uk.finance

"tim....." wrote...
> "Mark" wrote...
>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:33:28 -0700, s_pickle2001@ wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 2, 10:13 am, Robin T Cox wrote:
>>>> Will anyone stop the rise of Britain's super-rich?
>>>>
>>>> Neither Brown nor Cameron appears willing to tackle the
>>>> ever-widening
>>>> wealth gap by means of taxation, writes Tessa Thorniley
>>>
>>>What's the problem with people being rich? I am more concerned about
>>>the poor eople who are on benefits (paid out of my taxes) and who
>>>have
>>>no ambition of working.
>>
>> The problem is that they pay little or no Tax. Why should they not
>> pay their fair share?
>
> This depends upon how you look at it. As I said elsewhere,
> many of the rich will have acquired their wealth out of taxed
> income. To have become rich this way they *will* already
> have paid oodles of tax, why should they have to continue
> to pay?

When proposals are made to increase income tax rates for higher earners,
right-wingers object that the highest earners (ie those who become most
wealthy) avoid tax using various mechanisms, so "it's the middle classes
who will suffer". This, if true, is an effective response to your
argument, as is also the point that much wealth was acquired before
income tax was instituted!

>
> My take on this is that one should be considered to make
> their tax contributions on a 'lifetime' basis, not on a per year
> basis. I don't see how it can be otherwise, as if it were no-one
> would be paying for their own education.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Matti