Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should the wealthy be taxed more just because they can afford to pay it? watch

  • View Poll Results: Is it fair welathy people are taxed more?
    Yes - wealthy people should be taxed at a higher rate of tax
    37.20%
    No - everyone should be taxed the same rate
    32.32%
    I don't know
    1.83%
    Yes - wealthy people should be taxed more and the current rate for welathy people needs to be increased
    17.07%
    Yes - wealthy people should be taxed more and the current rate for welathy people needs to decrease
    11.59%

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    Interestingly enough, this still leaves some people happy, as opposed to absolutely no one...

    Do some work. All wealth was created at some point, someone put in the hours and earned the money for themselves. Millions have done it before and there's nothing stopping people doing it again. Everyone gets an education and healthcare in this country regardless of who you are, so why do rich, successful, entrepreneurial people deserve to have the majority of their income taken away because other people are too lazy or stupid to make their own way in life? Tough ****, world doesn't owe you anything
    You think that your personal wealth is determined by how hard you work? That's so naive it's almost cute.

    How do we continue to give everyone an eduction and healthcare when we don't tax the people who can afford to pay for it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    You think that your personal wealth is determined by how hard you work? That's so naive it's almost cute.

    How do we continue to give everyone an eduction and healthcare when we don't tax the people who can afford to pay for it?
    If you have access to schooling, which everyone does in the UK, then your wealth is basically directly determined by how hard you work. Becoming a multi-billionaire may be much more about luck, timing and many other factors, but whether you end up on the dole or in a 200k job is basically 100% down to you and you alone.

    My comment was in response to France having a 75% top tax rate. That is ****ing criminal.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    If you have access to schooling, which everyone does in the UK, then your wealth is basically directly determined by how hard you work. Becoming a multi-billionaire may be much more about luck, timing and many other factors, but whether you end up on the dole or in a 200k job is basically 100% down to you and you alone.

    My comment was in response to France having a 75% top tax rate. That is ****ing criminal.
    So you think the quality of every school is the same? You should tell some of those rich folk that they are wasting their hard inherited cash on those fancy public schools. Even ignoring the whole education thing, you think that having easy access to finance and a wealth of business contacts through your family has absolutely no impact on how successful you are in life? Once again, naivety.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    My comment was in response to France having a 75% top tax rate. That is ****ing criminal.
    gotta love the french
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    So you think the quality of every school is the same? You should tell some of those rich folk that they are wasting their hard inherited cash on those fancy public schools. Even ignoring the whole education thing, you think that having easy access to finance and a wealth of business contacts through your family has absolutely no impact on how successful you are in life? Once again, naivety.
    1. There is a wealth of materials to let you study and get top grades, regardless of school. See Khan Academy.
    2. If you have no contacts, then go and make your own network.
    3. There isn't a huge difference in average earnings between private and state schools, it depends on the individual more than anything else. Plenty of people at private schools fail to get on in life, just like plenty of people at bad state schools do better than them.

    This concept that because you weren't born into a privileged background means you are a 'victim' is ridiculous. I know you weren't implying that, but people who hold this view point do. And while this may apply to some people, in extreme circumstances, it's not enough to generalise it into a rule and say that people from those backgrounds can't get on. Plenty of people do. I've seen people from all backgrounds, it doesn't make any difference - it's your mindset that counts. If you believe you can't get on then you won't. Sure, having a great background gives you the confidence you can get on but that's all it is. Anyone can have belief and confidence, it's not exclusive to the elite.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    So you think the quality of every school is the same? You should tell some of those rich folk that they are wasting their hard inherited cash on those fancy public schools. Even ignoring the whole education thing, you think that having easy access to finance and a wealth of business contacts through your family has absolutely no impact on how successful you are in life? Once again, naivety.
    So your solution is to rid wealthy people of business contacts and other benefits, to bring them down to the same level as other people? Equal sharing of misery, as they say

    Look at the sheer number of first generation immigrants who moved to places like the UK from third world countries. Safe to say the quality of education, health, and life in general is pretty abysmal compared to here. Doesn't stop millions of such people succeeding in education, business and so on, and making a better life for themselves. It's because in those countries, hard work and success are immensely valued - even poor families will make huge sacrifices to send their kids to college and see that they do well. ****ing lmao at anyone born in the UK complaining about lack of opportunity. They will forever be a nobody, and entirely because of their own lack of ambition and self pity
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    So your solution is to rid wealthy people of business contacts and other benefits, to bring them down to the same level as other people? Equal sharing of misery, as they say
    Did you even read what he wrote?

