Originally posted by steerpikeIf you have money there are lots of ways to make more money with or without paying tax on the income yielded.
The richer make more money than poor people on capital gains - for example. buying houses and selling them at a profit. In many cases, these gains are tax free. So what do people think of the middle class selling their home for hundreds of thousands more than they paid for it and paying no tax on their profits?
The key question is how we get the poor richer. Investing in education first. Then secondly we should use tax revenue to create jobs and a climate of free enterprise. More people working means more taxes raised.
Originally posted by VargVarg Sir.
The Lib Dems have announced increased income taxation of 50% for those earning over £100,000 (apparently 1% of the UK).
I've never understood this about taxation. I'm not trying to make a political point, or be sarcastic, I genuinely do not understand this:
The Lib Dems (and others) claim that is is "fairer" to tax the rich more than the poor. This is o ...[text shortened]... e tax is completely fair.
What am I not getting here? I would be grateful for an explanation.
I don't pretend to know the British tax law, but in general, it might be that even those who want to "play Robin Hood" understand that If you kill the Sheriff and take over the government, YOU must then become the sheriff.
It is better to "distribute the pain" to all except the voting majority. Those you need to get reelected. They are the poor and dis-enfranchised.
Originally posted by invigorateWhat happened to the fair percentage of income taken for tax?
If you have money there are lots of ways to make more money with or without paying tax on the income yielded.
The key question is how we get the poor richer. Investing in education first. Then secondly we should use tax revenue to create jobs and a climate of free enterprise. More people working means more taxes raised.
A person with capital can buy several houses, rent them out and claim any expenses against income, then sell at a capital gain and pay no tax.
Where are the advocates of flat tax now? Why don't we charge the same flat tax on all income - including capial gains on shares and property?
Originally posted by steerpikeWow! Seven logical errors in one post.
What happened to the fair percentage of income taken for tax?
A person with capital can buy several houses, rent them out and claim any expenses against income, then sell at a capital gain and pay no tax.
Where are the advocates of flat tax now? Why don't we charge the same flat tax on all income - including capial gains on shares and property?
1 - A person with capital can buy "several houses". Really? What is they can only afford their one? That is a great (and typical commie) leap to buying "several".
2 - A person who buys several houses can claim "any expenses against income". Really? In New Zealand? The most socialist nation in the southern half? I think you lost it there buddy. The exact opposite is true.
3 - Then sell the "capital gain", ie, interest earned on investment...
Wow! In your socialist land? I think not. You are guiding this at the US reader? Why? Too ashamed of your own commie lack?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAll of these are true in my commie country - which is ranked 5 on the Index of economic freedom.
Wow! Seven logical errors in one post.
1 - A person with capital can buy "several houses". Really? What is they can only afford their one? That is a great (and typical commie) leap to buying "several".
2 - A person who buys several houses can claim "any expenses against income". Really? In New Zealand? The most socialist nation in the southe ...[text shortened]... d? I think not. You are guiding this at the US reader? Why? Too ashamed of your own commie lack?
Most banks will end up to 80% of income on investment properties - meaning owning your house without a mortgage can allow you to buy another four houses. If rent covers mortgages, the bank will do it.
Any expense - including interest - is claimable. I have been a landlord and have done so.
NZ has no capital gains unless you buy with the sole intention of selling. Gains on a rental property sold after a few years is not taxed.
I have no idea how it works in your country - which www.heritage.org ranks as 12 on the index.
4 edits
Originally posted by steerpikeNor do I know how it works here.
All of these are true in my commie country - which is ranked 5 on the Index of economic freedom.
Most banks will end up to 80% of income on investment properties - meaning owning your house without a mortgage can allow you to buy anot ...[text shortened]... your country - which www.heritage.org ranks as 12 on the index.
I have an aunt and uncle who have made "millions" as slum lords.
But slum lords are slum lords. I just laugh at them when they goad me for not being a millionaire. I remind them of when they took me to the gmc dealership in Idaho Falls ( B.A Wackerli or some such) with my sister Elaine and took a two ton truck on a "test drive". Ed stoled that damned truck. I was only four years old, but i was his "fake child" and was smart enough to know that he had stolen the truck. We left the three "girls" in the waiting area while he and I took the truck on a test drive that didn't end nicely for the Wackerlies.
Hell. The police were looking for a "couple with three kids"... and a White GMC two ton truck.
We went up to the turn off to green springs at tetonia and around by the west hills. Ed painted the truck dark green before his wife and my sister and Helen Joy showed up three hours later.
I Burned up the clutch on the John Deere the next year... just because I could. I ain't no damned dumb 4 year old. I did it because I could. All I had to do was grin and say "sorry uncle Ed. But this clutch ain't worth about a tenth of that truck WE stoled."
Snark.
My aunt and uncle Ed hate me about as much as old Delmer and his cronies hate me. Sad. Ain't it?
Originally posted by VargGoing back to the original point...
The Lib Dems have announced increased income taxation of 50% for those earning over £100,000 (apparently 1% of the UK).
I've never understood this about taxation. I'm not trying to make a political point, or be sarcastic, I genuinely do not understand this:
The Lib Dems (and others) claim that is is "fairer" to tax the rich more than the poor. This is o ...[text shortened]... e tax is completely fair.
What am I not getting here? I would be grateful for an explanation.
I have never believed in the politics of high taxation. If there's one thing the last 8 years has taught us in Britain it is that if government decides that they know best how our money should be spent and therefore decide to spend it on our behalf, they waste billions. In Britain, the money has gone on creating non-jobs in the public sector, and the money that has been poured into the NHS has been spent on creating ever more levels of management and bureaucracy, and fatuous projects like having a system of government targets that hospitals must meet. In a period in which nurses' pay rose 50%, managers' pay rose 70%. There are now 3 NHS managers for every 2 NHS hospital beds! Too bad they didn't allocate some of that money to pay for cleaners in the wards, as there are now more people dying of MRSA infections than die on the roads each year.
The LibDem 50% proposal is a step in the wrong direction. I remember the taxation under Labour in the 70s - top rate of 83%!!! And an investment income surcharge of 15% on "unearned" income. Result: the haves domiciled themselves and/or their assets overseas, out of reach of the taxman. As someone correctly stated a few posts up, when Maggie reduced the top rate of tax from 83% to 40% and got rid of the 15% surcharge, tax RECEIPTS actually went up. Punitive taxation is like a shopkeeper thinking that if he doubles his prices, he can double his takings.
40% tax cuts in at about £35000 depending on personal allowances. Thus a person earning £50000 will pay £6000 in higher rate tax whereas a person earning £200000 will pay £66000 in higher rate tax. I think that's fair enough without moving back towards punitive rates.
The LibDems are well intentioned, and at local level have some very good ideas. But at the national level they live in the land of the fairies.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat's irrational about thievery and scamming people? And both provide income.
The first two are examples of neither income nor rational behavior.
The latter two are valid examples of contributing to society.
So are the two recent edits.
Also short term contributions with long term consequences profit the individual but often hurt society.
If a nation exports nuclear weapons and then WWIII takes place, society wouldn't be doing so well would it?
Originally posted by UncleBucketGod. That is about the best post I have ever seen that describes not the british NHS but the world in general.
Going back to the original point...
I have never believed in the politics of high taxation. If there's one thing the last 8 years has taught us in Britain it is that if government decides that they know best how our money should be spent and therefore decide to spend it on our behalf, they waste billions. In Britain, the money has gone on creating no ...[text shortened]... level have some very good ideas. But at the national level they live in the land of the fairies.
NASA...
When the human race went to the moon... there were Six engineers and tradesmen to every administrator.
Now there are seventy administrators for every engineer and tradesman.
And we wonder why we can only send up 50 lb. buckets compared to the 5000 lb beasts of the seventies?
I think I know. Brits and us know. Bloated silliness. That's what we have come to. All of us.
42,000 sensitive NASA engineers once met to decide the future of the race.
One said... "I think that we need to grow."
One said... "I think that we need to be sensitive to our environment".
One said... "I think that we should study this some more. We really don't know what the impact of this might be. Let's study it. Let's spend our budget to study it. Let's not act. Let's wait and think and study and think and study and think and study and think and study...
So we did. Think. Study. Never acting. That's safe.
Silly, stupid turd chimps.
Originally posted by steerpikeI believe I stated my support of a flat tax. But I also don't think we should have deductions. None at all.
What happened to the fair percentage of income taken for tax?
A person with capital can buy several houses, rent them out and claim any expenses against income, then sell at a capital gain and pay no tax.
Where are the advocates of flat tax now? Why don't we charge the same flat tax on all income - including capial gains on shares and property?
Originally posted by steerpikeYoyu can have one second hame for 3 years before it is liable to capital gains tax (on profit). I rent out a flat. I pay tax on the rental income and I will pay more tax when I sell the property.
What happened to the fair percentage of income taken for tax?
A person with capital can buy several houses, rent them out and claim any expenses against income, then sell at a capital gain and pay no tax.
Where are the advocates of flat tax now? Why don't we charge the same flat tax on all income - including capial gains on shares and property?
9 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat a foolish notion of income.
What's irrational about thievery and scamming people? And both provide income.
Suppose you have $1 to your name, and neither of us have earned any income so far this year.
Let us follow this sequence:
I steal the dollar from you. My income is $1.
You steal it back from me. Your income is $1.
I steal it back from you. My income is now $2.
You steal if back from me. Your income is now $2.
I steal it back from you. My income is now $3.
You steal if back from me. Your income is now $3.
...
We could repeat this arbitrarily many times to achieve an unlimited income, according to your notion of it.
Or, is your notion of income such that for each dollar that comes out of your possession, it no longer counts as income? For example, if I earn a salary of $50,000
and I purchase a $20,000 vehicle for cash in the same year, is my income for the year $30,000 or $50,000? If you say $50,000, then you must adhere to the above refutation of your idea that thievery is income. If you say $30,000 then you must admit it is unfair for the governemnt to levy income tax on my $50,000 because it wasn't all income. (And if you would say that my new $20,000 car complements my remaining $30,000 in cash to bring my income back to $50,000, then I will say that the time I spent earning the $50,000 was worth $50,000, which I gave away by spending the time, and thus my income is in fact $0, and thus I owe no income tax.)
Which way do you want it?
Originally posted by NyxieSo if I buy a run-down house for $200 000, spend $50 000 on reroofing, a new kiichen and painting, and then sell it for $300 000, I should be flat taxed on the $100 000 profit I made?
I believe I stated my support of a flat tax. But I also don't think we should have deductions. None at all.
Surely you should allow some deductions against income and tax me only on my $50 000 net profit?
Originally posted by steerpikeLet's look at this a little closer. The real estate agent is taxed on his commission. The kitchen contractor pays taxes. The men he hires to do the work also pay taxes. The painter also declares income for his work. Lest we not forget the property taxes that pay for the education system, etc.
So if I buy a run-down house for $200 000, spend $50 000 on reroofing, a new kiichen and painting, and then sell it for $300 000, I should be flat taxed on the $100 000 profit I made?
Surely you should allow some deductions against income and tax me only on my $50 000 net profit?
Originally posted by kirksey957What? Slow down bud.........Tax the feed for the cow, then tax the dung that comes from the feed and becomes the fertilizer the farmer uses?
Let's look at this a little closer. The real estate agent is taxed on his commission. The kitchen contractor pays taxes. The men he hires to do the work also pay taxes. The painter also declares income for his work. Lest we not forget the property taxes that pay for the education system, etc.
C'mon kirk!!! Don't be like that!
RTh