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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Another question.

    Reduce the top band down to 20%. That means less income for the government.

    What government expenditure would you reduce now. It's easy to say benefits, but think about the consequences of that in the long run. Do you really think that people will magically get better jobs? Why is crime correlated with poverty? Why is economic growth correlated with equality. Is there causation there?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    No, the richer person has worked harder or smarter to get more money. They shouldn't be punished for working hard by being given a much bigger tax bill. That is so unfair.
    Working hard doesn't equal more pay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Working hard doesn't equal more pay.
    A doctor working full time, and on weekends as well as doing extra private clinics gets payed more (and rightly so) than a part time doctor who turns up three times a week.

    But your right its not always about hard work, which is why I said Working Smarter. A City Trader works smarter therefore they earn more than a bin cleaner. The cleaner may have woked harder but if he was smarter he may use his time to trade stocks and shares instead in order to make more money. Thats called working smarter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    A doctor working full time, and on weekends as well as doing extra private clinics gets payed more (and rightly so) than a part time doctor who turns up three times a week.

    But your right its not always about hard work, which is why I said Working Smarter. A City Trader works smarter therefore they earn more than a bin cleaner. The cleaner may have woked harder but if he was smarter he may use his time to trade stocks and shares instead in order to make more money. Thats called working smarter.
    Oh please. Trading is smart?

    Google LTCM. Supposedly some of the smartest people in the field.

    Most of the smartest people on the planet don't go for money.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Oh please. Trading is smart?

    Google LTCM. Supposedly some of the smartest people in the field.

    Most of the smartest people on the planet don't go for money.
    Lol, you choose the one blow up and not any of the successful quantitative trading firms.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    After reading this thread I weep for socialism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Lol, you choose the one blow up and not any of the successful quantitative trading firms.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I was trying to make a point against trading being smart. Ofc I would choose that one.

    I could have mentioned HF trading - are you really that smart, coding algorithms that make you rich? I am sure there are many in the tech industry that could if they wanted to.

    I am not saying no one there is smart. I am just saying that not all are, and that that person sounded way too much in awe of the oh so smart traders.

    And once that is accounted for, we get to the ethics of it all. Some people are born just not "smart". Does that mean they should have a bad life? And what should the government do without income tax? And if you agree it's silly to have no taxes, where do you set the limit? In the end I agree, in Britain it's a bit high. But some of the comments here are rather arrogant.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    A percentage of rich people want lower taxes because they are nothing more than greedy, they want more money, for whatever reasons and don't care about any effect that might have. Personally I have no sympathy for this point of view.

    Another percentage of rich people want lower taxes because they feel penalised for earning more (whether their chosen profession coincidently earns more, or they specifically chose that career). As has been said, they don't necessarily work harder in a quantitative sense, but these careers often require longer and harder work up (study, experience, etc.) and come with larger responsibility. A neurosurgeon and bin collector may quantitatively work as hard as one another, but the doctor has significantly more weight on their shoulders. There will be countless examples and counter examples, but I'm confident that it will generally ring true. I have a lot of sympathy with this point of view, fundamentally, it is not fair.

    The argument about reducing inequality and the resulting overall improvement in life chances, the economy, crime and so on are a strong one for maintaining a higher tax rate on the richer people in society. Coupled with the fact that they are much more able to shoulder that burden and that they used the 'free' services available to scale the ladders they did - you can see why people get angry when they say that their £65,000 take home salary isn't enough or when they hide it offshore.

    It's an argument that will never be solved. The economic model of capitalism means that the majority of the wealth will fall into the hands of the few, the social structures that enable a workforce to continue operating at the required level of efficiency requires a lot of money which means it has to be taken mostly from the rich. The rich people are annoyed that their income is savaged to achieve this, paying way over the odds for other people to live and so want lower tax. The poorer people mostly just want enough money to buy some food and are angry at the richer people for 'quibbling' over losing more in tax than they get in a year, or two, or five.

    Generally in these things, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Closing the gaps between the boundaries and emphasising the social investment in the future would build some bridges - lower taxes also gives the government a stronger footing for getting tougher on tax avoiders. The other thing to consider is that generally we all need each other, you might look at a hairdresser earning £16k and think that, well, the job is not that hard, they don't actually deserve more - however, someone has to cut people's hair, they may enjoy it and even be good at it. Disregarding their desire to have a comfortable life, just because you chose to pursue a more profitably and/or challenging career is not very helpful to social cohesion.

