[Closed] Life is hard living on £120k a year.

By all accounts, according to popular opinion at the time, Robyn Hode and his Merry Men accomplices were viewed as a anti-social criminal gang who infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies. And historic records show that there was actual no evidence of him giving to the poor.

So, effectively a thug with a bunch of pissed up mates went around robbing people.

No wonder he is a hero in Nottingham.

Don't worry - Ed's here to help

[img] [/img]

Demonstrating VAT on shopping with a selection of Zero-rated food items, priceless 😆

And historic records show that there was actual no evidence of him giving to the poor.

Ok, let's just back-track a bit. The fictional Robin Hood is considered to be a good guy, for redistributing wealth.

So again where's your argument?

It depends

Are you referring to the Jean Luc Picard, Kevin Costner or Cary Elwes Robin Hood?

Forget it.

Just tell me why wealth redistribution through taxation is flawed?

Wow he does comedy too.

Just tell me why wealth redistribution through taxation is flawed?

It's not flawed, you just need to know when to stop.

Some would say it's flawed as it only works if done on a global basis, rich people often move about to escape higher tax regimes. Tax havens are a bad thing.

Right, so when is that?

By all accounts, according to popular opinion at the time, Robyn Hode and his Merry Men accomplices were viewed as a anti-social criminal gang who infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies.

Accounts which were written by people with money.

Right, so when is that?

Do you honestly think that we will solve that here on this thread?

Pick a country out of the following where you fancy living and you will then no what is right for you:

UAE
Singapore
Australia
US
Switzerland
UK
Denmark
Zimbabwe

Accounts which were written by people with money.

Are you insinuating that poor people can't write?

Are you insinuating that poor people can't write?

Back then they couldn't, no, this is well known.

Do you honestly think that we will solve that here on this thread?

No, but you seem to think that the current level is too much. The only argument I can see for not taxing the rich is 'but I WANT IT ALL FOR MEE!'

Are you insinuating that poor people can't write?

In the middle ages? What do you think?

No, but you seem to think that the current level is too much. The only argument I can see for not taxing the rich is 'but I WANT IT ALL FOR MEE!'

Which country out of the list do you want to live in. That is then the perfect country for you based on your tax burden*

*other countries are available

Is tax burden the only concern in your life, to base where you want to live?

Are you attempting to draw a parallel between tax burden and the standard of living in countries around the world?

I think they preferred the term "peasant" or "serf" rather than poor. You can have a rich and rewarding life without money.

Is tax burden the only concern in your life, to base where you want to live?

No, i am also concerned about owls, the number of starbucks and whether the Broncos will recover next season.

It's almost as if you have absolutely no point to make, but still can't stop yourself from continuing to comment.

I agree, this is going nowhere.

but still can't stop yourself from continuing to comment

I disagree.

The 50% rate showed that, the tax take went down.

Only because it ran for such a short period so it was very easy to avoid by bring forward or delaying payments.

What I love about STW (not) is summed up well on this thread. The number of people who pop up with a Stat they have read somewhere, regardless of their almost certain lack of knowledge of the whole subject!

But thats what the internet was invented for, surely?*

* we all know it is actually for the distribution of grot, but we'll ignore that for the time being

Only because it ran for such a short period so it was very easy to avoid by bring forward or delaying payments.

It was well documented that when they abolished the 60% tax rate back in the 80's the tax take went up

Some would say it's flawed as it only works if done on a global basis, rich people often move about to escape higher tax regimes. Tax havens are a bad thing

Just tell me why wealth redistribution through taxation is flawed?

Excuse the rant but here goes ...

You cannot just give people money and not expect them to just "kick back" and become dependent upon it, where is their incentive ? There really does become a culture of dependency and entitlement. Also the redistribution has a major flaw, the money comes from "the rich" and goes into Government, what do you think happens to it there, do you think every penny flows out for redistribution, how much gets diverted into other projects or initiatives.

How about this real world example in France. They propose a 75% tax rate on income over euro 1m. Lots of rich people leave the country, most going to Belgium (as it's French speaking and just a quick train ride back to Paris). Massive loss of income to the government. 75% tax rate challenged in courts, government looses as tax is seen as theft basically (twice over as people have left and they cannot actually apply the tax to those who did stay). Government proposes new tax of 66% payable by the company not the individual, this is passed. But most laughably this tax does not apply to footballers - you couldn't make it up !

All I can say is annecdotally I am aware of many people who left he UK when the rate went to 50%, so they paid pretty much zero into HMRC. It wasn't a case of someone else in the UK doing their job, they took their job with them. In the case of the Hedge Fund Brevan Howard (25+ traders went to Switzerland, making on average I would guess £5m each) the support staff (quite well paid but not excessive) all remained in the UK - so much less tax revenue for HMRC but still the overhead of schooling, health etc for remaining staff.

