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

The Stealth Cuts Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    When the fruits of labour are unjustly priced then the state should step in and say "wait a minute, the 5th Ferrari can wait"
    They are priced based on demand. If somebody invents something that is of great benefit and therefore demand by society, why should he not then reap the rewards? He has provided society with a new and obviously popular device, and thereby he is rich. A sort of democracy with thy wallet.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    They are priced based on demand. If somebody invents something that is of great benefit and therefore demand by society, why should he not then reap the rewards? He has provided society with a new and obviously popular device, and thereby he is rich. A sort of democracy with thy wallet.
    Many are not so fortunate, price should not be based on demand but rather value.
    People can only benefit from a society that maintains a structure of some equality otherwise, many would revolt.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    rather value.
    So food and clothes should be more expensive than TVs?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Many are not so fortunate, price should not be based on demand but rather value.
    People can only benefit from a society that maintains a structure of some equality otherwise, many would revolt.
    If, and it's a big if, that were even true, why are you here advocating some people pay 20% tax while others pay 40% while still others should pay 50%? I'm struggling to see what's equitable about that at all.

    And whats all this dribble about "price should be based on value". How do you think anything is priced? Everything is priced based on a "value". Unless you're talking about pricing everything based on it's "true cost" thereby eliminating "profit"...but that would be a pretty silly idea wouldn't it?

    I noticed you've mentioned other buzzwords like "redistribution" and "state intervention". This is sensible to a point (i'm thinking here about "free" education and healthcare) but I get the impression you want to take it to some soviet style extreme. Worked a treat for them when they tried it, i'm sure you'll agree.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Many are not so fortunate, price should not be based on demand but rather value.
    People can only benefit from a society that maintains a structure of some equality otherwise, many would revolt.
    ]
    Who determines value then hmm? See this is the problem I have with socialism, it always ends up as a subjectively based ideology. I agree the weakest in society must be looked after, but only the ones WHO CAN'T help themselves and it is a physical problem, not a motivational one...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    And who is to say someone earning £100k or £200k is wealthy? They're only wealthy if they have more sense than the guy earning £15k. In most cases this simply isn't true.

    If you go and inspect the finances of a lot of people you seem to class as "rich" you'd see they're probably more indebted or stupid with their money than someone you think is poor. Thus by taxing them more you're really doing little to solve anything. It's easy to pick on a small group who you think are rich but it's an ill thought out misadventure. Fact is most people are thick when it comes to finances and money and a lot of people, regardless of what they earn on paper, don't have 2p to rub together.

    The biggest problem with this so called "progressive" tax is that there is simply nothing progressive about it. If you want to encourage economic literacy, innovation and aspiration the very last you thing you ought to do is tax people more as they earn more. That simply says to people - as you save more, earn more, invest more, you deserve to see LESS of it in return. What a sham. Then you end up with more people fiddling the system and paying LESS anyway. Double sham.

    It's a common left wing labouresque tactic to revert to picking on "the rich" when in reality genuinely rich people are relatively rare and when you "pick" on them, they simply fiddle out of it and you lose anyway.

    Have a flat rate for everyone. a) it's simple. b) it's harder to scam around it. c) when you earn more you get to keep the same proportion of it.

    And how about actually teaching people how to be sensible with money when they're growing up. Did you think to suggest this? How many hours did each of us spend learning about pythagoras theorem, reading some guff shakespeare play or cutting up a pigs heart to see what it looked like? Then think about how many hours were spent teaching people about investments, savings, how interest and compound interest works, how to buy a property or lease it. Is it any wonder people are complete clowns when it comes to money?

    But never worry...take your approach. You have it all worked out and have the bullseye attached firmly to the right targets. It's all the fault of the banks and the "rich" and they should therefore pay for it! If you take that approach and don't fix the actual faults in the system or in education you'll be back in another 15 or 20 years in the exact same position with the same tired "solutions" being bleated out.

    Idiot.
    I think you have misunderstood my trail of thought. I believe in a re-distributive tax for the exceedingly wealthy(750,000+). Bankers earn a lot more than leading doctors! have you ever took that into consideration when you stated your "knowledge = wealth" clause. Hard work should be rewarded but not extortionately. I think the solution for cutting the deficit is to do so in a wide range of areas and not to hinder the most vunerable.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    I think you have misunderstood my trail of thought. I believe in a re-distributive tax for the exceedingly wealthy(750,000+). Bankers earn a lot more than leading doctors! have you ever took that into consideration when you stated your "knowledge = wealth" clause. Hard work should be rewarded but not extortionately. I solution for cutting the deficit is to do so in a wide range of areas and not to hinder the most vunerable.
    Why are you penalising the working class who want to see their entertainers well paid?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    You do realise that it was the Banks that caused the recession?
    You realise punishing them to harshly will cause them to leave and send us spiralling into a far worse one?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    ]
    Who determines value then hmm? See this is the problem I have with socialism, it always ends up as a subjectively based ideology. I agree the weakest in society must be looked after, but only the ones WHO CAN'T help themselves and it is a physical problem, not a motivational one...
    Well clearly your earnings establish value which in turn establishes your level of taxation. Often the weakest are those struggling with emotional circumstances or come from poor family where many would suggest that intelligence is not always binded with wealth.

    (Original post by Aj12)
    You realise punishing them to harshly will cause them to leave and send us spiralling into a far worse one?
    I didn't say too harshly, I implied fairly!
    By decreasing bonuses and greater regulation is a step towards a fairer society.
    They should be penalised for the mess they contributed to for the recession, it is the British taxpayer who are baring most of the brunt.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    This has turned into a Q&A session.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Well clearly your earnings establish value which in turn establishes your level of taxation. Often the weakest are those struggling with emotional circumstances or come from poor family where many would suggest that intelligence is not always binded with wealth.



    I didn't say too harshly, I implied fairly!
    By decreasing bonuses and greater regulation is a step towards a fairer society.
    They should be penalised for the mess they contributed to for the recession, it is the British taxpayer who are baring most of the brunt.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    This has turned into a Q&A session.
    Yeah Ed Miliband talks about fairness when he argues for the 50% percent tax rate despite the fact that his own party wants to scrap it as it will reduce tax revenue and cost Labour votes.

    What right is it of the governmen to regulate the bonuses of a private compnay. I can understand in the case of the banks that took the bailouts but not all of them did.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Yeah Ed Miliband talks about fairness when he argues for the 50% percent tax rate despite the fact that his own party wants to scrap it as it will reduce tax revenue and cost Labour votes.

    What right is it of the governmen to regulate the bonuses of a private compnay. I can understand in the case of the banks that took the bailouts but not all of them did.
    You may perfectly well talk about the criticisms with Labour but you haven't really defended any of the Conservative party's intentions to the cuts. The truth of the matter is that the Tories leave the minority Bankers and big corporations alone and let the hard-working taxpayer deal the deficit.

    It's hard to understand how you can be totally in favour of these cuts and have just disregarded alternatives.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    You may perfectly well talk about the criticisms with Labour but you haven't really defended any of the Conservative party's intentions to the cuts. The truth of the matter is that the Tories leave the minority Bankers and big corporations alone and let the hard-working taxpayer deal the deficit.

    It's hard to understand how you can be totally in favour of these cuts and have just regarded alternatives.
    As far as I can tell the Tories cuts turned out to be very close to what Labour was proposing just sooner. And judging by the news today about the economy the cuts seem to be doing their job.

    You must accept the need for at least some cuts

    The big corporations and the banks make up our economy, it does not make sense to punish them and still expect economic growth if these companies bugger off somewhere more friendly
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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