Definition of prosperous

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
I can't do with multi quotes Dands.

Let me play Devil's advocate. There will always be an elite - let's call them the 1% for sake of argument. If you educate everyone better you just raise the bar in becoming one of the 1%. That's perfectly good meritocracy to my mind, but nothing changes and you still have an elite, only that this elite you presume will be more altruistic or whatever you may hope from them.

To those who say if you don't like paying taxes, move somewhere else, I would say if you don't like people to have the freedom to prosper, move somewhere else.

Regarding something for nothing, can I point out again that only the top 15% of UK taxpayers are nett payers. The 50 to 85% are nett receivers and 50% get everything that you mention for "nothing". I realise that social contribution is not this simple, but I stand by the fact that the more people you have being financially successful in the 15% bracket, IE make it 20%, the more prosperous a country can be. Everyone in that country. The problem for most western economies is that 90% of the 15% are less well off after the recession and because of global economic trends.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
I think it's not all that complicated; just make it so the action you want is highly beneficial to them. Want them to create jobs and boost the employment rate? Give tax credits for new hires and deductions for employee salaries. Don't want them hiding money in a tax shelter? Get rid of it and close the loopholes associated with it.

In my experience it is a little bit more complicated.

If I choose to open a business in Singapore for example, why should I pay taxes in the UK? Isn't this corporate imperialism, go to another country, make money and bring it back to the mother country? Shouldn't I pay my local taxes, corporate and personal and enjoy that wealth in the country where it was made?

Actually, I think that governments do do what you are advocating by the mere fact of how little of the overall tax take comes from business, about 3%. I think that this shows a clear message that the role of business is not to directly fill the coffers of Government. It is rather to support pension funds with dividends, provide employment and social stability etc etc.

What we have is apparently over indebted governments with big bills to keep paying. No wonder people are scrambling around arguing about who gets what of the cake.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
There will always be an elite - let's call them the 1% for sake of argument. If you educate everyone better you just raise the bar in becoming one of the 1%.
My point really would be that people generally do not get to be part of the 1% because of education. Education is a tool whereby some of the rest of us may break into the 1% despite not having the advantage of coming from families already there. Although many people are in that position because of inheritance, it is possible to widen the group of people at the top by giving others an edge. The Uk education system significantly fails in this aim. Although there always will be a top 1% (of course) we can widen the group which holds the wealth so that there is a real trickle down of wealth. We know this can be done, because in the last century it WAS DONE. And then it was reversed.

Regarding something for nothing, can I point out again that only the top 15% of UK taxpayers are nett payers.
Indeed, so what? I agree that government already acts to redistribute wealth. What is wrong with this? It does not mean that the 15% are paying all the benefits received by the 85%. I dont know what the figures are on government income from various taxes, but it would be no surprise to me that personal taxes are only a small part. what would you do with income from other sources except spend it on taxpayers?

I stand by the fact that the more people you have being financially successful in the 15% bracket, IE make it 20%, the more prosperous a country can be.
You are arguing that greater total wealth means that even though only a few get most of it, their taxes help everyone else? An interesting argument, but I dont see anything to show it is reality. The economic evidence is that there have to be consumers for an economy to flourish, which means the 80% have to have money to spend freely, not just the 20%. Yes of course, if there were 50% more billionairs paying taxes in the Uk then revenue would be better. But if that increase in billionairs is at the cost of ten million ordinary citizens being £10000 worse off, the result may be the overall economy shrinks. If you can conjure up rich people from nowhere, then thats great, but as I see it they can only get rich at other peope's expense, and by sucking money from the rest of the economy.

The problem for most western economies is that 90% of the 15% are less well off after the recession and because of global economic trends.
Funnily enough I saw some figures recently suggesting exactly the opposite was the case. Or at least, although they had become less wealthy, not by so much as everyone else.

If I choose to open a business in Singapore for example, why should I pay taxes in the UK?
The answer, of course, is that if you choose to live in Britain, then the british people expect you to contribute your taxes here too. Why should you not have to pay tax compared to someone who used his money to create a company in britain, which would also be directly contributing to jobs etc within the Uk? on that basis you ought to be taxed more for basing your company abroad!

What we have is apparently over indebted governments with big bills to keep paying.
in general the problem is not the level of indebtedness, but future income. The UK plan to get over their crisis is the same as the US one, borrow now to finance whatever has to be paid and repay after the crisis is over. the tricky bit will be whether governments repay when times improve. I agree this makes the political infighting all the more severe when parties choose to favour their electors over others.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
In my experience it is a little bit more complicated.

If I choose to open a business in Singapore for example, why should I pay taxes in the UK? Isn't this corporate imperialism, go to another country, make money and bring it back to the mother country? Shouldn't I pay my local taxes, corporate and personal and enjoy that wealth in the country where it was made?

Actually, I think that governments do do what you are advocating by the mere fact of how little of the overall tax take comes from business, about 3%. I think that this shows a clear message that the role of business is not to directly fill the coffers of Government. It is rather to support pension funds with dividends, provide employment and social stability etc etc.

What we have is apparently over indebted governments with big bills to keep paying. No wonder people are scrambling around arguing about who gets what of the cake.

Not surehow it works in the UK, but if you have investments and businesses overseas and live in the US, then all the taxes you pay overseas are tax deductible from your taxable liability here.

