We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
How is robbing the wealth of others to pay for lower paid people 'fair'?
Comments
-
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
Possibly said by Alexander Fraser Tytler (though some attribute it to de Tocqueville)0 -
This argument also assumes that pay is fair in the first place. Employers will pay what they can get away with, not what is fair.
It is not fair that a company director may be paid 20 times what a nurse is. Does he work 20 times as long? Does he contribute 20 times as much (in revenue, contribution to society, advancement etc.)? Clearly he doesn't. Once pay levels are more fair, it may make sense to talk about fairer taxation. But that's not going to happen anytime soon in a free market model.Running Club targets 20105KM - 21:00 21:55 (59.19%)10KM - 44:00 --:-- (0%)Half-Marathon - 1:45:00 HIT! 1:43:08 (57.84%)Marathon - 3:45:00 --:-- (0%)0 -
The_White_Horse wrote: »everyone should pay the same rate of tax, whether it be 10% or 50%. Just because you earn more it does not mean you should pay a higher rate. if someone earns 10k they can pay 35% or 3,500 in tax and if someone earns 100k they can pay 35k in tax. As the taxes go towards the exact same thing, i think paying an extra 31.5k in tax is MORE than fair.
Basically, we are asking those that earn more, through their own hard work, study, sacrifice etc to pay more than the lazy.
It is hard to study to be a doctor, an accountant, lawyer etc. Anyone can clean a toilet. why should the doctor pay more tax and be penalised???
.
It's a jealousy tax. The Socialists always do it and always have throughout history. They still haven't learnt that if you keep taxing and punishing enterprise, then enterprise stops working and you effectively kill the goose laying the golden egg.0 -
The_White_Horse wrote: »everyone should pay the same rate of tax, whether it be 10% or 50%. Just because you earn more it does not mean you should pay a higher rate. if someone earns 10k they can pay 35% or 3,500 in tax and if someone earns 100k they can pay 35k in tax. As the taxes go towards the exact same thing, i think paying an extra 31.5k in tax is MORE than fair.
Basically, we are asking those that earn more, through their own hard work, study, sacrifice etc to pay more than the lazy.
It is hard to study to be a doctor, an accountant, lawyer etc. Anyone can clean a toilet. why should the doctor pay more tax and be penalised???
The system is ridiculous.
In reality, everyone should have to pay a charge for "tax" of say 5000 a year. we all get the SAME so we should all pay the SAME. I have the same police as a toilet cleaner, I use the same street lights, same NHS (in fact i have private so I am less of a burden) same army etc etc so why should I pay more for it?
We should all pay 5k a year - or whatever it works out to be, and that is that. If you earn 10k you will have 5k left, if you earn 100k you will have 95k left.
that is fair. it couldn't be fairer.
What should happen to the unemployed and pensioners, who have not got the money to contribute their share?0 -
It's a jealousy tax. The Socialists always do it and always have throughout history. They still haven't learnt that if you keep taxing and punishing enterprise, then enterprise stops working and you effectively kill the goose laying the golden egg.
That would probably make sense if the Socialists weren't part of that rich club themselves
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
What should happen to the unemployed and pensioners, who have not got the money to contribute their share?
the unemployed will pay from their benefits.
pensioners will not be taxed. you take them out of the equation. however, there will be some way to reward pensioners who have saved all their lives. they will not be punished for their prudence.0 -
The_White_Horse wrote: »the unemployed will pay from their benefits.
pensioners will not be taxed. you take them out of the equation. however, there will be some way to reward pensioners who have saved all their lives. they will not be punished for their prudence.
Will benefits be increased to cover the 5K they need to pay out?
How will pensioners be rewarded for savings? Will it depend on their account balance on their 65th birthday?0 -
This argument also assumes that pay is fair in the first place. Employers will pay what they can get away with, not what is fair.
It is not fair that a company director may be paid 20 times what a nurse is. Does he work 20 times as long? Does he contribute 20 times as much (in revenue, contribution to society, advancement etc.)? Clearly he doesn't. Once pay levels are more fair, it may make sense to talk about fairer taxation. But that's not going to happen anytime soon in a free market model.
To be fair (and not wishing to denegrate nurses) I imagine plenty of company directors have taken big gambles to launch and run their companies. If their company is successful it will probably employ many others, add wealth & value to the local or national economy and (importantly) generate lots of tax revenues that can then be spend by the government on 'society'
As such I have no beef at all with them earning large salaries.Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
To be fair (and not wishing to denegrate nurses) I imagine plenty of company directors have taken big gambles to launch and run their companies. If their company is successful it will probably employ many others, add wealth & value to the local or national economy and (importantly) generate lots of tax revenues that can then be spend by the government on 'society'
As such I have no beef at all with them earning large salaries.
They may not have taken many risks at all and joined an already succesfull company.
Either way, I've got no problem with them earning a high salary. It's the system we've got. But is it "fair" for them to earn so much more? The nurse may have chosen her path in order to help people and benefit society in a way the company director doesn't.Running Club targets 20105KM - 21:00 21:55 (59.19%)10KM - 44:00 --:-- (0%)Half-Marathon - 1:45:00 HIT! 1:43:08 (57.84%)Marathon - 3:45:00 --:-- (0%)0 -
Originally Posted by The_White_Horse
the unemployed will pay from their benefits.
pensioners will not be taxed. you take them out of the equation. however, there will be some way to reward pensioners who have saved all their lives. they will not be punished for their prudence.
You mean like £10k tax allowance, free bus fares, prescriptions etc fuel subsidy, the well heeled pensioners (i.e. the ones that could afford to save all their life) have never had it so good. So what other benefits are you going to give them?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards