Second, what is surprising is how many think the well off should not pay more. It would be fascinating to know why when simple economics suggests that this must be appropriate, since the wealthy have lower marginal value from each additional pound they earn or have as wealth than do those on lower incomes and as such can in economic terms pay more without suffering the same appreciation of loss from doing so.
To ask – more than what?
One question is should the wealthy – or the rich, the high income earners, whatever – pay more than those less financially blessed? Sure, why not, even Adam Smith was OK with a progressive taxation system.
A different question is whether they should pay more than they already do.
Entirely possible to answer yes to the first and no to the second.
‘It would be fascinating to know why when simple economics suggests that this must be appropriate, since the wealthy have lower marginal value from each additional pound they earn or have as wealth than do those on lower incomes and as such can in economic terms pay more without suffering the same appreciation of loss from doing so.’
Theft is not immoral if you take from people who have lower marginal values for their property.
Justification for theft. Basic communist bull.
There was a time when he would be locked up for that rant.
Quite so, Gamecock.
Also, could it be that the rich have a higher marginal value for money than some of the poor, which is why they have worked hard to acquire it? An individual propensity is distinct from comparative propensity.
Tim is clearly correct.
I should add that the rich pay more tax when the marginal rate of taxation looks more like a reasonable contribution and less like extortion {admittedly the exact rate varies from person to person). When the marginal tax rate is too high the rich will pay money to an expert (or “expert” in the case of Murphy, Deeks) to legally avoid the tax that should otherwise be due – a reduction from 98% to 60% encouraged them to just pay the tax rather than the “expert”.
Given the way the economy is tanking will there be any rich left to tax, going to be interesting to see the corporate tax returns next few years when all the losses are declared and carried forward.
Can see the 2022 rant now about company X not paying any tax when they are just offsetting their Coronavirus losses against the current year.
Does he ever explain why we should have more tax? It’s not as if the recipient of such monies is very careful with it – that’s a historically demonstrable fact.
We’ve already seen our local government happy to be paid another year’s salary without the messy business of being re-elected, does he think these are suitable people to be left in charge of ever more vast sums of cash that higher taxes would bring.
The assumption that giving money to government is a more efficient endeavor than leaving it in the hands of the “wealthy” is something that needs to be readdressed, until this happens I would take the default view that a lot of tax money is just subjectively p*ssed up against the wall and the _less_ of it that passes through the bladder of bureaucracy, the better.
Serious question who are the wealthy?
For example if we look at a pensioner couple in a house worth £900K and on an income of £30k pa.
Are they richer or poorer than another couple who earn £60K but whose house is worth £450k?
Another example
Or a single mum on benefits living in a £1million flat, compared to people working on a low wage in a £100k house?
@David
For Spud (and many others on the Left) ‘wealthy’ means ‘anybody with more money than me’, which in Spud’s case would be almost everyone.