And I think that the relatively low tax income by percentage from businesses is due to the fact that they have more resources to access tax shelters and loopholes. I think one of the biggest most obvious ones, while not technically a loophole, is the much lower tax rate on capital gains compared to ordinary income. If you have the option to make a hundred million dollars and have it taxed 15 percent with the option of freely relating your money to another investment if things start to look bleak, why would you choose to instead assume more risk and get taxed at over 35 percent? You can't really blame rich people for playing with the rules they're given.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Not surehow it works in the UK, but if you have investments and businesses overseas and live in the US, then all the taxes you pay overseas are tax deductible from your taxable liability here.

And I think that the relatively low tax income by percentage from businesses is due to the fact that they have more resources to access tax shelters and loopholes. I think one of the biggest most obvious ones, while not technically a loophole, is the much lower tax rate on capital gains compared to ordinary income. If you have the option to make a hundred million dollars and have it taxed 15 percent with the option of freely relating your money to another investment if things start to look bleak, why would you choose to instead assume more risk and get taxed at over 35 percent? You can't really blame rich people for playing with the rules they're given.

I don't know. Not every Mom and Pop store can access this stuff. The Multi Nationals get the headlines but the majority of businesses are SME. Excluding Public Sector workers, I think something like 95% of people in my country Wales, work for enterprises that employ less than five people.

Even if you were to double the direct tax on business you would add less than 3% to your total Tax take. It may cover some interest but it won't solve the problem. I think we come back to your original point of incentivising business to create jobs and perhaps base more activities at home even if they can be outsourced somewhat cheaper.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
My point really would be that people generally do not get to be part of the 1% because of education.

but it would be no surprise to me that personal taxes are only a small part. what would you do with income from other sources except spend it on taxpayers?

You are arguing that greater total wealth means that even though only a few get most of it, their taxes help everyone else?

If you can conjure up rich people from nowhere, then thats great, but as I see it they can only get rich at other peope's expense, and by sucking money from the rest of the economy.

Funnily enough I saw some figures recently suggesting exactly the opposite was the case. Or at least, although they had become less wealthy, not by so much as everyone else.

in general the problem is not the level of indebtedness, but future income. The UK plan to get over their crisis is the same as the US one, borrow now to finance whatever has to be paid and repay after the crisis is over. the tricky bit will be whether governments repay when times improve. I agree this makes the political infighting all the more severe when parties choose to favour their electors over others.

I did. The "aristocracy" lost their favoured position last generation. It looks different perhaps because we suddenly have all these Etonians floating around, but the UK is a very economically mobile society and it always has been. University places in UK Universities have been a meritocracy for a long time now.

You need to research the figures. A large part of the pot comes from personal taxation one way or another. It s corporate taxation that is small.

Are the miners and mining companies in Australia getting rich at someone else's expense? You have a very black and white view of the world, Dands.

Was the report, that you never quote, saying that the Middle Classes were richer or poorer? You can't have both.

If you believe that any high welfare paying socially democratic government is going to repay debt, can you please say Hi to Santa for me next Christmas! :tongue:
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think we come back to your original point of incentivising business to create jobs and perhaps base more activities at home even if they can be outsourced somewhat cheaper.
How do you do this? The reason companies sack employees and cut back on development during a recession is because they cannot sell their products. Yes, development to make them more efficient when the upturn arrives might help, but simply paying them to employ people to do nothing is not a sustainable option. The government has the idea that if you give companies a tax break during a recession they will hire more people: I think the companies will all say 'thanks for the cash, but why would be so stupid as to hire people to do nothing'?

Which is why economists have always said you need to give more money to the mass of people during a recession. then they will go out and spend it, and buy things which companies make, meaning they need more workers. But our government's plan seems to be to cut back on payments going to the most affected poorest section and safeguard money going to the richer section of society. The wrong way round.

the UK is a very economically mobile society and it always has been
Maybe compared to Russia, for example. But surely everyone agrees the UK historically has not been at all socially mobile? That being the case, your statement has to be false, and calls into question whether it has changed. You seem to believe it has not changed.

I did. The "aristocracy" lost their favoured position last generation.
No, they didnt. There has always been a turnover in aristocracy, i agree, but on the one hand look at a register of MPs for the name Churchill, and on the other party side try 'Benn'. These names just crop up century after century.

It looks different perhaps because we suddenly have all these Etonians floating around,
No. They were always here. Its just that recently there was a bit of publicity because someone noticed.

University places in UK Universities have been a meritocracy for a long time now.
No. 200 years ago if you wanted to enter the navy as an officer, you went to a crammer to learn how to pass the exams. If you could afford it, of course. Today you go to a public school and they will get you into university.

Are the miners and mining companies in Australia getting rich at someone else's expense?
Actually, yes, yours and mine, since you ask. The coal they mine is polluting the atmosphere and we are all paying for that. Come back in 200 years time when the mines are exhausted and ask people if they wish we had been using them more carefully.

You have a very black and white view of the world, Dands.
I wouldnt say so. I'd say I consider the multiple consequences.

Was the report, that you never quote, saying that the Middle Classes were richer or poorer?
Which report? figures on wealth? I took it that the small rich proportion, cant recall, say 20%, has come out of the recession relatively richer than the 80% compared to before.

If you believe that any high welfare paying socially democratic government is going to repay debt, can you please say Hi to Santa for me next Christmas! :tongue:
no. I dont. The Uk government has already written off 1/3 of its total debt by quantum easing. Why would it suddenly decide to repay the Bof E for its lets-pretend loans?
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Dands, do you even know what they mine in Oz?

Sorry your entire post is just too silly to warrant response. Did you not notice anything that has happened in the last forty years in the UK?