It's the evolution of the Pareto Principle. Initially 80/20, and applied to a lot more than just taxation, some economists feel that it has moved to 90/10, as the gap between the rich and the poor widens (there's another debate!) though I'm sure there are many arguing otherwise. In Australia, for example, the middle class is slowly disappearing - widening the gap between the rich and the poor and similar views are held here. If we felt that 80/20 was a more reasonable number, that'd be cool; the principle and the outcomes are the same or close enough to negligible.
Okay, I'm all over what a scroat is now! I agree that capitalism appears to have gone too far but the general principles I agree with. The regulators are only, in recent times, learning that they need to suck it up and pay some big bucks to get some innovative thinkers and industry leaders to help regulate. And it's paying off. The Pareto principle could be applied to the workforce too. I might leave that one there though The problem with humans is that they're damn human!
A scroat is the same as what the Scots call a baw bag. You might call it a scrotum or a ball bag :wink:
To be in the top 10% of earners in the UK you have to earn over £45k or twice the national average. Not exactly rich is it ?
The UK and many other countries have entered into a large number of "Double Taxation Treaties", the gist of which is that people who earn income in more than one tax jurisdiction are let off paying tax twice. Say a writer's book earns royalties in another country and tax is deducted from the income there, when the money is repatriated to the writer's country of domicile it is free of further tax liability (under the treaty). This is a reasonable, sensible and just arrangement, IMHO. But you disapprove of international treaties about taxation, it seems. So do you disapprove of double taxation treaties?
It was more of a throw away light hearted let's have a dig at Pete kind of comment really. I am a small government kind of guy and you are a big government kind of guy, I am wary of any treaty that moves power and authority away from the grass roots, the democratic accountability is lost imho. However I would welcome any measure that reigns in the ability of those at the top to bypass the normal checks and balances that the rest of us have to adhere to. Reciprocal taxation agreements are, as you imply, perfectly logical. Where I would draw the line is that anyone who holds a British passport should pay at least some British tax. The Americans have such a policy, I don't see why we shouldn't do the same.
Bawbag I know. I have a few Scottish friends and went out with a Scottish girl for a few years while I was living in London so I'd heard that one. Especially after I watched Australia lose by one point to the Scots at Murrayfield. The first time in 27 years the Wallabies had been knocked over by the Scots and I happened to be there in my Wallabies jumper...
Perhaps our views are not so far apart after all. Just as it is a good thing for there to be reciprocal taxation treaties so that people do not have to pay tax twice on the same income in different countries, so there should be corresponding treaties so that people cannot avoid taxation altogether - that was my point.
Sorry, I'm confused. Are you for or against paying tax in your home nation as well as your nation of residence, if they're different?
People living overseas should abide by the rules in their country of residence and if there is a reciprocal tax agreement between nation states then, as long as tax revenues generated by the agreement in each country are reasonably similar, then that is OK. The problem arises when a national lives abroad completely tax free then returns to their country of origin and expects to benefit from a welfare state or infrastructure to which they have contributed far less than their fair share. Carrying a British, or any nation state, passport brings benefits but those benefits have a cost which doesn't go away just because someone is out of the country. So the answer to you question is yes, people should continue to pay at least some tax at home even when they are paying tax overseas. Clearly this is a small part of a larger taxation / entitlement argument and I have avoided mentioning rates of taxation but as general principle if someone has a British passport then they should pay at least some tax to the British government even if they are overseas.
You have now gone a bit further than even I would go, John. If a British citizen moves to another country, becomes domiciled there, and pays proper taxes on their income there then that is surely enough. I object strongly to people artificially arranging to receive income in a tax haven which has deliberately set taxes at low levels so as to enable people to avoid tax altogether; but provided nations reach agreements which bring that kind of evasion to an end, that would be good enough. I have no objection whatever to anyone moving to any country which will have them, nor to them working, earning money and paying taxes there, nor to them severing ties with the UK if they choose.
Neither do I, if they give up their citizenship and passport. But whilst they retain citizenship and a passport they also have certain obligations in return and that includes paying at least something towards running the country IMHO. I agree with you 100% on tax havens.
Ha! Bullshit! I am that person! I left the UK 25 years ago and have no great intention of ever returning. I now also hold a Swiss passport. I have earned money in Switzerland and paid my taxes here which seems only reasonable as I benefit from the infrastructure here. I can see no reason why, just because I was born and brought up in the UK I should pay HMG anything. I don't even have a vote in the country any more. Equally, I see no reason why I should be made to surrender my British passport. I clearly have an attachment to the country that I don't have to, say, Germany or Italy. But I don't benefit from the infrastructure in Britain so why should I pay for it? My Swiss health insurance will pay if I fall ill in the UK - I don't expect the NHS to look after me and I wouldn't expect free education for my kids either (if I had any). But I don't see why I should be precluded from returning to the land of my birth. Who knows what the future may hold?
Can i ask,(and forgive me if i have missed someone already asking this within the long script here) at what level would the class regard a person as rich. Rich in a way that would mark them as different to you. Personally i dont understand this apparent hatred by some, of others having a lot of wealth. This begs a second question. What, if anything is an aceptable mechanism by which a person can aquire a lot of wealth.
Some folks hate the rich and there's no reasoning with them. Some folks hate the fact that many rich people have a different mindset, a different set of values. That they have a single-minded focus towards getting richer than they currently are, and view their goal as more important than a "sense of morality" or "of social justice". Those values, that behaviour, is subject to a certain degree of observer bias - "the rich" see nothing wrong with behaving the way they do and the less well off view it as "just wrong". In absolute terms, who's right, who's wrong? (I'm glad you didn't ask me that question.) The issues of how you acquire wealth and your morality when doing so, when does the ruthless acquistion of wealth turn into something obscene, those are the interesting questions. Blaming the rich simply for being rich is just, well, silly.
What we need here is a social experiment. I suggest you give me all your money, then see if I start ignoring you...
Will do, fig. PM me your online banking details and passwords and I'll start transferring the money straight away.
Loz: why would you assume that wealth creation is by definition immoral or unjust. I suppose it goes back to "what is rich" Is a small builder that grafts 60 hours a week ,employs a few guys and has a degree of success rich for example?
Desmoboy, where have said that wealth creation is immoral or unjust? Please read what I said again. Put another way, some people may hate the way that SOME people acquire wealth - stealing, selling duff goods (like useless Personal Equity Plans and doomed Endowment Policies), presiding over financial crashes of a global scale, embezzlement or (even) stealing land back in the 15th Century - and they may hate the way that SOME people use their wealth - buying political privileges through lobbying, keeping vast numbers of idle offspring rich and idle, purchasing hugely expensive football teams in a sport already ruined by the level of money floating through it or I don't know, other examples (I'm meant to be working right now! LOL). I was trying to answer your question why some people apparently hate the "the rich". I'm not sure I am qualified to tell what qualifies as "rich" so I won't try to answer anything of that nature. I'm trying to suggest that there are forms of wealth creation that are worthy of criticism rather than wealth for its own sake.
