The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

It is pretty ******* ridiculous tbh, add to the fact that you're basically paying for chavs and immigrants to multiply and slouch of responsibility for the progeny. When I go on facebook there are these group of slappers from my year in school bragging and talking about how they're X in line for a council house now they have a baby. Let the ******* die in the street if you ask me, teach them some responsibility. What sane society gives people houses for being a irresponsible slapper?
Reply 201
Taxes should be (and are) charged on ability to pay. Rich people can afford it more than poor people, ergo they pay more. There, as simple as it needs to be.
Reply 202
Lefty Leo
Oh no, not the family breakup argument :facepalm2: I'm just going to dismiss that.


I'm just going to dismiss that?


Grammar schools did, but they were flawed on the level that if you got in, you'd be guaranteed your place, even if you didn't do any work after getting in.


One minor problem, do you have any better ideas?

Not really; how much you get out of "education" is determined more by your attitude than by your intelligence. And attitude is massively affected when half the people go to university (and thus there are far more people pressuring their kids to achieve intellectually!).


Attitude is negatively affected if people feel like their education is being dumbed down to suit the masses who shouldn't really be there.

Legalised theft? Without "legalized theft" people would be dying on the streets while the rich lived in their mansions. But wait, that's what you want, isn't it? Or even if you don't want it, you don't give enough of a damn about people other than those directly connected to you to care if they suffer or not.


Reducing taxes ---> people dying on the streets is a bit of a jump.
Reply 203
spex
Taxes should be (and are) charged on ability to pay. Rich people can afford it more than poor people, ergo they pay more. There, as simple as it needs to be.


Don't think anyone's said otherwise (though I'd suggest some things that are currently paid from taxes shouldn't be and vice versa). All the schemes put forward result in higher earners paying more - it's a question of how you scale the costs up for the higher earners.
shrep
I'm just going to dismiss that?



One minor problem, do you have any better ideas?



Attitude is negatively affected if people feel like their education is being dumbed down to suit the masses who shouldn't really be there.



Reducing taxes ---> people dying on the streets is a bit of a jump.


I actually agreed with you that grammar schools were a good idea. I GO to one!

The opinions of such people are few and far between, and usually restricted to the public school types.

No, it isn't. Look at the US.
Reply 205
Seven_Three
It is pretty ******* ridiculous tbh, add to the fact that you're basically paying for chavs and immigrants to multiply and slouch of responsibility for the progeny. When I go on facebook there are these group of slappers from my year in school bragging and talking about how they're X in line for a council house now they have a baby. Let the ******* die in the street if you ask me, teach them some responsibility. What sane society gives people houses for being a irresponsible slapper?


Would you rather they were on the streets causing trouble?
Reply 206
Lefty Leo
I actually agreed with you that grammar schools were a good idea. I GO to one!

The opinions of such people are few and far between, and usually restricted to the public school types.

No, it isn't. Look at the US.


What about the US?
Titch89
Would you rather they were on the streets causing trouble?


So we should give houses to people for being potential trouble makers?
Profesh
If I employ someone to grit my drive at a salary of £60,000 per year, from which the government automatically deducts £24,000, then I am effectively paying £36,000 to that person and £24,000 to the government. If out of that remaining £36,000 they spend £16,000 on luxury goods, then I am effectively paying £33,600 to them and £2,400 to the government. So for every nominal £60,000 salary I issue, it is not unreasonable to say that I essentially tithe in excess of £24,000 to Gordon Brown; and that as an entrepreneur, all known taxation ultimately flows from my venture capital/revenue-generating activities - nevermind the money saved by the public sector whenever I opt for a chauffeur-driven limousine in lieu of a bus, or choose BUPA instead of the NHS (which, having indirectly contributed hundreds of millions of pounds to its coffers, I should feel no necessary obligation to do).



What did you mean?


Oh yes I see your point, all that is of course true. I don't think the super rich haven't earnt their money, either. My point is merely that those who earn so much more than others shouldn't be exempt from paying the tax that those who earn less do. I don't see why that is controversial (see my earlier second post, in regards to what I'm talking about).

I'm sure you are going to quote me explaining why you think it is OK, but I'll be sure to either not understand, or just not agree, so I'd rather we nipped this one in the bud now before we waste pages of this thread :p:
usainlightning
But if your poor it gives you an incentive to become succesful.


if i'm poor it's not going to be because i don't want to be successful. :confused:
usainlightning
The US is not a first world country it is a second world country. WHy should succesful people pay for those who couldn't be bothered to work in school when they were younger and haven't taken the risks that they have taken in order to become succesful.


The US is most definitely a First World country.

It is not merely a case of the successful being rewarded and the lazy not. Many people have not had the same opportunities as the more privelidged. Consequently it is harder for them so succeed later in life. Similarly, success often comes independent of hard work. In many cases, the wealthiest do not need to work as hard as those on lower incomes. If they can afford to pay more, and paying more would not dent their standard of living, why should they not?
Olivia_Lightbulb
The US is most definitely a First World country.

It is not merely a case of the successful being rewarded and the lazy not. Many people have not had the same opportunities as the more privelidged. Consequently it is harder for them so succeed later in life. Similarly, success often comes independent of hard work. In many cases, the wealthiest do not need to work as hard as those on lower incomes. If they can afford to pay more, and paying more would not dent their standard of living, why should they not?


Look it up, the US is a second world country.

Wealthy people that start a business and become succeful always work harder than the workers. Hard work does not just involve heaving heavy bricks about. Generally thos that become succesful have worked hard all their lives wheras workers usuallly dossed about in school and now the only job that they can get is labouring. It is not the fault of succesful people that these people couldn't be bothered to work in school and get the qualifications neccesary to get a well paid job when they are older. So why should they pay for them?
BrightGirl
if i'm poor it's not going to be because i don't want to be successful. :confused:

I hope that there aren't many other people like you then.
My dad is in the top income tax band, although there are easy ways of avoiding it :wink:
Reply 214
usainlightning
Look it up, the US is a second world country.

Wealthy people that start a business and become succeful always work harder than the workers. Hard work does not just involve heaving heavy bricks about. Generally thos that become succesful have worked hard all their lives wheras workers usuallly dossed about in school and now the only job that they can get is labouring. It is not the fault of succesful people that these people couldn't be bothered to work in school and get the qualifications neccesary to get a well paid job when they are older. So why should they pay for them?


The USA is not a second world country. That term referred to the Eurasian socialist bloc. I think you are perhaps confusing the 1st/2nd/3rd world distinction with the old/new world distinction. USA is 1st world and new world.
usainlightning
I hope that there aren't many other people like you then.


Everyone's selfish in the end. :h:
Reply 216
thetroll

I hope your lefty credentials won't go out the window when you've got a highly paid job....



Being on the left isn't just about tax-and-spend.
BrightGirl
Everyone's selfish in the end. :h:


Its not a question of being selfish, it's just doing wht's best for you and your family
usainlightning
Its not a question of being selfish, it's just doing wht's best for you and your family


Ok I think we may be talking about different things, I don't know really what you mean as I am dumb.
BrightGirl
Ok I think we may be talking about different things, I don't know really what you mean as I am dumb.

Fitting username

Latest

Trending

Trending