[fudgesundae]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Because 55% of £150k is a hell of a lot more than 80% of £20k.

So? Why should they have to give up a higher percentage of what they earn just because they earn more? 20% of 150k is a hell of a lot more than 20% of 20k, but much fairer in that the same proportion of their earnings are being taken away by the tax man.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
But they would not get those things if we had a truly free market.

I'm not arguing for a free market, I do believe that a government adds value. I'm saying there should be a flat tax rate of around 15-20%.

[Super Mario 64]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Why is that a problem?

Do you not believe in evolution?

Evolution as in.. let them die out if they can't adapt to the abyss of market forces?

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
So? Why should they have to give up a higher percentage of what they earn just because they earn more? 20% of 150k is a hell of a lot more than 20% of 20k, but much fairer in that the same proportion of their earnings are being taken away by the tax man.

Because the 20% of 20k is "worth" a lot more than the 20% of 150k to the individual (not in actual money, but in how the person can use that money).

[JayReg]

I went with lower for the top income earners. I would imagine that it's the top 1% who cause the most lost tax through evasion. Not the top 10% on 100k a year. I don't know much about the numerous loop holes in the tax system. Or whether they are needed as safeguards but I think the system may be better if there was a flat tax of 30% where everyone paid their fair share. More than a 3rd of your money being taken before you even see it doesn't sit well with me. Though that's just a political leaning. Gross inequality of income is a problem but I think social mobility is the answer. Not stealing peoples' money purely to make things more equal. If the country then wants more money for the public services then the country must work together to earn that money not just raise taxes.

[Super Mario 64]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
I don't see them being deprived of opportunity. They get free schooling, free university education (at the point of access). It is never going to be as easy to make your way in life if you are poorer, but there are plenty of opportunities afforded to those born to poorer families and plenty of examples of people who have gone from rags to riches. Even discounting the famous examples (such as Lord Sugar) there are plenty of CEOs of British companies, top financiers and leaders in industry who did not come from well off backgrounds. The problem in this country is the entitlement issues of the poor, not the opportunities they have. They do have a harder start to life, but it can't be an excuse to stop you getting anywhere.

In fact I agree with you, but the problem is that the government is spending too much on social protection e.g. benefits, child tax credits etc, when more should be spent on education so it might not be a problem of how much is being taxed, but where the revenue is being used.
Still though, the income gap becomes wider each year and it could eventually be a problem

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Because 55% of £150k is a hell of a lot more than 80% of £20k.



Why is that a problem? Are you seriously asking that

Yes, seriously.

Why is it a problem?

Why do you think it is appropriate to artificially intervene in evolution and sustain the existence of a group that would otherwise make way for a new, more prosperous group?

Do you not believe that companies that are poor should be allowed to fail?
That animals that cannot adapt should be allowed to die out?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Super Mario 64)
Evolution as in.. let them die out if they can't adapt to the abyss of market forces?

Why not? Honestly, why not?

It is artificial and unreal to sustain an entity that would not otherwise exist by taking from those that are productive and giving to those that are not.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Yes, seriously.

Why is it a problem?

Why do you think it is appropriate to artificially intervene in evolution and sustain the existence of a group that would otherwise make way for a new, more prosperous group?

Do you not believe that companies that are poor should be allowed to fail?
That animals that cannot adapt should be allowed to die out?

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Why not? Honestly, why not?

It is artificial and unreal to sustain an entity that would not otherwise exist by taking from those that are productive and giving to those that are not.

That says everything about you as a human being tbh.
As for your pathetic analogies.
1 - Evolution has never been about money, so I fail to see why it should be now.
2 - Human beings are not companies.

[Super Mario 64]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Why not? Honestly, why not?

It is artificial and unreal to sustain an entity that would not otherwise exist by taking from those that are productive and giving to those that are not.

I agree with you but the fact is that not everyone we 'give' to is not productive. We still give to those that WANT to be productive but CAN'T be. It's just the whole benefit fraud thing in different context.

It wouldn't be fair to just kill off those who really wanted to contribute but had no way of doing it because they have no money.
Poverty is a vicious never ending cycle. Your parents are poor, therefore you'll be poor unless you can find a job. If you can't find one, your wife is poor, then your kid is poor too. If he can't find a job, his kids will be poor too and so on

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
That says everything about you as a human being tbh.
As for your pathetic analogies.
1 - Evolution has never been about money, so I fail to see why it should be now.
2 - Human beings are not companies.

Evolution is about adapting in a way so as to survive.

It so happens now that money is rather useful for surviving. I don't know about you, but unless you go around stealing things I expect you appreciate that food, water, shelter etc costs money. Very simply, without money you're going to find life to be rather nasty, brutish and short.

