Oh and btw, the loans or dividends as they actually are; now are taxed as if they were income. The law changed a short while ago so that dispels that nonsensical notion also.

As soon as your salary is above £100k" you shouldn't really be whinging about a couple of grand tax free."

Really?

That couple of grand as you put it is ten grand. In other words it's 10% of your gross salary at £100k.

And how does that reflect on someone who has a few kids for instance? Is it to be used as a population inhibitor? And it's not just the 10 grand is it? It's child benefit and all the other standard benefits that all add up to much more than "a couple of grand".

Christ almighty. This is exactly the argument you get from those who don't understand the basic tax laws in this country.

"Just pay more and stop moaning"

Ok then.

I suspect the ideal tax reform would leave the proposer paying less and others paying more.

Do you?

Where did I say that?

I'm relatively comfortable with what I pay but admit to dying a little inside when I look at my accounts at year end but hey ho.

All I've stated is that the system is warped and unfair on both the well off and less so well off and that the tax loopholes need closing.

But if that's what you interpret, fire in

I've got no axe to grind. It just amuses me that those that complain most about taxation are those most able to pay.

That would be an interesting debate for the fact that this thread is based wholly upon people saying pay more and what a scandal it is that those who earn more should pay even more.

I think (I may be wrong) in saying that I'm the only one asking why. So far nobody has given me anything other than "just because" without many not even understanding our own basic tax laws.

And just for the record I'm not complaining about it. I'm just pointing out the unfairness of it affecting most of (I'd guess over 95%) the population.

Sorry I'm late getting back to your question Emre but it's an hour later here so I went to bed.
Do I think it's moral to pay higher taw if you are rich. Indeed I do.
It depends on how the tax is raised, and I am not a communist, I don't believe in equal shares, but I believe in fairness.
I will give an example of what I would like to see, a bit long winded so bear with me.
Large landowners keep their holdings quite legally and fairly by the following means.
Planning permission is given on a small piece of their land, say ten acres, which now has a value of say £150,000per acre or one and a half million. He then buys ten acres of pasture land of a neighbouring farmer at £10,000 per acre. So retaining the same acreage.

Now my viewpoint is he didn't earn that money, he was given it buy us, the local residents, who via the council let him develope that land.

What I would like to see is the builder still paying the market value, but one third ie £500,000 goes to the land owner.
One third is given to the local council, who can use it to provide, if needed, a new class room and teacher for the new residents. Better street lighting, better maintainance of the foot^paths etc.
The final third has to be used by the builder to provide good but low cost housing for the local young couples or singles.
I see no losers in this only winners. You may say the land owner, but after all he has done nothing to earn it, and even after replacing the land he can still 'kerching' bank £400,000 so not too bad.
People talk as if all the rich 'earned' their money. Let's take one of our own, Wayne Rooney. Now Wayne had a special talent, and has no doubt worken hard, and I in no way begrudge him his salary, rather him than the Glazers have it all. But there are plenty of footballers who have worked as hard or harder but without the talent he has been blessed with.
So I think it is perfectly fair and equitable that his good fortune should be shared for the benefit of the less lucky, whilst still leaving him mega rich.

I want, and think a lot of people do, to live in a country free from corruption in our legal professions and law enforcement.
Where everybody has a right to a home, warmth, education, health care, decent food, in fact all the things that make a live.
Having 1% of the population owning half of the wealth makes this difficult.

Finally we are all in it together, people who have never had a car pay towards road building. People with no children pay towards other peoples childrens education . People who have never had a brush with the law pay towards the courts.And so it goes on.
So whilst not being clever enough or with enough knwledge to find the most equitable path, yes I find it perfectly moral that the more fortunate pay more.

"....yes I find it perfectly moral that the more fortunate pay more."

Nobody but nobody will ever disagree with that notion. It's the level it's aimed at is the issue and the twisted logic that sets up our tax laws. Last statistics from the government showed that less than 3% of the taxable population earned over £100k per annum.

So we just hammer them until they find ways around it do we? Because that is exactly what's happening. It simply doesn't work so the usual mantra still doesn't change from "pay more and stop moaning".

Morality has no place in tax law.

Gingernuts, I posted it in answer to a question from 'if anyone can Emre can' who asked last night if it was moral for people who earned more to pay more.
And my answer is yes.
I have said though that I don't know the best way to raise this tax in general, but have given one example.
It seems to have become quite acceptable to avoid tax where as it used to be frowned upon.

But it's not about morality in how much I someone should pay is it? Morality can have no place in taxation whatsoever.

It's a legal obligation. If we were all as moral as we proclaim to be about tax then we wouldn't have people living on the streets or begging for food whilst multi billionaires hand their wives £1bn as a bonus to an offshore tax haven would we?

We'd all give morally decent donations to every cause that deserved it. If it was down to morality why wouldn't the system just allow people to pay what they think is morally right? That's why morality can't ever be included in taxation.

The principle of having a higher income of course should mean that they should pay more. Why doesn't a simple flat rate get introduced? It would probably collect more from the whole population and allow us to close up the avoidance and evasion schemes that those less "moral" want to take part in. It would also allow the raising of the levels at which point people pay any tax.

The system is complicated, flawed and essentially broken and is flooded with schemes set to avoid the very sense of collecting tax. It is wholly and grossly unfair on nearly everyone yet it gets drawn back into this "you get more so you should pay more"

The reality is that a low threshold is reached whereby it's counter active and loses potential taxation income.

I'm with you '52. Morality and rights are concepts conferred by society, and as such are tied up with concepts such as public spending and taxation. The wealthy should shoulder proportionately more of the burden as they are better able to.

Then again, this opinion is completely invalid as I don't understand UK tax law as well as Gingernuts

I'm agreeing with everyone that those who earn more should rightly pay more. All I'm saying is that it should and thankfully is viewed as a legal obligation and not a moral one.

I'm pointing out the simple unfairness of the whole system and that it is counter productive. And also trying to dispel the idealistic common answer of "you earn more so pay even more again".

Right. Can we talk about football or something else more morally corrupt now ?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

What a knnob