If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Frankly it depends what you think tax is for. If you think tacation is to punish the UK's rich you're probably right.
If you think its to earn the maximum amount of revenue to pay for Government services, driving the rich out of the country is not the way to do it.
It may be morally right in the short term, long term its not so simple.
For example one of the reasons Ireland is doing so well is low tax rates...
If anyone could speak of punishment it would be those on low incomes. The rich are certainly not being punished for having to pay 40% tax on their massive earnings. They still have immense wealth and a quality of life that is beyond the reach of more than 99% of the world's population.
The irony of it is that they're shooting themselves in the foot in the long term. A well run country with well run infrastructre and public services for everyone is far more prosperous (and therefore more profitable)than one where services are a joke and workers can't even get access to health and education. But I guess greed must be a very powerful agent that causes clouding of judgement amongst other things.
But would this happen, really?
It's an easy excuse to justify why the richer people don't contribute their "fair share" but is it the reality? Especially if it's based on earnings in this country - people like musicians wouldn't then be able to claim "tax haven" status - like Robbie Williams does, I suspect as he's living in the US - if their earnings from records sales, for example, were taxed at source. Do you think that he would just up sticks?
What about business, do you think that they just wouldn't sell things?
Plus huge investment from the EU.
Having said that, if the richer 10% actually paid 10% then wouldn't that equal reduced tax rates for everyone annyway? Like you said, 10% of £6m is a shitload of cash and consequently you wouldn't need to take 22% from everyone else...
Bit of a hypothetical question, but say you're stinking rich, you live in the UK, but you can't stand the majority of the policies of the current government (i.e. you don't like how your money is being spent). How would you feel about someone who exploited all the loopholes, then used the money saved to invest in charities that they considered important? Would you still have same opinion of them?
If such man doesn't like public transport he should instead vote for a party that doesn't like it either, or form his own party.
They are businessmen for a reason! To make the most money they can, and the goverment fuel them to do that because in the long run their businesses etc will bring more money in to the country.
I don't think it's right that they are paying less tax than everyone else, infact I think it's disgusting, but I don't blame THEM for it, I blame the goverment for letting them!
If someone turned around to me tomorrow and said hey do you want to pay 10% tax instead of 22% I can tell you now I'd say yes, why wouldn't I?!
I think you are right in your anger Aladdin but I think it is directed at the wrong people..
Flashman's points were also very valid but as MoK said they would probably stay.. who knows.
They should be paying at least 40% inline with the rest of the high paying tax nation.
Private healthcare, so no need for the NHS
Private security, no need for the police
If they get arrested they have means, so no legal aid.
Don't have a need for a mortgage so they don't increase the national debt.
Normally spend more, so more VAT is paid by them.
Don't normally use public transport, so one less person to subsidise
Normally give vast amounts of money to charity and other good causes
e.t.c.
If I had that much money, i'd fuck off completely and go and live in the Cayman islands or somewhere else hot and British, then you'll never see me or my money again.
Do they ever have accidents (you will find that emergency response medics are all public not private)?
Do they ever need to be protected against crime (no, private security cannot protect them completely and in every way- think about it)?
Do they ever visit museums, parks, heritage sites?
Do they want their workers, the people they (usually) pay shit wages and who yet facilitate their being so rich, to be able to come to work and to work productively? Or do they want them to be late due to shit infrastructure and to take lots of time off sick because the health system cannot provide for them and their families?
Absolutely EVERYBODY, no matter how immensely rich they are and how little of the country's resources they *think* they use, benefits from a massive range of benefits and services that exist thank to taxes, whether directly or indirectly. Let's not pretend otherwise.
That is why anyone who cheats his way out of paying the tax they should is a thieving greedy bastard who should be put against a wall.
so we have agreed that "spongers, scroungers and benefit cheats" should be shot?
but benefit cheats are braking the law, surely we should deal with them first?
However the super-rich continues to take the piss with impunity.
Ah, but let's use the (completely hypothetical) example that your money was being used to smash a poor middle-eastern country into the ground, would you not be tempted to withhold as much money from that government as possible? Not that I'm suggesting that this is what any of them are doing of course.
majority of them are improving their quality of life above crap, whilst the super wealthy are wallowing in greed
im not saying a 98% tax rate, im just saying they should pay their dues
Yes the evidence does seem to suggest that many of them up sticks. That's why Ireland is doing so well. If every country had uniform tax rates it wouldn't matter.
And if people are getting too high taxed, they do reduce their working hours. If the business people get taxed too high they won't invest in business (the risk vs reward is unbalanced)
You could always ban people who don't live in the UK from owning things here, but that seems even more counterproductive a) as other countries might do the same to us and the UK gets a significant amount of income from abroad b) its stops mult-national's investing in here (bang goes the economy) and c) it sounds a little 'England for the English'
It allowed them to take the risk I agree. But I suspect now Ireland's economy could cope without it.
of course you could put it the other way round and ask what if the billions we spent on the EU were spent in the UK
And that's my point (I've bolded the if). If the richest people did pay 22% (or more likely 40%) you be able to manage some tax reductions (though there is a cost in them paying less for goods and services), but in reality you may loose more.
Now I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't pay more. I just think shouting 'tax the rich' is a bit simplistic and may not maximise the income UK PLC recieves.
Wouldn't that be the group of people who already go to prison if caught?
So, actually you argue Aladdin's point for him, Something is already being done about Benefit cheats. So will you now support action against people who don't pay a "fair share" of tax?
Evidence from...?
I know that we had a problem during our high taxation years, but that was an extreme.
Whereas I think that taxing the poor is the easier thing to do, and Govt s like easy options. The must be a way, it's time we started to look for that way rather than continue an unfair system with the same results.
You've just then given me the evidence
Also plenty of anecdotal evidence of people moving abroad to lower tax areas.
Now if you increased tax on the middle class, very few of them can afford to move to Gibraltar or the Cayman Island, so I agree that. But the very wealthy can.
But taxing the poor is not the easiest either, ie there's a cost in taxing people and the poorer they are (and the less tax you get) the less you get per person.
Now I'm not against taxing people more if they hold more wealth, however I do think its got to be at the level where we actually get in more than we loose. And I'm against the simplistic arguments of 'rich people contribute nothing, let's tax them'
But wouldn't that mean some people ending up with hardly any money and others ending up with loads?
Why do people always have such a problem with people being rich? Is it jealously or what because I just can't tell.. good on them I say, they are paying what they are legally required to pay.. can't ask for more than that can you??
What do you expect them to do, ring the HMRC and say "sorry I don't think I'm paying enough tax can you increase my payment or can I make a donation?"
That is what they are required to pay. The live in the UK, they work in the UK and they conduct their business in the UK. So 40%. Couldn't be simpler.
But when they employ armies of accountants to exploit loopholes; when they register their companies in tax haven islands; when they put companies' in other people's names even though they are the ones they own it, they are cheating the state, you and me of money. Even if thanks to the holes in the law and dastardly tricks they do it "legally".
For christ's sake, I can't believe anyone could actually spring to the defence to people who do such things. Do you wish you could afford to pay accountants to take advantage of the State too or something?
you really hate being poor dont you?
i dont hate poor people, i just dont think its fair other people should pay for them