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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ye, and did you know 80%+ of that tax amount is a transfer from men to women. And the men get nothing in return.

    So basically the feminist state has become the woman's husband at the expense of the man who has been turned into a slave.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    Ye, and did you know 80%+ of that tax amount is a transfer from men to women. And the men get nothing in return.

    So basically the feminist state has become the woman's husband at the expense of the man who has been turned into a slave.
    Fascinating. Do tell us more.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    I'm going to backtrack a little and say a full-on laissez faire private healthcare system isn't entirely what I'm arguing for. Some government legislation is necessary - I humbly concede this.

    I'm not suggesting we allow people to practice medicine without a license or sell untested drugs. There should still be an element of consumer protection involved and laws that must be followed, just as they are in restaurants, with food, and with other products and services. What I am arguing for, however, is a system where people are offered inoculations, cosmetic surgery, acne medicine, dental braces, hair plugs, checkups, and so forth, at market prices. A system where people pay for these things as and when they need them, where they want them. Private surgeries can compete for patients and not charge the extortionate prices they can in the broken US system.

    And, like I've been saying, the government can pay for some of it. If you break your leg, for example, the government can pick up the bill. The government can then negotiate on prices with private healthcare providers and keep costs down for its citizens. The government can also legislate on the cost of certain medicines and medical products - this I am willing to admit is necessary to protect people. I understand that a lot of healthcare is inelastic in nature and won't necessarily work well in a free market environment. However, what I will continue to argue is the need to cut government spending on healthcare and give taxpayers more choice and flexibility when it comes to what they're paying for (and who they're paying for).

    Also consider how much more disposable income people will have when they're paying less tax and can choose where this goes (even if it's for healthcare). About a fifth of the tax you pay goes to the NHS.

    Freer market healthcare in some areas, more regulated market healthcare in others, and the taxpayer makes sure people don't go bankrupt if they get cancer (although don't underestimate the power of voluntary charity, either).

    Also, you've cited the privatisation of the rail service and claimed that prices increased because of it. That's not exactly true. See post 235.
    Without going in to your post's numerous points, I just want to highlight one thing.

    Everything you have said, could be achieved within the NHS, by reforming aspects of it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    That's what Thatcher attempted to introduce (the Poll tax). It ended her political career

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No. The Community Charge (nicknamed "poll tax") was an unpopular local government replacement for rates which assessed the flat-rate payment due on the basis of the number of adults living in a property. It was replaced by the current system, the Council Tax, after only three years. It has nothing to do with an income tax and was not assessed as a percentage of income.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    The top 1% of earners in the UK pay 27.7% of all income tax receipts - fun fact for those who claim the rich "don't pay their fair share".
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    I'm going to backtrack a little and say a full-on laissez faire private healthcare system isn't entirely what I'm arguing for. Some government legislation is necessary - I humbly concede this.

    I'm not suggesting we allow people to practice medicine without a license or sell untested drugs. There should still be an element of consumer protection involved and laws that must be followed, just as they are in restaurants, with food, and with other products and services. What I am arguing for, however, is a system where people are offered inoculations, cosmetic surgery, acne medicine, dental braces, hair plugs, checkups, and so forth, at market prices. A system where people pay for these things as and when they need them, where they want them. Private surgeries can compete for patients and not charge the extortionate prices they can in the broken US system.

    And, like I've been saying, the government can pay for some of it. If you break your leg, for example, the government can pick up the bill. The government can then negotiate on prices with private healthcare providers and keep costs down for its citizens. The government can also legislate on the cost of certain medicines and medical products - this I am willing to admit is necessary to protect people. I understand that a lot of healthcare is inelastic in nature and won't necessarily work well in a free market environment. However, what I will continue to argue is the need to cut government spending on healthcare and give taxpayers more choice and flexibility when it comes to what they're paying for (and who they're paying for).

    Also consider how much more disposable income people will have when they're paying less tax and can choose where this goes (even if it's for healthcare). About a fifth of the tax you pay goes to the NHS.

