The Student Room Group

Whats the point trying to achieve when Labour just want to tax?

Mr Miliband today pledged to tax pensions to raise £2.9 billion, which would be used to cut tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000 a year from September 2016.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11441268/Miliband-accused-of-Russian-roulette-over-tuition-fees-pension-raid.html



Labour's proposed mansion tax on homes worth more than £2m


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/11419173/Mansion-tax-a-threat-to-the-UK-economy-and-an-appeal-to-envy.html


that will allow government to retrospectively claim back bankers bonuses from those who have been involved in “inappropriate behaviour” in the last 10 years (currently this stands at 7 years) and introducing a one-off tax on bankers’ bonuses


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! :rolleyes:

Scroll to see replies

Don't like it then shove off. I bet you don't even pay taxes yet.
Reply 2
Original post by Twinpeaks
Don't like it then shove off. I bet you don't even pay taxes yet.

Shove-off from where?
Taxes allow the country to function. Without them, we'd fall apart as personal greed would never set enough money aside for our services.

In addition, we have massive and growing inequality this country, where the richest are getting more and more, while the poorest get left behind.

Action needs to be taken to ensure those who are disadvantaged have a chance in life, the sick can get help and the country keeps going. This often means more taxes - some on all people, some times just on those who are more well off.

It's not true to say tax rises mean it's not worth trying. Many taxes mean the more you have, the more you keep - even if you pay more. It's how income tax works, and in most cases will likely be how much of the stuff you mentioned about Labour's proposed tax rises will work (though sometimes in practice things might vary slightly due to the nature of a tax or the difficulties in implementing it completely fairly);
Reply 4
Original post by RK
Taxes allow the country to function. Without them, we'd fall apart as personal greed would never set enough money aside for our services.

I didnt say I am against tax- I am against excessive tax. Particularly taxing successful people to secure votes from lazy underachievers.

Original post by RK
In addition, we have massive and growing inequality this country, where the richest are getting more and more, while the poorest get left behind.

1) Thats called compound interest
2) And what have the poor done about it? Nothing. Have they signed-up to evening classes? Have they visited their local library? Have they utilised their free time to learn new skills? You bet your *******s they havent! Never miss their Eastenders episode in the evenings though, do they?

Original post by RK
Action needs to be taken to ensure those who are disadvantaged have a chance in life, the sick can get help and the country keeps going. This often means more taxes - some on all people, some times just on those who are more well off.

1) How do these people not have a chance in life? Education is free, yes? University fees are covered by loans, yes?
2) How does tax do anything? Its only about robbing Peter of wealth to make Paul feel less poor. The tax isn't used for anything! How can money turn an idiot in to a non-idiot?

Original post by RK
It's not true to say tax rises mean it's not worth trying. Many taxes mean the more you have, the more you keep - even if you pay more. It's how income tax works, and in most cases will likely be how much of the stuff you mentioned about Labour's proposed tax rises will work (though sometimes in practice things might vary slightly due to the nature of a tax or the difficulties in implementing it completely fairly);

No it is not worth it. More salary means more responsibility and stress- yet I won't see as much of that additional salary because political parties like Labour prefer to steal it from me to give to people who didn't take advantage of their FREE education.

Let me be blunt:

Education in this country is FREE, nobody has an excuse to be poor, so those who are poor only have themselves to blame. There may be inequality- that doesn't matter, what matters is that there is an easy path to get out of poverty. If we have large inequality its because we have a large population who are too stupid to walk on that path.

If i'm wrong- tell me what is the barrier to doing well?

1) GCSEs are free, yes?
2) A Levels are free, yes?
3) Degrees are not free, but the tuition fee is covered by a loan and LEAs also provide grants to poorer pupils, yes?

So where is this barrier to social mobility?? All I can see are a load of lazy people bitching they aren't wealthy.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by billydisco
I didnt say I am against tax- I am against excessive tax. Particularly taxing successful people to secure votes from lazy underachievers.


1) Thats called compound interest
2) And what have the poor done about it? Nothing. Have they signed-up to evening classes? Have they visited their local library? Have they utilised their free time to learn new skills? You bet your *******s they havent! Never miss their Eastenders episode in the evenings though, do they?


