To be confused by 'high earners' complaining about taxes?

Illegal evasion is the largest part of the tax gap I believe. This vastly dwarves legal avoidance and is predominantly done by small business.

What does Amazon do after it has extra cash. It uses it to invest in infrastructure, capacity, data centres and funnels so much into R&D.

Only country that successfully did a wealth tax was Switzerland because the rates were low and competitive and other taxes were low as well making it still a business friendly environment.

Some PPs on this thread want mass expropriation of wealth. Some want to take everything above a certain limit.

All good points when it comes to the super rich.
Of course, we all know that, in reality, there is a lot of corruption/legal influence which benefits this group.

Wrt the very high earners, a lot of this group has benefitted greatly from the current political/financial system which has goosed the financial economy. Anyone with a job related to finance/assets has therefore benefitted plus all the people who service their needs eg lawyers, accountants. No doubt, most of this group will think that they deserve their very high salaries, which have increased hugely while wages in most other professions have stagnated or fallen, but the reality is that they have benefitted from the current system. As a result of their very high salaries, they have also gained in terms of quality of life eg ability to afford v comfortable lifestyle, perhaps a SAH partner with a relaxed lifestyle, lots of holidays, PTs, etc, etc. I think it's fair to consider all those things when talking about 'tax the rich'.

I don't think that those on £100,000 are 'the rich' though and the tax rate at that level, espcially for those with student loans to pay, are ridicuous.

Well, assuming a well run system with not a great deal of corruption/wastage...
A man (like one of my relativesk) from a very humble background is educated at school. He doesn't go to university but he is able to read and write.
He works very hard to help his mum pay the bills but in the meantime he goes to night school to get additional qualifications
He starts his own electrician/plumbing/building business and eventually employs several people
He keeps working and ends up running a successful medium sized company
He has worked very hard for that and deserves it. But in the other hand he has benefitted from:

• an educational system that gave him the basics to succeed
• subsidised night classes
• an entire infrastructure that makes being an electrician a viable job
• government spending on teaching other people (his employees) how to read and write
• government spending on apprenticeships and educational schemes for potential employees
• a road and transport infrastructure that enables him to move around and enables his staff to move around and enables supplies to come
• a health system which means he's not paying for his or his employees health care
• he can live in a nice house in a nice area without having to employ private security guards because the government protects private property with the police
• he has normal levels of security around his business not say South African levels of security
• Regulations are sometimes onerous. But because police and public officials are paid a living wage he doesn't have to constantly factor in the costs of bribes in his business plan
• health and safety regulations and their enforcement means he can afford his staff a reasonable level of safety without being outcompeted by the less scrupulous because everyone is expected to follow the rules and it's enforced
• People will sign contracts with people they don't know because there is a reasonable level of trust in the justice system and small claims court

• if someone doesn't pay there is a system (small claims court) to get redress. Of course this doesn't always work so we'll in theory but it's still better than other parts of the world
• Also if you work in any field involving science and innovation the government spends money on that with the specific intention that it will boost businesses in that area. They give grants to research likely to yield business benefits down the line

• His nice house and business is not bombed or occupied suddenly because his country spends a proportion of it's GDP on defense and nuclear weapons which means they aren't easy pickings for anyone with expansionist plans so war/invasion is less likely.

Of course people at the bottom benefit from many of those things listed as well. But those with the most benefit the most from government protection of private property (they have more to lose). They benefit from having an educated workforce. They benefit from having a reasonably non corrupt justice system. I know all that sounds like picking at straws but anyone who has spent time in a less developed country or tried to do business there knows how much harder/more expensive even simple things are. I think we take not having endemic corruption for granted for example (despite the UKs many issues). It is much harder and expensive to run a business properly in very unequal parts of the world and it costs a LOT more to have a good quality of life on terms of safety and freedom.

If you are doing well in a system, then the system has disproportionately benefitted you. That doesn't mean you don't also deserve it/haven't worked hard for it. But your skills/ability/work ethic were rewarded by the environment or by definition you wouldn't be a high tax payer.

And in a system where there is government waste or even corruption - that also benefits the wealthy more since normally it's someone with a business already skimming of the profits. Think Michel Mone. Obviously that isn't great either. And there are in between cases- people who aren't breaking the law but benefit massively from government spending. Elon Musk being a really good example but also Richard Branson, most of the billionaires have had government subsidies in one form or the other. Often far more than the average person would see in their lifetime. Done well this benefits other people to- it generates jobs and growth. But it also helps the rich themselves.

I'm am not for taxing for the sake of tax. And I don't think high earners are bad. But I think it's easy to miss all the ways in which government spending benefits richer people. There's a risk otherwise that the next generation don't get the opportunities the generations before them did.

