Ed Balls pledges to raise taxes if Labour win election

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

They off shore these jobs because they can pay less and in many cases its to the detriment of the company its nothing to do with the tax their employees pay.


I still don't think that the effect would be anywhere near as bad as people are making out. Then again I don't think the Tax will raise enough money to make a difference and the whole thing is just politics.

No, I know its to save the company money. The point was you were saying that many jobs couldn't be done from abroad, you made the point I was talking specifically about a niche my husband was in. I'm pointing out that increasingly, in the type of service we are offering a global market place......they can be practically in many jobs.


I apologise for not making it clear what I was saying.

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

No, I know its to save the company money. The point was you were saying that many jobs couldn't be done from abroad, you made the point I was talking specifically about a niche my husband was in. I'm pointing out that increasingly, in the type of service we are offering a global market place......they can be practically in many jobs.


I apologise for not making it clear what I was saying.

I've never said that jobs couldn't be done abroad just that I don't think the number that would up sticks and move abroad is significant.

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

I've never said that jobs couldn't be done abroad just that I don't think the number that would up sticks and move abroad is significant.

I was taking from this and expanding that not only could some people like my husband do it, but it could be done to tranches of sectors if it suited.

ukcarper wrote: »

You take your husbands jobs as the norm but how many would be able to do that

But actually, I agree with you.

There would always remain a face in UK I think. we are a good a strategic point for many businesses in Europe, not least because of language.

Its become quite an important feature of businesses and people open new offices in new places to show 'locality'. Unless there was significant change I don't think their would be wide scale departure. But I do think that there is a point that we will lose to places like Ireland. This isn't like the eighties, for example. Communications are a stage stronger still.

I DO think it would take more that a five percent tax hike to see mass departure, but I do think it will widen a door that's already open. A door we should be trying to close, not open wider.

ukcarper

lostinrates wrote: »

I was taking from this and expanding that not only could some people like my husband do it, but it could be done to tranches of sectors if it suited.




But actually, I agree with you.

There would always remain a face in UK I think. we are a good a strategic point for many businesses in Europe, not least because of language.

Its become quite an important feature of businesses and people open new offices in new places to show 'locality'. Unless there was significant change I don't think their would be wide scale departure. But I do think that there is a point that we will lose to places like Ireland. This isn't like the eighties, for example. Communications are a stage stronger still.

I DO think it would take more that a five percent tax hike to see mass departure, but I do think it will widen a door that's already open. A door we should be trying to close, not open wider.

I think we broadly agree and lets face it there is a lot more to take into consideration than take home pay when deciding where you want to live.

lostinrates

ukcarper wrote: »

I think we broadly agree and lets face it there is a lot more to take into consideration than take home pay when deciding where you want to live.

Yep, which is why lots of people emigrate :rotfl:


Climate, where other members of family live/have emigrated/retired too.

Where your industry is centring its self.

Where your interests are supported.

Where work life balance is best

Culture, political stability , health care and services, quality of education etc etc.


I think its fair to say uk is at least fairly politically stable and has excellent cultural outlet. .

Tancred

wotsthat wrote: »

There are probably around 98% of the world's population poorer than you. However, you're not greedy but those at 99% are?

You're either struggling with context or just enjoy irony.

This is not the point. I accept that I should pay 40% tax - I don't like it, but I accept the rationale. After all, who wants to pay any tax?? However, there comes a point when those with very high incomes need to pay more tax - simple as that.
The world's population is irrelevant - this debate is about UK taxation, not poverty in the third world.

danothy

Tancred wrote: »

No, you're just a prat.

Well bitten, bro.

Tancred wrote: »

Total gobbledygook. To me the middle ground has to be quantifiable, not conceptual. I prefer hard facts and statistics, not flights of fancy, unlike you.

Just because you don't understand that you committed a logical fallacy by implying that there was a choice between who has to burden unfairness (and excluding the conceptual middle ground of being fair to all) doesn't mean it's "gobbledygook". It means you don't understand it. In my view that makes you the prat.

Tancred wrote: »

Troubling to you perhaps, but not to many others - individualism can only go so far. If 1% of the population need to be executed in order to save 99% I would be the first to say yes.

From the person who called me amoral, we now have support for execution of a minority. As an aside, I don't believe you would say that if you were part of the 1% to be executed.

