If you ran your own state.....
Discussion
G_T said:
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 tCan 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.
t 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!
t
t in a suit is a nice analogy but does not represent every high earner. What about an airliner captain? a surgeon? a director of an onnovative IT company?They had to study hard or harder than most so that they can earn more. By making them pay a higher percentage you are taking away the incentive of being rich, which in turn takes away the incentive to invent new technology or do a high responsibility work.
Why should the surgeon risk being blamed if a patient dies (and study for years before he can become a surgeon)? Why should the pilot subject himself to the stress and responsibility associated with a transatlantic flight with 300 lives on board? Why should the director spend his weekends and nights managing his company to drive it forward and stay competitive if they all end up with the same disposable income as the street sweeper?
Mr Whippy said:
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?
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!
Dave
So someone cannot be a hard worker in a low paid job? Not everyone has the same chances in life and I say this not having a chip on my shoulder.Everyone has the potential to if they want to. What is so wrong with that?
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!
Dave
I don't have a problem with people earning more. I am not a communist. There is a reward for hard work. Money! They earn more and so they should! But when it comes to "splitting the bill" they should remember that society put them where they are and they are indebted to it. They shouldn't begrudge paying that bit extra because they're still getting more out of it.
Justayellowbadge said:
G_T said:
You take the economy away from a commodities trader what are you left with?- A tt in a suit.
That's enormously telling.t in a suit.I'm afraid that sort of attitude strongly indicates you are not worth communicating with.
I don't have any problem with how a man makes his living but don't sit there and tell me that he owes society nothing despite the high value we place on him.
Edited by G_T on Thursday 2nd July 15:43
G_T said:
Mr Whippy said:
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?
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!
Dave
So someone cannot be a hard worker in a low paid job? Not everyone has the same chances in life and I say this not having a chip on my shoulder.Everyone has the potential to if they want to. What is so wrong with that?
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!
Dave
I don't have a problem with people earning more. I am not a communist. There is a reward for hard work. Money! They earn more and so they should! But when it comes to "splitting the bill" they should remember that society put them where they are and they are indebted to it. They shouldn't begrudge paying that bit extra because they're still getting more out of it.
You seem to keep ignoring my comments on the fact that beacuse tax is calculated in % it is directly proportionate to the earnings. I.e. exactly what you are lobbying for. if I earn 10k on a 10% tax I put back 1k in the system. If I earn 100k on the same tax I put back 10k back in the system. that's the entire salary of the guy on the 10k! why should it be 20k?
isee said:
Ok but my point is he is already giving back more. because tax is calcualted in %.
tt in a suit is a nice analogy but does not represent every high earner. What about an airliner captain? a surgeon? a director of an onnovative IT company?
They had to study hard or harder than most so that they can earn more. By making them pay a higher percentage you are taking away the incentive of being rich, which in turn takes away the incentive to invent new technology or do a high responsibility work.
Why should the surgeon risk being blamed if a patient dies (and study for years before he can become a surgeon)? Why should the pilot subject himself to the stress and responsibility associated with a transatlantic flight with 300 lives on board? Why should the director spend his weekends and nights managing his company to drive it forward and stay competitive if they all end up with the same disposable income as the street sweeper?
They shouldn't! Thats not my point at all!!!t
t in a suit is a nice analogy but does not represent every high earner. What about an airliner captain? a surgeon? a director of an onnovative IT company?They had to study hard or harder than most so that they can earn more. By making them pay a higher percentage you are taking away the incentive of being rich, which in turn takes away the incentive to invent new technology or do a high responsibility work.
Why should the surgeon risk being blamed if a patient dies (and study for years before he can become a surgeon)? Why should the pilot subject himself to the stress and responsibility associated with a transatlantic flight with 300 lives on board? Why should the director spend his weekends and nights managing his company to drive it forward and stay competitive if they all end up with the same disposable income as the street sweeper?
Disposable income should increase with their sucess. But expendable income should not be increased further than it is already at the expense of the poor.
I am not a communist! But I am arguing that past a threshold the more you earn is largely disposable. The cost of living is not directly proportional to wealth. So, in order to make the distribution of wealth as far as possible, the taxation should reflect this!
isee said:
But... they already do pay extra!
