Whats the point trying to achieve when Labour just want to tax?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Quady
Parents can't support kids past age 16 and GCSEs don't get you very far.
Why not? What happens on a child's 16th birthday? Does the money fairy come and steal all the family's money?
If a family can support a child between 5 and 16, they can cope another two years!
Otherwise, don't have kids!
Original post by Quady
So you don't try?
That's sad.
That's sad.
Where did I say I don't try? Oh wait, I didn't
Original post by Quady
A 9% tax difference really made you not bother to achieve?
But its not just the tax difference. The more money you earn, the more pressure a job brings. If the increase in pressure/responsibility (banned word in the left-wing dictionary) doesn't warrant the increase I will take home with me, whats the incentive to do it?
Somebody who earns £2m a year gives the Government same amount as they keep themselves from all their hard work..... thats disgraceful.
And why? Because plebs are too busy watching Eastenders to read to their kids.....
Original post by billydisco
The same method you used whilst attending school aged 5 to 16....
Which is great unless you're poor (as per your argement) and so need to pay for bed/board.
Original post by billydisco
But its not just the tax difference. The more money you earn, the more pressure a job brings. If the increase in pressure/responsibility (banned word in the left-wing dictionary) doesn't warrant the increase I will take home with me, whats the incentive to do it?
Somebody who earns £2m a year gives the Government same amount as they keep themselves from all their hard work..... thats disgraceful.
And why? Because plebs are too busy watching Eastenders to read to their kids.....
Somebody who earns £2m a year gives the Government same amount as they keep themselves from all their hard work..... thats disgraceful.
And why? Because plebs are too busy watching Eastenders to read to their kids.....
That's rubbish. Or at least as I went from 30k to 50k my job became easier. I didn't notice it get harder when I went from 14k to 28k either. Also I've seen my take home rise substantially with each job jump.
Who earns £2m under PAY?
I doubt it's only that. This (being poor and income differentiated taxes) predates Eastenders, TV and mass printed books.
Original post by billydisco
Where did I say I don't try? Oh wait, I didn't
So you see a point?
Or you don't see a point but try and achieve anyway?
Original post by billydisco
Why not? What happens on a child's 16th birthday? Does the money fairy come and steal all the family's money?
If a family can support a child between 5 and 16, they can cope another two years!
Otherwise, don't have kids!
If a family can support a child between 5 and 16, they can cope another two years!
Otherwise, don't have kids!
Because there isn't a responsibility to the family can bring in more money by sending them to work.
There wasn't any money to start with. The parents do want to be eating smart price for a month longer than needed.
How'd they know their financial situation five, 10 or 15 years into the future?
Original post by uncommonsensing
Just because it is theoretically possible that children from poor, under-privileged backgrounds can break the class barrier and become successful, it does not mean this is at all likely.
Imagine a kid from a working class family. His parents have manual labour or low skill jobs and they're not well-educated. They don't read or own books, they partake in only the most low-consciousness entertainment such as Eastenders and they've never discussed or tried to arouse interest in their child in politics, culture, science etc. The kid goes to a low-performing school where the majority of the kids are in the same situation as him and the teaching and resources aren't brilliant. Of course that kid COULD - and some certainly do - decide to work really hard in school, isolate themselves from a lot of peers and family, develop their own interests in extra-curricular educational persuits and opt for further education despite possible discouragement from parents, who might think university is pointless. They certainly won't have any contacts to held them find the best employment, which largely rules them out of certain careers.
But can't you see that as society currently stand that is never going to be the majority of underprivileged kids? It's not because they're lazy or stupid, they are simply going along with the path designated to them from birth because they never knew any better and were never surrounded by any different.
A kid from a rich family will have intelligent, cultured parents with respectable jobs. These parents are going to introduce their children to things that will advantage them from a young age, be it music lessons, books or general discussions. These children will get to go fee-paying schools, receive a lot of attention from teachers due to smaller classes and be surrounded by children from similarly privileged families. Their friends are therefore going to be a positive influence and it will be completely normal and expected for these children to behave in a way that is the completely contrary to that of the working-class child I talked about. The child will be supported and helped in their education, encouraged and expected to attend further education and the parents are likely to have contacts and inside knowledge which will aid their child in finding a good job.
Do you really see no disparity here? No unfair odds? Obviously most people are somewhere in between these two scenarios but you seem to be implying anybody can succeed.
Imagine a kid from a working class family. His parents have manual labour or low skill jobs and they're not well-educated. They don't read or own books, they partake in only the most low-consciousness entertainment such as Eastenders and they've never discussed or tried to arouse interest in their child in politics, culture, science etc. The kid goes to a low-performing school where the majority of the kids are in the same situation as him and the teaching and resources aren't brilliant. Of course that kid COULD - and some certainly do - decide to work really hard in school, isolate themselves from a lot of peers and family, develop their own interests in extra-curricular educational persuits and opt for further education despite possible discouragement from parents, who might think university is pointless. They certainly won't have any contacts to held them find the best employment, which largely rules them out of certain careers.
