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

www.opticalexpress.co.uk/magazine/article/cataract-waiting-times

So, nothing to do with "the rich" not paying enough tax, and everything to do with the twits shutting down society and the NHS for two years after an unrelenting media and opposition campaign.

A lot of locum GPs worked through their own limited companies. My own did for a few years between him "retiring" as a partner in the GP surgery and "properly" retiring a few years later. His limited company was a typical husband/wife company presumably so wife could share wages/dividends so it wasn't all taxed on him at higher rates. Thing is he continued to work at the same place, same patients, etc, so fell right into "disguised self employment" tax avoidance territory.

In 2017 Govt enforced IR35 onto the NHS meaning that was stopped, but it's helped cause the severe doctor shortage. A classic case of the negative consequences of taxing people too much! At least the 2017 change is now set to be reversed so hopefully will reverse the damage to extending the working life of GPs.

Don't they pay a high amount of tax anyway. I do think though they could at least make a charity donation that helps out the less well off. Or they could donate to a pot of money to help those who will struggle to pay the increase in interest rates. Which will also increase how much rent tenants pay to avoid losing they're home.

Does it matter why? It makes no difference to the poor buggers who are losing their sight and can’t afford to pay.

Uabu. Already the richest 10 percent pay more tax than other 90 percent. If you keep taxing them more highly (which is basically a punishment for being a top earner) these individuals will relocate to where they pay less tax. Then you will just be left with all low tax payers.

I don't agree with the relocation argument. I'd never consider relocating for tax purposes.

However. If I was a highly skilled immigrant from a weaker economy, the UK would be way down my list (unless I had a significant family footprint already established here). And despite the abundance of university go-ers, we really do struggle with the number of highly educated individuals in a lot of sectors.

I do believe that higher earners (including the middle) are already taxed enough progressively. And I think most would happily pay more tax if the books still didn't add up after tax and benefit fraud were sorted.

I would. In fact I have started planning. Having lived abroad before, I think we can have a better quality of life than we do here. A large portion of my salary is taxed at 60% - it's not worth it. I don't use the NHS or state schools. What I get in return isn't worth what we pay in taxes.

I don't agree with the relocation argument. I'd never consider relocating for tax purposes.

A lot of high earning professionals went abroad in the 70s when UK taxes and mortgage rates were high and the economy here was in the doldrums. It definitely happens. The better off and more highly qualified people are, the more easily they can relocate. And then you get the “brain drain” effect as well as losing a lot of tax revenue.

Just because you wouldn’t emigrate doesn’t mean others won’t, it has been shown to happen.

I agree not everyone is the same.

I am surrounded by 100s of highly paid individuals, and I see very little evidence. Perhaps if taxation was going up to mad levels that would change, but 45% or even 50% isn't a trigger for brain drain.

Even the 60% effective rate when your personal allowance tapers hasn't triggered an exodus. LTA and pension tapers (which hurts more than 60%)...we're all still here.

The only people that I see relocating outside of the UK are those that are moving for family reasons, or a dream of a life in the sun.

@BasicDad

I don't agree with the relocation argument. I'd never consider relocating for tax purposes.

Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean that others don't.

I'm a semi retired part time accountant with a pretty small client base. I've had about a dozen clients move abroad over the past few years, with tax being a big factor in their decision.

It's well accepted that many doctors move abroad a few years after qualifying for the higher wages/lower taxes.

It's also well known that famous athletes, pop stars, actors, TV presenters and authors have moved abroad to low tax countries or tax havens. They're the kind of people we NEED to stay in Britain and pay tax here - it's better that they pay a smaller percentage of income to HM Treasury than move abroad and pay nothing.

I think you are minimising the effects of high tax when there are so many options for highly qualified people to work elsewhere. If they increased the tax to 60%, we would definitely relocate (and so would our companies) Many people travel and know the world well, and relocating is not a big deal anymore.

It comes down to ideology. One side sees that everything should be redistributed one way or another - they are usually the ones paying no tax or very little.

Those that have sacrificed years to get qualified, regularly work 70 hours a week plus, they see the money they have worked hard for as their money - and redistribution as theft.

One side relies on a structured nanny state
The other prefers personal responsibility and low intervention

We would leave if Labour won, no question. Raynor is bad news for anyone that owns their own home and is doing reasonably well, the country would be bankrupt within the year with the nationalisation plan alone.

Quite right, life isn't fair.

A progressive tax system is the best way to alleviate that unfairness to create an environment where there is more equality of opportunity to facilitate social mobility. It would also benefit people who work hard in essential jobs (healthcare, social care, education etc).

We would leave if Labour won, no question. Raynor is bad news for anyone that owns their own home and is doing reasonably well, the country would be bankrupt within the year with the nationalisation plan alone.

@Kissingfrogs25 she's more than bad news for just those folks, she's bad news for all. A disaster waiting to happen!

The country’s bankrupt now. By the way, Starmer’s the Labour leader, not Raynor

I was referring to Raynor's hard left influence. Starmer tries rather unsuccessfully in my view to straddle all sides, but she would tax us 80% over night and nationalise everything over night. So yes I am most definitely referring to Angela folks, you remember that loud, crass woman that is deputy leader for the opposition?

she would tax us 80% over night

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Well probably time to close this conversation down given that Liz and Kwasi have heard the writing on the wall and today removed the tax cut.

