This discussion is closed.
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 16 years ago
#41
(Original post by JSM)
theres nothing wrong with that, you just shouldnt make the rich poorer to make the poor richer
So you think its right that all these lords can have millions just because they were born into that family?

Surely they will not miss an extra £100,000 a year to help the poor.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 16 years ago
#42
(Original post by corey)
So you are happy to see the poor become even poorer and people fall below the poverty line? Your morality worries me.
morality is based on christianity and rule of the weak, so im not worried by ti. ther poverty line is an arbitary finacnial barrier, there might be some better off under it with degrees than some who live above it.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 16 years ago
#43
(Original post by pkonline)
Then how do you make the poorer richer?
by giving them tax breaks and money and vouchers and letting them off paying university fees, surely poorer students dont get paid to get an education (oh no they do) in college. and at university, middle class students will have to pay the full whack and leave with the same degree as a poorer student who will end up with £18,000 debt ass oposed to £30,000.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 16 years ago
#44
(Original post by JSM)
nordic men (hitler's ideas of aryans). Once you have the infrastructure to take wealth and give it to someone, are you sure that is not going to be misappropriated, like the NAzis did.

Talent moves down south, london is ****ed, i dont know where you live, but if you walk around it, it is grotty, grimy and actually very poor in some areas. (its the same where i have been in the north). London can support its projects and police them although it is the same conditions in the north. bypasses are useless and exorbitantly expensive. bring on the private toll roads.
I'm pretty sure, yes.

but the point is you're still enjoying MUCH better standards in education, healthcare, employment, down there. To the point of you're much less likely to die of cancer, have no GCSEs or be unemployed down south. Because you're getting all the investment, whilst parts of the north are STILL in decline. The north needs investment which the south is hogging. Bypasses aren't useless, infrastructure + jobs = economic growth.
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#45
Report 16 years ago
#45
(Original post by JSM)
morality is based on christianity and rule of the weak, so im not worried by ti. ther poverty line is an arbitary finacnial barrier, there might be some better off under it with degrees than some who live above it.
I will take it from your stupid statement that you have never thought about ethics or come into contact with someone who has studied it. Please don't make wild statements without any knowledge.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 16 years ago
#46
(Original post by JSM)
by giving them tax breaks and money and vouchers and letting them off paying university fees, surely poorer students dont get paid to get an education (oh no they do) in college. and at university, middle class students will have to pay the full whack and leave with the same degree as a poorer student who will end up with £18,000 debt ass oposed to £30,000.
If thats EMA you are refereing to then I think its needed but marketed wrong. My sister reallies heavily on EMA and she got straight A's in her AS exams last year.

I think what is wrong that GNVQ foundation students are paid like £30 a week when the education they are getting is so poor.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 16 years ago
#47
(Original post by fishpaste)
Say you were to use a regressive tax system, and the proportion was set at 20%.

20% off £18 000 would be £14 400, that's very hard to live on
20% off £1 million is 0.8 million, still very comfortable living.
and, you have still lost 20% of your income either way. to stay in your 1 million a year job, you need to dress the part in expensive suits, be able to commute into london (expensive) and work very hard, possibly hiring a personal assistant in order for you to keep track of what you do. So therefore you spend a lot of money. and whatever they spend will trickle down to the poor.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 16 years ago
#48
(Original post by nero076)
Income inequality is the fundamental misallocation of resources. A single mum on £60 benefits gains a lot more marginal utility from an extra £1 than a company director on £200 000 a year. Hence reallocate that money, makes perfect economic sense.
and, the company director earns his money, the single mum is on benefits and is not actually working
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 16 years ago
#49
(Original post by JSM)
and, you have still lost 20% of your income either way. to stay in your 1 million a year job, you need to dress the part in expensive suits, be able to commute into london (expensive) and work very hard, possibly hiring a personal assistant in order for you to keep track of what you do. So therefore you spend a lot of money. and whatever they spend will trickle down to the poor.
I feel so sorry for them (not). Jesus this is the first time I have ever said this but some middle class people are so damn selfish.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 16 years ago
#50
(Original post by amazingtrade)
So you think its right that all these lords can have millions just because they were born into that family?