    (Original post by The Awakener)
    But your right its not always about hard work, which is why I said Working Smarter. A City Trader works smarter therefore they earn more than a bin cleaner. The cleaner may have woked harder but if he was smarter he may use his time to trade stocks and shares instead in order to make more money. Thats called working smarter.
    This works on the assumption that more money is better and a worthy achievement. Beyond that stock traders taxes (which they probably do their best to avoid as much as possible), what actual social value do they bring to society. I value the bin cleaners contribution far, far, more highly. Obviously, individual traders may be wonderfully upstanding pillars of the community who do excellent things with their money - however the profession itself is vacuous and damaging to society (the pursuit of wealth, for the sake of wealth with no inherent intention to use that wealth to further any culture, society, research or anything). Again, individual organisations or people may do these things, but the profession doesn't exist to do that. Contrast that with Apple (whatever your views on them are), at least they innovate and produce things people want.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Sinnie_)

    This works on the assumption that more money is better and a worthy achievement. Beyond that stock traders taxes (which they probably do their best to avoid as much as possible), what actual social value do they bring to society. I value the bin cleaners contribution far, far, more highly. Obviously, individual traders may be wonderfully upstanding pillars of the community who do excellent things with their money - however the profession itself is vacuous and damaging to society (the pursuit of wealth, for the sake of wealth with no inherent intention to use that wealth to further any culture, society, research or anything). Again, individual organisations or people may do these things, but the profession doesn't exist to do that. Contrast that with Apple (whatever your views on them are), at least they innovate and produce things people want.
    I completely agree with you, but I was just responding to comment saying working harder does not mean you make more money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    I completely agree with you, but I was just responding to comment saying working harder does not mean you make more money.
    Fair enough. It can be hard to tell what opinions people actually hold when in the midst of a debate.

    I do wonder to what extent that someone who could be classed as 'working smarter' - in order to earn money money - would be found to be less invested in the welfare of others. The difference between people who develop new drugs and give them away, versus those who charge £500 for them.

    Capitalism (which I generally support) requires a profit, but at what cost to wider society?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by _Sinnie_)

    This works on the assumption that more money is better and a worthy achievement. Beyond that stock traders taxes (which they probably do their best to avoid as much as possible), what actual social value do they bring to society. I value the bin cleaners contribution far, far, more highly. Obviously, individual traders may be wonderfully upstanding pillars of the community who do excellent things with their money - however the profession itself is vacuous and damaging to society (the pursuit of wealth, for the sake of wealth with no inherent intention to use that wealth to further any culture, society, research or anything). Again, individual organisations or people may do these things, but the profession doesn't exist to do that. Contrast that with Apple (whatever your views on them are), at least they innovate and produce things people want.
    Yeah, you don't really know what you're on about here.

    And apple? You mean the organisation that utilises effectively slave-workers to produce their 'innovative' (read: nice marketing) products?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Oh no, only £65000 a year?!!! How could anybody live off of that, that is basically living in poverty!!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    You're twisting my words and misrepresenting reality. Firstly, I didn't say it was "easy" to get a six figure salary (unless you're born into money and you're living off investments). I said that there are plenty of lower paying jobs that are very challenging too, so the logic "Person A earns less than Person B therefore Person A works harder than Person B" may be correct in some circumstances but as a blanket statement is grossly incorrect. Not everybody goes for the highest paying career that they can possibly get into. This is why we have many incredibly hard working, highly educated people working in professions that pay comparatively little. They're not earning less because they're not working hard, they're earning less because they're job is further away from the money.
    Then the question exists what separates all these people? The desire for better pay? The yearning to get the most out of life? So why are these people, who are higher achievers, forced to pay a higher percentage of their income?

    You made a blanket statement yourself saying that everyone on a higher salary believes they got themselves where they are themselves, which in many cases they did. If everyone has the same education and healthcare service, and yet they have different life styles, that is because those who have higher paid jobs have the hunger and commitment to seek them out.

