Join TSR now and chat with students like youSign up now

People earning over £60000 should have a 0.8 to the pound tax rate? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    If we raised the standards of education of the state then there wouldn't be a need for private education
    except that's not how reality works

    there is not a single point in which it is realistically possible that state-provided education can be of higher quality than that of privately run schools.

    It's called efficiency and incentive. Plus those teachers you'd have to train for that super-good education in state-funded schools would be fetched up by private educators due to better working conditions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    welfare is there to allow you to live if you have a poorly paying job
    The argument would be that anyone working full time should not need welfare from the state to survive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    except that's not how reality works

    there is not a single point in which it is realistically possible that state-provided education can be of higher quality than that of privately run schools.

    It's called efficiency and incentive. Plus those teachers you'd have to train for that super-good education in state-funded schools would be fetched up by private educators due to better working conditions.
    There are plenty of state schools better than private schools in certain areas so it is indeed doable

    Bs. How is that fair? Why should someone who's born with no money be at an immediate disadvantage in life? Why should I have to make up the ground? It's possible (I'm an example I think, or will be) but that's down to chance more than work or effort

    Working conditions should be improved then in state schools...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    There are plenty of state schools better than private schools in certain areas so it is indeed doable
    Can you show me this? I find this hard to believe. The best state school will never be better than the best private school anyway.

    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    Bs. How is that fair? Why should someone who's born with no money be at an immediate disadvantage in life? Why should I have to make up the ground? It's possible (I'm an example I think, or will be) but that's down to chance more than work or effort
    Because that's nature's way with things. The extent of the disadvantage can be closed down through independent education, though. There's no such thing as an equal footing and never will be.

    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    Working conditions should be improved then in state schools...
    Yeah .. let's start offering teachers in the average schools a $300 000 salary, I mean, there's absolutely no economic effects on that right?

    Private schools can afford those wages because they are paid for. A similar state-run scheme will bankrupt the country. The private sector in the education industry will always outperform the public sector and will fetch up the best of the best, unless your aim is to bankrupt the country by offering teachers a couple of millions to temporarily raise the standards of education to "show dem toffs n poshies"

    tl;dr working conditions will always be better in the private sector
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cleverasvoltaire)
    So I, as a future law student, become a barrister after working extremely hard for 3 years at Cambridge, get a starter salary of say 70,000 pounds and then only get to keep £14,000 of it? What sounds fair to me is I keep what I earn, you keep what you earn. Plain and simple.
    What world do you inhabit? I'm at Oxford and the vast majority of law students never get to be barristers or solicitors, and no one earns 70k for a start. During pupillage you're lucky to earn 20k. Aside from that, we only have 15k barristers in the whole of UK. In order for you to ever join them you either need financial assets of your parents to pay for your BPTC and their contacts to get you through the pupillage or be the best 1st class student. Even then, you are self-employed and don't think it's easy to get cases as a barrister to earn something like 70k.

    What is in question here is taxation. I'm not necessarily in favour of 0.8 tax OP proposed, but the fundamental point you should accept is that the money you'd earn as a barrister is used for trade. Trade of commodities and services they have not produced. Their contribution to the market is actually weak, and yet some get to have elevated salaries which can be used for the purchase of goods produced by the more productive parties. Redistributive taxation is aimed at fixing this problem of market failure. You cannot possibly justify no income tax on those highly elevated incomes whose receivers are not contributing as much to the wealth creation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    Lmao, 'doesn't even cover school fees for me and my sister'

    Private education is not a necessity in the slightest.

    If it doesn't cover it you can't afford it, and you should just go to a normal state school

    If we raised the standards of education of the state then there wouldn't be a need for private education
    Of course it's not a necessity - did I say it was? Doesn't look like it.

    Hahaha I said 60 000 doesn't cover it - not that we can't cover it. Our household's income is much more than 60k.

    True, but until that happens, why would you not go to a private school if you could afford it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cleverasvoltaire)
    So I, as a future law student, become a barrister after working extremely hard for 3 years at Cambridge, get a starter salary of say 70,000 pounds and then only get to keep £14,000 of it? What sounds fair to me is I keep what I earn, you keep what you earn. Plain and simple.

    >Future law student
    >Barrister
    >70k starting salary

    What on earth have you been smoking?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    The argument would be that anyone working full time should not need welfare from the state to survive.
    Of course. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have anyone out of work, but that's unrealistic.

