It pains me to say it, but I am wiiiiiiii Sorry. I am with Peeeeeeeee Sorry. I'm waaaaaah I am sorry. I'm with Pete here. Goat, that was painful. But Pete is riiiiinnnnffffgggug
@PaulPhillips To save needless repetition, perhaps you might take a glance at this earlier thread: https://www.ducatiforum.co.uk/threads/merry-go-round.34755/
My romanian car washer in the closed down petrol station said to me when I paid him and asked if he paid tax , well I'm not quite sure what he said, but he had an angry face when words came out and everyone scattered
Thanks for the link to that thread Pete, I expanded my knowledge reading that, some things I didn't know, with not having lived in the UK since 2011 and lots of UK based stories not being carried in the press outside of the UK (or even on BBC.com for that matter).
Loz may not unpack it but I will. Intrigued, genuinely. I don't think for one moment reform of the personal taxation system to a flat rate will ever happen; the progressive rate system is too firmly entrenched, but why would a flat rate system transfer wealth from the poor to the rich more so than happens at present?
I'll take this one. Reducing higher rates of tax for the wealthy is transferring wealth from the poor to the rich IF you subscribe to the leftist view that "Your Money Is Our Money". Leftists don't believe in private ownership of income and wealth, it all belongs to the State. By letting the wealthy retain more money, you are literally transferring it from the State, where it rightly belongs, to the wealthy (who basically stole it). Thus, a transfer wealth from poor to rich. Not that the poor would ever see any of it anyway - the State has expenses, don't you know!
I swore to myself I was going to leave you all to it, but I can't resist answering simple questions. 1st premise: We need all the tax that is already collected (in fact we need more, but we'll ignore that). Secenario A: the idea of a flat rate would mean that the rich would pay less than currently. Therefore, the poor would have to make up the shortfall. You have just increased the tax burden on the poor. Scenario B: The rich wouldn't pay any more than currently. But the rich currently pay more than the poor, so the poor would have to be taxed more to meet what the rich are already paying. You have just increased the tax burden on the poor.
This is a completion-backward approach to discussing the morality of higher rates of tax for higher incomes. "Higher rates are moral because reducing them is immoral." Not precisely what was being discussed but I understand why you raised your point. From first principles, what is the moral argument for increasing rates of tax for higher incomes, when higher earners would already pay more tax based upon a flat rate?
Loz, sincerely, there is no point in arguing with you. It's not that we aren't on the same page, we're not in the same book, shelf or library. You'll have to entertain yourself with arguing with other people, or getting the likeminded to nod sagely at your wisdom. No hard feelings.
None at all. I am sorry you feel you cannot contribute to this discussion. You don't want to argue the hypotheticals, I understand that. Not everyone does.
If you had a flat rate of tax, with no loopholes (so no tax 'avoidance') would you collect more or less tax ?
Maybe the issue is that the tax system needs an overhaul? Ebay, Amazon etc seem to pay very little. Obviously companies that operate online need to be taxed properly in the country where transactions take place. Maybe tricky to work out, but needs to be looked at. A tax per transaction could be added. They just seem to be skimming money out of the UK economy. Maybe just a little bit Robin Hood work IS due as well. Exactly why mega rich feel the need to massively reduce tax, when they would not and cannot spend their vast fortunes speaks volumes about their social conscience. Or lack of.
Surely this is a deliberate tax incentive set up by the government to encourage people to save for their old age rather than rely on the government to support them?
