Nik wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Nothing to stop rich people with socialist beliefs to voluntarily pay more taxes. Spookily enough, though, none of the buggers seem to do so, weird that.
This is an interesting point. I wouldn't say I'm rich (except in as much as compared to huge parts of the populations of developing countries, pretty much everyone who posts on here could be defined as "rich"). As well as having a relatively well-paid job, last year I started uploading designs to sell on products via Redbubble. This started as a minor hobby but has become slightly profitable, to the point where it pays me generally £100-£200 a month (sadly not enough to quit the day job, but a nice bit of extra pocket money). It would be very easy to just pocket that and, although I have no evidence either way, the cynical part of me imagines that's what most Redbubble/Zazzle/Cafepress sellers do. Instead, I registered for self-assessment and pay income tax on it.
I'm sure Trump would call me stupid for doing that, but I've never understood the apparently universal assumption that everyone pays the minimum amount of tax that they can get away with. In general, you're probably right though Cavey - not many people volunteer to pay more tax than they have to. But is it morally wrong to espouse the idea that you (and those of similar levels of income to you) should pay more tax than you actually do? Should it be up to individuals to pay more, or governments to make them pay more?
I'm sorry, how rude of me, didn't reply earlier.
I think it's commendable to pay taxes legally due - I say this without any intended irony or sarcasm. Plenty of people don't, and that's part of the problem with our country.
Ignoring the banks, the Amazons and Googles of this world, who seem to be above such trivialities as paying taxes, the law says taxes must be paid as against income, but there are various legitimate ways of reducing this tax if expenses are incurred and suchlike. Clearly there is a distinction to be made (albeit a somewhat ambiguous, and increasingly fuzzy-edged one) between making reasonable efforts to legitimately minimise taxes payable, quite legally and by employing a good accountant, and
evading tax, e.g. by simply not declaring income in the first place as per your example.
I don't think it's *morally* wrong to espouse the idea that Population Group A or B should pay more tax than they do; neither myself nor anyone else here is saying that. Freedom of speech etc.
Clearly, though, there is the question as to how much weight one attaches to such remarks, or not, as the case may be, and speaking for myself, I tend to listen far more readily to those who speak either from direct experience or need, rather than "right on" types who haven't the first clue about it? For me, it's the same syndrome as when people whom I know have never spent so much as a single hour of their hitherto very comfortable existence in either a factory or mine bemoaning the supposedly "terrible" loss of "valuable" low-skilled, low paid manufacturing and mining jobs when, by any bloody yardstick these were pretty bad, quite often in a life-shortening way, and *by and large* people lead far more pleasant and safe working lives than ever they did 'in the good old days' of the 1970s. I know, I WAS there, and I DID do my time on a freezing cold, dangerous, paint-thinners infused shop floor for the princely sum of £35/week, back in the mid 80s. (Before being made redundant, because the place closed down... I was truly bereft at the time, but I found alternative work within 3 weeks and look how that turned out. Change is needed, often).
He's not the only one by any means but for me at least, Owen Jones is the epitome of the annoying twerp who hasn't got the first clue about such things, and frankly is a somewhat unlikely hero of the working masses. He's free to say whatever he likes as far as I'm concerned, but by the same token I reserve the right to think he's a little twerp who hasn't got a scooby, just as others of his ilk.