[Tommyjw]

(Original post by Tom_Hagen)
If there was a flat rate of tax at 25% or 20%? No complex categorisation of income? I definitely think our essential public services would survive.

Flat rates? Wouldnt work, too unfair and unbalanced. Should be pretty obvious.

Taxation gives the state a monopoly over certain industries. It gives the state power over the individuals. It gives the state power over groups of individuals. That is a fact. It allows the state to pick winners and losers in every industry.

Yet again, you ramble on but that isnt actually a point. No actual point was made there, in any way shape or form. It was a bunch of rambled BS.

If the government had no money, do you think all the doctors would suddenly be out of a job? Nonsense. They would charge money for it directly from patients. Patients would have more money in their pockets because they aren't burdened by a cumbersome tax regime. Even then, some medical procedures and medicine would be too expensive. People would pool risk. I.e. take out insurance.

Ah what a perfect world you live in.

Insurance wouldnt pay for wages and everything involved with running the NHS as it would have nothing to do with it.
Thus insurance would be pointless as you cannot have insurance and have Doctors etc.
Thus you will be relying on no insurance, thus .. as an example.. single parents paying tens of thousands due to their child being in hospital for weeks. Not exactly fair is it?

in·doc·tri·na·tion  [in-dok-truh-ney-shuhn]
noun
the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view: religious indoctrination.

Nope, still not correct. I will say yet again, stop using words when they do not fit. They are indoctrinating nothing. The benefits of paying taxs are not a specific type of view they are facts.

Anyway, I didn't say paying tax is a political opinion. What an absurd conclusion to reach.

"indoctrinate children with a political opinion"

Stop spouting nonsense, you are embarrassing yourself.

Firstly, tax is extracted from people through force. It is impossible for the act to be an opinion.
Secondly, it was quite clear what I was referring to - believing that paying tax is good for people or the country is an opinion. That is what HMRC are trying to indoctrinate children's minds with.

The unrestricted power to collect taxes allows the government to abuse the money we give them.

Funny how socialists complain (rightly in my opinion) about so many government decisions. Yet you want to give them more money and more power. Ludicrous.

Oh look, more rambling where you dont actually make any real points.

[Tom_Hagen]

(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
How so...?

Teaching kids to follow the law could hardly be called political.

Nonsense. It has nothing to do with following the law. Read the article. It is about discussing why everyone should pay tax to the government and why that makes one a responsible citizen. This goes beyond 'not paying certain taxes is illegal, you could go to jail for not doing so.'

(Original post by Fynch101)
Surprise surprise, OP takes Milton Friedman's wisdom out of context, and without any proper economic knowledge, research or sound reasoning, forms an opinion and feels he has the right to broadcast it and let his voice be heard.

Great.

How did I take his wisdom out of context? You have no idea about the level of economic knowledge I have, nor is it relevant to the discussion My OP doesn't mention my views on taxation and I fear this thread is being taken off track slightly. I think taxation is relevant to the discussion, but this is more about children being told to think in a certain way.

[Fynch101]

(Original post by Tom_Hagen)
How did I take his wisdom out of context? You have no idea about the level of economic knowledge I have, nor is it relevant to the discussion My OP doesn't mention my views on taxation and I fear this thread is being taken off track slightly. I think taxation is relevant to the discussion, but this is more about children being told to think in a certain way.

What is your actual argument against telling children that paying tax is in the best interest of society?

[Darkphilosopher]

(Original post by Tom_Hagen)
Nonsense. It has nothing to do with following the law. Read the article. It is about discussing why everyone should pay tax to the government and why that makes one a responsible citizen. This goes beyond 'not paying certain taxes is illegal, you could go to jail for not doing so.'

If you give a somebody a rule to follow but don't tell them why they should follow the rule then they're more likely to break that rule.

[Tom_Hagen]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
x

Haha. You're telling me that I'm rambling and not making a point?

"Taxation is good for the country/economy/whatever else" = opinion.

Some of the things that can be purchased with the revenue raised from taxation are good, undoubtedly. But that does not mean taxation is good.

What is stopping me from purchasing those services directly? Oh yes, I don't have anything left in my pockets after the state is done rummaging through them.

[Tom_Hagen]

(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
If you give a somebody a rule to follow but don't tell them why they should follow the rule then they're more likely to break that rule.

Again, I think from what the contents of this education pack I come to the conclusion this goes way beyond an issue concerning the rule of law.

But even if it did, I think that would put them under a duty to discuss both sides of the argument.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by Tom_Hagen)
]What is stopping me from purchasing those services directly? Oh yes, I don't have anything left in my pockets after the state is done rummaging through them.

Do tell, how much of your income do you pay directly as tax?

I assume it is .. what.. 90% of your income? It must be somewhere around that figure for your continued exaggeration of the effect it has.

Feel free to break your legs and pay for the medical bills yourself (rofl)

[Fynch101]

(Original post by Tom_Hagen)
Haha. You're telling me that I'm rambling and not making a point?

"Taxation is good for the country/economy/whatever else" = opinion.

Some of the things that can be purchased with the revenue raised from taxation are good, undoubtedly. But that does not mean taxation is good.

What is stopping me from purchasing those services directly? Oh yes, I don't have anything left in my pockets after the state is done rummaging through them.

Are your parents really right wing? I can't imagine where else you got such warped views...

An opinion is not the same thing as a point. Anyone can form an opinion, but it must be backed up by evidence, which must include a source that isn't just what you thought in a given moment in time.

Why is taxation bad? Could you just answer that? Don't give another answer like the one I emboldened here, its rubbish. Its answers like that that mean your grades could be better.

[Tom_Hagen]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Do tell, how much of your income do you pay directly as tax?

I assume it is .. what.. 90% of your income? It must be somewhere around that figure for your continued exaggeration of the effect it has.

Feel free to break your legs and pay for the medical bills yourself (rofl)

I work so I pay 20% above my personal allowance, just like everybody else. But my job doesn't actually pay that well, so the 20p rate hurts me quite a bit after essentials etc.

However, I have some other income streams which are subject to CGT and a different level of income tax.

(Original post by Fynch101)
Are your parents really right wing? I can't imagine where else you got such warped views...

An opinion is not the same thing as a point. Anyone can form an opinion, but it must be backed up by evidence, which must include a source that isn't just what you thought in a given moment in time.

Why is taxation bad? Could you just answer that? Don't give another answer like the one I emboldened here, its rubbish. Its answers like that that mean your grades could be better.

I'm working class. My parents could be classed as fairly 'traditional'. But they do not share my views on taxation. Your patronising tone is pretty funny. I'm not a young child.

A number of reasons why I disagree with MOST taxation - take your pick: the use of force, inefficiency, government monopolies, detrimental effect on the free market, funds a government/state beyond the bare minimum, effect on incentive factor, reduces the power of the individual vis-a-vis the state...

I could go on.

But let me ask you a question - you think that the government should be allowed to take my money, how about you try to justify that? Why should I have my money taken from me by force?

[Spaz Man]

Morality + Politics = Hypocrisy.

[Darth Stewie]

Should probably start telling them about why the genocide of pensioners is a bad thing because i bet by the time they start paying tax the massive amount of healthcare costs pensioners are going to be racking up + the golden "but we dun payed into the NHS" moans whenever anyone talks about cutting it the thought of simply throwing them all into the ocean might seem quite preferable.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

Whether you like it or not, citizens of the UK have to abide by the law of the land. It makes far more sense to educate our children about said laws.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Tom_Hagen)
Nonsense. It has nothing to do with following the law. Read the article. It is about discussing why everyone should pay tax to the government and why that makes one a responsible citizen. This goes beyond 'not paying certain taxes is illegal, you could go to jail for not doing so.'

Yes of course it goes beyond "you ought to obey the law because otherwise nasty things may happen to you". The principle being inculcated here is "you ought to obey the law because it is the law."

