Minimum wage

Jason74

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Well aware of that I'm just always interested to see how much those in favour of providing social stuff through higher taxation voluntarily handover to help out.

I

Well in my case, the answer is at least a couple of hundred quid a Month through contributions to various charities which are mostly concerned with welfare type activities both here and abroad. . i don't give the money directly to the exchequer primarily because if I did so, there is no mechanism to determine exactly where the money goes (although in some cases you can address this by donating directly to certain agencies such as hospitals which I do).

But in terms of giving you (and others who hold your view) "freedom of choice" as to whether you met your social obligations or not, that's specifically something that I wouldn't want to do. As I and others have already explained, you can't run a "voluntary" tax system. We collectively agree priorities through the political process ,and then we all contribute based on those, irrespective of our own personal views. If we don't like those priorities we can seek to change them through the political process, or move to a country that better suits our world view. Your strength of feeling on this suggests that you should probably should take one of those two options.

I am quite happy to pay over and above the requirements of the tax system to help fund services that I believe add value. That's a personal choice, and I would never dream of criticising anyone who chose not to do so. But there's no way that I am going to spend extra money simply so that you don't have to. The services I fund are in my opinion a worthy cause. Helping you duck your obligations is not.

Mistermeaner

HornetSaver wrote: »

If your real life has any sort of resemblance to your forum persona, the answer from most people would be "more than you, as you don't believe in voluntarily paying anything".

Your reply would be "not if you count what I am forced to pay through the socialist tax structure".

Theirs would be "I am forced to pay into the same structure".

Yours would be "yes, but I earn more, which means that I contribute more".

There. I've saved you several hours' worth of reading and typing over the next year or so without charging a penny for the service, and what's more both you and those who disagree with you will probably agree with the summary. Philanthropy does occasionally work.


.

Couple of qs:

1 How much do you voluntarily donate?

2 is there anything wrong with wanting to personally pay less tax so that the money I earn can be spent on issues that matter to me?

3 if 'most people' (your first statement) is true then why do we need the forced taxation system we have?

And for the sake of clarity I have said on here a number of times that I have no issue with paying my share of tax; i just think taxation is too high and driven by irresponsible spending (particularly I think we are still suffering from the brown hangover)

Its interesting some of the reactions to questions from me and others about spend and taxation.... Almost as if even questioning the taxes we pay and how they are spent is immoral. Isn't that part of the democratic process to which you refer?

Mistermeaner

Jason74 wrote: »

Well in my case, the answer is at least a couple of hundred quid a Month through contributions to various charities which are mostly concerned with welfare type activities both here and abroad. . i don't give the money directly to the exchequer primarily because if I did so, there is no mechanism to determine exactly where the money goes (although in some cases you can address this by donating directly to certain agencies such as hospitals which I do).

But in terms of giving you (and others who hold your view) "freedom of choice" as to whether you met your social obligations or not, that's specifically something that I wouldn't want to do. As I and others have already explained, you can't run a "voluntary" tax system. We collectively agree priorities through the political process ,and then we all contribute based on those, irrespective of our own personal views. If we don't like those priorities we can seek to change them through the political process, or move to a country that better suits our world view. Your strength of feeling on this suggests that you should probably should take one of those two options.

I am quite happy to pay over and above the requirements of the tax system to help fund services that I believe add value. That's a personal choice, and I would never dream of criticising anyone who chose not to do so. But there's no way that I am going to spend extra money simply so that you don't have to. The services I fund are in my opinion a worthy cause. Helping you duck your obligations is not.

I guess the answer from my perspective then would be for taxes to be dropped nationally.

Jason74

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I guess the answer from my perspective then would be for taxes to be dropped nationally.

And that's fair enough. It probably goes without saying that I disagree with you, and I actually think that the recent reductions in tax (through the increase in thresholds) is the wrong move in the context of the ongoing deficit and cuts in services.

But that's how democracy works. We are all entitled to a view on how things work. And even though I would personally oppose you, I would actively encourage you to lobby for the change you believe in through the political process. If enough people agree with you, that will happen (and if it does, I will probably emigrate, which you may well see as an added bonus )

Mistermeaner

Slight aside but I find the differing views on taxation, welfare expenditure, voluntary/compulsory etc. fascinating - particularly from a moral standpoint

For some reason those who advocate greater social spending from taxation are seen (by themselves at least) as having the moral high ground over those who pay more in tax but would like less to be spent (and taxed); is this correct?

