I've made similar arguments in the past, as there is an inefficiency in paying people money from taxation then taxing it, however the question always has to be which option is less efficient to implement between running two different taxation setups vs collection losses on one.
"Don't expect sympathy" – everyone to Lagarde
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
I've made similar arguments in the past, as there is an inefficiency in paying people money from taxation then taxing it, however the question always has to be which option is less efficient to implement between running two different taxation setups vs collection losses on one.
It's jealousy of those who have achieved more than he has. Simple as that. They have nice things, through luck or hard work, he has none through neither, therefore he is obliged to hate them.
interestingly that's something the Right wing posters on the forum have been saying for quite some time as it's more efficient than giving them more then taking some back and having to spend money to do it.
probably about 6 figures... at least
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
I even don't have a problem with people who have inherited a load of wealth running the country, as long as they're reasonable at it. It should be based on merit, and it is not unintuitive that if we have a government of people who have risen largely on their merit, they will attract more wealth than most people.
You'd be burned alive for saying someone is too poor a background or not posh enough to be in the cabinet, why is it fair game when it is the opposite case?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You wouldn't need to run two though, just one. You just wouldn't apply it to Public Sector workers.
I think the real reason is ideological, because if they didn't pay tax they wouldn't be able to say "we're tax payers too" when someone on Question Time refers to private sector workers as 'tax payers'.
Because it's popular at the moment to bash the right wing, and bash the upper classes for having more than an average amount of wealth. Didn't you get the memo?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
When a public sector worker gets 'paid', the government instructs the BoE to credit the account of the public sector worker. That money is created at receipt. The debit in the BoE's balance is then filled using money raised from gilts. The government then taxes the public sector worker, and indirectly has credited itself with x% of whatever they raised through gilts.
It therefore has to be more efficient to not do any of that, and for the exchequer to simply credit itself whatever it intended to raise from taxing public sector workers, and not charge the public sector worker tax.
I'm not sure why they don't do that, however.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
I tend to be 'right wing' averse, and I wouldn't hardly any of our MPs 'upper class'.Because it's popular at the moment to bash the right wing, and bash the upper classes for having more than an average amount of wealth. Didn't you get the memo?
I was referring to it as more of a general trend at the moment, rather than at any specific MP(s). It just seems its far more acceptable to have a go at those who are better off, but never the other way around. Doesn't sound that strange at first, but interesting to turn the situation on it's head nonetheless.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,818
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
The English has always have a go at those who are better off. Whereas the American would celebrate it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
In the UK we tend to think of the "Haves and Have Nots", in the US they like to think of the "Haves And Soon To Haves".
But both mentalities have their pros and cons.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Fair point.
I would have to agree that New Labour (because that is what we are talking about) doesn't represent the poor and that many senior New Labour MPs are rich, public school educated Oxbridge graduates who have no practical experience of being forced to live a hand-to-mouth existence . . . although I don't think any of them went to Eton did they?
The execrable New Labour architect Blair went to Fettes which is I believe the Scottish equivalent of Eton
David Cameron has held one job outside the Tory party in his entire life and it was arranged for him by his mother-in-law. If your family doesn't have money, you can't spend summers interning in MP's offices and years on rubbish pay doing donkey work for the party. The political elite are, with a few exceptions, born into the economic elite, which doesn't require any particular talent or effort.
Anyone born into poverty would have a mountain to climb before they could reach the point that almost all senior politicians start from, so having a Cabinet of 'successful' sorts means it will be dominated by the children of upper-middle class and upper class families, which will shape their policies. State schools? Screw em, my kids are going private. NHS? Snort, I've got BUPA. Pasty tax? I've never been into a Greggs.
Chavs, gypsies and anyone else who isn't middle class are ridiculed in the media every day.
The 'American Dream' has no grounding in reality; the US has the second worst social mobility in the developed world (second only to guess where!)
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,566
I am an withholding tax expert. This "tax exemption" is perfectly normal for The UN. The convention can be found below. Its called CONVENTION
ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS. It's worth noting that this convention also exempts agencies such a the world food programe, UNRWA and the world health organisation from all taxes. This is a good thing.
http://www.undp.org.vn/digitalAssets/27/27318_UN_Convention_on_Priviledges_and_Immunities.pdf
ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS. It's worth noting that this convention also exempts agencies such a the world food programe, UNRWA and the world health organisation from all taxes. This is a good thing.
http://www.undp.org.vn/digitalAssets/27/27318_UN_Convention_on_Priviledges_and_Immunities.pdf
To be fair to the OP.
If you are going to berate a nation for not paying much tax, it help if it comes from somebody who actually pays tax.
The legality was not bought into question, just the hypocrisy of it.
I'll let you all masturbate each other over this "victory against the left" in peace.
If you are going to berate a nation for not paying much tax, it help if it comes from somebody who actually pays tax.
The legality was not bought into question, just the hypocrisy of it.
I'll let you all masturbate each other over this "victory against the left" in peace.
To be fair to the OP.
If you are going to berate a nation for not paying much tax, it help if it comes from somebody who actually pays tax.
The legality was not bought into question, just the hypocrisy of it.
I'll let you all masturbate each other over this "victory against the left" in peace.
Does the fact that Lagarde worked as a lawyer in a top firm for 23 years, then for 6 years as a minister make any difference to you? Does the fact that she's probably actually paid more tax working in those roles than most people berating her in this thread have change your mind?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 1,038
He who pays the piper