Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iam_smithers)
    Then you work for it. Is that really so hard to understand?
    And how are you supposed to work for it if you don't have welfare and support for times of need. I was homeless and in poor health at 16.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iam_smithers)
    All non-voluntary taxation, which is to say everything bar voluntary NICs, is theft so long as it is genuinely non-voluntary and non payment can lead to imprisonment or other legal punishment, or it cannot otherwise be avoided (e.g. VAT). As to welfare, that is 15% too much (assuming it is even 15% - I would assume you don't include the NHS and the public education system under the banner of the "welfare state", but really its just semantics and doesn't change the fundamentals of my argument). To quote Robert Nozick, "taxation of earnings from labour is on a par with forced labour". Taxation makes all individuals slaves of the state, and moreover slaves of those who receive the money that is taken in taxation, whether that money be spent on pensions, education or healthcare.
    So where does the money that gets taxed come from? Originally?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iam_smithers)
    If you want a decent pension then pay for it your damn self. If you want healthcare, pay for it your damn self. If you want education, pay for it you damn self. All persons enjoy the right to life, but that does not include a right to the resources needed to live, for others already have claims on those resources and their right in justice is a stronger claim to property than another's need, which grounds no claim to property at all. Certainly, a personal inability to gain the resources needed to live does not ground the right to use the coercive power of the state to extract them by means of extortion from those who have made a success of themselves and their lives.
    I'm sure the world would be in a great state if most people couldn't afford education :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iam_smithers)
    Your sob story doesn't give you a right to other people's money, or to have the state steal it from them for you. As for stealing it from me directly, that's precisely what voluntary protective associations would be there to prevent. That and my inevitably rather splendid gun collection which I'd be able to own if it weren't for our stupid gun laws.
    Well actually it does, as that's precisely the reason why we have a welfare state and a health service and a state education system, regardless of how much it may upset far right nut jobs such as yourself.

    You and your gun wouldn't be much use against the starving matches, neither would your tiny neighbourhood watch group.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    And how are you supposed to work for it if you don't have welfare and support for times of need. I was homeless and in poor health at 16.
    So what?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iam_smithers)
    So what?
    So, if the support isn't there how are you supposed to 'work for it' when you have nothing?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    I don't think that they should. They work hard for what they've worked for (most anyway). Therefore, taking about 40%+ in taxes away from them and the other deductions isn't fair at all. :/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    So, if the support isn't there how are you supposed to 'work for it' when you have nothing?
    Not my problem.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iam_smithers)
    Not my problem.
    Yes it is. I'm worth considerably more than your daddy now and pay a lot into the economy. That money just wouldn't be there.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iam_smithers)
    Not my problem.
    Well it is, because when the majority of the population is impoverished, uneducated and ill the economy falls apart. Then mummy and daddies money isn't worth anything anymore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Well actually it does, as that's precisely the reason why we have a welfare state and a health service and a state education system, regardless of how much it may upset far right nut jobs such as yourself.

    You and your gun wouldn't be much use against the starving matches, neither would your tiny neighbourhood watch group.
    Your temporary difficulties do not justify a permanent infringement of another's liberty, which occurs when you ask the state to tax them out of their money to meet the cost of those temporary difficulties. That is not to downplay voluntary private charity, but it is merely to draw the line in the appropriate place. You can have what I am willing to voluntarily give up to you and nothing more than that. I will never live for the sake of another, and I will never ask another to live for me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Well it is, because when the majority of the population is impoverished, uneducated and ill the economy falls apart. Then mummy and daddies money isn't worth anything anymore.
    My parents aren't wealthy by any stretch of the imagination (but don't claim anything from the state), and I've earnt all my money, so I don't see what you're getting at here if you're trying to impose some sort of nonsense social class on me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Tax on the wealthy more.Maybe not in percentage wise (45% is a very acceptable rate when you consider they have millions, and sometimes billions) tho. There needs to be more of an iron fist around business. How does Google and Amazon get away with not paying literally millions in tax.

    Spend less on military and bankers. Spend money on health, housing and education plus infrastructure.

