So what if it's random? At least helping family first makes sense, rather than some people who live in on any given arbitarily drawn piece of land on a map. 'O, this person deserves my money when I die, but over that river - nah they can go to hell'. If we didn't have massive issues with out welfare state we wouldn't need to steal everyone's money when they die, would we?(Original post by oo00oo)
Oh yeah, and where did you get your DNA? You got your DNA from your parents, and you never chose your parents, you got them at random. And your children will get their DNA from you, and again, nobody chooses their children.
Your child will certainly have your DNA, but the fact that you have the DNA that you have is RANDOM. You could have born an amiba, or you could never have been born at all.
And you shouldn't work your whole life to fund a gaggle of welfare babies. Nobody should. I'm not suggest that this is the way things SHOULD be. Stop confusing what I'm saying the way things should be with the way things are.
Turn on thread page Beta
should the rich pay more tax? watch
- 28-09-2011 20:39
(Original post by hamix)
- 28-09-2011 20:58
The rich evidently have more money, so on that basis they can be taxed.
But I find we as British envy/detest the rich a lot (at least speaking badly of wealthy people is common). Do people only support higher taxes on rich people since they want them to "pay" for being rich?
As far as I know everyone in the UK is entitled to around £6,750 tax free each year, anything you earn above this is taxed at 20%. I think (correct me if I am wrong) anything you then earn above £35,000 to £150,000 you pay 40% in tax and finally if you earn above £150,000 you pay 50% on all earnings above the 150,000. With this in mind, an example tax on a salary of £180,000 would be (again, correct me if I am wrong)
Less personal allowance of £6,750
= £173,000 available to be taxed
(£6,750 available in salary 'pot' to take home)
Less 20% tax on £6,750 to £35,000 (£28,250) at 20% (Basic Rate)
=£5650 in taxed
Less 40% tax on £35,000 to £150,000 at 40% (Higher Rate)
= £46,000 taxed
Less 50% tax on £150,000 to £180,000 at 50% (Addidtional Rate)
Total Tax on salary of £180,000 = £66,650
Net Salary after tax = £113,350
(Not including; National Insurance, Pension Contributions or any other contributions)
/52 weeks in the calendar year = £2179.80 PER WEEK!
That is still a very generous salary!
You can imagine then that with one individual contributing £66,650 PA in tax that they collective amount gathered from these higher and additional tax rates is essential for the treasury to fund different services like school, hospitals and the police for example. Therefore if they paid the same as everyone else, then there wouldn't be much money to fund the country, would there?
Conclusion; if you have more, then you should pay more.
- 28-09-2011 21:02
(Original post by oo00oo)
- 28-09-2011 21:17
I'm not exaggerating.
And you're right, it doesn't stop them going to games and buying merchandise... but just because few people are willing to put their money where their principles are doesn't mean that the principle itself is flawed.
But it HAS been earned, that's why I want to see it distributed the way I suggested.
There's no way to properly adjudicate on precisely how much a piece of work is worth in terms of financial reward. The best we can do is ensure that the people at the top of the earnings are producing the most profound, useful and complex work, and the people are the bottom are producing the least profound, least useful and least complex work.
If a cancer researcher gets £120k instead of £100k because there's £20k extra from redistributed money left over by dead, nobody can say "oh but their piece of work is worth precisely £100k, not £120k, so they haven't earned that additional cash". However, somebody can say... there's a footballer earning more than a cancer researcher.
I don't care about the actual earnings of people, as long as the linear progression of earnings and work makes sense.
You don't have to be earning millions to be in the wrong place as far as my pay vs work scale goes. As long as bankers are earning more than scientists and researchers, I won't be happy. I don't actually care about the precise figures that bankers earn... it's about how much they earn IN COMPARISON to other professions. i.e. bankers can take home £1,000,000 if they like, as long as for each millionaire banker, there's a multi-millionaire clinical researcher/scientist/engineer.
(Original post by oo00oo)
I'm generalising because the rule is true for MOST of those type of people. I'm fully aware that there are exceptions, but not enough to destroy my argument.
And if you intend to forge a good career than why take the inheritance?
Nope, but what's the difference? If I'm going to turn down thousands of pounds, then obviously I'd also turn down millions.
