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

V233 - Poverty Abolition Bill watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this Bill be passed into law?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    52.78%
    On the contrary, No
    36.11%
    Abstain
    11.11%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    the rich use public resources on a much greater scale than the poor
    Wait; isn't that an argument for large-scale privatisation of roads etc.?
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by sconzey)
    Wait; isn't that an argument for large-scale privatisation of roads etc.?
    How, possibly?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    :confused: Not obvious? "The rich use public resources on a much greater scale than the poor" - roads being an example of such a public resource, so if roads were privatised and we paid for them with tolls rather than taxation, the rich would pay a much higher share of the cost.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sconzey)
    Wait; isn't that an argument for large-scale privatisation of roads etc.?
    No. Something being privatised or nationalised says nothing of whether it's paid for by tax or by user fees. Changing the railway from nationalised to privatised didn't change the cost being primarily paid for by users. Just because nationalised usually means taxpayer money and privatised usually doesn't, doesn't mean that's part of the definition.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting argument.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    That's without the point that actually the rich don't use public resources much more than the poor, the middle class do, who tend to pay more tax since they don't use the interesting accountancy and payment methods to avoid tax that the rich do and the tax free bits are a smaller % of their income than for the poor.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    How, possibly?
    As Drogue pointed out; I said privatisation and meant co-payment. Although one of the few justifiable arguments for nationalisation is that the service needs to be "free"

    Saying that the rich use public services far more than the poor is a strong argument for charging per-use, rather than through tax-money. Thus, everyone pays their "fair share" according to how much they use the service. If you're covering the cost at the point of use, what's the point in having the service nationalised?
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by sconzey)
    As Drogue pointed out; I said privatisation and meant co-payment. Although one of the few justifiable arguments for nationalisation is that the service needs to be "free"

    Saying that the rich use public services far more than the poor is a strong argument for charging per-use, rather than through tax-money. Thus, everyone pays their "fair share" according to how much they use the service. If you're covering the cost at the point of use, what's the point in having the service nationalised?
    You put out a bill sensibly charging people for road use and i'll vote for it :yy:

    Even so, the vast majority of 'rich' people, almost always, use public resources much more heavily than 'poor' people (think wider than roads, like radio waves or air or water; how do you suggest we charge for those?). It's not a matter of per use, which would really be ridiculously complicated and an administrative nightmare.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    a) Equality? Are you a socialist? I believe centrists and some libertarians prize equity above all. And a flat tax destroys equity. Those who have wealth can better use it, and those who don't; well, they can't.

    b) Even on the subject of equality; the rich use public resources on a much greater scale than the poor. A flat tax ignores this fundamental concept.
    a) As the leader of the Liberal Democrats are saying that the Lib Dems are no longer a party interested in equality? Interesting.

    And no, I'm not a Socialist, I'm a Libertarian. I think that the coercive power of the State, when used, must be used in the same way for everyone. Laws should affect everyone in essentially the same way. And no, a flat tax doesn't destroy equality at all - it is the very definition of equality in the taxation world.

    b) As Drogue has already pointed out - you're wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    a) As the leader of the Liberal Democrats are saying that the Lib Dems are no longer a party interested in equality? Interesting.
    Oh stop putting words in my mouth. We've never been interestedin the kind of equality we're talking about here, but rather equality before the law (as pointed out by Adorno) or equality of opportunity. We are a party with a strong tendency for welfare liberalism. That means we are all for strong welfare from the State, in order to limit inequality. But it does not mean that we seek full on equality.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    a) As the leader of the Liberal Democrats are saying that the Lib Dems are no longer a party interested in equality? Interesting.
    Stop imagining things. He simply said that it was an overrated concept, often blown up beyond all proportions. And even so, we do not believe in total equality. That is socialism. We believing in limiting inequality to the extent that it no longer compromises EQUITY, which is a much more laudable concept.

    And no, I'm not a Socialist, I'm a Libertarian. I think that the coercive power of the State, when used, must be used in the same way for everyone.

    Um, why? Libertarianism is all about those who being able to afford it doing whatever they want. :wtf: This implies no equality, io society, in the economy, and certainly not in the state.

    Laws should affect everyone in essentially the same way.
    Why? Why legal equality if not economic?

    And no, a flat tax doesn't destroy equality at all - it is the very definition of equality in the taxation world.
    No, because once again, it ignores that rich people DO use public resources more I'm not talking just about schools and hospitals; extend the argument to include every public good and the rich industrialist has a much greater demand for water and air than the street sweeper, for example. And even so, it destroys EQUITY. Which i think is much more important than equality.

