Turn on thread page Beta

You are a top earner, your views on income tax? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Definitions of wealth redistribution on the Web:
    In economics, redistribution is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others.

    Therefore funding social services does not constitute wealth redistribution.
    Eh? The fact that the money is channeled through government doesn't stop this being wealth redistribution! It is not significant that the process is controlled centrally, that's just the most efficient way of running it. Would you accept it as wealth redistribution if I was instead sent a list of a few unemployed people and had to send a cheque directly to each one?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetroll)
    Eh? The fact that the money is channeled through government doesn't stop this being wealth redistribution! It is not significant that the process is controlled centrally, that's just the most efficient way of running it. Would you accept it as wealth redistribution if I was instead sent a list of a few unemployed people and had to send a cheque directly to each one?
    I already said in my previous post that there is some wealth redistribution, but not a lot. The majority of taxes goes on public services, therefore no wealth has been redistributed. In fact, I believe the reason a lot of hard line labour supporters are pissed off with them at the moment is because they feel they are entitled to the rich of societies money and they deliberately voted for labour to get their grubby mitts on it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Definitions of wealth redistribution on the Web:
    In economics, redistribution is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others.

    Therefore funding social services does not constitute wealth redistribution.
    Yes it does! the first bit is correct, the second is an incorrect interpretation! :rolleyes:

    In laymans terms -

    You are taking money from people who have more to give, and spending it on services for the public, for other individuals to use. Its for everyone. Note that social services (i am assuming you're talking about social workers and that line of work, because your post is difficult to understand) are one aspect to the public sphere.

    My original post talked about the public sphere as a whole, ie public transport, healthcare, education and that taxes are spent on all of these things. The higher the taxes, the higher the funding for public sphere spending, which is the redistribution of wealth. How can you not understand that!?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    there is some wealth redistribution
    therefore no wealth has been redistributed
    You want to take a minute to think this over a bit more?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichaelG)
    Yes it does! the first bit is correct, the second is an incorrect interpretation!

    In laymans terms -

    You are taking money from people who have more to give, and spending it on services for the public, for other individuals to use. Its for everyone. Note that social services (i am assuming you're talking about social workers and that line of work, because your post is difficult to understand) are one aspect to the public sphere.

    My original post talked about the public sphere as a whole, ie public transport, healthcare, education and that taxes are spent on all of these things. The higher the taxes, the higher the funding for public sphere spending, which is the redistribution of wealth. How can you not understand that!?
    The purpose of the taxation system was never to redistribute wealth directly though. The idea behind it is that the wealthier of society have a duty, a burden if you will, to provide social services for the sick and the poor of this county. Some wealth is directly re-distributed in the form of benefits and so on, but everything else is only indirect wealth redistribution at best.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetroll)
    You want to take a minute to think this over a bit more?
    You know what I meant; the money that goes on public services is not wealth re-distribution. The money that goes to pay benefits is.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    People need to understand the concept of progressive taxation.

    It's not a flat 40%.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why are people so arrogant to say they have 'earned' that money, positions in business depend on extortion of the public, for example selling clothes.
    Lawyers are another example, it is impossible to find a 'cheap' lawyer so you have to pay the extrotionate money that they charge, my lawyer charges 20 pounds to send a letter asking for a meeting, then 40 pounds a minute on the phone if you want to cancel the meeting. Alot of people do not realise the way the world works, without the 'Grubby mitts' you have no wealth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I would be happy with 60% taxes.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thetroll)
    No, it doesn't. It's an opinion, and very far from a universally held one.
    Whether an opinion is universally held is completely irrelevant to its truth or falsity. Even so, the majority of people

    Oh, this is very shabby. We all benefit from the rail network. It does not follow from that that the value of the rail network is its entire cost of installation and maintenance multiplied by the population!
    Value can be calculated in many ways. What is it you find particularly offensive about this valuation? You do receive the benefit of the service, so why is the benefit not equal to the amount it would cost you to privately recreate the benefit? It still stands that the services that we receive from paying taxation are worth more than the financial contribution made by any citizen.

    This is rather emotive nonsense. The default position is the non-provision of services, as in a perfect anarchy. You get air, sunlight and rainwater for free, everything else has to be paid for. From there, we decide what services to provide through taxation. The removal of services is not a burden on others - it is the restoration of the status quo ante. The only "burden" in operation is the ongoing taxation that would be required to continue their provision.
    Are you an anarchist? I'm not sure I follow your intentions here. Do you want to remove all services? What would possibly be gained aside from forcing nearly everyone into utter poverty?

    Your argument is pretty stupid anyway. I could just as easily argue that the default position is for you to have no money, so when you get paid if I take all your wages away you are not harmed.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    You know what I meant; the money that goes on public services is not wealth re-distribution. The money that goes to pay benefits is.
    Public services are a form of wealth redistribution. The alternative to free at the point of service schooling is fee schooling, so you receive a benefit in kind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    You know what I meant; the money that goes on public services is not wealth re-distribution. The money that goes to pay benefits is.
    You're taking too narrow a view of what constitutes "wealth". It includes resources, not just cash. Someone with free access to public services has been made more wealthy than they were without that access.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikdc5)
    But these services are subsidised by others for you as well. Your contributions alone aren't paying for the NHS and a standing army.