Another example, one of my other hobbies is sailing. Look at participation in yacht racing it's down 60%-70% since the taxes went up. Owners cut back their spending so stopped racing or sold their boats. For every owner you have 6-10 crew sailing for free. All those people spent money in bars/restaurants/on a B&B/on clothing. The owner spent money on maintainence so providing employment for mechanics and craftsmen. Many businesses have gone, working people unemployed now, skills being lost. Did the government collect extra tax from the owner or has he put more into his pension or re-arranged his business affairs. There is certainly less money being spent and VAT collected.

So perhaps there is a perceived justice in "rich guys not playing on their yachts" but for every owner their are many crew enjoying the sport plus those craftsmen maintaining and preparing the boats.

As I posted before and in reference to France I have friends who work with horses or around the training yards in Chantilly and the French horse racing industry has been crushed by the introduction of high taxes in France as the owners have moved abroad and with taken their horses with them or just stopped racing. Does that really help anyone ?

I am very much in favour of strong social services, be that roads, social housing, a financial safety net for the most vulnerable, top quality free healthcare and schooling. But redistribution ? Robin Hood is an interesting example, aisde from actually being a thief - as the song goes he stole, he is a mythical character. He never really existed in the form portrayed.

Anyway happy Friday everyone 8)

You don't move people, you move money. The number of rich people who move to tax havens is statistically insignificant (and with the possible exception of Switzerland, they're shit).

You are correct, it's very easy to move money and assets. This will never change nor should it as capital controls have proven to be very counterproductive. Countries compete against each other on taxes, never mind Switzerland look at Ireland.

As for statistically insignificant, perhaps in terms of head count, we are talking about small portions of the 1%, but not in terms of potentital tax revenue. I don't agree with the UK's non-dom rules but that's why we have them, encourage rich people to come here and spend money. The Labour party didn't abolish the status in the 10 years it was in power. Aside from the cynics who will say it was Blairs attempt to protect his mates, the reality is they almost certainly looked a the policy and decide it was beneficial to the UK

Very interesting jamba but my point at the start was its stupid to think one of the richest countries in the world could not educate its kids. Even without raising taxes. Its choices.

Because wherever it's been tried it's been shown not to work.

Ah well it depends what you mean by wealth redistribution. Handing out money to poor people wasn't what I had in mind - more things like social security, tax credits, social services etc.

Please explain to me how social security and tax credits are not handing money to people.

Excuse the rant but here goes ...

anecdote ? evidence

Also, we [i]may[/i] lose a bit of tax revenue but we also lose some greedy people from society, so swings and roundabouts.... 🙂

Well they are - that's why I called it wealth redistribution. But jambalaya seems to think the term means cash handouts, cos he said it doens't work. Where as social security clearly does work - just not perfectly.

anecdote ? evidence

Apparently the rich don't understand this...

we also lose some greedy people from society

Explain why people who earn more money are greedy?

Back to funding education:

If there's 700000 kids in private schools and they all moved back to state schools, it'd cost about [url= http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/news/how-much-per-pupil-funding-will-your-school-get#sthash.Bm4w4tGa.dpuf ]£4,550.54 per child[/url] - that's just over £3bn.

That figure also shows what poor value for money private schools are.

This is already happening, by the way. (Financially) failing [url= http://www.polamhall.com/free-school/ ]private schools are converting to free schools[/url], having their debts cleared by the state and then having their pupils funded by the tax payer.

And, obviously, [url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/09/free-schools-costs-mps ]free school costs are soaring[/url].

Explain why people who earn more money are greedy?

I think perhaps people who resent an easily affordable amount being taken away to help those in need are greedy. Is that not a pretty solid definition?

But at the moment, the best evidence we have still suggests that raising the top rate of tax would raise little revenue and make, at best, a marginal contribution to reducing the budget deficit an incoming government would face after the next election.

IFS

So needs a little more thought.

I am very much in favour of strong social services, be that roads, social housing, a financial safety net for the most vulnerable, top quality free healthcare and schooling. But redistribution ?

Finally Robin Hood

He never really existed in the form portrayed.

Not really, maybe i am missing something but you are lumping that anyone who earns more money than average as being greedy?

Does that mean a surgeon is more greedy than a nurse? A headteacher more greedy than a classroom assistant....

Well they are - that's why I called it wealth redistribution. But jambalaya seems to think the term means cash handouts, cos he said it doens't work. Where as social security clearly does work - just not perfectly.

You cannot just give people money and not expect them to just "kick back" and become dependent upon it, where is their incentive ? There really does become a culture of dependency and entitlement. Also the redistribution has a major flaw, the money comes from "the rich" and goes into Government, what do you think happens to it there, do you think every penny flows out for redistribution, how much gets diverted into other projects or initiatives.

