The government to take 10% off any savings over 50,000 pounds.

Watch
Poll: Should the government introduce a 10% levy on 50k+ savings?
Yes (5)
7.94%
No (58)
92.06%
TrotskyiteRebel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 4 days ago
#41
(Original post by acelenny)
Having savings of 50,000 does not make you very well off. I have more than that and I can tell you that thatmoney would suddenly be spent if the government decreed that it was going to take 10% of it.
I may be wrong about this, but I thought people who have 50k+ in saving usually have an income well above 50k. Why would anyone just keep 50k cash? They are more likely to invest that in a house, but a car, stocks, etc.
0
reply
TheMcSame
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 days ago
#42
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
I may be wrong about this, but I thought people who have 50k+ in saving usually have an income well above 50k. Why would anyone just keep 50k cash? They are more likely to invest that in a house, but a car, stocks, etc.
This entirely depends on what you'd define as savings. Pensions are savings for example, and it's certainly plausible that someone, even on a low income, would have 50k sat around in a pension pot.


Would not support this idea at all unless it was treated as a loan with a large compound, monthly interest rate (100%+). The Government should not be touching the savings of the public, if they must do so, they must be charged for the pleasure.
2
reply
TrotskyiteRebel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 4 days ago
#43
(Original post by the_queen)
God prevents people from persons like you!
You are definetely a communist.
Some people have money because they saved for some reasons, others dont have because they are neglijent or less lucky. This doesnt mean they have to share each other. Shut up, man!
(Original post by Ciel.)
lmfao. keep your hands to yourself babe.
(Original post by londonmyst)
No.
OP is a genuine trotskyist revolutionary, strictly no trolling.
(Original post by Reality Check)
I think your username suits you.
Calling me a communist to strawman your way out an argument is just cheap. Me being a communist doesn't automatically invalidate my argument, however much you may disagree with communism. Millions - perhaps tens of millions - of people suddenly found themselves without a job and no source of income. The pandemic has affected the leisure, hospitality, retail, tourism and many many other industries. We need to urgently find a way to make sure no one goes without food or a roof over their head. The urgency of cause calls for urgent measures, including a levy on savings. And still people's primary concern is how to cling to their money? Is this what money does to people?
0
reply
Mustafa0605
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 days ago
#44
I don’t know which cave you live in but it is a fact that the government has already committed to pay 80% of wages for workers who don’t have work anymore due to coronavirus. The wealthy already pay the highest rates of tax. It’s not really a crisis in the UK. It’s a real crisis in India, a country of 1.3 billion people, yet 100s of millions have 0 savings and live on earning pennies every day but now have no work because of a nationwide lockdown.
Last edited by Mustafa0605; 4 days ago
1
reply
1st superstar
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 days ago
#45
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
I may be wrong about this, but I thought people who have 50k+ in saving usually have an income well above 50k. Why would anyone just keep 50k cash? They are more likely to invest that in a house, but a car, stocks, etc.
So parents can send their children to uni, if the parents have a disabled child who cannot work then they might want to give them the money so that they can live comfortably, if the person ever travels abroad cough cough USA and needs to pay for healthcare etc.
1
reply
Ciel.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 days ago
#46
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
Calling me a communist to strawman your way out an argument is just cheap. Me being a communist doesn't automatically invalidate my argument, however much you may disagree with communism. Millions - perhaps tens of millions - of people suddenly found themselves without a job and no source of income. The pandemic has affected the leisure, hospitality, retail, tourism and many many other industries. We need to urgently find a way to make sure no one goes without food or a roof over their head. The urgency of cause calls for urgent measures, including a levy on savings. And still people's primary concern is how to cling to their money? Is this what money does to people?
yes, i don't care about strangers. you're not getting my man's hard earned money, it's mine. bye. 😂
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 days ago
#47
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
Calling me a communist to strawman your way out an argument is just cheap. Me being a communist doesn't automatically invalidate my argument, however much you may disagree with communism. Millions - perhaps tens of millions - of people suddenly found themselves without a job and no source of income. The pandemic has affected the leisure, hospitality, retail, tourism and many many other industries. We need to urgently find a way to make sure no one goes without food or a roof over their head. The urgency of cause calls for urgent measures, including a levy on savings. And still people's primary concern is how to cling to their money? Is this what money does to people?
So your solution is to steal from the population? A weird idea considering a much more easy and practical one would be to get the government to dish out more money.

You're surprised people don't want their stuff being stolen?
2
reply
TrotskyiteRebel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 4 days ago
#48
(Original post by Bio 7)
That is a stupid idea.

