Turn on thread page Beta

Your most controversial view? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    I'm convinced it'd be better for endangered animals if they were considered food - simply because once they're farmed for food, there's a demand for them to be reared and more interest in breeding them, meaning their numbers would be more stable.
    At first I was like :mob: and then I thought hmm I guess I can actually see where youre coming from there!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    I support a regressive taxation system ie: the middle classes pay more, and then the richer you get, the LESS you pay in tax. So tax becomes sorta like a curve, instead of a diagonal line upwards.

    Like this:



    Except maybe a bit more radical in that I'd have the regressive line start to curve a bit quicker.
    :eek:

    what is your reasoning behind this Ancien Regime good sir?!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smash Bandicoot)
    :eek:

    what is your reasoning behind this Ancien Regime good sir?!
    Let's say when Britain decreased the top tax from 50% to 45%, we actually took in MORE revenue, because people came back to the UK, or escaped places where they taxed them even more ie: France...

    And the big corporations often do employ thousands and thousands of people. I mean, if Tesco fails (And it might just do, if you see the news) how much money does the UK lose out on? How many people are going to be made redundant, and have no jobs?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    Let's say when Britain decreased the top tax from 50% to 45%, we actually took in MORE revenue, because people came back to the UK, or escaped places where they taxed them even more ie: France...

    And the big corporations often do employ thousands and thousands of people. I mean, if Tesco fails (And it might just do, if you see the news) how much money does the UK lose out on? How many people are going to be made redundant, and have no jobs?
    So what you're saying is that we should let the wealthy bully us into making policies that benefit them? If that's the case, surely you're advocating plutocracy over democracy?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    So what you're saying is that we should let the wealthy bully us into making policies that benefit them? If that's the case, surely you're advocating plutocracy over democracy?
    I never said this... I was talking pure money. I'd hate for companies to interfere with govt decisions. I'd also support really cheap loans for businesses (large or small) - perhaps at 1% (Way below inflation, usually) like they do in India atm, though that's only for big business.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    I never said this... I was talking pure money. I'd hate for companies to interfere with govt decisions. I'd also support really cheap loans for businesses (large or small) - perhaps at 1% (Way below inflation, usually) like they do in India atm, though that's only for big business.
    If you're saying that we should make tax changes that are unfair, just for the sake of preventing rich people and large businesses from leaving the country, then you are being bullied by them and they are directly influencing a government. Companies already massively interfere with government decisions much more directly but I don't see how you can suggest that the changes you're suggesting don't count as corporate intervention.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    If you're saying that we should make tax changes that are unfair, just for the sake of preventing rich people and large businesses from leaving the country, then you are being bullied by them and they are directly influencing a government. Companies already massively interfere with government decisions much more directly but I don't see how you can suggest that the changes you're suggesting don't count as corporate intervention.
    It wouldn't be "corporate intervention" because it'd be a deliberate act by gov't to try and bring in more money, and increase competition, making Britain look quite attractive to companies (How many businesses are based in Dublin, because of favourable tax rates??). I did also say I'd like nice and cheap loans for ALL businesses. I'd also like lower taxes for ALL businesses.

    Also, I should say Im a bit of a "third way" supporter ie: a social capitalist. (Much nicer phrase than "nationalist socialist" but that has HORRIBLE connotations... - Im also not a nationalist at all ) ie: supporting the poorest in society,the disabled, having a welfare state etc.... whilst saying the UK is OPEN FOR BUSINESS

    Third way explained here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/458626.stm
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    Probably that our country should issue breeding licenses, with only those deemed to be suitable as parents will legally be allowed to have a child.

    So if you are not financially able to support a child, or have no concept of how to raise a healthy child, or have a criminal past, or have any kind of disease or genetic abnormality that is likely to be passed on, or meet any one of a number of other criteria that would classify you as undesirable, then you shall not be issued with a breeding license and having a child would result firstly in the child being taken off you and secondly with you being sentenced to a lengthy spell behind bars.

    And yes, this post is absolutely serious.
    This would lead to lots of problem, and up would be difficult to enforce. Seems a tad authoritan as well.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I'm not saying that increased tuition fees are putting people off higher education. As you rightly point out, more people are going into it than ever before. What I am saying is that this is incredibly unfair. Given that the jobs that tend to benefit society the most tend to have lower salaries and the jobs that are more harmful are generally the ones with the highest wages, the current system is saddling ordinary people whose work genuinely contributes back into society with a debt they're going to carry until they're close to the point of considering retirement whilst the people who work in harmful industries with high wages (or those born into wealth) won't have to worry about it at all. That is absolutely outrageous in my view, I can't see how anyone could agree with that.

