Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LemonSocks)
    Tax does not equate only to job-seekers allowance. What about schools, roads, NHS, etc? What is wrong with the 'rich' making a larger contribution to their community?

    And even when it comes to Job-seekers, the percentage of people that actually want a job but are unable to find one is much higher than the Daily Mail or Jeremy Kyle would have you believe. Would you rather those that are actively looking for work do so on the streets scrounging what food they can rather than you making a small contribution towards living costs for them? I'm not sure how people can honestly value a 4th car or second home over another persons life/well being.

    Well on your first point, why should the rich pay more than any other person in contribution to a community? Especially when they worked harder than those in the community to get that money, why should they be forced to redistribute it among those who didn't. If you support communist ideals, come out and say it, but otherwise, you'll have to accept that there is absolutely no sound reason for it, only a percieved notion of fairness which is false. They work for their money = it's theirs. Totally fair.

    On your second point, sure, some may be looking for work. And I do support giving these people help while they do so, as I do for the genuine poor. However anyone who is not sick or looking for a job should not be on state support, yet hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are. This is what I object to, these people who do no work, contribute nothing to society, and expect the rich to support this "lifestlye".
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aequat omnes cinis)
    Well on your first point, why should the rich pay more than any other person in contribution to a community? Especially when they worked harder than those in the community to get that money, why should they be forced to redistribute it among those who didn't. If you support communist ideals, come out and say it, but otherwise, you'll have to accept that there is absolutely no sound reason for it, only a percieved notion of fairness which is false. They work for their money = it's theirs. Totally fair.
    The rich don't get rich because of their hard work alone, or even with any hard work. They get rich because a state system protects their assets, provides a healthy educated workforce and an infrastructure for them to get rich. Taxes pay for these things, so of course the rich should pay for what has played a huge role in their material position.
    (Original post by Aequat omnes cinis)
    On your second point, sure, some may be looking for work. And I do support giving these people help while they do so, as I do for the genuine poor. However anyone who is not sick or looking for a job should not be on state support, yet hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are. This is what I object to, these people who do no work, contribute nothing to society, and expect the rich to support this "lifestlye".
    You have a skewed view of people on benefits. The vast majority of those recieving benefits are genuinely unable to work or are unemploying and looking for a job, despite what the Daily Mail might tell you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone person should be taxed the same amount by % like Scandinavian countries do. There is relatively few (Even though the media like to hype it up) people who just get their money chucked at them, A lot of people have to work very hard to be what we consider 'rich' and they are not any less deserving of their money than a poor person is.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why they should. Many have devoted their whole lives to their career working all hours to get their product/service out there. I think they deserve something back. However, instead of them paying more tax, why don't they just force them to pay £500 a month to charities?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    Yes I support Progressive Taxation. I'll have to quote Elizabeth Warren here:

    "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
    I see you got hoodwinked by that yank rather well...... LOL

    Let's put some things straight here. We are talking of an American system here (USA to be exact)

    Warren is blowing hot air on FEDERAL taxes.

    Roads = state matter, so it is mostly funded by STATE taxes and other forms of revenue.

    Education = In US it is either state or private, unless you are going to a military funded university of which it numbers less than 10 over 4000 its rather unlikely any Federal money gets there. K-12 schools, these too are state funded rather than Federal funded, in fact many parts of the country have education system that were funded purely by the state lottery system. Federal government payments towards education largely goes towards issuing student loans (which later on gets managed by a bank or company... and you pay almost commercial type rates to it) Some grants are available but these are small and usually insignificant towards the actual cost of your tuition and living expenses.

    Policing = LOL... unless you're talking of the FBI and CIA, almost every police department in USA is either at State, County or local level and is paid for by state revenue.

