What is “Politics of envy”?

[franki68]

popegregory said:

Could I now argue the “double tax” argument regarding inheritance tax. How can it be income that has been taxed twice if it’s the first time the beneficiary has received it...?

Because it was taxed twice ,changing the source does not mean it wasn’t taxed twice.
You can’t change the fact by twisting a few words.

[Murph7355]

monkfish1 said:

avinalarf said:

A few generalisations on this complex and divisive subject.....
It is failure of government that encourages the politics of envy.
The failure to provide a reasonably level playing field that allows the populace a reason to strive,to work hard and play by the rules, and provide for themselves and their family.

Agree. The fact that my 3 person company pays more corparation tax than Starbucks tells me the playing field is most certainly is not level.

Does your 3 person company pay as much into the Exchequer across the board (VAT, staff taxes, business rates, NI etc etc etc etc etc) as Starbucks?

Also one presumes there are no rules preventing you setting up as a multinational corporation and taking advantage of things like transfer pricing if you so desired. Though admittedly with 3 people that might be tricky at present logistically

Do not fall into the "Corporation Tax" trap. Companies, even yours, do not pay it. It is held up to try and divide, and works quite well at that. It's a nonsense argument with a nonsense tax and we ought to be finding better ways to handle taxation across the board than this. But it will never happen because people, including yourself it seems, will feel hard done by.

[amusingduck]

franki68 said:

popegregory said:

Could I now argue the “double tax” argument regarding inheritance tax. How can it be income that has been taxed twice if it’s the first time the beneficiary has received it...?

Because it was taxed twice ,changing the source does not mean it wasn’t taxed twice.
You can’t change the fact by twisting a few words.

What income do you receive that has never been taxed before?

[wisbech]

grumbledoak said:

wisbech said:

Very true. If you were a serf, you would work much longer hours, and not get paid at all, just allowed to keep some of the food you grew.

Victorian working hours were about 70 a week.

Medieval peasantry worked about 150 days per year. Hunter gatherers, whether first peoples or our own ancestors, even less.

Juliet Schor? Fundamental issue that she only considered paid/ required work. On top of the mandatory work for the lord/ paid work, a peasant would have their own small holding/ household production. I.e spinning yarn/ collecting firewood/ brewing/ cooking etc.

[franki68]

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

popegregory said:

Could I now argue the “double tax” argument regarding inheritance tax. How can it be income that has been taxed twice if it’s the first time the beneficiary has received it...?

Because it was taxed twice ,changing the source does not mean it wasn’t taxed twice.
You can’t change the fact by twisting a few words.

What income do you receive that has never been taxed before?

Again this is just twisting words to avoid the fact that earned income is being taxed twice.

[amusingduck]

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

popegregory said:

Could I now argue the “double tax” argument regarding inheritance tax. How can it be income that has been taxed twice if it’s the first time the beneficiary has received it...?

Because it was taxed twice ,changing the source does not mean it wasn’t taxed twice.
You can’t change the fact by twisting a few words.

What income do you receive that has never been taxed before?

Again this is just twisting words to avoid the fact that earned income is being taxed twice.

Seems to me that you're the one reliant on twisting words.

Who is being taxed twice on that earned income, and how?

[jfire]

djohnson said:

For me Corbyn epitomises the politics of envy. Despite attending one of the best schools in the UK his qualifications and ability meant that he wasn’t really capable of even building a middle class lifestyle in most vocations. He fell into Marxism not because he either understands or believes it’s fundamental principles but due to his bitterness towards those more capable than he, who can and have built middle class and better lives for themselves. He’d prefer equality of poverty to parity of opportunity (and that’s just what he’d deliver in power), such is his resentment.