But can't you see that as society currently stand that is never going to be the majority of underprivileged kids? It's not because they're lazy or stupid, they are simply going along with the path designated to them from birth because they never knew any better and were never surrounded by any different.
A kid from a rich family will have intelligent, cultured parents with respectable jobs. These parents are going to introduce their children to things that will advantage them from a young age, be it music lessons, books or general discussions. These children will get to go fee-paying schools, receive a lot of attention from teachers due to smaller classes and be surrounded by children from similarly privileged families. Their friends are therefore going to be a positive influence and it will be completely normal and expected for these children to behave in a way that is the completely contrary to that of the working-class child I talked about. The child will be supported and helped in their education, encouraged and expected to attend further education and the parents are likely to have contacts and inside knowledge which will aid their child in finding a good job.
Do you really see no disparity here? No unfair odds? Obviously most people are somewhere in between these two scenarios but you seem to be implying anybody can succeed.
Well said.
Original post by billydisco
But its not just the tax difference. The more money you earn, the more pressure a job brings. If the increase in pressure/responsibility (banned word in the left-wing dictionary) doesn't warrant the increase I will take home with me, whats the incentive to do it?
Have you ever thought that it often works like this. The lowest payed jobs are so awful they provide an insentive to do the easier more rewarding higher paying jobs. Get an education and all that. Plus different people find different things hard, some fat bloke that has a high paying office jobs will find low paying manual labour much harder due to how unfit he is.
Some of the people I worked with on my last job would work 10 hour days with only three 15 min brakes and would make less than someone on a graduate type job working 8 hours with an hour lunch brake (something they or I didn't get). You make it sound like there is a god like figure making sure people get paid according how hard there job is. But you should know that is wrong as a right winger the only thing that determines pay is the market. Very hard demanding low paid working class jobs exist. Just because anyone can do them does not mean they are easy. I would much rather work as a medical physicists than work on **** pay in some sweatshop in china.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Quady
Yet you haven't come back to me on posts 20-22.
A 9% tax difference really made you not bother to achieve?
A 9% tax difference really made you not bother to achieve?
Somebody who earns £2m a year gives MORE to the Government than they take home?!!?!??!
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Have you ever thought that it often works like this. The lowest payed jobs are so awful they provide an insentive to do the easier more rewarding higher paying jobs. Get an education and all that. Plus different people find different things hard, some fat bloke that has a high paying office jobs will find low paying manual labour much harder due to how unfit he is.
Some of the people I worked with on my last job would work 10 hour days with only three 15 min brakes and would make less than someone on a graduate type job working 8 hours with an hour lunch brake (something they or I didn't get). You make it sound like there is a god like figure making sure people get paid according how hard there job is. But you should know that is wrong as a right winger the only thing that determines pay is the market. Very hard demanding low paid working class jobs exist. Just because anyone can do them does not mean they are easy. I would much rather work as a medical physicists than work on **** pay in some sweatshop in china.
Some of the people I worked with on my last job would work 10 hour days with only three 15 min brakes and would make less than someone on a graduate type job working 8 hours with an hour lunch brake (something they or I didn't get). You make it sound like there is a god like figure making sure people get paid according how hard there job is. But you should know that is wrong as a right winger the only thing that determines pay is the market. Very hard demanding low paid working class jobs exist. Just because anyone can do them does not mean they are easy. I would much rather work as a medical physicists than work on **** pay in some sweatshop in china.
UK People who "work hard" but don't earn much (and dont work in the public sector like doctors etc) "work hard" because they didn't work hard at school.
Somebody who works in the city, has a high paid job worked hard at school, at university and during their career........ there's a big difference from what you just described!
Work hard when you're younger so you aren't cleaning toilets when you're older! Those people you mentioned didn't do that and so they're not working hard manually.
Tell me I'm wrong? Do all these manual workers have A Levels in Maths? No- they don't and I'm correct.
Original post by Quady
Because there isn't a responsibility to the family can bring in more money by sending them to work.
There wasn't any money to start with. The parents do want to be eating smart price for a month longer than needed.
How'd they know their financial situation five, 10 or 15 years into the future?
There wasn't any money to start with. The parents do want to be eating smart price for a month longer than needed.
How'd they know their financial situation five, 10 or 15 years into the future?
So again, the problem is we're letting dumb people have kids.....
(oh and this is forgetting the fact a poor kid can just get a saturday job)
Original post by Quady
Which is great unless you're poor (as per your argement) and so need to pay for bed/board.
Why? You didn't pay when you were 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15....
Labour vs Greens, which is more socialist?
Original post by billydisco
Just because people from poor backgrounds don't achieve doesn't mean the path/infrastructure required to do so doesn't exist!
All I see is this:
Because a child is born to parents who are plebs and vote Labour/despise wealthy people, they do not take advantage of the path which DOES exist for them to succeed and therefore left-wing tossers insist I should pay more ****ing tax, on top of the tax I already had to pay to give these tossers child benefits, just so these tossers have even more money wasted on them.
Facts:
-The infrastructure exists to succeed
-You admit all these people come from pleb families
Life is about survival of the fittest. If the child is "fit", they will escape, if they are weak- they will not. I'd rather put the escape route in place (which it is there) and let the strong find/utilise it.....
I somebody doesn't take advantage of this, then they were as stupid as their parents.
Alternatively, how about we stop encouraging plebs to have kids? Get rid of child benefit for a start!
All I see is this:
Because a child is born to parents who are plebs and vote Labour/despise wealthy people, they do not take advantage of the path which DOES exist for them to succeed and therefore left-wing tossers insist I should pay more ****ing tax, on top of the tax I already had to pay to give these tossers child benefits, just so these tossers have even more money wasted on them.
Facts:
-The infrastructure exists to succeed
-You admit all these people come from pleb families
Life is about survival of the fittest. If the child is "fit", they will escape, if they are weak- they will not. I'd rather put the escape route in place (which it is there) and let the strong find/utilise it.....
I somebody doesn't take advantage of this, then they were as stupid as their parents.
Alternatively, how about we stop encouraging plebs to have kids? Get rid of child benefit for a start!
I'm not disputing there is no possible path to escape an underprivileged background but simply that it is difficult.
What about the people who do try hard at school and get good grades but still cannot get out? I go to a bottom 40% school and while I wouldn't say it is underprivileged asuch, it definitely isn't privileged. I know people who hold offers for Russel Group universities but they don't want to leave their home town because they think it's too expensive or their parents don't want them to, so they opt for the local university which is much lower down in the league table. People who have no family members in university so struggle to be well-informed about it and opt for a university, degree or both that they think will get them an amazing job because nobody in their family went to university but in this day and age probably won't. People who think they're really clever for achieving an A or even a B in a subject at GCSE because a lot of people in the yeargroup couldn't even get a C, failing to realise how much better people at better schools are doing, who they will have to compete with.
Do you think that is because they are stupid? They're just going along with all they've ever known.
Survival of the fittest? Fine if there's an even playing ground, but the privileged kids are guaranteed survival and the underprivileged have to battle it out for the few remaining places.
Besides, not everyone can be rich and successful - it isn't economically or environmentally sustainable - and we need people in lowskilled jobs, so I'm not sure what would be solved if 'plebs' stopped having children.
Got to laugh, so far all the reasons for why poor people don't achieve in life is due to the actions of the poor:
-Too busy watching Eastenders to encourage their kids
-Too shortsighted to allow their kids to continue living at home whilst studying for A Levels and instead demand they go out and earn £5.90 an hour.... for the rest of their lives.
and you want me to pity the poor when their own stupidity causes their poverty?
-Too busy watching Eastenders to encourage their kids
-Too shortsighted to allow their kids to continue living at home whilst studying for A Levels and instead demand they go out and earn £5.90 an hour.... for the rest of their lives.
and you want me to pity the poor when their own stupidity causes their poverty?
Original post by uncommonsensing
I'm not disputing there is no possible path to escape an underprivileged background but simply that it is difficult.
What about the people who do try hard at school and get good grades but still cannot get out? I go to a bottom 40% school and while I wouldn't say it is underprivileged asuch, it definitely isn't privileged. I know people who hold offers for Russel Group universities but they don't want to leave their home town because they think it's too expensive or their parents don't want them to, so they opt for the local university which is much lower down in the league table. People who have no family members in university so struggle to be well-informed about it and opt for a university, degree or both that they think will get them an amazing job because nobody in their family went to university but in this day and age probably won't. People who think they're really clever for achieving an A or even a B in a subject at GCSE because a lot of people in the yeargroup couldn't even get a C, failing to realise how much better people at better schools are doing, who they will have to compete with.
Do you think that is because they are stupid? They're just going along with all they've ever known.
Survival of the fittest? Fine if there's an even playing ground, but the privileged kids are guaranteed survival and the underprivileged have to battle it out for the few remaining places.
Besides, not everyone can be rich and successful - it isn't economically or environmentally sustainable - and we need people in lowskilled jobs, so I'm not sure what would be solved if 'plebs' stopped having children.
