Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Will UK plc crash like so many others?


collywobles 10 3.4k 9 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 6:57PM

Quote:Seems to me that should be enough to satisfy even the most ardent "Tax the Rich" enthusiasts?


They will never be satisfied however much the richer get taxed. They would sooner complain about there lot rather than get off their arses do something about it. Its a "if I cant have it then neither can anyone else" attitude.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Hallie 1 166 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 7:18PM

Quote:They will never be satisfied however much the richer get taxed. They would sooner complain about there lot rather than get off their arses do something about it. Its a "if I cant have it then neither can anyone else" attitude.


As Mark Twain said "never argue with the stupid, they'll drag you down to their level then beat you on experience'.
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 7:47PM

Quote:I've just been reading that the share of Total UK income Tax paid by the top 0.1% of the richest people in the UK has doubled from 7% a few years back to 14% last year


Dosn't it just mean that the top 0.1% have become a hell of a lot richer in that time as social inequality has increased ?
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 8:08PM

Quote:I've just been reading that the share of Total UK income Tax paid by the top 0.1% of the richest people in the UK has doubled from 7% a few years back to 14% last year

Dosn't it just mean that the top 0.1% have become a hell of a lot richer in that time as social inequality has increased ?



nope, their rate of tax has increased during that time, from 40 - 45% I think

But then again, you could well be right Tongue

(the analysis of the data is all the eye of the translator but the fact remains - they are paying a vastly greater proportion of the total UK tax than any other group in the country)
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 8:25PM

Quote:nope, their rate of tax has increased during that time, from 40 - 45% I think


Depends on the time period but it has recently
Decreased, 50% down to 45% . Went up to 50% around 1997 I think.
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 8:41PM
if you want to go back far enough you will remember
Quote:As a corollary of the increase in the standard rate I propose to reduce the top rate of surtax chargeable for 195152 on incomes over 20,000 to 10s. in the , to prevent the combined top rate exceeding 19s. 6d. in the . The net yield of these changes will be 73 million this year and 81 million in a full year.


Oh for the good old days! Wink
Hallie 1 166 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 9:14PM

Quote:Dosn't it just mean that the top 0.1% have become a hell of a lot richer in that time as social inequality has increased ?


It does. Anyone who fails to accept this is err......well it doesn't come down to the size of a TV Wink


Quote:nope, their rate of tax has increased during that time, from 40 - 45% I think


Really? I thought this government were getting a bit of a hard time because while they were annihilating welfare benefits and the NHS they were sorting millionaires out with tax breaks. Hence the 'grunts' in parliament (especially the Cabinet) when asked who benefited from it.


Quote: they are paying a vastly greater proportion of the total UK tax than any other group in the country


Err...they earn more so will pay more. Probably a mistranslation but it seems logical?
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 9:22PM

Quote:they earn more so will pay more Probably a mistranslation


yes, that is a miss-translation

They earn more and pay disproportionately more is the reality

but, its all irrelevant - you guys know what's right or wrong and logic has little to do with it, but that's fine, let's run the economy (and the country) on emotion

"Its Not Fair" is a good start it seems Tongue
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 9:40PM
Here's an article to get some contributors foaming at the mouth Grin


Quote:Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%


from Forbes
lobsterboy e2
11 14.3k 13 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 9:52PM
Hmmm, an article by an Ayn Rand fan and defender of laissez-faire capitalism.

Ayn Rand is usually the politics of a teenage boy who never leaves his room.
Laissez-faire capitalism is what we had in the Victorian era and it was pretty sh*t.
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 9:56PM
Just for fun I did a little calculation:

I found a paper that showed the top 10% of the UK own 40% of the total wealth of the UK (which is stated to be around 10 trillion in round numbers) so they own around 4 trillion

In another paper I found that there 30 million taxpayers in the UK

So, when I divided the 4 trillion owned by the top 10% by the total number of taxpayers I worked out that, very approximately, each tax payer would get 130 if that 4 trillion was fairly shared out amongst us all.

Now that the wealth is fairly distributed, no one will have the money to start businesses, create new products etc

But that's OK, as it will be a fair distribution of wealth and that's what's important Grin


(oops, I've just realised that there are estimated to be another 5 million+ who are of working age but don't pay tax in the UK, so if they get their fair share that brings it down to around 100 each - bugger! Wink )
oldblokeh 3 922 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 10:08PM
You have a very odd idea of what constitutes a fair share if you think that 4 trillion divided by 5 million is 130. Or perhaps all these immensely rich people do have hearts of gold and think they are paying the plebs handsomely, but their maths is as bad as yours.
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 10:26PM

Quote:You have a very odd idea of what constitutes a fair share if you think that 4 trillion divided by 5 million is 130. Or perhaps all these immensely rich people do have hearts of gold and think they are paying the plebs handsomely, but their maths is as bad as yours.


oops my error (late for an old man to be doing sums Smile ) a trillion is 10 to the power 12 not 9 Blush


Ooh - I like the sound of that much better - that gives us all 100,000 total wealth each (hmm, that's less than the value of a house, so the same problem remains, who has the money to invest in new businesses etc)


And another thought, that b'stard Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to tax it at 40% +

Seems a bit unfair to me Tongue
monstersnowman 9 1.7k 1 England
6 Oct 2013 10:27PM
With that extra 130 (or 100) we can all build our own homes (all equally sized) and be equally happy ever after ... Obviously i do hope to god if anyone makes any money they do so at the same rate as everyone else .. ;0)
keith selmes 11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
6 Oct 2013 10:35PM

Quote:100,000 total wealth each (hmm, that's less than the value of a house,
Or more, depending where and how you live.

I think we should pay off the national debt first, then divvy out, we'd still have a nice liitle earner each. And it would be in circulation PDQ.

As usual with wealth redistribution, some people would blow it/spend it/get ripped off very quickly, others stuff it in the pension fund or building society, some would indeed spend it on buying or upgrading property.
It should stimulate the entertainment, automotive and building industries quite nicely.

When do we start ?

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.