Gordo's insidius reach (oh, did I spell that right?:)

[John Galt]

"they are taxed unfairly in the first place": is this just a given, or do you mean something specific by "unfairly"?

I'd hate to think "unfair" = "different from what I would like to see".

Why should someone who has worked hard to make a success of their lives be penalised for the success by handing over 40% of their earnings to the Government? I have no objection at all to paying tax what I no object to is having to hand over a much greater percentage of my earnings than others

[John Galt]

That is my point, if you are already rich being successful is easy as you do not have the barriers created by the taxation system to worry about. To go back to my example: two guys trying to set up a record import business. A rich one that has a large pile of cash to fall back on and one that doesn't.

They could decide to take a risk in not paying the VAT and hit the market with a cheaper more profitable product. Now the Customs comes a calling.

The rich one, because of his pile of cash, can buy his way out of trouble and carry on in business.

It is arguable the poor one could even take the same risk, as he will be removed from the game as soon as the Customs comes round and looks at his books. The poor one could decide not to take that risk, but now his product is more expensive.

But that also comes down to the integrity of the two individuals doesn't it? You may be more inclined to take a risk in business if you are financially secure but to break the law you also have to lack morals and integrity - money does not affect that does it?

[threaded]

No, money does not affect that, but it is not the point I am trying to get across, it is a law, in this case as in many others a tax law, that prevents the poor person becoming successful. The existence of tax prevents the two being in a truly competitive position, and acts as a barrier to entry for the poor.

[zathras]

That could be argued, but I am not saying that people don't have a choice. Yet, what I am saying is that there are barriers, many of them artificial, and that these artifical barriers are mostly in the form of taxation and the way it is implemented and administered.

The creation of more and more tax rules does not stop rich people from avoiding paying tax, even though on a superficial level it might appear to. What it does do however is to make the hurdle that one must leap to become successful that much higher.

In the current complex tax regime it it those who are rich who are more able to afford advisors and lawyers to avoid that tax burden. Coupled with other complexities which mean that the poor may be unable to claim from the taxman what they should (eg Tax Credits).

This means that social mobility is affected as the poor are unable to deal with tax issues.

In a high tax environment the return on investing in tax avoidance becomes greater. Again it is those who can afford such that take advantage of it.

The thing now is that taxation has become so complex that you can actually insurance against investigations so that it is dealt with by advisors. While this reduces the barrier slightly one still needs to have the disposable income to pay the premiums!

[John Galt]

No, money does not affect that, but it is not the point I am trying to get across, it is a law, in this case as in many others a tax law, that prevents the poor person becoming successful. The existence of tax prevents the two being in a truly competitive position, and acts as a barrier to entry for the poor.

I agree that someone from a wealthy background will have certain advantages over someone from a poorer background but I cannot agree that there are laws, tax or otherwise, that prevent the poor person becoming successful. It is definitely not a barrier of entry either - usually the only barrier to someone succeeding are their own mental restrictions, limitations and preconceptions

[threaded]

No, I disagree, what prevents the poor becoming successful is that they are not rich, and that is all there is to it. All this talk of hard work, early rising, fighting your limitations etc. is just hogwash to numb the masses who don't make it. Yes you'll get a few more toys, if you work hard, but it won't make you successful. It is all down to chance, pure and simple, the more chances you get, the more likely you will be successful.

[Dundeegeorge]

As a general rule I would agree

No, I disagree, what prevents the poor becoming successful is that they are not rich, and that is all there is to it. All this talk of hard work, early rising, fighting your limitations etc. is just hogwash to numb the masses who don't make it. Yes you'll get a few more toys, if you work hard, but it won't make you successful. It is all down to chance, pure and simple, the more chances you get, the more likely you will be successful.

I don't know that Alan Sugar would, or Richard Branson, or any of the many many self-made millionaires that this country still produces. Err, that produce themselves in spite of the country, I should say.

[John Galt]

No, I disagree, what prevents the poor becoming successful is that they are not rich, and that is all there is to it. All this talk of hard work, early rising, fighting your limitations etc. is just hogwash to numb the masses who don't make it. Yes you'll get a few more toys, if you work hard, but it won't make you successful. It is all down to chance, pure and simple, the more chances you get, the more likely you will be successful.

Well working on that premise then the only succesful businessmen in this country would be the product of rich parents? Do you honestly believe that the only entrepeneurs in the world were rich to start with? I am seriously beginning to wonder if this is a wind up Threaded

[expat]

Why should someone who has worked hard to make a success of their lives be penalised for the success by handing over 40% of their earnings to the Government? I have no objection at all to paying tax what I no object to is having to hand over a much greater percentage of my earnings than others

That - progressive taxation - is normally regarded as fairer than, for example, level taxation. Now, I'm not personally arguing that it is fairer, but I do not see that it is self-evidently unfair.

So yes, for you "what I do object to is having to hand over a much greater percentage of my earnings than others". I understand that you object to it. But do you thnk it is unfair, and if so, why? Because you object to it?

[The Lone Gunman]

That - progressive taxation - is normally regarded as fairer than, for example, level taxation. Now, I'm not personally arguning that it is fairer, but I do not see that it is self-evidently unfair.

So yes, for you "what I do object to is having to hand over a much greater percentage of my earnings than others". I understand that you object to it. But do you thnk it is unfair, and if so, why? Because you object to it?

Of course its unfair, it is just that it is an acceptable and socialy conscious [spelling] method of Government raising revenue.

You are asking someone to pay more for the same service than soemone else, in fact as the benefit systems tends to support the poor, then the rich are paying for the services provided to the poor.
Do you think it would be fair for sainsburys to charge you more for your groceries than an unemployed person?

It all depends on your view point.