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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Who was it that first espoused trickle down theory?
    Some moron somewhere.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    I don't know what religion you believe in. But I'm not sure many of them think that you should just not give a **** about people less fortunate than you unless you know them.

    I don't believe in a god. But I know that the Christian god I was raised to belief in cannot be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and benevolent. There is no way that kind of god would allow the world to have some much horror. Yes, some religious people see suffering as a test. But why would this god who can prevent all the suffering and is supposed to be kind 'test' so unequally?
    I do care about people, but it's more "on surface" , it's not a deep emotional investment. Also, don't take for granted that if I know you, I care about you.

    By the way, this isn't a debate about God. I simply said in my previous post to ask God, to prove a point that you can't be blaming anyone for your situation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    Yeah, I was wondering when you were going to realise that I was aware that this process is random. Tbh I was getting a little tired of people telling me "it's not my fault I'm like this, I do this and I try to do that" .. I'm fully aware it's not your fault.

    I don't treat anyone like ****, I just don't particularly take kindly to those who complain about the poor card they are dealt. We could have all got a better hand in life, I could be a size 6, living in Beverly Hills, but this is reality. I have been dealt a card, and so have you, that's not my fault, that's not your fault, that's just what has happened.

    I'm simply logical in my thought process. Unfortunately, logic and emotion don't go well together. I'm here to look after myself, not you or anyone else. If I have privilege, no I don't want to share it. We all have a small time on this earth, I want the experience to be the best it possibly can be, for myself.

    It's great that you want the whole world to be equal, but it's not the case. Accept it, or you're going to live the rest of your life bitter and upset.
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    I do care about people, but it's more "on surface" , it's not a deep emotional investment. Also, don't take for granted that if I know you, I care about you.

    By the way, this isn't a debate about God. I simply said in my previous post to ask God, to prove a point that you can't be blaming anyone for your situation.
    I'm not blaming anyone for my disability. That's just what happens. But I do get pretty angry when people think that just because they're doing ok, it doesn't matter that they are (in your case actively) increasing the oppression other people face. Yesterday you were going on about 'contributing' and having a 'purpose'. Well clearly you think your 'purpose' is to 'contribute' to others suffering.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    Yeah, I was wondering when you were going to realise that I was aware that this process is random. Tbh I was getting a little tired of people telling me "it's not my fault I'm like this, I do this and I try to do that" .. I'm fully aware it's not your fault.

    I don't treat anyone like ****, I just don't particularly take kindly to those who complain about the poor card they are dealt. We could have all got a better hand in life, I could be a size 6, living in Beverly Hills, but this is reality. I have been dealt a card, and so have you, that's not my fault, that's not your fault, that's just what has happened.

    I'm simply logical in my thought process. Unfortunately, logic and emotion don't go well together. I'm here to look after myself, not you or anyone else. If I have privilege, no I don't want to share it. We all have a small time on this earth, I want the experience to be the best it possibly can be, for myself.

    It's great that you want the whole world to be equal, but it's not the case. Accept it, or you're going to live the rest of your life bitter and upset.


    I must admit I very much like stargirl63.

    In a world chock full of absolute bull*******s and hypocrites his/her honesty shines out like a beacon( or something)

    I make no secret of the fact that I loathe people who vote Tory.

    But I loathe them mainly because they always seem to be doing it because "it's the best thing for the country" or some other bs.

    If they admitted they did it out of pure selfishness I honestly wouldn't mind.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    I'm not blaming anyone for my disability. That's just what happens. But I do get pretty angry when people think that just because they're doing ok, it doesn't matter that they are (in your case actively) increasing the oppression other people face. Yesterday you were going on about 'contributing' and having a 'purpose'. Well clearly you think your 'purpose' is to 'contribute' to others suffering.
    I'm not increasing oppression actively. If you want to go out and get something...then go! I applaud anyone who does things for themselves.

    The contributing thing to society was in reference to tax payers "contributing". So if those paying tax are contributing, so should everyone else, in whatever means they are able to.

    If you can't contribute, then that's not my fault, nor my problem. What do you expect me to say?!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe the privileged need to learn a bit of humility.

    Isn't it the case that the majority of families in the UK are one pay cheque away from financial ruin? Im not sure about protecting privilege - personal success yes, surely that's human nature but I got it drummed into my head to always treat people the way I want to be treated myself because as an adult I may need to pass the same people on the slide down the pole as I trampled over when climbing it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    I'm not increasing oppression actively. If you want to go out and get something...then go! I applaud anyone who does things for themselves.

    The contributing thing to society was in reference to tax payers "contributing". So if those paying tax are contributing, so should everyone else, in whatever means they are able to.

    If you can't contribute, then that's not my fault, nor my problem. What do you expect me to say?!
    When you belief that health care should be private; that the welfare state shouldn't exist and then you voice those views, encourage other people to believe those things and vote for parties who want those things to happen (if you vote), then you are ACTIVELY increasing oppression. You are saying that people who don't have the privileges you have and so can't afford health care don't deserve to live.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    Maybe the privileged need to learn a bit of humility.

    Isn't it the case that the majority of families in the UK are one pay cheque away from financial ruin? Im not sure about protecting privilege - personal success yes, surely that's human nature but I got it drummed into my head to always treat people the way I want to be treated myself because as an adult I may need to pass the same people on the slide down the pole as I trampled over when climbing it.
    Not really, you do understand that the top earners pay more tax than anyone.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    That is not entirely true, certainly not pro-rata compared to anyone on low to average incomes paying PAYE because many high earners operate as consultants in various industries and through payment of dividends keep their tax bill low via lower business rates.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sure i'n a minority here, but I do believe there should be a standardised tax rate of circa 27%. Would stop discrimination against the wealthy. (which is becoming as much of a thing as discrimination against the poor.) If this were to happen, there should be a proper living wage, which one can actually live off. The businesses can pay this directly with the reduced tax rate on them too; There furthermore should be reductions in the size of the government, and a proper audit into the funds required for each sector. Certain sectors should be privatised, which can save money, but standards should be rigouresly kept up. A large amount of public money should be going into investments, both abroad and at home. This would help solve the problem that our generation is facing, of upholding both our parents generation, their parents as well as the massive amount of debt given to us. Benefits should be on a strictly need basis, which obviously will alienate some people, but to take an amoral approach, they offer little to the country aside from an economic drain. Benefits should be capped equal to that paid in tax, and can not exceed this unless one can physically not work. If they want to exceed this, they will get a job working for government, in which they earn their money doing the jobs that need to be done, be it potholes, cleaning litter, replacing signs, respraying road markings etc. The fiscalized government would still be a large enough size to get things done,and more efficiently, without the extra expense. The main expense would be hiring the health and safety peeps.


    There's probably many flaws in this, but the point i;m making is that there is too many morals (and also a distinct lack of them) in how the government is run. It should be run as a business, striving to make profit, but have safe guards to protect against the common man, Those whom do not contribute to society will not be left behind, but will not succeed until they walk on their own feet. Those whom are deemed disabled can either get a bureaucracy job if they're fit for it, and if not, can be given benefits in it's current form, ensuring it's enough to live comfortably on.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, there are far too many people on benefits, the worst part is that many are there because of poor wages and completely ridiculous living costs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    Why does it bug you?
    Mainly because when i was at school many of the parents were claiming benefits illegally when there was no reason why they couldnt go out to work
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Warren95)
    Mainly because when i was at school many of the parents were claiming benefits illegally when there was no reason why they couldnt go out to work
    And you knew this how?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its all the immigrants. there stealing our benefits.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    And you knew this how?
    My mum was/is friends with some of the parents who were quite open about feigning injuries/ailments and tax avoidance
    Sorry my spelling is so bad
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Warren95)
    My mum was/is friends with some of the parents who were quite open about feigning injuries/ailments and tax avoidance
    Sorry my spelling is so bad
    Yeah true i see people like them all the time, just claiming benefits. ONly leaving the EU will stop this.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    And our jobs..bloody immigrants
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    That is not entirely true, certainly not pro-rata compared to anyone on low to average incomes paying PAYE because many high earners operate as consultants in various industries and through payment of dividends keep their tax bill low via lower business rates.
    Having contracted as a software consultant I can tell you that's not usually the case. Generally such people are on a daily/hourly rate are making around or just under 6 figures. When they are making much lower (lets say 30k) the comparable tax is definietely less pro rata but earning (60k~+) the pro rata is more than the basic 20%. Much less than the PAYE equivalent of higher/40% tax payers but more than the basic.

