Turn on thread page Beta

Progressive Taxation watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well my very, very contraversal view on tax is this:

    I call it Real Individualism - and its basicas are below:

    Low tax on people's earnings
    Nobody is allowed any inheritence as they havn't earnt it - never have understood "birth right"

    In short people get what they earn and nothing more. People always argue with me and claim I'm wrong but I don't see how this can be any thing but fair. In my opinion it combines the fairness of Communisum with the strong economies of Capitalism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bratcat)
    What a barren, culturally impoverished little world we would live in if everyone were judged purely on the basis of their economic productivity.
    Do you understand economics productivity? It is making what people want - surely the person that makes more of what people want deserves more money? And he does get that money in a free market system.

    No one is saying people are to be judged on it. Whether people are judged on their looks, personality or wealth is an argument very unrelated to my one of the flaws of progressive taxation.

    (Original post by Chubb)
    Well my very, very contraversal view on tax is this:

    I call it Real Individualism - and its basicas are below:

    Low tax on people's earnings
    Nobody is allowed any inheritence as they havn't earnt it - never have understood "birth right"

    In short people get what they earn and nothing more. People always argue with me and claim I'm wrong but I don't see how this can be any thing but fair. In my opinion it combines the fairness of Communisum with the strong economies of Capitalism.
    I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, only the people who inherit less than the average will usually agree, and these people aren't the ones in power! Funny old world.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    WOW - I've managed to convice some one. The thing that really amazes me is that the most opposision that I've gotten is from a friend who will not inherit much at all and would have only gains from this system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    Well my very, very contraversal view on tax is this:

    I call it Real Individualism - and its basicas are below:

    Low tax on people's earnings
    Nobody is allowed any inheritence as they havn't earnt it - never have understood "birth right"

    In short people get what they earn and nothing more. People always argue with me and claim I'm wrong but I don't see how this can be any thing but fair. In my opinion it combines the fairness of Communisum with the strong economies of Capitalism.
    I think this is called meritocracy whereby everone starts from the same point and you advance up the ladder dependant on how hard you work etc

    its a good idea but theres still flaws to it, as in middle class children have more benefits than si mply financial ones such as role models who demonstrate the benefits of doing well in school, uni, work place etc - but its never going to be perfect
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I support progressive taxation 100%. Its essential tool in creating equality in society, redistributing income between rich and poor people. Not everyone has been given opportunity to get a well paid job, how many people inherit businesses (it doesnt mean that they worked for it). Its easier for rich to get richer but for poor to get richer its real tough in this country, no matter how hard they try. Progressive taxation is amazing tool in ensuring greater equality in society. Whats the point of people earning millions and just wasting money for some ridiculous extravaganzas, while some people are starving, homeless and etc. I am not saying that progressive taxation will solve this but in combination with other techniques it has amazing power! It doesnt take away all income from rich its just a small proportion, besides as you earn more each spent pound yelds less satisfaction, people tend to save more (because consumption falls as proportion of income). Why money should be saved when it could invested in more productive and beneficial way to society?! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chubb)
    Low tax on people's earnings
    Nobody is allowed any inheritence as they havn't earnt it - never have understood "birth right"
    Great idea, hasn't got a hope of working for the following reasons;
    Parents can just give everything they have to their children before they die, ok, you can have a 7 year rule, or even a twenty year rule but once people hit 50 they will just transfer as much as they can to their children.
    Secondly, what do you do with the situation concerning family businesses. At the moment inheritance of family businesses is tax free otherwise the company would shrink 40% every generation. You could say no inheritance on family businesses but then people with a brain would just put all their funds into the business leaving the next generation to do what they wanted with the business.
    Also this government want to encourage people to save, the current population is in so much debt it's shocking. Why should I bother to save for my children if it's all going off to the tax man at the end? Why should I be punished for taking care of my finances and not spending everything I have, my primary concern in my children and i would personally save for them than spend it.
    Another thing, if my mother was to die tomorrow I would be an orphan, and under your system I would loose everything I have, house, money, everything intended for me which in currently in my mother's name (I'm not 18 yet) would be taken off me, so I would be (to put it lightly) screwed.

    People seem adament on making life fair, and the first thing I was told when I was born, "life ain't fair, get used to it"
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sony)
    Its easier for rich to get richer but for poor to get richer its real tough in this country, no matter how hard they try.
    Please don't try to tell us this, that is an example of the mentality many member of society have because of the way the government at the moment gives the impression that the money which the rich has should really be theirs. Both my parents came from working class families, worked hard, went to university and now lead a comfortable life style. Back then it was "Your poor, the only way to get out is to work hard"
    And a final point, if you tax the rich more they will just move out of the country, trust me I know!!

