Top 1% of Taxpayers fund 25% of tax revenue!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by FARMBOY, Dec 17, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Check out this link

    Funny.......I thought Broooon was telling us that the rich do not pay enough in tax. Another myth that needs busting!

    So Broon taxes the top 1% to bu**ery, they leave the UK meaning ordinary tax payers have to pay even more.

    P.S - sorry super seems that it is you who are being really shafted :twisted:
  2. Kind of falls down on the fact that the top 1% also have 24% of the UK's wealth:

  3. These "Poor" wouldnt happen to be on benefits would they?
  4. Parapauk what has owning 24% of the wealth got to do with paying 24% of the Govt tax bill - surely they are two separate things?

    Super rich seem to pay their way - and that is as it should be, to ask more of them in tax terms is socialist bo**ocks IMHO.
  5. Not really - most people with vast amounts of wealth earn it as opposed to having it passed down to them. I would however love to see the figures for the top 1% of income though. It would be below 24%, but given that income tax is progressive, that is understandable.
  6. Then they're not in poverty, are they?

    Our ancestors, even as recently as the 1920s and 30s would piss themselves at our idea of poverty.
  7. Yes thats why they are poor its a chicken and egg thing. They are poor 'cos they're on benefits and can't get themselves off benefits 'cos they're poor.

    And dont bother trying to tell me they need to get off they're fat lazy benefit riddled arrse's that NOT a productive argument.
  8. Oh alright... They should remove all benefits, get rid of the minimum wage, and let market forces decide the going rate for a 40 year old whose only qualification is the ability to reproduce. :twisted:

    No??? :roll:
  9. I agree with you totally! I am not only annoyed but disgusted with the use of the word by government and organisations whilst trying to "improve conditions" for people on benefits and the like.

    I reserve the word poverty as seen across the world, where people starve to death, because they have no food and/or no water, no shelter, and no income.

    To use "poverty", for example, for 20% of the population of a sink town like Skermersdale in Lancashire, where the great EEC recognises high poverty levels; when in reality high proportions of that population are only short of a few bob for more duty free cigarettes and more drugs, is totally indefensible.
  10. Yeah tell me about it and pass the KY.
  11. Its only socialist bollocks because everyone secretly believes that he or she will one day be a millionaire.

    Fact is, the pay the super rich receive is disproportionate, and they should be taxed accordingly. Do they really work so much harder than some in less well paid professions?.. really? Frankly, anyone who feels hard done to because they pay high tax on a 6 figure salary and bonuses that run into millions deserves a slap for being such a selfish bastard.

    They still have huge houses, range rovers, summer homes, extended holidays etc..

    and thats just fine, really it is. but how much is enough?

    I consider myself a socialist, and like most who do I have no huge problem with the rich. Socialism isn't about class war, its about social mobility. Some will be the cleaning lady, some will be the CEO.. all socialism is about is making sure that from birth, the cleaning lady has the ability, on a level playing field to try to be a CEO, and the person best for the job gets it. Without being bought into the best schools, or weird handshaked into a law firm.

    If you can be a rocket scientist, damn right you should make good money, but should the guys who flip burgers.. and someone has to.. really have to live a life so utterly miserable? Without occasional holidays, a health service, adequate services and infrastructure?

    Yes, you can afford private healthcare, and it jolly well makes you annoyed that some jobless cretin gets his methodone on you.. but what about all those families who work hard, in low paid jobs they hate, pay what they can and just manage? should they go without glasses?

    Thats what you're saying when you dodge tax, or complain that you pay 50% tax [which you don't.. you pay 50% on each pound earned over a level scientists would call "silly f**king money"]. How much does one guy really need?

    I was brought up in a single parent family, my mum has always worked and she raised me well I feel. I've never been unemployed since I got my first paper round. I've never claimed benefits, and I have a Polish immigrant girlfriend who hasn't either. Under the last tory government, my mum couldn't heat the house so we went to bed early.. I sometimes had toast made by cutting the mouldy bits of my bread. I don't want anyones sympathy, but I think anyone with a brain could agree that in a modern democracy that kind of living isnt really acceptable, even if it isnt viewed as poverty.
  12. Yes. It's life's punishment for being thick and unemployable by anyone bar McDonalds
  13. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    So they're paying their fair share then. Duh. :roll:
  14. Well, despite doing well in school and being well-read and spoken, even if I do say so myself, I've spent recent years working in a supermarket and clearly not through choice. I'm working to pay my way.

    I know one guy who cuts pork chops all day, who has two degrees.. proper ones too. Another is a former engineer.

    We still all take home miserable pay packets, when we're capable of so much more. Life is just like that sometimes.

    Tax and national insurance currently takes around £50 out of a weekly pay of just below £250 in my case, everyone pays what they can. Trust me, after rent, bills and food are paid, I have f**k all. So, it kinda makes you sick to see bankers and their kind threaten to leave the country because they only get half a million in bonuses instead of the whole lump.
  15. So, you want a tax on people passing on the wealth they have earned? I thought that happened already?

    "I would however love to see the figures for the top 1% of income though. It would be below 24%, but given that income tax is progressive, that is understandable"

    WTFAYS? & is this 24% the next non sensible figure the Liabore Party is about to start spouting off about? Please explain what the hell you mean to a State run School student who hasn't a clue as to what your 24% means - seeing as how you haven't fixed it to anything concrete to support your bollocks statement