He doesn't really need any credentials to be held up by the middle class as the saviour of the downtrodden. They simply want someone who stands for their ideology. I can't see any great examples of this integrity, except the black and white picture that is often shared on social media of his protesting against Thatcher on South Africa. However, that's more an historic dig at the Tories if anything, and when it comes down to pedigree, when Dianne Abbot's CV is often thrown up in defence of her incompetence, it actually contains what you might call achievements. Perhaps it's not her opponents who are the racist misogynists, it's the party who has the useless white man in charge over her.

[oyster]

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

popegregory said:

Could I now argue the “double tax” argument regarding inheritance tax. How can it be income that has been taxed twice if it’s the first time the beneficiary has received it...?

Because it was taxed twice ,changing the source does not mean it wasn’t taxed twice.
You can’t change the fact by twisting a few words.

What income do you receive that has never been taxed before?

Again this is just twisting words to avoid the fact that earned income is being taxed twice.

Seems to me that you're the one reliant on twisting words.

Who is being taxed twice on that earned income, and how?

Strictly speaking, no true capitalist should object to inheritance tax, as it's not a tax on work or enterprise. Then there's the principle of each individual succeeding by their own merit and ability.

[franki68]

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

popegregory said:

Could I now argue the “double tax” argument regarding inheritance tax. How can it be income that has been taxed twice if it’s the first time the beneficiary has received it...?

Because it was taxed twice ,changing the source does not mean it wasn’t taxed twice.
You can’t change the fact by twisting a few words.

What income do you receive that has never been taxed before?

Again this is just twisting words to avoid the fact that earned income is being taxed twice.

Seems to me that you're the one reliant on twisting words.

Who is being taxed twice on that earned income, and how?

I’m not twisting anything ,iht is a second tax on earned income,no words change that fact .

[amusingduck]

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

popegregory said:

Could I now argue the “double tax” argument regarding inheritance tax. How can it be income that has been taxed twice if it’s the first time the beneficiary has received it...?

Because it was taxed twice ,changing the source does not mean it wasn’t taxed twice.
You can’t change the fact by twisting a few words.

What income do you receive that has never been taxed before?

Again this is just twisting words to avoid the fact that earned income is being taxed twice.

Seems to me that you're the one reliant on twisting words.

Who is being taxed twice on that earned income, and how?

I’m not twisting anything ,iht is a second tax on earned income,no words change that fact .

No words change the fact that all of your income has been taxed before it got to you, but that's "twisting" apparently.

Whereas your refusal to answer basic questions, and repeatedly falling back on "no words change that fact" (yet not being able to explain that fact) - that's not "twisting"?

Wanna have a go at answering the question?

[franki68]

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

popegregory said:

Could I now argue the “double tax” argument regarding inheritance tax. How can it be income that has been taxed twice if it’s the first time the beneficiary has received it...?

Because it was taxed twice ,changing the source does not mean it wasn’t taxed twice.
You can’t change the fact by twisting a few words.

What income do you receive that has never been taxed before?

Again this is just twisting words to avoid the fact that earned income is being taxed twice.

Seems to me that you're the one reliant on twisting words.

Who is being taxed twice on that earned income, and how?

I’m not twisting anything ,iht is a second tax on earned income,no words change that fact .

No words change the fact that all of your income has been taxed before it got to you, but that's "twisting" apparently.

Whereas your refusal to answer basic questions, and repeatedly falling back on "no words change that fact" (yet not being able to explain that fact) - that's not "twisting"?

Wanna have a go at answering the question?

I’m sorry ,I’m a simple man and your words are implying that having earned some money that I pay tax on , and then having whatever is left after that taxed if I decide to pass it on to my kids , is not a double taxation ?
Am I or am I not paying tax twice ? Is that original £ I earned being taxed twice or not ?

[amusingduck]

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

popegregory said:

Could I now argue the “double tax” argument regarding inheritance tax. How can it be income that has been taxed twice if it’s the first time the beneficiary has received it...?

Because it was taxed twice ,changing the source does not mean it wasn’t taxed twice.
You can’t change the fact by twisting a few words.

What income do you receive that has never been taxed before?

Again this is just twisting words to avoid the fact that earned income is being taxed twice.

Seems to me that you're the one reliant on twisting words.

Who is being taxed twice on that earned income, and how?

I’m not twisting anything ,iht is a second tax on earned income,no words change that fact .

No words change the fact that all of your income has been taxed before it got to you, but that's "twisting" apparently.

Whereas your refusal to answer basic questions, and repeatedly falling back on "no words change that fact" (yet not being able to explain that fact) - that's not "twisting"?

Wanna have a go at answering the question?

I’m sorry ,I’m a simple man and your words are implying that having earned some money that I pay tax on , and then having whatever is left after that taxed if I decide to pass it on to my kids , is not a double taxation ?
Am I or am I not paying tax twice ? Is that original £ I earned being taxed twice or not ?

How are you being taxed twice? You're being taxed once and your children are taxed once, no?

If you don't want your kids to pay tax on their inheritance, start gifting it to them now?

[franki68]

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

popegregory said:

Could I now argue the “double tax” argument regarding inheritance tax. How can it be income that has been taxed twice if it’s the first time the beneficiary has received it...?

Because it was taxed twice ,changing the source does not mean it wasn’t taxed twice.
You can’t change the fact by twisting a few words.

What income do you receive that has never been taxed before?

Again this is just twisting words to avoid the fact that earned income is being taxed twice.

Seems to me that you're the one reliant on twisting words.

Who is being taxed twice on that earned income, and how?

I’m not twisting anything ,iht is a second tax on earned income,no words change that fact .

No words change the fact that all of your income has been taxed before it got to you, but that's "twisting" apparently.

Whereas your refusal to answer basic questions, and repeatedly falling back on "no words change that fact" (yet not being able to explain that fact) - that's not "twisting"?

Wanna have a go at answering the question?

I’m sorry ,I’m a simple man and your words are implying that having earned some money that I pay tax on , and then having whatever is left after that taxed if I decide to pass it on to my kids , is not a double taxation ?
Am I or am I not paying tax twice ? Is that original £ I earned being taxed twice or not ?

How are you being taxed twice? You're being taxed once and your children are taxed once, no?

If you don't want your kids to pay tax on their inheritance, start gifting it to them now?

In the example The money I earned is being taxed twice ...is it or is it not ? That is all .

Changing who pays it does not mean it isn’t a double tax .

Anyway this is going round in circles ,and I need to go and earn a few quid to make those gifts.

[amusingduck]

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

amusingduck said:

franki68 said:

popegregory said:

Could I now argue the “double tax” argument regarding inheritance tax. How can it be income that has been taxed twice if it’s the first time the beneficiary has received it...?

Because it was taxed twice ,changing the source does not mean it wasn’t taxed twice.
You can’t change the fact by twisting a few words.

What income do you receive that has never been taxed before?

Again this is just twisting words to avoid the fact that earned income is being taxed twice.

Seems to me that you're the one reliant on twisting words.

Who is being taxed twice on that earned income, and how?

I’m not twisting anything ,iht is a second tax on earned income,no words change that fact .

No words change the fact that all of your income has been taxed before it got to you, but that's "twisting" apparently.

Whereas your refusal to answer basic questions, and repeatedly falling back on "no words change that fact" (yet not being able to explain that fact) - that's not "twisting"?

Wanna have a go at answering the question?

I’m sorry ,I’m a simple man and your words are implying that having earned some money that I pay tax on , and then having whatever is left after that taxed if I decide to pass it on to my kids , is not a double taxation ?
Am I or am I not paying tax twice ? Is that original £ I earned being taxed twice or not ?

How are you being taxed twice? You're being taxed once and your children are taxed once, no?

If you don't want your kids to pay tax on their inheritance, start gifting it to them now?

In the example The money I earned is being taxed twice ...is it or is it not ? That is all .

Changing who pays it does not mean it isn’t a double tax .

Anyway this is going round in circles ,and I need to go and earn a few quid to make those gifts.

Yes it does, that's literally what it means.

investopedia said:

What is Double Taxation
Double taxation is a taxation principle referring to income taxes paid twice on the same source of earned income. It can occur when income is taxed at both the corporate level and personal level. Double taxation also occurs in international trade when the same income is taxed in two different countries.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double_taxation.asp

[wisbech]

franki68 said:

In the example The money I earned is being taxed twice ...is it or is it not ? That is all .

Changing who pays it does not mean it isn’t a double tax .

Anyway this is going round in circles ,and I need to go and earn a few quid to make those gifts.

But there is nothing particularly odd about double taxation- you pay VAT and excise duties even though you have paid income tax. Ditto dividend income can be taxed, even though tax was paid by the company

[Rivenink]

amusingduck said:

How does charging them more tax reduce the need for working tax credits?

It doesn't and I wasn't intending to suggest it does. I am extremely not in favour of working tax credits as a form of wealth redistribution; since the ultimate beneficiaries are those companies and their shareholders who both pursue a policy of being "tax efficient" and of paying their workers the minimum possible, expecting the state to top-up wages.

It is not envious in anyway to point out that employers who do that are taking advantage of everyone else.

[franki68]

wisbech said:

franki68 said:

In the example The money I earned is being taxed twice ...is it or is it not ? That is all .

Changing who pays it does not mean it isn’t a double tax .

Anyway this is going round in circles ,and I need to go and earn a few quid to make those gifts.

But there is nothing particularly odd about double taxation- you pay VAT and excise duties even though you have paid income tax. Ditto dividend income can be taxed, even though tax was paid by the company

It’s a tax on top that though isn’t it ? So applying that logic it is money that is triple taxed .

[Dr Jekyll]

Rivenink said:

amusingduck said:

How does charging them more tax reduce the need for working tax credits?

It doesn't and I wasn't intending to suggest it does. I am extremely not in favour of working tax credits as a form of wealth redistribution; since the ultimate beneficiaries are those companies and their shareholders who both pursue a policy of being "tax efficient" and of paying their workers the minimum possible, expecting the state to top-up wages.

It is not envious in anyway to point out that employers who do that are taking advantage of everyone else.

So you think that wages would be higher if there were no tax credits? It really doesn't work like that.

If someone through no fault of their own doesn't currently have the skills or experience to earn enough to live on then subsidise them, fine. But this subsidy should be through the welfare system, that's what it's for. If you say employers should subsidise them by paying them over the odds for the value they add, then you simply discourage employers from taking them on.

[Nickgnome]

Dr Jekyll said:

Rivenink said:

amusingduck said:

How does charging them more tax reduce the need for working tax credits?

It doesn't and I wasn't intending to suggest it does. I am extremely not in favour of working tax credits as a form of wealth redistribution; since the ultimate beneficiaries are those companies and their shareholders who both pursue a policy of being "tax efficient" and of paying their workers the minimum possible, expecting the state to top-up wages.

It is not envious in anyway to point out that employers who do that are taking advantage of everyone else.

So you think that wages would be higher if there were no tax credits? It really doesn't work like that.

If someone through no fault of their own doesn't currently have the skills or experience to earn enough to live on then subsidise them, fine. But this subsidy should be through the welfare system, that's what it's for. If you say employers should subsidise them by paying them over the odds for the value they add, then you simply discourage employers from taking them on.

Then that company should not be in business.

Every single worker should be able to receive a living wage on which they can support themselves.

It is not for the tax system to subsidise company profits.

[Dr Jekyll]

Nickgnome said:

Then that company should not be in business.

Every single worker should be able to receive a living wage on which they can support themselves.

It is not for the tax system to subsidise company profits.

And that would help who precisely?


the tax system does not subsidise profits, if there were no welfare wages would be lower not higher.