    "You think that your personal wealth is determined by how hard you work? That's so naive it's almost cute. "

    This is just bringing up the fact that wealth is not only dependent on how hard you work. You can wok hard an remain poor etc.

    "How do we continue to give everyone an eduction and healthcare when we don't tax the people who can afford to pay for it?"

    This is a solution of sorts. Hardly communism is it. Basically the only thing that has happened here is the defending of a somewhat left wing taxation system which idiots want to take away.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    If you have access to schooling, which everyone does in the UK, then your wealth is basically directly determined by how hard you work. Becoming a multi-billionaire may be much more about luck, timing and many other factors, but whether you end up on the dole or in a 200k job is basically 100% down to you and you alone.

    My comment was in response to France having a 75% top tax rate. That is ****ing criminal.
    Wrong. Income does not equal wealth.

    Sure income depends alot on your education, but wealth depends alot on inheritance. For the poor, I acknowledge however that income is related to wealth, but much less so for the rich.

    Very few people with incomes in the top 1% will be in the top 1% of wealth.

    Us lucky few who have enormous wealth don't care too much about income tax, and if anything, it stops others from reaching the heights of wealth we have attained.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't care how much certain income brackets are taxed. Just provide workers with wages that actually provide a living.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    As long as the state continues to enforce private property, the wealthy cannot complain about them having to pay higher taxes than poor people.
    Most wealthy people I know, myself included do not mind about high tax rates, because the tax is on income, not wealth.

    Our families have already attained an enormous level of wealth, and high levels of income tax merely ensures that it is very difficult for others to reach the level of wealth we have attained.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The wealthy should be taxed more because they owe it to society. It is from social labour that they amassed their capital.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Wealthy people have earned the money they have, so they shouldn't have to pay more taxes, to cover for people in benefits etc. who possibly haven't worked as hard as them. I like the US system where the more you earn, the less you are taxed. It provides an incentive.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yael)
    The wealthy should be taxed more because they owe it to society. It is from social labour that they amassed their capital.
    So are you suggesting a high wealth tax on deposits/shares, or a high income tax, because they tax two different classes of people.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    So your solution is to rid wealthy people of business contacts and other benefits, to bring them down to the same level as other people? Equal sharing of misery, as they say
    Did I say that? I was just pointing out that these things actually exist, rather than deluding myself into thinking they don't.

    Look at the sheer number of first generation immigrants who moved to places like the UK from third world countries. Safe to say the quality of education, health, and life in general is pretty abysmal compared to here. Doesn't stop millions of such people succeeding in education, business and so on, and making a better life for themselves. It's because in those countries, hard work and success are immensely valued - even poor families will make huge sacrifices to send their kids to college and see that they do well. ****ing lmao at anyone born in the UK complaining about lack of opportunity. They will forever be a nobody, and entirely because of their own lack of ambition and self pity
    Just because some people manage to overcome the odds and make it doesn't change the fact that social mobility is dire in this country, for every one of those people you mentioned who have become successful there are 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 people who haven't. That's not because they haven't worked hard, or because they want to live in poverty, it's because we have a system set up to make it overwhelmingly hard for people like that to succeed