I think he is describing the same system but completely disagrees with its efficacy.

Not really, maybe i am missing something but you are lumping that anyone who earns more money than average as being greedy?

No, he's not. People who earn more but don't mind paying tax aren't greedy, and they're the ones who are staying in the country.

Do you think a 75% tax rate is fair?

Mate of mine earns around 100k PAYE - he's a 'lefty' and I've never once heard him whining about how much tax he pays or considering moving abroad. Because he's not greedy.

Explain why people who earn more money are greedy?

Explain why you keep posting stupid straw man arguments first.

Do you think a 75% tax rate is fair?

why don't you just tell us what you think is fair?

Over what earning threshold?

Do you think a 75% tax rate is fair?

The figure shouldn't be seen in isolation. In exchange for paying higher tax you get to live in a better off, fairer, nicer society....

Well I wonder how many people, rich or poor, would pay less tax if they could work out how. Methinks if that's the definition most people are greedy.

Any threshold. Would you want 75% of your earnings being taken away from you?

In exchange for paying higher tax you get to live in a better off, fairer, nicer society....

Do you? How do you judge that? Is Zimbabwe nicer than Finland? Is Cuba nicer than the UK?

Well that doens't add up. In a progressive scheme like ours, even if we had a 75% tax band you'd never end up with 75% of your income taken away.

But even so, if you paid me £1m a year and taxed me 75% I'd still be pretty chuffed.

The figure shouldn't be seen in isolation. In exchange for paying higher tax you get to live in a better off, fairer, nicer society....

Indeed footflaps:

In society where there is more income inequality the poor are worse off than in a society with less income inequality
In a society where there is more income inequality the average person is worse off than in a society with less income inequality
[b]In a society where there is more income inequality the rich are worse off than in a society with less income inequality[/b]

Any threshold. Would you want 75% of your earnings being taken away from you?

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it, if it was redistributed properly.

There is a lot of published evidence (google is you want) showing that people are happier the less inequality there is, or basically inequality breeds unhappiness...

Personally, I'd rather be happy than rich.

@aa - understood, we definitely agree on that, we can afford it.

@molgrips - understood also. Our social security budget is huge though, is it all spent wisely ? How much of the Disability budget actually goes into the care of those most of us would recognise as really needing assistance ? It's easier to ask for more money (especially from that group the rich who can afford it and who are all tax cheaters anyway) than to look at whether the current money is being spent wisely. We cannot afford what we are spending, we run a big budget deficit. If we don't address it we will have a far inferior social security net and a much worse health and education service. That's the danger I see.

I wouldn't have a problem with it, if it was redistributed properly

So redistributed properly includes fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, building HS2, funding MP's second homes and renewing a Nuclear fleet of submarines?

But even so, if you paid me £1m a year and taxed me 75% I'd still be pretty chuffed.

Why would you ever work harder though? There becomes a point where the returns don't equal the work put in. It breeds mediocrity.

Well it would be hard if a 75% tax was introduced rather than always being there as suddenly there'd be a bigger dent in income than before. People tend to resent that sort of thing however rich they are.

jambalaya - didn't we do the stuff about benefits before?

You had to admit that actually the vast majority of the benefits bill goes to pensioners and the working poor (thereby effectively subsidising the profits of many large companies), and that benefit fraud is a tiny percentage of the total.

It's easier to ask for more money

The issue isn't asking for more money - it's making sure people actually pay the money we are already asking for.

Do you think a 75% tax rate is fair?

Incorrect argument - do I think anyone needs more than 150K to live comfortably? So if the 75% tax rate was set for incomes above 200K (including bonuses) then I think it's more than fair. They're profiting from our society and so their contribution should reflect their profit.

And we're almost at communism.

So the idealistic view is that we tell people how much they can earn and make an assessment of their level of happieness and then restrict them from doing anything which doesn't fall in line with this idealistic view point.

So redistributed properly includes fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, building HS2, funding MP's second homes and renewing a Nuclear fleet of submarines?

That's quite an impressive conclusion you've drawn there.....

Redistributed properly, to me, means that tax rates are raised on higher earners with the intention of evening out the wealth across the population. Rather than say upping the tax rate on those earning £100k, so they can offer tax cuts to billionaires, which would be the traditional Tory / Neocon strategy.

As for the list in your 'leap of faith' conclusion I don't really have a problem with any of them, except perhaps the war. MPs expenses are in the noise, so don't care. Nuclear subs and HS2 are massive infrastructure projects in the UK, so the money gets re-circulated within UK industry, which is fine by me.

There is a lot of published evidence (google is you want) showing that people are happier the less inequality there is, or basically inequality breeds unhappiness...

That's what the guy who used to be chief inspector of schools in Finland puts their education performance down to - an equal society.

footflaps - Member

The figure shouldn't be seen in isolation. In exchange for paying higher tax you get to live in a better off, fairer, nicer society....

