FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Inheritance tax
Inheritance tax
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
"Is it fair the royals not obliged to pay any? And yet the labour party say nothing about it? "I guess they would bankrupt on the property alone, so makes sense to me. | |||
| |||
"Is it fair the royals not obliged to pay any? And yet the labour party say nothing about it? "The Royals are a bit of a special case to be fair, and I suppose you either support the Royal family or you think they should be rid of. However, many do seem to believe whole swathes of the population are contributing to the tax income of this country by paying inheritance tax. In actual fact, according to government statistics, less that 4% of deaths result in the payment of any inheritance tax at all..... | |||
| |||
"Is it fair the royals not obliged to pay any? And yet the labour party say nothing about it? "Is it fair anyone pays inheritance tax | |||
"Do any of them actually pay tax. ?" Oh they do, but especially Charlie gets quite a bit eu grants, would put up links but don't want a ban, again  | |||
"Is it fair the royals not obliged to pay any? And yet the labour party say nothing about it?" The royals are obliged to pay inheritance tax, but the crown isn't. Charlie doesn't personally own Buckingham Palace, it's owned by the crown and can't be sold. He hasn't actually inherited the palace, he's just become the person entitled to control it. | |||
"Is it fair the royals not obliged to pay any? And yet the labour party say nothing about it? The royals are obliged to pay inheritance tax, but the crown isn't. Charlie doesn't personally own Buckingham Palace, it's owned by the crown and can't be sold. He hasn't actually inherited the palace, he's just become the person entitled to control it." I haven't read the details, but there was a rule change for the royals incase of two successive deaths ... As the queen mums stuff would have gone from he to the queen to Charles, taking out (in theory) just under 80pc of value. | |||
"Is it fair the royals not obliged to pay any? And yet the labour party say nothing about it?
Is it fair anyone pays inheritance tax"imo, it's a pretty good way of redistributing wealth. Of all the taxes, it's my favourite.  | |||
"Is it fair the royals not obliged to pay any? And yet the labour party say nothing about it?
Is it fair anyone pays inheritance taximo, it's a pretty good way of redistributing wealth. Of all the taxes, it's my favourite. "As long as everyone pays it? | |||
"Is it fair the royals not obliged to pay any? And yet the labour party say nothing about it?
Is it fair anyone pays inheritance taximo, it's a pretty good way of redistributing wealth. Of all the taxes, it's my favourite.
As long as everyone pays it? "makes it less effective as a wealth redistributing tax ... (I say this as someone who probably will have IHT on my estate... So it's not because it's advantagous for me. Tbh I'm also pro higher income tax at higher levels... Albeit id rather target wealth than income) | |||
| |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?" depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. | |||
| |||
"Is it fair the royals not obliged to pay any? And yet the labour party say nothing about it? "Sadly, Labour Party are fucking hopeless. | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. " It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. | |||
"Is it fair the royals not obliged to pay any? And yet the labour party say nothing about it?
Sadly, Labour Party are fucking hopeless. "For once we agree Seb! The Labour Party are hopeless on this. They should be shouting from the rooftops to tax those royal parasites. | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes." Commonly agreed by who? | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? " Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data"" Are you against people earning more than others? | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" Are you against people earning more than others? " This is a very different question isn't it. You answer mine then I'll answer yours. | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" Are you against people earning more than others? This is a very different question isn't it. You answer mine then I'll answer yours." That quote doesn't make sense to me. VAT is equal, I pay the same as you. You could earn 10x more than me and spend 100x more on luxury items than me. How would VAT work on sliding scale based on earnings? | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" Are you against people earning more than others? This is a very different question isn't it. You answer mine then I'll answer yours. That quote doesn't make sense to me. VAT is equal, I pay the same as you. You could earn 10x more than me and spend 100x more on luxury items than me. How would VAT work on sliding scale based on earnings? " It means that in general, the higher earners have much more disposable income, they spend some, they put some into savings etc. Lower earners have to spend the vast majority of their income every month, if not all of it. Therefore those on lower earnings spend a greater proportion of their income, and therefore pay a greater proportion of their income goes out on VAT also. Statistics are really clear that the lowest 10% of earners pay a higher proportion of their wages on VAT than any other group. | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" Are you against people earning more than others? This is a very different question isn't it. You answer mine then I'll answer yours. That quote doesn't make sense to me. VAT is equal, I pay the same as you. You could earn 10x more than me and spend 100x more on luxury items than me. How would VAT work on sliding scale based on earnings? It means that in general, the higher earners have much more disposable income, they spend some, they put some into savings etc. Lower earners have to spend the vast majority of their income every month, if not all of it. Therefore those on lower earnings spend a greater proportion of their income, and therefore pay a greater proportion of their income goes out on VAT also. Statistics are really clear that the lowest 10% of earners pay a higher proportion of their wages on VAT than any other group." Your turn to answer my question. Do you think everyone should be paid the same? | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" Are you against people earning more than others? This is a very different question isn't it. You answer mine then I'll answer yours. That quote doesn't make sense to me. VAT is equal, I pay the same as you. You could earn 10x more than me and spend 100x more on luxury items than me. How would VAT work on sliding scale based on earnings? It means that in general, the higher earners have much more disposable income, they spend some, they put some into savings etc. Lower earners have to spend the vast majority of their income every month, if not all of it. Therefore those on lower earnings spend a greater proportion of their income, and therefore pay a greater proportion of their income goes out on VAT also. Statistics are really clear that the lowest 10% of earners pay a higher proportion of their wages on VAT than any other group. Your turn to answer my question. Do you think everyone should be paid the same?" Actually, yes. | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" Are you against people earning more than others? This is a very different question isn't it. You answer mine then I'll answer yours. That quote doesn't make sense to me. VAT is equal, I pay the same as you. You could earn 10x more than me and spend 100x more on luxury items than me. How would VAT work on sliding scale based on earnings? It means that in general, the higher earners have much more disposable income, they spend some, they put some into savings etc. Lower earners have to spend the vast majority of their income every month, if not all of it. Therefore those on lower earnings spend a greater proportion of their income, and therefore pay a greater proportion of their income goes out on VAT also. Statistics are really clear that the lowest 10% of earners pay a higher proportion of their wages on VAT than any other group. Your turn to answer my question. Do you think everyone should be paid the same? Actually, yes." Why would anyone try to achieve, to study or to be an entrepreneur if everyone was paid the same. Would we stall or thrive as a nation? | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" Are you against people earning more than others? This is a very different question isn't it. You answer mine then I'll answer yours. That quote doesn't make sense to me. VAT is equal, I pay the same as you. You could earn 10x more than me and spend 100x more on luxury items than me. How would VAT work on sliding scale based on earnings? It means that in general, the higher earners have much more disposable income, they spend some, they put some into savings etc. Lower earners have to spend the vast majority of their income every month, if not all of it. Therefore those on lower earnings spend a greater proportion of their income, and therefore pay a greater proportion of their income goes out on VAT also. Statistics are really clear that the lowest 10% of earners pay a higher proportion of their wages on VAT than any other group. Your turn to answer my question. Do you think everyone should be paid the same? Actually, yes. Why would anyone try to achieve, to study or to be an entrepreneur if everyone was paid the same. Would we stall or thrive as a nation?" We live in a society where there's more than enough money for every single person to live comfortably and have what they need and want, but the wealth is hoarded by the few. If everyone knew they could live comfortably, in a developed and wealthy country, people would strive to do the jobs and careers that they want to do because they actually want to do it, not just for money. People would go through school working to get a career they love, only having to think what they'd enjoy to do. A bin worker works just as hard as an office clerk. A nurse works just as hard as a lawyer. | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" Are you against people earning more than others? This is a very different question isn't it. You answer mine then I'll answer yours. That quote doesn't make sense to me. VAT is equal, I pay the same as you. You could earn 10x more than me and spend 100x more on luxury items than me. How would VAT work on sliding scale based on earnings? It means that in general, the higher earners have much more disposable income, they spend some, they put some into savings etc. Lower earners have to spend the vast majority of their income every month, if not all of it. Therefore those on lower earnings spend a greater proportion of their income, and therefore pay a greater proportion of their income goes out on VAT also. Statistics are really clear that the lowest 10% of earners pay a higher proportion of their wages on VAT than any other group. Your turn to answer my question. Do you think everyone should be paid the same? Actually, yes. Why would anyone try to achieve, to study or to be an entrepreneur if everyone was paid the same. Would we stall or thrive as a nation? We live in a society where there's more than enough money for every single person to live comfortably and have what they need and want, but the wealth is hoarded by the few. If everyone knew they could live comfortably, in a developed and wealthy country, people would strive to do the jobs and careers that they want to do because they actually want to do it, not just for money. People would go through school working to get a career they love, only having to think what they'd enjoy to do. A bin worker works just as hard as an office clerk. A nurse works just as hard as a lawyer. " What happens if I don't get the job I enjoy, because too many people applied for the roles I wanted to do? | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" Are you against people earning more than others? This is a very different question isn't it. You answer mine then I'll answer yours. That quote doesn't make sense to me. VAT is equal, I pay the same as you. You could earn 10x more than me and spend 100x more on luxury items than me. How would VAT work on sliding scale based on earnings? It means that in general, the higher earners have much more disposable income, they spend some, they put some into savings etc. Lower earners have to spend the vast majority of their income every month, if not all of it. Therefore those on lower earnings spend a greater proportion of their income, and therefore pay a greater proportion of their income goes out on VAT also. Statistics are really clear that the lowest 10% of earners pay a higher proportion of their wages on VAT than any other group. Your turn to answer my question. Do you think everyone should be paid the same? Actually, yes. Why would anyone try to achieve, to study or to be an entrepreneur if everyone was paid the same. Would we stall or thrive as a nation? We live in a society where there's more than enough money for every single person to live comfortably and have what they need and want, but the wealth is hoarded by the few. If everyone knew they could