In todays news...

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

I don't see how taxing someone more because they earn more is fair, seems the opposite to me.

[Pirahna]

I don't see how taxing someone more because they earn more is fair, seems the opposite to me.

That's because your inner Conservative thinks that people who earn the least should pay the most tax.

[Mussels]

I don't see how taxing someone more because they earn more is fair, seems the opposite to me.

That's because your inner Conservative thinks that people who earn the least should pay the most tax.

That's quite a jump from what he said, maybe the tax burden should shared a little more evenly.
Despite Tory pledges they have been increasing income tax regularly for years, it could be the right time for Maggie V2.

[slowsider]

I don't see how taxing someone more because they earn more is fair, seems the opposite to me.

That's because your inner Conservative thinks that people who earn the least should pay the most tax.

How about everyone pays the same percentage?

That way if you earn less then you pay a percentage which means in figures you contribute less tax to society but still get all the same benefits.
If someone earns £20k a year then they pay a shitload less than someone that earns £250k, but they still get access to everything that income tax pays for.

High earners are such nice people for abiding by the current principle, even though it's weighed against them.

That's what happens with VAT.
But to raise the same revenue with income tax as now, the percentage would have to be significantly higher than it is currently for low earners.
The current principle is progressive, it helps prevent the masses from eating the rich.

[Mussels]

Progressive is fine up to a point but then people start taking their money elsewhere, drop it down a bit and Lewis Hamilton might stop waving his Union Jack in Monaco, drop it a bit more and Potter might get a job in the UK.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Where's that story about the drinking buddies, one who pays £59 of the £100 bill and gets fucked off with it etc etc?

[wheelnut]

Where's that story about the drinking buddies, one who pays £59 of the £100 bill and gets fucked off with it etc etc?

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier

[slowsider]

Come to the UK, pay almost half in income tax, then 20% on VAT, then all the hidden taxes, fees and scams that everyone else pulls, then I'd have about 20% left.

That sounds attractive.

I don't think rich people mind paying tax if where they live is ok and they get recognition for their contribution, but in the UK they very rarely do, they just get resent and shite for it.

Aye the world has gone to shite. No-one seems to know where their forelock is these days.

[Horse]

Doesn't the tenth man own the pub chain and brewery, based (for tax purposes) offshore? And he puts his payment in as entertainment expenses, etc.

[Mr Moofo]

Doesn't the tenth man own the pub chain and brewery, based (for tax purposes) offshore? And he puts his payment in as entertainment expenses, etc.

And is employed by a company , owned by himself ....

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

I don't see how taxing someone more because they earn more is fair, seems the opposite to me.

That's because your inner Conservative thinks that people who earn the least should pay the most tax.

But in the UK the people who earn the least currently pay the lowest % of their earnings as tax, and those who earn the most pay the highest %, surely to be fair everyone should pay the same % ?

[Horse]

Doesn't the tenth man own the pub chain and brewery, based (for tax purposes) offshore? And he puts his payment in as entertainment expenses, etc.

And is employed by a company , owned by himself ....

With his wife joining in the arrangements.

There's probably something interesting about how they're not paid directly either ...

[slowsider]

I don't see how taxing someone more because they earn more is fair, seems the opposite to me.

That's because your inner Conservative thinks that people who earn the least should pay the most tax.

But in the UK the people who earn the least currently pay the lowest % of their earnings as tax, and those who earn the most pay the highest %, surely to be fair everyone should pay the same % ?

Fair? Life isn't fair.

[wheelnut]

Doesn't the tenth man own the pub chain and brewery, based (for tax purposes) offshore? And he puts his payment in as entertainment expenses, etc.

And is employed by a company , owned by himself ....

With his wife joining in the arrangements.

There's probably something interesting about how they're not paid directly either ...

Whichever way you swing it, in the uk the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of the country’s tax revenue.

[Asian Boss]

Just wait until the net zero bollocks kicks in properly.

The new green taxes, tithes and tariffs will be sublime.

[Horse]

Whichever way you swing it, in the uk the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of the country’s tax revenue.

From 30% of the country's income?

[slowsider]

Whichever way you swing it, in the uk the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of the country’s tax revenue.

From 30% of the country's income?

Sounds like some people on here think the nation's economy should be run like a whip round down the pub - everyone puts a tenner in, and the poor driver gets shafted by the double malt drinkers.

[wheelnut]

Sounds like some people on here think the nation's economy should be run like a whip round down the pub - everyone puts a tenner in, and the poor driver gets shafted by the double malt drinkers.

I think a progressive tax system is the correct way to do it. Those that earn more, pay more. Not necessarily a greater percentage though.

It is a huge political hot potato though, and now was the wrong time to do it.

[Mussels]

Whichever way you swing it, in the uk the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of the country’s tax revenue.

From 30% of the country's income?

It would be a lot less than 30% of the countries income because they pay a higher rate of tax.

[Mr Moofo]

Sounds like some people on here think the nation's economy should be run like a whip round down the pub - everyone puts a tenner in, and the poor driver gets shafted by the double malt drinkers.

I think a progressive tax system is the correct way to do it. Those that earn more, pay more. Not necessarily a greater percentage though.

It is a huge political hot potato though, and now was the wrong time to do it.

I was always happy to put in way more than my share when I was working.
But some caveats:-
Way too many people avoid their fair share - rich & not so rich
The less well off do feel there is some magic tree - and don’t seem to understand somebody pays for it.
I have more than happy to support the old, the ill, the serious disadvantaged.
I just have an issue about those who feel they don’t have to work and the someone else should fund them.