£2K/year/child for child care
Comments
-
feltkuota wrote:Pross wrote:drlodge wrote:I would point out that these so called "rich" parents are already paying 40% tax on some/most of their earnings, but the child care tax relief is only at the 20% rate. So they are still paying 20% tax on their childcare costs.
Yep, I've never understood this 'tax the super rich at a higher rate' argument and somehow making out they are getting off lightly by being on a 40% rate. Ultimately £400k a year tax (the amount being taxed at 20% would be negligible) on a salary of £1 million is a massive amount to pay already.
If earning £1m you'd be paying 45% tax, grater NI contributions and have no personal allowances
I know. My point is that there's no need why that should be the case (let alone increasing it to 50%) as the people earning that money are already paying around 30 times the amount of tax an average wage earner would. This is assuming they aren't using every tax avoidance scheme in the book and, if they are, they would continue to do so if the rate gets increased (I suspect more people would stretch every loophole to the limit).0 -
Monkeypump wrote:
What is your cut-off point for 'rich' or 'not rich'?
Are you suggesting that anyone paying the higher tax should pay an even higher percentage of income tax?
A large part of my tax deduction is at the higher rate. Am I therefore rich? Because if so, somebody forgot to tell me...
'Rich' is not an objective state, i think even you can recognise that. Your question as a result is flawed.
The principle of progressive taxation is that those who earn more pay more in tax as a percentage of there earnings. this is as opposed to flat rate taxation which regardless of income is applied equally (VAT)
Are you 'rich'? well to many, probably, in terms of relative income. Should you pay more tax as a percentage of your income then someone who takes home 15,000 a year? Yes.0 -
The state sets those thresholds. I am not arguing what the thresholds should be or at what rate, just the principle of the higher rate of tax, rather than a linear tax rate.Monkeypump wrote:nathancom wrote:
Rich people wouldn't be rich if it weren't for a whole range of civil institutions than enable society to function. This is the primary role of the state: we give up part of our wealth and freedom to the state so that civil institutions might be sustained to our benefit, whether than be freedom from crime, hostile invasion, disease or the opportunity to work and earn money, to access justice or to receive an eduction.drlodge wrote:nathancom wrote:And they benefit most from a society that enables them to earn that much so they should pay more back in.
Even if the tax rate were the same across the abord (20%) the rich would pay more tax by virtue of them earning more. But they get a double whammy by being taxed also at a higher rate.
How exactly do you define "should pay more back in" - in absolute terms or as a percentage of their gross compared to less well off people.
Its an odd statement to make, since the rich do not benefit as much [from society] as those who earn very little; rich people are net contributors, poor people are net consumers. Actually I really don't understand what you are trying to say :?
Those who earn the most benefit economically the most from this tacit/hypothetical contract between the individual and the state therefore they should make the largest contribution to the continued support of the state.
The Rich benefit most from the Police as they have the most property, the Rich benefit most from the National Health service as it provides a healthy workforce from which they derive their wealth, the Rich benefit most from the army since it again protects their property from external threats, the Rich benefit most from the courts since it provides an independent arbiter for property conflicts (the vast majority of legal activity has nothing to do with crime).
It is only correct that the Rich pay a greater percentage of their income in tax because they clearly benefit exponentially more than those who earn less. Hence why we do not have a linear tax system: it simply wouldn't address the inequity of benefit those who are wealthier derive from the state compared to the poor.
Notice not even the Tories talk of abolishing the top rate of tax, only the rate at which it is charged. It is a fundamentally fair concept and one that has grown out of a historical settlement between rich and poor in UK over the last 200 years.
What is your cut-off point for 'rich' or 'not rich'?
Are you suggesting that anyone paying the higher tax should pay an even higher percentage of income tax?
A large part of my tax deduction is at the higher rate. Am I therefore rich? Because if so, somebody forgot to tell me...
How rich you feel you are is another subject though isn't it.0 -
Pross wrote:In what way do they benefit the most? Some will have got there by luck, some by knowing the right people and some but sheer hard work. I'm not sure it has anything to do with benefitting from society. Would you really want the entrepeneurs that start up companies to leave? I'll add here I'm moderately well paid but can't ever see a situation where I'll be worried about paying super tax. I just don't see why there's a need for the percentage to be higher when they already pay more in absolute terms. It's the politics of envy.
Luck i am assuming is luck to have been born into a wealthy family
Knowing the right people i am assuming is because they went to a good school (nearly always around affluent areas or private of course)
and sheer hardwork? how many of them do you know.
as for companies and business people leaving?
where is Dyson?
where is Burberry?
in fact, where is British industry?
demanding the rich pay more has nothing to with envy and everything to do with the fact that our society is becoming more and more unequal. half a million depend on food banks. unemployment is high, job opportunities are low, and as a result of all of these business-people doing such a great job making our nation wealthy, more and more people are relying on the state to survive.0 -
If you want to see how it works in practice, just look at France.
The young ones all over here, the wealthy ones all in Switzerland and the lefties very happy.
Even EDF prefers to invest here than France, and they are government owned FFS.0 -
Pross wrote:nathancom wrote:
And they benefit most from a society that enables them to earn that much so they should pay more back in, or leave.Pross wrote:drlodge wrote:I would point out that these so called "rich" parents are already paying 40% tax on some/most of their earnings, but the child care tax relief is only at the 20% rate. So they are still paying 20% tax on their childcare costs.
Yep, I've never understood this 'tax the super rich at a higher rate' argument and somehow making out they are getting off lightly by being on a 40% rate. Ultimately £400k a year tax (the amount being taxed at 20% would be negligible) on a salary of £1 million is a massive amount to pay already.