    Somebody has to pay for it. Let the people who have a huge abundance of money in the first place pay for it rather than extorting those who don't have a lot of wealth.
    A graduate tax instead of a blanket loan system would solve this issue. Only those who benefit from their degree in increased wages throughout their career would pay money back for the education they've received.

    Xxx

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    Probably that our country should issue breeding licenses, with only those deemed to be suitable as parents will legally be allowed to have a child.

    So if you are not financially able to support a child, or have no concept of how to raise a healthy child, or have a criminal past, or have any kind of disease or genetic abnormality that is likely to be passed on, or meet any one of a number of other criteria that would classify you as undesirable, then you shall not be issued with a breeding license and having a child would result firstly in the child being taken off you and secondly with you being sentenced to a lengthy spell behind bars.

    And yes, this post is absolutely serious.
    I completely disagree for the record but anyway.

    I'm interested in what you mean by parents having a concept of how to raise a healthy child. Even those well educated in child development, health etc generally learn to raise a child by doing it, not learning beforehand. It's one of those things that you can't really understand without experience, similar to the way doctors and teachers don't just learn from books and tutors and then become excellent practitioners- they learn though experience, and get more skilled throughout their careers.

    In addition to this, someone could know lots about "how" to raise a child but then when it actually comes to it could struggle to follow this. Plus every child is different so there is no way to know what kind of person your child is going to be and hence know exactly what you'd need to do to raise them in the way you desire.

    Another question, what would you classify as financially able?

    Xxx

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Why not for jews?
    As I said, I can't do that to my people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    As I said, I can't do that to my people.
    You probably think your people are superior which is very ironic. Very ironic indeed...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Oh wow some of the views on here are so wonderfully misguided. Think maybe an economics class or two should be mandatory before you post here.

    Like the post that said the environment should be as important if not more as the economy. Yeah let's bankrupt the nation, put millions into poverty and destroy the infrastructure that has taken thousands of years to build up to provide us with a civil relatively safe society just so we can introduce green policies that may or may not work (and lets face it most political policies eventually fail, are misguided or written by complete non-experts)

    Don't get me wrong I believe we should be enviromental as practically possible but thanks to the green party, greenpeace and all the other enviromentalists our country is in the infancy of an energy crisis. Fossil Fuel PSs are been shut down due to green influence, nuclear power is political death so the planned new nuclear stations are pretty much permanently on the scrap. And as for renewables don't get me started. Despite the Greens promise that renewables would provide enough energy output and create much needed jobs (for welders like me) they aren't and their construction was sold of to foreign labour before it was even offered to the British engineering construction industry!

    A lot of the biggest scientific experts in environmentalism believe that nuclear is the only low carbon, high energy solution we have left yet the green movement won't have it so welcome to black out Britain 2025.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    I support a regressive taxation system ie: the middle classes pay more, and then the richer you get, the LESS you pay in tax. So tax becomes sorta like a curve, instead of a diagonal line upwards.

    Like this:



    Except maybe a bit more radical in that I'd have the regressive line start to curve a bit quicker.
    This would actually be a smart idea as the very wealthy spent a lot of money investing. This leads to new buisnesses, new technologies, new jobs, new tax sources etc. The middle class typically spent a lot on luxuries. It'll never happen though.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    If you're saying that we should make tax changes that are unfair, just for the sake of preventing rich people and large businesses from leaving the country, then you are being bullied by them and they are directly influencing a government. Companies already massively interfere with government decisions much more directly but I don't see how you can suggest that the changes you're suggesting don't count as corporate intervention.
    I agree in theory but in practise its unavoidable to not be bullied. It's like engineering, their a small fraction of the British engineering industry left because to open an engineering business in the UK is absolutely laborious; H&S laws, Environmental laws, property laws, employment laws, tax laws, equality laws, industrial injury laws. So what does this mean if your a welder, machinist or studying for an engineering degree? Well you've just been priced out of a job. Even our own government won't pay for British workers for defence and renewable projects!