As to the second issue, so? I don't see the difference. If you're willing to allow an organisation of people to fail, why not allow individal people to fail?

[ThisIsTheLife]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Loads of people.
Those of cannot work because of illness or disability.
Those who have lost a job / cannot find work.
Those who care for ill relatives.
Those who would get paid next to nothing and so not be able to afford to live.
Those who come from poor backgrounds and so wouldn't be able to afford things like university and such.
Those who get costly illnesses that insurance companies won't touch.
Those who a born with disabilities or illnesses that insurance companies won't touch.
Etc etc etc etc.

There are certain aspects of tax expenditure that most people agree on, and which most people are happy to see their money going to those places.

And probably, care for the elderly, the ill, the disabled, etc, is one of those places.

Because people feel that this is a good and worthy cause, if you gave them their tax money back, I have no doubt that charitable donations to these causes would increase dramatically - probably enough to cover much of what the government already does - except that the government, as always, does it with great inefficiency.

I reckon we could achieve an appropriate level of so-called "welfare" through charity. And the great thing about it is that it wouldn't be coercive - it would be completely and utterly voluntary, which would make it all the better.

Another issue to be raised is that, many people today don't give to charity because they think they've already paid for it. For example, I never give money to people begging on the street, and the over-riding thought in my head when I walk past them is "sorry buddy, but I already pay FAR too much tax to fund social housing, JSA and subsidised education to deal with people like you, so there's no way in hell I'm going to dig into my pockets even further to deal with you as an individual". If I wasn't paying tax, and I knew that I wasn't already being coerced into paying for such things, I probably would pay out a lot more, on a voluntary basis, to people who genuinely need it.

I mean, the amount of charity work done by the richest in society is already massive - worth billions of pounds annually. Give these people their tax back, and they'll increase their charity, and probably do a much better job than the inefficient government.

As for your illnesses thing, that already happens on the NHS. A relate of mine was born severely disabled, and is deterioating pretty quicky, and it is a constant uphill battle to get the NHS to provide the treatment she needs to survive because most of the doctors are of the opinion that it's not worth the time, effort and expenditure to gain a few years, maybe a few months, of this child's life.

Illness is a sad fact of life, and it will kill people in horrendous circumstances whether we treat it for free on the NHS, treat it at great personal expense in private medical care, or don't treat it at all because it's not really worth it to treat it. There's nothing that ANY medical system can do about that.

That's not just true in healthcare either - there will ALWAYS be people who slip through the net in any system. The current state system doesn't account for all of the people you mentioned above as it is. There are some very serious failings in the NHS, in the state school system, in the welfare-state, etc, etc.

So you can't reject a new system on the basis that it won't offer full coverage for everybody - because no system ever will, and that's just a sad fact of life.

Some people will always die in pain and agony without treatment. Some people will always go through life on the breadline, and die young from poverty and poverty-induced illnesses. Some people will die before they're old enough to appreciate life, and others will never be educated enough to understand what life is about in the first place. That's not a feature of any particular societal system, that's a feature of life on Earth.

Who cares about percentage terms?
No one goes around saying I took home 70% of my wage this month. You go around saying a specific number

If you want to discuss fairness, then percentage terms are very important. The more work you do, the less marginal pay you get for it... that's a terrible idea and doesn't incentivise business in the slightest. All it encourages talented people to do is go elsewhere.

And people don't just care about the "specific number" of pounds they earned that month. They care about that number, but in relation to how much work they put in to earn it.

For example, £40,000 salary sounds great to me on face value, but if I have to work 80 hour weeks with few holidays in order to earn that, then it's a rip-off. The way the system works now, if you double your efforts, you don't reap double the rewards for it. And so who's going to want to double their efforts?

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Because the 20% of 20k is "worth" a lot more than the 20% of 150k to the individual (not in actual money, but in how the person can use that money).

Well why shouldn't the person who who earns 150k have proportionately more money to spend, seeing as they have earned that extra money by providing value for their employer. Why should they not have extra spending money?

(Original post by Super Mario 64)
In fact I agree with you, but the problem is that the government is spending too much on social protection e.g. benefits, child tax credits etc, when more should be spent on education so it might not be a problem of how much is being taxed, but where the revenue is being used.
Still though, the income gap becomes wider each year and it could eventually be a problem

Well this government seems to be changing that so we shall see.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Super Mario 64)
I agree with you but the fact is that not everyone we 'give' to is not productive. We still give to those that WANT to be productive but CAN'T be. It's just the whole benefit fraud thing in different context.

It wouldn't be fair to just kill off those who really wanted to contribute but had no way of doing it because they have no money.
Poverty is a vicious never ending cycle. Your parents are poor, therefore you'll be poor unless you can find a job. If you can't find one, your wife is poor, then your kid is poor too. If he can't find a job, his kids will be poor too and so on

I don't see how their desire to be productive is relevant. The fact is, if you aren't productive, you aren't productive.

Why wouldn't it be fair? It's not like you're machine-gunning them in their homes. You're simply allowing balance to be restored.

Paying welfare simply serves to create an underclass that have a poor quality of life that is a constant and growing drain on those that are productive, breeding resentment between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'.

Stopping entitlement programs would serve to eliminate this drain on the economy.

And I rather refute the argument that 'the poor are poor because they are born poor'. Think back through history. You don't even have to go back that far. Think about the 1800s. The vast majority of people were born into what by modern standards would be considered exceptional poverty. Yet today, only the lower quartile, at the very most, can reasonably be said to be in even relative poverty. In terms of absolute poverty, the number is far lower.

Clearly, many people born into low and middle-income families better themselves. With every generation, living standards improve across the board.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Yes, seriously.

Why is it a problem?

Why do you think it is appropriate to artificially intervene in evolution and sustain the existence of a group that would otherwise make way for a new, more prosperous group?

Do you not believe that companies that are poor should be allowed to fail?
That animals that cannot adapt should be allowed to die out?

Perhaps the more pertinent question is, have you heard of evolution? People cannot be compared to companies. Evolution takes many thousands of years, and what exactly do you expect poor people to evolve into? You can't evolve into a rich person.

[Sternumator]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Might I ask why?

What specifically can only be provided by taxation?

The most important is the police, courts and prisons. If we didnt have law or a way to enforce the law our economy wouldnt function well. You would get big powerful gangs forming and controlling society. The other one is national defence, we need some way to protect the country. There are many other things like roads which although it is possible to provide them privately, the collection costs are too high so it is better for government to do it.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Perhaps the more pertinent question is, have you heard of evolution? People cannot be compared to companies. Evolution takes many thousands of years, and what exactly do you expect poor people to evolve into? You can't evolve into a rich person.

Evolution in the sense of changing your vocation does not take very long at all.

Say you work in a factory making cars. You install doors.

One day, the company decides to automate production and your job is eliminated.

You go home, you look at your transferrable skills and you work in another area of manufacturing. Perhaps you retrain as an electrician. Perhaps you pursue an entirely different vocation.

The alternative, of course, is to sit at home and do nothing while those that are working and being productive are forced to support you. You become a net loss.

I don't think it's much to ask of people that they don't drain the resources of others that do not desire to support wards of the state.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Sternumator)
The most important is the police, courts and prisons. If we didnt have law or a way to enforce the law our economy wouldnt function well. You would get big powerful gangs forming and controlling society. The other one is national defence, we need some way to protect the country. There are many other things like roads which although it is possible to provide them privately, the collection costs are too high so it is better for government to do it.

Well, why does the state have to provide the police? In the US, more people are employed in the private security industry than in the entire national police force.

Why couldn't private companies provide a police force?

Going further, why couldn't they provide a national defence force?

Roads can of course be provided privately - they're called tollroads and they've been around in the world since time immemorial.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Evolution in the sense of changing your vocation does not take very long at all.

Say you work in a factory making cars. You install doors.

One day, the company decides to automate production and your job is eliminated.

You go home, you look at your transferrable skills and you work in another area of manufacturing. Perhaps you retrain as an electrician. Perhaps you pursue an entirely different vocation.

The alternative, of course, is to sit at home and do nothing while those that are working and being productive are forced to support you. You become a net loss.

I don't think it's much to ask of people that they don't drain the resources of others that do not desire to support wards of the state.

Well that isn't evolution, simply a forced career change which happens very often. What happens when there are no training programs, no jobs?

[Super Mario 64]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I don't see how their desire to be productive is relevant. The fact is, if you aren't productive, you aren't productive.

Why wouldn't it be fair? It's not like you're machine-gunning them in their homes. You're simply allowing balance to be restored.

Paying welfare simply serves to create an underclass that have a poor quality of life that is a constant and growing drain on those that are productive, breeding resentment between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'.

Stopping entitlement programs would serve to eliminate this drain on the economy.

And I rather refute the argument that 'the poor are poor because they are born poor'. Think back through history. You don't even have to go back that far. Think about the 1800s. The vast majority of people were born into what by modern standards would be considered exceptional poverty. Yet today, only the lower quartile, at the very most, can reasonably be said to be in even relative poverty. In terms of absolute poverty, the number is far lower.

Clearly, many people born into low and middle-income families better themselves. With every generation, living standards improve across the board.

Alright Scrooge calm down