    Also as an added point, generally the people doing this aren't rich, they are from a modest/poor background trying to make something for themselves. Generally the rich ones have "real" Ltds, operate from real business premises (not just their house/on site) and own a lot of capital. I personally don't begrudge these type of people at all and would encourage anyone doing so to try and find a way around the IR 35 rules implemented by the gov. It's not that hard.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jono0812)
    I'm sure i'n a minority here, but I do believe there should be a standardised tax rate of circa 27%. Would stop discrimination against the wealthy. (which is becoming as much of a thing as discrimination against the poor.) If this were to happen, there should be a proper living wage, which one can actually live off. The businesses can pay this directly with the reduced tax rate on them too; There furthermore should be reductions in the size of the government, and a proper audit into the funds required for each sector. Certain sectors should be privatised, which can save money, but standards should be rigouresly kept up. A large amount of public money should be going into investments, both abroad and at home. This would help solve the problem that our generation is facing, of upholding both our parents generation, their parents as well as the massive amount of debt given to us. Benefits should be on a strictly need basis, which obviously will alienate some people, but to take an amoral approach, they offer little to the country aside from an economic drain. Benefits should be capped equal to that paid in tax, and can not exceed this unless one can physically not work. If they want to exceed this, they will get a job working for government, in which they earn their money doing the jobs that need to be done, be it potholes, cleaning litter, replacing signs, respraying road markings etc. The fiscalized government would still be a large enough size to get things done,and more efficiently, without the extra expense. The main expense would be hiring the health and safety peeps.


    There's probably many flaws in this, but the point i;m making is that there is too many morals (and also a distinct lack of them) in how the government is run. It should be run as a business, striving to make profit, but have safe guards to protect against the common man, Those whom do not contribute to society will not be left behind, but will not succeed until they walk on their own feet. Those whom are deemed disabled can either get a bureaucracy job if they're fit for it, and if not, can be given benefits in it's current form, ensuring it's enough to live comfortably on.
    Oh yes, and why not reopen the pits, get some mining hats and pick axes, and send the slackers down to do some real work as well?!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ron_trns)
    Having contracted as a software consultant I can tell you that's not usually the case. Generally such people are on a daily/hourly rate are making around or just under 6 figures. When they are making much lower (lets say 30k) the comparable tax is definietely less pro rata but earning (60k~+) the pro rata is more than the basic 20%. Much less than the PAYE equivalent of higher/40% tax payers but more than the basic.

    Also as an added point, generally the people doing this aren't rich, they are from a modest/poor background trying to make something for themselves. Generally the rich ones have "real" Ltds, operate from real business premises (not just their house/on site) and own a lot of capital. I personally don't begrudge these type of people at all and would encourage anyone doing so to try and find a way around the IR 35 rules implemented by the gov. It's not that hard.
    I can't argue with you because you clearly have experience that I personally don't have. Only thing I can say is that I have two relatives who are consultants with their own Ltd companies both hitting far in excess of the 6 figure salary you mentioned. Paying dividend instead of salary is a means of keeping their personal tax down to minimise the amount liable for higher rate tax while they top up their spendable income by paying dividends which incurs a lower rate of tax.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

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.