What about the people who do try hard at school and get good grades but still cannot get out? I go to a bottom 40% school and while I wouldn't say it is underprivileged asuch, it definitely isn't privileged. I know people who hold offers for Russel Group universities but they don't want to leave their home town because they think it's too expensive or their parents don't want them to, so they opt for the local university which is much lower down in the league table. People who have no family members in university so struggle to be well-informed about it and opt for a university, degree or both that they think will get them an amazing job because nobody in their family went to university but in this day and age probably won't. People who think they're really clever for achieving an A or even a B in a subject at GCSE because a lot of people in the yeargroup couldn't even get a C, failing to realise how much better people at better schools are doing, who they will have to compete with.
Do you think that is because they are stupid? They're just going along with all they've ever known.
Survival of the fittest? Fine if there's an even playing ground, but the privileged kids are guaranteed survival and the underprivileged have to battle it out for the few remaining places.
Besides, not everyone can be rich and successful - it isn't economically or environmentally sustainable - and we need people in lowskilled jobs, so I'm not sure what would be solved if 'plebs' stopped having children.
Woah, woah woah- you've spouted *some* things I'd like to take you up on:
1) Having rich parents does NOT guarantee you exam grades. A private school is NOT an automatic conveyor belt of success- it still involves hard work, just you aren't seeing your Mother shagging a different scaffolder each Saturday night! It really winds me up when people insinuate rich parents = automatic exam grades. The (rich) child still has to put effort in.
2) You have proved my point (one I have made elsewhere) why crap universities should not be allowed to exist. They are a total fraud, making poor people think they are suddenly smarter by obtaining a "degree". It wastes my tax money, it wastes their time and they end-up doing the same job they would have had aged 16. You cannot make dumb people smart- intelligence is normally distributed. Labour (and the Tories in 1992) tried to make people feel smarter by making Polytechnics universities, creating all those crap pointless A Level subjects. If A Levels were only in the traditional ~25 subjects and somebody still can't find three they enjoy (and get good grades in) guess what? University isn't for you!
3) Survival of the fittest doesn't mean everybody has an even playing field. How does a Zebra have an equal playing field with a Lion?
Original post by billydisco
and you want me to pity the poor when their own stupidity causes their poverty?
I don't think poor people need to pitty other poor people, no.
Original post by redferry
Personally I would be happy to earn more to pay more tax 
Giving back to a system I have been relentlessly taking from since birth feels good.
Giving back to a system I have been relentlessly taking from since birth feels good.
Same.
I am happy to be paying into the system - and I would not mind paying more.
Original post by billydisco
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11441268/Miliband-accused-of-Russian-roulette-over-tuition-fees-pension-raid.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/11419173/Mansion-tax-a-threat-to-the-UK-economy-and-an-appeal-to-envy.html
http://labourlist.org/2015/02/labour-set-out-major-reform-to-the-banking-sector-including-extending-banker-bonus-clawback/
TAX TAX TAX
What the **** is wrong with this party?
Who benefits? Oh, those people who didn't take advantage of the FREE education system in this country- a very worthy cause!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/11419173/Mansion-tax-a-threat-to-the-UK-economy-and-an-appeal-to-envy.html
http://labourlist.org/2015/02/labour-set-out-major-reform-to-the-banking-sector-including-extending-banker-bonus-clawback/
TAX TAX TAX
What the **** is wrong with this party?
Who benefits? Oh, those people who didn't take advantage of the FREE education system in this country- a very worthy cause!
If you're earning loads, a lot of tax won't make a great bit of difference because you are earning a lot anyway. I think you are currently categorising a minority into a very large group. It's not necessarily the case that they didn't take advantage of the education system, in some cases the current education system doesn't work. Why is it private schools usually obtain better results than others? Quite simply because the people who attend there have had a better education because their parents can afford it. Even in schools that are 'free', people move area so they can live within the catchment for that school so their child can go to a 'good school' hence making the area a more expensive place to live hence making it impossible for poorer families to attend that school. That usually leaves schools which aren't considered as 'good' in poorer areas which as a result don't receive as good of an education.
Taxes should be in place for people who have done well for themselves and earn a lot so they can give others the same chance they had. I don't see what you find unfair about that. You giveback more because you got more in the first place.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Explain Liss truss policies to me
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 3 (9ECO 03) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Help needed: Economics A-level question
- AQA A Level Economics Paper 2 (7136/2) -22th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 1 (9ECO 01) - 18 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Post Your Economics Question Here
- Where can I find cash-in-hand jobs?
- TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?
- Jeremy Hunt to deliver budget on March 6 as election looms
- Should i vote Labour?
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- microeconomics evaluation help
- 25 Mark economics essay!
- English lit - An Inspector Calls
- Can someone help me improve my History Essay? (AQA History)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
