Polly Toynbee’s written on the issue of cuts at HMRC, which I have addressed so often. As she says today:
After the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed cuts falling hardest on the poor, the coalition could restore some credibility by ensuring at least that taxes are collected fairly from all, and not just paid by Leona Helmsley's "little people". Why not deny state contracts to the consultants who help the wealthy drain the Treasury? And strengthen HMRC so inspectors can put the fear of jail into tax-dodgers. Conservatives could find it easier than Labour to launch an unflinching moral assault on the greedy culture of evasion, avoidance, off-shoring and cheating that has become poisonously socially acceptable.
Doing so would not exonerate the ConDem’s programme of cuts. But at least it would show they were not ideologically driven by the anti—tax brigade.
Right now that is exactly what they look like.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“…by ensuring at least that taxes are collected fairly from all, and not just paid by Leona Helmsley’s “little people”..”
The top 1% of earners already pay 25% of the total income tax and the top 10% pay about 55%.
Exactly how much more tax are the most productive members of society expected to pay to be considered “fair”?
@Ted G.
What an amusing assumption – that the sum paid to a person equates to productivity
Terribly Marxist of you, if I might say so
@Richard Murphy
Not sure what you mean.
But my question is, how much should top centile and decile of earners pay in direct taxation to be considered fair?
@Ted G.
Significantly more than they are – with consequent reduction to the poorest and / or better services
Because they are not the most productive in society
They ride on its back
@Richard Murphy
We got that.
But how much more? Should the top centile pay 50% of all income tax? More? Less?
what about the top decile? 75%? More? Less?
What would be fair?
@Ted G.
Crass question
nothing is as simple as that
But start here
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=6164
@Richard Murphy
Please point me to where in the link can find an answer to my “crass” question. Otherwise I will have to assume you are trying to avoid giving an answer.
@Ted G.
Read the tax section
It’s not that hard to find….
@Richard Murphy
I have not been able to find anywhere on the site (and the report) an answer to this very basic question: how much of the total income tax take should the top centile and decile contribute?
That is a very basic question. It would be very disappointing if a expert tax campaigner like yourself were not willing or able to answer it.
@Ted G.
It’s a facile question
Tax is complex
There is no set formula
There cannot be
It muts meet the needs of the time and the needs of the economy and the society
What that report showed is the UK tax system does not meet those needs
And it showed it could
That’s an intelligent response
This comment has been deleted as it did not meet the moderation criteria for this blog specified here: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision is final.
The Ted G. style of argument seems to be thus:
1) pick an obscure point only tangentially related to the question at hand.
2) When a response is given, repeat the same point in progressively more agitated and/or offensive manner.
This is hilarious libertarian trolling of the basest stripe. It makes Tim Worstall look like Albert Einstein in comparison.
@Howard
🙂
But too kind to Tim though!
@Richard Murphy
I fail to see how your and Howard’s comments satisfy criteria 2 and, especially, 3 of your moderation policy. But then again, it is not completely unexpected.
@Ted G.
Howard always adds to debate
99% of your comments could be deleted under my policy because you endlessly fail to do so
Count yourself lucky before you complain too much
I will take this as a compliment
@Ted G.
Fine
I’ll exercise my discretion much more harshly then