We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

The Rich Asked To Give Up Their Bus Passes etc.


Bing.alau
Resolved

Likes # 0

I wonder if the bloke who thought up that wheeze is going to give up his travel expenses as well? I haven't got a link to it but it has been on the news a couple of times.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

Woolwell "Taxation isn't about trying to even things up"

Of course it is , in effect.

The bigger the tax you pay, the more guns and ships you have therefore contributed towards. So would that mean a non-taxpayer (which includes many wives) should not be entitled to the same protection thereby produced? Of course not!

Like this post
Mr Mistoffelees

Likes # 0

The poor get benefits taken from them that they can ill-afford to do without. The rich are asked if they wouldn't mind giving a little back.

Like this post
Woolwell

Likes # 0

spider9 - It depends on what you mean by "even things up". I think that both morddyyd (although I should not speak for him) and I thought that you meant evening up of lifestyles, income, etc.

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

Woolwell

There was nothing meant about evening up incomes - morddwyd would really have a coronary as that would make me a communist!!

The purpose of taxation however is to try and 'even things up' by asking those who make most money to pay more towards services, so that those who could ill afford it can still benefit from these services.

My point being that if, as many better-off people seem to be saying, I've paid in money so I will attempt to get as much back as possible - because I've paid in so much - would lead to a situation where one might be saying, if you don't pay tax then you cannot benefit (the wives who could not expect the police/army to protect them, as they haven't paid into this 'tax pot').

Like this post
woodchip

Likes # 0

First things First, its not Winter Fuel Payments that's the Problem, its the Lack of Control Of Fuel Corporations that's the Problem Making big fat Profits for Shareholders, If that was stopped making all the profit they make, all would benefit. Next talking about one owning ones own home, yes they have increased in value, but if you sold it you would still need to buy another house to live in, and you cannot take it with you when you die as the richest person that as ever lived still finished in a hole or burner. yet people still strive to win the lottery or have lots of money. WHY?

Like this post
woodchip

Likes # 0

PS I do not want to be Rich, but I do not want to be poor and destitute

Like this post
Woolwell

Likes # 0

spider9 - I understand your point but am pointing out that there is although there is "evening out" in the method of paying tax that is not the purpose of taxation which is to pay for what the Government provides for all that is unless you expect taxation to increase so that there are more people receiving benefits. A flat rate of tax, although I am not advocating it, is reputedly an efficient way of raising tax.

Going back to the wealthy (whoever they may be as they haven't been defined) returning benefits then I have never understood why they are not means tested or linked to the tax system.

Like this post
john bunyan

Likes # 0

" I have never understood why they are not means tested or linked to the tax system."

My earlier suggestion of taxing winter fuel payment would cover the point to some extent and would be simple. I do not see this as a benefit, but as part of OAP. Similarly the OAP is often taken into account by company pensions and those who have them rely on the OAP as part of the total.

I am sure that someone will correct me, but I believe the top 1% already pay 25% of all income tax receipts and the trouble is that if you tax them too highly, they leave the UK, as happened before in the '60's. see:

Higher paid taxes

Like this post
spider9

Likes # 0

Woolwell

I can also see where you are coming from in this matter. I did say that tax "in effect" served the purpose of evening-out.

Presumably that's why we don't have the flat-rate taxation contribution you mention - every Government has tried to adjust rates (in the name of 'equalising', or some such similar phrase!) so that the better-off pay a larger share.

I totally agree about means testing in some way, but it throws up even more problems (and expense) unfortunately.

john bunyan "...trouble is that if you tax them too highly, they leave the UK, as happened before in the '60's."

The economic times, around the world, have changed dramatically since the 60s, so I'm never altogether convinced by that argument any longer.

Like this post
Woolwell

Likes # 0

I'm not convinced that means testing should prove to be more expensive. It could be linked to your PAYE tax coding or if you are higher rate tax payer then you automatically do not get winter fuel allowance, etc. The Government (HMRC) has this information but it is not shared with other departments possibly due to concerns over confidentiality.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Swatch to release its own line of smartwatches to rival iWatch

IDG UK Sites

From the iPhone 6 to the iWatch and a new Apple TV we look at the products Apple is set to launch...

IDG UK Sites

Miranda July's Somebody app offers a very unusual take on messaging

IDG UK Sites

The 7 most ridiculous iPhone 6 rumours: what Apple WON'T reveal on 9 September