'Rich Privilege'

[balky12]

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.

Hence politics of envy.

 

[Zethor]

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.

I don't care about myself in this context, it's certain principles that interest me, such as the principle of equality.

Off course not only free education, there's lots of things that increase opportunities, I'm not going to list all off them.

And no my point isn't that better off 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.

You admit that free things such as free education do increase oppotunities so let me ask what entity other than the state can pay for those free things? If the government uses the extra money for the things which increase oppotunities, wouldn't they logically increase?

The rich are indeed much better at investing money so, hypothetically speaking, the richer the rich, the better their investments. Do you agree with this statement?

 

[arknor]

But that tax achieves nothing. 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.

rich got richer during a recession , middle class and lower class got poorer.

Wealth trickles up from the poor to the rich and stays there and has been this way for decades now which lead to the huge imbalance of wealth.

obviously it can't stay this way forever or eventually the rich will have everything unless the poor take some back by force.

when people talk about the rich they aren't talking about people with a few million which isn't exactly rich now days

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04xw2x8/the-superrich-and-us-episode-1

 

[mattyg]

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.

Slightly off topic pal.
But what industry do you work in. What is your background. I only ask because I don't think I've read a post of yours that I've thought WTF. I'm sure if I went looking I may find one but you stand out as.... sensible for want of a better world.


Nohomo

 

[Spook187]

The rich are indeed much better at investing money so, hypothetically speaking, the richer the rich, the better their investments. Do you agree with this statement?

And i bet they lose a lot more due to greed.

 

[Glaucus]

I You admit that free things such as free education do increase oppotunities so let me ask what entity other than the state can pay for those free things? If the government uses the extra money for the things which increase oppotunities, wouldn't they logically increase?

The rich are much better at investing money, yes so, hypothetically speaking, the richer the rich, the better their investments. Do you agree with this statement?

And why does the money need to come from such a tax? It doesn't. There's lots of ways to generate money and spend less.
Such a tax is in no way sensible.
Why do you think such a tax is a good idea? Lots of rich people are on payee and as such can't avoid tax and pay plenty, why pay even more when they are dead? What's fair with that?

For a start I would close loop holes. I would get rid of TVL and fund it from general tax, think how much money in enforcement and courts time would be saved and thus a huge cost saving.
Scrap vehicle license, it's such a pointless thing. Put it on fuel. Not only is it much simpler to collect and thus save money through issuing/enforcement. Anyone based abroad would pay it when they come to the UK.

There's loads of things like that, that can be done. Before such a tax should even be considered.

Why have you jumped to such a tax? come on what's the reason behind it?
Is it you jumped straight there for one specific reason, I think so.

 

[Glaucus]

Slightly off topic pal.
But what industry do you work in. What is your background. I only ask because I don't think I've read a post of yours that I've thought WTF. I'm sure if I went looking I may find one but you stand out as.... sensible for want of a better world.


Nohomo

Most of the forum would disagree with you there.
And manual labour.

 

[mattyg]

rich got richer during a recession , middle class and lower class got poorer.

Wealth trickles up from the poor to the rich and stays there and has been this way for decades now which lead to the huge imbalance of wealth.

obviously it can't stay this way forever or eventually the rich will have everything unless the poor take some back by force.

when people talk about the rich they aren't talking about people with a few million which isn't exactly rich now days

How did the rich get rich in the first place. I'm sure we all started out as poor in the beginning.

I'm sure if you go right back in time. The first rich person was the one that worked either the hardest, The smartest or both

 

[robgmun]

I don't give a toss if the rich got richer, i don't even class my self as middle class, i'm from a working class background and the last 5 years have been great for me.

 

[Glaucus]

.

when people talk about the rich they aren't talking about people with a few million which isn't exactly rich now days
l]

That is exactly what people are talking about, when in actual fact you are right it only applies to a top small proportion who can avoid tax perfectly legally.

Despite the rich getting richer, everyone's standard of life has also been improving, so again it doesn't actually matter.
The rich also invest which helps the economy, it helps people start company, it helps established companies get cash injections etc.
Without the rich investing, the economy would be far worse and everyone standard off living would drop.

 

[cheesyboy]

And why does the money need to come from such a tax? It doesn't. There's lots of ways to generate money and spend less.
Such a tax is in no way sensible.
Why do you think such a tax is a good idea? Lots of rich people are on payee and as such can't avoid tax and pay plenty, why pay even more when they are dead? What's fair with that?

For a start I would close loop holes. I would get rid of TVL and fund it from general tax, think how much money in enforcement and courts time would be saved and thus a huge cost saving.
Scrap vehicle license, it's such a pointless thing. Put it on fuel. Not only is it much simpler to collect and thus save money through issuing/enforcement. Anyone based abroad would pay it when they come to the UK.

There's loads of things like that, that can be done. Before such a tax should even be considered.

Why have you jumped to such a tax? come on what's the reason behind it?
Is it you jumped straight there for one specific reason, I think so.

Wealth passing between generations is inherently non-meritocratic: it is money unearned by the recipient. As such, it strikes me as a very fair source of tax revenue, one which does not ordinarily add hardship to anyone. As an alternative to just about any other form of tax, it seems preferable.

 

[Glaucus]

Wealth passing between generations is inherently non-meritocratic: it is money unearned by the recipient. As such, it strikes me as a very fair source of tax revenue, one which does not ordinarily add hardship to anyone. As an alternative to just about any other form of tax, it seems preferable.

Again you haven't said why, or given any suggestions how to improve opportunities. Yet again. You go this system is better and tax the rich.

 

[cheesyboy]

Again you haven't said why, or given any suggestions how to improve opportunities. Yet again. You go this system is better and tax the rich.

I said why when I said "Wealth passing between generations is inherently non-meritocratic: it is money unearned by the recipient" and "it strikes me as a very fair source of tax revenue, one which does not ordinarily add hardship to anyone".

You must have missed it.

 

[Richdog]

Hmm, I wonder why it is that being accused of "rich privilege" generally seems to come from the poor and uneducated...

 

[Mynight]

Good name .

 

[cheesyboy]

Hmm, I wonder why it is that being accused of "rich privilege" generally seems to come from the poor and uneducated...

I wonder why idiots keep repeating the same mistaken logic.

 

[Glaucus]

I said why when I said "Wealth passing between generations is inherently non-meritocratic: it is money unearned by the recipient" and "it strikes me as a very fair source of tax revenue, one which does not ordinarily add hardship to anyone".

You must have missed it.

This isn't a why. This isn't showing how it helps, or what it achieves. This is just going because I'm right.

Even taking 100% of inheritance how does this help the poor? How does this give them mire opportunities?

Do you give everyone a mind wipe, in case they get opponuties from contacts?
Do you stop poor people having the initiate to go make contacts, as it's unfair for people who don't?

 

[arknor]

That is exactly what people are talking about, when in actual fact you are right it only applies to a top small proportion who can avoid tax perfectly legally.

Despite the rich getting richer, everyone's standard of life has also been improving, so again it doesn't actually matter.
The rich also invest which helps the economy, it helps people start company, it helps established companies get cash injections etc.
Without the rich investing, the economy would be far worse and everyone standard off living would drop.

it's america but still

How much money did apple make? and we've all seen the working conditions the people making their products have to suffer.how much profit do you need to make and how much wealth do you need to have before you decide to pay people a decent wage??

 

[Preto]

I don't care about myself in this context, it's certain principles that interest me, such as the principle of equality.

There is no equality in the world and never will be. It's quite obvious...

If everybody is rich, there is no rich (or poor) anymore.

You get free education and free care BECAUSE you pay a lot of taxes, insurance...etc.

Are you guys saying I can't leave anything to my kid(s) after I die and it's better for the state to have it?! To spend it on wars and drug programmes and other crap... ?!
Everything I earn in my life I want to leave it to my kids, and they will do the same for their kids...this is how life works...
Is the world going totally insane?!

 

[cheesyboy]

This isn't a why. This isn't showing how it helps, or what it achieves. This is just going because I'm right.

Even taking 100% of inheritance how does this help the poor? How does this give them mire opportunities?

Do you give everyone a mind wipe, in case they get opponuties from contacts?
Do you stop poor people having the initiate to go make contacts, as it's unfair for people who don't?

My point in that post was to state how I think that IHT is an extremely fair tax. Do you disagree?

We can argue on the effects on opportunity, but in itself do you not think IHT is a fair tax compared with most others - for the reasons I outlined?