    I think the tax system can be addressed in equity terms as such. Everybody who can afford to pay and live a reasonable standard of living and have a good chance at life pays the 45% tax rate. Those who can't to such an extent, pay 35%, to put them on an equitable footing in life. Those who can't at all, pay 15% or 10% or whatever, to compensate for their inability to get a decent start in life. A flat tax ignores this fundamental concept; hence why it is inequitable. You're right. We don't have a neurotic obsession with equality, past all logic. We do, rather, have a strong desire for equity.

    b) As Drogue has already pointed out - you're wrong.
    Whatever you wish to tell yourself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Before we go on can you define two terms that you've used:
    1) Equity
    2) Public resources
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Before we go on can you define two terms that you've used:
    1) Equity
    2) Public resources
    Equity = fairness, to put it oversimplistically.

    Public resources: literally everything that is not in the private sphere or owned (eg, streetlighting, roads, air, water, healthcare, schooling, army, firefighters, stability).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Equity = fairness, to put it oversimplistically.

    Public resources: literally everything that is not in the private sphere or owned (eg, streetlighting, roads, air, water, healthcare, schooling, army, firefighters, stability).
    So, in what way, exactly, is a flat tax rate not "fair"? As I see it it is the only tax system in which everyone is treated the same (surely the definition of fairness).

    On the second point of public resources - are you seriously suggesting that the rich who send their kids to private schools and who use private healthcare make more use of public resources than the poor? They breath more? They walk around the streets more? They get defended by the army more? Come on. Seriously?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    As I see it it is the only tax system in which everyone is treated the same (surely the definition of fairness).
    well a lot of people wouldn't see that as the definition of fairness. they might see it more about the consequences - making sure everyone is adequately advantaged in life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    So, in what way, exactly, is a flat tax rate not "fair"? As I see it it is the only tax system in which everyone is treated the same (surely the definition of fairness).
    When looking at it from this angle, a flat tax is fair. Sure. However, as I have already explained, I don't look at it from this angle. We need to spend money in order to pursue welfare problems and limit inequality i.e. poverty. If we want to spend money, we need to make money. Which people have the most money? The rich people. While yes, a flat rate of income tax ensures that people pay the same proportion of their income, at the end of the day, someone on a very high wage (6 digits plus) can afford to lose a higher proportion of their wage than someone on 5 digits or less. I consider it acceptable to tax the guy on 6 figures a higher proportion, in order to help out the guys at the bottom of the ladder more effectively. Is it unfair? Arguably. Is it morally acceptable? I think it's more acceptable than a flat rate of tax, and this is our point of disagreement I feel.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    So, in what way, exactly, is a flat tax rate not "fair"? As I see it it is the only tax system in which everyone is treated the same (surely the definition of fairness).

    On the second point of public resources - are you seriously suggesting that the rich who send their kids to private schools and who use private healthcare make more use of public resources than the poor? They breath more? They walk around the streets more? They get defended by the army more? Come on. Seriously?
    I've already explained.

    You need to stop looking at progressive taxation as taxing the rich more. the 45% income tax rate is the STANDARD income tax rate. You simply tax the less rich less. They pay the below standard income tax rate. They are considered worse off compared to the 'rich'; if they earned the same income, they would pay the same as 'rich' people. But they don't, and this is because they have far fewer resources to succeed in life. It is only fair that they pay less money to the state and keep more to increase their chances of success.

    They don't breathe more, but a factory owned by a corporation uses the air (and pollutes it), and the largest proportion of profits in this case goes to the shareholders; the biggest shareholders are the 'rich', who thus benefit the most from the use of a public resource, 'air', in this example.

    And yes. A rich industrialist benefits much more from the stability and security afforded by the army than a poor street cleaner.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As I see it there are two ways of measuring equality or fairness. We could either consider that it is only fair for everyone to be treated the same by the State (equality of opportunity) or else consider it only fair that everyone have the same stuff (equality of outcome). The two are mutually exclusive. Since the Lib Dems, as far as I know, do not support equality of outcome they must support equality of opportunity or else be left without any real guiding light.

    Anyway, T&J, your point here is void. Your argument is that we need unfair taxation to help the poor. I think this Bill adequately shows that we do not.

    And Lefty Leo - Seriously I cannot work out if you're joking. Claiming that everyone not rich is getting a tax break and therefore the rich are not paying more is a joke. And claiming that the rich use more air therefore they should pay more (despite noone actually paying for air) or that they make better use of stability (?) therefore they should pay more is ridiculous and empty. I think scientists make better use of electricity than porn junkies (debatable I know) should they pay more for their electricity?

    And here's one for the supporters of taxing the rich not only more but at a higher rate because they won't miss the money as much - should the rich be given lighter prison sentences than the poor because they'll miss their home comforts more? Unless you can answer yes to that last question I think your position becomes untenable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    The requirements of recipients is taken into account, that includes any disabilities.
    Sums the whole thing up tbh. Vague, but padded to try and assume some degree of comprehensive coverage, which frankly is not there. This is not even mentioning the fact that it is a silly, silly idea.

    No.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    Sums the whole thing up tbh. Vague, but padded to try and assume some degree of comprehensive coverage, which frankly is not there. This is not even mentioning the fact that it is a silly, silly idea.

    No.
    Any explanation or just a vague dismissal?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 17, 2010
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

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.