You seem to keep ignoring my comments on the fact that beacuse tax is calculated in % it is directly proportionate to the earnings. I.e. exactly what you are lobbying for. if I earn 10k on a 10% tax I put back 1k in the system. If I earn 100k on the same tax I put back 10k back in the system. that's the entire salary of the guy on the 10k! why should it be 20k?
Becuase in a flat tax system the "poor" have to pay more to make up the tax deficit! If the rich guy doesn't pay it the poor guy picks up the tab because the costs of running the country would remain the same!You seem to keep ignoring my comments on the fact that beacuse tax is calculated in % it is directly proportionate to the earnings. I.e. exactly what you are lobbying for. if I earn 10k on a 10% tax I put back 1k in the system. If I earn 100k on the same tax I put back 10k back in the system. that's the entire salary of the guy on the 10k! why should it be 20k?
Whether you are rich or poor, you both get the same out of society (in very simplistic terms as G_T would say).
Both get free health care, their bins emptied, street lights provided, police protection.
Please tell me what extras the rich get from their taxes?
Me I'd go straight for a flat rate tax as its a fairer system. Not one driven by envy.
Both get free health care, their bins emptied, street lights provided, police protection.
Please tell me what extras the rich get from their taxes?
Me I'd go straight for a flat rate tax as its a fairer system. Not one driven by envy.
G_T said:
isee said:
But... they already do pay extra!
You seem to keep ignoring my comments on the fact that beacuse tax is calculated in % it is directly proportionate to the earnings. I.e. exactly what you are lobbying for. if I earn 10k on a 10% tax I put back 1k in the system. If I earn 100k on the same tax I put back 10k back in the system. that's the entire salary of the guy on the 10k! why should it be 20k?
Becuase in a flat tax system the "poor" have to pay more to make up the tax deficit! If the rich guy doesn't pay it the poor guy picks up the tab because the costs of running the country would remain the same!You seem to keep ignoring my comments on the fact that beacuse tax is calculated in % it is directly proportionate to the earnings. I.e. exactly what you are lobbying for. if I earn 10k on a 10% tax I put back 1k in the system. If I earn 100k on the same tax I put back 10k back in the system. that's the entire salary of the guy on the 10k! why should it be 20k?
I thought we have equality, aren't there laws for equality?
As for the defecit, more people would be willing to pay tax so wouldn't avoid it. Even the tax man will get to see I earn more than 10k.
Think of how much paperwork and people to shuffle through the paperwork you would get rid of by having a flat rate system!
G_T I'm in no way a high earner but I agree with a flat rate of tax. I agree (in theory, not in practise) with your views about the rich contributing more.
The bottom line is: It is in poor people's best interests for the government to collect the highest amount of money possible (irrespective of where it comes from) as then more money can be spent on welfare and breaks for the poor.
It is in rich people's best interests to get taxed as little as possible as a %age of their income because they work fecking hard and have worked to get to where they are.
So, if there is flat rate tax all the very rich people stay in the country (as they are happy to pay what they see as a FAIR %age of their salary) and contribute lots and lots of tax to our government. The tax contribution of the very rich makes the TOTAL tax collected by gubberment good. If there is different tax levels, the very rich decide to go elsewhere where they get to keep more of their money (who wouldn't) meaning the gubberment get a LOWER total amount of tax collected, which in turn means the poor are worse off.
The bottom line is: It is in poor people's best interests for the government to collect the highest amount of money possible (irrespective of where it comes from) as then more money can be spent on welfare and breaks for the poor.
It is in rich people's best interests to get taxed as little as possible as a %age of their income because they work fecking hard and have worked to get to where they are.
So, if there is flat rate tax all the very rich people stay in the country (as they are happy to pay what they see as a FAIR %age of their salary) and contribute lots and lots of tax to our government. The tax contribution of the very rich makes the TOTAL tax collected by gubberment good. If there is different tax levels, the very rich decide to go elsewhere where they get to keep more of their money (who wouldn't) meaning the gubberment get a LOWER total amount of tax collected, which in turn means the poor are worse off.
elster said:
Why should those who earn more have to pay a greater percentage of their income?
Because it takes X billion to run a country. This is paid for by us. Currently the rich pay more towards this. A flat tax system, unless you can prove otherwise, would produce a defecit which would result in the taxation increasing on the poor. I.e. a flat rate of 25% still represents an increase on our lowest earners who need the money the most.elster said:
As for the defecit, more people would be willing to pay tax so wouldn't avoid it. Even the tax man will get to see I earn more than 10k.