    I'm not quite sure why I was quoted for this comment - I really didn't suggest it was great that people don't earn enough. My argument was simply that those depending on the state should not expect to live a lovely life, and that grumbling about those earning over 60k is just a problem of jealousy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    I'm not quite sure why I was quoted for this comment - I really didn't suggest it was great that people don't earn enough. My argument was simply that those depending on the state should not expect to live a lovely life, and that grumbling about those earning over 60k is just a problem of jealousy.
    I was agreeing with you and your points, but that welfare should not be subsidising employees.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brubeckian)
    >Future law student
    >Barrister
    >70k starting salary

    What on earth have you been smoking?
    We've already discussed him:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post55631051

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...5#post55633095
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ngb9320)
    People need to be looked after in our society and those at the top need to do their bit.

    Anyone who disputes is q selfish *********.

    It is as simple as that.
    The politics of jealousy. I already only see 39p in the pound on what I earn over the higher rate threshold. I'm doing more than my fair share. It's a dreadful policy idea.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cleverasvoltaire)
    So I, as a future law student, become a barrister after working extremely hard for 3 years at Cambridge, get a starter salary of say 70,000 pounds and then only get to keep £14,000 of it? What sounds fair to me is I keep what I earn, you keep what you earn. Plain and simple.
    have you not heard of tax bands before?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    Can you show me this? I find this hard to believe. The best state school will never be better than the best private school anyway.

    Because that's nature's way with things. The extent of the disadvantage can be closed down through independent education, though. There's no such thing as an equal footing and never will be.

    Yeah .. let's start offering teachers in the average schools a $300 000 salary, I mean, there's absolutely no economic effects on that right?

    Private schools can afford those wages because they are paid for. A similar state-run scheme will bankrupt the country. The private sector in the education industry will always outperform the public sector and will fetch up the best of the best, unless your aim is to bankrupt the country by offering teachers a couple of millions to temporarily raise the standards of education to "show dem toffs n poshies"

    tl;dr working conditions will always be better in the private sector
    I think it's Leeds/Buckingham, possibly a few in London where the state/grammar (non fee paying) schools top the private ones and people take tests just to try and get into those. And if they fail they pay to keep their children in the private schools.

    Disadvantage can be closed down by private schools? What? They widen the gaps...

    Why the hell should anyone get paid that much? No job is worth that much. What school pays their teachers that much? They'd be very much in the minority even if they existed

    There are perfectly good state schools out there, and even in the ****ty ones, you can succeed. So your success shouldn't be determined and aided by wealth, but by your own drive. This is all in an ideal world it seems.

    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Of course it's not a necessity - did I say it was? Doesn't look like it.

    Hahaha I said 60 000 doesn't cover it - not that we can't cover it. Our household's income is much more than 60k.

    True, but until that happens, why would you not go to a private school if you could afford it?
    So 60k is enough to live on.

    Oh I'm sorry, oh wealthy person. Please forgive me. No need to show off

    I said if you can't, you shouldn't. Or are barely able to
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    I think it's Leeds/Buckingham, possibly a few in London where the state/grammar (non fee paying) schools top the private ones and people take tests just to try and get into those. And if they fail they pay to keep their children in the private schools.

    Disadvantage can be closed down by private schools? What? They widen the gaps...

    Why the hell should anyone get paid that much? No job is worth that much. What school pays their teachers that much? They'd be very much in the minority even if they existed

    There are perfectly good state schools out there, and even in the ****ty ones, you can succeed. So your success shouldn't be determined and aided by wealth, but by your own drive. This is all in an ideal world it seems.



    So 60k is enough to live on.

    Oh I'm sorry, oh wealthy person. Please forgive me. No need to show off

    I said if you can't, you shouldn't. Or are barely able to
    Of course 60k is enough to live on - I took exception to your comment that it is more than enough. For some, 60k is enough to live on, it not enough to live life as they wish to.

    I'm not showing off - aim not sure there's much point showing off on an anonymous website...

    And of course you shouldn't if you can't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't agree. It's not to do with greed but for someone young with ambition it is not very incentivising to work hard and work your way up to then have most of your money taxed. You might as well get a run of the mill job because with the amount of tax you would be paying you wouldn't be able to fund a comfortable lifestyle that you could without the tax.

