Question Time, Brand v Farage - who will win?

[steveo]

I think so. If you have one person earning £20ka year and another earning £100k a year and they are both taxed at 20% then theguy earning £100k is paying £16k a year more in tax, he also experiences a muchbetter quality of life. Even if his tax was upped to 30%, his wealth wouldstill be far beyond the guy earning £20k. Higher tax brackets for higherearners seems fair to me, if you are fortunate enough to be one of these peopleenjoying the affluent lifestyle and you have a problem with the fact you willbe contributing more than somebody who struggles to make ends meet then IMO youare a bad self-centred person motivated by greed.

Firstly the bloke earning 100K is already paying a large portion of that at 40% so by your figures he is already paying about 28000 more. Thats quite a lot already and you want him to pay even more?

Maybe his contribution to the company he works for is significantly higher than the bloke earning 20 grand. Maybe he works harder or has more input in the running /profits of that company. Maybe he took a risk by starting his own business which might not work out make him bankrupt.

if you are fortunate enough to be one of these peopleenjoying the affluent lifestyle

Fortunate? Maybe he has worked harder or smarter and deserves this lifestyle.

you have a problem with the fact you willbe contributing more than somebody who struggles to make ends meet then IMO youare a bad self-centred person motivated by greed

How much does someone have to earn to be motivated by greed? Simple questions:
How much do you earn?
Do you know people who earn less?
Do you give them some of your money?

I'm guessing the answer to 2 is yes and the answer to 3 is no. If that's the case then by your own yardstick you are yourself motivated by greed.

You could view this the alternative way. If there is less incentive to work harder/better and earn more money there would be more people motivated by laziness and happy to be subsidised by higher earners.

 

[Ricky Otto]

Firstly the bloke earning 100K is already paying a large portion of that at 40% so by your figures he is already paying about 28000 more. Thats quite a lot already and you want him to pay even more?

Maybe his contribution to the company he works for is significantly higher than the bloke earning 20 grand. Maybe he works harder or has more input in the running /profits of that company. Maybe he took a risk by starting his own business which might not work out make him bankrupt.



Fortunate? Maybe he has worked harder or smarter and deserves this lifestyle.



How much does someone have to earn to be motivated by greed? Simple questions:
How much do you earn?
Do you know people who earn less?
Do you give them some of your money?

I'm guessing the answer to 2 is yes and the answer to 3 is no. If that's the case then by your own yardstick you are yourself motivated by greed.

You could view this the alternative way. If there is less incentive to work harder/better and earn more money there would be more people motivated by laziness and happy to be subsidised by higher earners.

I think 40% is reasonable. I don't have all the answers and am happy to take on board alternative views, you make some good points.

Firstly you may be right about somebody making a bigger contribution and working harder, but it is not always the case especially when talking high earners in the city. I work in insurance for a Lloyds syndicate and the system is very set up to put graduates and people from a privileged background into the higher echelons of the company. These people aren't the most hardworking or technically able in the company. I don't think that is unique to my industry either, the class system and privilege count for a lot. A working class guy can work his way through a company by putting in a great deal of effort but it takes him a good few years to get where a graduate (with an irrelevant degree) from the right family starts off at.

As far as wanting to know my earnings, well I won't give you that although they aren't high. I decided a couple of years back to take a career change and at the moment earn about half of what I did earn. That was my decision for my own happiness and with hardwork I know I can forge a sucessful career. I do know those who earn less and no I don't give them money (maybe I'm a bit more generous when buying drinks and things but I don't directly give them money. If I were earning £100k a year I would have no problem being taxed 40% so that lower earners could catch a tax break.

There will always be those after a free ride, I won't excuse them and unfortunately we will foot the bill for them. We should try to make it as hard as possible for them without penalising those who do work hard and/or need support. I get that people don't want to pay for these people, i'm not thrilled about it.

 

[steveo]

Good reply and no I don't want to know how much you earn but it was relevant to the other two questions.

The bloke who earns 100K would rarely go from a 20k job to 100k job overnight but the increase would be gradual, so in most cases that person would adjust his lifestyle to suit. Suddenly taking a load more tax would make a difference to him as well.

With the current system the higher rate of 40% kicks in of earnings over about 41,000 so the 50 grand plus earners do pay a lot more in terms of money paid. I don't think a bigger burden should be placed on them and I have no problem with paying more to support the hard working lower paid people. Its the scroungers who don't want to work who I object to.