Some people pay fractions of the tax abroad. Despite what some people believe the government could not offer them even close to that! Even 25% flat tax is 20% more than in some countries. They won't come back because of the gesture shown by our government alone.Incentives make far more sense. Tax relief to individuals based on circumstance.
elster said:
Think of how much paperwork and people to shuffle through the paperwork you would get rid of by having a flat rate system!
Can't argue this one. Although admittedly I first saw it on presented on The Simpsons.Menguin said:
The bottom line is: It is in poor people's best interests for the government to collect the highest amount of money possible (irrespective of where it comes from) as then more money can be spent on welfare and breaks for the poor.
It is in rich people's best interests to get taxed as little as possible as a %age of their income because they work fecking hard and have worked to get to where they are.
So you honestly believe it's better to have a nation dependant on benefits? Further chastising the poor and giving the government even more power over them?It is in rich people's best interests to get taxed as little as possible as a %age of their income because they work fecking hard and have worked to get to where they are.
Sounds like absolute lunacy to me. I sincerely doubt that these people would "come back" as well. Realistically how could our government possibly lower their taxes to compete with other countries? I think you put to high a value on patriotism.
G_T said:
Because it takes X billion to run a country. This is paid for by us. Currently the rich pay more towards this. A flat tax system, unless you can prove otherwise, would produce a defecit which would result in the taxation increasing on the poor. I.e. a flat rate of 25% still represents an increase on our lowest earners who need the money the most.
So you don't believe in equality?G_T said:
Some people pay fractions of the tax abroad. Despite what some people believe the government could not offer them even close to that! Even 25% flat tax is 20% more than in some countries. They won't come back because of the gesture shown by our government alone.
Incentives make far more sense. Tax relief to individuals based on circumstance.
I think you would be suprised. There are plenty of loopholes currently for tax avoidance. You get rid of all these and everyone pays 25% there would be billions staying in the UK. I don't know anyone who earns over 40k who doesn't do their best to avoid paying as much tax. If it was fairer people wouldn't mind paying the same.Incentives make far more sense. Tax relief to individuals based on circumstance.
flat rate tax with generous basic allowance.
This should cover the basic cost of living that some people argue about...everything else come out of taxable income...you cant find fault with people who EARN higher wages. as long as the basic allowance covers all people equally, the flat tax rate works out fairer to all concerned.
This should cover the basic cost of living that some people argue about...everything else come out of taxable income...you cant find fault with people who EARN higher wages. as long as the basic allowance covers all people equally, the flat tax rate works out fairer to all concerned.
G_T said:
So you honestly believe it's better to have a nation dependant on benefits? Further chastising the poor and giving the government even more power over them?
Sounds like absolute lunacy to me. I sincerely doubt that these people would "come back" as well. Realistically how could our government possibly lower their taxes to compete with other countries? I think you put to high a value on patriotism.
You mean like £200 billion of the economy that is currently paid out isn't a lot of people depending on benefits. If they only got money for food and travel and long termers lived in nissen huts I bet there would be more people keen to work.Sounds like absolute lunacy to me. I sincerely doubt that these people would "come back" as well. Realistically how could our government possibly lower their taxes to compete with other countries? I think you put to high a value on patriotism.
elster said:
You mean like £200 billion of the economy that is currently paid out isn't a lot of people depending on benefits. If they only got money for food and travel and long termers lived in nissen huts I bet there would be more people keen to work.
Are you for real? Do you really think that there is a massive labour shortage at the moment? Granted some aholes don't want to work but at the moment thats the least of our problems...Anyway, as I've painstakingly tried to point out, and it has been conceded by some of you. The amount paid in benefits would only increase under your flat tax proposal. It's basic economics!
The only question here is whether or not the flat tax would be enough to try and convince people to come back and pay their taxes, largely out their own good will. I seriously cannot see it.
G_T said:
Not everyone has the same chances in life and I say this not having a chip on my shoulder.
I don't have a problem with people earning more. I am not a communist.
Could have fooled me, you sound like a typical Labour voter who thinks rich people are just 'lucky' or were born rich. I don't have a problem with people earning more. I am not a communist.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff