We hear it all the time: our tax system is unfair. It is, supposedly, stacked against the working classes; it's engineered to benefit the rich and hurt the poor. I ardently disagree with this notion and I believe that those who believe that the richest individuals do not contribute enough are either unaware of the facts, or are more dishonest and therefore choose to ignore them.
The majority of us agree that equality of outcome is not a good idea. A student who had invested a great deal of time and effort into preparing for an exam would be rightly annoyed if, after the exam, the marks were equally distributed. Similarly, individuals in a family of four would not each eat the same amount of food in the spirit of equality; food would be distributed in accordance to need.
We also, almost unanimously, agree that proportion is just. This is evident in the way we respond to tragedies. We express frustration and anger over news that, due to bad weather, farmer's harvest has failed. We think to ourselves, he didn't deserve this. On the contrary, many of us rightly despair over the fact that numerous lazy and untalented people have reached the pinnacle of wealth. We think to ourselves, they don't deserve that.
At the fundamental level, these assessments of whether or not someone deserves something are assessments of proportion. The question, "Did [the person] invest enough for this?" is the one we find ourselves most commonly asking. Why then do we disregard our biologically-ingrained affinity for proportion when we look at tax revenue?
The income tax system is unfairly stacked against the highest income-earners in our society for two primary reasons. The first reason demonstrating its injustice is the fact that some individuals pay a higher proportion of their salary than others, despite usually not benefiting anymore from government expenditure. Someone with a gross annual income of £60,000 has to give away 28% of their income to HMRC, whereas someone earning £24,000 a year gives away 17% of his income. Despite this, the higher income earner benefits no more from government spending. In other words, their benefit from government expenditure is not proportionate to the amount of money that they pay in taxes.
Proponents of the progressive income tax system claim that higher-income earners did not create their wealth in a vacuum, and therefore, they have a social responsibility to share their income with wider society. This argument is highly fallacious. I will concede that the UK is not a perfect meritocracy, meaning that we are not all granted the same opportunities in life. However, in circumstances in which two people with similar opportunities have a far greater disparity in income than can be explained by simply opportunities, it is unreasonable to suggest that the higher income earner of the two has been afforded some privileges that the other has not. In that scenario, it becomes apparent that supporters of a progressive income tax system aim to implement equality of outcome, rather than implementing a meritocracy.
According to the Sunday Times 2019 tax list, the top 1% of income earners paid 28% of all income tax in the 2017-2018 financial year, while, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the bottom 44% of income earners paid nothing in income tax. Despite this, the rich are often vilified for not contributing enough in taxes. When these facts are brought into the context of deficit reduction strategies, it can be agreed that a small minority is keeping the country from plunging into bankruptcy.
The true injustice of the income tax system is that, when coupled with our system of government, it means around 44% of the population can elect MPs who vote to raise taxes on the 56% that do (the Westminster system invalidates the popular vote). It is grossly unfair that utilities and services that disproportionately help lower-income earners (state education is a prime example) are primarily paid for by the people who do not use them. If proponents of the progressive tax model wish to foster social responsibility in our country, the most logical thing to do would be to raise taxes on the majority of the country that are not net income taxpayers.
Given the evidence, why do politicians like Jeremy Corbyn create this image that our tax system is stifling the working class? As mentioned before, just 56% of the country pay income taxes. Once the majority of the country does not pay anything in income taxes, it becomes easy to institute agenda that expands the influence of government. Consider the following example: a referendum is held in which citizens can vote as to whether or not taxes should be raised on the rich to fund a new government programme. If the majority assesses the question and concludes that they will benefit from such a plan, they will, accordingly, approve such a plan. This is tyranny by majority.
The majority of us agree that equality of outcome is not a good idea. A student who had invested a great deal of time and effort into preparing for an exam would be rightly annoyed if, after the exam, the marks were equally distributed. Similarly, individuals in a family of four would not each eat the same amount of food in the spirit of equality; food would be distributed in accordance to need.
We also, almost unanimously, agree that proportion is just. This is evident in the way we respond to tragedies. We express frustration and anger over news that, due to bad weather, farmer's harvest has failed. We think to ourselves, he didn't deserve this. On the contrary, many of us rightly despair over the fact that numerous lazy and untalented people have reached the pinnacle of wealth. We think to ourselves, they don't deserve that.
At the fundamental level, these assessments of whether or not someone deserves something are assessments of proportion. The question, "Did [the person] invest enough for this?" is the one we find ourselves most commonly asking. Why then do we disregard our biologically-ingrained affinity for proportion when we look at tax revenue?
The income tax system is unfairly stacked against the highest income-earners in our society for two primary reasons. The first reason demonstrating its injustice is the fact that some individuals pay a higher proportion of their salary than others, despite usually not benefiting anymore from government expenditure. Someone with a gross annual income of £60,000 has to give away 28% of their income to HMRC, whereas someone earning £24,000 a year gives away 17% of his income. Despite this, the higher income earner benefits no more from government spending. In other words, their benefit from government expenditure is not proportionate to the amount of money that they pay in taxes.
Proponents of the progressive income tax system claim that higher-income earners did not create their wealth in a vacuum, and therefore, they have a social responsibility to share their income with wider society. This argument is highly fallacious. I will concede that the UK is not a perfect meritocracy, meaning that we are not all granted the same opportunities in life. However, in circumstances in which two people with similar opportunities have a far greater disparity in income than can be explained by simply opportunities, it is unreasonable to suggest that the higher income earner of the two has been afforded some privileges that the other has not. In that scenario, it becomes apparent that supporters of a progressive income tax system aim to implement equality of outcome, rather than implementing a meritocracy.
According to the Sunday Times 2019 tax list, the top 1% of income earners paid 28% of all income tax in the 2017-2018 financial year, while, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the bottom 44% of income earners paid nothing in income tax. Despite this, the rich are often vilified for not contributing enough in taxes. When these facts are brought into the context of deficit reduction strategies, it can be agreed that a small minority is keeping the country from plunging into bankruptcy.
The true injustice of the income tax system is that, when coupled with our system of government, it means around 44% of the population can elect MPs who vote to raise taxes on the 56% that do (the Westminster system invalidates the popular vote). It is grossly unfair that utilities and services that disproportionately help lower-income earners (state education is a prime example) are primarily paid for by the people who do not use them. If proponents of the progressive tax model wish to foster social responsibility in our country, the most logical thing to do would be to raise taxes on the majority of the country that are not net income taxpayers.
Given the evidence, why do politicians like Jeremy Corbyn create this image that our tax system is stifling the working class? As mentioned before, just 56% of the country pay income taxes. Once the majority of the country does not pay anything in income taxes, it becomes easy to institute agenda that expands the influence of government. Consider the following example: a referendum is held in which citizens can vote as to whether or not taxes should be raised on the rich to fund a new government programme. If the majority assesses the question and concludes that they will benefit from such a plan, they will, accordingly, approve such a plan. This is tyranny by majority.
ReplyDeleteNice reading, I love your content. This is really a fantastic and informative post. Keep it up and if you are looking for business tax services then visit Gordon Frasier CPA & Company Inc.
I havent any word to appreciate this post.....Really i am impressed from this post....the person who create this post it was a great human..thanks for shared this with us. Estonian company dissolution
ReplyDeleteThis is really a good source of information, I will often follow it to know more information and expand my knowledge, I think everyone should know it, thanks.Best Tax Specialisation service provider
ReplyDeleteExcellent post. I really enjoy reading and also appreciate your work.California Tax Attorneys Tax Specialist This concept is a good way to enhance knowledge. Keep sharing this kind of articles, Thank you.
ReplyDelete