Monaco avoid 75% super tax

[Baleforce]

No way is it fair enough but I suppose ill never earn that 1m euro a year to worry me. Its another subject, and maybe im in the minority, but I think its extortionate really.

I'm with you, extortion is the word

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

No way is it fair enough but I suppose ill never earn that 1m euro a year to worry me. Its another subject, and maybe im in the minority, but I think its extortionate really.

Mate i am with you but you may not have noticed a lot on here think anyone who is successful and makes money is evil and the cause of all the worlds problems.

 

[Cochise]

£1 million a year is a lot and I'm not sure any job is worth that much.

 

[Neymar]

No way is it fair enough but I suppose ill never earn that 1m euro a year to worry me. Its another subject, and maybe im in the minority, but I think its extortionate really.

Mate i am with you but you may not have noticed a lot on here think anyone who is successful and makes money is evil and the cause of all the worlds problems.

I'm with you guys too. I find the attitude that "higher earners should owe more to society through higher taxes" very weird.

I think the situation with Monaco (the football team) and the French League shows a good resemblance with how taxes rates are set in the real world.

Basically, i don't think tax rates have anything to do with whats "fair" or not. The other teams in the french league have seen that Monaco have a lot of money, and therefore they can coerce Monaco into paying a lump fee every year.
That is basically whats happening in the real world i think with taxes. There are a lot less elite income earners than people who earn a more "standard" rate, and therefore when the time comes for the electorate to appoint a pm, they inevitably select one who's taxation policies benefit them (the majority).

Can anyone really give a morally justifiable argument as to why "higher income earners should pay more in taxes"? yet people seem to bleat this line every time.

 

[Neymar]

It will be very interesting to see what arrangement Ligue 1 and Monaco come to following this tax announcement.

 

[braineclipse]

I'm with you guys too. I find the attitude that "higher earners should owe more to society through higher taxes" very weird.

I think the situation with Monaco (the football team) and the French League shows a good resemblance with how taxes rates are set in the real world.

Basically, i don't think tax rates have anything to do with whats "fair" or not. The other teams in the french league have seen that Monaco have a lot of money, and therefore they can coerce Monaco into paying a lump fee every year.
That is basically whats happening in the real world i think with taxes. There are a lot less elite income earners than people who earn a more "standard" rate, and therefore when the time comes for the electorate to appoint a pm, they inevitably select one who's taxation policies benefit them (the majority).

Can anyone really give a morally justifiable argument as to why "higher income earners should pay more in taxes"? yet people seem to bleat this line every time.

If you turn the question around to "can anyone give a morally justifiable argument as to why lower income earners should pay less in taxes" and obvious arguments spring to mind.

For example:

Those who make less have a significantly lower proportion of their income as disposable income. Most accept that in a modern society everyone should have access to food, housing, electricity etc. After all of those are paid for there's a massive difference between various economic classes in what is available to spend on what can be seen as "luxuries". To me it makes sense from a humanistic perspective that those with less of a disposable income available to them pay less. I'm not only talking about the outright poor here, but an extension of "a society is judged by how it treats it's weakest members" into a model where those who have very little pay less and those who have very much pay more and those in between pay along a continuum makes a lot of sense to me.

Particularly in countries where good education is expensive I think this kind of taxation is also very important to retain a level of social mobility. I think a level of social mobility is very important for a society both from a humane point of view and from a socio-economic one.

Another important point in my opinion is that the wealthy aren't wealthy only as a result of their own efforts. Not saying they don't deserve their wealth, nor am I saying that the job-creation that societies get from entrepreneurs isn't important. But those with a lot of money do use public services such as roads in the process to get or stay rich. Significantly more than a "working Joe" does. They're also, at least to some significant degree, getting rich off the hard work of others.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

If you turn the question around to "can anyone give a morally justifiable argument as to why lower income earners should pay less in taxes" and obvious arguments spring to mind.

For example:

Those who make less have a significantly lower proportion of their income as disposable income. Most accept that in a modern society everyone should have access to food, housing, electricity etc. After all of those are paid for there's a massive difference between various economic classes in what is available to spend on what can be seen as "luxuries". To me it makes sense from a humanistic perspective that those with less of a disposable income available to them pay less. I'm not only talking about the outright poor here, but an extension of "a society is judged by how it treats it's weakest members" into a model where those who have very little pay less and those who have very much pay more and those in between pay along a continuum makes a lot of sense to me.

