See, I don't really think that overly taxing the "rich" is a particularly fair system, especially when they are statistically less likely to take from the pot. It seems a rather one-way street to me, that the "rich" are easy targets.
I'd like to see to it that employment is not only a viable option for people, but a better option. State benefits increase each year in line with inflation rates, whereas wages don't necessarily. Of course, not only does there need to be jobs for people to do, but there needs to be a will and desire for people to do them.
how is it unfair to ask people who can afford to pay more to pay more? it's about funding services people rely on and redistributing wealth to have a fairer society...
that's already the case though, you can't actually get more on benefits other than in a very very small number of extreme circumstances. imo it's a problme more of people not paying people properly rather than anything else, the minimum wage is shockingly low and in many cases wages for most people only don't go up because companies want more profit for already rich shareholders or to pay bonuses to already rich managers and such.
No, university is not just about getting a job, but for a lot of people it is. Universities are becoming more and more like degree factories, and the value of degrees as reduced as a result. The graduate employment market is saturated, and has been for a couple of years now, with exception in some sectors.
I don't believe that university is for everyone, it is for those who are academically capable for it. And not everyone is. There are out routes into university for those who did not gain qualifications in school, but there isn't really enough investment in non-educational paths throughout school and beyond.
well, that's a case for making degree's not the only thing on offer at Universities perhaps or better yet varying more what degree programmes offer and such, also not everyone studies to get a job in a particular sector so it's debatable whether it devalues most of them or not imo.
well, obviously it's not for everyone, I never said it was, but I think if it's an option people wish to take up they should be able to. I do and don't agree with that, as much as anything I think there are huge issues with how we grade people as it is, I think we put way too much focus at all levels on just exams and certain learning styles and such. there's also nothing wrong with giving people other options to get into Uni imo, I did an access course myself because my BTEC was not in a relevant subject for the degree I wanted to do when I re-applied to Uni (it's a long story my education lol)
I'm sceptical that taxes need increasing - the money, revenue from tax, VAT is there, it's just not re-distrubuted as well as it could be.
In addition - a bit problem is not the already highly taxed high-earners, but companies (like say, Topshop, Starbucks) or celebrities (like Jimmy Carr) not paying their fair share of tax. I suspect if they all paid what they're supposed to, there would be less need to tax the 'rich' so much - 50% is a lot of tax.
definitely agree on stopping people avoiding tax, and 50% isn't that much when you consider how much they are "earning" to begin with, I know loads of people who work damn hard to get buy on less than £25k a year so I have no issue with asking people on more than £100k to pay their share
The fact it's so high is why people put their money through 'tax havens'. If it's raised higher, it just drives things like businesses and the most rich abroad, hence losing more money, and weakening the already fragile economy.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
how is it unfair to ask people who can afford to pay more to pay more? it's about funding services people rely on and redistributing wealth to have a fairer society...
that's already the case though, you can't actually get more on benefits other than in a very very small number of extreme circumstances. imo it's a problme more of people not paying people properly rather than anything else, the minimum wage is shockingly low and in many cases wages for most people only don't go up because companies want more profit for already rich shareholders or to pay bonuses to already rich managers and such.
definitely agree on stopping people avoiding tax, and 50% isn't that much when you consider how much they are "earning" to begin with, I know loads of people who work damn hard to get buy on less than £25k a year so I have no issue with asking people on more than £100k to pay their share
Everyone's idea of a "fair society" will be different though. I don't think it's particularly fair for benefits to be a lifestyle choice at the expense of those who work hard. I wholeheartedly agree with the welfare state, but that it should be a safety net, not a long-term, multi-generational fact of life.
The fact is that benefits have become a lifestyle choice for a lot of people. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be third-generation claimants who think that working is for mugs. Why would someone go out to work when they can earn a few quid less without the hassle of actually having to do anything and get all the extras that come with a state benefit? Those extras can add up to a fairly significant sum of money as well.
