Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should the highest rate of income tax be raised to 50% Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So you've read a few articles and books and now think you're highly qualified in the field of economics?
    It doesn't work like that. Economics is unpredictable and ever-changing as human behaviours adapt. There is no 'one size fits all' approach.


    Pictures don't prove any point. Nor does a quote from anyone, no matter how highly you regard them.
    Never said I was highly qualified

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    S
    It doesn't work like that. Economics is unpredictable and ever-changing as human behaviours adapt. There is no 'one size fits all' approach.
    .
    Never said that, stop misquoting me and putting words in my mouth. Misquoting people is a very bad debating tactic.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Never said or implied that! I'm in year 11 so don't even do A level economics yet , lol!
    Your views seem very simplistic.
    'Free market is always good', 'socialism is always bad and evil', 'those who don't earn a lot are lazy'. 'Look here's a quote from Friedman to prove how right I am'


    Granted, you're still at school. You haven't dealt with real individuals outside your bubble yet. Once you start to work, you hopefully will do. But reading a few textbooks doesn't make you an expert, not even close.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Your views seem very simplistic.
    'Free market is always good', 'socialism is always bad and evil', 'those who don't earn a lot are lazy'. 'Look here's a quote from Friedman to prove how right I am'


    Granted, you're still at school. You haven't dealt with real individuals outside your bubble yet. Once you start to work, you hopefully will do. But reading a few textbooks doesn't make you an expert, not even close.
    Misquoting me , putting words into my mouth.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Never said I was highly qualified


    Never said that, stop misquoting me and putting words in my mouth. Misquoting people is a very bad debating tactic.
    I'm not misquoting you. I'm paraphrasing.
    You slate others for 'not knowing about economics' and call them stupid for theit GCSE results but it seems that you don't know a great deal yourself either.

    You implied that anyone who supported Corbyn must be an 'idiot' and have low GCSE results. That proves your immaturity and simplistic view. That no-one could legitimately hold left wing views and that if they do, they must be an idiot.

    Your knowledge of economics is no greater than the poster you were calling an idiot.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    The income tax rate for top earners are too low in my opinion. At one point during the 1970's, the top rate of income tax was 97%.
    No, instead change it to an exponential progressive income tax, maybe introduce a UBI as well.

    (Original post by years101)
    NO. It needs to be 25%. Taking money from hardworking individuals is not the answer. How about we encourage actually force those who sit on the sofa and eat away the the money of HARDWORKING individuals. Laziness should be a crime.

    Any socialists and deluded commies thinking of challenging me - shut up and wake up.
    I agree with you - the ruling class should not be allowed to sit around collecting 'profit' while a mass of hard workers collect minimum wage for doing all his/her work.

    All this crap about "people who work hard shouldn't have their earnings taken off them" - that's the surplus value theory - taxation isn't theft, 'profit' is.

    "Job creators" - when you see a general strike, you'll realise who the 'job creators' really are.

    Name:  capitalism real parasites ruling class not unemployed dependent jason read quote.jpg
Views: 16
Size:  43.8 KB
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    t you don't know a great deal yourself either.
    .
    and you do??
    Don't need you to tell me how much I know , I know quite a bit , I'm not an expert . Certainly know more than the poster.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Didn't call anyone a parasite either.
    Mr Hollande's 75% tax failed majorly! We have raised more from the rich after cutting the 50p tax rate.


    Btw did u vote aye , no or abstain on the gcse bill in the house?
    The difference is that he doesn't use pictures and quotes as a substitute for his actual argument. You do.

    The increased collection in taxes is largely due to the receipt of back taxes, which often take a long time to come in. Also bear in mind that we ONLY had the 50p tax rate for a few weeks. It was done by Brown just before the 2010 election and was abolished very soon after by the incoming government.

    Also bear in mind that the graph accounts for the 'share of income' paid by the top 1%. The reason it has gone up as a proportion is that the top 1% have become wealthier while most people have not.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    and you do??
    Don't need you to tell me how much I know , I know quite a bit , I'm not an expert . Certainly know more than the poster.
    No you don't know 'quite a bit'. Reading a few right wing publications doesn't make you well qualified to debate economics at a high level. As can be seen from your debates with other posters, such as Des in which you have been completely outclassed. You still treat economics as a perfect science.

    Being quite a few years older than you and working in housing, dealing with individuals living in poverty on a daily basis, then yes I have seen the impact of 'economics' on real life people.

    The problem is that being so young, all you know about economics is 'theory'. Textbook economics, not real-life economics.

    I don't claim to be an expert, no one is. But you have been calling another poster stupid because of his GCSE results. How f*****g patronising of you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    I'm 17, I college, I don't go to work.
    Fair enough.

    Wait till you have to work for a living,

    100% certain that the idea of giving away your "spare" money will not be so appealing then.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Fair enough.

    Wait till you have to work for a living,

    100% certain that the idea of giving away your "spare" money will not be so appealing then.
    When I do work, I probably won't earn above £150,000. That means I won't be on the 45p tax band
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    the benchmark of "earn" is acquiring something through consent, surely?
    i.e. a poor person consents a contract and their wages from that contract stem from this consent
    a business man who pays the worker for their work, and then gets a profit from that worker, is getting that profit via a contract that is created via agreement (consent)

    so long as the two people consent, then what they get out of their dealings are "earned". there's a difference between "work" and "earn"; the worker here might be "working harder" physically, but the business person "earned" the money via their skills at being a manager which might be less work comparatively but only because they're more able to do that job than the worker is. literally anybody can do the worker's work, but not literally anybody can do the business owner's work. to establish your own business is risky, and the skills required to run it up to success aren't the same level of skills just for, say, being a low level grunt to that business. so the extent of "earning" and the extent of "working" are not a significant feature here - there's no difference in consent. it's all consent based. if we're free and rational beings, our consent = our freedom and self-determination.
    Know what mitigates risk and lack of skills on the part of a business owner?

    $$$$

    Not them being more capable people.

    This is some sophistry to push the idea that any money made out of a contractual agreement is earned regardless of work done.

    Contracts are not made between parties with equality of opportunity, as libertarians assume. It is that inequality of opportunity that allows things like profit, and even more so rent, to be extracted. Profit, and certainly rent, is income derived from the inequality of opportunity inherent between the contracting parties. That's why it's unearned.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedManc)
    When I do work, I probably won't earn above £150,000. That means I won't be on the 45p tax band
    Ah,only those more successful than yourself have a responsibility to provide for those less well off amongst us.

    Understood.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No you don't know 'quite a bit'. Reading a few right wing publications doesn't make you well qualified to debate economics at a high level. As can be seen from your debates with other posters, such as Des in which you have been completely outclassed. You still treat economics as a perfect science.

    Being quite a few years older than you and working in housing, dealing with individuals living in poverty on a daily basis, then yes I have seen the impact of 'economics' on real life people.

    The problem is that being so young, all you know about economics is 'theory'. Textbook economics, not real-life economics.

    I don't claim to be an expert, no one is. But you have been calling another poster stupid because of his GCSE results. How f*****g patronising of you.
    Knowing poor people doesn't make you good at economics. Des has more knowledge than me and its debatable if he out classed me .
    It seems you love scanning through all my posts and try to put me down.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Knowing poor people doesn't make you good at economics. Des has more knowledge than me and its debatable if he out classed me .
    It seems you love scanning through all my posts and try to put me down.
    It gives me a far greater understanding on the real life impact of economics. You may read a lot of theory but that gives you no insight as to how economics actually works in practice.

    It's not debatable that he outclassed you. You just kept making claims and then when asked to back them up you went 'that's just my opinion'.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Knowing poor people doesn't make you good at economics.
    But knowing people does.

    Economics is the science of attempting to model people's financial behaviour.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Know what mitigates risk and lack of skills on the part of a business owner?

    $$$$
    what if they're not rich? I used to work for a company where the owner was a chinese immigrant.

    Not them being more capable people.

    This is some sophistry to push the idea that any money made out of a contractual agreement is earned regardless of work done.

    Contracts are not made between parties with equality of opportunity, as libertarians assume. It is that inequality of opportunity that allows things like profit, and even more so rent, to be extracted. Profit, and certainly rent, is income derived from the inequality of opportunity inherent between the contracting parties. That's why it's unearned.
    opportunity has nothing to do with consent
    freedom, not opportunity, is what creates consent
    just because one person has less options, doesn't make their consent for something invalidated. there was once a judge in UK law who tried to push this ridiculous "inequality of bargaining power" and the legal community struck him down because it totally violated the principles of contract. freedom of contract is about negative liberty, not positive liberty.
    so if you have a contract and you agree to it, you are agreeing that all you get is what the contract suggests that you get and nothing more. if not, then what was that contract about? a contract is a promise, and if you promise to consent to a certain wage for a certain amount of work, then that is final.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what if they're not rich? I used to work for a company where the owner was a chinese immigrant.



    opportunity has nothing to do with consent
    freedom, not opportunity, is what creates consent
    just because one person has less options, doesn't make their consent for something invalidated. there was once a judge in UK law who tried to push this ridiculous "inequality of bargaining power" and the legal community struck him down because it totally violated the principles of contract. freedom of contract is about negative liberty, not positive liberty.
    so if you have a contract and you agree to it, you are agreeing that all you get is what the contract suggests that you get and nothing more. if not, then what was that contract about? a contract is a promise, and if you promise to consent to a certain wage for a certain amount of work, then that is final.
    Of course it's final. But insofar as the negotiation was coercive, you can't pretend that passive income collected due to a contractual agreement is earned. Especially if rejecting the contract (and, implicitly, all contracts with similar terms) would mean one party could not live with dignity, participate in the economy, or fulfil his civic obligations; in that case, the income of the other party is not only unearned, it's rent.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No you don't know 'quite a bit'. Reading a few right wing publications doesn't make you well qualified to debate economics at a high level.
    Didn't say it did, I'll be the bloody judge of what I know and what I read. Working with poor people doesn't make you qualified to debate economics. There are plenty of right wing economists and left wing economists which have degrees etc. All economists don't agree. I am not an economics expert nor do I claim to be one
    Do you have nothing better to do with your time then follow all my posts??
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Didn't say it did, I'll be the bloody judge of what I know and what I read. Working with poor people doesn't make you qualified to debate economics. There are plenty of right wing economists and left wing economists which have degrees etc. All economists don't agree. I am not an economics expert nor do I claim to be one
    Do you have nothing better to do with your time then follow all my posts??
    Actually I think you'll find that others are the judge of what you know. Unless of course you mark your own exams...

    You're clearly someone who has read a few right wing articles and now suddenly thinks you have economics mastered. You are no cleverer than the person you called stupid.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Of course it's final. But insofar as the negotiation was coercive,
    it wasn't "coercive". coercion is force. literal, physical and direct use or threat of force. contracts are rendered null and void if there was coercion involved in the agreement.

    you can't pretend that passive income collected due to a contractual agreement is earned.
    if it's via a contract, it is earned. a contract isn't a contract if there is coercion involved, like I said, so if it is acquired without force and via persuasion and deliberation, then it is earned.

    Especially if rejecting the contract (and, implicitly, all contracts with similar terms) would mean one party could not live with dignity, participate in the economy, or fulfil his civic obligations; in that case, the income of the other party is not only unearned, it's rent.
    "earned" is not this diverse and substantive concept. you can't just insert all those substantive elements into earn. what you're referring to is "equitable acquisition", not "earn". if people in agreements are free and rational, then no matter their circumstances, they can deal with one another to contract. contracts do not assume parties are on equal terms. not at all. that is totally irrelevant. a free society *expects* that. that's one flaw of a free society where people can earn what they do. not everybody can "earn" as much, but they can still "earn" what they do earn. you can't define "earn" via this left wing paradigm. you need to think of the concept objectively and without bias.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • 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.