    (Original post by will2348)
    1. There is a wealth of materials to let you study and get top grades, regardless of school. See Khan Academy.
    2. If you have no contacts, then go and make your own network.
    3. There isn't a huge difference in average earnings between private and state schools, it depends on the individual more than anything else. Plenty of people at private schools fail to get on in life, just like plenty of people at bad state schools do better than them.
    Nonsense http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...y-a-fifth.html

    http://www.smf.co.uk/press-release-p...in-new-report/

    This concept that because you weren't born into a privileged background means you are a 'victim' is ridiculous. I know you weren't implying that, but people who hold this view point do. And while this may apply to some people, in extreme circumstances, it's not enough to generalise it into a rule and say that people from those backgrounds can't get on. Plenty of people do. I've seen people from all backgrounds, it doesn't make any difference - it's your mindset that counts. If you believe you can't get on then you won't. Sure, having a great background gives you the confidence you can get on but that's all it is. Anyone can have belief and confidence, it's not exclusive to the elite.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Regardless of the reasons (which are clearly not just confidence, it's also better resources, a more stable home life, a better education, easier access to finance, easier access to contacts, financial support that allows you to take unpaid internships etc etc), the fact remains that the higher up the socio-economic ladder you are when you are born, the higher up it you will be when you die. It's not impossible for those lower down to succeed, but they will be doing it with weights tied around their ankles.
    .
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TolerantBeing)
    So the use of public services such as healthcare is also theft?



    Jesus Christ....

    No because we are entitled to use them because we fund them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    DaveSmith99 is absolutely right here chaps. It is clear that people who are claiming education is equal across the board have little experience of the real world. We are fortunate that people have access to education in this country, but once you've attended an inner-city school, where people from deprived areas continuously do worse in their exams you're argument becomes unsustainable.

    My school had 2,000 students, around 60% of which came from 'deprived' areas in the heart of Nottingham. Most of these students weren't 'lazy' or unmotivated, in fact they were the opposite. The majority had jobs to balance alongside their studies, not just because of welfare changes that their families relied upon to survive, but the fact that they needed the extra cash to pay the bus fare to get to school, to pay for lunch, or simply to enjoy the things they liked to do.

    This talk of all people starting on an 'equal footing' within education is disgusting, and a clear demonstration of how out-of-touch some people are with the state of the system. I think I am correct in saying that the state spends £10,000 on one student's education on average. This is balanced with the average £10,000 per term in some private schools. The facts are, people from private schools do receive a better quality of education, simply because more money is being spent on them.

    You can argue all you want that people who are wealthy deserve to be wealthy, and those calling for higher taxes are jealous, or greedy, or lazy- but you are deluding yourself from the reality of this world, and this country. Maybe you should try and visit Council Welfare Drop-In clinics or Council advice surgeries as I have done, or actually do some research into the state of poverty in the world before you start making assertions that are false and naive.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Commie_Ted)
    This talk of all people starting on an 'equal footing' within education is disgusting, and a clear demonstration of how out-of-touch some people are with the state of the system. I think I am correct in saying that the state spends £10,000 on one student's education on average. This is balanced with the average £10,000 per term in some private schools. The facts are, people from private schools do receive a better quality of education, simply because more money is being spent on them.
    Interesting theory: the more you spend on something the better it is. Too bad it isn't always true and is rarely true in a linear manner (and it's a lot less than 10k per annum for state, but a lot more than 10k for the lifetime). It's trivially not universally true when you look at the decent state schools doing better than [minor] public schools. Then, of course, you fail to consider that the "better" public schools are rather picky with who they take (as are the better state sixth forms) and that is, for the most part, where their better results come from, not the higher spending. For example, state schools which are also highly selective also get very good results. The institution with the third highest rate of students going to Oxbridge is a state school (and the two public schools with higher rates have cohorts about 15% the size). Also, where did you pull that £10,000 per term figure, because if you're getting that high you're boarding too (doubling the price). Additionally, at least among the numerous independent schools nobody cares about, the quality of the teachers is no higher.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I understand your point. I do not dispute the fact there are some good state schools, and some shockingly bad private schools. Indeed, it could be argued some disadvantaged students are given places in private schools through scholarship and bursary schemes and so admissions are not wholly based on wealth. My quarrel is not with private schools - I hoped to respond with my post to the earlier comment about education being equal across the board.


