If Lionel Messi Is Found To Be Guilty...

That's one part of it Darren, thankfully

I hear what you're saying but I'm still struggling with the "right wing bullcrap" and "conservative bias"

It simple economics. See the Laffer curve. You put the rate too high and government makes less revenue, which is what the beer analogy explains. There is empirical evidence that corroborates this. You reduce the rate, you make more revenue. But when this happens people will still complain that the rich are getting more benefit from a tax cut. They ignore the fact that the rich pay more tax at all times.

You have to establish what the "rich" are. If you earn £150,000 pa you're in the top 1% of the population. Thats a pretty small amount. This 1% pay about 25% of income tax revenues the government receives. If you earn £50000 plus you're in the top 10%. Do you consider them rich? Should yet get stung by tax increases?

I'd just like to know where there's right wing bias to this way of thinking? It's economics. No politics involved.

The reason you should pay more once you reach a certain threshold is that you've been given that foot up by the rest of society

--------------

How???

If you come from working class family, as I have done, gone to university, where I've paid tuition fees, taken student loans which I'm paying back, to get a good job where I earn good money and pay more tax than 90% of people in this country, how have I been given a foot up by the rest of society?

I have no problem paying more tax than 90% of the country, no problem at all. I earn good money so will lay the taxes. I got to that point myself, no handouts, I wasn't born wealthy. Why should I then be penalised by increasing tax rates?

You will have been given a foot up by everyone else by having your education provided for you by the state that got you to a sufficient level that allowed you to get into university and get that good job that you crave.

When you make it to university, the building, the teachers, the support staff, will all have been put in place before you've borrowed or paid one penny, it will all have been paid for up front, you just have to turn up and pay your fees.

Another foot up is that society is at a sufficient level that it's able to sustain itself to allow you to even get to a university in the first place.

Then there is the fact that society provided hospitals so that you could be born and that your mother would survive the ordeal.

Every time you had a little cough and your ma took you to the doctors and allowed you to survive childhood, that was society giving you another foot up in life.

Each time you walk out of your front door and the streets aren't strewn with rubbish and infested with rats, that's society too.

The police that keep you safe for the majority of your life, that's provided by society.

Paying a higher tax rate isn't being penalised, whereas getting the opportunity to earn large sums of money is a privilege, so I guess it comes down to how much you care about other people whether you're willing to pay more or not.

I guess it also depends on your view of your place in society, what you contribute to it and what it contributes to you You don't seem to think that society has ever provided anything for you, yet proudly state that you paid for yourself to go through university (well, with an unsecured, low interest, long term loan, oooh, that society pops up in the most unusual of places).

Of course these things are provided by taxes but you saying society has given you a foot up suggests that society has done yiu a favour. Thats how i read it anwyay. What you describe is what is expected in a first world developed country. Education, healthcare, police etc. That is why people pay taxes. What has it to do with the rich tax debate though. Its not society doing you a favour or society giving you a foot up. Everyone else has had similar opportunities, theyve gone to schools, the opportunity fo go to university. That some have taken taken those opportunities and earned more money is not society doing them
a favour.

Just because the Laffer curve is part of economic theory doesn't mean it is scientific fact and free of political content. While it is clear that there is a point at which taxes are so high they stifle economic activity, it doesn't follow that the lower you make them, the better the economy grows.

There is a wealth of evidence that neoliberal policies have not resulted in the trickling down of wealth. Inequality (both in terms of wealth and social mobility) is massively greater in the UK and USA than it was before the Thatcher and Reagan revolutions. In addition, economic growth since then has been markedly lower than it was in the first three post-war decades, when top rates for income tax were way higher than they have been for the last 30 years. I'm not saying that high taxes caused that growth, but they certainly didn't prevent enterprise.

Meanwhile, we have seen Germany and Scandinavia maintaining a more social democratic model with higher taxes and higher investment in social infrastructure, and right now they look much more prosperous than we do - both economically and in terms of the health and cohesiveness of their societies.

The people who defend the neoliberal philosophy on taxation (and yes, FatJanMolby, it is very much a right-wing, political stance) always seem to base their arguments on theory and principle. What I'd like to ask them is which actual low-tax society would be their ideal model. I've pointed to Germany as a country which has combined higher taxes with great services, a decent safety net, education which delivers plenty of good quality jobs, and investment in research which stimulates a thriving manufacturing sector. In what way is the Anglo-Saxon model's lower taxes superior to this - what are the benefits we have that outweigh our greater levels of poverty, greater inequality and higher crime? And why should we assume that further reducing taxation levels would make things better?

The fact is (aside from tax havens which exist to protect wealth which is actually created in countries which invest and small states that are extremely rich in fossil fuels), the only places with ultra-low taxes are poor countries with little social fabric where the ruling elite has no interest in development.

I don't mind paying tax, it's part of living in society. What I don't like is the way my taxes are squandered on dead end policies and lazy good-for-nothing members of our political 'servants' who seem to believe it's their god given right to live of the backs of the working man.

At least in Brazil they stand up and do something about corruption - we just write a letter to the newspapers and then go back to work.

it doesn't follow that the lower you make them, the better the economy grows.

--------------

I didn't say that, and neither does the Laffer curve. I said the lower the tax rates are the more revenue a government makes. That has nothing to with economic growth. The government could pi ss that money away on millennium dome, ID cards, illegal wars etc. They still made more revenue.

Red Russian, you mention Germany as an example of where they pay higher tax and the associated positives. Greece actually pays even more tax. As does Italy. Where does that fall into the pay more taxes get better services and infrastructure paradigm.

Examples of countries that have lower taxes is Australia and Canada. Both have a higher standard of living and quality of life than the UK.

And what else do Australia and Canada have in common? Both are younger states with no established wealthy class hanging around their neck.

Anybody know where I can buy a guillotine?