The moral duty to pay tax derives from its imposition as a law. There is no moral worth to driving on the left or the right of the road. The moral imperative is to drive on the side of the road laid down by the law regardless of whether it is on any particular occasion safe to drive on the other side of the road.

Where the government can be criticised is the elision of tax avoidance and tax evasion. Paying tax has no moral worth except as a legal obligation. No-one expects people to pay money to the government that they are not legally obliged to pay.

Since tax avoidance and tax evasion are distinguished by their legality or otherwise, it is nonsensical to criticise tax avoidance. How can someone be under a moral obligation not to do something that isn't quite illegal and has no moral worth except in terms of its legal obligation? It is like criticising someone for running through a traffic light on green just before it turns to red or paying for goods at the last "please pay here" station before leaving the store.

[kingme]

do they not say the same about benefits cheats?

[kingme]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Since tax avoidance and tax evasion are distinguished by their legality or otherwise, it is nonsensical to criticise tax avoidance. How can someone be under a moral obligation not to do something that isn't quite illegal and has no moral worth except in terms of its legal obligation? It is like criticising someone for running through a traffic light on green just before it turns to red or paying for goods at the last "please pay here" station before leaving the store.

I think you'll find it's like criticising someone for only putting half their shopping through the self-service machine.

You have a moral obligation to pay tax because tax money educated and medicated you to get you to wherever you are today.

[barnetlad]

HMRC should think about their own people, if these allegations made by Andrew Gilligan in 2008 had in fact had any truth about them- Phil Pavett is their CIO now:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/top-t...n-6919257.html

[NB_ide]

(Original post by Tom_Hagen)
http://bit.ly/QGvok1

This is disgusting.



They are trying to exploit young children.

I hope all you lefty student types who think "tax avoidance" is evil and are falling for the government's nonsense realise where this is heading. They are using (misguided) public outrage on this current affairs issue to indoctrinate children with a political opinion that will help protect their vested interest.

As I write this, I feel like I'm acting a bit like a tin hat conspiracy theorist or something.. it feels.. weird. This seems like Orwellian propaganda of the highest degree.

Some will say I'm overreacting but I'm sure I'm not. The whole nation seems to be pulling in a very, very dangerous direction.

Please reassure me.

All large public bodies undertake "outreach" efforts and employ propaganda and public engagement, normally to young people and teens because they are much more impressionable than adults, who tend to change their opinions less. In fact, that's the primary purpose of many such organisations; influencing/manipulating the public to support them.

It may seem like some terrible indoctrination/brainwashing **** but it's just the same as everything else you've learned so far about society and all the rest. All those opinions came from somewhere, and it's likely that someone intended to plant them in your mind. People need shaping into something.

[Tom_Hagen]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Yes of course it goes beyond "you ought to obey the law because otherwise nasty things may happen to you". The principle being inculcated here is "you ought to obey the law because it is the law."

The moral duty to pay tax derives from its imposition as a law. There is no moral worth to driving on the left or the right of the road. The moral imperative is to drive on the side of the road laid down by the law regardless of whether it is on any particular occasion safe to drive on the other side of the road.

Where the government can be criticised is the elision of tax avoidance and tax evasion. Paying tax has no moral worth except as a legal obligation. No-one expects people to pay money to the government that they are not legally obliged to pay.

Since tax avoidance and tax evasion are distinguished by their legality or otherwise, it is nonsensical to criticise tax avoidance. How can someone be under a moral obligation not to do something that isn't quite illegal and has no moral worth except in terms of its legal obligation? It is like criticising someone for running through a traffic light on green just before it turns to red or paying for goods at the last "please pay here" station before leaving the store.

Surely you're not saying following the law is a moral duty? Morality is subjective, where as the law isn't. Driving on the right side of the road is a safety issue surely? The morality behind it would be that by driving on the wrong side you are putting other peoples' lives in danger, both other road users and your passengers?

