A Millennial Speaks out

andrewf75

michaels wrote: »

But the govt already spends 45% of GDP and runs a larger deficit (=more future taxation) despite contracting out to the private sector what is state activity in many other countries - which are these other 'further to the left' countries that have an even larger share of govt in GDP?

Not sure Germany? most of the rest of Europe?

Cakeguts

Moby wrote: »

In this country we have concentrated on taxing income not capital. That simply means in the long term capital tends to stay in the same hands through the generations through inheritance.The wealthiest pensioners are those who themselves inherited most. But for the next generation that effect will grow. Some 90% of inherited wealth will go to half the next generation. Inheritance tax can be a significant leveller, helping to break up ancestral accumulations of wealth. We have a State which is for all of us and the money for it has to come from somewhere. I believe it’s better to tax unearned windfalls from the dead more heavily and the earnings of the living and productive less heavily.

Have you never heard the expression "clogs to clogs in three generations?"

Cakeguts

andrewf75 wrote: »

I know that wasn’t directed at me, but as I kind of started this I will respond. I don’t understand why people assume an opinion on how to redistribute wealth better is about jealousy. I’ve benefitted from inheritance myself and stand to do so in the future, My concern is for society as a whole which I see increasingly polarised between rich and poor with the rich defined increasingly by property wealth rather than just earning more.

The problem I have with all of this is that most people don't actually know who "the poor" are. They tend to assume that it is families living on benefits but actually if you have everything paid for by other people and are not tied down to having to a job and have total freedom on what you do everyday you are not actually poor. You are living a life of luxury paid for by someone else that you don't have to do anything to have.

The poor are actually young disabled single people who can't get housing because they are young and single and they can't work because they are disabled. Lots of people don't actually know that they are there because they don't see them and they are not included in the normal definitions of "the poor." There is nothing that they can do to improve their situation. They are "the poor" because they have no choices in life.

triathlon

Cakeguts wrote: »

The problem I have with all of this is that most people don't actually know who "the poor" are. They tend to assume that it is families living on benefits but actually if you have everything paid for by other people and are not tied down to having to a job and have total freedom on what you do everyday you are not actually poor. You are living a life of luxury paid for by someone else that you don't have to do anything to have.

The poor are actually young disabled single people who can't get housing because they are young and single and they can't work because they are disabled. Lots of people don't actually know that they are there because they don't see them and they are not included in the normal definitions of "the poor." There is nothing that they can do to improve their situation. They are "the poor" because they have no choices in life.

Great post and have to agree, some people sadly make life harder for themselves by manning up and getting on with life with great and real problems and going unnoticed, while those that scream "I am a victim" get all the help they want and need.

I have read enough Charles Dickens novels to know what a wonderful thing a welfare state is, the problem with the welfare state in 2018 though is most of the people on it.

GreatApe

andrewf75 wrote: »

That’s quite a ridiculously biased statement. There is a gradual scale from left to right and we all have our opinion of where the balance should be. Why are those who propose a slight shift to the left (in a country well to the right globally!) labelled as “loony hard left”? Presumably using that logic you call anyone who wants to reduce immigration a far right racist?

And it is absolutely not about spite, just making things a bit fairer.

Corbyn and McDonalds face are communist its not my guess they outright say they are

It leads to poverty and death
Anyone who says otherwise is stupid
It was tried in Russia of failed
It was tried in China of failed
It was tried in Cambodia it failed
It was tried in Congo it failed
It was tried in east Germany it failed

It doesn't work of leads to death and misery

The success of the west is based on individual rights and freedoms
The failure of the communists is that their ideology of group identity.


