if a lefty went to a restaurant, ordered the same meal

N1AK

The_White_Horse wrote: »

as their friend, but was charged double, because the owner thinks they can afford more, would the lefty be ok with this?

If not, how does the lefty justify current tax rates. Why should you pay more for the same thing just because you might be able to afford more???

Why don't we just say - last year it cost £300bn to run the UK. There are currently 50 million working age people, so that is £6000 each to live here.

That way, everyone pays the SAME for the SAME services.

We can invent a no man's land area where people can go if they don't pay their share, but they get no services there. They can go there voluntarily if they wish.

A much fairer system.

Why just working age people? Surely that is breaking your own narrative that it's unfair to expect others to pay for you?

Your figures are also rubbish. Including local government, state spending is £714 billion this year: £11,150 per person in the UK. Thus a family of 4 would have to pay £44,600 pa to the government.

Given that the vast majority of people can't afford to pay that much, there's literally no chance of any party passing legislation for it, so even if it wasn't a stupid idea it's a pointless fantasy.

The_White_Horse

if we all paid 20% then someone on £100k a year would pay £20k and someone on £10k a year would pay £2k. The rich person is paying £18k more for essentially, the same thing.

This is "unfair" but far fairer than the current system.

The lefties should just come out and say "it isn't fair, but we like to penalise those who get on in life and do well out of spite and jealousy"

at least that would be honest. Charging wealthier/higher earners - who may actually not be wealthier different amounts for the same thing is NOT fair - and can only be justified by what I said above - a penalty for daring to improve yourself - and in Dyson's case, others.

How dare people do well and earn money. Quick, tax them and take it away so Dazza can have a free flat, Stella and St George's cross to hang out of his (free) window. Dazza shouldn't have to work - he was disadvantaged weren't he. He never had a Dad innit. Woe is him. Etc etc etc YAWN.

The_White_Horse

N1AK wrote: »

Why just working age people? Surely that is breaking your own narrative that it's unfair to expect others to pay for you?

Your figures are also rubbish. Including local government, state spending is £714 billion this year: £11,150 per person in the UK. Thus a family of 4 would have to pay £44,600 pa to the government.

Given that the vast majority of people can't afford to pay that much, there's literally no chance of any party passing legislation for it, so even if it wasn't a stupid idea it's a pointless fantasy.

Then the 714bn should be reduced to a more acceptable level. Say 100bn. This can easily be acheived by sacking 90% of public sector workers (the ones we don't actually need).

Children wouldn't pay. That is just stupid.

Mallotum_X

You keep failing to address how you will pay for this tax cut to the rich?

Which services will go? or how will the poor make up the shortfall?

Mallotum_X

hmmm sack 90% of the public sector... you really have lost the plot

The_White_Horse

how does a company pay it's employees? out of the money it generates.

So, if UK PLC generates less money, it will pay it's employees and it's dependents less accordingly. It's that simple.

Our income has fallen 50% therefore our outgoings will do the same.

Simples.

Spidernick

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Simples.

Unfortunately tax is anything but and what you are proposing is unworkable.

Moby

captainhindsight wrote: »

Why does it matter, some people or rich some are poor get on with it.

An equal proportion of wealth paid into tax would be everyone pay the same % of income. That is fair.

Going back to Mr Dyson earlier, would you suggest he pays his fair share in tax he is a high earner? But he employs thousands of people creates jobs that would not exist with out him etc etc etc.

Would you not suggest some one like that should be rewarded for dong so much good rather than being punished and having to pay a higher rate of income tax.

It is not a fair system

When is enough money really enough? Surely those who care about others would consider the needs of the poor before worrying about how much reward a rich man should have? Why do you worry about how much wealth Mr Dyson should have? It's people like you that sell out their working class brothers because all you aspire to in life is feeding off the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich to become a little like them yourself. That's not good enough for me, I want to change society not just accept it the way it is!

The_White_Horse

Moby wrote: »

When is enough money really enough? Surely those who care about others would consider the needs of the poor before worrying about how much reward a rich man should have? Why do you worry about how much wealth Mr Dyson should have? It's people like you that sell out their working class brothers because all you aspire to in life is feeding off the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich to become a little like them yourself. That's not good enough for me, I want to change society not just accept it the way it is!

then you're on a fools errand.

people want money. it is that simple. you may want to strive to make everyone poor (because you certainly won't make everyone rich) to create fairness but that is wrong.

I believe in equal opportunity. What you do after that is your own business.

93% of people are schooled in state schools.

If some kids are disadvantaged because they have poor parents, or scum bag parents - then look at that as the issue. Stop poor people that can't afford to raise kids (literally and morally) having kids.

We have more checks in this country on people rescuing a cat from the rspca than those having kids.

Stop encouranging the underclass to breed. In Singapore, you get more child benefit the more educated you are. They want the right people raising kids.

captainhindsight_2

Moby wrote: »

When is enough money really enough? Surely those who care about others would consider the needs of the poor before worrying about how much reward a rich man should have? Why do you worry about how much wealth Mr Dyson should have? It's people like you that sell out their working class brothers because all you aspire to in life is feeding off the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich to become a little like them yourself. That's not good enough for me, I want to change society not just accept it the way it is!

Well I went to a school of that now charges almost £35,000 a year then on to university then started a professional career before leaving and starting my own company.

Which one of my working class brothers am I selling out for?

this discussion isn't about when is enough enough or not considering the needs of the poor it is about why should some one who is rich be punished with higher taxes?

The argument 'because they can afford it' is not good enough, high taxes destroy asperation and ambition.

If that is how you want to change the world it seems verry odd!