[ForKicks]

(Original post by NuckingFut)
Its stealing from the law abiding citizens who pay their taxes correctly, and yet have to pay for the roads, NHS and all the other public services that the taxpayers pay for. If you can afford to pay for the correct amount of tax, you should.

That goes against all common sense though. If I said you can give me £1 or £15, what would you give me?

As for the money, you do know that 3% of tax would be the same amount as high earners in value? What would be theft by your definition is benefit claimants who use those services and never give anything back (net takers). Oh, and on top of that I don't imagine they will be using the NHS and many public services that they are paying for. So in short, it is far from theft.

[blueray]

Yes they should pay tax just like rest of do. Don't know why anyone would argue for them to be exempt from it.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by NuckingFut)
Do the mafia give you roads, the army, NHS, free education and countless other things that taxes pay for? No.. didn't think so.

Do the wealthy use free education, the NHS etc? The amount they pay for using fewer services is massively disproportionate.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by Tom_Hagen)
Good self defence laws and privately funded security/police (through an insurance system, as opposed to government theft).

Also, I'm not against all forms of taxation/tariffs. I think a small state is actually necessary. But it should have a limited remit. There should be direct democracy. Nothing wrong if the government wants to raise extra revenue, outside of usage tariffs, by way of a referendum. So if we have to go war - the government would have to call a referendum to raise any extra funds it needs. If they want to fund a project - another referendum. The government should not be allowed to have a monopoly over any industry or sector, including health.

So you are against the NHS? Oh dear me,

Subscribe to BUPA if you don't like it for free, for poor people who can't afford the American style scheme it's literally a lifesaver.

[worker13]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
....Carr set up the legal, .........

The important bit. The only people who don't try and reduce their tax bill are the stupid and the incompetent, he used legal means to reduce the amount he pays in tax and if you think he is paying too little go bother your MP.

Don't hate the player hate the game.

No, the important bit is that Carr is a hypocrite.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by blueray)
Yes they should pay tax just like rest of do. Don't know why anyone would argue for them to be exempt from it.

Pay tax like the rest of us? So on average in the UK that would be 20 odd percent? Flat rate taxes are a much fairer system.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by NuckingFut)
Tax dodging is theft.

how?

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Do the wealthy use free education, the NHS etc? The amount they pay for using fewer services is massively disproportionate.

So poor people shouldn't have access to adequate education or healthcare because they contribute little to the tax pot?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
So you are against the NHS? Oh dear me,

Subscribe to BUPA if you don't like it for free, for poor people who can't afford the American style scheme it's literally a lifesaver.

The NHS is fine, but there should be an opt out option.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
So poor people shouldn't have access to adequate education or healthcare because they contribute little to the tax pot?

How on earth did you get that from saying the rich pay an unfair amount given how much less they use?

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by ForKicks)
The NHS is fine, but there should be an opt out option.

By creating an opt out option though you are ensuring the NHS is funded solely by less well off people, thus the NHS will have less money available, thus very much disadvantaging the less well off substantially.

[Pkysam]

(Original post by ForKicks)
The NHS is fine, but there should be an opt out option.

There is an opt out option, you can go and live somewhere else with other people who, like you, think only the rich deserve good quality healthcare.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[ForKicks]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
By creating an opt out option though you are ensuring the NHS is funded solely by less well off people, thus the NHS will have less money available, thus very much disadvantaging the less well off substantially.

It may act as an incentive to not move money elsewhere though and hence save the equivalent in tax.

[chrislpp]

With the events that took place in 2008/2009 as well as the entire lead up to that, I say fair play to Jimmy.

May the government not get one dime more of his than needs be.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Pkysam)
There is an opt out option, you can go and live somewhere else with other people who, like you, think only the rich deserve good quality healthcare.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Everyone deserves good healthcare, but not at the expense of driving the highest incomes into tax havens.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by ForKicks)
How on earth did you get that from saying the rich pay an unfair amount given how much less they use?

Well, to continue your thought, that the rich are paying alot for the services they don't use, then by creating a funding gap based on a ratio of tax:usage, the lower earners should have limited access to education/health. Otherwise you are basically saying cut the taxes to the rich without explaining where that money comes from if it's not from the wealthy pockets.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Well, to continue your thought, that the rich are paying alot for the services they don't use, then by creating a funding gap based on a ratio of tax:usage, the lower earners should have limited access to education/health. Otherwise you are basically saying cut the taxes to the rich without explaining where that money comes from if it's not from the wealthy pockets.

Yes, cut higher taxes because then they will get paid. Lets see what happens in France if they introduce that 75% tax..

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by ForKicks)
It may act as an incentive to not move money elsewhere though and hence save the equivalent in tax.

That's writing off alot of tax money on a gamble that the rich lads will stick around, I can't agree with that.

[TobeTheHero]

1% vs 99% Fight On.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Yes, cut higher taxes because then they will get paid. Lets see what happens in France if they introduce that 75% tax..

It will be interesting to see what happens, some patriotic Frenchmen might hang about, although you are probably right.

Still, would you accept the damage this lack of funding does to the NHS?