    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Interesting theory: the more you spend on something the better it is. Too bad it isn't always true and is rarely true in a linear manner
    I agree, this premise is not always true. But in terms of resources and facilities available to students money is something sparse within the state sector, as seen with the cutting of the 'Building Schools for the Future' programme. Good textbooks and other such educational materials arguably do not make a student perform better, but help their education and make it easier to learn. This makes for an interesting read: http://www.parentdish.co.uk/teen/why...er-than-state/

    Forgive my earlier assertion that fees cost £10,000 a term- it is on average between £12,000 and £20,000 for a day student per annum.

    A higher top-rate of tax allows for vital funds to be poured into state education which so desperately needs it, especially in deprived areas (be that tax on income, wealth or inheritance).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Commie_Ted)
    I understand your point. I do not dispute the fact there are some good state schools, and some shockingly bad private schools. Indeed, it could be argued some disadvantaged students are given places in private schools through scholarship and bursary schemes and so admissions are not wholly based on wealth. My quarrel is not with private schools - I hoped to respond with my post to the earlier comment about education being equal across the board.



    I agree, this premise is not always true. But in terms of resources and facilities available to students money is something sparse within the state sector, as seen with the cutting of the 'Building Schools for the Future' programme. Good textbooks and other such educational materials arguably do not make a student perform better, but help their education and make it easier to learn. This makes for an interesting read: http://www.parentdish.co.uk/teen/why...er-than-state/

    Forgive my earlier assertion that fees cost £10,000 a term- it is on average between £12,000 and £20,000 for a day student per annum.

    A higher top-rate of tax allows for vital funds to be poured into state education which so desperately needs it, especially in deprived areas (be that tax on income, wealth or inheritance).
    I would bed to differ. Yes, facilities (especially sports facilities) are generally poorer in state schools but if you really want to improve the state education system teaching needs reforming, you need to put more stringent requirements on the teachers, so that they actually know what the hell they're wittering about. Also, the exam system needs fixing, which will benefit state and possibly "hinder" independent in the eyes of all those that seem to think grade inflation isn't an issue (or even that it is proof we're getting a lot smarter despite evidence to the contrary) but really helps then in the long run, to remove this grade inflation menace and make the top grades actually mean something again, possibly by making it so a fixed percentage get each grade.

    While the very top may have slightly higher rates in independents, really you need to compare them to the selective state schools otherwise it's an unfair comparison, it's like comparing a selective sixth form in the better parts of the country to a sixth form under special measures in the east end. Their better Oxbridge rates can also be explained away to some extent by smaller cohorts along with the selective element. Personally, I would never send one of my hypothetical children to be privately educated (unless it was to one of the major public schools) as I really don't see it worth the money, if they lack the capabilities I would rather just spend money on a tutor where and when it is necessary.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Should the wealthy be taxed more because they can afford to pay it?
    The pursuit of equity of treatment (as a universal right) not equality of distribution (fuelled by envy) is a more likely means of delivering tranquillity, prosperity and longevity to society, the active members of society (who are more likely to acquire wealth) require recognition for their effort, which raises the thorny question of how much reward the active are entitled to, given that the nature of the society they live in directly affects anyone’s, great or small, ability to extract value from it. A society’s wealthiest benefit disproportionately from the cooperative nature of citizenship which justifies a proportionate substantial obligation towards society’s upkeep. The territory and people that form the State represent the nation’s wealth and a potential for wealth creation so if the nation is to exist in a State based on the equitable treatment of all its citizens then all should contribute tax at the same rate. When any person or organisation disposes of their wealth (the monetisation of nature’s largesse and human endeavour - only possible because of the stable society all make use of) they are signalling the magnitude of their disposable income and the value they have extracted from society. The ability to tax all citizens’ and organisations’ transactions at source has been possible since the late 1980’s and doing so would introduce a fair and efficient taxation system (at ½% it would cover ½ the government expenditure 2013 and eliminate the need for income tax, vat and all business taxes) - the wealthy (individuals and organisations) should be taxed at the same rate (transaction tax) as anyone else when they dispose of their money.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.