I am not against higher taxes in a free market.
Only if they actually produce a bet good and actually increase the tax take. If you double a tax and only get the same amount of revenue that is stupid but it is something the far left would do just to spite people

LHW99

There could well be room to increase the level of inheritance tax, as opposed to increasing income tax, VAT etc. The problem will be that if it is increased too much there will be a lot of richer people handing more money to children before they peg out - if its done early enough it is likely to escape the deprivation of assets rules, but may still make it more likely that the state has to step in to pay for later life care, but without the amount of tax income (from the increase in IH) to cover it.

triathlon

GreatApe wrote: »

Corbyn and McDonalds face are communist its not my guess they outright say they are

It leads to poverty and death
Anyone who says otherwise is stupid
It was tried in Russia of failed
It was tried in China of failed
It was tried in Cambodia it failed
It was tried in Congo it failed
It was tried in east Germany it failed

It doesn't work of leads to death and misery

The success of the west is based on individual rights and freedoms
The failure of the communists is that their ideology of group identity.


I am not against higher taxes in a free market.
Only if they actually produce a bet good and actually increase the tax take. If you double a tax and only get the same amount of revenue that is stupid but it is something the far left would do just to spite people

You do realise that a socialist government gave us the NHS and the welfare state, two of arguably the greatest UK reforms, you do also realise that most of the greatest social reforms in the UK came from socialist Labour.

Cakeguts

LHW99 wrote: »

There could well be room to increase the level of inheritance tax, as opposed to increasing income tax, VAT etc. The problem will be that if it is increased too much there will be a lot of richer people handing more money to children before they peg out - if its done early enough it is likely to escape the deprivation of assets rules, but may still make it more likely that the state has to step in to pay for later life care, but without the amount of tax income (from the increase in IH) to cover it.

The vast majority of the people who will pay this inheritance tax will live in certain areas of the country. There are large areas of the country where people don't leave enough to reach the level where inheritance tax has to be paid.

If you increase income tax people in cheaper property areas pay it.

There is an argument for increasing VAT on certain foods. Luxury items like packets of crisps, chocolate, fizzy drinks containing sugar or not, biscuits, cakes, fruit juice, manufactured snacks 100 calories or not (how many calories are there in an apple?) takeaways, fast food, alcohol. You would probably get more tax from doing this than from inheritance tax and it would help the nation's health and so therefore reduce the number of people visiting the doctor or other parts of the NHS due to unhealthy eating.

A large increase of VAT on fizzy drinks and sweets might help keep teeth healthier for longer? Anything that would stop children from having rotten milk teeth has to be good.

The only way the government is going to stop parents from buying unhealthy snacks for their children is to make them more expensive. So lets increase VAT to 35% on all processed food

Increasing VAT on processed food would only hit the rich because of course people with little money don't spend it on luxuries everyday like crisps and chocolate do they?

GreatApe

triathlon wrote: »

You do realise that a socialist government gave us the NHS and the welfare state, two of arguably the greatest UK reforms, you do also realise that most of the greatest social reforms in the UK came from socialist Labour.

Nonsense

Technology and productivity gave us the ability to afford healthcare and welfare.

If it was just a matter of voting in a lefty it would have happened many decades sooner

Why isn't this obvious to everyone? Do you think you could go to Somalia set up a left wing government and just vote for better conditions and they would manically appear?

All governments do is put pen to paper. The act of drawing some swiggly lines on paper does not create any wealth in itself

We need freedom and free people and they create wonders of the world

Try and set up a communist system or an extremely socialist system and what you have to do is curtail peoples freedom. Command and control doesn't work. I wish it was as easy as that. But all of history shows command and control creates death and destruction.

The free markets give us the ability to be productive and have 'free' healthcare and welfare

Cakeguts

What I always find strange about communism is that it always finishes up with leaders. If you start from the basis that everyone is equal you don't get leaders because leaders are not equal with everyone else.


I always get the feeling that the people who support communism are not the ones who think that their house is going to be confiscated by the state and given to someone else or have their income cut so that it matches everyone else's.

It is totally OK for the rich people to be made to pay more tax and become more equal but if you take the level of the poor as someone who doesn't have a house is disabled and only gets £57.90 per week when living with parents that means that everyone else can expect a significant drop in income to make it fairer so a high rate of tax for anyone getting over £80 per week as anyone earning over this is by definition wealthy.

Interesting I wonder how many of the communist leaders in the UK at the moment will be happy to become MPs on a salary of £100 per week after that makes them wealthy.