Surrey to hold a referendum...

Haggisman said:
I actually agree with flat rate guy, let's put taxes at, say 60%... With the proviso that the personal allowance is increased so that someone on an average salary (let's say £25k) ends up taking home the same as they do currently.

Low earners who can't really afford it pay no tax, those earning above average pay more than they do currently, "society isn't my responsibility guy" is happy and can no longer moan about progressive taxes punishing the more fortunate
Click to expand...

Way to spectacularly miss the point. Flat rate of 30% and no more. 60% indeed - LMAO. No :p
 
George Hincapie said:
What socialist nonsense. Just because the rich can afford it doesn't mean they are a well to be tapped. They are already paying an unfair percentage of tax because we don't have flat tax.
Click to expand...

Not sure how having a view on something which would result in ME being taxed more makes me a socialist. Especially given I supported the cut to working tax credits (which could have been used towards centrally funding social care).
 
a lot of life noobz in this thread

the Rich already pay most of the tax in the country, the issue is at the demand side. If you are bothered about companies bypassing tax laws then stop buying stuff off Amazon :)
 
George Hincapie said:
Way to spectacularly miss the point. Flat rate of 30% and no more. 60% indeed - LMAO. No :p
Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point at all. We need to raise £x amount of tax, therefore the rate needs to be set at a level which raises that amount. To suggest a ridiculously low rate which would almost certainly leave a huge deficit is purely fantasist, and if you're going down that route, then you might as well suggest that we lower taxes to the rate that everyone would prefer, 0%. :rolleyes:
 
George Hincapie said:
Way to spectacularly miss the point. Flat rate of 30% and no more. 60% indeed - LMAO. No :p
Click to expand...

Where is the rest of the money going to come from?

30% flat income tax wont even cover two thirds of what is paid in income tax and national insurance, let alone what is paid in council tax and does not even take into consideration that the tax we pay now in total is not enough to meet the current spending.

Your 30% flat tax is a dream.
 
Social care is amazingly important. It is not just the elderly that the social care budget pays for but it also pays for children in unfortunate circumstances and people with physical and mental disabilities. It would be a sad day indeed if the British people (well in this case the people of Surrey where I live) forgot about helping the poor and the needy.

This has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with basic human kindness.
 
wouldve been interesting to see what the public vote said.

they were talking about it on local radio yesterday and followed it with a piece on a chap who had to sell his home to help pay for £400k of care over 8 years for his wife who had dementia among other issues.

it's crazy that people have to get to the point of giving up their homes.
 
Avenged7Fold;30483376 said:
I dont think many are arguing against social care, just the method of taxation used to obtain these funds.
Click to expand...

I'm more in favour of a system where we do NOT simply tax the rich and use it to pay for services for the poor but instead we have a system where people are brought up in a society where if they notice that their neighbour or friend is in need they help them out. That way the controversial issue of taxation is reduced. People who need help are still helped.

That way government wouldn't need to spend tax payers money on the poor as society itself would help out the needy without the need for central government to do it for them. That would also lead to a smaller government with less powers which I believe would please the conservatives seeing as that is what they seem to want.

The choice is simple. Either the government helps people through taxation or the people help people without any government intervention. In the end someone needs to help these people. It is just a choice of who you want to do the helping.
 
You can certainly make an argument that the cost of care needs to be looked at as much as the funding. Seeing the cost of care can be eye-watering and i cant help but think that better spending could be made to keep the same level of care for far less.

@Cromulent

With the attitude people have on tax, i doubt you will be able to have a society function on a donate and lend a hand system.
 
Avenged7Fold;30483432 said:
@Cromulent

With the attitude people have on tax, i doubt you will be able to have a society function on a donate and lend a hand system.
Click to expand...

Sad but probably true. People are just selfish it seems.
 
Cromulent said:
I'm more in favour of a system where we do NOT simply tax the rich and use it to pay for services for the poor but instead we have a system where people are brought up in a society where if they notice that their neighbour or friend is in need they help them out. That way the controversial issue of taxation is reduced. People who need help are still helped.

That way government wouldn't need to spend tax payers money on the poor as society itself would help out the needy without the need for central government to do it for them. That would also lead to a smaller government with less powers which I believe would please the conservatives seeing as that is what they seem to want.

The choice is simple. Either the government helps people through taxation or the people help people without any government intervention. In the end someone needs to help these people. It is just a choice of who you want to do the helping.
Click to expand...

Well that proposal is very inefficient and results in varying degrees of assistance purely as a function of who your neighbours are. Frankly why should I be *that* altruistic to one person over another on the basis of the proximity of their dwelling to mine? If I'm contributing thousands towards society I think I'd rather it get collected centrally and dished out to the NHS, Social services etc.. to administer appropriately on the basis of need.
 
dowie said:
Well that proposal is very inefficient and results in varying degrees of assistance purely as a function of who your neighbours are. Frankly why should I be *that* altruistic to one person over another on the basis of the proximity of their dwelling to mine? If I'm contributing thousands towards society I think I'd rather it get collected centrally and dished out to the NHS, Social services etc.. to administer appropriately on the basis of need.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but then if that is what you want can't turn around and then start complaining about "scroungers". It is actually pretty hard to get on benefits in this country and to keep them. I'm not saying that some people don't break the law. There will always be some people that try and exploit the system but if you believed the Daily Mail you'd think that everyone is on the scrounge and that just isn't true.
 
Cromulent said:
Fair enough but then if that is what you want can't turn around and then start complaining about "scroungers". It is actually pretty hard to get on benefits in this country and to keep them. I'm not saying that some people don't break the law. There will always be some people that try and exploit the system but if you believed the Daily Mail you'd think that everyone is on the scrounge and that just isn't true.
Click to expand...

Believing in taxation doesn't preclude someone form having opinions about how social security funds should be distributed.
 
dowie said:
Believing in taxation doesn't preclude someone form having opinions about how social security funds should be distributed.
Click to expand...

No. I guess it doesn't. But I was trying to get across the idea that unlike what the popular press would have you believe the country is not full of benefit scroungers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom