Why Labour's high tax plan is stupidity

[EternalOptimist]

So if you could do basic carpentry, hold a sermon and hand out some fish you’d make quite a few bob pretending to be the messiah?

what ? and get hammered with tax

[Xenophon]

How do you think Jesus got the gig?

There were no Poles applying at the same time?

[Mich the Tester]

How do you think Jesus got the gig?

The VAT man got him in the end though didn’t he? Poor sod, always seemed such a nice fellow, even to a heathen like me.

[BoredBloke]

Perhaps the government will save €100m a year by not having to provide them with national security, infrastructure, a working legal system and an educated workforce?

Got to be a sock puppet this one! I suspect that the folks concerned have very little use of the services the government provide. I'd rather push the uneducated chavs out of the UK and import those who can generate wealth. That way we could have a tiny government and not the monster we have now!

[Not So Wise]

I happen to think if you stop kowtowing to the people who preach the profit at all costs dogma the UK will be a better place. These people are in the main spoiled little rich folk who throw their toys out of the pram when asked to pay their fair share of the costs of running the place they have chosen to live.

Considering the following:
Top 1% earners generate 24% of the income tax revenue
The next 10% generate 29% of the income tax revenue

The last thing this county needs is any large amount of the people in those two groups leaving the country, not unless those in the bottom 89% (<60kpa) want to see their tax's start hitting something higher than 80% or services cut dramatically (no NHS/Social security for sure)

The whole "fair share" is total quasi liberal socialist bullcrap really, if it was "fair" there would be only one rate, taking an equal percentage from everyone related to their income.

The logic that translates "fair" to mean "you are richer than me so you must pay a greater percentage of your income" has nothing to do with fairness and lot more to do with envy and no understanding of basic mathematics

[doodab]

I suspect that the folks concerned have very little use of roads, trains, schools, police, fire services, hospitals, airports, a legal system, running water and flushing toilets

FTFY

I'd rather push the uneducated chavs out of the UK and import those who can generate wealth. That way we could have a tiny government and not the monster we have now!

So would I, but as I already pointed out, the chavs aren't volunteering to leave of their own accord.

[doodab]

The whole "fair share" is total quasi liberal socialist bullcrap really, if it was "fair" there would be only one rate, taking an equal percentage from everyone related to their income.

The logic that translates "fair" to mean "you are richer than me so you must pay a greater percentage of your income" has nothing to do with fairness and lot more to do with envy and no understanding of basic mathematics

Fair is an entirely human concept and has little to do with basic mathematics. The logic that considers progressive taxation to be fair seems to be widely accepted by electorates, governments and economists in most of the developed world, but lets not let that get in the way of a good point missing shall we?

My point is simply that these people shouldn't be allowed to hold the country to ransom, any more than the unions should. If they want to leave, they should be allowed to do so. There will be some short term pain due to their leaving but I believe that in the longer term society will be better off because it will cease to be dependent on them.

As regards your other point, flat rate income tax could certainly be considered fair if it was operating in an environment where incomes were a little more evenly distributed in the first place. As it stands, taxing everyone a flat rate of 36% or so would imply significant wage inflation for the majority of people in order that they could continue to meet the costs of living. I suspect the short term effects of that would be somewhat catastrophic, but the long term effect would likely be a reduction in the disparity of real incomes and a fairer society.

[HairyArsedBloke]

Just how numerous are these 'rich'?

If there are lots then, by definition, the numbers of poor are fewer - surely that's a good thing.

If there are few of them then what revenue yield is to be gained by the effort to confiscate their wealth? Efforts best directed elsewhere.

[EternalOptimist]

possibly a stupid question, due to the ale, but why should we have a fairer society ?
who decides whats fair ?
what are the penalties for infringing the rules ?


the more I think about it, the more I realise you dont actually mean fair at all

[doodab]

Considering the following:
Top 1% earners generate 24% of the income tax revenue
The next 10% generate 29% of the income tax revenue

The last thing this county needs is any large amount of the people in those two groups leaving the country, not unless those in the bottom 89% (<60kpa) want to see their tax's start hitting something higher than 80% or services cut dramatically (no NHS/Social security for sure)

The whole "fair share" is total quasi liberal socialist bullcrap really, if it was "fair" there would be only one rate, taking an equal percentage from everyone related to their income.

The logic that translates "fair" to mean "you are richer than me so you must pay a greater percentage of your income" has nothing to do with fairness and lot more to do with envy and no understanding of basic mathematics

While we are on the subject of percentage tax burdens, you might be interested to learn that the greatest % tax burden is borne by those earning £50-150k p.a. Those making millions often pay less (as a %) because much of their increased wealth takes the form of capital gains and is therefore hence taxed at a lower rate.

Should they pay a greater % than those earning less? probably not, but I think it would be fair to expect them to pay the same % as less wealthy people.