Are you a good citizen?

cells

westernpromise wrote: »

I'm a massive net contributor.

Personally, just as there is a lifetime limit on pension fund value, I think there should be a lifetime limit on PAYE of say a million quid.

Doesnt the government spend something in the order of £11k per citizen. If you have a life expectancy of 90 years then a million quid paid in tax is just about break even

Generali

cells wrote: »

Doesnt the government spend something in the order of £11k per citizen. If you have a life expectancy of 90 years then a million quid paid in tax is just about break even

More like £9,000/head. (£577,000,000,000/65,000,000).

Mistermeaner

I wonder what would happen if tax was voluntary and there were various opt ins and outs - ie don't want state pension don't nat ins. Don't want NHS pay 5k per year less etc

Surely if we are a left wing leaning society and we want these things we will happily pay for them ...... Wouldn't we?

If the result of out current democratic process is such that the majority of people end up having to do something they don't want is it really working?

I fear that our Democratic process results in a minority group (say the top 2-5% earners) paying for 90% odd of the population (with the remainder being neutral)

Is there a duplicity in the off heard cries of the left about 'fairness' that this minority is picked on in such a way?

Of course anyone who benefits from this will be OK with it but is it really fair?

chucknorris

MPD wrote: »

So reducing the future working age population. Where does the future growth come from?

It all comes down to how you look at it.

Financially I am a net taker, same as any other public sector worker. I wouldn't do this job (or any other) if I didn't believe I was socially a net contributor.

I am a net contributor (by some distance), and I work in the public sector.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I would say that it has an awful lot to do with money. Not everything but an awful lot.

Can I have some of your money if its not important to you. That would make you feel good by making me feel good and the world will be as better place.

Can't tell if troll?

mwpt

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if tax was voluntary and there were various opt ins and outs - ie don't want state pension don't nat ins. Don't want NHS pay 5k per year less etc

Surely if we are a left wing leaning society and we want these things we will happily pay for them ...... Wouldn't we?

If the result of out current democratic process is such that the majority of people end up having to do something they don't want is it really working?

I fear that our Democratic process results in a minority group (say the top 2-5% earners) paying for 90% odd of the population (with the remainder being neutral)

Is there a duplicity in the off heard cries of the left about 'fairness' that this minority is picked on in such a way?

Of course anyone who benefits from this will be OK with it but is it really fair?

It is pragmatic. Fair is just a wishy washy statement that has no real meaning.

Universally fair is that people are born, maybe they're born into a genocidal era, maybe they're born under a torturing murdering dictator, maybe they're born to a single drug addict mom and never get guidance on how to shape their future, maybe they're born to an awesome single father who provides a great role model, maybe they're born into a family who have been rich for generations who guarantee them a well paying job that they don't need. It is all just a cosmic roll of the dice and the fairest system you can ever imagine because it is completely random. I could be the person born into genocide or I could be born a rich toff, it is random and therefore fair.

There is no caring fairy ghost in the sky, brown stuff happens, we live, we die. That is all there is. There isn't even a moral absolute that mandates we're nice to each other, you can't reduce this to a universal law written in the atoms somewhere. Nature is not nice.

But now, in the middle, we make choices, and I choose, for no real fundamentally moral reason (see above) that I would like to see my fellow humans suffer as little as possible and hopefully even have quite a good life. In the immediate area around me, which is the UK, I can do this by voting for a government who will provide assistance for people of less ability, less fortunate, less privileged or who fall on hard times.

But I can't say this is entirely selfless. I get a lot out of that. Because people aren't starving, because people aren't homeless, I get to live in a safe, productive, enabling environment where my friends, family, acquaintances and wider social group are all cared for, all have access to the same stuff. We are protected, our "stuff" is safe (mostly).

But this only works if we socialise the costs of this. It will break down under your system of voluntary tax and services. Almost everyone will be worse off but a few people might be better off living in their high walled castles with barbed wire, privately hired army (because police don't exist) and they'd better not venture out much.

