uk.finance

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:47:17 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:

>
>"Mark" wrote in message
>news:b962e3lfh0ql7knctr180kre67mo3kc9q6@ ...
>> 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?

... Or have avoided paying any tax.

I look at it from the perspective of not being rich myself ;-)

Some of the money they have may have already been taxed and some not.
I don't think it is feasible to make a distinction. However *we*
( . the ordinary middle classes) pay tax more than once. My income
is taxed at source, then I pay VAT, Insurance tax etc. I don't see
why the rich should get preferential treatment.

>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.

If you tax based on a lifetime basis, would you wait until everyone
were dead until Taxing them? I would have though it would be very
easy to avoid this kind of Tax ;-) Just make sure you have nothing
(or it is well hidden) when you go.

M