    Freer market healthcare in some areas, more regulated market healthcare in others, and the taxpayer makes sure people don't go bankrupt if they get cancer (although don't underestimate the power of voluntary charity, either).

    Also, you've cited the privatisation of the rail service and claimed that prices increased because of it. That's not exactly true. See post 235.
    You seem to be putting ideology ahead of evidence. I am not against the private sector and I accept that for some things, such as food and electronics in which it can bring the price down and quality up for the consumer, the private sector performs better than the state could.

    However, this simply is not the case for healthcare. You say that we spend too much on the NHS and need to cut costs however, as a proportion of our GDP we pay just over half of what America does for healthcare and we have a far more accessible, higher quality service. The American private system cost far more, not far less, with far more waste, inefficiency and lower quality.


    Healthcare, as you mention is far too inelastic. Again, if you buy a dodgy computer, or untasty food you haven't lost much, except in extreme circumstances. If you have dodgy treatment the consequences can be fatal. Healthcare requires huge amounts of regulating, such as licensing doctors, ensuring medicine has been tested, ensuring treatment is of the required standard etc. It is unsuitable for the free market, as you are starting to admit. We don't want companies trying to undercut each other and cutting corners to make profit. It is necessarily expensive, but worth it economically.

    You're argument against the American system was that it was too regulated, yet now you are arguing that we would still need caps on the cost of entrapment, which goes entirely against the principles of the free market.

    I can also see you have used the libertarian lingo. Especially when you talk about 'choice'. The reality is, people would prefer to be given high quality cancer treatment, free at the point of use rather than be given the 'choice' of paying hundreds of thousands for different providers. I'd certainly rather have free at the point of use treatment as opposed to two choices, both of which would bankrupt me. And you cannot afford to perform cancer treatment on the cheap, it's incredibly expensive. The free market approach simply doesn't work.

    You've said that the voluntary sector would step up and that's another wonderful libertarian myth. Anything the voluntary sector contributes is a bonus, it does not have the resources or expertise to make up for a lack of government funding. Besides, libertarian seem to argue that we shouldn't be taxed because we are selfish, yet we will all give to charity because we are generous.

    People won't have more disposable income if we don't have an NHS. Again, I have shown to you that private health services cost a country more, not less than nationalized ones. The NHS is expensive but it's a huge fiscal multiplier. Health is the most important thing to anyone. Having an NHS which keeps the nation healthy, increases economic productivity massively.

    The problem (among many others) among libertarians is that they are so short-termist. They always seem to oppose tax in the short term even when it saves us huge amounts and contributes to economic growth in the long term.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joddcfc)
    The top 1% of earners in the UK pay 27.7% of all income tax receipts - fun fact for those who claim the rich "don't pay their fair share".
    They earn far more than that though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They earn far more than that though.
    Yeah but they use the least government services, too.

    If the top 1% only paid for the infrastructure they actually used - the police, the army, fire services and roads, their tax would be about 17%, compared the the 27.7% that they currently pay, assuming only they use the infrastructure, defence and the police.

    The rest is pure theft.

    Realistically, they only use 5% of government services, at most.

    No wonder they try so hard to lobby the government for tax breaks and corporate welfare. It's just sickening how much they're robbed.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joddcfc)
    The top 1% of earners in the UK pay 27.7% of all income tax receipts - fun fact for those who claim the rich "don't pay their fair share".
    You are being disingenuous. Income tax is only 26% of government revenue. The government gains much more from VAT, national insurance, etc. This is why the bottom 10% of households pay 43% of their income in tax when the top 10% pay only 35%.