Tancred wrote: »

But the rich are part of society - whether they like it or not. They are not a special caste that needs to be protected simply because they are special in some way. A company director earning £1M a year is not paid that because he is worth 50 times what a £20k employee is worth; he is paid because market forces have forced the employer to pay such a huge sum. A human being cannot have such a huge value placed on him that he is somehow 'worth' multiples of what others receive as remuneration. This is the fallacy of capitalism - it magnifies every little difference simply because of market forces. Hence the need for controls, checks and balances.

I am not advocating protecting them. You are advocating penalising them, (and more recently executing them). Your defence seems to assume that your position should be the de-facto one and anything less is favouring them and hence unjust. Your perception on the whole issue is skewed madly.

As for what people are worth, if what someone does for a company is worth fifty times what someone else does for said company (to that company), then there's no reason they shouldn't pay fifty times as much for it to be done. It's got nothing to do with what the person is 'worth'. It's to do with what their actions are worth to who they work for. There's nothing wrong with capitalism in this respect.

What you have done here is falsely conflated the idea of the value of people with the remuneration for specific roles they adopt, i.e. the value of their actions to others. The inherent value of a human life has nothing to do with the values of the actions they take. But I don't see how someone who seemingly supports execution can pontificate on the value of a life anyway. It's inconsistent.

penrhyn

Good to see the range of views, even if some are to the left of Chairman Mao.

antrobus

danothy wrote: »

....What you have done here is falsely conflated the idea of the value of people with the remuneration for specific roles they adopt, i.e. the value of their actions to others. The inherent value of a human life has nothing to do with the values of the actions they take. .....

Finally.

Proof that there is intelligent life on MSE.:)

Tancred

danothy wrote: »

Just because you don't understand that you committed a logical fallacy by implying that there was a choice between who has to burden unfairness (and excluding the conceptual middle ground of being fair to all) doesn't mean it's "gobbledygook". It means you don't understand it. In my view that makes you the prat.

Being fair to all is an abstract concept - how do you define that? I don't think there can ever be an agreed definition, as people will have different interpretations of fairness, therefore any further discussion on the issue is pointless.
And, by the way, you are still a prat.

danothy wrote: »

From the person who called me amoral, we now have support for execution of a minority. As an aside, I don't believe you would say that if you were part of the 1% to be executed.

An extreme example, but if the government of the day had a choice of allowing everyone to die or execute 1% of the population, based on some given criteria, what would be the most moral choice? Surely the latter - unless you are willing to prefer the death of 60 million more people.

danothy wrote: »

I am not advocating protecting them. You are advocating penalising them, (and more recently executing them). Your defence seems to assume that your position should be the de-facto one and anything less is favouring them and hence unjust. Your perception on the whole issue is skewed madly.

I never advocated executing them, you muppet! I was giving an example of a difficult moral choice. I've already stated numerous time why the top 1% need to pay more tax, so I won't repeat myself ad nauseam.

danothy wrote: »

As for what people are worth, if what someone does for a company is worth fifty times what someone else does for said company (to that company), then there's no reason they shouldn't pay fifty times as much for it to be done. It's got nothing to do with what the person is 'worth'. It's to do with what their actions are worth to who they work for. There's nothing wrong with capitalism in this respect.

No, this is where you are wrong. The concept of 'worth' is entirely subjective, and immensely influenced by market forces. How do you quantify 'worth'? As I said before, the level of pay is largely awarded according to how much responsibility and accountability an individual is given by his bosses. It has nothing to do with 'worth', 'hard work' and other non-quantifiable, abstract concepts. The bosses have to award certain levels of pay because that is the only way they can recruit and retain the chosen individual, who is reckoned to have the right skills, experience and background to take on the responsibility of the role. If bosses could pay a CEO £25k a year they would, of course! But instead they have to pay him £1M. It's purely to do with the market, not any concept of 'worth'.

danothy wrote: »

What you have done here is falsely conflated the idea of the value of people with the remuneration for specific roles they adopt, i.e. the value of their actions to others. The inherent value of a human life has nothing to do with the values of the actions they take. But I don't see how someone who seemingly supports execution can pontificate on the value of a life anyway. It's inconsistent.

So what exactly is your point? I'm not talking about human life, I'm talking about taxation, and ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share. You are deliberately obfuscating the issue by introducing a philosophical argument that is totally irrelevant to the matter under discussion.