Particularly in countries where good education is expensive I think this kind of taxation is also very important to retain a level of social mobility. I think a level of social mobility is very important for a society both from a humane point of view and from a socio-economic one.

Another important point in my opinion is that the wealthy aren't wealthy only as a result of their own efforts. Not saying they don't deserve their wealth, nor am I saying that the job-creation that societies get from entrepreneurs isn't important. But those with a lot of money do use public services such as roads in the process to get or stay rich. Significantly more than a "working Joe" does. They're also, at least to some significant degree, getting rich off the hard work of others.

Spot on. The idea that that the rich get rich because they work harder is one of the biggest myths of our time.

 

[scaramanga]

Spot on. The idea that that the rich get rich because they work harder is one of the biggest myths of our time.

What does how the money became theirs have to do with it?

It's their money, and whilst you could argue that it's morally right for them to redistribute it to those who need it, I don't believe it's right for anyone to steal it from them.

 

[braineclipse]

What does how the money became theirs have to do with it?

It's their money, and whilst you could argue that it's morally right for them to redistribute it to those who need it, I don't believe it's right for anyone to steal it from them.

Is this an argument against higher taxes for the rich or against taxation in general?

I really struggle to see how different tax rates based on different incomes can be accurately described as stealing. Even more so if you're talking about an income tax, that money isn't "theirs" at that point, when earning money in a system where income tax is the standard only the portion of the money that isn't paid in taxes is actually yours. Had your argument been about an inheritance tax I could have seen your side of the issue.

 

[scaramanga]

Is this an argument against higher taxes for the rich or against taxation in general?

I really struggle to see how different tax rates based on different incomes can be accurately described as stealing. Even more so if you're talking about an income tax, that money isn't "theirs" at that point, when earning money in a system where income tax is the standard only the portion of the money that isn't paid in taxes is actually yours. Had your argument been about an inheritance tax I could have seen your side of the issue.

Inheritance, capital gains, tax on dividends, savings, etc.

I understand how PAYE can be considered taking it before it's yours, but the rest aren't. Then the taxation on goods paid for with money that's already been taxed. It's taking money under threat - in my eyes that's theft.

 

[braineclipse]

Inheritance, capital gains, tax on dividends, savings, etc.

I understand how PAYE can be considered taking it before it's yours, but the rest aren't. Then the taxation on goods paid for with money that's already been taxed. It's taking money under threat - in my eyes that's theft.

But to be able to make money you must be a part of a functioning society? Making a society work costs money, surely some of that money earned should go towards upholding that society?

Personally I find the idea that only/primarily those with PAYE type income should pay tax whilst the richest of the rich should pay little or a smaller percentage much more outrageous than the idea of taxing the rich higher than the poor.

Taxation on goods paid for with money that's already been taxed is a bit of a misconception in my opinion. You can imagine the two extreme systems, a system with no tax on goods and services purchased - a system with only income tax. Or you can imagine a system with only tax on goods and services - a system with no income tax. I see no fundamental reason why both wouldn't be functional in theory at least. However for both those you would have to raise the tax actually being collected, either on goods and services or on income, to reflect the loss of tax income for society in the other area. I don't quite see how saying that we're going to fund our society based on a combination of the two models is inherently wrong, or that it should be seen as a "double taxation". Yes, you're being "taxed twice" on a simplistic level, but if the expenditure of a government was to stay the same then any "single taxation model" would end up collecting as much in taxes on average from it's citizens as a "double taxation model".

 

[monkeybarry]

right, lets have a whip round and set up a team in the Isle of Man

force the 85K inhabitants to attend games - we can win the CL in 10years

 

[the dza]

I give about as much of a f**k for the "pain" of the rich with their high taxes as they do about me with my low wages.

I'm all for class warfare, f**k the rich.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

I give about as much of a f**k for the "pain" of the rich with their high taxes as they do about me with my low wages.

I'm all for class warfare, f**k the rich.

It is a war we are losing at the moment though.

 

[elltrev]

What does how the money became theirs have to do with it?

It's their money, and whilst you could argue that it's morally right for them to redistribute it to those who need it, I don't believe it's right for anyone to steal it from them.

Are you saying that the tax system should change so that everyone just gives however much they want to?

 

[the dza]

It is a war we are losing at the moment though.

Most certainly. There is nobody to really pick up the fight either.

People will shrug off my little bit of swearing as too simplistic, but they just want us to get bogged down in some Guardian-style hand-wringing crap, that tinkers around the edges and gives us 3 tossers to choose from come election time.

The only time the working class in this country got a proper say was after the end of World War 2. A bunch of trained killers returned home and thought "what the hell did we just risk life and limb for? To go back to mass unemployment and all of our industries controlled by a small percentage of rich people? No thanks."

And they voted for a form of Socialism, when it wasn't a dirty word. They voted for slum clearances and lots of council housing, for the nationalisation of key industries (especially ones that were natural monopolies) and they voted for the creation of the NHS and the "cradle to grave" welfare state.

And they got it. And ever since then, that small cabal of rich tw*ts have sought to undermine those achievements at every turn until we get where we are at the present, with everything up for grabs so long as you have got the money.

Working people who risked their lives fighting fascism, they thought that as they had everybody working during the war, maybe we could have everybody working during the peace -- except that instead of working to kill people, they could work to build their country up and make things better for the majority of us.

And they voted out Churchill to do this. Churchill! Not Cameron, or Clegg or Milliband.

We are screwed, and it will probably get worse for us on low wages before it gets better.

 

[Neymar]

What does how the money became theirs have to do with it?

It's their money, and whilst you could argue that it's morally right for them to redistribute it to those who need it, I don't believe it's right for anyone to steal it from them.

Spot on. Hence, why there is absolutely no "moral basis" for the argument that "the rich should be taxed more".

Is this an argument against higher taxes for the rich or against taxation in general?

I really struggle to see how different tax rates based on different incomes can be accurately described as stealing. Even more so if you're talking about an income tax, that money isn't "theirs" at that point, when earning money in a system where income tax is the standard only the portion of the money that isn't paid in taxes is actually yours. Had your argument been about an inheritance tax I could have seen your side of the issue.

I also agree with this to an extent. Because, if one is not happy with the "tax-rates", he is allowed to leave the country, and join another country who offers a more amiable taxation system.

However, your point here is again not a "moral" argument for higher taxes.

And it is those who seem to think that it is somehow "moral" to tax the rich more that baffles me.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

It is a war we are losing at the moment though.

If i was one of those politically correct people i would question your use of the word war, i am not so i will not.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

If you turn the question around to "can anyone give a morally justifiable argument as to why lower income earners should pay less in taxes" and obvious arguments spring to mind.

For example:

Those who make less have a significantly lower proportion of their income as disposable income. Most accept that in a modern society everyone should have access to food, housing, electricity etc. After all of those are paid for there's a massive difference between various economic classes in what is available to spend on what can be seen as "luxuries". To me it makes sense from a humanistic perspective that those with less of a disposable income available to them pay less. I'm not only talking about the outright poor here, but an extension of "a society is judged by how it treats it's weakest members" into a model where those who have very little pay less and those who have very much pay more and those in between pay along a continuum makes a lot of sense to me.

Particularly in countries where good education is expensive I think this kind of taxation is also very important to retain a level of social mobility. I think a level of social mobility is very important for a society both from a humane point of view and from a socio-economic one.

Another important point in my opinion is that the wealthy aren't wealthy only as a result of their own efforts. Not saying they don't deserve their wealth, nor am I saying that the job-creation that societies get from entrepreneurs isn't important. But those with a lot of money do use public services such as roads in the process to get or stay rich. Significantly more than a "working Joe" does. They're also, at least to some significant degree, getting rich off the hard work of others.

Does this mean we can stop paying road tax then what if you have a child in private education and private health care can we get rebates for this?

 

[Neymar]

But to be able to make money you must be a part of a functioning society? Making a society work costs money, surely some of that money earned should go towards upholding that society?

"Upholding a Society" and "functioning society"

Aren't these just synonyms for "the poor will rob/steal/loot from the rich, unless the rich give the poor (the masses) what they want (through higher taxes)"?

It's like the London Riots - the "have nots" are envious of those who "have", and somehow think that they too should enjoy the luxuries that the rich enjoy.