| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | A European Flat Tax Thread poster: Williamson
|
|---|
JPW (X) 
Local time: 21:02
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Death and taxes | Jul 16, 2008 |
Income tax was originally introduced (into Britain) by Pitt the Younger, specifically to raise money for the Napoleonic wars. Since these are now times long past, why are we still paying for it ...?
As for death, well, that catches up with everyone. Eventually.
If you are in the poorest bracket of the population, I would argue that you shouldn't pay direct tax at all, since you are much more likely to be paying a hefty pr... See more Income tax was originally introduced (into Britain) by Pitt the Younger, specifically to raise money for the Napoleonic wars. Since these are now times long past, why are we still paying for it ...?
As for death, well, that catches up with everyone. Eventually.
If you are in the poorest bracket of the population, I would argue that you shouldn't pay direct tax at all, since you are much more likely to be paying a hefty proportion in indirect taxes already: VAT (scourge of a tax); alcohol duties; fuel duties (perhaps); tobacco duties; and, perhaps the silliest one of them all - the lottery tax, as they all go chasing their dream. Sorry, I forgot about these new-fangled 'green' taxes', another cynical way to raise revenue IMO.
The tax system is as unjust as the legal system: if you're rich and get caught in the act, at least you can afford a high-flyer who'll do his damnedest to get you off the hook...
If you're loaded, you can pay a top accountant to do a bit of creative accounting.
In the tax system, there are many traps, but there are also many tax-efficient ways to reduce your bill, legally. And that's up to each individual to sort out for themselves. It's the difference between the avoidance and the evasion of taxes. One's perfectly legal and the other perfectly isn't.
But there are a lot of companies out there who are deliberately exploiting the system to shirk their tax obligations to society as a whole, which is the wider part of the debate, in other words, you pay your taxes (ostensibly) for the greater good of society as a whole.
But my gripe is not so much the amount of tax payable as what they do with your hard-earned cash when they get it, namely feathering their own nests first and foremost, spending - sorry, squandering - millions on petty re-branding and logo changes and most cynical of all, funding their own private wars for their own self-aggrandisement and trying to write their names prematurely into the history books before history has had a chance to draw its conclusions.
For me the bottom line would be something like: the stronger the tax system, the stronger the society. A country with a weak tax system and a large part of its economy trading on the black market, is a society which is going the wrong way on a very slippery slope.
And so, if you earn more, you should pay proportionally more tax (note that word 'proportionally'). BUT I certainly would not advocate what one politician referred to as 'squeezing the rich until they squeak'. You can't replace one inequality with another, rather try to strike a happy medium. How that's eventually done, I'll leave to the experts.
As with any debate, there are lots of views, and conflicts naturally too. But it's been very interesting so far. That's why I put my cent and a half-worth's in (duly taxed, of course). ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Illicit taxing | Jul 16, 2008 |
Yes, unfortunately our taxes are used for the oddest and wildest things. When they run out of our money, they pass some law to squeeze us a bit more. And I am not talking about millonaires. I am talking about us all, as we all pay political wickedness.
For instance, how could our regional politicians here pay Elton John Eur 300,000 a couple of years ago for show in our city (a city with 170.000 people), when only 2,000 people attended the concert? The money raised with the tickets ... See more Yes, unfortunately our taxes are used for the oddest and wildest things. When they run out of our money, they pass some law to squeeze us a bit more. And I am not talking about millonaires. I am talking about us all, as we all pay political wickedness.
For instance, how could our regional politicians here pay Elton John Eur 300,000 a couple of years ago for show in our city (a city with 170.000 people), when only 2,000 people attended the concert? The money raised with the tickets was some Eur 60.000, but we pay good ole' Elton 300.000??? Is this the "taxes to help the poor" many of you are defending here? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Williamson
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:02
Flemish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Belgians pay very high taxes up to 50%.
The capital of Belgium is Brussels, where a number of non elected officials, called Members of the Commission stipulate more or less how the rest of us live. Their civil servants are called Eurocrats.
Should they have to pay Belgian taxes, there would be no Members of the Commission or Eurocrats present in Belgium, because that would mean that on an average starting AD5-level (ex.: inhouse E.U.-translator), the "poor" translator would have to... See more Belgians pay very high taxes up to 50%.
The capital of Belgium is Brussels, where a number of non elected officials, called Members of the Commission stipulate more or less how the rest of us live. Their civil servants are called Eurocrats.
