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

The_White_Horse

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.

RabbitMad

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Didn't GP's contracts used to include out of hours cover ?

Didn't they get a huge increase to their contract and managed to not cover out of hours ?

Oh well, as long as someone else is paying for it.

Yes, but if GP's took a £6,000 pay cut they could opt out of emergency cover and just do 9 to 5. Seems like a no brainner - spend time doing ones hobbies / spending time with ones family or spend time visiting sick patients with various infections

The_White_Horse

why doesn't Tesco say - look, these apples are GBP1.40 but if you earn over 37k they are 2.50 and if you earn over 150k they cost 5.60.

because it is unfair and ridiculous. but that is how tax works in this country. its lunacy.

Conrad

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.

I get where your'e comming from, but the underlying assumption in your post is that we all have the same life chances and the same ability to better ourselves so we all should be tret the same on Tax.

Now I did better myself having lived on a council estate, but my freind Brian did not, he's never really worked and lives off the state.

So then comes the question;-Who's fault is it - his for being in your view 'lazy', or is his outcome down to his upbringing and largely out of his control?

The easy answer = he's lazy

The deeper answer = his set of brain imprints were rendered there by his upbringing which was chaotic where no one worked.

You will then reply - but he can CHANGE.

But then I say how can you be sure he can overcome these deeply rooted brain imprints?


You assume 'you' are in contol of 'you', but do not realise more or less everything you do and all your tastes and behaviours were not 'chosen' on a given day by you. They are the result of deep seated embeded brain imprints that reflect your upbringing.

So should Brian have to pay proportionally the same as me given he did not chose his upbringing or his parent? Should he be punnished twice, once for being born into chaos and neglect and secondly by the tax system?

beer_tins

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.

Assuming this "once off" tax replaces all others (including VAT) it would be closer to 10K per man, woman and child in the country? Have you considered that a child or pensioner may not be able to stump up 10k a year? Or most families of 4 can't pay 40K, they don't even earn that much.

Huge numbers of people would be pushed into abject poverty, many would not be able to survive by honest means. Do you think that is something we should be aiming for as a country?

Tax needs to take into account of ability to pay. You can't get blood from a stone.

DrScotsman

Blacklight wrote: »

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.

Agreed, sort of.

Whether it is fair for people who earn more to pay more tax is something that is at very least up for debate, like this thread. What really bothers me is people who assume that the rich paying more tax is fair by default. Maybe it is fair, but some people will act like there is no possible reason it could be unfair and blanket say that it's fair without justifying their reasoning, probably because their reasoning is just personal prejudice against people who earn more than them.

And I'm saying this as someone who thinks his high earning Dad personally deserves his extra tax bill by means of shrunk personal allowance and 50% tax band.

torontoboy45

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.

'in fact i have private so I am less of a burden'.

that's incredibly generous of you.....

beer_tins

torontoboy45 wrote: »

'in fact i have private so I am less of a burden'.

that's incredibly generous of you.....

In this he has a point though. If you have private medical insurance or send your kids to a public school, you are paying into the fund for health and education while taking nothing out.

Don't agree with the "one tax for all" argument, though!

beer_tins

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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.

So it is fair for a person on 10k to pay 50% tax, while a person on 100K pays 5%?

And before you say "they should get better jobs", please consider that there are a finite number of these better jobs and by definition, not everyone can do that!

Pete111

Conrad wrote: »

I get where your'e comming from, but the underlying assumption in your post is that we all have the same life chances and the same ability to better ourselves so we all should be tret the same on Tax.

Now I did better myself having lived on a council estate, but my freind Brian did not, he's never really worked and lives off the state.

So then comes the question;-Who's fault is it - his for being in your view 'lazy', or is his outcome down to his upbringing and largely out of his control?

The easy answer = he's lazy

The deeper answer = his set of brain imprints were rendered there by his upbringing which was chaotic where no one worked.

You will then reply - but he can CHANGE.

But then I say how can you be sure he can overcome these deeply rooted brain imprints?


You assume 'you' are in contol of 'you', but do not realise more or less everything you do and all your tastes and behaviours were not 'chosen' on a given day by you. They are the result of deep seated embeded brain imprints that reflect your upbringing.

So should Brian have to pay proportionally the same as me given he did not chose his upbringing or his parent? Should he be punnished twice, once for being born into chaos and neglect and secondly by the tax system?

Interesting theory.

Taking it one step further, (and back to the nature vs nurture debate) would you think that a family that has acquired and retained a high degree of wealth over generations is, in an overall context, genetically and behaviourly superior to those who have lived on benefits or have been low achievers for generations?

I suspect many other factors are in play also but in nature the stronger/faster/more intelligent bloodlines flourish. As a 'civilised' species, have we replaced the innate genetic ability to be stronger etc with the ability to make and retain money?*

*before I get flamed, I do not know, but it's food for thought.