I agree with some OPs that, life isn't inherently fair, which is why, whatever your faith or no-faith, as a society it is ethically incumbent on us to share with our poorest. (A Civilization is Measured by How It Treats Its Weakest Members - Ghandi)

There is an incredibly flawed presumption that we live in a meritocracy where people deserve what they get, that rich people got there entirely through endeavour, and poor people dont work hard enough or are too stupid. Really disappointing to see this angry trope repeated here. Whether its a council estate in brixton or a million people in a shanty town in Delhi this is just rubbish: they're all just dumb and lazy right?

As to discouraging enterprise, significant research indicates that successful entrepreneurs are not primarily motivated by £ or financial reward or power, its rather about seeing an idea and enjoying making it happen/be used. It often makes no difference to them whether they earn £250K or £250m.

Yes we live in a global system, and yes that makes it harder to achieve fairness and kindness. However trickle down economics has been shown to be completely ineffective, as the massively increasing world and UK wealth gap clearly shows...and yes, ultimately we need global institutions to police this.

If people want to leave the UK to earn more than £250K then frankly let them, absolutely no one is indispensible, and there are at least hundreds if not thousands of intelligent people in the UK who could do any of those jobs well.

The majority of super-rich also readily acknowledge that "Success" in business is primarily based on luck, i.e. being in the right place at the right time.

Financial success is also more often than not based on ruthlessness and exploitation. Even the often cited-as-saintly Bill Gates is a ruthless business man. Its quite nice that some rich people aim to give all their money away, but its so very obviously immoral that they were able to earn such wealth in the first place! And remember POVERTY is the at the root of almost all conflicts and wars, so even out of self interest everyone should agree to eradicate it.

Finally, finally..."If you suffered in life, and want people to suffer as you did because you turned out 'fine', then you are not in fact... 'fine'

@marcusian I actually agree with you about there needing to be a social safety net, also 100% with you in being annoyed by right wing distinctions between deserving vs undeserving poor, but I happen to believe that government is the least efficient way to achieve this. Plenty of leftists (not all, I know a great many that do sterling work) basically vote left every few years to assuage any sense of personal moral responsibility to provide that safety net using other people’s money.

If you want to live in that kinder world that Ghandi alluded to roll your sleeves up pick a cause or causes and volunteer your time. It’s what he would have done. I’m sure you do, but plenty do not. In that sense I feel a sense of stolen virtue about those people much like the stolen valour of people who pretend to have had a career in the military. Typing away furiously on how we should be spending other people’s money is more than a little obscene in my opinion.

Nice spiel, I enjoyed every word.

But this is my life, I have worked for 45 years. I have saved money carefully and contributed to pensions for my old age. And now, looking at the political options, I think I shall take the money I have saved to another country in Europe where the sun shines more.

@marcusian

Finally, finally..."If you suffered in life, and want people to suffer as you did because you turned out 'fine', then you are not in fact... 'fine'

I disagree with this point; there are very few people who have genuinely suffered who would ever want somebody else to suffer - victims of abuse spring to mind. You're conflating a poor lifestyle with suffering; I grew up in a council house with an illiterate alcoholic father with severe mental health problems and a mum who probably suffered with depression. My life was fairly rubbish by most of today's metrics; we had no heating, often not enough food and no luxuries - often no tv, never a holiday (until a charity paid for me to go away for recuperation after S4 cancer), no car, rarely left our town. I don't see it as suffering and in the same way we did, people just need to get on with it.

It gave me a fighting drive to never, ever go back to that situation and for my kids to never have to experience that, but if I had just been handed everything on a plate to make life easier I probably wouldn't have broken the cycle.

Like so many others, I've pulled myself out of that and am quite happy to pay my taxes for public services, but I absolutely do not think that those who have done well, whether through hard graft or luck, or a bit of both, should be penalised and made to make the lives of those who don't help themselves, better. My alcoholic father had every service and support available thrown at him, but time and time again he ignored everything and just reverted to type. Yes, I know addiction and MH issues are complex, but when somebody really doesn't want the help it's an utter waste of money and resources which could be better used elsewhere for those who need and want it.

It's not up to those who have worked hard to keep Guinness, Apple, BetFred and all the other big businesses which the poor often spend disproportionate amounts on in profit. Benefit payments with no accountability create more poverty, because poor addicts spend on addiction rather than feeding their kids or paying rent. If rent benefits went back to being paid direct, and recipients received food vouchers then fewer kids would go hungry - "dignity" for adults should come second to kids being housed and fed.

Everyone is different, but at some point the only way out of poverty for somebody who is able-bodied is to get off their ass and fight for it. We need a robust safety net which looks after the disabled and elderly, and everyone else should be personally responsible - it might lead to some people having to do jobs they wouldn't choose, but if there's a job and a person able to do it they should have to, rather than choose to stay on out of work benefits. That's how you get out of poverty.