Should they have to pay Belgian taxes, there would be no Members of the Commission or Eurocrats present in Belgium, because that would mean that on an average starting AD5-level (ex.: inhouse E.U.-translator), the "poor" translator would have to pay 2000 euros to Belgium. Now it only about 20% to the E.U whereas the "poor" Belgian offical doing the same job gets a survival salary. Fair's fair. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kaspars Melkis
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:02
English to Latvian
+ ...
| an equal distribution of capital is needed | Jul 16, 2008 |
The US has a progressive taxation for many reasons but the basic philosophy for it is to promote the equal distribution of capital. Money tends to aggregate, those who have it find it easier to earn more. People from wealthy families can have better upbringing, education and opportunities to earn more. In the end the capital concentrates in the hands of few. If left unchecked it can surely disrupt the societal order. On the other hand it should not be excessive in order to not suppress the initi... See more The US has a progressive taxation for many reasons but the basic philosophy for it is to promote the equal distribution of capital. Money tends to aggregate, those who have it find it easier to earn more. People from wealthy families can have better upbringing, education and opportunities to earn more. In the end the capital concentrates in the hands of few. If left unchecked it can surely disrupt the societal order. On the other hand it should not be excessive in order to not suppress the initiative of people.
While no one denies that people who have put bigger effort in their education and training deserve to earn more, there is much debate currently whether big CEOs are justified to earn 1000 times more than the common workers who do most of the real work. Even if the salaries are set by market rules, we should remember that there is no such thing as intrinsic value. The salaries merely reflects what people or companies are able to negotiate. Poor people who live from paycheck to paycheck have practically no power to negotiate and the laws are necessary to protect them. That's why illegal immigrants who lack the protection of law often are forced to work below minimum wage.
Latvia has a flat tax and it serves its purpose in the economy transitioning from a Soviet style command economy. But at the same time it creates enormous inequalities and it is not helping in collection of taxes as we could all expect. Getting paid under the table is very common there especially among higher earners in the private companies while the poorly paid employees of the public sector pays full taxes. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Never just one way | Jul 16, 2008 |
Tomás Cano Binder wrote:
Good. Let me ask you this: with today's indirect tax system (like VAT, taxes on petrol, taxes on property, taxes on inherited properties....), which accounts for the majority of taxes, don't you think that "persons much closer to poverty level" are paying far more taxes than you think?
And let me ask you this: What makes you think a person or family living at subsistence level can even afford a car to pay for petrol? How many of them actually own a property as opposed to renting? How many of any of us?
I will admit, even though I lived in Germany for several years and was a part of the tax system, I am more familiar with the US system (and becoming familiar with the Australian tax system).
In the US system, you don't just automatically pay estate taxes, that is limited to estates over a certain amount, I believe upwards of $500,000 (although I think they may have raised that to $750,000). So, ahem, no poor people burdened by that.
Additionally, the US doesn't have a VAT but has state sales taxes, ranging from 0 - 9%, and not always paid on all items (often food and medicinal items are excluded, specifically for the same reasons - so as not to burden the weakest members of society).
There are several potential solutions to your issues: changing the tax brackets and rates, maybe a complete overhaul of VAT or sections of national tax codes (personally I think some of the wealth-related tax issues in Germany are ridiculous), providing different types of tax breaks and incentives.
But just because the system isn't optimal the way it is, that does NOT mean that a flat tax is automatically the panacea you think it is.
| | | | lexical
Spain
Local time: 22:02
Portuguese to English
| surely some mistake... | Jul 16, 2008 |
Tomás Cano Binder wrote:
For instance, how could our regional politicians here pay Elton John Eur 300,000 a couple of years ago for show in our city (a city with 170.000 people), when only 2,000 people attended the concert? The money raised with the tickets was some Eur 60.000, but we pay good ole' Elton 300.000??? Is this the "taxes to help the poor" many of you are defending here?
Surely at least half of those 2000 people were mistaken about the Elton John concert? Perhaps they thought it was the running of the bulls at Pamplona or even La Tomatina? Personally, I would need to be paid a good deal more than Eur 60,000 to sit through one of his concerts - whether or not Lady Furnish was in attendance.
| | | | | Millionaires or homeless.... anything to avoid taking about the majority of people | Jul 17, 2008 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
And let me ask you this: What makes you think a person or family living at subsistence level can even afford a car to pay for petrol? How many of them actually own a property as opposed to renting? How many of any of us?
It's sort of automatic and I have seen it happen dozens of times: when taxes are discussed, people supporting high taxes refer to millonaires first (trying to trigger some envy-revenge-related reaction in favour of taxes) and then to homeless people (trying to trigger some simpathy reaction in favour of taxes). Anything to avoid discussing the taxes suffered by 95% of the population in democratic societies! :-/
This only reveals that envy and simpathy are still very powerful forces in mankind. I would strike envy, but am happy we still have some simpathy.