    (Original post by 41b)
    Yeah but they use the least government services, too.If the top 1% only paid for the infrastructure they actually used - the police, the army, fire services and roads, their tax would be about 17%, compared the the 27.7% that they currently pay, assuming only they use the infrastructure, defence and the police.The rest is pure theft.Realistically, they only use 5% of government services, at most.No wonder they try so hard to lobby the government for tax breaks and corporate welfare. It's just sickening how much they're robbed.
    Why should the rich be able to pump money out of a society but not contribute back to maintain it? The rich were not self made, they have many "little people" under them who don't take a fair proportion of what they make the rich, and the wealth floats upwards. They already pay a lower % of their income in taxes than the poor do.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    Yeah but they use the least government services, too.

    If the top 1% only paid for the infrastructure they actually used - the police, the army, fire services and roads, their tax would be about 17%, compared the the 27.7% that they currently pay, assuming only they use the infrastructure, defence and the police.

    The rest is pure theft.

    Realistically, they only use 5% of government services, at most.

    No wonder they try so hard to lobby the government for tax breaks and corporate welfare. It's just sickening how much they're robbed.
    You are pulling these figures out of thin air.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fred5134)
    You are being disingenuous. Income tax is only 26% of government revenue. The government gains much more from VAT, national insurance, etc. This is why the bottom 10% of households pay 43% of their income in tax when the top 10% pay only 35%.
    The bottom 10% also get much more back from the government than they pay in tax. And the 1% get sweet fa.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You are pulling these figures out of thin air.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Here you go

    [img]
    https://i.imgur.com/dcHR1om.gif[/img]
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    The bottom 10% also get much more back from the government than they pay in tax. And the 1% get sweet fa.
    You try being rich in a poor country with no police force. At some point, your hired guns can't/won't help you any more.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    You try being rich in a poor country with no police force. At some point, your hired guns can't/won't help you any more.
    Yeah no. If you're rich in a poor country, you become the government and the poor people there, who actually know what being poor is about and aren't ungrateful socialists, treat you with respect and don't expect that your wealth should be confiscated so they can sit at home and bum around.

    Not saying that the UK's path to industrialisation was just or fair, because the enclosure acts basically forced the ancestors of today's millions of people to go to the cities and die a horrible death after living in squalor and pollution, but the answer to that isn't to tax professionals and business owners in perpetuity at confiscatory rates but to take the land back from aristocrats and give it back to those who were robbed. UK records are much better than most parts of the world, so it may even be practically possible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    Yeah no. If you're rich in a poor country, you become the government and the poor people there, who actually know what being poor is about and aren't ungrateful socialists, treat you with respect and don't expect that your wealth should be confiscated so they can sit at home and bum around.

    Not saying that the UK's path to industrialisation was just or fair, because the enclosure acts basically forced the ancestors of today's millions of people to go to the cities and die a horrible death after living in squalor and pollution, but the answer to that isn't to tax professionals and business owners in perpetuity at confiscatory rates but to take the land back from aristocrats and give it back to those who were robbed. UK records are much better than most parts of the world, so it may even be practically possible.
    :eek:

    Loooool
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    Yeah but they use the least government services, too.

    If the top 1% only paid for the infrastructure they actually used - the police, the army, fire services and roads, their tax would be about 17%, compared the the 27.7% that they currently pay, assuming only they use the infrastructure, defence and the police.

    The rest is pure theft.

    Realistically, they only use 5% of government services, at most.

    No wonder they try so hard to lobby the government for tax breaks and corporate welfare. It's just sickening how much they're robbed.
    Do they use the least government services? Anyone who works full time, has no children, has no specific medical conditions or regular contact with government agencies actually uses very little government money (beyond local authority spending on road, lighting, bins - which everyone uses). I can't think of every single thing I've used in the past year, but the only one I can think of is visiting the doctor once last year and the walk in centre last weekend. Do I get a tax cut too?

    If you charged proportionally for what they used, hundreds of thousands of people would be destitute, homeless and eventually dead. Childcare and associated benefits are a ruinous expense - school, child health care and all associated services for young families are probably by far and away the most expensive aspect of government spending.

    What is your solution? What actually happens when you slash 10/20/30% off their tax bill? Until you can answer that question and accept all the consequences that brings, you can't really argue against the current situation.

    Your argument suggests you sit in a position that the top 1% 'deserve' their enormous wealth. In one sense, they deserve it because they earned it, I can sympathise. Capitalism lets you earn your money, whatever amount that is and to then have people come along and carve out a chunk of it for things you don't need, want or like is unfair and a bit of a slap. But this money isn't made in isolation, this person isn't a solo worker who made their millions without the input of any other people (and in many cases, it can be argued that their success relies on the people below them); does this person 'deserve' all that money purely because they are at the top and be dammed to anyone else, even their own employees?

    Do you 'deserve' to make as much money as you can from society and have no obligation to help fund its development? Yes, the contribution is significantly more than the average person's, but those average people are the customers and employees that enabled you to become significantly richer than they are. Plus, we live in a society and a society has rules, that on the whole are made by the majority - one of these rules is that if you're getting nice and rich, then you're going to contribute more. You are not entitled to become rich without any conditions. Capitalism is our economic model, it could just as easily be state owned factories.

    Lastly, giving to the people who are less fortunate than you is a nice thing to do. They clearly need help and you clearly have more than enough money. If you care about anyone other than yourself and immediate family then what's the problem?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fred5134)
    You are being disingenuous. Income tax is only 26% of government revenue. The government gains much more from VAT, national insurance, etc. This is why the bottom 10% of households pay 43% of their income in tax when the top 10% pay only 35%.


    Why should the rich be able to pump money out of a society but not contribute back to maintain it? The rich were not self made, they have many "little people" under them who don't take a fair proportion of what they make the rich, and the wealth floats upwards. They already pay a lower % of their income in taxes than the poor do.
    They should be able to contribute IF THEY WANT. As long as what they earned was fairly earned, that is, not theft or cheating, or the result of government corruption (which a hell of a lot of it is), it should be their choice what to do with the money.

    Forcing them to contribute is actually stealing.

    Furthermore, the super rich (the top 0.01%) don't actually pay any taxes and they are the ones who actually influence government policy the most. They are the biggest ones pushing for socialism because the top 20% of society are usually the ones who fight the hardest to stop the state turning everyone into a tax slave who pays "his fair share" and dies on time at 65 from polluted water and degraded food like a good little citizen.

    You know who funded the USSR and Communist China? The Rockerfellers and Rothchilds and other uber-elites. Socialism is actually a tool used by the uber rich to destroy the middle class and therefore control society, because the poor never have the resources to fight back.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Sinnie_)
    Do they use the least government services? Anyone who works full time, has no children, has no specific medical conditions or regular contact with government agencies actually uses very little government money (beyond local authority spending on road, lighting, bins - which everyone uses). I can't think of every single thing I've used in the past year, but the only one I can think of is visiting the doctor once last year and the walk in centre last weekend. Do I get a tax cut too?

    If you charged proportionally for what they used, hundreds of thousands of people would be destitute, homeless and eventually dead. Childcare and associated benefits are a ruinous expense - school, child health care and all associated services for young families are probably by far and away the most expensive aspect of government spending.
    Raise your own children, and stay at home if you can't afford childcare. It's a much better way to raise your kids. If taxes went down and women went home from the workforce, economic growth would increase and most people would be able to live on a single earner income. Twice as many people in the workforce = half the wage -> single earner households become impossible. Twice as many people in the workforce = twice the number of households, twice the money wasted on accomodation and balls and therefore half the money available for starting businesses. The two worker household is a disaster for men, women and children, and the economy in general. It is great for big corporations and the super rich, who can pay half the wage; and the government, who can tax twice the people. Feminism was created by the uber-rich for this purpose. Look up the history of funding to the movement.

