What level of taxation is "fair"?
- Thread starter spudbynight
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
If we were starting from scratch, I'd say 10%. The problem is we have a recurring bill now, and we can't afford it. We can't ask people for more money, they can't afford it. We can't cut all that much. So we're screwed.
Until someone does something drastic.
Until someone does something drastic.
Give it a rest. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
The point is not to tax children going to school but to tax adults who have children, because children cost money. Therefore, before a couple decides they want to have a child they should first work out if they can afford it. Which is very fair. School can still be mandatory and free at the point of service, simply parents should pay more tax to support their children.
Other countries have increased taxes if you are married, in part due to the expectoration that you will probably have children.
The argument of wealth redistribution is moot.
If people are that poor that they need handouts from the state, then surely the logical question should be "why the heck are they even paying tax in the first place" rather than "who should pay for their handouts."
Similarly, if the wealthiest 1% are spending vast fortunes to not contribute tax and the government is almost matching that spending to fruitlessly attempt to recoup it, then surely the answer as to why they're doing it is plainly obvious.
The whole system is so FUBAR that arguing the level of taxation that is 'fair' is like the people of Bahrain arguing whether FPTP, AV or STV is the best election system. Our tax system is so damn broken that rates of tax are near enough unimportant at this juncture.
The government is the only entity in society that gets to choose its income. Nobody else can do that. All the rest of us have to beg, steal or borrow if we find ourselves a little short before payday. We can't run up a trillion on credit and continue like its nothing.
This is how ****ing broken the system is. And people honestly think arguing about tax rates will solve anything?
If people are that poor that they need handouts from the state, then surely the logical question should be "why the heck are they even paying tax in the first place" rather than "who should pay for their handouts."
Similarly, if the wealthiest 1% are spending vast fortunes to not contribute tax and the government is almost matching that spending to fruitlessly attempt to recoup it, then surely the answer as to why they're doing it is plainly obvious.
The whole system is so FUBAR that arguing the level of taxation that is 'fair' is like the people of Bahrain arguing whether FPTP, AV or STV is the best election system. Our tax system is so damn broken that rates of tax are near enough unimportant at this juncture.
The government is the only entity in society that gets to choose its income. Nobody else can do that. All the rest of us have to beg, steal or borrow if we find ourselves a little short before payday. We can't run up a trillion on credit and continue like its nothing.
This is how ****ing broken the system is. And people honestly think arguing about tax rates will solve anything?
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
I actually hate this sort of snobbery attitude,it does not work like that,so just people with good jobs work long hours thats what your saying
What I'm saying is that in my class at school (a state comprehensive btw) there were those who didn't bother to study, did no work and generally ******** around. Then there were others who studied all weekend, didn't talk back to the teachers and turned up everyday. Guess which bunch of kids went to university and ended up getting degree's in maths and physics, then went on to get well paid jobs? Looking at my old class mates on Facebook its quite easy to see who were the workers and who were the dossers.
So should those who tried hard to make something of themselves be penalised by paying disproportionally more tax?
Last edited:
then by design its not actually free at point as it paid up front and collected via the tax man. That is actually unfair because then families with children get taxed more heavily than those without. It could be said that a childless couple of middle income earning potential can likely bear a larger tax burden than a couple of the same financial standing with children.
What happens if a child parents are unemployed and thus not paying income tax ? Are we suggesting those children are therefore denied schooling as the parents haven't paid the fees ?
Of course the other side of the coin is more draconian and goes along the lines of no job = no tax = no children. But I am not sure that has any place in modern civilised society ? (appart from maybe china and a few other crackpot nations )
Snap, although I went to a Grammar school, the same played out with my peers.
Those who worked hard = well paid
Those who messed about = poorer
Lets punish the hard workers and make wealth distribution fairer
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,396
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
LOL I actually have a very firm grasp on the differences between the two indices.
You may want to check them out :
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/prices/cpi-and-rpi/index.html
Eg the RPI ignores very high and very low incomes. The CPI uses two calcuation bases geometric and artithmetic the RPI only uses arithmetic.
I suspect the person who doesnt really have a clue about RPI and CPI is you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,396
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Think thats right in 90+% of the time.
But like so many things in life we as humans learn behaviour.
If you had a "good" upbringing your more likely to be above average in most things, if you suffered a "bad" upbringing your more likely to be worse than average.
10% probably go either way, Ie ruin their silver spoon and doss their way to a worse lifestyle than they should have had, the otehr 10% break out of a bad start and end up doing really well.
Errrm you don't actually get the choice, it also makes people think before having kids willy nilly, in short it works, the kids actually end up with a better standard of education.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Would you have an issue if you paid 100% tax but everyone (including yourself) had exactly the same lifestyle, in terms of amenities, services, gadgets/whatnot as you do now?
It is not free in the current system. You pay taxes and children get free education. You pay taxes and you get free health care. So it is not currently free and never can be. Taxing parents extra still allows free at the point of service.
It is fair because parents who have children incur a greater cost so should be expected to pay increased taxes to cover these costs as far as they are able to.
If the parents of a child become unemployed then absolutely nothing happens and it carries on as before with the child going to school. Why would it not? that is the point of having it a tax at income and free to point of service rather that straight tuition costs.
Any yes, parents who do not work should not even think about having children into they are in a financial situation to be able to properly look after them. It is not other peoples responsibility to pay for negligent parents to reproduce.
That is not to say that children in disadvantaged families should not be supported. E.g. if both parents become unemployed then the child's welfare is still important and should be supported by society. Just that being a parent involves a lot of responsibilities, not least financially, and they should be prepared to fully meet the financial responsibilities.
Going back to the original question, compare the UK's education standard with other countries like Canada that tax parenthood (or Switzerland taxing marriage) and you realise the standards of education are much higher.
Last edited:
Children grow into taxpaying adults, so no it is not inherently fair to tax parents for effectively having children. In fact encouraging children would by default increase long term stability and, if the birth rate is such, increase tax revenue long term.....
So all those single people will have someone to continue to pay taxes so they can enjoy healthcare/pensions/bus travel/etc when they are no longer productive enough to finance themselves and need state subsidies.....
So all those single people will have someone to continue to pay taxes so they can enjoy healthcare/pensions/bus travel/etc when they are no longer productive enough to finance themselves and need state subsidies.....
Snap, although I went to a Grammar school, the same played out with my peers.
Those who worked hard = well paid
Those who messed about = poorer
Lets punish the hard workers and make wealth distribution fairer
The same thing happened to me. Everyone who worked hard and studied has gone on to do well. Those who did not have not fared so well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,396
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Some people may argue it depends who the parents are as to whether that statement is factually correct
And unfortunately I can't see an easy solution to this biggest problem. Throwing money or saying underprivileged isn't going to work. Some how we have to either turn the parents around, or make the kids ignore the parents. Neither of which is easy.
Whichever results in me paying the least amount
kd
At least you have the honesty to admit it. Most people think the same, but then come out with phrases like "the fairest system is..." and propose a system which by sheer coincidence would mean that they pay less tax.
M
No attall all,but it's not quite as black and white as that
Snap, although I went to a Grammar school, the same played out with my peers.
Those who worked hard = well paid
Those who messed about = poorer
Lets punish the hard workers and make wealth distribution fairer
Again it does not allways work out like that,i know tons of people who have had good jobs thrown the scrap heap including myself because of the greed of this country,i look at my tax over the years that i have paid and what do i get in return when times are tuff,jack *****