    Also, money is a shared and circulated resource, a kidney isn't. There is one fundamental difference to start you off.
    Why would I need to pay for the whole NHS? I am not responsible for every penny of the NHS's expenditure. The army is why I said there should be a fixed percentage tax based on your assets because the more you have the more you need the army. Your need for medical care however is not linked to income.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The purpose of the taxation system was never to redistribute wealth directly though. The idea behind it is that the wealthier of society have a duty, a burden if you will, to provide social services for the sick and the poor of this county. Some wealth is directly re-distributed in the form of benefits and so on, but everything else is only indirect wealth redistribution at best.
    Partly correct, at least in its original intentions. We are technically in a Labour government, with a left of centre view of the economy and I was explaining their ideas behind income tax (again if you refer back to my first post you will see).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nadamo)
    Why are people so arrogant to say they have 'earned' that money, positions in business depend on extortion of the public, for example selling clothes.
    Lawyers are another example, it is impossible to find a 'cheap' lawyer so you have to pay the extrotionate money that they charge, my lawyer charges 20 pounds to send a letter asking for a meeting, then 40 pounds a minute on the phone if you want to cancel the meeting. Alot of people do not realise the way the world works, without the 'Grubby mitts' you have no wealth.
    Well fire him and do it yourself.

    (Original post by nikdc5)
    Whether an opinion is universally held is completely irrelevant to its truth or falsity. Even so, the majority of people
    And whether you hold an opinion is irrelevant too.

    Value can be calculated in many ways. What is it you find particularly offensive about this valuation? You do receive the benefit of the service, so why is the benefit not equal to the amount it would cost you to privately recreate the benefit? It still stands that the services that we receive from paying taxation are worth more than the financial contribution made by any citizen.
    That cost would not be for an individual it would be for a company which would then own and profit from the service. For most high earners, private medical care would cost less than their contributions to the NHS.

    Are you an anarchist? I'm not sure I follow your intentions here. Do you want to remove all services? What would possibly be gained aside from forcing nearly everyone into utter poverty?

    Your argument is pretty stupid anyway. I could just as easily argue that the default position is for you to have no money, so when you get paid if I take all your wages away you are not harmed.
    He's saying that the default position is no services and no taxation, therefore as you add services you charge for them.

    I agree that the default position is for us to have no money, but it is also the default position for us to not work. You choose to work to receive money. Therefore if you take the money away he is harmed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikdc5)
    Value can be calculated in many ways. What is it you find particularly offensive about this valuation?
    Well, it can be calculated in many ways if you include just plucking numbers out of the air and multiplying them together.
    The only meaningful value to me of a particular service is the amount I would be prepared to spend to avoid it being taken away. I wouldn't go above a few hundred a year for the railway network (the difference between the fares I pay and the value of the service to me) - any higher and I'm better off using alternatives.
    You do receive the benefit of the service, so why is the benefit not equal to the amount it would cost you to privately recreate the benefit?
    Correct. But the benefit to me is only the convenience as compared to the alternatives.

    Are you an anarchist? I'm not sure I follow your intentions here. Do you want to remove all services?
    No, I want to remove that expenditure that is not justified by the benefit it brings.

    I could just as easily argue that the default position is for you to have no money, so when you get paid if I take all your wages away you are not harmed.
    Of course I'm harmed. I was taking issue with the word "burden". It would be a hit, certainly, but not a burden (which implies an ongoing cost).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Allthewayhome)
    People need to understand the concept of progressive taxation.

    It's not a flat 40%.
    Atleast someone else mentioned it :cool:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    I totally agree. Nothing annoys me more than people who leave the land where they were born and brought up and who they owe their upbringing too (tax or no) and just back up and leave to feather their nest elsewhere. If anything has contributed to the degeneration of British society, it has been the mass emigration of skilled professionals to the US, Germany, Australia et cetera. It is pretty much the same thing that has held India back in the past. Then again, what can you do? It's just as much their right to leave and avoid taxes as is the right of someone like me to voice this outdated view.
    They would have stayed here if tax was lower. We lost a lot of our bets talent in the 70's when that stupid communist harold wilson was prime minister.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    They would have stayed here if tax was lower. We lost a lot of our bets talent in the 70's when that stupid communist harold wilson was prime minister.
    This.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oo_Lucinda_oo)
    Yes, but they still use the services, and the amount of tax they then pay is not equal to those who earn less.
    If I employ someone to grit my drive at a salary of £60,000 per year, from which the government automatically deducts £24,000, then I am effectively paying £36,000 to that person and £24,000 to the government. If out of that remaining £36,000 they spend £16,000 on luxury goods, then I am effectively paying £33,600 to them and £2,400 to the government. So for every nominal £60,000 salary I issue, it is not unreasonable to say that I essentially tithe in excess of £24,000 to Gordon Brown; and that as an entrepreneur, all known taxation ultimately flows from my venture capital/revenue-generating activities - nevermind the money saved by the public sector whenever I opt for a chauffeur-driven limousine in lieu of a bus, or choose BUPA instead of the NHS (which, having indirectly contributed hundreds of millions of pounds to its coffers, I should feel no necessary obligation to do).

    That's not quite what I meant.
    What did you mean?
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.