Those who earn £100,000 are probably working very hard as well, and are quite possibly struggling with the same financial worries as others. They'll have mortgages to pay, bills, cars, etc. Just because they earn a lot doesn't mean they should be stripped of the majority of it. Those on high incomes are already paying their share, arguably much more than their share.
Everyone's idea of a "fair society" will be different though. I don't think it's particularly fair for benefits to be a lifestyle choice at the expense of those who work hard. I wholeheartedly agree with the welfare state, but that it should be a safety net, not a long-term, multi-generational fact of life.
The fact is that benefits have become a lifestyle choice for a lot of people. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be third-generation claimants who think that working is for mugs. Why would someone go out to work when they can earn a few quid less without the hassle of actually having to do anything and get all the extras that come with a state benefit? Those extras can add up to a fairly significant sum of money as well.
Those who earn £100,000 are probably working very hard as well, and are quite possibly struggling with the same financial worries as others. They'll have mortgages to pay, bills, cars, etc. Just because they earn a lot doesn't mean they should be stripped of the majority of it. Those on high incomes are already paying their share, arguably much more than their share.
I guess like I said in the vast, vast majority of cases, that's how the welfare state does work already.
I really don't think that's true, again I think it's likely a very small number who do that, they also don't generally get that generous benefits, most of this is just stuff I can read in the Daily Mail, I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support claims people are living that well off benefits in anything over than one or two extreme cases.
I am not saying they don't, I just don't think they work enough harder to warrant getting so much more take home salary, for instance a footballer can earn £100k a week, most people who work as say a nurse (an incredibly hard working profession) get less than £40k a year, I don't regard that as remotely fair, to balance out that inequality I think asking the richest to pay more in tax is more than reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaiporia
The fact it's so high is why people put their money through 'tax havens'. If it's raised higher, it just drives things like businesses and the most rich abroad, hence losing more money, and weakening the already fragile economy.
I don't really buy that tbh, I doubt they only operate in the UK because of the tax system, they are just calling the governments bluff and blackmailing them.
Well given the fact that the government has messed around so much with my benefits claim and those of others (I have had no income since April, if it weren't for my parents I'd be on the street) and are clamping down in areas they shouldn't be such as disability benefit (yes some people play the system, but the majority don't) and are even tricking people with genuine disabilities in order to trick them out of their benefits e.g a doctor walking faster than usual, knowing that because of respect for doctors most people, even those which it would cause immense pain and may well make them unable to walk for the rest of the day, will attempt to keep up, upon which the doctor will write 'can walk x amount at x speed' when in reality doing so is detrimental to peoples' health. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I hate needing benefits and wouldn't touch the with a barge pole if possible (I've had work of some kind or another on and off since 14) but right now I am mentally and somewhat physically unable to work and I don't think I should starve for that, which again if it weren't for my parents and an overdraft I would have, as the benefits agency are aware that I have literally no income and are doing a grand total of bugger all about it, and even when I do get an assessment or whatever they are highly likely to try and trick me into saying something which will reduce my likelihood of getting benefits, hence I'm intending to ask my CPN to come with me as an advocate, because I am just not well enough to even get there, let alone argue my corner.
It's people with genuine disabilities and/or disabled children, and those with severe and enduring mental health problems that are suffering with regards to the benefits cuts, and yes there will be the odd ******** who is playing the system and receiving benefits they don't need and these should be weeded out, but not at the expense of the thousands living with crippling disability day in day out.
*gets off soap box*
'Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.'
['There is only one thing we say to death. Not today'.']
'We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell.’ – Oscar Wilde
‘It’s hard to dance with the devil on your back.’ Sydney Carter
I guess like I said in the vast, vast majority of cases, that's how the welfare state does work already.
I really don't think that's true, again I think it's likely a very small number who do that, they also don't generally get that generous benefits, most of this is just stuff I can read in the Daily Mail, I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support claims people are living that well off benefits in anything over than one or two extreme cases.