    How is it selfish to want to keep as much of that money when you have worked hard for it. The kinds of jobs that pay that involve longer hours and unpaid overtime just so you get the work done that you are getting paid for. And with that money if you want a nice 4 bed roomed detached house with 3 kids and a wife. You want to provide nice things for your family. Buy your mam and dad home improvements that they could not afford and will probably never be able to get unless you give them it. Help your kids through Uni if that's what they want to do. Have and provide the things for your household that as a kid you never had. E.g a half decent car as you parents could never afford to buy a new or good second hand one. To invite your Grandparents into your house along with other family such as parents and siblings and have a nice meal and a proper dining table and have a big enough house that all these people can fit into it.

    It is not greedy to work had so that you can live a better life which you can share with others in your family that brought you up and helped you through life. I see that as giving back and showing them that the effort they put into you was not wasted and that you have made something of yourself and everyone may be happy.

    This is how I envision it for my self. I look forward to the day when I buy my mam home improvements to make the house nice which she would have not been able to do otherwise.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    Disadvantage can be closed down by private schools? What? They widen the gaps...
    Independent education aka learning by yourself outside of school during free time to widen your knowledge

    And yes, private schools can lower inequalities if a government begins a private school voucher scheme.

    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    Why the hell should anyone get paid that much? No job is worth that much. What school pays their teachers that much? They'd be very much in the minority even if they existed
    Yeah but that's like asking why are footballers paid more than firefighters. Private schools can afford these type of fees because they get 10 - 45k p/y per student, a state school would be lucky to receive 4k in funding per student.

    As private schools do not have shareholders and theoretically cannot "reinvest", and they do not pay tax as they are charities, almost their entire expenditure is on staff wages or expansion/maintenance.

    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    There are perfectly good state schools out there, and even in the ****ty ones, you can succeed. So your success shouldn't be determined and aided by wealth, but by your own drive. This is all in an ideal world it seems.
    Your educational ability is not limited by your wealth. Your top opportunities may be, due to lack of family reputation and contacts, but that will never ever change regardless of whatever government does to intervene.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ngb9320)
    People need to be looked after in our society and those at the top need to do their bit.

    Anyone who disputes is q selfish *********.

    It is as simple as that.
    For lots of people this will just encourage tax avoidance. Therefore probably less tax will be paid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Makes much more sense to increase inheritance tax than punish people that, largely, are in a better financial position through hard work and intelligence.
    Inheritance tax increasing will be pointless. I think you mean lower the boundary for inheritance tax. Also If your family member has worked hard and amassed that money which has already been taxed then why should it be double taxed.

    I'm not trying to argue with you though I am just suggesting.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Even as a leftie and a green voter, I disagree. For me, there has to be a clear distinction between earned and unearned tax. Wealth distribution needs to be done in a fair way that doesn't penalise working. I would much rather keep earned income tax as low as possible (Labours proposed 50% over £150000 is about right imo, the greens proposed 60% was too high) and instead focus on higher corporation tax for big business/multinationals and capital gains (unearned income) tax. I'd get rid of VAT while I'm at it which does more damage to the economy than it's worth and replace it with a carbon tax. However I do believe there should be pay ratios within company's of 10:1 between the highest and lowest earners to ensure everyone is paid fairly. Cooperation, not competiton, is the most efficient way to increase innovation and maintain a stable economy where everyone has a decent standard of living.

    Oh and as I've already gone off on a tangent, Unconditional Basic Income is needed to abolish poverty in a world of ever-increasing automation whilst also getting rid of the benefits trap which acts as disincentive to work.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by War-Mac)
    Inheritance tax increasing will be pointless. I think you mean lower the boundary for inheritance tax. Also If your family member has worked hard and amassed that money which has already been taxed then why should it be double taxed.

    I'm not trying to argue with you though I am just suggesting.
    Why is increasing inheritance tax pointless? To be honest, I just meant increasing revenue from inheritance tax as opposed to via income tax, whether that's achieved through increasing the inheritance tax from 40% or lowering the threshold (likely a combination of both) wasn't the point I was trying to make. I just don't really think when you want to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, improve equality in any shape or form, you can overlook the simple fact that one of the key reasons inequality exists is because plenty of people inherit wealth, even with inheritance tax at what it currently is - and for no good reason other than the fact they were born into the right family. That said, I also disagree with inheritance tax on the basis that you're double taxing, but the reality is if you want to create a society that is ever going to have something that remotely resembles equality, inheritance tax will have to play a role - and I don't think the answer really lies in penalising those who, as I said, have mostly got themselves into a better financial situation through hard work and intelligence.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.