    My father didn't the same level of education as his peers. He was born in Nepal in an area where people only stayed at school until they were 15. And yet, years later, we own a 5 bedroom house in Hyde Park that only is used during the school term times. Would he not be justified in claiming that he made something of himself?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Yeah, you don't really know what you're on about here.
    And apple? You mean the organisation that utilises effectively slave-workers to produce their 'innovative' (read: nice marketing) products?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'll be honest, I can't give an itinerary of the social initiatives of the big stock broker firms. But I've never heard of any. I'm talking about products and services that the general public use, that improve wellbeing, education, health, anything. I may be missing something, but as I understand it, the only thing that comes out of these places is more money - nothing actually tangible. This doesn't include the taxes the employee's or company pays (which is then spent on meaningful things). I'm talking about the ever increasing number on a computer screen. I suppose pensions would be the one thing? I don't really know much about pensions, except that everything we hear is about how horribly managed they are. I'm very much open to having my mind changed on that profession, I've just never heard anything that led me to believe it is anything more than an exercise in greed.
    I wasn't talking about Apple's employment practices, I specifically said it didn't matter what one's opinion of them is. I chose them purely because they don't really pay tax in this country. The point was, I have less issue with a big corporation making lots of money when the process of generating that money is through creating something that people want or need. Capitalism requires that profit made, the important thing, to me, is how it is made.

    (Original post by Princepieman)
    I beg to differ, you'll find the 'mo money, mo problems' saying is quite apt here.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think you misunderstand the term 'cost of living' versus 'I can afford lots more things, woah, that's expensive, I need more money'
    If you earn more than ~50-60k per year and don't have abnormal monetary circumstances (i.e. existing debts) and still have money problems, then well... yeah.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    A doctor working full time, and on weekends as well as doing extra private clinics gets payed more (and rightly so) than a part time doctor who turns up three times a week.

    But your right its not always about hard work, which is why I said Working Smarter. A City Trader works smarter therefore they earn more than a bin cleaner. The cleaner may have woked harder but if he was smarter he may use his time to trade stocks and shares instead in order to make more money. Thats called working smarter.
    But it's not "working smarter" either.

    In the case of doctors, its that the most overworked specialties tend to be underpaid. As it is at the moment, people pay more for a good boob job than for an emergency triple bypass. The highest trained British triple bypass surgeon earns less tha cosmetic (fully private surgeon) - if anything again, out of those, its probably the cosmetic surgeon who has the time to "work smart" and invest or buy property. So therefore a hugely important, public service earns less than something simple.

    In relation to the tax point, we should be obliged to contribute to the public sector that born, raised and educated us throughout our lives. A tax cut simply means we cut public funding. Silly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Sinnie_)
    A percentage of rich people want lower taxes because they are nothing more than greedy, they want more money, for whatever reasons and don't care about any effect that might have. Personally I have no sympathy for this point of view.

    Another percentage of rich people want lower taxes because they feel penalised for earning more (whether their chosen profession coincidently earns more, or they specifically chose that career). As has been said, they don't necessarily work harder in a quantitative sense, but these careers often require longer and harder work up (study, experience, etc.) and come with larger responsibility. A neurosurgeon and bin collector may quantitatively work as hard as one another, but the doctor has significantly more weight on their shoulders. There will be countless examples and counter examples, but I'm confident that it will generally ring true. I have a lot of sympathy with this point of view, fundamentally, it is not fair.

    The argument about reducing inequality and the resulting overall improvement in life chances, the economy, crime and so on are a strong one for maintaining a higher tax rate on the richer people in society. Coupled with the fact that they are much more able to shoulder that burden and that they used the 'free' services available to scale the ladders they did - you can see why people get angry when they say that their £65,000 take home salary isn't enough or when they hide it offshore.

    It's an argument that will never be solved. The economic model of capitalism means that the majority of the wealth will fall into the hands of the few, the social structures that enable a workforce to continue operating at the required level of efficiency requires a lot of money which means it has to be taken mostly from the rich. The rich people are annoyed that their income is savaged to achieve this, paying way over the odds for other people to live and so want lower tax. The poorer people mostly just want enough money to buy some food and are angry at the richer people for 'quibbling' over losing more in tax than they get in a year, or two, or five.

    Generally in these things, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Closing the gaps between the boundaries and emphasising the social investment in the future would build some bridges - lower taxes also gives the government a stronger footing for getting tougher on tax avoiders. The other thing to consider is that generally we all need each other, you might look at a hairdresser earning £16k and think that, well, the job is not that hard, they don't actually deserve more - however, someone has to cut people's hair, they may enjoy it and even be good at it. Disregarding their desire to have a comfortable life, just because you chose to pursue a more profitably and/or challenging career is not very helpful to social cohesion.



