Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    People who earn more money, do so for a reason. Either because they work harder or because they have skills that other people do not. Is it fair that they are forced to give up money, which they earned, to improve someone else's life?

    Yes, it is fair that a nurse earns less. More people have the ability to become nurses than company executives.

    A more equal society does not improve productivity and standard of living. The Soviet Union was a more equal society.
    Are you really arguing that everyone should pay the same amount of tax regardless of their income?

    Your view that only the skilled and hard working are rich is very wrong. Inheritance, the lottery, luck, crime all make you very rich. Whats more my friend the cocaine dealer might be very skilled at his job but is he really more valuable to society than our nurse?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    The Soivet Union was not a more equal society, the old style class system was replaced by a new one which centred around the party.
    Yes it was. An engineer earned roughly the same wage as a factory worker, they lived in the same block of flats, went on the same holiday and neither had a car.
    Company executives often do not have special knowledge or skills but are put there through relations or contacts which come from moving in the right circles of society.
    So you are saying that the average nurse can do the same job as an executive (never mind his economics degree and business skills)? In any case, it is up to private companies how much they pay their executives.
    Is it right and fair to pay taxes to improve someone elses life, this is the same argument you hear against giving poor countries aid and other help, we live in a world were we're all dependent on each otehr and for the good of societies from villages and towns to nations, the rich have a duty to help the poor, because if not we are all tainted by the injustice of poverty.
    It is not our duty to do anything. If people wish, they can give to charity, but it is not the government's job to improve someone's life with other people's money, without their consent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Are you really arguing that everyone should pay the same amount of tax regardless of their income?
    That is too drastic a step for our society, but I'm leaning towards that view, yes.
    Your view that only the skilled and hard working are rich is very wrong. Inheritance, the lottery, luck, crime all make you very rich.
    Are you really arguing that we should abolish the right to leave your money to your children and to gamble?
    Whats more my friend the cocaine dealer might be very skilled at his job but is he really more valuable to society than our nurse?
    The cocaine dealer does not pay income tax, and is therefore irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Yes it was. An engineer earned roughly the same wage as a factory worker, they lived in the same block of flats, went on the same holiday and neither had a car.

    What about the party members who had their own shops to get things ordinary russians could not such as designer jeans, and they got the best houses. The leaders all sent their kids to private schools and apart from two years as secondary school you had to pay for education. Not very equal.

    So you are saying that the average nurse can do the same job as an executive (never mind his economics degree and business skills)? In any case, it is up to private companies how much they pay their executives.

    No, i'm saying the average executive couldn't do a nurses job. What about Rupert Murdoch's and Malcolm Glazier's sons who all have jobs in their fathers companies. Also, look at GW Bush, who was put in charge of several companies because of his connections, got paid very well and screwed them all up!

    It is not our duty to do anything. If people wish, they can give to charity, but it is not the government's job to improve someone's life with other people's money, without their consent.
    This is because we have very different outlooks on the world, I see taxation and government spending as a moral responsibility whereas you do not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Soz screwed up my reply, and have mingled my comments in with yours!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    This is because we have very different outlooks on the world, I see taxation and government spending as a moral responsibility whereas you do not.
    Yes, but your views involve forcing your moral framework on people like me. Mine are, that if you wish to spend your money on others, it is your right. Which is why my views are, and I don't mean to rub it in your face, better.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    That is too drastic a step for our society, but I'm leaning towards that view, yes.
    Tax in our country is progressive, ie at a higher salary you pay a higher proportion of your income. I take it you disagree with that. Do you disagree with flat rate of tax, ie everyone pays 10% of their income to the government? or do you think that there should be a fixed amount? I ask this as clearly the fixed amount would not raise enough money to run this country in its current state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Yes, but your views involve forcing your moral framework on people like me. Mine are, that if you wish to spend your money on others, it is your right. Which is why my views are, and I don't mean to rub it in your face, better.
    You live in this country and hence part of that contract with this state is that you accept legislation passed by our governement inculding taxiation. No one is forcing you to stay in this country. (assuming you live in the UK)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, I accept your views, I am not trying to force my "moral framework" on you but to argue for my point of view. Do you know any countries where there is no taxation? How would you practically enforce it, and would you be prepared to tell the poorest members of society to earn enough money or live in the gutter?

    The only way I can see your view working is if society started over and there were no taxes from the beginning, taxes are entrenched in our system of government (in my view rightly). Or you could start up a political party and if you got voted in then fine, id accept it. But, the fact is we have a democratic mandate to govern and taxes are a plank of our manifesto.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    Soz screwed up my reply, and have mingled my comments in with yours!
    What about the party members who had their own shops to get things ordinary russians could not such as designer jeans, and they got the best houses. The leaders all sent their kids to private schools and apart from two years as secondary school you had to pay for education. Not very equal.
    This was a very small majority of the population at the very top of the party and the military. 99% were on the same level.
    No, i'm saying the average executive couldn't do a nurses job. What about Rupert Murdoch's and Malcolm Glazier's sons who all have jobs in their fathers companies. Also, look at GW Bush, who was put in charge of several companies because of his connections, got paid very well and screwed them all up!
    Is it that hard to train as a nurse? Harder than getting a good degree in a subject like Economics or Law and then working your way up the promotion ladder? I'm sure that an executive could retrain as a nurse, but it would be far harder for the average nurse to work her way up to that level.

