What level of taxation is "fair"?

[realBabelfish]

No one is saying tax children, merely tax parents.

It is like if you want to buy a car, you have to expect to pay the road taxes, insurance costs and fuel tax. Why should other people pay your share of these taxes?

because my son will be the one working to pay your (and my) pension at a later date. he will pay much more in taxes than he will cost the state.

i agree chavs with 5 or 6 kids shouldnt be rewarded for having kids but children are our future in more ways than you seem to think.

 

[realBabelfish]

Someone earlier mentioned Canada. I know in Switzerland you pay more income tax if you are married under the expectation you are likely to have children and there are other charges you must pay if you are a parent, including health and accident insurance.

switzerland has a much higher standard of living than here and not the level of scroungers.

 

[elmarko]

The rich pay many many times more in taxes than they receive is services back. Someone on benefits pays nothing for what they recieve.

If you only include the benefits they personally receive yes - but if you take into account how much they utilise the benefits of society & then the fact they only get rich by paying people less for the work they do than it's market value then no - not at all.

No they don't, the rich invest their money in one way or other, either by banking it, allowing banks to loan money to individuals or businesses, or by investing in companies one way or another.

To say that the riches money does nothing for society is so wide of the mark it's unbelievable.

You seem to think that somebody putting money into a bank account & leaving in there is contributing to society - which to be frank is laughable.

While I agree it's silly to say it does nothing for society, the average poor person puts 100% back into the economy - many high earns hoard wealth & invest is aboard.

Besides, they don't actually loan out the cash which is deposited.....

I'd like to put forward that somebody who inherits a vast amount of wealth (they didn't earn) & lives off the interest of money in a bank is a true parasite.

 

[realBabelfish]

Socialism - dangerous.

same with capitalism though.

we need peopleism or humanism but people are generally too selfish.

the UK contribute more to charity per head than any other country.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

If you only include the benefits they personally receive yes - but if you take into account how much they utilise the benefits of society & then the fact they only get rich by paying people less for the work they do than it's market value then no - not at all.

I don't understand what this 'how much they utilise the benefits of society' thing. The rich use public services less than the non-rich.

 

[realBabelfish]

Where's that great Youtube video about that very thing?

anyone who hasnt seen it needs to watch the movie 'idiocracy', it sums it up nicely and is pretty funny too

 

[TJM]

Which is prett much your problem. You struggle to see other points of view. I find the "My view is correct, anyone who disagrees with me must be brainwashed." sort of arrogance somewhat amusing.

If anyone can give me a rational argument in favour of treating the upper classes even more favourably than they are already and support it with evidence (not Evening Standard editorials about bankers supposedly running for their lives or 'common sense'), I'll listen. Until then, the history of industrial relations and the government's incestuous relationship with big business speak for themselves. This country has never been run for the people's benefit and a few crumbs from the table haven't changed that.

The rich pay many many times more in taxes than they receive is services back. Someone on benefits pays nothing for what they recieve.

You're missing my point. The rich can and should pay more taxes because they've made their fortunes on society's back (the publicly educated workforce, the roads to transport goods, etc). They get more out of society in a year than a person on benefits will in their entire life.

 

[realBabelfish]

No they don't, the rich invest their money in one way or other, either by banking it, allowing banks to loan money to individuals or businesses, or by investing in companies one way or another.

To say that the riches money does nothing for society is so wide of the mark it's unbelievable.

swiss bank accounts? off shoring your cash... of course this doesnt happen at all and i just made it up.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

swiss bank accounts? off shoring your cash... of course this doesnt happen at all and i just made it up.

Do you even know how this works? Please explain.

 

[Jokester]

If you only include the benefits they personally receive yes - but if you take into account how much they utilise the benefits of society & then the fact they only get rich by paying people less for the work they do than it's market value then no - not at all.

How can you pay less than market value, what ever you pay is market value if someone is willing to take it!

The rich providing work for those well off is another benefit that they provide to society.

You seem to think that somebody putting money into a bank account & leaving in there is contributing to society - which to be frank is laughable.

You don't know what you're talking about here. If the banks didn't have money, they couldn't lend and in turn the poorer in society couldn't then borrow money to buy houses or setup a business if they choose to. It's ignorance to suggest otherwise.