live comfortably, in a developed and wealthy country, people would strive to do the jobs and careers that they want to do because they actually want to do it, not just for money. People would go through school working to get a career they love, only having to think what they'd enjoy to do. A bin worker works just as hard as an office clerk. A nurse works just as hard as a lawyer. What happens if I don't get the job I enjoy, because too many people applied for the roles I wanted to do? " That also happens now doesn't it?? I guess in an alternative system, instead of being on the dole, you'd be helped to find an alternative career that you could enjoy. | |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" Are you against people earning more than others? This is a very different question isn't it. You answer mine then I'll answer yours. That quote doesn't make sense to me. VAT is equal, I pay the same as you. You could earn 10x more than me and spend 100x more on luxury items than me. How would VAT work on sliding scale based on earnings? It means that in general, the higher earners have much more disposable income, they spend some, they put some into savings etc. Lower earners have to spend the vast majority of their income every month, if not all of it. Therefore those on lower earnings spend a greater proportion of their income, and therefore pay a greater proportion of their income goes out on VAT also. Statistics are really clear that the lowest 10% of earners pay a higher proportion of their wages on VAT than any other group. Your turn to answer my question. Do you think everyone should be paid the same? Actually, yes. Why would anyone try to achieve, to study or to be an entrepreneur if everyone was paid the same. Would we stall or thrive as a nation? We live in a society where there's more than enough money for every single person to live comfortably and have what they need and want, but the wealth is hoarded by the few. If everyone knew they could live comfortably, in a developed and wealthy country, people would strive to do the jobs and careers that they want to do because they actually want to do it, not just for money. People would go through school working to get a career they love, only having to think what they'd enjoy to do. A bin worker works just as hard as an office clerk. A nurse works just as hard as a lawyer. What happens if I don't get the job I enjoy, because too many people applied for the roles I wanted to do? That also happens now doesn't it?? I guess in an alternative system, instead of being on the dole, you'd be helped to find an alternative career that you could enjoy." Everyone I know are in their dream jobs, I don't, how will I be supported? If I don't want to work, because I don't enjoy work, what now? I've got an idea, a luxury car, how do I get this idea off the ground? Who is my target audience, or would we all be driving the same cars? | |||
| |||
"It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax." "Commonly agreed by who?" "Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data"" If you're going to get your economic 'facts' from Tax Research UK, you'll need to get used to being laughed at. Richard Murphy's definition is far from being universally agreed. Try typing "regressive tax" into Google and see how many different definitions you get on the first page alone. | |||
"It means that in general, the higher earners have much more disposable income, they spend some, they put some into savings etc. Lower earners have to spend the vast majority of their income every month, if not all of it. Therefore those on lower earnings spend a greater proportion of their income, and therefore pay a greater proportion of their income goes out on VAT also. Statistics are really clear that the lowest 10% of earners pay a higher proportion of their wages on VAT than any other group." All of the above is true. It's also true to say that low income workers pay less VAT than their better off neighbors, and that the vast majority of VAT income is derived from rich people. | |||
"Is it fair the royals not obliged to pay any? And yet the labour party say nothing about it? "Remember what HMRC stands for | |||
 of others. Is this the fault of successive governments skewing the economy and taxation away from progressive investment in our own country and towards international financial services (essentially gambling) in order to crush the unions and has this led to our country’s declining status and financial precariousness? You have 2 hours and 500 words starting now  | |||
| |||
"The fairest tax of all is surely VAT (someone who can afford a Bentley can pay more tax than somebody who can only run to a Ford)? I wonder if the Royals pay VAT?depends what you call fair... It's subjective here. It is commonly agreed that VAT is a particularly regressive (i.e. unfair) tax, as those who are poorer tend to spend much more of their income as a proportion, and therefore tend to spend much more of their earnings on tax. If you want to look at the fairest, then it's clearly to have graduated tax bands that rise significantly if you earn more, and to look at higher inheritance tax. These are the most progressive taxes. Commonly agreed by who? Most, if not all, economists. It can easily be shown to be the case. Do you disagree? For example, from the Tax Research UK website: "As the Tax Research briefing argues, a regressive tax is almost universally agreed to be one where the proportion of an individual’s income expended on that tax falls as they progress up the income scale. VAT is a regressive tax. This is shown, quite dramatically, in the graph below which is based on UK official data" Are you against people earning more than others? This is a very different question isn't it. You answer mine then I'll answer yours. That quote doesn't make sense to me. VAT is equal, I pay the same as you. You could earn 10x more than me and spend 100x more on luxury items than me. How would VAT work on sliding scale based on earnings? It means that in general, the higher earners have much more disposable income, they spend some, they put some into savings etc. Lower earners have to spend the vast majority of their income every month, if not all of it. Therefore those on lower earnings spend a greater proportion of their income, and therefore pay a greater proportion of their income goes out on VAT also. Statistics are really clear that the lowest 10% of earners pay a higher proportion of their wages on VAT than any other group. Your turn to answer my question. Do you think everyone should be paid the same? Actually, yes." That's a sure fire route to mediocrity at best, race to bottom at worst. | |||
| |||
