Taxing the rich to pay for the poor

Whitewavemark2

Well, there are no very wealthy people on this site as far as I am aware.

Exactly: so far as you are aware. If there are any mega-billionaires here, they're not likely to be announcing it with a fanfare of trumpets, are they?
The beauty of sites like this is their anonymity. You can discuss anything and everything without any preconceptions about the other participants because, mostly, you don't know who they are.

The OP question as written can't be answered.

As has been said, who are 'the rich' and 'the poor'? Also, what does 'to pay for' mean? Most of 'the poor' pay for themselves on a day to day basis - they just don't have much left over. If there are cases where someone working a full week needs to be 'paid for' by others then we need to adjust minimum wage levels upwards. Not to do so means both that the State is subsidising employers and that workers are being exploited. It's a double whammy if that employer is also avoiding (or evading) paying tax.

Where people of almost all income groups might need subsidy is in times of crisis, such as when they are ill. If someone needs a transplant, or a long course of expensive treatment, it could quickly add up to more than they had contributed in terms of tax, so they are, effectively, being 'paid for', whether they are 'rich' or 'poor'. I have absolutely no problem with that, and don't suppose many people in the UK do.

Averages will mean that on the whole it is not 'the rich' who subsidise others - it will be middle earners as there are more of them. Plus, as has been said, those who can afford accountants and IFAs are more able to find ways to minimise tax, which are not available to 'the poor'.

I think that one way to reduce resentment would be to increase the number of universal benefits, so that everyone gets a bus pass, child benefit, free health and social care etc, and at the same time bring in universal taxation for all who are able to work, so there is less outright and obvious subsidy of one group by another. That way it wouldn't be the case that those who work and pay income tax feel that they subsidise those who don't choose to do so, everyone is covered for basic services such as health, education, defence, law and order and so on, and if the tax system is organised so that those who have more pay more (eg tax on unearned income as well as wages and salaries) then it's fair. Everyone is provided for, and those who earn more are still better off after that is assured.

We do not need a Robin Hood Government.

We need a Government to invest in all its electorate, without causing resentment.

Insensitive employers, not punish them.

Enable those not in work to achieve and be employable (obviously not those who are incapable through disabilities)

It’s very easy to be an armchair chancellor but it’s flipping difficult running a business and being an employer or even an entrepreneur.

Hear, hear.

GG13 👏👏👏

Labour is not anti business.

labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labour-plan-for-small-businesses/#:~:text=A%20Labour%20government%20would%20pull,to%20significantly%20benefit%20small%20businesses.

My neighbours children , one a cardiologist, the other a kidney specialist have already left the country to go elsewhere along with many other medics because of conservative policies, and it wasn’t because they might have to pay a bit more tax.

I can understand wanting to live in another country because you prefer their values and culture to our own. But just to hold on to a few quid?

More than a few quid in the case of those who leave for a more favourable tax regime.

Sorry wyllow, that is not being pro-business. I suggest you compare that with what Sunak announced today in terms of help for businesses and the self employed.

Very wealthy people frequently don’t pay tax. They have off shore accounts and many ways of avoiding it. That’s why they’re rich - they have ‘different’ moral codes. I have come across a few, they live above the law.

Germanshepherdsmum

nadateturbe

GSM I thought you might want to reply to my last comment.

You can’t possibly say that money will never be used. If I were a billionaire I assure you I would enjoy using it, as would my family.

Lots of it will not be used. And as for Spending billions, I'm afraid I would feel very guilty doing that while others are in need. Money can only add so much to your happiness.

You have no idea how much I would give to the charities I already support, do you? That would give me enormous pleasure.

Wyllow3

Witzend

Germanshepherdsmum

Wyllow, using ISAs is tax avoidance. There’s nothing ‘technical’ about it. So some forms of tax avoidance, even used by wealthy people, are ok but others are not?

But there are annual limits on how much you can put into ISAs, IIRC it’s £15k p.a., so hardly likely to be favoured much by the really rich - and nowadays that means earning millions - or many millions - annually.

Though I dare say some people would say that anyone who can spare £15k a year is rich - compared to many.

When I looked up ISA limits I was quite surprised just how much you could accumulate by using them to the absolute max, definitely part of a personal finance manager's tools for the very well off. Definitely a case for limits as part of looking at the whole issue of avoidance/evasion definitions.

Perhaps a definition of "very well off" needs to be a part to the discussion. I doubt everyone agrees that saving £20k p.a. is "very well off" -- some people save, some spend on fancy homes, holidays, cars.

Norah

Wyllow3

Witzend

Germanshepherdsmum

Wyllow, using ISAs is tax avoidance. There’s nothing ‘technical’ about it. So some forms of tax avoidance, even used by wealthy people, are ok but others are not?

But there are annual limits on how much you can put into ISAs, IIRC it’s £15k p.a., so hardly likely to be favoured much by the really rich - and nowadays that means earning millions - or many millions - annually.

Though I dare say some people would say that anyone who can spare £15k a year is rich - compared to many.

When I looked up ISA limits I was quite surprised just how much you could accumulate by using them to the absolute max, definitely part of a personal finance manager's tools for the very well off. Definitely a case for limits as part of looking at the whole issue of avoidance/evasion definitions.

Perhaps a definition of "very well off" needs to be a part to the discussion. I doubt everyone agrees that saving £20k p.a. is "very well off" -- some people save, some spend on fancy homes, holidays, cars.

To me (and most people in this country), having enough to save £20,000 for non-essentials is wealthy.

How do you know about the finances of ‘most people in this country’?

Germanshepherdsmum

How do you know about the finances of ‘most people in this country’?

Thank you.

Ilovecheese

I can understand wanting to live in another country because you prefer their values and culture to our own. But just to hold on to a few quid?

... which is probably why, according to a survey, most don't.

Although, obviously, we're probably talking about more than a "few quid"!

It should not be forgotten, also, that there are a few wealthy people who have declared that they do not mind paying more tax - whether they mean it is another matter.

If wealthy people are threatening to leave - let them leave. Nature and the market abhor a vacuum. It might not be long before another fills the gap.

Wyllow3

Calendargirl

The ISA limit is £20000 a year.

Yes, but you can accumulate year on year.

It's my strong feelings that ISA's are for low and middle income savers and the very well off shouldn't be using them as part of their tax breaks, we lose money that way better spent on the many priorities to fund essential services.

ISAs don't benefit low earners because they already have a personal saving allowance of £1000 a year. Most low earners don't have savings and certainly don't earn enough interest to pay tax on it.

So low earners don’t use ISAs - are you suggesting that that means they are a bad thing? Low earners can’t afford lots of things.

Germanshepherdsmum

How do you know about the finances of ‘most people in this country’?

Because I can see from the ONS stats how much people in this country earn. Nobody needs to be Einstein to work out that once bills have been paid, many people in this country don't have much left. I've also read articles about the amount of personal debt people in this country have. Unless they're totally financially illiterate, people don't run up debts if they have enough to save.

Germanshepherdsmum

So low earners don’t use ISAs - are you suggesting that that means they are a bad thing? Low earners can’t afford lots of things.

Did I write that? I don't think so. I was merely commenting on a post which said ISAs are intended for the low paid - they're not.

You can see statistics of what earnings are declared. There is a big cash economy in this country. Do you believe that everyone who is paid in cash declares it?

Germanshepherdsmum

You can see statistics of what earnings are declared. There is a big cash economy in this country. Do you believe that everyone who is paid in cash declares it?

No, but I can see what people who are paid PAYE earn.

Exactly. Which is not the full picture.