So, a poor person should pay $100 for having road services and a rich person should also pay $100 for road services since they both drive the same amount. You said rich people should pay more than poor people, so what is it?
My point is that when rightists try to use the 'it's only fair if we pay the same', they're actually being intellectually dishonest, because the actual conclusion of that argument is to pay the same absolute amount. And that's obviously absurd, so they don't try to push that; instead they conflate 'paying the same' with pushing for a flat percentage rate, because that still gives a lot more money to them and they think it's plausible sounding. A flat rate is actually nothing more than a point on the flat amount to extremely inclined progressive spectrum.
And with a flat tax rate, that would still hold true. So, this does not support your argument.
No it doesn't. If you take £2000 away from someone earning £10k, they're really going to notice that; they'll find it hard to find anywhere to live, to buy electricity and water, food and other basics. If you take £200k away from someone coining £1m/yr, it won't affect their ability to live comfortably.
Yes, I would agree that without the services it would make economic growth more difficult but to claim some right on rich people's money is absurd and tyranical.
You just agreed that the state provides the environment for rich people to get rich! Furthermore, all money is state money; it only has value because it's backed by a state, and a state is fully within its rights to manage where its money goes in the best interests of its citizens.
So, if I rented your garage from you to run my business and we agreed upon $500 a month payment, but then I became extremely successful would you try to claim more of my money and now charge $5000 a month just because I did well?
That question, like so much rightist rhetoric, is duplicitous. If we'd agreed to a rate, then of course not. If we'd agreed to differential rents depending on how well we did, though, you should keep to that. And that's what we are implicitly agreeing to through the social contract when we live in a country with a progressive t
-
What it has to do with anything is that it's exactly analogous: you are playing by the same rules as everyone else, if your actions put you in a different position then that is not unfair.
Well that doesn't hold at all with what you have said. So, a poor person should pay $100 for having road services and a rich person should also pay $100 for road services since they both drive the same amount. You said rich people should pay more than poor people, so what is it?
My point is that when rightists try to use the 'it's only fair if we pay the same', they're actually being intellectually dishonest, because the actual conclusion of that argument is to pay the same absolute amount. And that's obviously absurd, so they don't try to push that; instead they conflate 'paying the same' with pushing for a flat percentage rate, because that still gives a lot more money to them and they think it's plausible sounding. A flat rate is actually nothing more than a point on the flat amount to extremely inclined progressive spectrum.
And with a flat tax rate, that would still hold true. So, this does not support your argument.
No it doesn't. If you take £2000 away from someone earning £10k, they're really going to notice that; they'll find it hard to find anywhere to live, to buy electricity and water, food and other basics. If you take £200k away from someone coining £1m/yr, it won't affect their ability to live comfortably.
Yes, I would agree that without the services it would make economic growth more difficult but to claim some right on rich people's money is absurd and tyranical.
You just agreed that the state provides the environment for rich people to get rich! Furthermore, all money is state money; it only has value because it's backed by a state, and a state is fully within its rights to manage where its money goes in the best interests of its citizens.
So, if I rented your garage from you to run my business and we agreed upon $500 a month payment, but then I became extremely successful would you try to claim more of my money and now charge $5000 a month just because I did well?
That question, like so much rightist rhetoric, is duplicitous. If we'd agreed to a rate, then of course not. If we'd agreed to differential rents depending on how well we did, though, you should keep to that. And that's what we are implicitly agreeing to through the social contract when we live in a country with a progressive t
Quote:
if your actions put you in a different position then that is not unfair.
And in your analogy someone was being punished. So it is when you take more money from someone who has worked harder than someone else.
Quote:
because the actual conclusion of that argument is to pay the same absolute amount.
That's absurd. Everyone pays 10%, for example. Someone who makes $1000 pays $100 and someone who makes $1,000,000 pays $100,000. That is not the same absolute amount.
Quote:
No it doesn't. If you take £2000 away from someone earning £10k, they're really going to notice that; they'll find it hard to find anywhere to live, to buy electricity and water, food and other basics. If you take £200k away from someone coining £1m/yr, it won't affect their ability to live comfortably.
OK, so I have 10 cookies and you have 100. If I told you I am going to give 2 to someone and you have to give 50 to someone, you would say that's fair? Come on, stop it. That's insane.
Quote:
You just agreed that the state provides the environment for rich people to get rich!
No I didn't. Don't try to twist what I said.
Quote:
state is fully within its rights to manage where its money goes in the best interests of its citizens.
True, mostly. But that isn't what this discussion is about. Legal and fair are not always the same thing.
Quote:
And that's what we are implicitly agreeing to through the social contract when we live in a country with a progressive tax code.
Again you skirt the answer. It is not about what is legal, it is about what is fair.
Quote:
The core point is that the rules are the same for everybody.
How can you possibly say that with a straight face? If I make 10k you'll take 2k and if I make 10M you'll take 5M. How can you say the rules are the same. They are not the same. 1 does not equal 2.
