Just to stir the pot, has anyone noticed...

[selectortone]

Another knee-jerk reaction. You need to read that article. Working class people are paying too much tax. The poorer you are, the worse it is.

Life must be great in your ivory tower.

 

[Jacob]

Another knee-jerk reaction. You need to read that article. Working class people are paying too much tax. The poorer you are, the worse it is.

I know that and I did refer to the unfair distribution. In many posts in fact. Read what I wrote! Tax burden has been shifted downwards since 1979 on to the backs of the less well off, starting with Thatcher's poll tax.

Life must be great in your ivory tower.

Life must be very difficult to understand from inside your little cave.
I realise that holding two ideas in one's head is a bit too much for some. The two ideas are: 1 that tax is too high on the less well off. 2 That tax is too low on the better off (top rates of tax are historically low).
It is possible for gross taxation to be much higher, but lower on the less well off and higher on the wealthy.
Would a diagram help?
Elections can be won or lost on the failure to understand some very simple ideas, especially when bombarded with lies from the main stream media all owned by mega rich non doms etc etc.

 

[selectortone]

The same old soapbox, the same old clichés, the same old insults. Pontificating about potholes when millions of working class people are struggling to heat their homes or put a decent meal for their kids on the table.

At least you've managed to finally acknowledge that working class people are paying too much tax. You're getting the idea now.

 

[Jacob]

The same old soapbox, the same old clichés, the same old insults. Pontificating about potholes when millions of working class people are struggling to heat their homes or put a decent meal for their kids on the table.

You don't seem to be able to understand anything I say
I use "potholes" is a metaphor for ALL the failures of public services we are currently experiencing. It's collapsing all over the place, in many different ways. Potholes just happen to be a visible reminder every day for a lot of people.
Yes people are struggling - taxation should be much lower, wages higher, benefits higher.
BUT taxation should be much higher for the wealthy to pay for all this.
Surely not hard to grasp?
Or are you saying that we should just accept deteriorating public services and poverty because we can't afford to rectify them and we must not tax the rich?
In which case you have swallowed the tory story, hook, line and sinker.

 

[sploo]

At least you've managed to finally acknowledge that working class people are paying too much tax. You're getting the idea now.

That's what Jacob's been saying for several posts. You're both in agreement on that point.

 

[selectortone]

That's what Jacob's been saying for several posts. You're both in agreement on that point.

His initial argument was that taxes are too low. End of. I see it as a little more nuanced than that. Which apparently makes me a Tory lickspittle

 

[sploo]

His initial argument was that taxes are too low. End of. I see it as a little more nuanced than that. Which apparently makes me a Tory lickspittle

Overall taxation can be too low and taxes can be too high on low earners (those two things aren't mutually exclusive). You're essentially in violent agreement with one another.

 

[Jacob]

Interesting graph here. USA, but UK similar How the rich soaked the rest of us | Richard Wolff
Looking for the equivalent graph for the UK but seems hard to find. Is it being kept a secret?

Here is one File:UK top income tax and inequality.png - Wikipedia

 

[Jacob]

More along the same lines: The Guardian view on inequality and the super-rich: the status quo is unsustainable | Editorial

 

[Keith Cocker]

His initial argument was that taxes are too low. End of. I see it as a little more nuanced than that. Which apparently makes me a Tory lickspittle

Or makes you what Lenin (incorrectly) was attributed as calling a “useful *****”.

 

[evildrome]

The whole burden of taxation has been steadily shifted downwards since 1979, poll tax, VAT, et al. Top rates of tax are now historically low. The result has been massive shift of wealth upwards, which is the whole idea, and massive deterioration on public services, which is just the inevitable "collateral damage".

Indeed, if you compare a pie chart of tax in the 1970s with tax now you can clearly see that VAT has replaced tax once paid by UK top earners.

The thing that few people understand is that tax does not fund anything.

The purpose of tax is the control of inflation.

When governments collect tax, that money is destroyed.

Take a piece of paper, draw a line down the middle.