Unfortunately, it does. To me, that fact that the welfare system is generous enough for third-generation dependents is proof enough. However, I also work in an organisation that deals with, and helps, these people. I'm not disputing that the system helps a lot of people, but it provides a lifestyle that allows people to never work, and in a lot of cases, a lifestyle that exceeds that of the working-poor. It may not be extreme luxury, but it can be better than some people who are working.
Quote:
I am not saying they don't, I just don't think they work enough harder to warrant getting so much more take home salary, for instance a footballer can earn £100k a week, most people who work as say a nurse (an incredibly hard working profession) get less than £40k a year, I don't regard that as remotely fair, to balance out that inequality I think asking the richest to pay more in tax is more than reasonable.
Ah, so you aren't against high wages, just ones that you don't think justify the money they get? I'd agree that footballers are paid an extreme amount of money, but your idea isn't balancing out the salary discrepancies, just taxing the wealthy more. You would be punishing those who work in highly-skilled, high stress, high responsibility jobs (who should command such salaries) because you don't like how much a footballer is being paid.
Well given the fact that the government has messed around so much with my benefits claim and those of others (I have had no income since April, if it weren't for my parents I'd be on the street) and are clamping down in areas they shouldn't be such as disability benefit (yes some people play the system, but the majority don't) and are even tricking people with genuine disabilities in order to trick them out of their benefits e.g a doctor walking faster than usual, knowing that because of respect for doctors most people, even those which it would cause immense pain and may well make them unable to walk for the rest of the day, will attempt to keep up, upon which the doctor will write 'can walk x amount at x speed' when in reality doing so is detrimental to peoples' health. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I hate needing benefits and wouldn't touch the with a barge pole if possible (I've had work of some kind or another on and off since 14) but right now I am mentally and somewhat physically unable to work and I don't think I should starve for that, which again if it weren't for my parents and an overdraft I would have, as the benefits agency are aware that I have literally no income and are doing a grand total of bugger all about it, and even when I do get an assessment or whatever they are highly likely to try and trick me into saying something which will reduce my likelihood of getting benefits, hence I'm intending to ask my CPN to come with me as an advocate, because I am just not well enough to even get there, let alone argue my corner.
It's people with genuine disabilities and/or disabled children, and those with severe and enduring mental health problems that are suffering with regards to the benefits cuts, and yes there will be the odd ******** who is playing the system and receiving benefits they don't need and these should be weeded out, but not at the expense of the thousands living with crippling disability day in day out.
*gets off soap box*
This.
Though Im lucky enough to still be getting benefits at the moment,its not like i live in the lap of luxury, i think in total my yearly income is £6000 if i add to that rent and council tax £9500...
Im actually looking for employment,I've been doing permitted work for longer than yiure supposed to with the backing of the dwp as where i live,there are no jobs.
I've seen personally what the cuts to benefits are doing to people,my dad almost successfully killed himself.
Id be more than happy for someone to come along and give me job that paid what my benefits equal-illegal as its less than minimum wage but Im sick of this air at the moment that the majority of benefit claimants are lazy and only care about sitting on their asses,watching sky on their 50inch tv going on four holidays a year.
In reality 99% of people don't live like that.
I don't really buy that tbh, I doubt they only operate in the UK because of the tax system, they are just calling the governments bluff and blackmailing them.
Well, you should. The reasons companies like Starbucks are already putting their profits through other companies (hence paying no UK tax) is because our tax is so much higher. So, yes, raising tax on businesses and high-earners further would weaken the economy. They're not calling the government's bluff, they're already moving abroad. I think they should close the loopholes allowing them to do this, but certainly, increased taxes is NOT a viable option in the current economy.
I don't really buy that tbh, I doubt they only operate in the UK because of the tax system, they are just calling the governments bluff and blackmailing them.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that if you tax people too highly, they do get up and leave. In the early 1970s, when the top rate of income tax reached 83%, the UK experienced a massive 'brain drain' - look it up. The government is currently reducing the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45%, because the higher rate isn't bringing in any more money; again, the evidence is there if you want to look it up.
