Yet another reason to work hard and try to do well for yourself...

[tek-monkey]

do i agree with some fat mess getting to live in a mansion for free with all her bills paid and a fat salary in the form of government handouts? of course not, but they are unfortunate exceptional cases arising from an imperfect system..

Yeah, bloody MPs

 

[shoes]

Shoes, perhaps if you worked a little less you would have more time to enjoy yourself, be less stressed and find the chance to re-assess what is really important in life. If you did, you just may find that the things like friends and community, which are hugely important factors in a healthy and happy life, don't cost a penny.

I actually lead a pretty happy life thanks, I have (few) good friends, I am in relatively good health and tbh I'm sick of the community so I really couldn't care less about it.

Perhaps it would be good at this point in the thread to point out the main differences in how people on the left think from those on the right. I read a study about this not so long ago, (can't find it now, of course) and I expect we can all agree with the concept. People who grow up with fear as their overriding emotion, who are, shall we say, more sensitive and likely to experience fear, tend to be right-wing thinkers. Others, who, for whatever reason, could be nature, could be nurture, grow up feeling confident and are not so likely to perceive situations as "fearful" tend to be left-wing thinkers.

Fear of what exactly? Lack of confidence? Unless I'm an exception that argument doesn't stand up. I am probably one of the least emotional people you will ever have the misfortune to meet, I fear virtually nothing, I have confidence ooozing out my ears and I'm just angry at seeing what is happening in the world around me.

It stands to reason. The right tends to talk about 'keeping them out', 'stop them taking from you', 'defend what is yours'. The left tends to be the other way and is so relaxed it even comes up with ideas like "from those who have to those who need".

I started with nothing mate, worked my way up to what I have now and it was hard work so why the f**k should I give it to someone who can't be arsed. I class need as those who cannot help themselves. not those who cannot be arsed. I have no problem helping those in need. I even donate a small amount of my income to charity via direct debit each month because i believe in the three worthy causes and am once again angry that the government would rather give it to LS than the likes of cancer research, mencap or the rspca.

Don't believe me? Have a look at this recent study and make your own mind up.

Shoes, it seems to me that you fit the classic right-wing fear-driven mold. And, you see, that's ok. Because, coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, I have not only an understanding that people can think differently to me, but even sympathy for your plight. That surely sounds very condescending and inflammatory, but it is not meant to be, it is just my opinion.

I understand people think differently and thats fine, I'm open minded but only to the boundaries of the ridiculous. Some schools of thought are clearly absud and I have no time for them.

What you are saying makes it sound like you cannot tolerate others who are less fortunate than you, yet you must surely understand that there will always be people from all walks and of every imaginable nature and character on this planet. People who can't or won't accept reality end up believing all sorts of extreme nonsense and sometimes acting on those sick beliefs.

What Vince Cable proposed is an annual 0.5% tax on property above £1m. Now, I am not an economics expert, but if you can find me someone owns a £2m property who could not easily afford that extra £5,000 tax per year, I will eat my own hat. Shoes, do you really find the idea of freeing the 4m lowest-earning workers from tax so bad? Poverty costs this country billions every year and there can be no defense for such a developed nation as ours to have around 3m children living below the poverty line.

Yes thats right, belifes such as forcing companies who have got 3 billion net profit to increase the minimum wage is really showing my hatred of the lower end of the economic scale. I just don't see why I should have to contribute to their income when there are literally billions of pounds of profit made (after everyone has been paid, including tax) which effectively does nothing, less say 15 - 30% for growth.

And as for your comments about people being able to afford it..... what a load of crap. Sorry mate but just because they can afford it they should have it taken from them !?!??! What message does that send out to people? You may as well not bother because if you stay at the bottom you will get subsidised and if you try harder you will get penalised. Good batting think man. Thats what has got this country into such a poor state in the first place. That and how socially acceptable it is to have kids left right and centre.

3 million kids below the poverty line? not my problem mate, to quote russell howard "ban your fanny untill you can take control of what comes out of it. QED.

But, Shoes, perhaps, you are alright, Jack.

Yup, doing fine thanks matey. Because I'm willing to work for it.

 

[db]

Yes thats right, belifes such as forcing companies who have got 3 billion net profit to increase the minimum wage is really showing my hatred of the lower end of the economic scale. I just don't see why I should have to contribute to their income when there are literally billions of pounds of profit made (after everyone has been paid, including tax) which effectively does nothing, less say 15 - 30% for growth.

good point.. it's funny that you come across as the ultimate capitalist, yet one of the solutions you propose is to force massive companies to contribute more fairly! that's a really good idea, imo..

 

[tek-monkey]

I think he just agrees in working rather than sponging, which is something I can understand. I think the idea that Shoes only skim reads peoples posts and replies to what he wants actually works both ways.

 

[shoes]

I am a capitalist on the whole, however this is one way which I feel would actually benefit everyone. I still think that those at the top should get their big bonusses and still be what you would term as 'fat cats' but there is a lot of money just sitting and not doing a lot other than collecting interest. Well if there is three billion in the bank the interest isn't needed really is it, so you may as well make it do something. Besides all of that money recirculated into the economy means more tax anyway so the government easily makes back what it would lose in interest tax. I'm sure there are other tangible benefits too like more people in work feeling valued so less problems with mental health, depression or whatever as well as less money worries and more freedom to enjoy life, which, is what we all want at the end of the day isn't it?

It also has the added advantage of giving more people to spend with more companies etc. general capitalist theory, you already know what i mean.

Generally speaking I have a lot of (what I consider) good ideas however they are only good to people who recognise there is a problem that needs solving. I fully take on board what you say about ranting like a lunatic however the devolution of our country is something i feel passionate about and feel radical action is the only way forward (particularly after the last decade or so of the left wing wishy washy approach. The tory government before that have a lot to answer for too I full accept that). People have got somewhat pathetic and jobsworthey in the last 50 years i feel.

 

[tek-monkey]

Problem spotted with my amazingly simple system, tourism would dissapear. Back to the drawing board.

Another thought, and you'll have to bear with me on this, is taxing benefits. Sounds stupid yes?

Not really, make all those on benefits an employee of the country. Tax everything they get in benefits as if they were working, so the same NI/PAYE etc. as everyone else. Treat them EXACTLY like everyone else. Ditch all the freebies like dental and prescriptions, make housing benefit part of your 'pay', make it a complete level playing field. Make housing Benefit a flate rate for single/married/kids rather than depending on the house you get, so everyone who is single gets the same and everyone with 3 kids (1 boy 2 girls) gets the same. Then any job that comes up is an instant 'Oh, I'll be x better off with that than if I sat on my arse"*. It would make the benefits system completely transparent, and the benefits of working easier to see.

Obviously they will need higher benefits to start with, thats a given, but thats completely relative as it would be returned as tax. If anything this may well remove a lot of the stigma people attach to benefits claimants, as they can immediately see that they ARE better off because they work, rather than the Daily Mail style calculations some people do when working out what a spongers benefits are really worth.


*If you are not better off working than on benefits, there is a MAJOR problem. This problem will be very easy to see.

 

[henryscat]

(particularly after the last decade or so of the left wing wishy washy approach.

I don't think the Labour party could be accused of being left wing.....

 

[shoes]

The left tends to be the other way and is so relaxed it even comes up with ideas like "from those who have to those who need".

I don't think the Labour party could be accused of being left wing.....

Fair enough.

 

[MyCult]

I have no real opinion here, am neither left-wing or right. I or uni-wing, or mono-brow'd (not sure). Both sides of the fence have their good points and bad. I'll give you my grosly over simplified take on the whole thing:

Think of the two school of thought as neighbors on a street, both of whom have recently had a bulb blow in the living room.

The right wing neighbor hunts down the the manufacturer, beats a new bulb out of the underpaid sweatshop worker that made the original, goes home and fixes the light.

Left winger already has a replacement bulb realising that these thing happen and it's probably not the manufacturers fault. He stands on a chair, carefully unscrews the old bulb, holds the new one to the ceiling and waits for the world to revolve around him.

 

[shoes]

 

[Monquey]

To be fair to shoes, apologies for my earlier rant. Twas a little ill considered and perhaps I didn't read your post properly, so sorry for that.

I still think your wrong though - back to the original point of the thread, taxing those with homes over 1 million is a great idea. I work in an 'elite goods' industry, and have done for the last 10 years. I help people spend money on overpriced tat that they don't need, purely because they've got so much money they don't have anything else to spend it on - and with a bit of clever management, they can use their purchases to write off a good chunk of tax.

Furthermore, at least 50% of the people I deal with aren't in that position because they've worked hard - they're in that position because their ancestors benefitted from a contemptible class system built on the exploitation of the working classes and the spoils of British colonialism. And they're not on a higher rate of tax - many of them pay virtually no tax at all. So which is worse? The few who exploit an overstretched, but generous welfare system for a few grand a year, or the few that exploit a seriously generous tax system when they are perfectly able to part with money that would make a big difference to the country, but little material difference to themselves? Any method of seperating a bit more cash from these scroungers is a good thing.

Yes thats right, belifes such as forcing companies who have got 3 billion net profit to increase the minimum wage is really showing my hatred of the lower end of the economic scale. I just don't see why I should have to contribute to their income when there are literally billions of pounds of profit made (after everyone has been paid, including tax) which effectively does nothing, less say 15 - 30% for growth

This is all true. But it wouldn't work: all that would happen is companies would say 'oh noes our shareholders/directors are losing a fraction of their 15-30% a year for essentially doing jack on these slight pay rises - let's make some redundances / move our entire work force to Asia' Result - less jobs. Answer - take the money directly from the benficiaries - and close the tax loopholes.

 

[tek-monkey]

Question, as I don't know the answer:

If a company trades in the UK, in whatever capacity, is that income taxed in the UK? If I operate a CD warehouse in Jersey, and just sell to the UK, does Jersey tax me or the UK?

What I'm getting at, is do british pounds pay britsh tax? If not, they ******* should.

 

[Goldilox]

Why can't we scrap all taxation other than when spending money? Forget income tax, just have extortionate VAT. It would close an awful lot of ways out of taxation, make money earnt = money gained and be a completely fair tax to all. Assume currency conversions are a form of spending, so removing the money from the UK also effectively pays tax.

Simples!

Indirect taxation - ie on goods and services (VAT, alcohol duty, fuel tax et al) hits those on lower incomes disproportionately hard by raising the cost of living. If I'm poor and have to spend all my income on food and rent then under your system this would mean I'm paying far more as a percentage of my earnings in tax than a company director who earns £2m a week but can afford to put half of that straight in the bank. Effectively you're proposing shifting more of the tax burden onto those on low income.

Direct taxation ie paid directly from you to the government (income tax, council tax) are generally more even in their distribution of burden (the poll tax being a misguided exception to this trend). I'd say far more fair than your suggestion, would be a large increase in income tax and the abolition of indirect taxes - this way if you earn more & therefore can afford to, you pay more taxes.

 

[tek-monkey]

Nah, I know it can't work. Unfortunately way too many people avoid income tax through various means, which is why I was thinking taxing expenditure would at least tax them. I changed my mind!

Still think UK spend = UK tax is a good plan though. If I purchase a DVD from the US I avoid customs in both countries unless customs spot it coming in. How many major earners in the UK pay their tax elsewhere?

EDIT: And any thought on taxing benefits? It can't be any harder to administer than current benefits.