    This works on the assumption that more money is better and a worthy achievement. Beyond that stock traders taxes (which they probably do their best to avoid as much as possible), what actual social value do they bring to society. I value the bin cleaners contribution far, far, more highly. Obviously, individual traders may be wonderfully upstanding pillars of the community who do excellent things with their money - however the profession itself is vacuous and damaging to society (the pursuit of wealth, for the sake of wealth with no inherent intention to use that wealth to further any culture, society, research or anything). Again, individual organisations or people may do these things, but the profession doesn't exist to do that. Contrast that with Apple (whatever your views on them are), at least they innovate and produce things people want.
    One of the best posts I have ever read on TSR.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Freddyt58)
    Then the question exists what separates all these people? The desire for better pay? The yearning to get the most out of life? So why are these people, who are higher achievers, forced to pay a higher percentage of their income?
    Because they didn't magic their money out of nowhere. Their wealth came from the society in which they live. Without it, they would have nothing. If they can profit greatly off the society in which they live, then they can contribute to help maintain it.


    (Original post by Freddyt58)
    My father didn't the same level of education as his peers. He was born in Nepal in an area where people only stayed at school until they were 15. And yet, years later, we own a 5 bedroom house in Hyde Park that only is used during the school term times. Would he not be justified in claiming that he made something of himself?
    Would it not be justified to remind you that he didn't create his wealth when living on a deserted island, but he did so by making use of the society in which he was living. Paying back into the system from which he profited from greatly is justified.

    Also the vast majority of poor people do not have access to the social mobility which you describe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Sinnie_)
    I think you misunderstand the term 'cost of living' versus 'I can afford lots more things, woah, that's expensive, I need more money'
    If you earn more than ~50-60k per year and don't have abnormal monetary circumstances (i.e. existing debts) and still have money problems, then well... yeah.
    Mortgages? Bills? What if you have a larger house? More insurance payments for larger properties. And yes they could live in a small one bedroom house in a run down hovel, but why limit the ambition of people telling them that they should all live in little four bedroom houses!
    What this person means by "mo money mo problems" is that not everyone has the same cost of living.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Its usually those on mediocre salaries that want high earners to pitch in more money into the pot because hey, most people in this country will not make more than £40,000 in a given year, even in London. Paying £35,000 on £100,000 is not reasonable. It's theft.

    Some people on this thread say "Oh well that guy is just a greedy c*nt, anyone can live well on £65,000!" It's a strange world when a person is criticised for wanting to keep the money they make, but high earners have always been envied by lower earners. Lower earners (not all, but many) have always felt entitled to the money belonging to wealthier folk.

    Higher wages are a result of demand and supply. Jobs higher in demand pay more. A person who makes £100,000 a year works smart by going where the money is, not settling for lower paid work. There's nothing wrong with being a teacher or a postman, but you'll never get out of the rat race with these jobs. And people who go where the money is tend to do so, so that they can invest money into a business, property, gold and stocks. But there isn't a huge amount you can actually do with your money when you're only taking £65,000 home. What is the difference between that and someone who keeps £35,000? Probably a nicer car...a nicer house with a larger garden...a nicer holiday every year. And not too much else, save for more classy furniture.

    Whereas a person who actually gets to keep £100,000 can save for a few greulling years and have a bit of money to play with the market.

    I won't ever call a person greedy for wanting to keep most of their money. And I don't blame people for abusing all the tax loopholes out there. Lots of wealthy folk store their wealth in countries where taxation isn't such a burden. More power to them for doing whatever it takes to keep their money, even if it means taking it out of the UK, to another country's benefit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Freddyt58)
    Mortgages? Bills? What if you have a larger house? More insurance payments for larger properties. And yes they could live in a small one bedroom house in a run down hovel, but why limit the ambition of people telling them that they should all live in little four bedroom houses!
    What this person means by "mo money mo problems" is that not everyone has the same cost of living.
    That only holds true if every time you get more money, you go "oh, I now want/need this. Oh bugger, I no longer have enough money for it all, I need more money" and then proceed to get more money and repeat that process. That is just poor money management and precisely how all these people who win the lottery end up broke.

    No matter what your 'ideal' living standard is, you are not entitled to it. Therefore, just because you have a bit more money, it does not mean you should automatically spend it on something and then feel justified to complain that you need more money.

    "mo money, don't spend it, no mo problems".
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.