Manx Radio

[HeliX]

30 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Thanks Parched Peas,  but once again you are being binary - I know what I am doing and who I am.  Just because I found her views interesting on this topic, mainly from her knowledge of the IOM, but also because she believes in the responsibility of the individual and self-determination, does not mean I agree with her on all aspects.  Some may call that choosy, others may say it is discerning. 

Like most people, my views on various topics do not follow a consistent dogma, I am anti-organised religion, dislike privatisation of, and profiteering from, services which protect and care for the vulnerable in society, dislike disproportionately  high taxation of the wealthy,  believe in reward, dislike exploitation whether that is by big business of the individual or the individual of the welfare state, and so on. 

 

Does anywhere in the world have disproportionately high taxation of the wealthy?

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Does anywhere in the world have disproportionately high taxation of the wealthy?

Anywhere that applies higher taxation to higher income bands. 

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

Anywhere that applies higher taxation to higher income bands. 

But people in higher income bands can certainly afford to pay higher taxation.

A far bigger problem is, say, exploitation of individuals by businesses by paying them a mere fraction of the wealth that they generate for the people above them...

[TheTeapot]

I think higher rate UK income tax in the 70's was over 70%, there's no doubt that that kind of thing is blatantly unfair but the idea of a higher rate for higher earners isn't. It's just got to be reasonable. Really wealthy people paying just 3% or whatever it turns out to be because of the tax cap here or whatever seems unfair too.

[the stinking enigma]

Tax laws are not deliberately made over complicated to benefit the poor

[HeliX]

Just now, TheTeapot said:

I think higher rate UK income tax in the 70's was over 70%, there's no doubt that that kind of thing is blatantly unfair but the idea of a higher rate for higher earners isn't. It's just got to be reasonable. Really wealthy people paying just 3% or whatever it turns out to be because of the tax cap here or whatever seems unfair too.

I suppose that depends what you mean by unfair really, and where the band is set.

A tax system that leaves a poor person with only 14-15,000 of their income a year, but a wealthy person with several hundred thousand isn't unfair on the wealthy person just because it took more of their income.

[Donald Trumps]

HNWIs are encouraged here to generate economic activity in our community

Does it work?

Government working to generate economic activity in the community might be a better bet

[Donald Trumps]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

I suppose that depends what you mean by unfair really, and where the band is set.

A tax system that leaves a poor person with only 14-15,000 of their income a year, but a wealthy person with several hundred thousand isn't unfair on the wealthy person just because it took more of their income.

Government should tax income only above the living wage

[the stinking enigma]

I wonder what lord alfie has planned in his new budget.

[TheTeapot]

8 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said:

HNWIs are encouraged here to generate economic activity in our community

Does it work?

Government working to generate economic activity in the community might be a better bet

Tickle down economics doesn't work, because it all trickles up anyway.

[the stinking enigma]

Applying the oft quoted one pound spent in the economy = one pound eighty benefit to the economy it should be a no brainer to give the low earners 500 or 1000 quid a year in tax breaks, which they will spend rather than giving the breaks to the rich, who by definition, wont. Same with pensions, once you pay over a certain amount then it wont be recirculated for the greater good.

[the stinking enigma]

No pension should be above the living wage. Its obscene.

[Gladys]

17 minutes ago, HeliX said:

But people in higher income bands can certainly afford to pay higher taxation.

A far bigger problem is, say, exploitation of individuals by businesses by paying them a mere fraction of the wealth that they generate for the people above them...

I agree, I dislike exploitation of any kind. If the business does not pay a fair wage to its employees, then perhaps dividends and higher salaries should be capped.  What is a fair wage is a tricky one though, particularly when market forces are applied to wages.  The flip side, though, is that there has to be an attraction for the entrepreneur to establish the business in the first place. 

Problem is, just like taxation, the more government intervenes and tries to manipulate a situation, the more those with access to advice will find ways round it.  It is the constant plugging of those "loopholes" that has resulted in a hugely complex tax system in the UK. 

[HeliX]

Just now, the stinking enigma said:

Applying the oft quoted one pound spent in the economy = one pound eighty benefit to the economy it should be a no brainer to give the low earners 500 or 1000 quid a year in tax breaks, which they will spend rather than giving the breaks to the rich, who by definition, wont. Same with pensions, once you pay over a certain amount then it wont be recirculated for the greater good.

Spot on. Normal people put huge proportions of their income back into the local economy.

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

I agree, I dislike exploitation of any kind. If the business does not pay a fair wage to its employees, then perhaps dividends and higher salaries should be capped.  What is a fair wage is a tricky one though, particularly when market forces are applied to wages.  The flip side, though, is that there has to be an attraction for the entrepreneur to establish the business in the first place. 

Problem is, just like taxation, the more government intervenes and tries to manipulate a situation, the more those with access to advice will find ways round it.  It is the constant plugging of those "loopholes" that has resulted in a hugely complex tax system in the UK. 

I'm not attempting to argue that the hard work and risks taken by business-starters shouldn't be fairly rewarded, but under the current system it is so far in the other direction that it's quite outrageous. Not to mention that once the business has gotten to a certain size, the risk flips completely. How many C-level execs have received huge payouts from businesses that go under (after also receiving exorbitant wages the entire time they were there) while all the line-member workers are left with no money and no jobs? Horrible.