If you ran your own state.....

[Spiritual_Beggar]

I still don't see why a 'Flat income rate' is not a good idea?

You do realise that the higher earners still pay more than the lower earners...but they are all paying the same % of their wage as tax!!

Eg; Guy earns £30K pays £5k in tax for example (made up figure BTW)

Guy earns £60K pays £10k in tax.

Guy earns £120k pays £20k in tax.

Where is the probelm here? Why do the scummy poor people (of which I am one) think that they are getting screwed if they are paying the same % of their income as the people above?

This is the only fair system IMO.

Anyway, If I ran my own state that is what I would do.

[Mr Whippy]

Gring said:

JamesM said:

Work camps for fat people, chavs and doleys
Deth Penalty
Proper Prisons
Proper Roads with no speed limit
Mandatory advanced driving courses for anyone driving, if you fail, you cant drive.
Abolish green taxes
Deployment of the army against Gippos
Live saturday night cruxifiction of Ant and Deck, followed every week by BB contestants
Bring back fox hunting
Legalisation of firearms

To name a few.

Didnt some guy called Adolf do somthing like this?

He had the right idea. If he'd kicked the Jews out rather than killed them he'd probably be seen as less of a "baddy" than he was I would imagine.

I will say, at least he had a vision. A deluded one I will grant you, but it's better than vagueness offered by our politicians who have no direction whatsoever except organised negative spectrum chaos.

[Murray993]

JamesM said:

Mandatory advanced driving courses for anyone driving, if you fail, you cant drive.

Banned or you just tell them they are crap?

JamesM said:

Deployment of the army against Gippos

And we know who'd win there....

JamesM said:

Live saturday night cruxifiction of Ant and Deck, followed every week by BB contestants

You need to be more specific here, crucifixion of Ant and Dec followed by Big Brother. Meaning what every week you somehow revive Ant and Dec, only to crucify them again then watch Big Brother.

JamesM said:

Bring back fox hunting

Fine

JamesM said:

Legalisation of firearms

Meaning what exactly? Anyone can have a gun? Like Fat Club over the pond?

More thought need 3/10

Edited by Murray993 on Thursday 2nd July 15:04

[G_T]

10 Pence Short said:

The principle is that those who earn large sums of money will try less hard to avoid paying tax if it is not considered punitive based on them being high earners. The result will be getting 20% of something instead of 100% of f*ck all.

An interesting idea but if that's the purpose then it makes far more sense just to implement new financial legistlation to prevent them from avoiding tax.

The idea of asking low earners to contribute 25% is ridiculous. On top of the student debts that were necessary for me do my job I would be paying 33% Tax + NI + My pension. I personally wouldn't have enough to live on and would be borderline destitute. I'm sure some rich would get a cracking boat out of it though.

Anyway I digress..

[Justayellowbadge]

Oi, sort your quotes!

[10 Pence Short]

G_T said:

10 Pence Short said:

The principle is that those who earn large sums of money will try less hard to avoid paying tax if it is not considered punitive based on them being high earners. The result will be getting 20% of something instead of 100% of f*ck all.

An interesting idea but if that's the purpose then it makes far more sense just to implement new financial legistlation to prevent them from avoiding tax.

Do that too successfully and all the high earners and corporations disappear to countries all to happy to give them the opportunity to 'avoid' tax. Then you're back to square one.

[Justayellowbadge]

By sort, I didn't mean repeat.

[JamesM]

Justayellowbadge said:

JamesM said:

Work camps for fat people, chavs and doleys
Deth Penalty
Proper Prisons
Proper Roads with no speed limit
Mandatory advanced driving courses for anyone driving, if you fail, you cant drive.
Abolish green taxes
Deployment of the army against Gippos
Live saturday night cruxifiction of Ant and Deck, followed every week by BB contestants
Bring back fox hunting
Legalisation of firearms

To name a few.

Can I get the contract to supply the snappy black uniforms your officials will be wearing?

I suppose. Only if they can look like this though. Do you want the ones for the machine guns and armoured trucks they'll need aswell? |http://thumbsnap.com

Gring said:

Didnt some guy called Adolf do somthing like this?

No, Adolf banned fox hunting. And he was a very nasty man.

[Neil_H]

I'd poach all the best engineers from every defense company across the world by offering them a utopian existence on my island, and then develop some mega WMD and an army of robot killers, and robot servants.

I'd also ban smoking as I personally don't like it.

Fat people would be banned*.




*By 'banned' I mean starved.

[Mr Whippy]

G_T said:

10 Pence Short said:

The principle is that those who earn large sums of money will try less hard to avoid paying tax if it is not considered punitive based on them being high earners. The result will be getting 20% of something instead of 100% of f*ck all.

An interesting idea but if that's the purpose then it makes far more sense just to implement new financial legistlation to prevent them from avoiding tax.

The idea of asking low earners to contribute 25% is ridiculous. On top of the student debts that were necessary for me do my job I would be paying 33% Tax + NI + My pension. I personally wouldn't have enough to live on and would be borderline destitute. I'm sure some rich would get a cracking boat out of it though.

Anyway I digress..

But that is assuming that things would all cost the same as they do now too.

Imagine petrol without tax, thats £150 extra for me a month.

Council tax, another wodge. Wow, that suddenly makes up the difference in direct taxation disparity.


Add up how much you REALLY pay in tax every year, and I bet it's over 33% already anyway, but costs billions more to collect/enforce the current way, as well as being easier to avoid/evade by those who should be paying it etc.

Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 2nd July 14:55

[10 Pence Short]

Neil_H said:

Fat people would be banged*.




*By 'banged' I mean by me.

I thought as much.

[Neil_H]

10 Pence Short said:

Neil_H said:

Fat people would be banged*.




*By 'banged' I mean by me.

I thought as much.

I'm not a chubby chaser! I do chase fatties occassionally but only while carrying a bag of salad, you should see them run!

[Justayellowbadge]

G_T said:

10 Pence Short said:

The principle is that those who earn large sums of money will try less hard to avoid paying tax if it is not considered punitive based on them being high earners. The result will be getting 20% of something instead of 100% of f*ck all.

An interesting idea but if that's the purpose then it makes far more sense just to implement new financial legistlation to prevent them from avoiding tax.

The idea of asking low earners to contribute 25% is ridiculous. On top of the student debts that were necessary for me do my job I would be paying 33% Tax + NI + My pension. I personally wouldn't have enough to live on and would be borderline destitute. I'm sure some rich would get a cracking boat out of it though.

Anyway I digress..

Politics of envy alive and well, I see. Fabulous.

Read this:

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[isee]

G_T said:

El Guapo said:

G_T said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Flat Income Tax rate.

Seriously?

That makes less sense than the toxic gas thing!

Earn twice as much, pay twice as much tax. How does this not make sense?

Bit of a can of worms here..

The true cost of living stays the same irrespective of your income. i.e. petrol, bread, milk all cost the same if you're prince or pauper.

So it means that the high earners get a great deal and the lower earners get screwed (as it will certainly raise their taxes!). So it seems fair that you will contribute more to the society that has given you more as you have more to spare?

It's perfectly logical to have increased levels of taxes for increased earnings. As much as many people won't like it. I'm not sure whether a flat rate is communism or capitalism gone mad but either way it seems daft to me.

Anyway... I really can't be bothered arguing the toss over this. I've already filled my arguementative bd quota for the day.

Excellent idea!
Can I please be placed in the queue where the society GIVES me more?
High earners more often than not don't get GIVEN things and work harder get luckier whatever you want to call it but they normally DO something to earn more. It's not as if we all raffle for positions in career ladder is it?
The fact that tax is done in percentage already accounts for the fact that if you EARN more you PAY more even on a flat rate. if we are all on say 10% rate and I earn say 100k p.a. I will be GIVING back to society 10 times more than someone who is on 10k.

I am sorry but this whole pleb talk about how higher earners should contribute more really pisses me off. The ironic thing is people are happy for higher earners to pay more as long as they are notthemselves the higher earner.

[Murray993]

Sorry that was my stutter

[G_T]

Justayellowbadge said:

Stuff

I don't think that negates my point really. The analogy seems massively oversimplified and I remain unconvinced by it.

The bottom line is the poor will pay more tax relative to their income. The rich will pay less relative to their income. The amount of tax required to run the country remains the same. The cost of "a pint of beer" will remain the same.

So in your new system the rich will be able to buy more "beer" than they could before. The poor signficantly less because as I've pointed out the cost of your "pint of beer". Is fixed, irrespective of your income.