    She also somewhat forgets that the vast majority of people get rich through their business and it is these businesses that utilizes any of the infrastructure (ironically very little infrastructure is built using Federal money) these businesses have already been levied a corporate tax, so why is there a need to pay taxes twice then to utilize the same resources?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Yes they should. I know the argument is that rich people have 'worked hard for their money', but really, when they're sitting in their 2 million home in Surrey with 3 sports cars, a pool, and enough money to send all their children to university, do they really need any more?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xyls)
    Everyone person should be taxed the same amount by % like Scandinavian countries do. There is relatively few (Even though the media like to hype it up) people who just get their money chucked at them, A lot of people have to work very hard to be what we consider 'rich' and they are not any less deserving of their money than a poor person is.
    Evidence?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    SOME of them have, but some of them are just rich because of who their parents, granparents, great-granparents, etc, were.

    They haven't earned or worked for their money, so why should they 'deserve something back'?
    I agree but instead of paying more tax, just force them to pay money to charities. But I think it would be unfair to alienate the people who have worked for it in favour of the people who haven't
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erich Hartmann)
    I see you got hoodwinked by that yank rather well...... LOL

    Let's put some things straight here. We are talking of an American system here (USA to be exact)

    Warren is blowing hot air on FEDERAL taxes.

    Roads = state matter, so it is mostly funded by STATE taxes and other forms of revenue.

    Education = In US it is either state or private, unless you are going to a military funded university of which it numbers less than 10 over 4000 its rather unlikely any Federal money gets there. K-12 schools, these too are state funded rather than Federal funded, in fact many parts of the country have education system that were funded purely by the state lottery system. Federal government payments towards education largely goes towards issuing student loans (which later on gets managed by a bank or company... and you pay almost commercial type rates to it) Some grants are available but these are small and usually insignificant towards the actual cost of your tuition and living expenses.

    Policing = LOL... unless you're talking of the FBI and CIA, almost every police department in USA is either at State, County or local level and is paid for by state revenue.

    She also somewhat forgets that the vast majority of people get rich through their business and it is these businesses that utilizes any of the infrastructure (ironically very little infrastructure is built using Federal money) these businesses have already been levied a corporate tax, so why is there a need to pay taxes twice then to utilize the same resources?

    Actually I was applying her analysis to the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    And what % would that be?
    I am sure you realise the value of money decreases as you get more of it.
    So for someone on £25k a year, 20% of that would be worth more than compared to what 20% would be worth to someone on £100k a year. Despite the obvious actual different in amount.
    So if you set a fixed % for all earners, those on lower wages will always feel the effects of tax more than the rich.
    Also, as total tax revenue would fall massively, what government spending would you cut to make up for that difference?
    You're wrong. Actually, because of the rich having the money to pay for accountants, they can receive income in ways that are not just their 'paypacket'. Tax on dividends and other income is less than that they would pay on aid pay, and as a consequence the actual % of their income that the wealthiest pay can be far lower than that of middle income earners.

    So, if you introduced a flat rate tax of 20% you could raise about as much as you do no, due to the fact that the wealthiest would now pay this rate of tax rather than using other means. You could, actually, introduce a personal income allowance of 12,000 pounds, combined with the removal of tax deductions and other silly, hard to calculate means of trying to change the tax system, with the 20% flat rate income tax, at the cost of 40ish billion pounds in the first year, which may seem a lot, but the economic growth this would generate would pay for this in 3 years.

    Before you go 'oh the rich will benefit more', the measurre would actually see those in the income band 6 to 12k see the highest % cut in tax, 7 million people would be taken out of paying any income tax and would provide an average tax cut of 2k.

    Think I'm lying? read the adam smith institute website. This would benefit the vat majority of the population, only those earning under 6k, would not see a tax cut, but they pay none already, and would see rising incomes from the growth generated by the cut in the income tax.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    We should just tax those who haven't worked for it and let those who have worked for it keep every penny.

    It's not difficult to see who earns and who inherits.
    I agree but that would never happen. They would just move and take our much needed tax revenue elsewhere. No one wins.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    Then we should intervene before they inherit it and tax it at that stage of proceedings.
    Slightly off topic, if someone won the lottery do you think their winnings should be taxed?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    In my ideal world the lottery would be banned. It just doesn't fit with my meritocratic model. Getting wealth through luck just aggravates me.