Incredibly complicated feedback loops too- more money spent on schools, infrastructure, health etc means more effective workforces and conditions in which to do business, which trickles up.

That's what the guy who used to be chief inspector of schools in Finland puts their education performance down to - an equal society.

Sounds like communism to me.

Rather than say upping the tax rate on those earning £100k

Remember for equality this should be for household income. It would be unfair to penalise a single income family of £100k over a double income family when both parents are earning £50k. So the 75% tax band should be for those earning £50k too.

Do Dave and chums look as if they give a flying **** whether the majority of the population are living happy, fulfilling and rewarding lives? Or even make a living wage?

As long as their rich friends are… job done! Its been interesting watching question time last night, and news night this week. While the Pfizer takeover of Astra Zenecca was being discussed, plenty of people (and not just pinko commies) are now readily using the word 'Tax Haven' when referring to the UK

Maybe concentrating on personal taxation is a bit of a red herring. What we should be looking at is how little business contributes , as a percentage of its profits. Far far less than the bastion of capitalism, the US.

Are they really that deluded that they think a race to the bottom on corporate taxation will benefit the countries economy in the long term? Do they even care?

are now readily using the word 'Tax Haven' when referring to the UK

So what? That's been evident for years. Ireland have been playing that game even more. At the end of the day with highly mobile companies and workforces, it's hard to see how corporation tax will even exist in 50 years.

And we're almost at communism.

So the idealistic view is that we tell people how much they can earn and make an assessment of their level of happieness and then restrict them from doing anything which doesn't fall in line with this idealistic view point.

They're profiting from our society and so their contribution should reflect their profit.

🙄

The People's Republic of United Kingdom according to the great wisdom of STW.

Hail the great Leaders!

Are they really that deluded that they think a race to the bottom on corporate taxation will benefit the countries economy in the long term? Do they even care?

Alex salmond believes so - he is committing Scotland to lower rates of corp tax than rUK. Funny old world.

Lesser of two evils. A nation full of jobs and investment but no corporation tax, or a nation without both.

The People's Republic of United Kingdom according to the great wisdom of STW.

It's not that radical, most Scandinavian countries have a much more redistributive tax system...

Perhaps we can all become Harrison Bergeron? There's a thought for lunch,

The People's Republic of United Kingdom according to the great wisdom of STW.
Hail the great Leaders!

Great argument. Well made.

It's not that radical, most Scandinavian countries have a much more redistributive tax system...

They're also healthy, prosperous and well-educated. It'll never catch on...

They're also healthy, prosperous and well-educated. It'll never catch on...

Yep, goes against everything we Brits stand for, with our heads held high surrounded by poverty and ignorance.

Are they really that deluded that they think a race to the bottom on corporate taxation will benefit the countries economy in the long term? Do they even care?

Alex salmond believes so - he is committing Scotland to lower rates of corp tax than rUK. Funny old world.

Alex Salmond? The legendary economic sage? That half-wit, pre-crash, in his 'Arc of Prosperity' speech (which he inexplicably now tries to deny the existence of) said he wanted the tax regime of Ireland, coupled with the regulatory framework of Iceland. Given the banks based in Edinburgh, if he's achieved this, then an independent Scotland would presently be making Greece look like Monaco.

Our social security budget is huge though, is it all spent wisely ?

Of cousre not - there is wastage, but is eliminating all wastage possible? Is it possible to catch everyone who's taking the piss without penalising those who are in genuine need? I suspect not.

But even so, if you paid me £1m a year and taxed me 75% I'd still be pretty chuffed.
Why would you ever work harder though?

What you earn doesn't have much relation to how hard you work, does it? I do quite well but I don't work hard at all. It's pure luck that I was born with an aptitude that pays well.

As for not working hard - at that end of the pay scale, there are other rewards. I suspect most people up there are more motivated by ambition, power and responsibility than money. It's certainly the case in my job. Many of us our working hard to get promoted, even though it rarely results in higher pay; it simply gives us more senority and makes our job more interesting. We can do things our way instead of having to take crap from someone else.

A nation full of jobs and investment but no corporation tax, or a nation without both.

Or perhaps somewhere in between..?

teamhurtmore - Member

Perhaps we can all become Harrison Bergeron? There's a thought for lunch

Oh ffs

Alex salmond believes so - he is committing Scotland to lower rates of corp tax than rUK. Funny old world

What you earn doesn't have much relation to how hard you work, does it? I do quite well but I don't work hard at all. It's pure luck that I was born with an aptitude that pays well.

Wise words molly wise words

IME the hardest jobs I have ever done paid the least

IME the hardest jobs I have ever done paid the least

It's just how do you define 'hard'?

Hard physically? Mentally? Most responsibility? Biggest cost if you cock up?