Write "One pound" on one side and "I owe One pound" on the other.

Tear down the line. Spend the bit of paper with "One pound" written on it into the economy and put the bit with "I owe One pound" in a drawer labelled "National Debt".

Congratulations! You have just created money, spent it and are now running a deficit.

So, what happens when you tax back one of your "One pounds" ?

Where does it go?

It goes into the drawer with the "I owe One pound".

And then what happens?

You have a drawer with a "One pound" and an "I owe One pound".

That sounds suspiciously like the answer is zero.

One minus one is traditionally zero.

That, of course is not how government accounts for tax.

Oh no. They pretend its money they can spend. But its not.

No liability survives contact with its issuer. All tax is destroyed. All spending is new.

 

[John on the Wirral]

Thie issue relating to the deterioration of public buildings like schools started down the slppery slope when they invited money focussed building companies to take over the ownership and rebuild of schools/hospitals. I was in secondary education all my life and watched our local schools being taken over in their entirety. woodwork shops had 5x3 benches with wells and two kids on each bench - you will remember them from your school days. Twenty kids per workshop. The new owners decided that that was not cost effective so replaced the solid beech/mahogany benches with 4x4 MDF benches accomodating 4 kids. When they did metalwork they simply clamed a small metalwork vice into the wood vice - how terrible is that! Teachers were never consulted as metal shops were aboloshed and benches/vices/macines were skipped. They cut back the cost of the rebuids by using 8mm plaserboard and cheap flat emulsions on the walls and alluminium door furniture.. This was simply built-in obsolescence and never intended to last so we are now picking up the cost. The PPIi? schemes were found subsequently to be a big mistake eg Jarvis but it destroyed much of what we did in schools eg after schooll clubs etc as the cleaners and caretaker were now employed by the developer so you had to pay to runs after school clubs etc. OK, so education was never cost effective but they were the good days. I was fortunate enough to be retiring so missed my school being "done" but I watched in horror as a local high school being "done" and helped my colleague hand out metalwork vices to passers by but could not save the woodwork benches and vices as they were already in the skip. A brand new Startrite band saw and extraction system was put out in the rain - it was criminal. Unfortunately,my colleague had fully taken on board the latest trend of glue guns,plastic and CNC so only kept one scriber and one trysquare etc and,of couse, that is another move we will come to regret but that is another story!
I was able to give advice to my successor, a traditional teacher, who managed to insist on his 4x4 wood benches being made of beech but had to lay down in front of vans trying to take away his machines - I felt that any single phase machines were "stolen" but the bandsaw I mentioned was 3 phase. This did not put him the good books of the new Head Teacher, a drama teacher so no time for tech areas.
As a result tons of traditional tools must have been trashed across the UK but is nothing compared with the total lack of investment in ALL areas across the counrtry or poor investment for the future by spending on tempoary fixes by putting cost before quality investment. The UK is now paying(or not) for terrible management I think I'll help myself to a stiff drink!

 

[John on the Wirral]

PS:- They have just demolished our local primary school to build dozens of "cookie cutter" houses. The school was built at the turn of the 20th century so was solid and big with large playing fields. Substantial throughout with speckle painted walls.wide corridors etc. ie built to last but now sold for profit to be squandered elsewhere.- I'get m'self another drink I think!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

In many cases they're not allowed to sell anything off as it shows an income and will be deducted from a budget. Many years ago my cousin was head of an infants school. She heard on the grapevine that the local college was getting rid of computers as they were "obsolete". She asked if she could have buy them for her very young pupils. No they said, they weren't allowed to sell them or even to give them away. What'll be done with them, then? she asked. They'll go in the skip. And if I come along after closing and remove them from the skip? They won't be any use, we'll have put a hammer through them to ensure they'll not be used again. She bought new ones.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

More along the same lines: The Guardian view on inequality and the super-rich: the status quo is unsustainable | Editorial

The proposition that taxation should be used to limit extreme wealth (eg: over £10m) may be superficially appealing, but in reality is unlikely to be achievable.

• those with extreme wealth will seek to protect it
• that which motivates the pursuit of ever greater wealth is not mainly the capacity to buy more and better. It is social recognition, an unambiguous measure of success, etc
• the priority of those with wealth will tend to be rule of law, stability, economic and financial maturity, democracy, good communications etc.
• without complete accord internationally amongst entirely acceptable locations worldwide (eg: UK, US, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Japan, Australia, Bahamas, etc etc), the wealthy would simply relocate to wherever suits them best.

The focus on the extremely wealthy somewhat misses the point - as Alan Whicker once observed - "there simply aren't enough rich people to go round". The benefit to the lower half of the economic pile through increased taxes on the extremely wealthy will make little difference.

 

[Jacob]

......
The focus on the extremely wealthy somewhat misses the point - as Alan Whicker once observed - "there simply aren't enough rich people to go round". The benefit to the lower half of the economic pile through increased taxes on the extremely wealthy will make little difference.

This cosy myth gets reported regularly but is quite untrue. Any search you do on UK wealth distribution will tell you differently.
Here's just one random selection The Scale of Economic Inequality in the UK | The Equality Trust.
What's more - as we have been putting up with austerity and the run down of public services since 1979 (45 years!) wealth has been shifted steeply upwards to even greater levels of inequality. This is the whole idea.
Understandable that people are reluctant to accept that they are lied to and ripped off by their "leaders" and doubly deplorable that we no longer have an effective opposition.
This is worldwide wealth inequality | Oxfam International.
"The world's five richest men have more than doubled their fortunes from $405 billion to $869 billion since 2020 —at a rate of $14 million per hour— while nearly five billion people have been made poorer, reveals a new Oxfam report on inequality and global corporate power."
Worldwide we are currently facing two catastrophes, one being climate change and the other being maldistribution of wealth. They are not unrelated.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/us-taxation-public-finance

 

[Phil Pascoe]

s Alan Whicker once observed - "there simply aren't enough rich people to go round". The benefit to the lower half of the economic pile through increased taxes on the extremely wealthy will make little difference.

I read some while back that the top 3000 pay the same tax as the bottom 9,000,000

 

[Jacob]

PS:- They have just demolished our local primary school to build dozens of "cookie cutter" houses. The school was built at the turn of the 20th century so was solid and big with large playing fields. Substantial throughout with speckle painted walls.wide corridors etc. ie built to last but now sold for profit to be squandered elsewhere.- I'get m'self another drink I think!

Some brilliant Victorian and Edwardian school and other public buildings still going strong when their modern replacements have barely lasted a generation. Similarly with housing.

 

[sploo]

I read some while back that the top 3000 pay the same tax as the bottom 9,000,000

Given the sheer number of appallingly paid jobs that wouldn't necessarily surprise me. If someone was on less than ~£13k (UK, 2023-2024 financial year) they'd be paying essentially zero income tax. 9,000,000 times zero isn't a large number.

I would however much rather be earning £1M a year and paying an effective total tax rate of 50% (£500,000 tax/£500,000 take home) than earning £13k a year and paying no tax.

The problem is that the really high earners don't take income as a salary; the money comes from other sources (dividends etc.) that result in massively reduced tax rates. It also likely skews the claimed figures of high percentages of tax being paid by high earners; e.g. if I take a declared salary of £200k and pay £100k in tax I have a declared 50% tax rate... but that doesn't account for the extra £300k that comes from low tax (or tax free) sources.

I recall a director at a place I worked (as a much younger man) telling me that the CEO paid less tax than me. I thought he meant a lower percentage of his income, but no, he did mean the actual total amount of tax paid. IRC the CEO was worth about £12M at that point.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I remember speaking to a Swedish chap decades ago who was emigrating to the States as the Swedish system was penal - because assets, savings etc. were taxed as well as earnings he was paying 105% of his actual earnings. Sounds like a tax regime Jacob (and one or two others) would be proud of.