    I mean, just look!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...tery_winner%29



    If we absolutely have to have it, then yes, it should be taxed to the hills.

    Very few people who win the lottery are the type of deserve the lucky break. It's just not in the mentality of a hard worker to throw that much money down the drain on a several-million-to-one shot! So the people that do get paid off are just... well.. thickos and lay-abouts, usually.
    So if I won £30 million tonight, you would hate me?

    Anyway doesn't the national lottery fund community projects and charities and stuff?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrigidSymphony)
    Wealth is accumulated by creating social disparity. The minority of individuals who gain wealth not only keep wealth for themselves, but diminish the chances of everyone else to improve their situation. Rich people don't want other people to be able to get rich as well, they want to get richer themselves and keep it all. They don't want to create jobs or require security and safety for their employees, they want the cheapest way to make a profit.
    Life isn't fair, so what?

    Your argument suggests that resources are limited.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    Then we should intervene before they inherit it and tax it at that stage of proceedings.
    If somebody wants to leave money to their children, why not? if you had children, you wouldn't love them?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    We elect people into power because we expect them to do what's in our interests, i.e. we expect them to make policies which ensure fairness.

    It's perfectly within their power to do so. So the fact that life isn't fair in human society isn't some natural and immutable law of the Universe, it's a consequence of incompetence of those in power, and a culture of obscene wealth for the undeserved.
    Whether fairness is an issue is subjective. to be the end of government should be to promote the greatest freedom. if some are poor so be it, as long as the level of poverty is not too great and there is sufficient mobility/opportunities.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    I expect my children to make their own way in life. I will love them, and to express that love, I will give them care, attention, support, teaching, and do my best to endow them with the skills, passions and determination to put themselves to good use for the good of society, and for the good of their own personal lives. I will make honest people out of them.

    My children will not receive inheritance from me because it's simply not in the spirit of graft, hard work and due reward, and in my experience, people who obtain wealth and unlimited treasures and material gifts from their parents tend to be airheaded ***** with no concept of reality or work, and I would loathe for my children to turn into those very people I despise.

    It'll be tough for my kids, but they'll look back on their lives and all of their own wealth and be able to say "everything I have, I earned for myself", and as somebody who has earned everything he has, I can tell you that it makes success so much the sweeter when you weren't living in somebody else's pockets to do it.

    P.S. it's quite disgusting that you equate 'love' with 'giving obscene amounts of money to'.
    Perhaps, but to some it is simply a means of love and a gift. Some parents also spoil children, who is to say that is wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muscovite)
    I would actually say that in this country people seem to respect the rich and dislike the poor, look at all the comments on this forum for example
    I don't TSR has the average UK demographic
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    I expect my children to make their own way in life. I will love them, and to express that love, I will give them care, attention, support, teaching, and do my best to endow them with the skills, passions and determination to put themselves to good use for the good of society, and for the good of their own personal lives. I will make honest people out of them.

    My children will not receive inheritance from me because it's simply not in the spirit of graft, hard work and due reward, and in my experience, people who obtain wealth and unlimited treasures and material gifts from their parents tend to be airheaded ***** with no concept of reality or work, and I would loathe for my children to turn into those very people I despise.

    It'll be tough for my kids, but they'll look back on their lives and all of their own wealth and be able to say "everything I have, I earned for myself", and as somebody who has earned everything he has, I can tell you that it makes success so much the sweeter when you weren't living in somebody else's pockets to do it.

    P.S. it's quite disgusting that you equate 'love' with 'giving obscene amounts of money to'.
    yes, it is love. How is providing a gift to somebody not as such? The rationale behind is sound, one wants their children to benefit, who wouldn't?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo00oo)
    I'm to say it's wrong. It produces some NASTY, NASTY individuals, promotes nothing, encourages nothing, and rewards the lazy whilst penalising the hard workers.
    so?
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.