How is robbing the wealth of others to pay for lower paid people 'fair'?

Blacklight

I've been hearing this a lot recently, increasingly from the Lib Dem camp but it's traditionally been a left wing Labour fundamental policy.

A 'fairer' society where we basically take money by force from the wealthier people and use this to lower taxes for poorer people so they contribute a disproportionately smaller amount for the services they use.

I'm not saying what's right or what's wrong. I just want to know how this is considered 'fair'. It doesn't seem very fair to the people that have to pay more.

Seems to me to be a carefully orchestrated plan to get the poor people to vote for you as there are more of them than there are wealthy people.

kennyboy66_2

They started it !




(The Rich robbing from the poor, that is).

CLAPTON

fair means whats right or wrong

hermanmunster_3

I don't want to pay any more in taxes . I am fed up of it.

I have already stopped working so much as if I work more I will be taxed at 61%

Pennywise

If you take wealth redistribution too far, you end up with a whole lot of wasted potential as the "poor" don't have any incentive to better themselves.

I'd argue we've passed that point now - thus we have a vast underclass of people who live on benefits for their entire lives, working nothing more than a few part time hours, within the levels where they don't lose more in benefits than they earn in wages.

Some of the best inventions and businesses have been born out of "poor" people striving for something better for themselves. After all, "necessity is the mother of invention".

I've no problem with there being a safety net for the vulnerable but it should be accompanied by some proper form of encouragement, re-training, mentoring, etc., to help them help themselves as far as possible.

At the moment, more and more people who have the potential to contribute more to society, i.e. by working longer hours, or even working at all, or those able but reluctant to start their own businesses, are just not bothering to do it because they'll just be taxed more and lose their benefits.

We need some fundamental changes in the tax and benefits system.

kennyboy66_2

hermanmunster wrote: »

I don't want to pay any more in taxes . I am fed up of it.

I have already stopped working so much as if I work more I will be taxed at 61%

What's this ? people working for the NHS complaining about paying too much tax.

If you work a bit more, you can get your marginal tax rate back to 51%.

tomterm8

Life isn't fair. Get over it.

Entertainer

It's not a question of "fairness"- all that, is just sanctimonious claptrap from the left. How much you should tax and spend is not laid down in a gospel anywhere. Cleggama has been proved to be very cynical and misleading about his assertions on the amount of tax lower income people pay as it doesn't take into account tax credits they receive. The fact that he couches it all in the morally superior, worthy "fairness" language means he gets a free pass on this misinformation from the media (imagine if someone was proposing tax cuts for higher income earners- the media would be all over it.)

Pete111

kennyboy66 wrote: »

If you work a bit more, you can get your marginal tax rate back to 51%.

Which of course is a just and fair taxation rate...not

I personally don't earn more than 100k and am therefore not hit with the total mess of personal allowance deduction this a*se of a government has introduced. However I know first hand how clever, dedicated and hard working those that do generally have to be as my wife is one of them.

When I see her (at the weekends mostly) we often talk about her giving up work or cutting back her hours as giving more than half of your earnings to the Govt to spend on whatever it is they want to waste some cash on next is verging on the ridiculous.

twadge_face

Blacklight wrote: »

A 'fairer' society where we basically take money by force from the wealthier people and use this to lower taxes for poorer people so they contribute a disproportionately smaller amount for the services they use.

Basically the same as ultra-low interest rates propping up overpriced property, robbing savers and first-time buyers, making long-standing homeowners "richer" (ahem!) (in addition to speculators/buy-to-letters). Wealth transferrance from young to old, basically. With the state taking a tasty cut, of course.

I'm not saying what's right or what's wrong. I just want to know how this is considered 'fair'. It doesn't seem very fair to the people that have to pay more.

Seems to me to be a carefully orchestrated plan to get the poor people to vote for you as there are more of them than there are wealthy people.

Fairness is relative. Bit like equality. I'm sure that to some, our current system of governance is fair to all, with some people being treated more fairly than others.

Seems to me that this is a carefully orchestrated plan to get homeowners to become so terrified of falling prices (more than possible) that to vote anything other than Labour as Mr Brown "saved the world" and anyone else risks "wrecking the [illusory] recovery".

kennyboy66_2

Pete111 wrote: »

Which of course is a just and fair taxation rate...not

I personally don't earn more than 100k and am therefore not hit with the total mess of personal allowance deduction this a*se of a government has introduced. However I know first hand how clever, dedicated and hard working those that do generally have to be as my wife is one of them.

When I see her (at the weekends mostly) we often talk about her giving up work or cutting back her hours as giving more than half of your earnings to the Govt to spend on whatever it is they want to waste some cash on next is verging on the ridiculous.

80% of total government spending is spent as follows (and in order of spending)

Pensions
Health
Welfare
Education
Defence
Police
Transport.

The removal of personal allowances between 100-113k is as you say a total !!!!, however what would you consider a fair top rate of tax ?

Like it or not, most OECD top rates (including local taxes) sit somewhere between 40 and 51%