would you be willing to pay more?
yes
85.1% (80)
85.1% (80)
no
14.9% (14)
14.9% (14)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Would you pay more?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Karma168:

Verbatim:
I wonder how many people here actually pay over 50% of their income in taxes, and even tho they are making plenty of money know that they could not ensure a safe future for their children.

Going off UK tax codes (because they're what I know) you only get taxed at 50% on anything over 150k. To end up paying 50% of your income, you'd have to be earning enough that the first 150k is a fraction of what you make. Hell even at 2 million your still under 50% (though only just) If you can't look after your family and ensure they have savings if you're making 2 million a year then you really need to hire an accountant as you obviously can't be trusted with money.

UK is not the only country in the world, income tax is not the only tax deduction people have on their income.
Also that's 150K GBP per year not per month, so it's not people that make over 2M a year that are getting taxed 50%(from that respective bracket).

Verbatim:

I'm getting payed 48K a month in my local currency*, additional 4.3K is added to it(for tax reasons) for the "value" of my company car, and couple 100's for cell phone and other expenditures which my employer covers.
The bottom line i get is 22.6Kish in local currency, after taxes(17K~ Income Tax, 2K~ health tax, and 2.5K~ social security) and the mandatory 12.5% retirement and sabbatical fund deposits.
I'm not doing badly, i make about 5 times(Pre tax) the average salary here, and I'm still not considered wealthy, not even close.
So yeah i don't really think you want to be paying 50% or more in taxes.
Especially if you live in a country with tons of indirect taxes(Vat, Property Tax, etc`).

*Since you are from the UK then my income is about 96,000(106,000 for taxable income, since car, phone, meals, etc` add a "taxable" value to the income) GBP a year.

Verbatim:

UK is not the only country in the world, income tax is not the only tax deduction people have on their income.
Also that's 150K GBP per year not per month, so it's not people that make over 2M a year that are getting taxed 50%(from that respective bracket).

150k a year is 12,5k a month. If you cant live off that, you have no right to be eligible to handle money.

Strazdas:

Verbatim:

UK is not the only country in the world, income tax is not the only tax deduction people have on their income.
Also that's 150K GBP per year not per month, so it's not people that make over 2M a year that are getting taxed 50%(from that respective bracket).

150k a year is 12,5k a month. If you cant live off that, you have no right to be eligible to handle money.

There's a difference between living, and setting your children's future, as i said the UK is not the only country in the world, i pay over 50% in various taxes, on top of that there are ton of indirect taxes just as in the UK.

I'm just saying that most people here who claim to have no problem with paying more taxes, are not paying as much ;)
BTW 12.5 is allot, but also depends on where you live in the UK a decent 2-3 bedroom flat in the London(city) would cost you 800-900+ pounds a week.

So yeah it's quite dependent on where you live and whats your general situation, and even then 12.5 pre-tax is not that much that would enable you to ensure the financial security of your children.

Verbatim:

Karma168:

Verbatim:
I wonder how many people here actually pay over 50% of their income in taxes, and even tho they are making plenty of money know that they could not ensure a safe future for their children.

Going off UK tax codes (because they're what I know) you only get taxed at 50% on anything over 150k. To end up paying 50% of your income, you'd have to be earning enough that the first 150k is a fraction of what you make. Hell even at 2 million your still under 50% (though only just) If you can't look after your family and ensure they have savings if you're making 2 million a year then you really need to hire an accountant as you obviously can't be trusted with money.

UK is not the only country in the world, income tax is not the only tax deduction people have on their income.
Also that's 150K GBP per year not per month, so it's not people that make over 2M a year that are getting taxed 50%(from that respective bracket).

He means income ABOVE 150K is taxed at 50%, so if you earn 150,001, only the 000,001 is taxed at 50%, the rest is taxed at the lower rate, so in order to actually pay 50% of your total income in taxes, you have to be earning a large enough yearly income that 150K is chump-change.