If we are to take your idea that anything imposed by the law, imposes a moral duty on us - where does that put things we might find immoral today but are or were still legal sometime in the past? Changes in public morality force changes in the law, so often law does not reflect 'public morality'. Universal suffrage, slavery, racial discrimination, homosexual discrimination are all fairly recent issues where this was the case.

I admit like the poster above says, that there will always be some form of influence from different groups arguing that their point of view is correct and as humans we process the various arguments and arrive at our own conclusions, which form our morals as individuals. However, the extent to which this seems to be going on with regards to tax/HMRC and the possible ramifications of it are what concern me.

I agree totally with your comments about the conflation of tax avoidance and evasion by both the government and certain sections of the media. Nobody should be put under public pressure and made to feel like a criminal, if they are following the law. This idea that they are doing something 'bad' by avoiding unnecessary taxes is something I can't actually comprehend. Tax efficiency is vital to ensuring prosperity. Even the smallest firms that I know of look to structure their transactions and financial affairs in a way that reduces any tax liability to its absolute minimum.

Glad to see someone at least understand what I was getting at with my post. This isn't about a personal opinion on what level of taxation is too much or whatever... It's about pushing a controversial opinion on impressionable children.

[Fynch101]

(Original post by Tom_Hagen)


I'm working class. My parents could be classed as fairly 'traditional'. But they do not share my views on taxation. Your patronising tone is pretty funny. I'm not a young child.

A number of reasons why I disagree with MOST taxation - take your pick: the use of force, inefficiency, government monopolies, detrimental effect on the free market, funds a government/state beyond the bare minimum, effect on incentive factor, reduces the power of the individual vis-a-vis the state...

I could go on.

But let me ask you a question - you think that the government should be allowed to take my money, how about you try to justify that? Why should I have my money taken from me by force?

If you can find me evidence to back up any of these points, then I might believe you. You sound like a young child who has a bigot for a father.

The government should be allowed to take my money because of the roads I use everyday, the laws it has established and upholds to keep me safe, and the healthcare which helps to ensure my survival. There are many other things, but on a day to day basis, these are the most important to me.

There is literally no relevance for an anarchist state like the one you want in western society, and I doubt there ever will be in our lifetime.

[kingsholmmad]

(Original post by Tom_Hagen)
If there was a flat rate of tax at 25% or 20%? No complex categorisation of income? I definitely think our essential public services would survive.

Personally I would like to see the NHS scrapped completely. But even that could survive with a flat tax.

You think; you would like iethese are your opinions. What's more, flat rate taxes have been proven not to work because they are deeply unfair. If I were paying 25%, I literally would not be able to feed myself. There are plenty of celebrities, fatcats etc around who could pay 50% with no greater constraint than having to occasionally rein in a little of their wardrobe spending. The bad news for you is that you are living in a society which exists on the principle of each paying according to their means.

I'm not saying that that principle works all that well but, if it's a principle with which you disagree, you're living in the wrong place just as, for example, if you disagreed with the principles of Islam, Pakistan would be the wrong place to live.

I'll answer this section as one point.

Taxation gives the state a monopoly over certain industries. It gives the state power over the individuals. It gives the state power over groups of individuals. That is a fact. It allows the state to pick winners and losers in every industry.

If the government had no money, do you think all the doctors would suddenly be out of a job? Nonsense. They would charge money for it directly from patients. Patients would have more money in their pockets because they aren't burdened by a cumbersome tax regime. Even then, some medical procedures and medicine would be too expensive. People would pool risk. I.e. take out insurance.

Yes, the state gets a monopoly in certain areas. If you're not happy with that then, presumably, you prefer the alternative? You would prefer private companies to, for example, look after things like security at big national sporting events. Why? Do you genuinely think that the private alternative will always be the best for the individual? Do you genuinely think that the private alternative won't hand the power that the state has over individuals straight to those private companies? Surely that just means that those private companies will then have just as much power but without the responsibility that the government has; how does that benefit me or 60 million other Brits like me?

The truth is that taxation for the benefit of the people is as much a part of British culture as the dodgy climate. You're not going to change either of them so why not do what you can to make the best of the way things are?