    I'm not saying industry shouldn't be regulated but it needs to be simple and cheap not a thousand government agencies checking each issue out. Current goverments need to think about the ENTIRE consequences to passing new industry laws before pandering to general hysteria.

    Personally i'd push for more SME and a heavy tax rate for large monopolies head quartered outside of the UK. US multinations pull billions out of the UK in profit and over the sea and yet even through they provide jobs they're typically part time unskilled and temporary. At least the British very wealthy spend their money in the UK on other businesses and people.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Climate change, not sure I give a damn about it.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    It wouldn't be "corporate intervention" because it'd be a deliberate act by gov't to try and bring in more money, and increase competition, making Britain look quite attractive to companies (How many businesses are based in Dublin, because of favourable tax rates??). I did also say I'd like nice and cheap loans for ALL businesses. I'd also like lower taxes for ALL businesses.

    Also, I should say Im a bit of a "third way" supporter ie: a social capitalist. (Much nicer phrase than "nationalist socialist" but that has HORRIBLE connotations... - Im also not a nationalist at all ) ie: supporting the poorest in society,the disabled, having a welfare state etc.... whilst saying the UK is OPEN FOR BUSINESS

    Third way explained here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/458626.stm
    I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about this. Companies that rake in absolutely massive profits and individuals of massive wealth should obviously have to pay more back to society than poorer individuals since they have a greater means of doing this. Anybody who cares about social and financial equality would agree with this. It is a complete fallacy to use the argument that decreasing taxes for the wealthy makes sense because it will ultimately bring in more money because, whilst it might technically be true, it is precisely this argument that is the driving cause of the absurd gap between the rich and poor. Trickle-down economics does not work. It was an absolutely massive betrayal to their values of Labour to pursue this policy and anybody in favour of it is not in favour of social equality.

    (Original post by kpwxx)
    A graduate tax instead of a blanket loan system would solve this issue. Only those who benefit from their degree in increased wages throughout their career would pay money back for the education they've received.

    Xxx

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But of course most people with a degree are going to benefit from 'increased' wages? What we need to be concerned about are the effects of the person's job, not their payslip. A professor of climate change is certainly going to 'benefit' in terms of higher than average wages but it doesn't change the fact that they've (probably) put their degree to the good of society.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Islam and Christianity have retarded progress for over a thousand years, and it is only since lifting their poison that our respective countries have achieved a greater degree of prosperity (look at Turkey when it stopped Islam rearing its ugly head, sadly its coming back). Religion is incompatible with love, order and progress.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Leeds98)
    I agree in theory but in practise its unavoidable to not be bullied. It's like engineering, their a small fraction of the British engineering industry left because to open an engineering business in the UK is absolutely laborious; H&S laws, Environmental laws, property laws, employment laws, tax laws, equality laws, industrial injury laws. So what does this mean if your a welder, machinist or studying for an engineering degree? Well you've just been priced out of a job. Even our own government won't pay for British workers for defence and renewable projects!

    I'm not saying industry shouldn't be regulated but it needs to be simple and cheap not a thousand government agencies checking each issue out. Current goverments need to think about the ENTIRE consequences to passing new industry laws before pandering to general hysteria.

    Personally i'd push for more SME and a heavy tax rate for large monopolies head quartered outside of the UK. US multinations pull billions out of the UK in profit and over the sea and yet even through they provide jobs they're typically part time unskilled and temporary. At least the British very wealthy spend their money in the UK on other businesses and people.
    All of that is precisely why we need a shift away from capitalism and globalisation and towards public ownership. You're completely correct that imposing stricter environmental, tax and equality laws will probably make Britain "less friendly" towards business which will harm us financially. The solution to that is not to go, "Oh well then, bugger morality and let's forget about regulations", it's to realise that all of these problems are the product of a global economic system that gives psychopathic corporate institutions more power than ordinary people and that we therefore have to start reforming the system.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    All of that is precisely why we need a shift away from capitalism and globalisation and towards public ownership. You're completely correct that imposing stricter environmental, tax and equality laws will probably make Britain "less friendly" towards business which will harm us financially. The solution to that is not to go, "Oh well then, bugger morality and let's forget about regulations", it's to realise that all of these problems are the product of a global economic system that gives psychopathic corporate institutions more power than ordinary people and that we therefore have to start reforming the system.
    Perhaps we could start by founding state capitalist competitors that drive private enterprise out of business, and then later convert them to public companies.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

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.