Verbatim:

I'm getting payed 48K a month in my local currency*, additional 4.3K is added to it(for tax reasons) for the "value" of my company car, and couple 100's for cell phone and other expenditures which my employer covers.
The bottom line i get is 22.6Kish in local currency, after taxes(17K~ Income Tax, 2K~ health tax, and 2.5K~ social security) and the mandatory 12.5% retirement and sabbatical fund deposits.
I'm not doing badly, i make about 5 times(Pre tax) the average salary here, and I'm still not considered wealthy, not even close.
So yeah i don't really think you want to be paying 50% or more in taxes.
Especially if you live in a country with tons of indirect taxes(Vat, Property Tax, etc`).

*Since you are from the UK then my income is about 96,000(106,000 for taxable income, since car, phone, meals, etc` add a "taxable" value to the income) GBP a year.

Then going by the 2012/2013 fiscal year tax codes, assuming a raw gross income of 106,000;

You would not be eligible for the Personal Allowance(first 8K income tax-free) since you earn over 100k.

Your first 35k of earnings would be taxed at 20%; approx 7000 annually.

Your remaining earnings would be taxed at 40%; approx 28,400 annually.

For National Insurance, you would pay nothing on your first 146/week of income, 12% on income between 146 and 817/week, and 14% on any income above 817/week.

So, you would have a gross weekly income of approx 2038, meaning a total weekly NI liability of approx 252, meaning 13,104 annually.

So, on a gross income of 106,000, your total take-home pay would be approx 57,496, assuming no deductions or exemptions. That makes your net monthly income approx 4791. Weekly, approx 1198.

There are people in this country who live on one tenth of that, I used to be one of them, your income in the UK would be considered comfortably middle-class; nice home, nice car, a 2-4 week holiday abroad every year, and enough disposable income to buy healthy foods, eat out regularly, and get all the usual toys for your living room.

Your plight at the hands of the evil and oppressive government moves me deeply;

Magichead:

Verbatim:

Karma168:

Going off UK tax codes (because they're what I know) you only get taxed at 50% on anything over 150k. To end up paying 50% of your income, you'd have to be earning enough that the first 150k is a fraction of what you make. Hell even at 2 million your still under 50% (though only just) If you can't look after your family and ensure they have savings if you're making 2 million a year then you really need to hire an accountant as you obviously can't be trusted with money.

UK is not the only country in the world, income tax is not the only tax deduction people have on their income.
Also that's 150K GBP per year not per month, so it's not people that make over 2M a year that are getting taxed 50%(from that respective bracket).

He means income ABOVE 150K is taxed at 50%, so if you earn 150,001, only the 000,001 is taxed at 50%, the rest is taxed at the lower rate, so in order to actually pay 50% of your total income in taxes, you have to be earning a large enough yearly income that 150K is chump-change.

Verbatim:

I'm getting payed 48K a month in my local currency*, additional 4.3K is added to it(for tax reasons) for the "value" of my company car, and couple 100's for cell phone and other expenditures which my employer covers.
The bottom line i get is 22.6Kish in local currency, after taxes(17K~ Income Tax, 2K~ health tax, and 2.5K~ social security) and the mandatory 12.5% retirement and sabbatical fund deposits.
I'm not doing badly, i make about 5 times(Pre tax) the average salary here, and I'm still not considered wealthy, not even close.
So yeah i don't really think you want to be paying 50% or more in taxes.
Especially if you live in a country with tons of indirect taxes(Vat, Property Tax, etc`).

*Since you are from the UK then my income is about 96,000(106,000 for taxable income, since car, phone, meals, etc` add a "taxable" value to the income) GBP a year.

Then going by the 2012/2013 fiscal year tax codes, assuming a raw gross income of 106,000;

You would not be eligible for the Personal Allowance(first 8K income tax-free) since you earn over 100k.

Your first 35k of earnings would be taxed at 20%; approx 7000 annually.

Your remaining earnings would be taxed at 40%; approx 28,400 annually.

For National Insurance, you would pay nothing on your first 146/week of income, 12% on income between 146 and 817/week, and 14% on any income above 817/week.

So, you would have a gross weekly income of approx 2038, meaning a total weekly NI liability of approx 252, meaning 13,104 annually.

So, on a gross income of 106,000, your total take-home pay would be approx 57,496, assuming no deductions or exemptions. That makes your net monthly income approx 4791. Weekly, approx 1198.

There are people in this country who live on one tenth of that, I used to be one of them, your income in the UK would be considered comfortably middle-class; nice home, nice car, a 2-4 week holiday abroad every year, and enough disposable income to buy healthy foods, eat out regularly, and get all the usual toys for your living room.

Your plight at the hands of the evil and oppressive government moves me deeply;

I know how a progressive tax system works, i don't live in the UK, i pay over 50% of my total salary in various taxes and mandatory deductions.
As i said it's very dependent on where you live, not only the country but also the city, 4K a month might seem allot, but if you have to live in London you're going to be at least paying half of that for housing(and even then not living in the city) rent, utility, and council tax would amount to at least 500 a week for a decent flat.

Verbatim:

Strazdas:

Verbatim:

UK is not the only country in the world, income tax is not the only tax deduction people have on their income.
Also that's 150K GBP per year not per month, so it's not people that make over 2M a year that are getting taxed 50%(from that respective bracket).

150k a year is 12,5k a month. If you cant live off that, you have no right to be eligible to handle money.

There's a difference between living, and setting your children's future, as i said the UK is not the only country in the world, i pay over 50% in various taxes, on top of that there are ton of indirect taxes just as in the UK.

I'm just saying that most people here who claim to have no problem with paying more taxes, are not paying as much ;)
BTW 12.5 is allot, but also depends on where you live in the UK a decent 2-3 bedroom flat in the London(city) would cost you 800-900+ pounds a week.

So yeah it's quite dependent on where you live and whats your general situation, and even then 12.5 pre-tax is not that much that would enable you to ensure the financial security of your children.

Yes. you can live off 1000 a month. You can settle all your families future and have enough left over to run on vacation every year with 12.500 a month. Thats why we call them rich you know. Also, only crazy people would pay 900 a week for a place to live. 400 a month is highly priced.

Verbatim:

Magichead:
-snip-

I know how a progressive tax system works, i don't live in the UK, i pay over 50% of my total salary in various taxes and mandatory deductions.
As i said it's very dependent on where you live, not only the country but also the city, 4K a month might seem allot, but if you have to live in London you're going to be at least paying half of that for housing(and even then not living in the city) rent, utility, and council tax would amount to at least 500 a week for a decent flat.

And if you lived in London, you would generally receive a larger salary, because the disparity with the rest of the country is so stark that it is customary for employers to account for it. I live in Edinburgh; it's not London, but I'm certainly no stranger to ludicrously high rent and house prices; the only reason I'm not currently dealing with negative income is that my mother was an incredibly prudent person and so I inherited a modest flat on which she had payed off the mortgage.

As to where you live affecting the answer to the question; obviously, but the question related to a windfall or a drastic increase in salary, and whether or not you would be as supportive of higher tax rates on the wealthy if you were yourself wealthy. From the perspective of one of those average wage earners who has to count every penny just to afford the basics, five times as much money seems pretty damn wealthy. But lets say the government did just take away 50% of your income if you earned 150K, just outright appropriated half of it; you're still going to have to come up with a pretty spectacular argument to persuade someone who lives on 12K a year that living on "only" 75K a year would make you hard done by.

Strazdas:

Yes. you can live off 1000 a month. You can settle all your families future and have enough left over to run on vacation every year with 12.500 a month. Thats why we call them rich you know. Also, only crazy people would pay 900 a week for a place to live. 400 a month is highly priced.

You're welcomed to try and find a 400GBP a month place in London, or in any other major city in the UK, most student dorms cost more than that.

Magichead:
snip

Yes I'm quite aware of the fact that people that live in London get payed more than say people who live in Newcastle.
Again in no place i ever stated that it's hard to live in 75K a year, or even on 50K a year which is still "quite" more than the average salary even in London.
What I'm saying is that many people don't feel the tax burden that they claim they have no problem living under, taxes are good when they are fair, reasonable, and give you a sufficient return.
Taxation is not and should not be used for redistribution of wealth, no economic system can function under such conditions.

Taxes should be used to grant basic services that ensure that as far as basic human and citizen rights go every one get the same package, and to provide services that give every one the same chance that will allow them to live their life and to achieve their goals.

I pay over 50% in taxes, and although it disagree on many of the tax policies and funds allocation i still get a comprehensive global health care(which i dare to say is better than any other health care system I've encountered), access to public education and heavily subsidized high education, and many other services that are worth paying for.

Verbatim:

Strazdas:

Yes. you can live off 1000 a month. You can settle all your families future and have enough left over to run on vacation every year with 12.500 a month. Thats why we call them rich you know. Also, only crazy people would pay 900 a week for a place to live. 400 a month is highly priced.

You're welcomed to try and find a 400GBP a month place in London, or in any other major city in the UK, most student dorms cost more than that.

heres a couple of 400-500 range, decent apartments. one of the first few searches in google http://www.tntmagazine.com/london/area-guide/rent-on-the-cheap-in-london
and even then, it apears that london housing is clearly overpriced for some reason. i guess they jut drain people as lnog as they are willing to pay too much.
my 4 member family live off 500 income (after tax) per month and we are not poor. we just dont throw money away.

Also cpcha suggests: gathers moss

Verbatim:

Magichead:
snip

Yes I'm quite aware of the fact that people that live in London get payed more than say people who live in Newcastle.
Again in no place i ever stated that it's hard to live in 75K a year, or even on 50K a year which is still "quite" more than the average salary even in London.
What I'm saying is that many people don't feel the tax burden that they claim they have no problem living under, taxes are good when they are fair, reasonable, and give you a sufficient return.
Taxation is not and should not be used for redistribution of wealth, no economic system can function under such conditions.

You might need to have a read at the works of the father of Capitalism, Adam Smith; the whole point of the Capitalist system was supposed to be the redistribution of wealth from the rich landowning class to the poor working class via the entrepreneurial efforts of the small business-owning middle class. The reason we have a progressive, redistributive tax system as part of a mixed-market economy rather than full-on raw-Capitalism is that while Smith's ideas had merit in theory, in practice they failed to deliver on their promise, and indeed we found Capitalism was just as flawed as the previous economic orthodoxy, only in different ways.

Without redistribution of wealth, those with existing capital will take a bigger and bigger piece of the pie as time goes on, because the more starting capital you have available, the easier it is to generate more capital, and the better insulated you are if some portion of your ventures fail. We can see this clearly when we look back over the last thirty years and track the rise of extremist Hayekian neo-liberal economics popularised by Reagan and Thatcher; the massive deregulation of the financial sector, the steady assault on Unions and workers' rights, the periodic tax cuts on the wealthiest combined with the creation of loopholes and exemptions in the tax code, the move towards interconnected globalist economic systems, and the focus on loosening restrictions on immigration laws for qualified workers - all of these things contributed not just to the recent financial crisis which has disproportionately affected the working poor and the lower-middle class, but has resulted in a trend of overall economic growth under which the proportion of the total wealth owned by the richest has climbed dramatically, while in inflation-adjusted real-terms the wages of many low- to middle-income workers has stayed the same, or even declined.

Taxes should be used to grant basic services that ensure that as far as basic human and citizen rights go every one get the same package, and to provide services that give every one the same chance that will allow them to live their life and to achieve their goals.

OK, what are basic services? I ask because that phrase is used by a lot of right-wingers on this site, but most of them have a different definition, so I want to make sure which you hold to.

As for the rest of your argument, at this point it's very nearly a Barnum Statement; just about everyone can agree with it, because the terms are so vague. When you discuss rights, do you mean a strict system of negative rights, strict positive rights, or a mixture of the two judged on a case-by-case basis? What services give everyone the same chances? How can a system of government enable the whole population to equally live their lives and achieve their goals when our current economic system creates groupings among the population who's prosperity depends on denuding the rights or wealth of one or more of the other groups?