1) How do these people not have a chance in life? Education is free, yes? University fees are covered by loans, yes?
2) How does tax do anything? Its only about robbing Peter of wealth to make Paul feel less poor. The tax isn't used for anything! How can money turn an idiot in to a non-idiot?


No it is not worth it. More salary means more responsibility and stress- yet I won't see as much of that additional salary because political partys like Labour prefer to steal it from me to give to people who didn't take advantage of their FREE education.

Let me be blunt:

Education in this country is FREE, nobody has an excuse to be poor, so those who are poor only have themselves to blame. There may be inequality- that doesn't matter, what matters is that there is an easy path to get out of poverty. If we have large inequality its because we have a large population who are too stupid to walk on that path.

If i'm wrong- tell me what is the barrier to doing well?

1) GCSEs are free, yes?
2) A Levels are free, yes?
3) Degrees are not free, but the tuition fee is covered by a loan and LEAs also provide grants to poorer pupils, yes?

So where is this barrier to social mobility?? All I can see are a load of lazy people bitching they aren't wealthy.


Utter drivel from start to finish. All your comment is doing is blaming the victims.

Most people on low incomes are not lazy, underachievers, stupid, etc. Education is free but that does not guarantee you a job when you finish, especially when we're still recovering from a bloody recession.

In case you haven't noticed, unemployment is still a big issue and wages have declined significantly under this government. All but a small minority of poor people are that way because of things which are 100% out of their control.

This idea that poor people are poor because they are lazy, uneducated, underachievers and they deserve to be poor is pure victim blaming propaganda. It's a hideously outdated idea that should have died long ago.
RFowler has already outclassed you, so there's not much to say.
Reply 7
Original post by RFowler
Utter drivel from start to finish. All your comment is doing is blaming the victims.

Most people on low incomes are not lazy, underachievers, stupid, etc. Education is free but that does not guarantee you a job when you finish, especially when we're still recovering from a bloody recession.

In case you haven't noticed, unemployment is still a big issue and wages have declined significantly under this government. All but a small minority of poor people are that way because of things which are 100% out of their control.

This idea that poor people are poor because they are lazy, uneducated, underachievers and they deserve to be poor is pure victim blaming propaganda. It's a hideously outdated idea that should have died long ago.

Such drivel that you couldn't tackle any of my points specifically? :wink:

You mention no jobs, recession bla bla- yet how did all these Eastern Europeans find jobs?

There are plenty of jobs, just most of the population lack the qualifications and brains to do them....... thats the truth of the matter.
Reply 8
Original post by RayApparently
RFowler has already outclassed you, so there's not much to say.

Outclassed me........ yet couldn't answer any of my points specifically...... Any fool can shout "you talk rubbish"- only people like me can justify it with specific points.

Tell me, where are these barriers to social mobility if education is free/not required upfront? I'm asking you.....
Reply 9
Original post by RFowler
Utter drivel from start to finish. All your comment is doing is blaming the victims.

Not taking advantage of a free education makes you a "victim"? Makes somebody "lazy"/"stupid" to me.

Original post by RFowler
Most people on low incomes are not lazy, underachievers, stupid, etc. Education is free but that does not guarantee you a job when you finish, especially when we're still recovering from a bloody recession.

http://www.efinancialcareers.co.uk/

There's 4,000 jobs listed- how about all the "victims" apply for those? Oh wait, they DON'T HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS :wink:


Original post by RFowler
In case you haven't noticed, unemployment is still a big issue and wages have declined significantly under this government.

Wages have declined because the supply of Labour is constantly increased by Eastern European immigration..... which Labour encouraged.

Original post by RFowler
All but a small minority of poor people are that way because of things which are 100% out of their control.

Their qualifications are 100% out of their control? Really?


Original post by RFowler
This idea that poor people are poor because they are lazy, uneducated, underachievers and they deserve to be poor is pure victim blaming propaganda. It's a hideously outdated idea that should have died long ago.

So why are they poor then? Are you saying all these poor people hold decent qualifications like A Levels in Maths and hold STEM degrees, just they're arent enough good jobs around (besides the 4,000 I linked-to above)? :rolleyes:

Or, is it more likely, as I am suggesting, all these poor people don't have two worthy qualifications to rub together and hence they have no decent job?

(and THIS kids, is how you rip somebody's argument to pieces.... :wink:)
Original post by billydisco
Outclassed me........ yet couldn't answer any of my points specifically...... Any fool can shout "you talk rubbish"- only people like me can justify it with specific points.

Tell me, where are these barriers to social mobility if education is free/not required upfront? I'm asking you.....


:facepalm2:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61964/opening-doors-breaking-barriers.pdf

Cba to just quote this so here's a link.

PS. You made one point - that 'education is free'. He answered that point succinctly.

Original post by RFowler

Most people on low incomes are not lazy, underachievers, stupid, etc. Education is free but that does not guarantee you a job when you finish, especially when we're still recovering from a bloody recession.


That free education hasn't helped your reading comprehension it seems.
Reply 11
Original post by RayApparently
:facepalm2:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61964/opening-doors-breaking-barriers.pdf

Cba to just quote this so here's a link.

PS. You made one point - that 'education is free'. He answered that point succinctly.



That free education hasn't helped your reading comprehension it seems.

Could you please clarify- are you saying all these poor people hold very valuable qualifications like A Levels in traditional subjects (Maths, Economics, History etc) at A or B grade, posses good degrees but are simply victims of no jobs?

Is that what you're saying? Its not that they don't hold any worthy qualifications?
Reply 12

Oh dear dear dear- you didn't even read that document, did you? It doesn't prove there is social immobility...... it simply presents stats that people are not achieving. Thats not the same thing. Lots of people not achieving doesn't mean there is no path for them to take- it simply says they didnt take it!

So again, if education is free- how are poor people prevented from succeeding? Tell me!
Original post by billydisco
Could you please clarify- are you saying all these poor people hold very valuable qualifications like A Levels in traditional subjects (Maths, Economics, History etc) at A or B grade, posses good degrees but are simply victims of no jobs?

Is that what you're saying? Its not that they don't hold any worthy qualifications?


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Many people rise up from underprivileged backgrounds and succeed despite the odds. They achieve qualifications better than their peers. That doesn't mean 'there's no excuse from being poor'. Only the truly exceptional succeed despite not having the advantages of a good family/home-life/school/extra-curricular opportunities/encouragement etc. whilst the relatively ordinary in richer families succeed.

I'm all for the politics of aspiration but we don't live in a meritocracy.
Original post by billydisco
Oh dear dear dear- you didn't even read that document, did you? It doesn't prove there is social immobility...... it simply presents stats that people are not achieving. Thats not the same thing. Lots of people not achieving doesn't mean there is no path for them to take- it simply says they didnt take it!

So again, if education is free- how are poor people prevented from succeeding? Tell me!


The statistics prove class affects how well students do. You're not seriously suggesting all children are brought up equally well in equally good schools? What a joke.
Reply 15
Original post by RayApparently
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Many people rise up from underprivileged backgrounds and succeed despite the odds. They achieve qualifications better than their peers. That doesn't mean 'there's no excuse from being poor'. Only the truly exceptional succeed despite not having the advantages of a good family/home-life/school/extra-curricular opportunities/encouragement etc. whilst the relatively ordinary in richer families succeed.

I'm all for the politics of aspiration but we don't live in a meritocracy.

Hang on, so you agree these poor people hold ****-all qualifications. Firstly- thanks, I was correct then.

Secondly, if education is FREE- where is the barrier to all these poor people getting qualifications? Whats their excuse? Youve just admitted all these poor people have sod-all qualifications and they they're being treated as victims, blameless. Well if somebody doesn't take advantage of a FREE education that isn't a victim to me!

So why have they not got qualifications?
Reply 16
Original post by RayApparently
The statistics prove class affects how well students do. You're not seriously suggesting all children are brought up equally well in equally good schools? What a joke.

You keep avoiding my direct question- if education/libraries etc etc are free what are the barriers to anybody succeeding? You showed me this document and yet it doesn't list any barriers!? It simply presents figures saying how poor people don't succeed.

I want a list of reasons preventing poor people from gaining qualification at school. Besides being lazy, I don't believe there are any barriers.

(I'm excluding severely sick and abused kids because that is a tiny minority)
Reply 17
Its all gone quiet boys....... I'm still waiting to know why poor people can't get qualifications via our FREE state education system?
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.

Quick Reply

Latest