    (The words rich and poor have been used in a gereral sense in the above comment, they have not been used in a derogatory or offensive manner, nor are they intended to socially stereotype anyone )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    Please don't try to tell us this, that is an example of the mentality many member of society
    Well so they should, Do you not understand a Virtuous/Vicious cycle?!
    I think there should be a form of testing to only allow those with IQ over 120 on here, espcially with talking about economics
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yogafan)
    Well so they should, Do you not understand a Virtuous/Vicious cycle?!
    I think there should be a form of testing to only allow those with IQ over 120 on here, espcially with talking about economics
    You are more knowledgable about economics, but you may not be more intelligent.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yogafan)
    Well so they should, Do you not understand a Virtuous/Vicious cycle?!
    I think there should be a form of testing to only allow those with IQ over 120 on here, espcially with talking about economics
    What :eek:
    You have managed to go completely off the topic of debate, and resort to an insult when someone questions your point. I am not going to stoop to the level of even giving you second comment a reply.
    What, I ask stops someone who works hard, and makes a few sacrafices along the way from being sucessful? We get free education, University grants, benifits.
    The comment you make doesn't encourage those who are in a less advantaged situation to try to work hard. The fact is you can be sucessful from any background and you can be equally unsucessful from any background, I know many, many people who have come from very poor backgrounds but motivated themselves to work hard, and this was 30 years ago. If you think it's hard now, imagine what it was like then. There was much less P.C. around then, no schemes to encourage poor people into university.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    What :eek:
    You have managed to go completely off the topic of debate, and resort to an insult when someone questions your point. I am not going to stoop to the level of even giving you second comment a reply.
    What, I ask stops someone who works hard, and makes a few sacrafices along the way from being sucessful? We get free education, University grants, benifits.
    The comment you make doesn't encourage those who are in a less advantaged situation to try to work hard. The fact is you can be sucessful from any background and you can be equally unsucessful from any background, I know many, many people who have come from very poor backgrounds but motivated themselves to work hard, and this was 30 years ago. If you think it's hard now, imagine what it was like then. There was much less P.C. around then, no schemes to encourage poor people into university.
    A large portion of today's middle class were born into what we would call poverty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    well it's all related Keynes/beverage and the 5 giants isn't it? I have to agree that progressive taxation is quite ridiculous as it will give people less incentive to work. I mean would you want to work your arse off only to find that your hard earned cash is going to someone who just can't be bothered to work?
    Another thing i think is that more and more people may start living abroad becuase the tax will become too high for them here!

    did anyone watch wife swap a while back? where there was the family that had six kids and spunged off the welfare state and had in total about £34, 000 a year where as the other family worked and only earned about £22,000 between them, now that's just ridiculous!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    A large portion of today's middle class were born into what we would call poverty.

    which is exactly why todays lower class should not be spoon fed wealth
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cellardore)
    well it's all related Keynes/beverage and the 5 giants isn't it? I have to agree that progressive taxation is quite ridiculous as it will give people less incentive to work. I mean would you want to work your arse off only to find that your hard earned cash is going to someone who just can't be bothered to work?
    Another thing i think is that more and more people may start living abroad becuase the tax will become too high for them here!

    did anyone watch wife swap a while back? where there was the family that had six kids and spunged off the welfare state and had in total about £34, 000 a year where as the other family worked and only earned about £22,000 between them, now that's just ridiculous!
    Why would progressive taxation be a discincentive for the rich to work?
    If you knew anything about the Life-Cycle Hypothesis, then you would be aware that people become accustomed to a particular mode of living - and adjust their spending and saving patterns to suit this.

    If somebody is accustomed to going on frequent holidays abroad, sending their children to independent schools and drinking fine wine - they suddenly pack all this in if they are taxed an extra £4000? I think not. If anything, the LCH would suggest that people will seek to work harder, dip into savings and do whatever necessary to maintain their standard of living.

    Progressive taxation is not a disincentive to work for the rich.

    <To Louise 19whatever>

    Progressive taxation is necessary to address the structural inequalities in society. How can you possibly brush aside any claims of unfairness in society resulting in opportunity inequalities, by claiming that the disadvantaged should 'work harder' at school?

    You try working harder, when you are faced with a backdrop of drug addiction, prostitution, low achievement, deprivation and discrimination. Is it any wonder that such people end up in low paid jobs, or alternatively, unemployed? Not everybody can be as determined and aspirational as you and I, as they do not have the opportunity to. What use are grants, access schemes and free tuition fees when you are stuck in an economic rut, and are part of an effective underclass?

    I would happily subsidise a more equitable society, which benefits all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lol, progressive taxation is very much linked to the welfare state and employment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cellardore)
    lol, progressive taxation is very much linked to the welfare state and employment.
    Yes, but did I ever question this basic assumption? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    Knocking on a rich person's door and saying "you can spare some, come on", that's just cheeky. If they have more money, granted they will feel the negative effects of giving a £20 note away less, but it's still their hard earned £20 note to give.
    But it's not just the rich people who give away their hand earned money. Working class people give some away (maybe not as much, but still that money could be used for other things) which will not benefit them.

    At the end of the day, the rich are still rich and there are people who often contribute more to society which need paying etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i'll explain:

    Unemployment is very much linked with the welfare state and progessive taxtation.

    if you earn more the more tax you will have to pay- money is tranferred through the welfare state to people less well-off. In this way, it creates less incentive and wealth creation, not to mention lack of individualism.

    Therefore, individulas had been dependent on the state rather than their own resourses, which is a probalem as it undermines individualism. This rersults in an bulit in assumption that the state will provide.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    Yes, but did I ever question this basic assumption? :confused:
    :confused: you have confused me! i thought you were saying that progressive taxation was nothing to do with the welfare state
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cellardore)
    :confused: you have confused me! i thought you were saying that progressive taxation was nothing to do with the welfare state
    I've never said this - if you can find something that I have written to the contrary, then please inform me of it.

    Of course progressive taxation is one of the vital fiscal tools within the welfare state, I would never dispute this.

    What I take issue with, is the idea that progressive taxation will lead to:
    a) a discincentive to work amongst affluent people - certain economic theories would suggest that the opposite scenario could well occur.
    b) a marked decrease in the prosperity of affluent people.
    c) a scenario where the 'hardworking rich' subsidise the 'bone idle' poor.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

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.