    Your argument suggests you sit in a position that the top 1% 'deserve' their enormous wealth. In one sense, they deserve it because they earned it, I can sympathise. Capitalism lets you earn your money, whatever amount that is and to then have people come along and carve out a chunk of it for things you don't need, want or like is unfair and a bit of a slap. But this money isn't made in isolation, this person isn't a solo worker who made their millions without the input of any other people (and in many cases, it can be argued that their success relies on the people below them); does this person 'deserve' all that money purely because they are at the top and be dammed to anyone else, even their own employees?
    They paid their employees. If their employees felt they deserved more, they should have asked for more. There are decent unions in this country so collective bargaining is possible. In the current UK context, employers owe their employees nothing, especially with the ripoff minimum wage which basically crushes small businesses (ie the middle class) and benefits big corporations, by destroying their competition (small businesses).

    Do you 'deserve' to make as much money as you can from society and have no obligation to help fund its development? Yes, the contribution is significantly more than the average person's, but those average people are the customers and employees that enabled you to become significantly richer than they are. Plus, we live in a society and a society has rules, that on the whole are made by the majority - one of these rules is that if you're getting nice and rich, then you're going to contribute more. You are not entitled to become rich without any conditions. Capitalism is our economic model, it could just as easily be state owned factories.
    You have a moral, spiritual and religious obligation to your People and Country. If you own farmland, you are a nobleman and you should send your children to the army. If you're a capitalist, you should give money to charity and to the poor and to the state when required (like during times of war). If you're a middle class professional, you should volunteer in your free time.

    These are things people should do of their own accord - not be forced to do at the threat of force.

    Lastly, giving to the people who are less fortunate than you is a nice thing to do. They clearly need help and you clearly have more than enough money. If you care about anyone other than yourself and immediate family then what's the problem?
    Good. Give them money. Voluntarily. Without something threatening you with jail time if you don't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The UK is so overrated lol
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    Raise your own children, and stay at home if you can't afford childcare. It's a much better way to raise your kids. If taxes went down and women went home from the workforce, economic growth would increase and most people would be able to live on a single earner income. Twice as many people in the workforce = half the wage -> single earner households become impossible. Twice as many people in the workforce = twice the number of households, twice the money wasted on accomodation and balls and therefore half the money available for starting businesses. The two worker household is a disaster for men, women and children, and the economy in general. It is great for big corporations and the super rich, who can pay half the wage; and the government, who can tax twice the people. Feminism was created by the uber-rich for this purpose. Look up the history of funding to the movement.
    I'm not just talking about childcare. Your argument was that the top earners use fewer services and shouldn't be made to pay for them. So, if the people who use them, pay for them then a family pays for:
    - Maternity services
    - Child health checks
    - Immunisations
    - GP's (kids use the GP, a lot)
    - Hospital
    - Child care
    - State schooling
    That is tens of thousands of pounds, per child.

    Does that sound like a good idea to you? If not, then where does the money come from to pay for it?

    Why should women be the ones to leave the workforce? Plus your numbers are just bunk, you don't just double one side and halve the other.

    (Original post by 41b)
    They paid their employees. If their employees felt they deserved more, they should have asked for more. There are decent unions in this country so collective bargaining is possible. In the current UK context, employers owe their employees nothing, especially with the ripoff minimum wage which basically crushes small businesses (ie the middle class) and benefits big corporations, by destroying their competition (small businesses).
    What should the unions push for? Every employee, from the bottom to the CEO to get an equal share, in proportion to their contribution, of the profits made? The idea that employees can just ask for a higher wage is ludicrous. Are you arguing that the minimum wage is too high? I'm genuinely confused what you're arguing for here.

    The reality is, the money flows to the top. Society expects some of it to flow back down again.

    (Original post by 41b)
    You have a moral, spiritual and religious obligation to your People and Country. If you own farmland, you are a nobleman and you should send your children to the army. If you're a capitalist, you should give money to charity and to the poor and to the state when required (like during times of war). If you're a middle class professional, you should volunteer in your free time.

    These are things people should do of their own accord - not be forced to do at the threat of force.

    Good. Give them money. Voluntarily. Without something threatening you with jail time if you don't.
    Along with your previous post, are you actually suggesting people should only pay the tax that they want to? Because that would apply to everyone. You would bankrupt the country in a day.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.