I agree!!!
Amazon and the big businesses definitely need to be taxed more/taxed better. That is why I was careful to specify a "well run" system. The system we have is deeply imperfect and scared to tax the very rich (Amazon etc) because they can up sticks and move or afford the money to spend on expensive tax lawyers and avoiding practices! Also, to be frank, the very rich can afford to lobby government to reduce their taxes and can afford newspapers that argue that any attempt to tax the rich will destroy the country. It is true that the richer people are the more mobile their liquid assets are and done badly taxing the rich could be counterproductive. But I still think that it's worth trying to tax wealth (which is harder to move around as it's normally in the form of houses) or to tax very large international businesses at the points they are making profit.

The problem with that is, anyone who tries to effectively tax the very wealthy and mega businesses will then get a barrage of headlines from the media (owned by multimillionaires and billionaires) that they are destroying the country/attacking regular people. Which will affect how those regular people vote. So it's actually more politically sound for the government to tax the middle and normal people or to put the blame on people on benefits for costing to much. Because people in the middle (PAYE tax payers or normal business owners) and people on benefits will both be consuming traditional media or new media like X/TikTok/Facebook.

I agree!!!
Amazon and the big businesses definitely need to be taxed more/taxed better. That is why I was careful to specify a "well run" system. The system we have is deeply imperfect and scared to tax the very rich (Amazon etc) because they can up sticks and move or afford the money to spend on expensive tax lawyers and avoiding practices! Also, to be frank, the very rich can afford to lobby government to reduce their taxes and can afford newspapers that argue that any attempt to tax the rich will destroy the country. It is true that the richer people are the more mobile their liquid assets are and done badly taxing the rich could be counterproductive. But I still think that it's worth trying to tax wealth (which is harder to move around as it's normally in the form of houses) or to tax very large international businesses at the points they are making profit.

The problem with that is, anyone who tries to effectively tax the very wealthy and mega businesses will then get a barrage of headlines from the media (owned by multimillionaires and billionaires) that they are destroying the country/attacking regular people. Which will affect how those regular people vote. So it's actually more politically sound for the government to tax the middle and normal people or to put the blame on people on benefits for costing to much. Because people in the middle (PAYE tax payers or normal business owners) and people on benefits will both be consuming traditional media or new media like X/TikTok/Facebook.

The 'tax the rich' argument falls apart when applied to ordinary PAYE earners - they are the ones being screwed at the moment. They don’t have loopholes or fancy tax structures to avoid tax.

If fairness was really the objective, the loopholes and other avoidance strategies used by the truly wealthy and corporates likes Amazon would have been targeted. But no, the government would rather dress up the middle as the rich, and squeeze them dry.

Well, assuming a well run system with not a great deal of corruption/wastage...
A man (like one of my relativesk) from a very humble background is educated at school. He doesn't go to university but he is able to read and write.
He works very hard to help his mum pay the bills but in the meantime he goes to night school to get additional qualifications
He starts his own electrician/plumbing/building business and eventually employs several people
He keeps working and ends up running a successful medium sized company
He has worked very hard for that and deserves it. But in the other hand he has benefitted from:

• an educational system that gave him the basics to succeed
• subsidised night classes
• an entire infrastructure that makes being an electrician a viable job
• government spending on teaching other people (his employees) how to read and write
• government spending on apprenticeships and educational schemes for potential employees
• a road and transport infrastructure that enables him to move around and enables his staff to move around and enables supplies to come
• a health system which means he's not paying for his or his employees health care
• he can live in a nice house in a nice area without having to employ private security guards because the government protects private property with the police
• he has normal levels of security around his business not say South African levels of security
• Regulations are sometimes onerous. But because police and public officials are paid a living wage he doesn't have to constantly factor in the costs of bribes in his business plan
• health and safety regulations and their enforcement means he can afford his staff a reasonable level of safety without being outcompeted by the less scrupulous because everyone is expected to follow the rules and it's enforced
• People will sign contracts with people they don't know because there is a reasonable level of trust in the justice system and small claims court

• if someone doesn't pay there is a system (small claims court) to get redress. Of course this doesn't always work so we'll in theory but it's still better than other parts of the world
• Also if you work in any field involving science and innovation the government spends money on that with the specific intention that it will boost businesses in that area. They give grants to research likely to yield business benefits down the line

• His nice house and business is not bombed or occupied suddenly because his country spends a proportion of it's GDP on defense and nuclear weapons which means they aren't easy pickings for anyone with expansionist plans so war/invasion is less likely.

