AIBU to believe rich people should contribute much more?

[marcusian]

A bit tongue in cheek, but given that its almost impossible for poorly paid workers including care workers and nurses to strike, and that the government have given people earning over £100K a massive pay rise, what other ways could the most wealthy be made to pay?

My idea: - a new LUXURIES tax (think 50% VAT) on things ordinary people cant buy, like superyachts, airplanes, £10K+ dining tables, a box at wimbledon, £500+ handbags, £100+ football boots!

AIBU - No - they should pay more and heres my ideas how they should do it!
AIBU - Yes - leave wealthy people alone, its not their fault

That said, I have had exceptional care for breast cancer from the same hospital.

I’m glad. That doesn’t help your mil and all the others like her, though. Getting very old was always a bum deal but it’s a horror show now.

Agreed. When people say “tax the rich” they often mean “tax someone who isn’t me but give me a share of the proceeds”. It’s not sustainable- we all need to contribute to society if we can. Or else it starts to break down and no one wants to anymore.

People who pay less than about the level of the 40% rate of tax are net gainers from the system- some obviously more than others. The idea that this section of society is somehow being cheated isn’t true, quite the opposite. They are not paying their way. That doesn’t mean they should pay their way necessarily, but we should recognize that they are not rather than proceed as if they should get more and more.

As a child of immigrants brought up in a council estate, I recognize that we have a lot of opportunities in the uK. The state should do certain things yes, but we also need to take responsibility for ourselves.

It gets more problematic when tax the rich means people just leave.

Those tax receipts need to be picked up. By whom

We need a strong FS in the U.K. and the services sector contributes massively to GDP

That means being attractive in pay

Absolutely they should pay more tax. Without question.

Er what planet are you on? EVERYONE pays tax. Buy food? It is taxed. Own a car? You're paying tax. Eating in a restaurant? Taxed.
Buy clothes. Taxed.

Don't be daft.

Isn't VAT paid as a percentage though? So the bigger the luxury item I buy, the more VAT I pay?

I really don’t understand why people keep trotting this out. Where are these 600,000 people going to move to? Taxes are higher in most English speaking countries, they’re certainly higher in Scandinavia and Europe’s closed to us. Where is this low tax utopia all these wealthy people are going to flock to?

I'm not so sure that they do move tbh. However, I suspect an awful lot just give up working. We have lost tens of thousands of "economic units" aged 50+ in the last couple of years, mostly full-time, qualified, high earning individuals.

It’s funny on other threads people saying they’re leaving but on this one people with higher resources and abilities won’t make choices.

However it’s also to attract

Use visas to get the skills you want too and build sectors. I’m more used to points based systems as have lived elsewhere.

They already do.

I think you'lll find that if you you can satisfy local wealth creation / investment/ property criteria, which would include a majority of the 600,000 you refer to, you'd find the welcome mat rolled out.

For example, Italy, Portugal and Spain all want to attract people back to depopulated rural areas, and have programmes to achieve this. Google Portugal's Golden Visa or My Second Home Malaysia as examples aimed at retirees. You can certainly buy residency in the Caribbean: it costs about $200k in Antigua for example, plus a home on top. Same is true in New Zealand, if you buy a business and could create employment... we briefly looked at a (small and very rundown) shipyard there. There are increasing numbers of Digital Nomad schemes from Bali to the most recent Eastern European accession countries.

@MsPincher going back to days when private health insurance was tax deductible would be sensible, as would making a % of childcare costs. It always irked me when I was a freelance copywriter that I could have deducted the cost of a secretary but not the nanny who enabled me to travel and work. A degree of index-linking to the rate at which income starts would make a lot of difference too.

To give an example software developers be paid more in US and you often see posts along those lines

We need something that we ‘re strong in it probably won’t be that to same extent but it has been and can be FS

I think you'lll find that if you you can satisfy local wealth creation / investment/ property criteria, which would include a majority of the 600,000 you refer to, you'd find the welcome mat rolled out.

yes

Your bog standard higher paid worker doesn't move abroad just for tax reasons. It's the very high earners who move, such as athletes, pop stars, actors, TV presenters, and those running "virtual" businesses that can be run from anywhere, etc., often to tax havens or low tax countries. But even "bog standard" workers earning good money are moving, not only for tax reasons, but for better working conditions, better pay and higher standard of living, i.e. doctors and IT consultants moving to Australia and Canada.