Not in all respects but I personally often find some left leaning people to be quite duplicitous in their views; often advocating high expenditure but not wanting to pay higher taxes themselves... supporting nationalisation of struggling industry but through their actions buying cheap stuff from abroad... closed shops, disproportionate voting for unions etc etc etc - at least in my view right leaning persons are generally open about what they want for themselves personally and society. I've never quite understood why all strikes / disputes about 'public safety' and 'level of care' always seem to be solved by paying the striking individuals more

In terms of moral status and contribution to society how would you rank each of the following:

- A high rate tax payer who pays their taxes but openly grumbles about the amount they pay and advocates lower taxation and lower spending

- A low rate tax payer who wants more public spending but doesn't themselves want to pay more tax

- A low rate tax payer who voluntarily pays extra tax (or makes contributions in other ways) to fund the higher level of services they support

- An individual who is unable to work / pay tax and receives money from the social welfare system

- An individual who chooses not to work and lives off the handouts from the social welfare system

- An individual who games the system as much as possible to maximise their personal gain; e.g. a 'michaels' who for anyone who isn't aware uses salary sacrifice to maximise his pension contributions and minimise taxable income such as to maximise his receipt of in work benefits primarily based on the fact he has kids (e.g. child benefit, free meals, WTC etc)

- A retired person in receipt of a DB pension in excess of their day to day requirements who takes full advantage of the state pension, free healthcare, winter fuel etc. despite not 'needing' them.

wotsthat

Mistermeaner wrote: »

In terms of moral status and contribution to society how would you rank each of the following:

It's music to politicians ears. People blaming the morals of others rather than them for the slapdash way some of the rules are written.

michaels

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Slight aside but I find the differing views on taxation, welfare expenditure, voluntary/compulsory etc. fascinating - particularly from a moral standpoint

.....

- An individual who games the system as much as possible to maximise their personal gain; e.g. a 'michaels' who for anyone who isn't aware uses salary sacrifice to maximise his pension contributions and minimise taxable income such as to maximise his receipt of in work benefits primarily based on the fact he has kids (e.g. child benefit, free meals, WTC etc)

...

And yet I am sure over his working life time MrMeaner will avoid much more tax via pension tax relief than I will benefit from tax credits and pension tax relief put together...so who is dong more to follow the rules to avoid paying tax?

Mistermeaner

michaels wrote: »

And yet I am sure over his working life time MrMeaner will avoid much more tax via pension tax relief than I will benefit from tax credits and pension tax relief put together...so who is dong more to follow the rules to avoid paying tax?

If everyone behaved as me re tax benefits and work the system would work fine

I would like to pay less tax and welfare to be lower; if i got what i wanted the system would be harsher but still work

If everyone behaved as you the system would break - you are through choice parasitic and taking advantage of a welfare system to exploit it cynically for your personal financial gain.

As ive said before each to their own but im not sure hiw you sleep at night. Its lucky for you that most people are not like you.... and dare i say it are actually more like me.

But you are of course just playing the game where somebody else makes the rules. The rules allow leaches - fair enough. But some are capable of making moral choices.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Mistermeaner wrote: »

If everyone behaved as me re tax benefits and work the system would work fine

I would like to pay less tax and welfare to be lower; if i got what i wanted the system would be harsher but still work

If everyone behaved as you the system would break - you are through choice parasitic and taking advantage of a welfare system to exploit it cynically for your personal financial gain.

As ive said before each to their own but im not sure hiw you sleep at night. Its lucky for you that most people are not like you.... and dare i say it are actually more like me.

But you are of course just playing the game where somebody else makes the rules. The rules allow leaches - fair enough. But some are capable of making moral choices.

At first I thought you where serious... thankfully you are just a troll.

POPPYOSCAR

I believe anyone who works should me paid a minimum wage at the very least.


Something I do not agree with is the tax payer subsidising employers with tax credits.


Pay a fair wage and do away with tax credits altogether.