It's embarrassing that millions of years of evolution can lead to someone creating calculus and experimenting with gravity and someone like you that thinks we should steal everyone's money.
What a failure of our species you are.
yes yes, we need more intelligent people like you who can give such intelligent and thoughtful answers.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 days ago
#49
(Original post by TheMcSame)
This entirely depends on what you'd define as savings. Pensions are savings for example, and it's certainly plausible that someone, even on a low income, would have 50k sat around in a pension pot.
Doubtful after the markets waltzed off of a cliff :lol: I imagine a lot of pensioners are going to be really feeling the squeeze now.
0
reply
Blue_Cow
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 days ago
#50
£50,000 in savings isn't even *that* much in the grand scheme of things.

Why should savers be punished? They've already been shafted for a decade with record low interest rates...
2
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 days ago
#51
(Original post by Napp)
So your solution is to steal from the population? A weird idea considering a much more easy and practical one would be to get the government to dish out more money.

You're surprised people don't want their stuff being stolen?
You'll hear the fine old 'private property is theft by the bourgeoisie parasites' quote soon.
1
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 days ago
#52
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
Go and read Friendman and you'll see how much emphasis he places on wealth redistribution. It's an inherent part of any society and we're doing right now, without it total anarchy would follow. So wealth distribution isn't something only to do with communism.
As I said, as a communist I was you guillotined. I want to live in a society where wage disparity doesn't exist and people have total control over the industry. So major structural change. But in this thread, i wasn't asking for any major structural change, just some emergency measures to procure enough resources to deal with a natural crisis. Some of people's most basic human rights and needs are in jeopardy and we need to do what we can right this moment.
We are having government step in short term issuing bonds to capital markets so they can cover people’s wages whilst they have mandated that companies can’t have their work force.

That is a capitalist solution to a novel problem, not wealth redistribution.

If that is wealth redistribution then so is spending on pensions 😂
0
reply
YaliaV
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 days ago
#53
I take it you have zero savings.
1
reply
TrotskyiteRebel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 4 days ago
#54
(Original post by Napp)
So your solution is to steal from the population? A weird idea considering a much more easy and practical one would be to get the government to dish out more money.

You're surprised people don't want their stuff being stolen?
(Original post by Ciel.)
yes, i don't care about strangers. you're not getting my man's hard earned money, it's mine. bye. 😂
(Original post by Mustafa0605)
I don’t know which cave you live in but it is a fact that the government has already committed to pay 80% of wages for workers who don’t have work anymore due to coronavirus. The wealthy already pay the highest rates of tax. It’s not really a crisis in the UK. It’s a real crisis in India, a country of 1.3 billion people, yet 100s of millions have 0 savings and live on earning pennies every day but now have no work because of a nationwide lockdown.
This is an important point. A lot of people argued that this is theft. I don't think it is. Firstly, as I said these are extraordinary times and they call for extraordinary measures. When wars happen, one usual fiscal move is to increase taxation and as a result, people will have less in saving after a while. Why is this so different? It just gives the state speedier access to resources and is the more appropriate move in this case.
Secondly, the amount of money you have is most likely because of the social system you live in. If you lived in a society where taxes were higher, wages were higher or there was a tax on inheritance you would have had less in savings. Society giveth and society taketh away. I know it's a controversial point, the right to private property is a big argument in philosophy, but i think society can place justifiable demands on people's 'property '. The reason why the state is reluctant to do that is more prudential than moral, as another user pointed, it can reduce confidence in the banking system (along with other reasons). But I don't think this will be case because people can surely understand the urgency of the matter, and would understand that this only happen under dire circumstances.
0
reply
Ciel.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 days ago
#55
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
This is an important point. A lot of people argued that this is theft. I don't think it is. Firstly, as I said these are extraordinary times and they call for extraordinary measures. When wars happen, one usual fiscal move is to increase taxation and as a result, people will have less in saving after a while. Why is this so different? It just gives the state speedier access to resources and is the more appropriate move in this case.
Secondly, the amount of money you have is most likely because of the social system you live in. If you lived in a society where taxes were higher, wages were higher or there was a tax on inheritance you would have had less in savings. Society giveth and society taketh away. I know it's a controversial point, the right to private property is a big argument in philosophy, but i think society can place justifiable demands on people's 'property '. The reason why the state is reluctant to do that is more prudential than moral, as another user pointed, it can reduce confidence in the banking system (along with other reasons). But I don't think this will be case because people can surely understand the urgency of the matter, and would understand that this only happen under dire circumstances.
it's still a no. you should just get a job, or a rich lover (:
0
reply
TrotskyiteRebel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#56
Report Thread starter 4 days ago
#56
(Original post by TheMcSame)
This entirely depends on what you'd define as savings. Pensions are savings for example, and it's certainly plausible that someone, even on a low income, would have 50k sat around in a pension pot.


Would not support this idea at all unless it was treated as a loan with a large compound, monthly interest rate (100%+). The Government should not be touching the savings of the public, if they must do so, they must be charged for the pleasure.
yea the idea is to take a little from people who have much more than they need to attend to other people most urgent needs. In practice, of course, there should be exceptions to who gets charged, whether or not pensions should be charged is quite an specific question which is open to debate. But for people, their 50k will become 45k, it doesn't sound catastrophic to me. If they wanted to save it for a house, deposit, car etc, it would only delay their plans for a couple of months.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 days ago
#57
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
This is an important point. A lot of people argued that this is theft. I don't think it is. Firstly, as I said these are extraordinary times and they call for extraordinary measures. When wars happen, one usual fiscal move is to increase taxation and as a result, people will have less in saving after a while. Why is this so different? It just gives the state speedier access to resources and is the more appropriate move in this case.
It is the literal definition of theft...
Because taxation is a generally accepted part of society, filching peoples savings is not..
The state has many easier ways of generating cash from the simple old printing press upwards.
Secondly, the amount of money you have is most likely because of the social system you live in. If you lived in a society where taxes were higher, wages were higher or there was a tax on inheritance you would have had less in savings. Society giveth and society taketh away. I know it's a controversial point, the right to private property is a big argument in philosophy, but i think society can place justifiable demands on people's 'property '. The reason why the state is reluctant to do that is more prudential than moral, as another user pointed, it can reduce confidence in the banking system (along with other reasons). But I don't think this will be case because people can surely understand the urgency of the matter, and would understand that this only happen under dire circumstances.
Extremely debatable.
Bigger question is why do you think pilfering peoples savings will actually generate a particularly large amount of money quickly? As opposed to most simply spending/moving their money away from the government - something that i will personally guarantee will happen.
Of course this is ignoring the basic facts of people taking serious umbrage with paying tax and then having money theyve already been taxed on expropriated. Given that such blatantly thievery has never been a part of the states armoury, not even during the world wars - what makes you think people will tolerate it now?
0
reply
TrotskyiteRebel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 4 days ago
#58
(Original post by paul514)
We are having government step in short term issuing bonds to capital markets so they can cover people’s wages whilst they have mandated that companies can’t have their work force.

That is a capitalist solution to a novel problem, not wealth redistribution.

If that is wealth redistribution then so is spending on pensions 😂
Wealth redistribution happens in almost all capitalist societies. That's why we have progressive taxation. There's more wealth redistribution under capitalism because wealth is not distributed equally. There isn't much of a need for it under communism. Technically there isn't any need for it.
Yes, exactly, the government is issuing bonds and will have to pay interest and pay it back. Probs next year this time we're going to hear the good old 'we have to live within in our means' argument and the tories will scrap what little is left of our welfare system to pay back the debt they've accumulated. BoJo will probably proceed with his plans to reduce the 45p top tax threshold to 40p, just like Cameron did with the 50p tax, they're going to pay this money back targeting the most vulnerable in society.
0
reply
TrotskyiteRebel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#59
Report Thread starter 4 days ago
#59
(Original post by Ciel.)
it's still a no. you should just get a job, or a rich lover (:
You're trolling right? This has nothing to do with me. I'm fine, I am not worried about my rent or other basic necessities. What bothers me is living in a society where people don't care about others being able to meet their basic needs, I'd like to live in a society where people feel responsible for one another. The money you have is because of these people you look down on so senselessly. They are the ones holding the economy together.
0
reply
Ciel.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 days ago
#60
(Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
You're trolling right? This has nothing to do with me. I'm fine, I am not worried about my rent or other basic necessities. What bothers me is living in a society where people don't care about others being able to meet their basic needs, I'd like to live in a society where people feel responsible for one another. The money you have is because of these people you look down on so senselessly. They are the ones holding the economy together. For a piece of **** like you to vilify them like that. One day people will see you for what you are - a piece of ****.
then move to north korea. and there's no need to get so worked up, hun
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

With HE fairs postponed, would a virtual HE fair be useful?

Yes (104)
60.47%
No (68)
39.53%

Watched Threads

View All