Poll: Darling announces one-off shock tax to 'break bonus culture'

Do you think this is a good idea?

  • Yes

    Votes: 139 38.2%

  • No

    Votes: 173 47.5%

  • Not Sure

    Votes: 52 14.3%
  • Total voters
    364
AcidHell2 said:
You don't get the point. Why should everyone have the same % of disposable income. Why or why or why?
Click to expand...

Having the same % of disposible income doesnt mean everyone has the same pounds in there pockets, high earns will still have more money than low earners but the system would be a fairer one.
 
mattheman said:
Having the same % of disposible income doesnt mean everyone has the same pounds in there pockets, high earns will still have more money than low earners but the system would be a fairer one.
Click to expand...

Why is it fairer than 'You receive XYZ services, this will cost you £Y'?

Why should Person A receive the same service as Person B for half the price simply because Person B has acheived more?
 
[TW]Fox;15484679 said:
You have a choice over the size of property you chose to live in and thus the amount of council tax you pay.
Click to expand...

yes you do, you have a choice but the amount of money the local government tax from you will be the same if both a high wage earns and low wage earners live in the same property band. this would eliminate the issues with banding etc... it would be a flat rate of 5% for all.
 
mattheman said:
dont you understand what iam talking about?
a fix price for something that you have to pay means it hurts a low wage earner more than a high wage earner and it isnt equal.
It could be 20% of a low wage earns income in proprotion to his income, and 5% of a high wage earner income in propertion to his income.
Click to expand...

[Devil's Advocate]

Why? Just because I'm more intelligent, stayed in education longer, got a better job and work harder, why do I then have to subsidise stupid, lazy people? (More than I already am)

[/Devil's Advocate]
 
AcidHell2 said:
Yes, why is that bad? you earn less you have less to spend. there is nothing wrong with that. Not everyone is equal nor should they be.
Click to expand...

You seem to be getting off track and arguing about your own personal circumstances/aspirations and about high earners in general. I thought this thread was about whether people getting paid millions only a year after they drove the country to its knees should pay a (probably one-off) super tax on their bonuses. We aren't talking about real-world incomes (even of 100k) that a hard working aspiring shop manager might dream of, we're talking about millions of pounds.

People seem to be taking the whole thing in a bit of a vacuum. The proposed 'punishment' is a result of bad behaviour. Millions of other people have been punished and are still paying for it. Why shouldn't those partially responsible pay towards balancing the country's books?
 
mattheman said:
yes you do, you have a choice but the amount of money the local government tax from you will be the same if both a high wage earns and low wage earners live in the same property band. this would eliminate the issues with banding etc... it would be a flat rate of 5% for all.
Click to expand...

So what? Become a high earner if it bothers you*

*Just for context, I am not in the 40% tax band. I'd probably benefit in the future from your scheme. But I'm also not selfish and don't beleive in penalising those who have acheived to support those who have yet to do so. I'd love to have the levels of disposable income that higher earners have.

Therefore I intend to try my hardest to get to their position, not try and drag them down to mine.
 
[TW]Fox;15484695 said:
Why is it fairer than 'You receive XYZ services, this will cost you £Y'?

Why should Person A receive the same service as Person B for half the price simply because Person B has acheived more?
Click to expand...
Because Person A doesn't live in their own bubble, but something called a society, where both Person A and Person B live.

So because Person A can afford to do so, they contribute more to allow Person B access to a quality of services that they would otherwise be unable to afford, thus benefiting society overall and making it a better place for Person A and Person B to live in.

Socialism - it's not exactly rocket science :p
 
Burnsy2023 said:
[Devil's Advocate]

Why? Just because I'm more intelligent, stayed in education longer, got a better job and work harder, why do I then have to subsidise stupid, lazy people? (More than I already am)

[/Devil's Advocate]
Click to expand...

Well you have used a service that low wage earns kids will not use, so why do they have to pay for it? a 5% council tax eliminates all those issues i pay more i pay less i use less i use more.
 
mulpsmebeauty said:
You seem to be getting off track and arguing about your own personal circumstances/aspirations and about high earners in general. I thought this thread was about whether people getting paid millions only a year after they drove the country to its knees should pay a (probably one-off) super tax on their bonuses. We aren't talking about real-world incomes (even of 100k) that a hard working aspiring shop manager might dream of, we're talking about millions of pounds.
Click to expand...

The discussion like usual has moved away from just he OP. But even so it is still relevant. It is no more than a point scoring jealous vote grabber.

mulpsmebeauty said:
People seem to be taking the whole thing in a bit of a vacuum. The proposed 'punishment' is a result of bad behaviour. Millions of other people have been punished and are still paying for it. Why shouldn't those partially responsible pay towards balancing the country's books?
Click to expand...

What bad behaviour? they did what they where asked to do and are very good at it.
 
Rich_L said:
Because Person A doesn't live in their own bubble, but something called a society, where both Person A and Person B live.

So because Person A can afford to do so, they contribute more to allow Person B access to a quality of services that they would otherwise be unable to afford, thus benefiting society overall and making it a better place for Person A and Person B to live in.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, it promotes a society where Person B doesn't really need to do all that much, because his existence is largely subsidised by way of cheap access to services through Person A's hard work and dedication.

Socialism - oh dear?
 
VAT to 19% would be a better move. Would bring in far more than any of these income tax changes.
 
[TW]Fox;15484740 said:
Maybe they should use it, then they won't grow up to be somebody who has to post news stories on the internet constantly and find ways of moaning about high earners they wish they were?
Click to expand...

You just dont get it.
 
[TW]Fox;15484750 said:
Alternatively, it promotes a society where Person B doesn't really need to do all that much, because his existence is largely subsidised by way of cheap access to services through Person A's hard work and dedication.

Socialism - oh dear?
Click to expand...

but the person that works harder has more disposible money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom