So then, what is the ideal top level tax rate (hint: not Denmark's 62% morriss) Page 3

  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 15:21:04 5,195 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    Do we really want to redistribute wealth any more though?
    Better than leaving all the spending power amongst 'the few', no?
  • mcmonkeyplc 2 Jan 2013 15:21:51 39,384 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    Do we really want to redistribute wealth any more though? I don't think things should just be handed from one to the other in this day an age, where you can become wealthy in other ways or with a good idea. Aren't something like 80% of the worlds millionaires self made?
    And? That's not the point of wealth redistribution.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • El_MUERkO 2 Jan 2013 15:23:30 16,945 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    El_MUERkO wrote:
    Who cares what the top rate is when you're not paying it.
    Those who aspire to earn that much one day?

    Otherwise you're first paragraph is immediately undercut by your second paragraph, and most of the current tax loopholes remain I'm afraid.
    That statement was specific to the last paragraph, if the rich avoid paying tax via loopholes they don't care and while it might discourage those who do care I see little point in fiddling with it while ignoring avoidance/evasion.

    Inheritance tax broke up the large estates of the gentry but the rich in the UK are billions richer now than before the crash so it is ineffective for dealing with the wealthy while punishing those on middle incomes.

    As a short term solution a raise in its threshold to over 1m but I still feel the tax laws should be burnt in a big pile and rewritten, simpler, fairer and with no room for bullshit.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 15:26:30 43,117 posts
    Seen 34 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    warlock:

    On flat tax - this doesn't work because there is a subsistence level which everyone needs to pay to basiclly provide.

    Say there was a flat tax of 50%, and you need 10k to survive. Johnny A is on 100k, he has 50k after taxes, 10k to survive and 40k for booze and hookers. Johnny B is on 15k, he has 7.5k after taxes and dies alone and unloved in a garret room in East London. Graduated taxes are designed to avoid this.

    On inheritence tax - it should be much higher, it should ideally be index linked to the property market (is this is both the major form that any sizeable inheritence takes and the most common thing bought with such an inheritance), but if you live in a pile and can't afford to keep it, sell it to someone who can, live within your means and God bless capitalism. Sucks, but there you go.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 15:27:55 43,117 posts
    Seen 34 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    El_MUERkO wrote:
    Inheritance tax broke up the large estates of the gentry but the rich in the UK are billions richer now than before the crash so it is ineffective for dealing with the wealthy while punishing those on middle incomes.
    Don't understand. Are you juxtaposing the late 19th Century death duties and the 2008 financial crisis? Or have I misunderstood?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Fake_Blood 2 Jan 2013 15:29:01 4,047 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    Fake_Blood wrote:
    Whatever, I'll see you inline when we get our food stamps.
    Subsidies don't mean food stamps. Food stamps don't equal a dictatorship or communism anyway.
    But if you save a enough stamps you might get a lada!
  • mcmonkeyplc 2 Jan 2013 15:31:52 39,384 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Stamp duty needs to be linked to the property market as well.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 15:38:44 6,585 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    Do we really want to redistribute wealth any more though?
    Better than leaving all the spending power amongst 'the few', no?
    So if you work hard all your life and want to leave the fruits of your labour and family home to your children, should you have to carve their inheritance up because some bloke called Barry in Sidcup is holding his cap out?
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 15:40:55 43,117 posts
    Seen 34 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    Do we really want to redistribute wealth any more though?
    Better than leaving all the spending power amongst 'the few', no?
    So if you work hard all your life and want to leave the fruits of your labour and family home to your children, should you have to carve their inheritance up because some bloke called Barry in Sidcup is holding his cap out?
    Depends if there are more people like Barry and their need is greater.

    Also, let's take your ideal scenario and skip it forward a generation. Your children have lived idly off their inheritance all their lives, should they get to pass it on untaxed?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • mcmonkeyplc 2 Jan 2013 15:43:23 39,384 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    What if Barry has children as well and Barry can't afford to feed his kids and give them a proper education? As a result of this poverty they turn to crime and they fuck up your kids to get hold of their money.

    What if Barry has children as well and Barry can't afford to feed his kids and give them a proper education? As a result of this poverty they can't get decent training and work for the company that your kids have created thus making your kids company less profitable as they have to pay more for labour due to a low supply of skilled workers?

    What if Barry has children as well and Barry can't afford to feed his kids and give them a proper education? As a result of this poverty they can't get decent health care and start developing serious health issues one of which evolves into a super strain of flu that wipes out your entire city?

    What if people realised that they live in a society where the well being of everyone is interdependent?

    What if?

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 15:43:50 5,195 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    So if you work hard all your life and want to leave the fruits of your labour and family home to your children, should you have to carve their inheritance up because some bloke called Barry in Sidcup is holding his cap out?
    Still better than leaving all the spending power amongst 'the few', no?
  • El_MUERkO 2 Jan 2013 15:44:21 16,945 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    El_MUERkO wrote:
    Inheritance tax broke up the large estates of the gentry but the rich in the UK are billions richer now than before the crash so it is ineffective for dealing with the wealthy while punishing those on middle incomes.
    Don't understand. Are you juxtaposing the late 19th Century death duties and the 2008 financial crisis? Or have I misunderstood?
    Kind of, out of an unwillingness to type all I would need to type on a mobile phone keyboard to accurately state my point.

    I'd hoped people would get the gist of my argument and not pick holes in the wordology of it.
  • RyanDS 2 Jan 2013 15:45:15 9,050 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    Do we really want to redistribute wealth any more though?
    Better than leaving all the spending power amongst 'the few', no?
    So if you work hard all your life and want to leave the fruits of your labour and family home to your children, should you have to carve their inheritance up because some bloke called Barry in Sidcup is holding his cap out?
    Yes. Your sprogs should work to get their own money, not sponge of the leavings of their dead parents.
  • Psychotext 2 Jan 2013 15:50:29 53,760 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    What if?
    I think we should probably just kill Barry and his kids. We avoid all the negative consequences you describe that way.


    RyanDS wrote:
    Yes. Your sprogs should work to get their own money, not sponge of the leavings of their dead parents.
    Yup. I know people who are basically counting the days until their parents / grandparents pop their clogs so that they can get their hands on their money / house / whatever. Fucking disgusting.

    I'd leave it all to the hedgehogs or something.

    Edited by Psychotext at 15:51:55 02-01-2013
  • kalel 2 Jan 2013 15:50:43 86,229 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    RyanDS wrote:
    Your sprogs should work to get their own money, not sponge of the leavings of their dead parents.
    I fully intend for my "sprogs" to earn their own money, but that's not the point. Once I've paid tax on my earnings, why can't I do what I want with it, including put it aside for my children after I'm dead?
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 15:51:40 6,585 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    So if you work hard all your life and want to leave the fruits of your labour and family home to your children, should you have to carve their inheritance up because some bloke called Barry in Sidcup is holding his cap out?
    Still better than leaving all the spending power amongst 'the few', no?
    Is spending power really with this alleged few though? It's a world of opportunity out there.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 15:52:41 43,117 posts
    Seen 34 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    RyanDS wrote:
    Your sprogs should work to get their own money, not sponge of the leavings of their dead parents.
    I fully intend for my "sprogs" to earn their own money, but that's not the point. Once I've paid tax on my earnings, why can't I do what I want with it, including put it aside for my children after I'm dead?
    Yes, which is why it should only kick in once you have so much piled up to leave to them that they couldn't possibly need it all to succeed in life.

    Also, you can be clever and put it aside for your children before you're dead as well, but I guess we're talking principle rather than loopholes here.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Psychotext 2 Jan 2013 15:53:35 53,760 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Once I've paid tax on my earnings, why can't I do what I want with it, including put it aside for my children after I'm dead?
    You can do what you want with it... just don't leave it until you're dead or someone is going to end up paying a massive chunk of tax on it.
  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 15:54:10
    kalel wrote:
    RyanDS wrote:
    Your sprogs should work to get their own money, not sponge of the leavings of their dead parents.
    I fully intend for my "sprogs" to earn their own money, but that's not the point. Once I've paid tax on my earnings, why can't I do what I want with it, including put it aside for my children after I'm dead?
    You can though, you can put aside a fucking ton before it is touched, leaving a slightly smaller ton. But - imo of course - it should be touched.
  • kalel 2 Jan 2013 15:54:19 86,229 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Oh yeah, principle. At this rate my sprogs will need to earn enough on their own to support my in my retirement, let alone me leaving them anything,
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 15:54:20 6,585 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    Do we really want to redistribute wealth any more though?
    Better than leaving all the spending power amongst 'the few', no?
    So if you work hard all your life and want to leave the fruits of your labour and family home to your children, should you have to carve their inheritance up because some bloke called Barry in Sidcup is holding his cap out?
    Depends if there are more people like Barry and their need is greater.

    Also, let's take your ideal scenario and skip it forward a generation. Your children have lived idly off their inheritance all their lives, should they get to pass it on untaxed?
    Generally, the idle offspring are the ones who spunk the inheritance away, handily addressing the balance without resorting to the crude measure of taxing the well off because they can afford it.
  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 15:54:23 5,195 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    elstoof wrote:
    Is spending power really with this alleged few though? It's a world of opportunity out there.
    As you said yourself, people with money will likely spend it. If people are too close to the breadline they won't be able to.
  • kalel 2 Jan 2013 15:55:34 86,229 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    But - imo of course - it should be touched.
    Can you explain why, if it's earning I've already paid tax on?
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 15:57:26 6,585 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    Is spending power really with this alleged few though? It's a world of opportunity out there.
    As you said yourself, people with money will likely spend it. If people are too close to the breadline they won't be able to.
    Meanwhile, there's a vast sea of people out there who fall somewhere in the middle of these two very extreme examples.
  • Dangerous_Dan 2 Jan 2013 15:57:37 2,378 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    RyanDS wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    elstoof wrote:
    Do we really want to redistribute wealth any more though?
    Better than leaving all the spending power amongst 'the few', no?
    So if you work hard all your life and want to leave the fruits of your labour and family home to your children, should you have to carve their inheritance up because some bloke called Barry in Sidcup is holding his cap out?
    Yes. Your sprogs should work to get their own money, not sponge of the leavings of their dead parents.
    No, he should not have worked that much, he should have enjoyed his life and let somebody else do all that work. What a fool.
  • LeoliansBro 2 Jan 2013 15:59:05 43,117 posts
    Seen 34 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    But - imo of course - it should be touched.
    Can you explain why, if it's earning I've already paid tax on?
    Not necessarily. It could be land and property that has appreciated in value. True your kids will inherit your eventual CGT bill, but if they're happy to continue to live where they are then that's gravy for them.

    Edit: This is exactly the monopoly that inheritance tax was designed to prevent, and (crudely) the value gain tax was also the reason that it turned so expensive and problematical for inheritees in Edwardian England.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 16:00:27 02-01-2013

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RyanDS 2 Jan 2013 16:00:16 9,050 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    But - imo of course - it should be touched.
    Can you explain why, if it's earning I've already paid tax on?
    You have paid tax on it, your kids haven't. so they are now "earning" it again.

    Basically each time money changes hands and someone benefits there should be a tax involved*. Otherwise I would just "gift" money to my staff instead of paying them through PAYE and thus avoid them paying tax.

    *within reason, thresholds etc are in place.
  • elstoof 2 Jan 2013 16:01:56 6,585 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    You can though, you can put aside a fucking ton before it is touched, leaving a slightly smaller ton. But - imo of course - it should be touched.
    Are you talking about the money here, or the child?
  • Khanivor 2 Jan 2013 16:05:37 40,344 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    elstoof wrote:

    No, I'm saying that without money being spent in large numbers within a country, then there's not enough in the cycle to be spread amongst the population and no demand for industry any more because people can't afford it.
    True enough, but 60 grand handbags aren't what's driving the economy.

    I take your earlier point that (for certain jobs) you have to maintain a lifestyle to increase your chances of generating even more money. I don't think this social affectation is sufficient reason to tax the wealthiest at a comparatively lower rate. If you can only say, buy a 100k sports car as opposed to a 125k sports car that isn't going to materially effect your ability to raise an income in the same way as a person who isn't left enough money to drive more than 15 miles a day to a job would.

    You tax the neediest the least, the least neediest the most.
  • kalel 2 Jan 2013 16:08:30 86,229 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    RyanDS wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    But - imo of course - it should be touched.
    Can you explain why, if it's earning I've already paid tax on?
    You have paid tax on it, your kids haven't. so they are now "earning" it again.

    Basically each time money changes hands and someone benefits there should be a tax involved*. Otherwise I would just "gift" money to my staff instead of paying them through PAYE and thus avoid them paying tax.

    *within reason, thresholds etc are in place.
    I can sort of accept that, but you could also argue that I've been earning the money on their behalf. With that mindstate it feels a bit off that I get taxed twice on it.

    But yeah, it's moot as this is all just in principle anyway.
  • Page

    of 6 First / Last

Log in or register to reply