Turn on thread page Beta

Should the rich pay more tax to help te poor? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well the title is rather self-explanitary so let's hear your views
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by enigmatic)
    Well the title is rather self-explanitary so let's hear your views
    No, the poor should be made to work harder so the rich don't have to pay so much
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Of course not, thats a ridiculous idea.
    Firstly its underserved, if you are capable and intelligent enough to earn alot, then you dont deserve to pay more taxes than anyone else, just because some fat slop is sitting in a council house taking money recieving social service benfits.

    And anyways how would the 'poor' benefit from you paying more taxes, give them money? This isn't a third world country, there are plenty of jobs availble, education is open to all, it really is people's own faults (majoirty of the time) when they become poor, in a country with so many oppurtunities.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    We (the middle class) already pay too much tax to help the poor out with benefits. The problem is that some of them are really no more than spongers...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think the burden of supporting the poor should be taken off of the middle class. It would help if the richer had to pay as much as everybody else in the first place. It makes economical sense to tax the rich more. They can afford to pay more and still have money to spend. If you take the burden off the middle class then they have more to spend.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    They should tax those premier league footballers who earn more in a day than I will in an entire lifetime!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moncal)
    I think the burden of supporting the poor should be taken off of the middle class. It would help if the richer had to pay as much as everybody else in the first place. It makes economical sense to tax the rich more. They can afford to pay more and still have money to spend. If you take the burden off the middle class then they have more to spend.
    Everyone should be given the same basic services and then it should be left to hardwork and skill. No one should have to work to support someone other then themselves and their families.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MuniE)
    Everyone should be given the same basic services and then it should be left to hardwork and skill. No one should have to work to support someone other then themselves and their families.
    But that's not how the world works. Those who can support themselves then get to help support everyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moncal)
    But that's not how the world works. Those who can support themselves then get to help support everyone else.
    thats unfair, what people forget is that the poor people in the future are the ones who skip class to go for smokes or go to school to skip and have a vacation and take their education for granted then realize that without it they are screwed and go onto take social assistance. They don't deserve to be taken care of, everyone should take care of themselves. The social assistance should only before people with mental or physical disabilities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MuniE)
    thats unfair, what people forget is that the poor people in the future are the ones who skip class to go for smokes or go to school to skip and have a vacation and take their education for granted then realize that without it they are screwed and go onto take social assistance. They don't deserve to be taken care of, everyone should take care of themselves. The social assistance should only before people with mental or physical disabilities.
    To a certain extent yes, in western countries like. I guess there is a minority who might have to leave school to support their families, but there are quite alot of governmental schemes that prevent this.

    However poor people in Sudan for example, have no choice, therefore it is right for others to help them out, they dont have the opportutinties that these chumps throw away in britain.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Capitalism is dependent on the working class anyway - the system would break down if there were no dropouts to do the menial and 'artisan' jobs.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There should be a very limited state welfare system which provides good education, fair health treatment for unavoidable illness/accidents(smoke 50 a day and get lung cancer? piss off and pay for your own treatment. Likewise drunk drivers should pay for all medical expenses be it their own or those of a victim/s) and a VERY limited and tightly regulated dole which provides the jobless with money to buy enough decent clothing(and i dont mean the latest football top for £50 :mad: ) and enough HEALTHY (not fast,or booze ) food with ANY luxuries being earnt by well...working.