    Its really is that simple yet we still live in a world where bankers are getting paid millions in bonuses and pensions for messing up the economy while people who were affected by their greed are being made work for their welfare, some times only for £50 p/w. But thats the capitalism and democratic( not in its purist form) system for ya...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iam_smithers)
    Your temporary difficulties do not justify a permanent infringement of another's liberty, which occurs when you ask the state to tax them out of their money to meet the cost of those temporary difficulties. That is not to downplay voluntary private charity, but it is merely to draw the line in the appropriate place. You can have what I am willing to voluntarily give up to you and nothing more than that. I will never live for the sake of another, and I will never ask another to live for me.
    Except we don't live in your unworkable little dream so you will likely spend all your life doing exactly that unless you go and live in a cave somewhere or something.

    (Original post by iam_smithers)
    My parents aren't wealthy by any stretch of the imagination (but don't claim anything from the state), and I've earnt all my money, so I don't see what you're getting at here if you're trying to impose some sort of nonsense social class on me.

    Well if your parents aren't wealthy then you were almost certainly educated on money stolen from people, you were almost certainly born in a hospital paid for by stolen money, you were almost certainly kept healthy by a health system ran on stolen money and so on and so forth. So much for never asking another to live for you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madeline_H95)
    Examples would be council tax. Is it fair to tax wealthy, larger home owners more when they use the same services? Is a mansion tax fair just because someone has a larger house? Is higher income tax fair jsut because someone earns more?
    No, because tax is already high enough and the wealthy don't use most public services.

    45% base rate plus national insurance plus VAT (higher for wealthy people because they purchase more expensive items), plus stamp duty (again higher because more expensive houses) plus private healthcare and education (again because they don't use what the state provides so are effectively taxed twice per child) plus capital gains tax and other investment taxes (again higher because of more money).

    If that seriously isn't enough tax, then you might as well take everything if you're going to remove the incentive that much so it isn't fair.

    I also think the word 'wealthy' needs to be redefined. If you're on 40k a year, you reach one of the higher tax brackets but are far from anything remotely wealthy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Except we don't live in your unworkable little dream so you will likely spend all your life doing exactly that unless you go and live in a cave somewhere or something.




    Well if your parents aren't wealthy then you were almost certainly educated on money stolen from people, you were almost certainly born in a hospital paid for by stolen money, you were almost certainly kept healthy by a health system ran on stolen money and so on and so forth. So much for never asking another to live for you.
    I was home educated, and I pay all of my tuition fees myself. I have no idea where I was born, or if it was indeed in a hospital, so I really can't answer you on that one. All I can say is that I cannot be blamed if the current system has made a thief of me (I never asked for a public health service), and the best I can do is to try and prevent it from making thieves of everyone else, from everyone else (except those who cannot be bothered to actually work for their living and are content to allow everyone else to pay their way, and those who excuse themselves on the basis of some sorry sob story). If it were possible to make repayment of any money that I have cost the taxpayer without it going to fund the welfare of others, I would. But it isn't.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iam_smithers)
    I was home educated, and I pay all of my tuition fees myself. I have no idea where I was born, or if it was indeed in a hospital, so I really can't answer you on that one. All I can say is that I cannot be blamed if the current system has made a thief of me (I never asked for a public health service), and the best I can do is to try and prevent it from making thieves of everyone else, from everyone else (except those who cannot be bothered to actually work for their living and are content to allow everyone else to pay their way, and those who excuse themselves on the basis of some sorry sob story). If it were possible to make repayment of any money that I have cost the taxpayer without it going to fund the welfare of others, I would. But it isn't.
    So you lived at Preston College? A likely story.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    I don't think that they should. They work hard for what they've worked for (most anyway). Therefore, taking about 40%+ in taxes away from them and the other deductions isn't fair at all. :/
    There are companies where the boss earns 1000x a year more than their lowest paid employee. I sincerely doubt they work 1000x harder.

    Even in a capitalist society there is no reason why any one needs to earn 10 times more than anyone else.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    There are companies where the boss earns 1000x a year more than their lowest paid employee. I sincerely doubt they work 1000x harder.

    Even in a capitalist society there is no reason why any one needs to earn 10 times more than anyone else.
    No, but they've probably worked hundreds of times harder over their life to get there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by will2348)
    No, but they've probably worked hundreds of times harder over their life to get there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    The hardest working people don't automatically get the highest paying jobs, that's not the way the world works.

    If pay is allocated by value of work done coupled with difficulty (and let's add a dash of basic fairness) then no-one needs to earn 10 times more than anyone else. Anything more is plain greed.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.