To think that taxing high earners even more would actually be a bit unfair?

[bubbleymummy]

I hear this suggested a lot on mumsnet and I really disagree with it. High earners are paying a huge contribution in tax already - thousands and sometimes 10s of thousands more than a lot of people who are clamouring for them to be taxed even more! Why should they be punished for having a highly paid job? How would you like handing nearly half your income over to the government? I think we should be thankful that we do have high earners who are already making a significant contribution. We would be a lot worse off if we drove them away with higher taxes!

Woodhen I work a minimum wage job (well £6 and my husband earns £6.50). We dont claim any other help other than £55 childcare and CB. (no hb, no tax credits left over etc). There are loads of families like me who work (I do 25 and he does 45) and we still only make a very small amount and dont really get muchhelp. You are still extremely rich as they only tax the bit over 40k at the higher rate amount.

we are not extremely rich - my point is why should we be taxed further because it appears that we have more disposable income than someone under the threshold.

It is unfair that a large amount of families have the same household income as us with two of them earning reasonable wages that equate to ours and yet we seem to have more money to take.

coalition makes a very fair point that taxation shouldn't be about fairness (which is subjective anyway) but about efficacy.

What gives us the most bang for our buck?

And the reality is when we tried it last time, it didn't work.
It resulted in brain drain and insufficient money moving throught the priavte sector cos for every pound we pay in tax, we're not spending.

Yeah but if they have to pay full time childcare then they will be losing money through that by having to pay for full time spaces, as opposed to you paying part time.

I think the money needs to come from somewhere and if people on this thread think thinks like spending £150 - £200 a week on food is normal , can afford a 4 bed house or have 2 cars then I would say they are very, very affluent.

so noodle do you think everyone in a four bed house should sell up and use the mortgage saving to pay the government?

BTW we have two cars so DP can drive 100 miles to work.

Tax the rich and give it to me ?
Where would I see the benefit then ? We use private education, don't claim benefits and pay NI and tax the same as everyone else.
However I do think if anyone should be "suffering" in this downturn it really shouldn't be the poorest working people in society.

I would probably be seen as poor to many people but I would gladly pay more tax if I knew it was helping the disabled or people who needed it.

Noodle69, as I keep saying, in the last year, my tax rate has gone up from 40% to 50%. I don't begrudge it and think its the right thing to do because it is consistent with my beliefs and principles. Funnily enough the "poor" don't have a monopoly on worrying about the disabled or poor. I already pay more in tax than I take home - 51%. How much more would you like me to pay? And, if my response is to say, sod that I think I will work part time instead as its not worth it, then has "society" really benefitted? I feel like a broken record!

However I do think if anyone should be "suffering" in this downturn it really shouldn't be the poorest working people in society

Taxes need to be cut asap - firstly on businesses, then the 50% rate, then the lowest rate threshold should be raised to above the threshold for benefits.

To pay tax and be on benefits is lunacy.

Litchick - Yes. In my fantasy world, what happens is the people say to the government - "We would like you to do X". The government then says "OK - that will cost Y" - and you then work out the best way to raise Y without unintended consequences.

i'm a (relatively) high earner. i don't mind paying tax at current levels or even more on my higher level of income. it's a small price to pay for living in a civilised society with free health service and decent schools for all.

And you just swap one bit of suffering for another.

If you take more tax from me, I won't be able to spend it and those benefiting from me spending will suffer.

This morning I had my hair blown dry. The owner needs me to spend my money there. Ditto her staff.

I then bought three books in a local book store. The onwer needs me to do that, as do the staff, as do the writers etc.

There needs to be balance between the cash taken in tax and the money left to us to spend.

Niceguy2 - No, that's the second worst thing you can do. The worst would be to give them no support at all so they either died or stole.

The second worst thing to do would be to create an economic climate where the proverbial poor person can get himself a job"?

Did I miss something? That doesn't sound right at all. The proverbial poor person would rather have a job surely?

I think you underestimate the levels of help some already receive. Also underestimate the levels of theft among receivers?

Sorry I do NOT get your drift unless you are a sort of communist maybe? Or one of those people who thinks the poor are always right and deserving and responsible and the ahem rich are always mean and grasping and to blame for their poverty and there is nothing in between.

Am I reading too much into this?

The worst thing you can do is to do nothing. The Second worst (which niceguy2 described as the worst) is to give them financial support.
A better solution of course is to enable them to support themselves.

It is the classic, give a man a fish and he can feed himself for a day, give him fishing rod and teach him to fish and he can feed his community (providing there are fish). we need a way of producing more fish without alienating the teachers who will provide the rods.

I also think you will find everything is relative, we are a two car household with live in the middle of nowhere with a toddler and baby, dh works 100 miles away and there is no public transport/local shop in under 5 miles. without the dc, i could manage it but going in a different direction to dh I would still need a car! Also those suggesting downsizing - erm we need people to be able to purchase those larger properties from those who might be able to downsize, by taxing them more you aren't going to find that many people who will be able to do that! And there is no point in targeting the housing market even further due to the fact that many homeowners are in negative equity and that would make the whole country tumble even further down the line.

I don't believe that it would be economical to provide many people with more money through taxing higher earners. Really taxing the super rich is the only option but then we would lose a great deal of their original tax if they moved away. We do have to stop handing out lots of unecessary benefits - but unnecessary benefits are all subjective and personal.

Also as an aside, I really don't get how communism works, you are always going to have the haves and have nots, communism is just a much nastier way of doing it imho and makes for very unhappy customers and unpleasant dictators who usually end up with their heads on a stick!

If you tax people too much, they stop working at all.

bonsoir exactement

Oh yes, its really important for ME to be rich, because then I can help poor people by buying their stuff... what kind of argument is that? Surely if everyone was given money to give out to whoever they fancied, it would be more productive rather than inflating the cost of luxury services because the number of buyers is low....

god.

Flat rate tax would be fair. "progressive" is a term stolen by the left.

A lot of the poor in this country already have a job, nobody wants hand outs but they can have a tax code or allowance which reflects the cost of living that I suggest would be a good start.

No progressive as in progressive taxation is a very exact, slightly technical term for progressively increasing the % of income that is taxed dependant on size of income. It's not a left or a right term it's a descriptive one.

All the other ways in which it is used are basically bullshit.