I pay over 50% in taxes, and although it disagree on many of the tax policies and funds allocation i still get a comprehensive global health care(which i dare to say is better than any other health care system I've encountered), access to public education and heavily subsidized high education, and many other services that are worth paying for.

Now see, you seem to have a similar view to myself as to what constitutes a "basic" service, but you will find that very few others who make the arguments you do regarding redistribution do. Indeed, many of them would argue that the systems you mention -public education, free or subsidised higher education, universal healthcare- are in fact forms of redistribution themselves, inherently so, since they all operate under a schema in which any individual wealthy person contributes more than they get out, and any individual poor person gets out more than they put in.

The main issue with the tax bracket system is it tends to penalize those who wish to move up into the middle class and the subsequent ranks within it. The rich will always find ways to move their earnings around (offshore bank accounts; income measured in taxfree/less taxed 'assets'.) but its the common people who will be forking out for these 'rich man's taxes' and the middle class who suffer as politicians push their budget requirements on those who can't exploit the tax system.

The best solution in my mind is a flat tax on all income. That way we still pay more taxes as our wages increase over time; the the proportion of taxes doesn't encouraging hard work and career ambitions.

Fraser Greenfield:

The best solution in my mind is a flat tax on all income. That way we still pay more taxes as our wages increase over time; the the proportion of taxes doesn't encouraging hard work and career ambitions.

No, just no. We've had this discussion many times on this board, and every time it was shown just why a flat tax is a really bad idea™. In short, it has a lot to do with the fact that everyone has the basic costs of living they have to deal with, and those costs are not proportionate to one's income. So if Jack earns 1000€ per month and has to give 800€ per month for the basic living, he can't afford a 25% flat income tax and is actually going to run a 50€ loss every month with it, while James who earns 10.000€ per month and has, for example, 2500€ costs for a more fancy living will still have 50% of his income left over even after a, say, 25% flat tax.

A flat tax on disposable income would be fairer, of course, but a bureaucratic nightmare.

Tax brackets are okay, because, as was pointed out several times, if you move a tax bracket upwards, only the money that went over is going to be taxes at that rate - if your income goes from 1000 per month to 1010 per month and makes you jump a bracket, only the 10 will be taxed at the higher rate.

Verbatim:
I wonder how many people here actually pay over 50% of their income in taxes, and even tho they are making plenty of money know that they could not ensure a safe future for their children.

Well the thing is that usually high tax countries also make it easier for people to ensure their children's future. Let's take Belgium for instance: VAT ranging 6%-21% (6% on foodstuff and 21% on basically everything else), income tax at 50% at 34k euro per year, tax on capital gains at 25%, etc. BUT: Universal Healthcare, good quality universities cost a whopping 600-800 euro per year in tuition fee, etc. So as you can see there isn't really a high need to have a huge financial warchest to ensure your children's future.

Actually the beauty of the system is that with such a system EVERYONE can ensure their children's future and not only the upper middle class and richer.

generals3:

Verbatim:
I wonder how many people here actually pay over 50% of their income in taxes, and even tho they are making plenty of money know that they could not ensure a safe future for their children.

Well the thing is that usually high tax countries also make it easier for people to ensure their children's future. Let's take Belgium for instance: VAT ranging 6%-21% (6% on foodstuff and 21% on basically everything else), income tax at 50% at 34k euro per year, tax on capital gains at 25%, etc. BUT: Universal Healthcare, good quality universities cost a whopping 600-800 euro per year in tuition fee, etc. So as you can see there isn't really a high need to have a huge financial warchest to ensure your children's future.

Actually the beauty of the system is that with such a system EVERYONE can ensure their children's future and not only the upper middle class and richer.

BUT THAT THUR'S SERSHURLISZM STALIN MAO LENIN!

Sorry, just wanted to get that out of the way, since it's a more succinct way of presenting the standard argument certain folk around here feel compelled to make every time this subject comes up.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked