British Attitudes Survey: More Britons 'back higher taxes'

[kaiyaibob]

11 hours ago, halloween said:

In my experience most people in favour of raising taxes don't pay any.

I would suggest "googling" it but they don't pay much tax either :-(

[Kiwiken]

The fundamental problem is not the level of tax. But the fact the wealthy and Corporations have that many ways to squirm out of it that the more you increase the percentage the less they end up paying. Make it too high and you get capital flight. Make it a flat rate with not tax breaks so it is a level playing field for all and you have no problems. Radical but doable.

[pitrevie]

16 hours ago, NoBrainer said:

I bet the majority of people they are asking are the freeloader that don't earn any money, and hence, don't pay any taxes anyway.

 

Who in their right mind, that is smart enough to earn more than a million or two a year, is going to say they are for higher taxation?

Warren Buffett calls for higher taxes for US super-rich

[pegman]

18 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

Look at the disaster that America has become in their small government low tax zeal.

 

As Galbraith tirelessly pointed out during the 1980s, President Reagan's policy of cutting taxation at the top end of the scale, and welfare benefits at the bottom, was based on the curious assumption that the rich were not working properly because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. He was fond, too, of characterising the trickle-down economics of the Reagan-Bush era as advocating feeding the horse more oats because some would pass through to the road for the sparrows.

Didn't Reagan's kid say Ronnie began showed signs of Alzheimer's during his first term. 

[pegman]

3 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

The fundamental problem is not the level of tax. But the fact the wealthy and Corporations have that many ways to squirm out of it that the more you increase the percentage the less they end up paying. Make it too high and you get capital flight. Make it a flat rate with not tax breaks so it is a level playing field for all and you have no problems. Radical but doable.

No reason under a progressive tax rate system that you can't eliminate deductions.

[Kiwiken]

2 hours ago, pegman said:

No reason under a progressive tax rate system that you can't eliminate deductions.

Tell Me if a Person earning a million pounds a year paid 180,000 pounds(18%) in tax and a worker on a wage earned 40,000 pounds and paid 3200 pounds in tax (also 18%) why do people have the obsession we must tax those earning more higher. By having progressive tax systems you simply increase tax avoidance and increase compliance costs.

Similarly if Businesses were taxed 18% on their gross earnings as Wage and Salary earners are compliance would be cheaper and simpler. Flat tax , fair for all with no loopholes to hop out through. In other words a level playing field. Allows for smaller Government.

[Srikcir]

On 6/28/2017 at 11:05 AM, webfact said:

Nearly half of Britons think the government should raise taxes and increase spending,

So a minority. That's not a great endorsement for higher taxes.

[billd766]

21 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Yes, I find something wrong with the concept of wealth concentration in the hands of a few. I also find your understanding of economic fundamentals a bit shonky. Capitalism is not about channelling scarce resources to the few owners of the means of production in any way, shape or form - kind of ever decreasing circles if you think about it.  

 

Assuming that the Daily Telegraph is correct, and bearing in mind that this report is just over 1 year old, it seems as though there are nearly one million households in the UK who were worth over one million pounds.

 

So there are quite a lot more than a few wealthy people in the UK.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/07/a-million-british-households-are-now-millionaires--even-excludin/

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Kiwiken said:

Tell Me if a Person earning a million pounds a year paid 180,000 pounds(18%) in tax and a worker on a wage earned 40,000 pounds and paid 3200 pounds in tax (also 18%) why do people have the obsession we must tax those earning more higher. By having progressive tax systems you simply increase tax avoidance and increase compliance costs.

Similarly if Businesses were taxed 18% on their gross earnings as Wage and Salary earners are compliance would be cheaper and simpler. Flat tax , fair for all with no loopholes to hop out through. In other words a level playing field. Allows for smaller Government.

 

Look here

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-income-tax/income-tax-rates-and-allowances-current-and-past

 

Tax rates and bands

Tax is paid on the amount of taxable income remaining after allowances have been deducted.

Band	Rate	Income after allowances 2017 to 2018	Income after allowances 2016 to 2017	Income after allowances 2015 to 2016	Income after allowances 2014 to 2015
Starting rate for savings	10% (0% from 2015 to 2016)	Up to £5,000	Up to £5,000	Up to £5,000	Up to £2,880
Basic rate in Scotland	20%	Up to £31,500	Up to £32,000	Up to £31,785	Up to £31,865
Basic rate in rest of UK	20%	Up to £33,500	Up to £32,000	Up to £31,785	Up to £31,865
Higher rate in Scotland	40%	£31,501 to £150,000	£32,001 to £150,000	£31,786 to £150,000	£31,866 to £150,000
Higher rate in rest of UK	40%	£33,501 to £150,000	£32,001 to £150,000	£31,786 to £150,000	£31,866 to £150,000
Additional rate	45%	Over £150,001	Over £150,001	Over £150,001	Over £150,001

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Assuming that the Daily Telegraph is correct, and bearing in mind that this report is just over 1 year old, it seems as though there are nearly one million households in the UK who were worth over one million pounds.

 

So there are quite a lot more than a few wealthy people in the UK.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/07/a-million-british-households-are-now-millionaires--even-excludin/

I have no problem with an individual's accumulated wealth as long as it was generated fairly and is taxed in accordance with the law; what I object to, however, is where large institutions and wealthy individuals use their power, influence and money to buy up the government and ensure that the cards are stacked permanently in their favour. 

 

Why, for example, should a small independent coffee shop be subject to the full force of the Inland Revenue bearing down upon them, whereas Starbucks can interpret tax laws to suit themselves? The current situation where multi nationals are largely allowed to decide their own tax liabilities isn't legal because it was thought to be in the best interests of the wider taxpayers.  

 

[partington]

22 hours ago, NoBrainer said:

I bet the majority of people they are asking are the freeloader that don't earn any money, and hence, don't pay any taxes anyway.

 

Who in their right mind, that is smart enough to earn more than a million or two a year, is going to say they are for higher taxation?

I am rich  and I have a Ph. D and will willingly vote for and pay higher taxes in the UK to get the society I want.  I see that democratic socialist mixed economies do work, and claims that they don't are based on nothing.

 

A recent UNICEF  report that "ranked  41 high-income countries against 25 indicators tracking progress against internationally agreed goals to end child poverty and hunger, promote health, ensure quality education, and reduce inequality"

 

showed that the richest and least social democratic country in the world - the US -  was among the bottom five for these parameters of child welfare, while a classic social democratic country with higher taxes and lower GDP -  Denmark - was in the top 5:

 

"The highest ranked countries across all indicators were Norway, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, South Korea and the Netherlands. The lowest were Chile, Bulgaria, Romania, Mexico and the US."

 

This is repeated across the board with other indicators of human happiness like health care, and shows definitively that measurement of prosperity alone does not identify countries providing the most satisfaction for their citizens. 

 

As long as an economy works, it does not have to be the best in the world, or have low taxes, for its citizens to be the most contented.

 

I would willingly pay more tax in the UK to a government that behaves more like Denmark's than the US's that is, Labour , and will actively work to increase my own tax burden by getting a Labour government.

 

As I never tire of saying, people appreciate pooling of risk, fairness and equalisation of opportunity, and surveys show they are willing to pay a bit more for this.

 

[billd766]

42 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I have no problem with an individual's accumulated wealth as long as it was generated fairly and is taxed in accordance with the law; what I object to, however, is where large institutions and wealthy individuals use their power, influence and money to buy up the government and ensure that the cards are stacked permanently in their favour. 

 

Why, for example, should a small independent coffee shop be subject to the full force of the Inland Revenue bearing down upon them, whereas Starbucks can interpret tax laws to suit themselves? The current situation where multi nationals are largely allowed to decide their own tax liabilities isn't legal because it was thought to be in the best interests of the wider taxpayers.  

 

 

For the answer to that problem you would have to talk to your MP.

 

I really don't think it makes much difference which political party is in power in the UK.

 

I also think that Jeremy Corbyn is a good hearted person, but his mind and his brain, and thus his policies are locked in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

For the answer to that problem you would have to talk to your MP.

 

I really don't think it makes much difference which political party is in power in the UK.

 

I also think that Jeremy Corbyn is a good hearted person, but his mind and his brain, and thus his policies are locked in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

The obsession that some have with Corbyn, while possibly not without merit, deflects attention from the behaviour of the incumbent government. 