But please, we are not discussing the taxes paid by millonaires or homeless people here. It's about US, you and me Janet! We pay very high taxes while our politicians enjoy free use of a private jet whenever they like, a free luxury car with driver, free lunches, free amenities, free hotels, free clothing, free luxury housing, an office in a luxury building downtown... along with a scandalous waste of money in all sorts of wild adventures. But apparently this is never the focus of the discussion: time and time again, the focus of the discussion are still millionaires and homeless...
| | | | | I simply disagree | Jul 17, 2008 |
Tomás Cano Binder wrote:
Anything to avoid discussing the taxes suffered by 95% of the population in democratic societies!
But please, we are not discussing the taxes paid by millonaires or homeless people here. It's about US...
This is the spirit of the question - it asked an opinion, and several people have given theirs. You have given yours.
As in my first reply, I find it egocentric to think only of "US", which is why progressive tax systems were created. And I certainly don't agree that 95% of people are paying exorbitant taxes.
If you don't think the current system works or if you don't think it's fair, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. I'm sure many people would agree with you. I myself don't believe a perfect tax system exists in the world today, and there is certainly room for improvement.
And your opinion that a flat tax is better is a valid one.
But IMHO, the arguments that you are using are just as "biased" as anyone else's on this forum, and in short, they haven't convinced me.
But perhaps if you can convince enough people, you can be the change you want to see in the world. Good luck.
| | |
|
|
|
| Entitled to disagree with the current situation | Jul 17, 2008 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
But IMHO, the arguments that you are using are just as "biased" as anyone else's on this forum, and in short, they haven't convinced me.
But perhaps if you can convince enough people, you can be the change you want to see in the world. Good luck.
Yes, that's all what this is about! I am entitled to my opinion and to trying to explain my point to as many people as possible, the same way other people do with their opinions. So I entirely agree with you in that sense.
I am sure that things will change in the long run. So far we have been lured by politicians with the envy and simpathy tricks as explained before, but multi-cellular beings usually learn from experience!
| | | | Damian Harrison (X)
Germany
Local time: 22:02
German to English
[Edited at 2008-07-17 14:42]
| | | | Williamson
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:02
Flemish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | En français.... | Jul 17, 2008 |
No reaction from French(-speaking) translators. Perhaps they are on holiday.
If I had asked the same question in the French forum, I wonder how many would have reacted in a negative way to the question. After all, France, Italy and Belgium are tax-champions.
| | | | Angela Dickson (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:02
French to English
+ ...
| contradiction | Jul 17, 2008 |
You say that France, Belgium, Italy etc are high-tax countries. (You also say they oppose a flat tax.)
You also say that a flat tax generates more tax revenue than a progressive tax system.
How do you explain this apparent contradiction? Why do France, Belgium and Italy not adopt a flat tax, if revenues would thereby increase?
| | |
|
|
|
Williamson
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:02
Flemish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Vested interests... | Jul 18, 2008 |
Because of the political situation and their bureaucracy. It would take a huge reform of their fiscal civil-service, who is a stakeholder in such a system.
Flat tax systems require a business-mind and flexibility. The French state is based on the "Code Napoléon" and the Napoleonic way of thought. A mirad of rules and regulations.
Belgium adopted a special system of coordination centres of companies. A tax-haven (10% taxes) in a tax hell.
If the tax-pressure is too high,... See more Because of the political situation and their bureaucracy. It would take a huge reform of their fiscal civil-service, who is a stakeholder in such a system.
Flat tax systems require a business-mind and flexibility. The French state is based on the "Code Napoléon" and the Napoleonic way of thought. A mirad of rules and regulations.
Belgium adopted a special system of coordination centres of companies. A tax-haven (10% taxes) in a tax hell.
If the tax-pressure is too high, it is the average employee who bears the brunt. If as an employee, there is a fiscal pressure of 50% on your pay slip with the current price-level ,you belong to the "working poor". Your survive, but that is it.
People with money pay tax-consultants, specialized in loopholes or move away to fiscally friendlier places or U.S.corporations have an expat service and their high-level U.S.employees remain based in the U.S., notwithstanding the fact that they work 250 days in Brussels, they pay to the IRS.
Never heard of off-shores? Or a U.S. corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware?
What is a fact is that in the high-taxed countries people are forced to work in the grey, black zone to earn a decent living.
However, it is not and won't be my problem. I am satisfied with a simple flat and a high speed internet connection. My source languages are world languages as are my languages of interest. They are not bound to a specific high-taxed country like Italy, where the entire system is a catastrophe.
[Edited at 2008-07-18 07:25] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » A European Flat Tax | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