Of course people at the bottom benefit from many of those things listed as well. But those with the most benefit the most from government protection of private property (they have more to lose). They benefit from having an educated workforce. They benefit from having a reasonably non corrupt justice system. I know all that sounds like picking at straws but anyone who has spent time in a less developed country or tried to do business there knows how much harder/more expensive even simple things are. I think we take not having endemic corruption for granted for example (despite the UKs many issues). It is much harder and expensive to run a business properly in very unequal parts of the world and it costs a LOT more to have a good quality of life on terms of safety and freedom.

If you are doing well in a system, then the system has disproportionately benefitted you. That doesn't mean you don't also deserve it/haven't worked hard for it. But your skills/ability/work ethic were rewarded by the environment or by definition you wouldn't be a high tax payer.

And in a system where there is government waste or even corruption - that also benefits the wealthy more since normally it's someone with a business already skimming of the profits. Think Michel Mone. Obviously that isn't great either. And there are in between cases- people who aren't breaking the law but benefit massively from government spending. Elon Musk being a really good example but also Richard Branson, most of the billionaires have had government subsidies in one form or the other. Often far more than the average person would see in their lifetime. Done well this benefits other people to- it generates jobs and growth. But it also helps the rich themselves.

I'm am not for taxing for the sake of tax. And I don't think high earners are bad. But I think it's easy to miss all the ways in which government spending benefits richer people. There's a risk otherwise that the next generation don't get the opportunities the generations before them did.

@persephoniacan you explain further why the rich benefit more from public services?
which public services are you referring to?

And this motto is so insane that I won't even try to explain

There's no need. I'm aware of its provenance. And it describes how taxation functions in a liberal democracy.

That's how taxation works: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Look, you really are confused. This slogan is a communism motto, it was widely used in USSR to explain their set up. This is not how taxation works.
And this motto is so insane that I won't even try to explain.

It is rather enlightening, and disturbing, seeing how the higher rate tax payers view people at the bottom. It is with contempt.
The people in the "low status" job etc are just trying to get by as best they can. We are also struggling to get healthcare in a timely fashion, the same pot holes wreck our cars too, and we feel the effects of rising costs of food and energy more than you do.

That's the essence of the issue - because most of you do, you want minority of people like PP to pay even more

That's how taxation works: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

So - using Arraminta as an example - she says her DH has paid top rate of tax for years but doesn't specify how long or if she pays taxes. Her DDs were state educated, all will have benefited from the NHS previously and no doubt will in future - private health insurance only covers so much. Most of us pay for private dental care - I have for decades!

Taxes pay for so much more than the NHS - it's the price we pay for living in a civilised democractic society.

That's the essence of the issue - because most of you do, you want minority of people like PP to pay even more

That's how taxation works: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

So - using Arraminta as an example - she says her DH has paid top rate of tax for years but doesn't specify how long or if she pays taxes. Her DDs were state educated, all will have benefited from the NHS previously and no doubt will in future - private health insurance only covers so much. Most of us pay for private dental care - I have for decades!

Taxes pay for so much more than the NHS - it's the price we pay for living in a civilised democractic society.

That's the essence of the issue - because most of you do, you want minority of people like PP to pay even more

That's how taxation works: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

So - using Arraminta as an example - she says her DH has paid top rate of tax for years but doesn't specify how long or if she pays taxes. Her DDs were state educated, all will have benefited from the NHS previously and no doubt will in future - private health insurance only covers so much. Most of us pay for private dental care - I have for decades!

Taxes pay for so much more than the NHS - it's the price we pay for living in a civilised democractic society.

Actually, I would argue as far as inefficiencies and wasteful public spending goes those definitely benefit (some) rich people more than the public at large. If the government wastes money on pointless contracts it's normally the individuals or shareholders or high tax bracket consultants who benefit more than say some random person on benefits.
But even in a perfectly managed, waste free utopia high band tax payers still benefit from public spending.

@persephoniayou pay road tax and council tax. Not to mention the extortionate cost of trains here.

I will feel better paying more tax if I proportionally benefit more from it than someone paying none.

That's the essence of the issue - because most of you do, you want minority of people like PP to pay even more

That's how taxation works: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

So - using Arraminta as an example - she says her DH has paid top rate of tax for years but doesn't specify how long or if she pays taxes. Her DDs were state educated, all will have benefited from the NHS previously and no doubt will in future - private health insurance only covers so much. Most of us pay for private dental care - I have for decades!

Taxes pay for so much more than the NHS - it's the price we pay for living in a civilised democractic society.

I think @Toeragg might be surprised. While we are mostly retired now, we paid for private education (only one DC though for 11 of 14 years school), we mix NHS and private health care (my cataract operations cost £4k each) plus private dentistry. And we help out with rent for our apprentice child in one of the southeast's most expensive commuter towns.