Surely they will not miss an extra £100,000 a year to help the poor.
yes, becasue someone in their past has made that money by being, bigger, better, stronger than the rest.

they might not miss it, but it should be their choice if they give it away, because it belongs to them
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 16 years ago
#51
(Original post by JSM)
and, you have still lost 20% of your income either way. to stay in your 1 million a year job, you need to dress the part in expensive suits, be able to commute into london (expensive) and work very hard, possibly hiring a personal assistant in order for you to keep track of what you do. So therefore you spend a lot of money. and whatever they spend will trickle down to the poor.
No, actually, you'll just have to put off buying that penthouse. Depriving the millionaires of their penthouses isn't quite the same as decreasing somebody to a £14.4 k income, where you probably couldn't even afford rent/mortgage.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 16 years ago
#52
(Original post by fishpaste)
I'm pretty sure, yes.

but the point is you're still enjoying MUCH better standards in education, healthcare, employment, down there. To the point of you're much less likely to die of cancer, have no GCSEs or be unemployed down south. Because you're getting all the investment, whilst parts of the north are STILL in decline. The north needs investment which the south is hogging. Bypasses aren't useless, infrastructure + jobs = economic growth.
most bypasses are useless, infrastructure - information now, we do not do much manufacturing anymore and it is decreasing even more (so the north doesnt need it) and surely the north as the industrial heartlands already has all the infrastructure it neeeds. The south is not hogging investment, it is up to investers where they put their money. the governmetn should equally redistribute the money.
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#53
Report 16 years ago
#53
(Original post by joka85)
the point if...if some guy is earning a lot of money...it is through no 'fault' of his own...he will have worked hard to get where he has and shouldn't be taxed for this...
That's true but also those who earn less don't neccessarily work less harder.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 16 years ago
#54
(Original post by corey)
I will take it from your stupid statement that you have never thought about ethics or come into contact with someone who has studied it. Please don't make wild statements without any knowledge.
actually i am reading about ethics at the moment and they are totally different to morals. So i have no idea where you are coming from.
0
joka85
Badges: 0
#55
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#55
some of you people advocating what you are doesn't make all that much sense...because all your arguments come down to morality...which as it is vaguely defined...rather a weak argument...

and what was wrong with the poll tax...it was extremely sensible...think about it...a person who has 10 people in their house is using more public services that someone in a big house with two people...so the former should get taxed more...people don't like it simply through envy...

the point if...if some guy is earning a lot of money...it is through no 'fault' of his own...he will have worked hard to get where he has and shouldn't be taxed for this...

and the other guy who said the base tax rate would have to be raised in order to make the same revenue...not totally true... a lot of useless expenditure...such as 'mickey-mouse degrees' and child benefits for the rich can be scrapped...as well as reducing the X-inefficiency that plagues public organisations such as the NHS. Studies have been carried out that if the base tax rate was equal...a lot of the rich would just pay the tax...and not take their earnings abroad, leave the country or exploit loopholes...

at the same time...for the extremely poor...we could maintain the current 12.5%...and you have a solution


N.B. also, all money given on income support should be vouchure based...what good is it having people on income support, smoking and drinking profusely...and later costing the NHS money...i'm sorry but if you don't have the money...and are receiving support from the state...use it in such a way as to enhance your prospects (education course, training, open university etc.) or to enhance the prospects for your children so they don't have the same problems. it has been said that some 40-50% of those on income support smoke...how useful!
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report 16 years ago
#56
(Original post by amazingtrade)
If thats EMA you are refereing to then I think its needed but marketed wrong. My sister reallies heavily on EMA and she got straight A's in her AS exams last year.

I think what is wrong that GNVQ foundation students are paid like £30 a week when the education they are getting is so poor.
EMA still pays students to remain in college, whereas i pay to remain in 6 form (private) and pay via taxes to send her there and then pay again to give her EMA and then help her even more by not taking my state provided place.

I agree, but they should not be paid anyway.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#57
Report 16 years ago
#57
(Original post by JSM)
yes, becasue someone in their past has made that money by being, bigger, better, stronger than the rest.
Someone in their past? Are you aware that the fact that you were born into the situation you were born into and not in a Somalian refugee camp was due to pure, barefaced good luck?
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 16 years ago
#58
(Original post by JSM)
yes, becasue someone in their past has made that money by being, bigger, better, stronger than the rest.

they might not miss it, but it should be their choice if they give it away, because it belongs to them
I assure you working in Kwik Save is much harder than becoming a Lord, in fact, I don't think employing children in factories 120 years ago to make your millions was ever particularly hard.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#59
Report 16 years ago
#59
(Original post by JSM)
EMA still pays students to remain in college, whereas i pay to remain in 6 form (private) and pay via taxes to send her there and then pay again to give her EMA and then help her even more by not taking my state provided place.

I agree, but they should not be paid anyway.
You CHOOSE to go a private school. No one forces you to, you would be perfectly entitled to attend a state school if you so wished.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report 16 years ago
#60
(Original post by pkonline)
That's true but also those who earn less don't neccessarily work less harder.
*less hard

however, those who earn less are not necessarily working harder either.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (148)
60.66%
Yes- I don't like it (11)
4.51%
No- I want it (68)
27.87%
No- I don't want it (17)
6.97%

Watched Threads

View All