Whats the point trying to achieve when Labour just want to tax?

Its all gone quiet boys....... I'm still waiting to know why poor people can't get qualifications via our FREE state education system?

I didnt say I am against tax- I am against excessive tax. Particularly taxing successful people to secure votes from lazy underachievers.


1) Thats called compound interest
2) And what have the poor done about it? Nothing. Have they signed-up to evening classes? Have they visited their local library? Have they utilised their free time to learn new skills? You bet your *******s they havent! Never miss their Eastenders episode in the evenings though, do they?


1) How do these people not have a chance in life? Education is free, yes? University fees are covered by loans, yes?
2) How does tax do anything? Its only about robbing Peter of wealth to make Paul feel less poor. The tax isn't used for anything! How can money turn an idiot in to a non-idiot?


No it is not worth it. More salary means more responsibility and stress- yet I won't see as much of that additional salary because political parties like Labour prefer to steal it from me to give to people who didn't take advantage of their FREE education.

Let me be blunt:

Education in this country is FREE, nobody has an excuse to be poor, so those who are poor only have themselves to blame. There may be inequality- that doesn't matter, what matters is that there is an easy path to get out of poverty. If we have large inequality its because we have a large population who are too stupid to walk on that path.

If i'm wrong- tell me what is the barrier to doing well?

1) GCSEs are free, yes?
2) A Levels are free, yes?
3) Degrees are not free, but the tuition fee is covered by a loan and LEAs also provide grants to poorer pupils, yes?

So where is this barrier to social mobility?? All I can see are a load of lazy people bitching they aren't wealthy.

It's not true to say tax rises mean it's not worth trying. Many taxes mean the more you have, the more you keep - even if you pay more. It's how income tax works, and in most cases will likely be how much of the stuff you mentioned about Labour's proposed tax rises will work (though sometimes in practice things might vary slightly due to the nature of a tax or the difficulties in implementing it completely fairly);

In what universe?

Higher earners pay more - much more.

If you earn £10,000 - you pay no income tax. If you earn £100,000, you're on 40% - and under constant threat of a Labour supertax. Every additional pay rise you'd get - you will be unlikely to see half of it.

A low earner pays very little tax, and proportionately not very much. A high earner pays a lot of tax, and proportionately a lot.

Yet it's always the so-called "rich" who are the first port of call as taxation is somehow still "unfair".

If you're on £100k you don't pay 40% income tax.

<30%

You are in the 40% tax bracket, so every additional pound you earn is taxed at 40%.

http://www.efinancialcareers.co.uk/

There's 4,000 jobs listed- how about all the "victims" apply for those? Oh wait, they DON'T HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS

Wages have declined because the supply of Labour is constantly increased by Eastern European immigration..... which Labour encouraged.

Or, is it more likely, as I am suggesting, all these poor people don't have two worthy qualifications to rub together and hence they have no decent job?

(and THIS kids, is how you rip somebody's argument to pieces.... )

Its all gone quiet boys....... I'm still waiting to know why poor people can't get qualifications via our FREE state education system?

I can't really be bothered to go searching for statistics and I'd probably be wasting my time doing so anyway, but people from poor backgrounds do struggle much more in school than people from wealthier ones; they're less able to afford adequate nutrition, other aspects of their life are more like to effect them (such as family issues), they can't afford equipment as much, etc.

The average person isn't qualified for a job in a quite particular industry? Shocking!

Wages have been stagnating or declining since the late 1970s. Eastern European immigration within the EU started in the mid-2000s.

The average person now is substantially more qualified in terms of GCSEs, A Levels and university degrees than the average person in say, 1960. But unemployment is higher.

An important question: do you honestly believe that all the models and explanations of unemployment put forward by economists are in fact nonsense and that it's really just about laziness?

Yes, that 'somebody' being yourself.

And if you're on £10k you're in the 20% bracket, so every additional pound you earn is taxed at 20%.

That ignores NI though. The marginal rate for which is 13% if you're on £10k but 2% if you're on 100k.

Exactly- so why should a successful person not only pay more tax overall due to the higher salary but then pay more tax on every £ as a %?

Its a joke- should be a flat tax rate, this can be funded by cutting welfare more, removing the overseas aid budget etc.

If you're on £100k you don't pay 40% income tax.

<30%

Exactly- so why should a successful person not only pay more tax overall due to the higher salary but then pay more tax on every £ as a %?

Its a joke- should be a flat tax rate, this can be funded by cutting welfare more, removing the overseas aid budget etc.

Wages have declined because the supply of Labour is constantly increased by Eastern European immigration..... which Labour encouraged.
)

Just because it is theoretically possible that children from poor, under-privileged backgrounds can break the class barrier and become successful, it does not mean this is at all likely.

Imagine a kid from a working class family. His parents have manual labour or low skill jobs and they're not well-educated. They don't read or own books, they partake in only the most low-consciousness entertainment such as Eastenders and they've never discussed or tried to arouse interest in their child in politics, culture, science etc. The kid goes to a low-performing school where the majority of the kids are in the same situation as him and the teaching and resources aren't brilliant. Of course that kid COULD - and some certainly do - decide to work really hard in school, isolate themselves from a lot of peers and family, develop their own interests in extra-curricular educational persuits and opt for further education despite possible discouragement from parents, who might think university is pointless. They certainly won't have any contacts to held them find the best employment, which largely rules them out of certain careers.

But can't you see that as society currently stand that is never going to be the majority of underprivileged kids? It's not because they're lazy or stupid, they are simply going along with the path designated to them from birth because they never knew any better and were never surrounded by any different

A kid from a rich family will have intelligent, cultured parents with respectable jobs. These parents are going to introduce their children to things that will advantage them from a young age, be it music lessons, books or general discussions. These children will get to go fee-paying schools, receive a lot of attention from teachers due to smaller classes and be surrounded by children from similarly privileged families. Their friends are therefore going to be a positive influence and it will be completely normal and expected for these children to behave in a way that is the completely contrary to that of the working-class child I talked about. The child will be supported and helped in their education, encouraged and expected to attend further education and the parents are likely to have contacts and inside knowledge which will aid their child in finding a good job.

Do you really see no disparity here? No unfair odds? Obviously most people are somewhere in between these two scenarios but you seem to be implying anybody can succeed.

Oh the hypocrisy...

Using your logic, why should the UK cater to losers who benefit so much from this country and turn out to be lazy, feckless dolescum when they could get a load of poles who work harder for less?

Why should my factory be forced to employ some chav just because he happened to be born here?

Ever hear surgeons going, "Gee, this cheap labour they're importing to take all of our surgery jobs..."

You're just as bad as Labour trying to blame other people for your own inadequacies!

Personally I would be happy to earn more to pay more tax

Giving back to a system I have been relentlessly taking from since birth feels good.

A-Levels are free? How'd you pay to live while you take then?