It's not a question of "knowing it all".(Original post by Yogafan)
At Durham, and do you not understand Gini the, look at what it is, work out what the purpose of Porgresive tax is then put the two together, reults = welfare = redistrubution. GOD I HATE FECKING A LEVEL STUDENTS THINK THEY KNOW IT ALL!
REMINDS ME OF ME!
I understand Gini perfectly well. Graphically speaking, it's the division of the "area" between a perfectly even distibution of income (every 1% of population has 1% of income etc.) and the line of the actual %age of income posessd by a given percentage of the population by total income. Given that income is always uneven in distribution, this line is always concave.
The closer the line is to even income distribution, the less inequality is, and the smaller the Gini coefficient is. (numerator of fraction is smaller)
Let me simplify my point, and put it in capital letters so you understand:
PROGRESSIVE TAX DOES NOT "EQUAL" EFFECTIVE REDISTRIBUTION. IT ACHIEVES NOTHING, LONGTERM.
IT DOES NOT IRON OUT INEQUALITY IN SOCIETY.
IT ALLOWS THE LAZY TO REMAIN UNEMPLOYED, AND IS A DISINCENTIVE FOR THE RICH TO WORK THAT BIT HARDER TO EARN THAT BIT EXTRA, IT ALSO DRIVES THE RICH "UNDERGROUND" BY GETTING PERKS OTHER THAN PAY RISES. IT THEREFORE REDUCES SOCIETY'S RESPECT FOR THE LAW AS A WHOLE, AND IT SENDS THE "BEST" ABROAD. ALL THIS REDUCES TAX REVENUE, AND HARMS THE ECONOMY LONG TERM, AS OUR MOST POTENITALLY PRODUCTIVE WORKERS ARE DISILLUSIONED.
- WHEN PROGRESSIVE TAXATION WAS WORSE, THE "BRAIN DRAIN" WAS REAL.
To be honest, I think you're deliberately avoiding the issue here...it's really quite childish. As is your resorting to abuse...
Given the kind of contributions you make, I am not surprised you reputation box is in the grey!
Actually, I have a hard time believing you are at Durham...
Turn on thread page Beta
Progressive Taxation watch
- 30-06-2004 22:35
- 01-07-2004 00:01
It only takes the grades, you can be as racist homophobic sexist etc just waffle in the exams and try and get an personal interview and ur set kid!
- 01-07-2004 12:34
It is curious. People here assume that the only reason rich people work is to get money. Many of them don't work, or if they do, it is a kind of subsidised hobby. Others retire when they have enough to live off. For others money, beyond a certain point, is a way of keeping score on how well they are doing- points in a game where the actual value of the money is irrelevant and meaningless.
There isn't evidence that personal wealth benefits society as a whole: Japan and Norway, two very different countries with high rates of progressive taxation and with much lower original differentials between the richest and the poorest sections of society, are much more socially cohesive than the UK and have lower rates of alienation, crime and appear much less squalid.
If the rich will only work harder (no-one seems to have considered whether what they do is worth doing or worth encouraging) if they get more money, presumably the same rule applies to the poor as well. After all, the unemployed, according to classic economic theory, serve a vital part in the economic nexus, so surely they deserve to be well-paid for their vital contribution.
Finally, there is no consideration of what people do to get money: a drug-dealer runs the risk of being gaoled, killed, ripped off without legal recourse: surely it is- by your standards- only fair that they should get away with not paying tax. After all, what is the difference between a drug dealer and a cigarette manufacturer except a quirk of legality?