While I agree it's silly to say it does nothing for society, the average poor person puts 100% back into the economy - many high earns hoard wealth & invest is aboard.

The average poor person puts 100% back into the economy? It's no different to a rich person! A poor person buys a Sony TV, where does some of that money go? Abroad. To suggest that poor peoples money is somehow ringfenced to within the UK only is disengenuous.

I'd like to put forward that somebody who inherits a vast amount of wealth (they didn't earn) & lives off the interest of money in a bank is a true parasite.

You're wrong. It really is as simple as that. The interest represents the reward for providing the money for the bank to use in it's activities. That money is then being actively used in the economy for the benefit of society.

The only parasites would be people who stuff cash under their bed where it's of no use to no one.

 

[kwerk]

isn't that called VAT and don't we already pay 20% or are you suggesting we slap another 25% on top of that ?

I'm saying we get rid of all taxes and just have 1 sales tax at 25%. A consumption tax. Then limit the government to never run a deficit except in times of war. Spending can never exceed revenue.

All the government should be doing is building infrastructure, minting currency and protecting property rights (defense/police). That's ALL they are supposed to do - maintain an efficient scaffolding for private enterprise to operate on.

 

[D.P.]

because my son will be the one working to pay your (and my) pension at a later date. he will pay much more in taxes than he will cost the state.

i agree chavs with 5 or 6 kids shouldnt be rewarded for having kids but children are our future in more ways than you seem to think.

Actually your son won't because I have invested in private pensions and I doubt I will ever be elegible for a uk public pension since I doubt I will ever work I country with such high taxes.

 

[anything I don't mind]

There is no fair level of taxation, taxation is theft.

More info

 

[realBabelfish]

Do you even know how this works? Please explain.

google it. im not wealthy so i dont need to know the intricacies. but i know people can be paid via them to avoid tax. see half of the government and a lot of very wealthy people.

 

[kwerk]

Anyone who expects to get a pension, even most private ones is smoking crack.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I advocate making taxation voluntary, some people say that taxation by its definition could not be voluntary because then it would not be taxation. But I still advocate making what we call taxation, voluntary. Specifically the income tax and the national insurance and council tax. If they were voluntary and people who opted out could not receive all the wonderful government services that you get from paying taxes, but could still pay individually for such a service directly if desired. This would introduce the necessary incentives that could increase the value for money that we see from government services. At the same time open up the markets that the government monopolies to private competition and allow people who want to use another type of rubbish collection for example to do so. This way the people that want government can continue on as normal but the people that don't want it, like me, can save 30% of their salary a year.

The government has many revenue streams, admittedly making income tax, national insurance and council tax voluntary would reduce their revenue substantially, however demand for their goods and services would also decrease. This will also introduce the right mechanisms and incentives that will allow for the government to more appropriately allocate resources.

 

[Jokester]

google it. im not wealthy so i dont need to know the intricacies. but i know people can be paid via them to avoid tax. see half of the government and a lot of very wealthy people.

I think his suggestion was that perhaps you should find out about it, since it's apparent you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Woden]

I'm saying we get rid of all taxes and just have 1 sales tax at 25%. A consumption tax. Then limit the government to never run a deficit except in times of war. Spending can never exceed revenue.

All the government should be doing is building infrastructure, minting currency and protecting property rights (defense/police). That's ALL they are supposed to do - maintain an efficient scaffolding for private enterprise to operate on.

So no education, no healthcare, no regulation?

 

[kwerk]

the UK contribute more to charity per head than any other country.

I don't think that's true. What's your source?

Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations. But why?

The Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project at the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies compiled a ranking of private philanthropy in 36 countries from 1995 to 2002. Based on giving alone, the U.S. comes first, giving 1.85% of GDP, followed by Israel at 1.34% and Canada at 1.17%. But based on volunteerism alone, the Netherlands comes first, followed by Sweden and then the U.S.

One fact, though, does stand out: Among developed nations, those with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets tend to have lower rates of giving. In charitable giving as a percentage of GDP, nations with cradle-to-grave welfare systems rank far down the Johns Hopkins list: Sweden 18th, France 21st, Germany 32nd.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html

 

[D.P.]

google it. im not wealthy so i dont need to know the intricacies. but i know people can be paid via them to avoid tax. see half of the government and a lot of very wealthy people.

So ctually, you don't understand and are just making things up?