    This would ensure equality of opportunity (through education) for those born to the poor without rewarding layabout welfare leeches with the resources and freedom to waste money on daft clothing, food and booze/**** and thus force people to work should they wish to have any luxuries.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    This would ensure equality of opportunity (through education) for those born to the poor without rewarding layabout welfare leeches with the resources and freedom to waste money on daft clothing, food and booze/**** and thus force people to work should they wish to have any luxuries.
    This assumes that equality of opportunity can be achieved simply by giving everyone 'equal' educational opportunities. However this discounts non-educational socio-economic factors (family background, social class etc) that have been shown to influence peoples life chances.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imagashead)
    This assumes that equality of opportunity can be achieved simply by giving everyone 'equal' educational opportunities. However this discounts non-educational socio-economic factors (family background, social class etc) that have been shown to influence peoples life chances.
    True, we have to assume that people will generally be given the opportunity their achievements and ability merit but whether this is a reality or not will not be altered by allowing some lazy welfare leech to use my money to buy himself the latest football top, eat fast food every day and get drunk at leisure.
    The welfare system should exist to ensure people can live, hell not just live but live healthily and ensure that educational opportunities which they would not be able to afford otherwise will remain open to them thus giving them the chance to improve their lot.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    there should be a benefit system to help those who become unemployed or those who are injured and have to retire etc...

    but it needs heavily reformed in the UK as its too easy for spongers to defraud it. said spongers should be sterilised and/or shot.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    i know it is wholly unpractical but people who work hard should be given support if they find it hard to make ends meet (and i don't mean ARGH no money for my 70ft yacht...) its those who choose not to work becuase they can't be assed that shouldn't benefit from others working their butts off..how a system would differentiate between the two..who knows?
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Mr Moncal)
    I think the burden of supporting the poor should be taken off of the middle class. It would help if the richer had to pay as much as everybody else in the first place. It makes economical sense to tax the rich more. They can afford to pay more and still have money to spend. If you take the burden off the middle class then they have more to spend.
    I'm against the redistribution of wealth. The rich are already in a higher tax bracket than the middle class.
    The top 1% of wage earners pay about 33% of the taxes.
    the top 10% pays 67%
    that leaves 90% of the wage earners to pay the remaining 33%
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    I'm against the redistribution of wealth. The rich are already in a higher tax bracket than the middle class.
    The top 1% of wage earners pay about 33% of the taxes.
    the top 10% pays 67%
    that leaves 90% of the wage earners to pay the remaining 33%
    I agree with you totally but when you try and prove your point don't use these statistics because then the socialists will just say that the wealthy dodge the taxes through havens and other financial instruments. Just say the obvious, which is that you get what you work for... in most cases, excluding people like Hiltons and your royal family which makes our money look bad.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by MuniE)
    I agree with you totally but when you try and prove your point don't use these statistics because then the socialists will just say that the wealthy dodge the taxes through havens and other financial instruments. Just say the obvious, which is that you get what you work for... in most cases, excluding people like Hiltons and your royal family which makes our money look bad.
    MuniE, I'm chuckling, you're absolutely right. The rich put all their money in Bahamian and Cayman Island banks, and still pay 67% of the taxes.

    Yup, you get what you work for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The UK is not a meritocratic system to believe so is socially and politically niave and ignorant.

    Race, Age, Sex, Gender, Sexuality, Disability Status ALL impact on life chances. People's movement up the socio-economic heirarchy is often (mostly) not through merit. Nepotism, prejudice (including racism/sexism) even blind chance all conspire against meritocracy. The rise of celebrity (someone's already mentioned footballers) is another point against it.

    The rich are rich largely through inheritance and the accural of wealth which can then be passed onto their children.

    Tell me those of you who believe in a meritocratic society. How is inheritance meritocratic? it goes against all the principals of working hard to yourself to improve your position, acheiving through merit not privelage of birth. Yet these same people I suspect would be up in arms if the right of inheritance were to be taken away.

    The gap between the richest rich and the poorest poor is increasing. We have a social and moral responsibility towards those less fortunate than ourselves.

    Someone born to a single parent on state benefits should be treated exactly the same as a person born to two middle class parents who own their own house? How is that fair? how is that starting off on an equal footing? If this person is, say, 20 years later, earning less than £10,000 a year this is their fault is it? Whereas the middle class person has just left univeristy with a degree, which of course he achieved through sheer hard work with no aid from his family at all?

    I think people need to get real with what life is really like. Not just in the UK but globally.
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.