Are you a good citizen?

chucknorris

Mistermeaner wrote: »

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?

I didn't always work in the public sector, only for the last 6 years. But I would say that a significant (minority) number of public sector workers are net contributors.

Quite a bit of my income comes from dividend income, and eventually pension too.

I'd probably be classed as a bad thing on here (by some), but I can live with that, because my main motivation wasn't to buy properties to house people, it was to make profit, if I had not perceived it as being profitable I would not have invested. Although I must say that I don't sweat my properties, even though I recently increased the rents, most of them are still at least a little below the market rent. I also treat tenants with the respect that they deserve, and I wouldn't let a property that I wouldn't live in myself, in fact, I have at some point lived in 5 of the 7 investment properties that I own or have owned (includes 2 sold properties).

Mistermeaner

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

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?

No that was asking a question.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Mistermeaner wrote: »

No that was asking a question.

I do judge you for not wanting to support the most vulnerable in society. I think you are ignorant towards the amount of human suffering that happens in this country. You are lucky to be in the position that you find yourself in. Don't kid yourself that you are somehow a better citizen than a heroine addict or a shop lifter when you have ultimately never experienced what they have.

HornetSaver

Mistermeaner wrote: »

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.

Firstly, I think you confuse "left leaning" with "non-millionaires". I have leaned towards all three of the traditional major parties in the past. In a perfect world I'd vote for a fiscally competent centrist party which is quite consistent in its approach. There has never been such a thing, but in 2005, 2010 and 2015 respectively the closest thing to it appeared to be Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories respectively.

But let me give you one topical example of why that's an oversimplification. The sugar tax. That has been an example of a policy where the left were more in favour of it than the right, yet where the burden was likely to fall more heavily on the left-leaning than the right-leaning.

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)

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

Well, if what you say were true - that 2-5% of people pay for 90% odd - then the democratic process is giving people exactly what they want. Of course, what you say about proportions is unmitigated garbage, at least on the scale that you suggest (though there is no doubt that the majority of basic rate tax payers are net beneficiaries).

For disclosure I'm at the upper end of basic rate myself. On the assumption that we are talking adult lifetime (it is implied in this discussion that having children involves a net 16-21 year cost to the state, and that this cost is the result of a choice by the parent), then despite being on basic rate I believe I'm a net contributor so far.

No kids.

My lifetime amount of benefits amounts to ten weeks' worth of JSA while I was doing a work experience placement in the industry I currently work in (though I'd note that the extra tax I'm paying now relative to what I would currently be paying had I stayed in my old job or indeed received a promotion has covered that cost to the state several times over).

I have made two doctor's appointments (which lasted for ten minutes apiece) and had one blood test in my adult lifetime, though did go far more regularly as a kid.

I pay a 25% discounted rate council tax due to single occupancy (two ways of looking at that, one is very obvious, the other is that if I were living with a partner we'd be paying less council tax per head). For that I am receiving high standard waste services (weekly recycling and bins, plus a pretty comprehensive recycling centre), street lights that are never actually on, pothole repairs that even the Conservative county council describe as "shambolic" and "unacceptably slow", whatever the cost was of processing the application for council tax single occupancy discount, and my share of the cost of an election every year or so.

According to those in favour of the status quo on housing, immigration is one of the key drivers of ever rising prices. I am therefore, according to those I usually find myself arguing with, a direct victim of recent governments' "defence" policies, so spending on defence should not be taken into account for me.

Not sure whether 10,000 miles' worth of petrol in a car that is in the second lowest VED band makes me a net contributor on the roads - I suspect not. However judging by the initial post I can console myself with the fact that fewer polar bears will suffocate from my exhaust than from Mistermeaner's.

I expect to benefit significantly from recent budget initiative aimed at house buyers, however not a penny of this has been realised to date, and it remains to be seen whether stamp duty (which I would not have paid if I remained as a tenant) will be greater or less than the level of goodies the government has handed to me for something I would have done anyway.

I highly doubt that my current level of contributions would keep me as a net contributor if I live to life expectancy. Certainly not under the current pension system, however it's unlikely that there will be a state pension anywhere near as comprehensive by the time I reach retirement age, and I wouldn't bet against the retirement age being 75 by then, so there's a chance that they would. Hopefully a moot point, as my earnings should increase by roughly £12,000 per year in today's money over the next 4-5 years, which would take me to a level of earning that would make me a lifetime net contributor, and while I can't predict the future I don't intend to stop there.

If in future I start a family and have kids that will of course change the arithmetic drastically.

d70cw6

im a HRT and dont use many council benefits other than bin collection, so I consider myself to be a model citizen.

Having said that i do frequently shoplift at my local Sainsburys though.

michaels

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.

If you work for the public sector but do a job the private sector would provide if the public sector didn't then surely you are a net contributor (I am talking everything from Doctors to bin men here).

martinthebandit

d70cw6 wrote: »

im a HRT and dont use many council benefits other than bin collection, so I consider myself to be a model citizen.

Having said that i do frequently shoplift at my local Sainsburys though.

....other than bin collection.

Really? I find that unbelievable

michaels

martinthebandit wrote: »

....other than bin collection.

Really? I find that unbelievable

I beleive when he does travel he uses his own private helicopter and of course all security is provided by the body guards.

cells

Generali wrote: »

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

its £748 billion in spending = about £11,500 per capita or more than a million quid if you live to be 87 years old

Amazingly huge sum of money clearly most of us get more spent on us than we pay in taxes. An individual would probably need a lifetime income of £3-4 million in real terms to be somewhere around break even

cells

mwpt wrote: »

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.

plus in the age of the machines and low marginal cost production the taxes are just a way to allow access to this production.

imagine cutting £52 billion from the poorest and giving businesses £52 billion in tax cuts. business cheers for a few weeks until they realise that their sales are down £1 billion a week and their profit down close to £1 billion a week.