'Rich Privilege'

[drakioned]

They don't.

You've been nicely brainwashed by the media, there's a few very rich people who pay a lower percentage. that is not the norm most people you consider to be rich, are payee just like us and can't not pay less.
And there's plenty of self employed/contractors who pay less tax percentage than payee people as well.

I don't think that's the story the media is reporting. I think the media is more interested in telling me about scroungers on benefits or Romanians with a crime wave.

And I agree, I know a lot of contractors who pay less tax via personal service companies. That is a problem with the tax system too...

 

[Mynight]

Dividends have already had the Tax paid on them (corporation tax). Tax will be due if your are a higher rate tax payer.

Companies pay corporation tax on profits. Dividends are paid from the profits that have already been taxed

Knew I screwed up somewhere .

 

[cheesyboy]

And how does screwing over the wealthy help these kids have more optunitities?
It doesn't at all.

Education is already free. Further education is already advisable to everyone.
The biggest issue, is parenting and that is much harder to solve, as kids are around parents much mire than other influences.

And no in no way does it lead to uncontrolled deployment. That would require, removing all planning permission and restrictions.

Well, Tory Government is proposing to lower education budget (in real terms) whilst protecting things like Inheritance tax thresholds.

That's the opposite of creating a more meritocratic playing field right there.

 

[Glaucus]

Well, Tory Government is proposing to lower education budget (in real terms) whilst protecting things like Inheritance tax thresholds.

That's the opposite of creating a more meritocratic playing field right there.

How? Inheritance tax has sod all to do with it.
And torys aren't good either. No political party is good, as they are all based on 4/5years and popularity vote. If they weren't popular they wouldn't get in.

Which is why you need a constitution to force things on governments and remove some off the popularity vote.

 

[cheesyboy]

How? Inheritance tax has sod all to do with it.
And torys aren't good either. No political party is good, as they are all based on 4/5years and popularity vote. If they weren't popular they wouldn't get in.

Which is why you need a constitution to force things on governments and remove some off the popularity vote.

I've made my IHT points in the IHT thread, I'll not sully this fine discussion with more of the same

Agree, in principle, with your 2nd point. Fear any such constitution would be drawn up under populist demands ahead of reasoned thinking , though.

 

[Clipsey]

And more importantly how do you solve the issues, that question leads to sensible policy, not a populist vote of punishing the rich. which ultimately would just increase tax revenue, and not actually achieve anything.

Exactly, people (the mass) wouldn't vote for that re-structure, but they will vote for taking down people better off than themselves.

Wish, they'd just get a grip of these large corporations and bring them down a level or two. These are entities that should have the most 'social responsibility'

 

[Glaucus]

I've made my IHT points in the IHT thread, I'll not sully this fine discussion with more of the same

Agree, in principle, with your 2nd point. Fear any such constitution would be drawn up under populist demands ahead of reasoned thinking , though.

And it makes no sense. Giving everyone ample opportunities, has absolutely ZERO to do with hoe much others have. It really is an poi ion no one can argue as it simply isn't true.
People having more money, in no way impact what opportunities you have. Taking money off them, in no way improves you opportunities.

Having free education, which we have improves your opportunities. Having some sort of system that identifies arse hole parents and then trys to help the kids, helps their opportunities. No one single solution of getting money off the rich creates these opportunities.

 

[cheesyboy]

And it makes no sense. Giving everyone ample opportunities, has absolutely ZERO to do with hoe much others have. It really is an poi ion no one can argue as it simply isn't true.
People having more money, in no way impact what opportunities you have. Taking money off them, in no way improves you opportunities.

Having free education, which we have improves your opportunities. Having some sort of system that identifies arse hole parents and then trys to help the kids, helps their opportunities. No one single solution of getting money off the rich creates these opportunities.

There's a reason most entrepreneurship has its roots in the middle classes. The reassurance of familial wealth as a back-stop allows for more risky decisions. It also allows a more long-term approach to money, and a greater incentive where your hard work and achievements are not undermined by more idle contemporaries being able to achieve the same result due to being propped up by unearned wealth (obtained from familial sources) which you weren't lucky enough to have (as for the poor)

 

[Glaucus]

There's a reason most entrepreneurship has its roots in the middle classes. The reassurance of familial wealth as a back-stop allows for more risky decisions. It also allows a more long-term approach to money, and a greater incentive where your hard work and achievements are not undermined by more idle contemporaries being able to achieve the same result due to being propped up by unearned wealth (obtained from familial sources) which you weren't lucky enough to have (as for the poor)

You like regurgitating nonsense you've read else where don't you.
And your point is?
How does removing such security help society? Hint it doesn't.
How does it help poor bank ground people have more opportunities? Again it doesn't,


This is the problem with such thinking. It's all waffle, that is only based with pulling the better off down. It is not based on what would actually help society. It is just total nonsense.

 

[Zethor]

They don't.

You've been nicely brainwashed by the media, there's a few very rich people who pay a lower percentage. that is not the norm most people you consider to be rich, are payee just like us and can't not pay less.
And there's plenty of self employed/contractors who pay less tax percentage than payee people as well.

This depends on how you measure it. As a percentage of income, the poor generally pay much higher taxes than the rich.

And it makes no sense. Giving everyone ample opportunities, has absolutely ZERO to do with hoe much others have. It really is an poi ion no one can argue as it simply isn't true.
People having more money, in no way impact what opportunities you have. Taking money off them, in no way improves you opportunities.

Just to clarify your stance, are you saying income inequality is not related to opportunity?

Having free education, which we have improves your opportunities. Having some sort of system that identifies arse hole parents and then trys to help the kids, helps their opportunities. No one single solution of getting money off the rich creates these opportunities.

Just free education? Would free healthcare help increase oppotunities? How about free long distance transport?

 

[Judgeneo]

There is more to this than has been mentioned, I've been giving it some thought recently.

I'm from a relatively poor background, as both my parents worked part time in fairly low income jobs as they needed lots of time at home because of my brothers autism. My parents are great and supportive, and so my brother is now at university and doing much better now that he is outside of state support/control, and I have been to university and am earning a decent salary (not yet what is described here as rich).

If i look at my peers in the workplace and university, a great many came from what would be described by people here, and labour, as privileged. Would they be able to achieve what they had if they had come from a similar background to me? Some would, I think that most would not. Would others from poorer backgrounds be able to effectively fill the places they leave? Some would, but I think most would not.

The removal of "rich privilege" will mean a loss of talent from our workforce, that would require a huge amount of state support to our best and brightest to overcome. And no government willing to heavily tax inheritance and wealth is willing to support the abled in the way the rich support their own, and for that reason, I think it is a terrible idea.

People are not all equal, and the brightest need environments that enable them to push themselves further beyond others. Wealth transfer through families is not a fair way of giving the best support to the bright and/or willing, but as it stands, there is no other option on the table.

 

[balky12]

Just to clarify your stance, are you saying income inequality is not related to opportunity?

I think the point 'Taking money off them, in no way improves you opportunities. ' he makes is true.

No matter how much money you tax someone, your opportunities will not change. In fact your life will not change. You stil lstill have the same house, job, car.

 

[Glaucus]

Just free education? ?

Off course not only free education, there's lots of things that increase opportunities, I'm not going to list all off them. However there's a common them, not one person who days tax the rich more, has actually posted anything which would increase the opportunities of the less well off.

Oh and I'm all for increased tax revenue for free trains and buses for everyone.

And no my point isn't that better off don't have more opportunities. It's that tax them more, in no way helps the opportunities off the worse off. It can't and you know it. Government with more money in no way helps give opportunities.

It is also impossible to remove most opportunities from the well off and why would you want to remove their opportunities, all that would achieve would be to reduce the economy, meaning less money for everyone.

As for percentage tax it's also pretty meaningless.as better off can invest money, which is absolutely nessercery and something no one should want to reduce.

However there are stuff you can do. You can stop the loop holes for those not on payee system.
You can have zero rate tax on essentials like utilities/food.

Again nothing you have said would actually help opportunities for people. Your just taxing people more for no reason.

 

[swinchester]

I gotta be honest I skipped most of the thread because all I could hear is:

"Mummy and daddy gave me money and paid for my education and paid towards my mortgage and I have such a hard life boo hoo"

A house and education are the hardest things to pay for in life, anyone who has this benefit of mummy and daddys money can never say that worked hard for what they have and deserve to pay more than someone who hasn't had this luxury.

I find it laughable that anyone can consider themselves to have worked hard if you have had a massive head start in life!

Why should you pay more? because people who don't have access to mummy and daddy's bank account don't have this luxury of "choice" so neither should you.

rant over.

 

[Mynight]

If your mommy and daddy worked they helped pay for your education if you squandered it then well that's on you.

If you walk out with all As you've worked hard.

You can still work hard and be given a hand. Admittedly it's not as satisfying as doing it on your own but sometimes that's just not possible.

 

[arknor]

I gotta be honest I skipped most of the thread because all I could hear is:

"Mummy and daddy gave me money and paid for my education and paid towards my mortgage and I have such a hard life boo hoo"

A house and education are the hardest things to pay for in life, anyone who has this benefit of mummy and daddys money can never say that worked hard for what they have and deserve to pay more than someone who hasn't had this luxury.

I find it laughable that anyone can consider themselves to have worked hard if you have had a massive head start in life!

compared to most people in the world everyone on this forum had a head start in life.

doesn't feel like it though does it because it's all relative

The average wealth in the world per person is probably something tiny like £1,400

 

[cheesyboy]

You like regurgitating nonsense you've read else where don't you.
And your point is?
How does removing such security help society? Hint it doesn't.
How does it help poor bank ground people have more opportunities? Again it doesn't,


This is the problem with such thinking. It's all waffle, that is only based with pulling the better off down. It is not based on what would actually help society. It is just total nonsense.

I believe we're arguing on slightly different lines here.

I'm not of the camp who would see the wealthy taxed to the hilt (I see a death tax like IHT differently to lifetime taxes). My position is that more (a lot more) should be done to provide a platform of opportunity to those who are slipping through the net at present - whilst recognising and learning from the reasons others (such as the middle classes and entrepreneurship I mentioned) are able to be successful.

We, as society, put a lot of blame on the poor for being poor without accepting the structural reasons they may be so, and planning on how to invest to improve the productivity of that section of society.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

The state and British Aerospace paid for my education and my folks gave me sweet FA towards my first home.

Do I get to leave money to my kids now?

 

[Mynight]

The state and British Aerospace paid for my education and my folks gave me sweet FA towards my first home.

Do I get to leave money to my kids now?

NO!

 

[Glaucus]

But that tax achieves nothing and it's an absolutely horrible tax which isn't needed, not while their is so many areas we can close loop holes, streamline government spending, boost the economy etc, but no lets go straight for the populist tax and not actually implement any solutions. It in no way increases opportunities.

And at the same time we put an awful lot of blame in the rich, which is madness.

And it comes back to populist vote. People aren't interested in solutions. They are only interested in trying to screw someone else over.