An interesting contrast is what President Hollande is doing in France - they've just increased the top tax rate to 75%. I suspect this will benefit the UK in that London will see an influx of very wealthy French people, but it's too early to tell. Certainly there is little evidence to suggest it will be effective. There's a good article here that talks about why that is.
I do think the UK tax system is shambolic, and the gap between the rich and the poor is wider than ever. Yes, people like footballers and bankers get paid an obscene amount of money, but it isn't as simple as just taxing them more.
And the illusion of love is the only promise of defence, and even that will crumble.
Unfortunately, it does. To me, that fact that the welfare system is generous enough for third-generation dependents is proof enough. However, I also work in an organisation that deals with, and helps, these people. I'm not disputing that the system helps a lot of people, but it provides a lifestyle that allows people to never work, and in a lot of cases, a lifestyle that exceeds that of the working-poor. It may not be extreme luxury, but it can be better than some people who are working.
Ah, so you aren't against high wages, just ones that you don't think justify the money they get? I'd agree that footballers are paid an extreme amount of money, but your idea isn't balancing out the salary discrepancies, just taxing the wealthy more. You would be punishing those who work in highly-skilled, high stress, high responsibility jobs (who should command such salaries) because you don't like how much a footballer is being paid.
so everyone loses out because of a few extreme cases? okay...
no, I was just using an example, frankly I don't think anyone does a job that's important enough to be paid obscene amounts, I think everyone is entitled to a basic quality of life and that as humans we should celebrate the fact we can do this nowadays and make it reality. also all of those things are incredibly subjective, are you really telling me that a banker is more skilled and has more stress and responsibility than a nurse or a fireman? really? if so I think you need a reality check tbh, our current system does not pay people based on how hard they work or how hard their job is, far from it, it pays people arbitrarily based upon a stupid system of markets that was created by and is perpetuated by other human beings.
Well, you should. The reasons companies like Starbucks are already putting their profits through other companies (hence paying no UK tax) is because our tax is so much higher. So, yes, raising tax on businesses and high-earners further would weaken the economy. They're not calling the government's bluff, they're already moving abroad. I think they should close the loopholes allowing them to do this, but certainly, increased taxes is NOT a viable option in the current economy.
As someone who earns quite a bit above the national average (not £100000 though!) I don't object to paying more taxes as long as it goes to those who genuinely need it. I may be biased, but I also think there is a reason why I'm paid the amount I am and there is nothing wrong with having a well paid job.
so everyone loses out because of a few extreme cases? okay...
no, I was just using an example, frankly I don't think anyone does a job that's important enough to be paid obscene amounts, I think everyone is entitled to a basic quality of life and that as humans we should celebrate the fact we can do this nowadays and make it reality. also all of those things are incredibly subjective, are you really telling me that a banker is more skilled and has more stress and responsibility than a nurse or a fireman? really? if so I think you need a reality check tbh, our current system does not pay people based on how hard they work or how hard their job is, far from it, it pays people arbitrarily based upon a stupid system of markets that was created by and is perpetuated by other human beings.
Skill and stress don't necessarily go hand-in-hand, and I never said that. They were two separate aspects of a job. Of course our salary levels are market-led, it's the way of the international employment sector at the moment. In order to attract the best people for the job, they need to try to entice people with money, benefits, etc, otherwise the company wouldn't necessarily be competing on the required level. Those who are running European operations for a transnational corporation are going to expect a high salary, for example.
Ah, the wonderful Bob Crow Now there is a guy I'd love to see taxed at about 99% on his income (approx £145k). I'd also like to see him kicked out of his council house so somebody actually in need could have it ...
Last edited by Leni : 23-10-2012 at 01:42 PM.
And the illusion of love is the only promise of defence, and even that will crumble.
like I said in the vast, vast majority of cases, that's how the welfare state does work already.
Now there is a guy I'd love to see taxed at about 99% on his income (approx £145k). I'd also like to see him kicked out of his council house so somebody actually in need could have it ...