As for older people who've stopped working, that's usually down to them now receiving "gold plated" pensions, i.e. doctors, dentists, and even teachers & emergency workers, who have worked enough years to have accrued pretty high wages (and lump sums) meaning they don't "need" to work from their mid 50's onwards. Perhaps we've been too generous with pension schemes in the past?? (I know that a lot of the generosity has been scaled back for younger workers in those jobs).

There are also the restrictions/penalties on "high" pension funds which the general public wanted, but which have had a negative side effect, i.e. doctors who have to cut back their hours due to the punitive tax they have to pay not just on their wages over £100k but also on the compulsory employers pension contributions made by their employer which push their pension funds above the relatively recent limits!

Rich people do not pay 40% tax. It's 40% on over 50ish k and self employed often less. Yes absolutely tax the high earners more!! Our society is unequal enough. It's a no brainer.

No they don't as a percentage of earnings!

What is this in reference to? Can you explain?

Yes they do. There comes a point on the income curve where the tax/nic deductions total more than 40%, in fact closer to 50%. As income rises, the 20% rate on the £37.5k gets less and less relevant, and there are the 62% marginal rates between 50-60 and 100-125, so on incomes over around £170k, the total tax and NIC is just under 50% of the total income.

@linning

Of course they were trying to be 'mean' its what people do when they get annoyed theyre being disagreed with and dont know how to challenge it

I dont think I've been vague at all. There's no point me giving you imaginary figures that you'll just point out are imaginary.

You dont need exact figures to be able to understand that wealth inequality is a real thing that as a society we need to tackle. Its not about me or you personally. I dont want to tackle wealth inequality for myself. I dont live in poverty. Nor do I agree with your assessment that the poor pass the bucket upwards. Its well documented that poorer people give more as a proportion of their income to charity than well off people do. Pay more tax as a proportion of income.

I also don't buy into the narrative that all higher earners pay upwards of 50% tax on their whole wage/income. Estimates (depending on avoidance etc) range from 10 to 50. Pretty big range. And of course some pay 0.

And yes billions are lost in benefit fraud. Billions also go unclaimed. The estimates for tax evasion go from 6 billion to 90 billion.

The stats on wealth inequality are undeniable.

I've seen lots of comments defending wealth inequality on this thread. People should work harder, get a different job. Invent their own business. Just leave poor rich people alone!

None of them particularly realistic or helpful.

If you wish to continue defending a society where a kardashian or a musk exist while children starve to death then that's your perogative.

I dont agree that it's OK and agree with the op that more needs to be done.

Oh and the irony of people bemoaning the state of the health services while celebrating tax cuts is quite something.

I think rich people have elaborate ways of minimising their tax liability. Tax them more or not, closing the loopholes would help.

Be fair Topgub... I was completely even handed! Complimentary about my care and horrified by the emergency care system in the same paragraph. I could point you to threads where I've talked about the NHS at greater length. However, this is my first encounter with its shortcomings.

Exactly.
Maths is not the strong suit of many people on this thread.

Can someone please link proof that lower earners pay more proportionally, in tax.

Because to me, that makes no sense unless the lower earner and higher earner are spending exactly the same amounts.

If both buy a car at £1000 which is 20% vat. It would be more tax, proportionally, of the lower earners wage. But the high earner is unlikely to be buying a £1000 car or have just one. They buy a car for 10k so their VAT would be 2k not £200. So even if the high earner earns 10 times the wage of the lower earner, it’s the same proportionally.

and again, the car and vat and the vat rate is an example. Interchange the item and the amounts. Just incase whoever it was insisted there’s no tax on any food so food can’t be used an example wants to moan again.

I am not saying it’s wrong, it just doesn’t make sense to me.

VAT on food is very complicated. Raw foods are zero rated; prepared and cooked foods are liable to tax. Biscuits are zero-rated, unless sold in single serving packets but cake is taxed at 20% (Jaffa Cakes are cakes -- not biscuits, who knew?) Beyond which, most people start to look glazed and do nuttin more.

Not quite. "Catering" is standard rated which is why most hot food is standard rated. Things like hot pies and cooked chickens/pizzas etc can be zero rated if they're not kept hot once cooked, i.e. if allowed to cool to ambient temperature in the shop meaning the customer may get it hot, cold or somewhere inbetween.

Cold "foods" which are standard rated are usually because they're "luxuries" such as chocolate biscuits, or are not really core "foods", such as crisps, sweets, fizzy drinks, ice creams, etc.

Most "proper" foods are zero rated, such as fresh fruit/veg, raw meat/fish, most tinned, packets and frozen foods, sandwiches, pies, etc., even ready meals are zero rated.