Opinions on tax?

Reply 40

Posting Friedman on a student (leftist) forum...this won't end well.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 42

BarackObama

OP

6

Original post by MatureStudent36

Do they. With a 45% tax rate an awful lot seem to be moving to the UK.

Wait, what? Do you mean that you think that there's a 45% tax rate over there???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco#Tax_haven

Reply 43

Heliosphan

1

Original post by felamaslen

Taxation is the art of forcefully removing money from those who produce things, in order to pay for what you deem desirable for your electorate.

You can use phrases like 'forcefully removing money' if you like but I don't see mass protests as a result. Why didn't you just say something like a deduction of wage in order to fund vital services which most people actually agree with?

Do you think tax should be optional or something?

Moreover, what's your practical alternative to this forced removal of money?

Reply 44

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Heliosphan

You can use phrases like 'forcefully removing money' if you like but I don't see mass protests as a result. Why didn't you just say something like a deduction of wage in order to fund vital services which most people actually agree with?

Do you think tax should be optional or something?

Moreover, what's your practical alternative to this forced removal of money?

Probably be some socialist utopia ignoring the fact that those that have been tried have failed.

Reply 45

Joeman560

10

Original post by BarackObama

Likewise.

I really do think university should be free, while I'm on it. At least for arts courses. :erm:

Uni is already full of people who are perfectly happy to pay thousands a year solely for the purpose of getting smashed every night. Making it free would be an invitation for kids to waste 3 years if their lives at the taxpayers expense.

Reply 46

BarackObama

OP

6

Original post by Joeman560

Uni is already full of people who are perfectly happy to pay thousands a year solely for the purpose of getting smashed every night. Making it free would be an invitation for kids to waste 3 years if their lives at the taxpayers expense.

That's actually a very fair point.

Well, I definitely think that there should be less university places (and less universities, while I'm on it).

Reply 47

Libtardian

15

Original post by Heliosphan

You can use phrases like 'forcefully removing money' if you like but I don't see mass protests as a result. Why didn't you just say something like a deduction of wage in order to fund vital services which most people actually agree with?

Do you think tax should be optional or something?

Moreover, what's your practical alternative to this forced removal of money?

If you looked at income tax revenue by class and then how many people make up each class I think you'd understand.

Alternative? People pay their own way, any social stuff is covered by charities.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 48

Plainview

2

You'd move to Russia for tax reasons?

Lol.

Reply 49

BarackObama

OP

6

Original post by Plainview

You'd move to Russia for tax reasons?

Lol.

Nah, not really. I'm glad I got out of there when I did, but even so, 13% tax > 40%+ tax.

Reply 50

Plainview

2

Original post by BarackObama

Nah, not really. I'm glad I got out of there when I did, but even so, 13% tax > 40%+ tax.

Agreed. I think the closer it can feasibly get to a low flat rate the better.

Reply 51

Heliosphan

1

Original post by otester

If you looked at income tax revenue by class and then how many people make up each class I think you'd understand.

Alternative? People pay their own way, any social stuff is covered by charities.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Given that the total amount raised by charities is a tiny amount when compared to government spending I have doubts over whether that would work. The main concern would be the optional nature of contributions. Probably inadequate and inconsistent levels of funds raised would be the outcome as people resort to looking after themselves. Do you assert that this is a more desirable alternative to guaranteed funds raised, ergo the current system?

How does paying as I go work, do I fill a form in to direct my funds every week/month? Or do I pay a bill based on what services I've used that month? What do I do if I can't afford what I need?

Reply 52

Libtardian

15

Original post by Heliosphan

Given that the total amount raised by charities is a tiny amount when compared to government spending I have doubts over whether that would work. The main concern would be the optional nature of contributions. Probably inadequate and inconsistent levels of funds raised would be the outcome as people resort to looking after themselves. Do you assert that this is a more desirable alternative to guaranteed funds raised, ergo the current system?

How does paying as I go work, do I fill a form in to direct my funds every week/month? Or do I pay a bill based on what services I've used that month? What do I do if I can't afford what I need?

We live in a democracy so it translates either way, but I think it would be better due to big government not being in the way along with it's various issues it comes with it; corruption, restricting the economy and freedoms.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 53

BarackObama

OP

6

Original post by Plainview

Agreed. I think the closer it can feasibly get to a low flat rate the better.

Didn't we have a flat rate when Thatcher was around? Political history isn't one of my fortes

Reply 54

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by BarackObama

Didn't we have a flat rate when Thatcher was around? Political history isn't one of my fortes

No. We've had a progressive tax ate for some time. Interestingly though I was listening to an American economist the other day on radio 4. Progressive tax rates were first introduced by the Americans in order to alleviate poverty. It took the burden of tax payments away from the poor to the rich. It was the American version of welfare reform when Europeans we're king their first steps towards a welfare state. It was the American take on helping out those at the bottom.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom

Reply 55

felamaslen

15

Original post by Heliosphan

You can use phrases like 'forcefully removing money' if you like but I don't see mass protests as a result. Why didn't you just say something like a deduction of wage in order to fund vital services which most people actually agree with?

Do you think tax should be optional or something?

Moreover, what's your practical alternative to this forced removal of money?

You seem to be projecting. I have nothing against moderate taxation.

I called it forceful removal because that is what it is. If you refuse, you get sent to jail.