So luckily, over generations and generations, we have evolved our governing systems to something that seems to be quite stable and that satisfies most people's needs. We had serfdom and monarchies and so forth, those died out, as they should have. We won't be getting them back, sorry.

Am I a good citizen? Hard to say. I have been a net contributor financially since I came to this country many years ago. I try not to be a twit. According to some right wing people, I am a liberal who wants their hard earned money wasted on scroungers and according to some left wing people I am a vile scum who wants to turf people out of their homes because I believe the "bedroom tax" is probably the right thing to do. Go figure.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Mistermeaner wrote: »

All the left vs right type debate, evil Tories, evil landlords, darn baby boomers, expensive pensions, selfish migrants etc talk that goes on here I think its safe to say almost everyone has a view about how things should be run in general. We all vote if we want to so have a limited influence on the wider running of the country but what we can all control is our own actions.

On this basis do you think you are a good or bad citizen , or neutral?

Are you a nett contributor or nett taker economically?

What things do you do / not do that have a positive or negative impact on society that isn't purely economic?

My preconception is that most of the left leaning folk have great morals about what society should be doing and providing but strangely it is always someone else who should be paying more tax to fund it.


For my part as a hrt payer I think I'm a nett contributor (isn't the cut off 36k?) . I am employed in private sector so take nothing out. I pay my tax via PAYE so no fiddling. I've not been a doctors for years or set fire to my house or caused any crime. I pay my council tax. I receive no benefits of any kind. I'm a good consumer buying tatt but not so much as to be in debt. I am mortgaged on a house but fully occupied on basis its 2 bed and there is 2 of us here. I have 1 kid so he is a cost to educate but if we each have just 1 kid that's surely the optimum for cost vs benefit? I have a private pension so hopefully will be financially independent long into my old age. I keep fit and healthy so as not to be as burden to the NHS. I give old clothes and toys to charity but not money. I don't do any voluntary work but don't really have the time anyway.

I reckon I'm pretty much the model citizen . My carbon footprint could be better I guess though.

I would argue that both myself and my wife are much better citizens than you. Simply by our profession. I work in child protection / safeguarding & the wife is a nurse. We are both net takers I imagine (£60k h/h income) would you argue that your tax contribution which you admit you don't like paying makes you a better citizen? I hope you never find yourself in the position to ever need child protection or the care of a nurse. Some people are born into a situation where by they are forced to be net takers for a prolonged period of time, such bad citizens these abused, sick & dying people are.

Mistermeaner

chucknorris wrote: »

I am a net contributor (by some distance), and I work in the public sector.

an interesting one chuck - you work in the public sector and are a private lanlord ; your nett contributor status comes mainly from a high income on the back of being a private landlord I believe - are private landlords a good or bad thing?

Mistermeaner

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

I would argue that both myself and my wife are much better citizens than you. Simply by our profession. I work in child protection / safeguarding & the wife is a nurse. We are both net takers I imagine (£60k h/h income) would you argue that your tax contribution which you admit you don't like paying makes you a better citizen? I hope you never find yourself in the position to ever need child protection or the care of a nurse. Some people are born into a situation where by they are forced to be net takers for a prolonged period of time, such bad citizens these abused, sick & dying people are.

why does that make you better than me? Would you prefer my job didn't exist and my tax wasn't collected so that there is less in the pot to pay for the roles like yours?

BTW I have passed no judgement on anyone. Unlike you

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Mistermeaner wrote: »

why does that make you better than me? Would you prefer my job didn't exist and my tax wasn't collected so that there is less in the pot to pay for the roles like yours?

BTW I have passed no judgement on anyone. Unlike you

You stated that you are the model citizen because you are financially a net contributor
"I am pretty much the model citizen"
"are you a good or bad citizen or neutral"

Is that not passing judgement?