Will this encourage people to stay in the country? Well you can't really quantify that can you? But if you favour the stick you can ban them from trading in the UK unless they hold their accounts here,or, if you favour the carrot you can offer them business incentives in exchange for staying within the UK. Either way is simpler to administrate and will affect less people whilst still increasing the state revenue.

Why is this a daft idea? (Genuine question! I know it's hot but don't condemn me just yet!)

[isee]

G_T said:

Justayellowbadge said:

Stuff

I don't think that negates my point really. The analogy seems massively oversimplified and I remain unconvinced by it.

The bottom line is the poor will pay more tax relative to their income. The rich will pay less relative to their income. The amount of tax required to run the country remains the same. The cost of "a pint of beer" will remain the same.

So in your new system the rich will be able to buy more "beer" than they could before. The poor signficantly less because as I've pointed out the cost of your "pint of beer". Is fixed, irrespective of your income.

Will this encourage people to stay in the country? Well you can't really quantify that can you? But if you favour the stick you can ban them from trading in the UK unless they hold their accounts here,or, if you favour the carrot you can offer them business incentives in exchange for staying within the UK. Either way is simpler to administrate and will affect less people whilst still increasing the state revenue.

Why is this a daft idea? (Genuine question! I know it's hot but don't condemn me just yet!)

So your idea is fairness is to make sure that both the rich and the poor can afford equal amounts of beer then? What is the point of becoming rich then?
Let's all stay poor and drive the country to a halt.

[G_T]

isee said:

Excellent idea!
Can I please be placed in the queue where the society GIVES me more?
High earners more often than not don't get GIVEN things and work harder get luckier whatever you want to call it but they normally DO something to earn more. It's not as if we all raffle for positions in career ladder is it?
The fact that tax is done in percentage already accounts for the fact that if you EARN more you PAY more even on a flat rate. if we are all on say 10% rate and I earn say 100k p.a. I will be GIVING back to society 10 times more than someone who is on 10k.

I am sorry but this whole pleb talk about how higher earners should contribute more really pisses me off. The ironic thing is people are happy for higher earners to pay more as long as they are notthemselves the higher earner.

Society gives you everything you have. You may be doing better than somebody else because of hard work, education etc. But ultimately your own success is linked to the sucess of the society you live in. No can earn £100,000 a year without people paying him that money based on what the, in our case, captilist economy says he is worth. You take the economy away from a commodities trader what are you left with?- A tt in a suit. He is devoid of any intrinsic value other than what capitalism places on him. I know that this is an oversimplification but I hope it shows my line of thought...

There's no need to be touchy about it. I'm more curious than anything else. It seems pretty obvious to me that salary:tax should not be flat rated because the cost of living is not proportional. I am keeping an open minded though!

[Mr Whippy]

G_T said:

The bottom line is the poor will pay more tax relative to their income. The rich will pay less relative to their income. The amount of tax required to run the country remains the same. The cost of "a pint of beer" will remain the same.

They pay less relative to their income because they have worked damn hard for it.

Everyone has the potential to if they want to. What is so wrong with that? Communism offers no benefits, because in all examples of it, a greedy few ruin it for everyone. At least with capitalism you can be one of those greedy few by working hard for it.
You can even be wealthy with a heavy focus on equality and helping society along. Ie, Bill Gates has donated a great deal to those MUCH less fortunate than whinging dolers or low earners... (ie, people starving to death or being persectuted in other countries etc)


If there is no reward for hard work, then there are no hard workers (why bother?), and then the tax shoftfall is passed onto you again anyway.

The bill has to be split, you are better off with some rich people who work hard being rewarded for it, and then also being able to pay the majority of the bills!


Capitalism works because we all get a shot at doing something good for ourselves and others in our lives!
Communism would be fantastic, but unfortunately humans are inherently greedy, soooo.

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Thursday 2nd July 15:31

[G_T]

isee said:

So your idea is fairness is to make sure that both the rich and the poor can afford equal amounts of beer then? What is the point of becoming rich then?
Let's all stay poor and drive the country to a halt.

Not at all. Those who earn more should be able to afford more. Even communists would agree.

But the revenue lost from the high earners would need to be recouped from somewhere. This would rise the % taxation on the "poor". Having grown up in poverty I can assure you that as little as 5% increase can be the difference between food on the table and none at all. Whereas by contast if you're pulling in reasonable money even a 40% increase has little real impact at all because you still have the money to comfortably put food on the table and other essentials. Which is the bottom line.