 

The fact remains that our government, like all their predecessors, are controlled by small number of self serving organisations and people who work tirelessly to shore up the status quo. True democracy, if it ever existed, has been dead for a long, long time. 

 

This is not the extent, but a mere example of how little control we have over our own country, and the direction in which it is moving:

 

 

[partington]

28 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

For the answer to that problem you would have to talk to your MP.

 

I really don't think it makes much difference which political party is in power in the UK.

 

I also think that Jeremy Corbyn is a good hearted person, but his mind and his brain, and thus his policies are locked in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

The time when a policy originated has nothing to do with its value. National Health Service? An idea from the 1940's!  Must be bad then. Democracy? An idea from 500BC! Must be really bad then.

 

Nationalisation of the railways , happened in 1948, who would want to be stuck back then?

 

"A report by Transport for Quality of Life shows that UK rail fares are consistently higher than Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain and France, and across all types of fares. These are all countries where the rail networks are over 80 per cent publicly owned."

 

The value of a good idea, and the practical benefits of its implementation is not related to any particular era of origin, but should be evaluated purely on its intrinsic merits!

Edited June 29, 2017 by partington

[pegman]

17 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Tell Me if a Person earning a million pounds a year paid 180,000 pounds(18%) in tax and a worker on a wage earned 40,000 pounds and paid 3200 pounds in tax (also 18%) why do people have the obsession we must tax those earning more higher. By having progressive tax systems you simply increase tax avoidance and increase compliance costs.

Similarly if Businesses were taxed 18% on their gross earnings as Wage and Salary earners are compliance would be cheaper and simpler. Flat tax , fair for all with no loopholes to hop out through. In other words a level playing field. Allows for smaller Government.

Fairness and ability to pay. The more avoidance the more loopholes need to be closed. Stop being so bloody greedy.

[Grouse]

17 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

For the answer to that problem you would have to talk to your MP.

 

I really don't think it makes much difference which political party is in power in the UK.

 

I also think that Jeremy Corbyn is a good hearted person, but his mind and his brain, and thus his policies are locked in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.

His actions yesterday suggest he should be locked up. The GE was his high water mark. Labour will get nowhere with that buffoon in charge.

[NoBrainer]

21 hours ago, partington said:

I am rich  and I have a Ph. D and will willingly vote for and pay higher taxes in the UK to get the society I want.  I see that democratic socialist mixed economies do work, and claims that they don't are based on nothing.

 

A recent UNICEF  report that "ranked  41 high-income countries against 25 indicators tracking progress against internationally agreed goals to end child poverty and hunger, promote health, ensure quality education, and reduce inequality"

 

showed that the richest and least social democratic country in the world - the US -  was among the bottom five for these parameters of child welfare, while a classic social democratic country with higher taxes and lower GDP -  Denmark - was in the top 5:

 

"The highest ranked countries across all indicators were Norway, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland, South Korea and the Netherlands. The lowest were Chile, Bulgaria, Romania, Mexico and the US."

 

This is repeated across the board with other indicators of human happiness like health care, and shows definitively that measurement of prosperity alone does not identify countries providing the most satisfaction for their citizens. 

 

As long as an economy works, it does not have to be the best in the world, or have low taxes, for its citizens to be the most contented.

 

I would willingly pay more tax in the UK to a government that behaves more like Denmark's than the US's that is, Labour , and will actively work to increase my own tax burden by getting a Labour government.

 

As I never tire of saying, people appreciate pooling of risk, fairness and equalisation of opportunity, and surveys show they are willing to pay a bit more for this.

 

 

From the sounds of your position, you are most probably all for open migration, and will be quite please when half of Africa & the Middle East is also residing in the UK, sucking up your hard earned tax money as well then.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by NoBrainer

[partington]

2 hours ago, NoBrainer said:

 

From the sounds of your position, you are most probably all for open migration, and will be quite please when half of Africa & the Middle East is also residing in the UK, sucking up your hard earned tax money as well then.

 

 

 

 

Yes I will.

 

I've lived in three countries in my life and have enjoyed the experience, and would hope that others could experience the same thing.

 

I don't believe Daily Heil stories designed to make people angry at foreigners, and despise these attitudes.