I get a sense of self-worth from knowing that everything I have, I've earned, yes.
Life IS about enjoying yourself, but everybody should start with a clean slate, and everybody should have to earn the enjoyment they get from life. We shouldn't have tossers like Michael Carrol living it up in mansions with million-quid cars when good, honest, hard-working and intelligent people slave day in day out for 30k a year and a pitiful pension.
- 28-09-2011 21:21
- 28-09-2011 21:26
- 28-09-2011 21:27
(Original post by oo00oo)
- 28-09-2011 23:00
Again you're telling me how it IS... I already know how it IS and WHY it is, what I'm saying is that's not how it should be. Can you not differentiate?
Again, I know how it works. What I'm saying is that's not how it SHOULD work.
If there's a chance you won't make a tonne of money then, in my system, you don't DESERVE a tonne of money. So for you to get that money regardless of whether you're an asset or a scab to society is just plain wrong.
No, I'm not, I'm just self-sufficient and proud of my own achievements. I want to live within the means that I create for myself through hard work, not to live within the means provided for me by somebody else because they have earnt more money than they want for themselves.
Because there's more to jobs and careers than money. People choose science because they're passionate about knowing the truth about the universe and the world we live in. People choose engineering because they're interested in applying science to making our world a better place to live in. People choose clinical research because they want to help put an end to the things that disrupt our lives in the most traumatic ways - disease and suffering.
People want to feel good about their jobs, to challenge themselves, and to feel that their job has a point in the grand scheme of things. That's why we take jobs that might not earn the best wage.
But in my world, people like this would be monetarily rewarded too.
And it's my estimate that most scientists, engineers, technologists, researchers, mathematicians, etc, would make an easy killing in the banking industry - it wouldn't be difficult for us. But I'm glad they're not wasting their lives on mindless profiteering and are instead dedicating themselves to both research, which has a direct impact on the richness of our society, and teaching, which has an indirect impact on the richness of our society.
I'm also still waiting for an answer to this question:
Just wondering what you think a 'banker' is? You seem to have the idea that all bankers rake in mega millions make very little risk and doing nothing.
You talk about them as though they are the scum of the earth, jumping on the media bandwagon are we?
(Original post by Elipsis)
- 28-09-2011 23:04
Michael Carrol is now in a council house where he belongs, and his wealth has been re-distributed to those who actually deserve it because they are intelligent and/or hardworking. If people don't want to be wage slaves they shouldn't use their free will to become one. They should choose a job that has scalability; If you're a nurse you can only tend to say 20 patients in a shift. If you're a footballer you can entertain 10 people or you can entertain 10 million people depending on how good you are. The nurse however benefits because her job is stable and relatively guaranteed, whereas those who choose to be footballers 999/1000 will end up being brick layers.
Inheritence is a good thing. If all my money was going to be grabbed by the state upon my death i'd make damn sure it had been distributed among my friends and family. Or failing that it would be in multiple offshore accounts across the world. To be fair, it will already be spread across multiple offshore accounts any way, I resent paying 40% tax on something I have already paid tax on. Then again, I will use every loophole in the book to get that % as close to zero as I can too. Your policy will just screw over people whose net worth is between 250k and a million, probably locked up in their property. And you will be removing the piece of mind that many people crave, that their family will be cared for after their gone.
- 28-09-2011 23:05
If I was rich rich, I wouldn't want to pay all that tax,
but speaking from an average person's view, Hell yeah they should be taxed more!
- 28-09-2011 23:11
- 28-09-2011 23:18
- 29-09-2011 12:14
Surely if doctors or scientist were paid loads of money then people would only go into these jobs for the money. Thus encouraging the wrong type of people needed for these roles. Doctors need to be people that want to save other people's lives no matter how much they get paid.
- 30-10-2014 07:17
Thanks for that interesting topic! Being able to leave the country is their ultimate way to avoid paying higher taxes. However, whether or not you agree that the rich people in the United States should pay more taxes, the fact is that the Internal Revenue Service has allowed numerous tax code loopholes. Through these loopholes, the resourceful can save money by working out tax exemptions. Because tax rate actually declines when yearly income surpasses $1.5 million, there's certainly something at work. It's the way the rich avoid taxes.