It's not just economic, it's moral: Rich people should pay MORE tax, says author of Curious Incide

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
The award-winning author of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time has said rich people should pay more tax to save others being hit by government spending cuts.

Mark Haddon, whose book has sold more than two million copies, spawned a stage version and is being adapted as a film by Brad Pitt, said he was ‘not asking just an economic question but a moral one, too'.


Haddon told the Sunday Times he had annoyed his accountant by insisting on paying all tax that was due rather than seeking to avoid it.

'I should be paying more tax,' he said. He revealed the letter was partly inspired by the US billionaire investor Warren Buffet, who has said he should pay more tax, as should other members of America's 'super-rich'.

Haddon, a known critic of the government, has accused the government as being 'a cabal of very wealthy people', out of touch with ordinary life, saying his experience of attending boarding school and Oxford University had shown him 'how easy it is for certain groups of people to become wholly insulated from ordinary life'.

Daily Mail


Warren Buffet used to point out how unfair it was that his secretary paid a higher proportion of her salary in taxes than he did.

Still, it is true that if rich people are allowed to evade tax and keep their cash they do create new jobs. Au pairs, cooks, gardeners...




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Any type of legislation towards morality will be seen as a punishment for being wealthy.

You simply cannot legislate morality.

Also, wouldn't it be morally acceptable for those who make any money to pay their fair share? Or does morality only count towards the rich?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Any type of legislation towards morality will be seen as a punishment for being wealthy.

You simply cannot legislate morality.

Also, wouldn't it be morally acceptable for those who make any money to pay their fair share? Or does morality only count towards the rich?


I personally only object to the rich paying less tax as a proportion of their income. That is what the rich do. They can afford to pay $1,000 per hour tax lawyers.

Ordinary people cannot.

One important point is that it is reasonable to presume that the rich don't feel there is anything wrong with evading tax, therefore it could be argued that laws to legislate morality are indeed required.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Any type of legislation towards morality will be seen as a punishment for being wealthy.

You simply cannot legislate morality.

Also, wouldn't it be morally acceptable for those who make any money to pay their fair share? Or does morality only count towards the rich?


I personally only object to the rich paying less tax as a proportion of their income. That is what the rich do. They can afford to pay $1,000 per hour tax lawyers.

Ordinary people cannot.

One important point is that it is reasonable to presume that the rich don't feel there is anything wrong with evading tax, therefore it could be argued that laws to legislate morality are indeed required.



Then you're not legislating morality.

You're legislating personal opinion.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
It's nice how these baby boomer billionaires, who received free University education, free healthcare and well funded infrastructures, now don't want to pay back into the pot that they so eagerly took from.

Now they have created loop holes and tax havens where they can horde their billions, just for themselves. Greed rules the day.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The problem is, you're defining a 'legislative' process without defining 'morality' beforehand. Rich people, generally, have the mechanism to do both: influence laws and what people can and can't do as well as influence what is 'right', 'wrong' or 'acceptable' in ways that the ordinary person can't.

In Britain, Cameron's catchphrase is 'do the right thing' and he shoe-horns it into most of his big speeches. However, his definition of doing the right thing means tax cuts for the rich and also scapegoating the disabled and generally penalising the working/workless poor.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


Does "do the right thing" only apply to those who make over a certain amount?

Doing the right thing should apply to everyone, not just those who make above an arbitrary amount.

Are todays taxes fair? No.

Will forcing the rich to pay more make it fair? No.

A fair, flat tax would eliminate any favouratism to any economic group or level.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
A fair, flat tax would eliminate any favouratism to any economic group or level.


I am surprised that you think it is fair that the poorest people in society should pay the same proportion of their income in tax as a bank CEO.

Are you suggesting that small businesses shouldn't get tax breaks to encourage growth?


"equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally."

Aristotle
Link







edit on 13-8-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by beezzer
A fair, flat tax would eliminate any favouratism to any economic group or level.


I am surprised that you think it is fair that the poorest people in society should pay the same proportion of their income as tax as a bank CEO.

Are you suggesting that small businesses shouldn't get tax breaks to encourage growth?


"equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally."

Aristotle
Link


Not the same proportion, but the same percentage.

Are we not talking about equality here? Or is a reward provided to those who don't earn much versus a punative act given to the wealthy seem fair??



edit on 13-8-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


Does "do the right thing" only apply to those who make over a certain amount?



No, but the ability to determine what is the right thing only applies to those who make over a certain amount.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


Does "do the right thing" only apply to those who make over a certain amount?



No, but the ability to determine what is the right thing only applies to those who make over a certain amount.


That, I agree, has to change.

We need to make it fair REGARDLESS of the amount made.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Flat taxes are unfair.

Say the tax rate was 50%

Someone that makes 20,000 a year is only going to have 10,000 left over. But someone that makes 200,000 a year is going to have 100,000 left over.

The person that makes more is going to to be able to live, the other person will not. A flat tax punishes the poor.

A progressive tax "punishes" everyone proportionally.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by beezzer
 


Flat taxes are unfair.

Say the tax rate was 50%

Someone that makes 20,000 a year is only going to have 10,000 left over. But someone that makes 200,000 a year is going to have 100,000 left over.

The person that makes more is going to to be able to live, the other person will not. A flat tax punishes the poor.

A progressive tax "punishes" everyone proportionally.


A progressive tax punishes the wealthy. It rewards the poor. Once you start providng caveats to any tax system, you run into loopholes, exemptions, exceptions.

Say the tax rate was 8%. Instead of your 50%.

That would make it fair, given that the wealthy no longer had any loopholes to use.
edit on 13-8-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 





Flat taxes are unfair.


While I tend to agree, some people consider what you described to be fair, fair is a subjective measure. Also, when you account for the fact that poor people get many benefits and welfare for which the rich are not eligible, then it may balance out, and flat tax it is still fair even according to your definition of fair, when looked on from a higher perspective.
edit on 13/8/12 by Maslo because: typo
edit on 13/8/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by beezzer
 


Flat taxes are unfair.

Say the tax rate was 50%

Someone that makes 20,000 a year is only going to have 10,000 left over. But someone that makes 200,000 a year is going to have 100,000 left over.

The person that makes more is going to to be able to live, the other person will not. A flat tax punishes the poor.

A progressive tax "punishes" everyone proportionally.


A progressive tax punishes the wealthy. It rewards the poor.


Surely a progressive tax rewards the wealthy? Most countries have had a progressive tax system of one sort or another for a very long time. The rich just seem to have done very, very well out of it. In fact, they seem to do more well with every passing year if practically every report, study and investigation of the finances of the western world over the last few decades is to believed.

Which makes me think that, if social mobility is now going backwards - and it is, undeniably so - then a progressive tax isn't "rewarding the poor" at all because the relative poor are getting relatively poorer.

The problem isn't a progressive tax system or even a flat tax system. It's the rich shafting the poor in every system and in every way imaginable. Whatever system the rich introduce and, as before, it will be the rich who write the rules, the rich will always be the winners. If progressive taxes really did hurt the rich, the taxes would have lasted about 6 months and they'd have ended with a celebratory mass-execution of undesirables in public spaces.

Our whole western culture, our whole civilisation and how we determine all these things has been set-up to perpetuate the privileges afforded to the already rich.

inb4: "jealous", "envy" and "don't get it"



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


It is not like every poor person is on welfare and poor people still pay taxes. The most you can stay on welfare is for 5 years, and most states have it 2-3 lifetime limit.


and flat tax it is still fair even according to your definition of fair, when looked on from a higher perspective


No it isn't. A flat tax hurts the poor and middle class more so than it does the rich
edit on 13-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


In the States there is a grass-roots campaign to create a better tax system. I would agree with ANY group that wants to change it so that it was equal to all.

A tax should neither be carrot or stick.

Taxes should exist, but barely.
edit on 13-8-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 



A tax should neither be carrot or stick.


Which is pretty ironic as here in Britain, taxes tend to be seen as a carrot for the rich and a stick for the poor, not the other way around. We've a right wing government at the moment who've practically said that the rich need continuing financial incentives (whether it's further tax breaks or a bonus culture at a time when the vast majority of the country have seen wage freezes and wage drops - and that's if they're lucky to have a job) in order to get the best out of them

Whereas the poor 'need' things like job insecurity, increases in Value Added Tax and general austerity to make them more productive and to encourage their 'game'.

I genuinely don't recognise this system or culture you seem intent on describing where the rich are being "punished" or taxed wrongly or unfairly. As I said before, as things stand, in this 'the rich are being punished!' world (allegedly), the rich are doing really, really well and always have done. So, given that, I'm a bit reticent to see your society that where the rich are treated 'more fairly'.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Any type of legislation towards morality will be seen as a punishment for being wealthy.

You simply cannot legislate morality.

Also, wouldn't it be morally acceptable for those who make any money to pay their fair share? Or does morality only count towards the rich?


Of course you can legislate morality - the whole idea of legislation is to influence behaviour one way or another, thats what legislation is. In any case how is cutting services for those poorer any more or less moral than getting those richer to pay a little more?

Above all I don't see why loop-holes should not be closed for the rich, if this is seen as a punishment for the wealthy then those people who think that don't understand the concept of each of us paying our share.
edit on 13-8-2012 by freethinker123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 

Perhaps I should have stated "ideally".

Currently, the wealthy play the system.
The poor pay nothing.

And the middle class is stuck paying everything else.

I just want to make it fair. No loopholes. None.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join