Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Tell that to somebody stranded

    Creators can exist without society, society cannot exist without creators.

    Posted from TSR Mobile


    No they can't. No solitary individual can become wealthy. Maybe you could somehow manage to eke out a measly manner of existence by eating berries on a remote desert island but you won't create anything.

    Tbh, I think we might be veering ever so slightly off-topic. I think its safe to say that neither of us are going to convince the other and this is rather repetitive. What we've determined is that it boils down to two fundamentally opposed views on the human condition - and you're one of the last people I'd try to convert.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Well I got confused but why should I pay for simply giving someone something? Would it count if I do it before I croak? :teehee:
    It's been a long day... and I actually agree this time!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    lol, get the **** outta here
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    Aye, never thought I'd say these words, but 'well done, Nigel!'
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    An emphatic nay.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Funnily enough, they can singularly too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nobody in the 21st century creates a single thing singularly. They all build upon social knowledge; nobody can thus claim desert of the entire result of their actions.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Ideologically I support a fairly high LVT and if such a system was in place, other than abolishing VAT and reducing income tax, I would also support the abolition of inheritance tax because the wealthy would have their wealth taxed throughout their lifetime so there's no need to tax them upon their death (which is very difficult to do anyway which is why the income from it is so low). Unfortunately Jammy and Nigel scrapped the LVT last term instead of amending it, so whatever I guess it's a Nay from me.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Probably an aye! Screw the stuff about you shouldn't be being able to get it just because you didn't earn it. If someone knows you well enough that they want to leave their stuff to you, and they've done well enough to get that amount, then why shouldn't they be able to pass it all onto you...
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Probably an aye! Screw the stuff about you shouldn't be being able to get it just because you didn't earn it. If someone knows you well enough that they want to leave their stuff to you, and they've done well enough to get that amount, then why shouldn't they be able to pass it all onto you...
    Because if the person is wealthy, it gives you an unfair advantage over someone who doesn't happen to know a wealthy person well enough to be left all their money.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    How will you be recouping the £4.5bn cost of this? By cutting even more services?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Because if the person is wealthy, it gives you an unfair advantage over someone who doesn't happen to know a wealthy person well enough to be left all their money.
    And why the hell should the wealthy person be punished for that...

    That's like wanting to commit suicide and blowing up a shopping centre to do that. Just because you don't have what you want, doesn't mean you should take everyone else down with you.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    The tax should be based on the person receiving the wealth, not that who has passed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Because if the person is wealthy, it gives you an unfair advantage over someone who doesn't happen to know a wealthy person well enough to be left all their money.
    Okay… So considering that almost two million people in the UK live with sight loss but you can see, it gives you an ‘unfair advantage’ over them and you should poke your eyes out.

    Also, you happen to reside in the UK which is the result of the same kind of lottery as being born into a wealthy family—in fact, you're probably quite wealthy compared to some Somalians so for the sake of ‘fairness’ we should ship you off to Somalia and bring one of them over here instead.

    Where the **** are you getting these ridiculous beliefs? :confused:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The ridiculous part of the 'bringing the rich down' argument invoked here is that any tax revenue makes everyone in the UK better off. Saying tax pulls the rich down rather than the poor up is a flat-out lie, designed to support selfish political positions.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. People have worked all their lives in most cases to earn this money, so if they desire they can leave it to relatives when they are no longer around- not giving it all away to the state!
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    Nay. I fundamentally believe in the equality of opportunity and the redistribution of wealth means a step towards equality of opportunity.

    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    The tax should be based on the person receiving the wealth, not that who has passed.
    I agree with this too actually.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The ridiculous part of the 'bringing the rich down' argument invoked here is that any tax revenue makes everyone in the UK better off. Saying tax pulls the rich down rather than the poor up is a flat-out lie, designed to support selfish political positions.
    That's ******** since taxes are proportional and so the state takes a lot more from the rich than the poor.

    In reality, the political executive exploit the middle class to support the working class and the inept while shielding the elite from the rest and using the predominant working class to reaffirm their mandate through appealing to emotion and social benefits created at the expense of the middle/upper-middle class.

    It all comes down to the fact that the average Joe leaves a couple hundred pounds in his mattress and an old East London flat at best, the smart and diligent chief executive who's been working hard throughout his life leaves a Central London flat, a holiday cottage, and considerable investments, and the entrepreneur multiple homes, companies, cars, estates, etc.

    The first one contributes next to nothing, the second is forced to pay a lot more even though he's been paying hefty sums throughout his life, and the last one avoids all of it thanks to a pack of sleazy lawyers anyway (and if he doesn't, the state takes more than the average Joe made throughout his whole life).

    How the **** is that fair?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    That's ******** since taxes are proportional and so the state takes a lot more from the rich than the poor.

    In reality, the political executive exploit the middle class to support the working class and the inept while shielding the elite from the rest and using the predominant working class to reaffirm their mandate through appealing to emotion and social benefits created at the expense of the middle/upper-middle class.

    It all comes down to the fact that the average Joe leaves a couple hundred pounds in his mattress and an old East London flat at best, the smart and diligent chief executive who's been working hard throughout his life leaves a Central London flat, a holiday cottage, and considerable investments, and the entrepreneur multiple homes, companies, cars, estates, etc.

    The first one contributes next to nothing, the second is forced to pay a lot more even though he's been paying hefty sums throughout his life, and the last one avoids all of it thanks to a pack of sleazy lawyers anyway (and if he doesn't, the state takes more than the average Joe made throughout his whole life).

    How the **** is that fair?
    It's fair because the Chief Exec hasn't developed any greater desert to the property in question than anyone else - in the absence of this desert, the question of to whom the state should permit it to exist for the benefit of becomes 'who needs it most'?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It's fair because the Chief Exec hasn't developed any greater desert to the property in question than anyone else - in the absence of this desert, the question of to whom the state should permit it to exist for the benefit of becomes 'who needs it most'?
    How come? He earned it. :confused:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    How come? He earned it. :confused:
    Nah, he didn't. He received it due to existing legal and social structures. Naturally, these structures cannot in themselves be an argument against changing said structures, or indeed one in favour of changing them.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 19, 2016
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.