    As for employing family, it is the companies right to employ whoever they want, but most of the time that person is extremely good at business. As for GW Bush, you've proven my point - managing a company is a difficult job and most people can't do it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    You live in this country and hence part of that contract with this state is that you accept legislation passed by our governement inculding taxiation. No one is forcing you to stay in this country. (assuming you live in the UK)
    Yeah, but isn't it my right to question the government's legislation??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Is it that hard to train as a nurse? Harder than getting a good degree in a subject like Economics or Law and then working your way up the promotion ladder? I'm sure that an executive could retrain as a nurse, but it would be far harder for the average nurse to work her way up to that level
    No but its proably pretty difficult to work shifts, having to get up at all hours to go to work, deal with death and illness on a daily basis as well as abuse from the public. How many CEO's deal with that.

    So yeah both jobs are hard, but one is not harder than the other and it wrong to try and compare them
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Is it that hard to train as a nurse? Harder than getting a good degree in a subject like Economics or Law and then working your way up the promotion ladder? I'm sure that an executive could retrain as a nurse, but it would be far harder for the average nurse to work her way up to that level.
    Do you what standard of living nurse's get in this country?

    Abused by drunk yobs, tasked with looking after people's lives, work long hours at difficult times, it takes years of training, promotions are few and far and between. Yet our society treats them like rubbish, they earn hardly anything and its hard to get on the property ladder. Yet our society desperately needs them, now market forces would tell you that if this is the case they should be paid more.... however they arent are they?

    It doesnt help humanity when we go and steal other 3rd world countries's nurses either.

    This is just a general rant as i think nurse's get so screwed over by everyone. The economist doesn't have anywhere near the same conditions of work, is hardly any more skilled and has a very nice life to go home to at 5 in the evening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pepaim)
    Well, I accept your views, I am not trying to force my "moral framework" on you but to argue for my point of view. Do you know any countries where there is no taxation? How would you practically enforce it, and would you be prepared to tell the poorest members of society to earn enough money or live in the gutter?
    You are. You are saying that the government should use my taxes to fund those less fortunate than myself. It is noone's right to say what I do with my money.
    The only way I can see your view working is if society started over and there were no taxes from the beginning, taxes are entrenched in our system of government (in my view rightly). Or you could start up a political party and if you got voted in then fine, id accept it. But, the fact is we have a democratic mandate to govern and taxes are a plank of our manifesto.
    Yes I know, that is why I'm having this debate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    You are. You are saying that the government should use my taxes to fund those less fortunate than myself. It is noone's right to say what I do with my money.
    the government has a democratic mandate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    quick point as im going to lunch. If noone payed taxes we would have no roads, no social services, no police, fire and ambulances, no government, no schools, no colleges, no bin men, the list is endless.

    how do you think these things are funded.

    think about it dudes and dudettes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    I'm sure that an executive could retrain as a nurse, but it would be far harder for the average nurse to work her way up to that level.
    .
    I'm pretty sure most executives couldn't retrain as a nurse because they wouldn't be able to cope with the long hours, stress and dedication needed.

    (Original post by TheVlad)
    As for GW Bush, you've proven my point - managing a company is a difficult job and most people can't do it.
    This does not prove your point but shows that someone like Bush, and there are many such examples, earn vast amounts of money becuase of their contacts and not becuase of their competence so should pay more tax, why does anyone need that much money anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rachaelmarie)
    No but its proably pretty difficult to work shifts, having to get up at all hours to go to work, deal with death and illness on a daily basis as well as abuse from the public. How many CEO's deal with that.
    People earn the amount of money they are prepared to work for. So if noone wanted to work as a nurse for £10 per hour (random figure) the hospitals would have to increase their wages to a point (eg £15) where people would be prepared to take the job.
    This is how a free market works, and ensure that everyone earns what they deserve.
    So yeah both jobs are hard, but one is not harder than the other and it wrong to try and compare them
    I think you'll find I wasn't the one who suggested this comparison.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    the government has a democratic mandate
    Yes, it has a democratic mandate to enforce your moral views on mine. I'm arguing that it is wrong to give the government such a democratic mandate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markgg)
    quick point as im going to lunch. If noone payed taxes we would have no roads, no social services, no police, fire and ambulances, no government, no schools, no colleges, no bin men, the list is endless.

    how do you think these things are funded.

    think about it dudes and dudettes.
    Read the rest of the thread. Several alternatives were suggested.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,595

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.