OT a frightening thought

[Geoff Parkstone]

Sorry it isn't a lot. A modest house in southeast, mortgage paid is 350k. 650k in a pension pot at age 65 will get you an annuity of about 20k pa pre tax according to Aviva on line - although that doesn't look generous, let's say 25k. You ain't going to cure the ills of the third world on that.

[swaledale]

Sorry it isn't a lot. A modest house in southeast, mortgage paid is 350k. 650k in a pension pot at age 65 will get you an annuity of about 20k pa pre tax according to Aviva on line - although that doesn't look generous, let's say 25k. You ain't going to cure the ills of the third world on that.

Well that argument doesn't hold water, does it, seeing as your missing the big point, 99% of the world's population doesn't have even that!

Talk about viewing something from a very narrow perspective - and arguing that if you have a million your not "well off"!

Now that tells of privilege and an complete lack of understanding of inequality in the world.

Then actually your argument completely falls apart when if the wealthiest 1% set aside a set percent age of their income to assist those less fortunate (I didn't restrict the inequality argument to the third world) it actually would go a long way to resolve issues. Especially if used to enable less well off people to become self sufficient, there are a lot of people out there who could if given a modest help out, become wealth generators themselves.

But I guess you being a self centred cynical old bugger will come up with a reason as to why that wouldn't work?

[Andy_Faber]

Well that argument doesn't hold water, does it, seeing as your missing the big point, 99% of the world's population doesn't have even that!

Talk about viewing something from a very narrow perspective - and arguing that if you have a million your not "well off"!

Now that tells of privilege and an complete lack of understanding of inequality in the world.

Then actually your argument completely falls apart when if the wealthiest 1% set aside a set percent age of their income to assist those less fortunate (I didn't restrict the inequality argument to the third world) it actually would go a long way to resolve issues. Especially if used to enable less well off people to become self sufficient, there are a lot of people out there who could if given a modest help out, become wealth generators themselves.

But I guess you being a self centred cynical old bugger will come up with a reason as to why that wouldn't work?

I actually agree that a higher 'take' from the wealthy would be a laudible thing but isn't the bigger problem that in the criminal/cronyish/disorganised world we live in, your 1% just makes other wealthy people more wealthy. My perspective is I'd be a damned sight more amenable to an increased tax burden if it was 90% likely to help someone with 1/10 of my wealth than 90% likely to help someone with 10X my wealth, because thats how it feels

[Rattea]

I actually agree that a higher 'take' from the wealthy would be a laudible thing but isn't the bigger problem that in the criminal/cronyish/disorganised world we live in, your 1% just makes other wealthy people more wealthy. My perspective is I'd be a damned sight more amenable to an increased tax burden if it was 90% likely to help someone with 1/10 of my wealth than 90% likely to help someone with 10X my wealth, because thats how it feels

Where do you consider the definition of wealthy to start? £75k puts you in the top 5% bracket but again the top 1% are on millions a year which is broken up and not paid as paye so you will hit those already paying tax and miss those having it ported through different methods...... like tip paid footballers!!!

[Andy_Faber]

Where do you consider the definition of wealthy to start? £75k puts you in the top 5% bracket but again the top 1% are on millions a year which is broken up and not paid as paye so you will hit those already paying tax and miss those having it ported through different methods...... like tip paid footballers!!!

**** knows I'm not an economist lets say an extra 1% of PAYE for anyone over £100k per annum, anyone trying to hide income through companies/other devices pays 2%, anyone who makes their affairs deliberately complex to avoid tax gets allocated a bloke who drives a Transit to work and the bloke can decide on the tax take. Everyone who has a boat also has to by an affordable home and give it away. Think Laterally Rats

[Trickytreesreds]

. Everyone who has a boat also has to by an affordable home and give it away. Think Laterally Rats

So the illegals have to pay more? Interesting.

[Andy_Faber]

So the illegals have to pay more? Interesting.

RIBS excluded

[Rattea]

**** knows I'm not an economist lets say an extra 1% of PAYE for anyone over £100k per annum, anyone trying to hide income through companies/other devices pays 2%, anyone who makes their affairs deliberately complex to avoid tax gets allocated a bloke who drives a Transit to work and the bloke can decide on the tax take. Everyone who has a boat also has to by an affordable home and give it away. Think Laterally Rats

Of the top 5% 95% of that money goes to 1% of the 5%. Work that out!

And that 1% pay very little payee. So need to look at assets and companies. Payee is not the answer they need a whole new system of logging assets but most of them are doing it themselves so whilst payee is a vehicle to look like they are doing something it's useless.

Need to declare all assets and pay tax in those over a certain amount.

[swaledale]

Of the top 5% 95% of that money goes to 1% of the 5%. Work that out!

And that 1% pay very little payee. So need to look at assets and companies. Payee is not the answer they need a whole new system of logging assets but most of them are doing it themselves so whilst payee is a vehicle to look like they are doing something it's useless.

Need to declare all assets and pay tax in those over a certain amount.

Thank you AF thats very good!