In what way do they benefit the most? Some will have got there by luck, some by knowing the right people and some but sheer hard work. I'm not sure it has anything to do with benefitting from society. Would you really want the entrepeneurs that start up companies to leave? I'll add here I'm moderately well paid but can't ever see a situation where I'll be worried about paying super tax. I just don't see why there's a need for the percentage to be higher when they already pay more in absolute terms. It's the politics of envy.
The point is that we need taxes to pay for all these things that allow businesses to operate and wealth to be generated. Getting any more out of the working and middle classes would be fairly difficult, so it's got to come from higher earners.
What's messed up though is the income inequality in this country. If you fixed that (by better education, especially vocational), then the tax base would be far broader.0 -
RedWheels wrote:Pross wrote:In what way do they benefit the most? Some will have got there by luck, some by knowing the right people and some but sheer hard work. I'm not sure it has anything to do with benefitting from society. Would you really want the entrepeneurs that start up companies to leave? I'll add here I'm moderately well paid but can't ever see a situation where I'll be worried about paying super tax. I just don't see why there's a need for the percentage to be higher when they already pay more in absolute terms. It's the politics of envy.
Luck i am assuming is luck to have been born into a wealthy family not necessarily, it can be but could also be the luck to be born with talent for sport or music and then the luck to me in the right place at the right time. You can also be lucky to get involved in a line of business just as it takes off. Luck and hard work aren't mutually exclusive though.
Knowing the right people i am assuming is because they went to a good school (nearly always around affluent areas or private of course) usually but not always
and sheer hardwork? how many of them do you know. I only know one person who would fall in the 45% tax bracket at present. He's a city banker and is a real stereotype but he either got there by hard work or luck as he was just a regular comprehensive school boy from a South Wales town. Some of the most well known names in British business have worked their way up from humble beginnings
as for companies and business people leaving?
where is Dyson?
where is Burberry?
in fact, where is British industry? in the case of Dyson they left as red tape made it difficult for them to expand and got refused planning consent (I know of another hi-tech business that nearly did the same. It proves the point that businesses will leave if policies don't suit them and taxing their highest earning employees at ridiculous percentages is another of those policies. However, it's a pet hate of mine when people make out we no longer have industry. What we have is a lot of smaller scale but very hi-tech industry rather than the cheap labour, high polluting heavy industry of the past. In addition we have huge Japanese companies such as Nissan and recentlyHitachi prepared to invest in the country. That would soon change if their execs were getting taxed at 50%.
demanding the rich pay more has nothing to with envy and everything to do with the fact that our society is becoming more and more unequal. half a million depend on food banks. unemployment is high, job opportunities are low, and as a result of all of these business-people doing such a great job making our nation wealthy, more and more people are relying on the state to survive. part of the issue is that lots of people, both rich and poor, have forgotten what things in life are essentials. Someone in another thread quoted £40 per month for mobile phone as an essential outgoing! You don't have to spend money on mobile phones, alcohol, Sky TV, nights out, cigarettes, gambling etc. As for food banks, their a relatively new creation but had they been in existence their usage would probably have been higher in the past when real poverty was more prevalent.0 -
nathancom wrote:
The state sets those thresholds. I am not arguing what the thresholds should be or at what rate, just the principle of the higher rate of tax, rather than a linear tax rate.Monkeypump wrote:nathancom wrote:
Rich people wouldn't be rich if it weren't for a whole range of civil institutions than enable society to function. This is the primary role of the state: we give up part of our wealth and freedom to the state so that civil institutions might be sustained to our benefit, whether than be freedom from crime, hostile invasion, disease or the opportunity to work and earn money, to access justice or to receive an eduction.drlodge wrote:nathancom wrote:And they benefit most from a society that enables them to earn that much so they should pay more back in.
Even if the tax rate were the same across the abord (20%) the rich would pay more tax by virtue of them earning more. But they get a double whammy by being taxed also at a higher rate.
How exactly do you define "should pay more back in" - in absolute terms or as a percentage of their gross compared to less well off people.
Its an odd statement to make, since the rich do not benefit as much [from society] as those who earn very little; rich people are net contributors, poor people are net consumers. Actually I really don't understand what you are trying to say :?
Those who earn the most benefit economically the most from this tacit/hypothetical contract between the individual and the state therefore they should make the largest contribution to the continued support of the state.
The Rich benefit most from the Police as they have the most property, the Rich benefit most from the National Health service as it provides a healthy workforce from which they derive their wealth, the Rich benefit most from the army since it again protects their property from external threats, the Rich benefit most from the courts since it provides an independent arbiter for property conflicts (the vast majority of legal activity has nothing to do with crime).
It is only correct that the Rich pay a greater percentage of their income in tax because they clearly benefit exponentially more than those who earn less. Hence why we do not have a linear tax system: it simply wouldn't address the inequity of benefit those who are wealthier derive from the state compared to the poor.
Notice not even the Tories talk of abolishing the top rate of tax, only the rate at which it is charged. It is a fundamentally fair concept and one that has grown out of a historical settlement between rich and poor in UK over the last 200 years.
What is your cut-off point for 'rich' or 'not rich'?
Are you suggesting that anyone paying the higher tax should pay an even higher percentage of income tax?
A large part of my tax deduction is at the higher rate. Am I therefore rich? Because if so, somebody forgot to tell me...
How rich you feel you are is another subject though isn't it.
The state doesn't set anything using the terms "Rich" or "not rich" - you seem to set your own judgement on those arbitrarily black and white labels.
I acknowledge that I earn a decent salary, and I accept that I payer higher-rate tax on some of that. Reading your post seems to suggest you'd like people in my position to pay even more (despite your protests that you wouldn't argue the rates or thresholds).
In financial terms, I certainly don't consider myself rich. Again, your post seems to neatly divide the have and have-nots to suit your argument.0