Quote:
Unfair is if you get to pay a lower rate than me even if we're in the same position.
Yes, that is also unfair. But no one is in the exact same position. Everyone is in a unique position. So how can that be fair?
There are
-
Quote:
if your actions put you in a different position then that is not unfair.
And in your analogy someone was being punished. So it is when you take more money from someone who has worked harder than someone else.
Quote:
because the actual conclusion of that argument is to pay the same absolute amount.
That's absurd. Everyone pays 10%, for example. Someone who makes $1000 pays $100 and someone who makes $1,000,000 pays $100,000. That is not the same absolute amount.
Quote:
No it doesn't. If you take £2000 away from someone earning £10k, they're really going to notice that; they'll find it hard to find anywhere to live, to buy electricity and water, food and other basics. If you take £200k away from someone coining £1m/yr, it won't affect their ability to live comfortably.
OK, so I have 10 cookies and you have 100. If I told you I am going to give 2 to someone and you have to give 50 to someone, you would say that's fair? Come on, stop it. That's insane.
Quote:
You just agreed that the state provides the environment for rich people to get rich!
No I didn't. Don't try to twist what I said.
Quote:
state is fully within its rights to manage where its money goes in the best interests of its citizens.
True, mostly. But that isn't what this discussion is about. Legal and fair are not always the same thing.
Quote:
And that's what we are implicitly agreeing to through the social contract when we live in a country with a progressive tax code.
Again you skirt the answer. It is not about what is legal, it is about what is fair.
Quote:
The core point is that the rules are the same for everybody.
How can you possibly say that with a straight face? If I make 10k you'll take 2k and if I make 10M you'll take 5M. How can you say the rules are the same. They are not the same. 1 does not equal 2.
Quote:
Unfair is if you get to pay a lower rate than me even if we're in the same position.
Yes, that is also unfair. But no one is in the exact same position. Everyone is in a unique position. So how can that be fair?
There are
OK, so I have 10 cookies and you have 100. If I told you I am going to give 2 to someone and you have to give 50 to someone, you would say that's fair?
Why is it fair that I have to give 20, not 2? When you answer that you can see how the argument applies to any number greater than 2.
If I make 10k you'll take 2k and if I make 10M you'll take 5M. How can you say the rules are the same.
Sigh. You can't actually be this thick. The rules are the same because if I also make 10m, the tax would be 5m. Fairness applies between people, not situations.
So it is when you take more money from someone who has worked harder than someone else.
Oh haha that old canard ... income doesn't scale with 'working hard' and it's a cheap tactic to claim that it does.
-
OK, so I have 10 cookies and you have 100. If I told you I am going to give 2 to someone and you have to give 50 to someone, you would say that's fair?
Why is it fair that I have to give 20, not 2? When you answer that you can see how the argument applies to any number greater than 2.
If I make 10k you'll take 2k and if I make 10M you'll take 5M. How can you say the rules are the same.
Sigh. You can't actually be this thick. The rules are the same because if I also make 10m, the tax would be 5m. Fairness applies between people, not situations.
So it is when you take more money from someone who has worked harder than someone else.
Oh haha that old canard ... income doesn't scale with 'working hard' and it's a cheap tactic to claim that it does.
Quote:
Why is it fair that I have to give 20, not 2?
Because the percents are the same. There is no other way to be treated equally.
Quote:
You can't actually be this thick.
Coming from the person who says they are treating the rich equally as they are treating the poor.
Quote:
Fairness applies between people, not situations.
Now you have changed your story. Earlier you said it was fair because of the situation.
Quote:
income doesn't scale with 'working hard' and it's a cheap tactic to claim that it does.
Who's thick? Working hard does not equate to sweating as you are implying. So, you did not answer. You said "Unfair is if you get to pay a lower rate than me even if we're in the same position." But there is no such thing as same position. So, now what?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Why is it fair that I have to give 20, not 2?
Because the percents are the same. There is no other way to be treated equally.
Quote:
You can't actually be this thick.
Coming from the person who says they are treating the rich equally as they are treating the poor.
Quote:
Fairness applies between people, not situations.
Now you have changed your story. Earlier you said it was fair because of the situation.
Quote:
income doesn't scale with 'working hard' and it's a cheap tactic to claim that it does.
Who's thick? Working hard does not equate to sweating as you are implying. So, you did not answer. You said "Unfair is if you get to pay a lower rate than me even if we're in the same position." But there is no such thing as same position. So, now what?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Because the percents are the same. There is no other way to be treated equally.
... except that in your garage analogy two posts ago, you were talking about absolute numbers! Seems it's you that can't keep your argument straight.
Now you have changed your story. Earlier you said it was fair because of the situation.
No I didn't, I said "fairness means that everyone plays by the same rules, and if they earn the same amount they would pay the same". If you really think that high income (if we're talking about income/cashflow related taxes) means working hard then you're so out of touch with reality it's not worth continuing. And if we move into the realm of wealth, instead of income, it's even more untrue.
