So ehy should people who pay more than they take pay vadtley more than those that take more than they give?
After all if the upper end is paying thier fair share and themsome they have paid for the services theyve used
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
So ehy should people who pay more than they take pay vadtley more than those that take more than they give?
After all if the upper end is paying thier fair share and themsome they have paid for the services theyve used
If you're a CEO of a company, you benefit not just from using the roads yourself (example), but also from all your employees using the roads on your behalf.
This is the whole point. Nobody earns money in a vacuum. You benefit both directly and indirectly from public services and publicly owned infrastructure. Not just on a personal level, but your company benefits, your employees benefit as they go about their duties on your behalf.
On a personal level you might "pay more than your fair share", but you can't ignore the fact that public services and infrastructure are enabling you to do business, enabling your staff to work on your behalf, etc. In some cases, topping up your staff's wages because you refuse to pay a living wage
And helping them pay their rents because, again, you won't pay a living wage So you see nobody should look at this as "stealing money the rich deserve through their own hard work and effort". The rich rely on low-paid workers to provide them services, and to work for them. And those low-paid workers benefit from public services and infrastructure.
If by "handle brexit" you mean invite trump 2 days after inauguration to a full state visit then get a knock back from trump on trade, scramble to deal with former colonial contacts for deals to be told freedom of movement a priority before said deals, bluff the EU we will pay Nada then get in a shouting match about interfering with a UK election that you called, for fear of losing your slim majority due to a cps investigation into electoral fraud, if by that you mean handle then fine have your red white and blue brexit...
Inward investment is pixie dust now?
If you're a CEO of a company, you benefit not just from using the roads yourself (example), but also from all your employees using the roads on your behalf.
This is the whole point. Nobody earns money in a vacuum. You benefit both directly and indirectly from public services and publicly owned infrastructure. Not just on a personal level, but your company benefits, your employees benefit as they go about their duties on your behalf.
On a personal level you might "pay more than your fair share", but you can't ignore the fact that public services and infrastructure are enabling you to do business, enabling your staff to work on your behalf, etc. In some cases, topping up your staff's wages because you refuse to pay a living wage
So you see nobody should look at this as "stealing money the rich deserve through their own hard work and effort". The rich rely on low-paid workers to provide them services, and to work for them. And those low-paid workers benefit from public services and infrastructure.
So why do you not apply that argument to the bottom of society?
They simplly live off of othera but thats ok?
If you're a CEO of a company, you benefit not just from using the roads yourself (example), but also from all your employees using the roads on your behalf.
This is the whole point. Nobody earns money in a vacuum. You benefit both directly and indirectly from public services and publicly owned infrastructure. Not just on a personal level, but your company benefits, your employees benefit as they go about their duties on your behalf.
On a personal level you might "pay more than your fair share", but you can't ignore the fact that public services and infrastructure are enabling you to do business, enabling your staff to work on your behalf, etc. In some cases, topping up your staff's wages because you refuse to pay a living wage
So you see nobody should look at this as "stealing money the rich deserve through their own hard work and effort". The rich rely on low-paid workers to provide them services, and to work for them. And those low-paid workers benefit from public services and infrastructure.
The necessity of infrastructure and regulation is always played down by hard right economics. It is pretty much the thinking that gave us free market banking where debt products (made of pixie dust) nearly killed the whole system, it leads to no shared infrastructure or commons and would allow the sale of organs babies et all. Of course we need laws regulation and infrastructure and idiots who thought different to that cost us all so much 8 years ago you'd think they'd shut their mouths.
Amen. It doesn't matter how smart and hard-working you are, if you're born on a desert island, you're not going to become rich and successful.
This is largely impertinent to the immorality of taking someones money by force.
If you are nicking someones money it needs to be done only for the utmost essential services like the police and the military, not rail and postal services etc.
The cost to society of our government run institutions is enormous, so much money spent for no benefit, as someone who has worked for the council I have seen the wastage that comes with socialism first hand, it's horrifying.
Whose money, we the people of the UK decide how much of it is in circulation, it has value because we say so. There are rules and law, if individuals don't want to trade here under those terms they can leave or be arrested.
Frankly I'm not sure why we don't just agree to tax all transactions. Sell something or get paid and some goes to the UKs up keep. Offshore profit all you want....
You are taking the term money in the most literal sense, I am speaking of money as in assets, whether that be fiat currency or physical goods with real intrinsic value.
I'm not sure what you mean by whose money?
We already do tax transactions, it's called VAT and it's a pretty poor method of taxation really.
Socialism is at it's heart immoral. It is one group of people imposing their will on another, using force to obtain someone else's money because they think they know how to spend it better. It's not appropriate behavior for a civilized society.
I'm not sure what you mean by whose money?
We already do tax transactions, it's called VAT and it's a pretty poor method of taxation really.
Socialism is at it's heart immoral. It is one group of people imposing their will on another, using force to obtain someone else's money because they think they know how to spend it better. It's not appropriate behavior for a civilized society.
Last edited:
I'm afraid that much of the time this is the only way to get things done.
One simple example: BT will only upgrade the telco network where they deem it financially rewarding enough to do so. They won't put fibre in rural areas where it's "uneconomic".
Without the state using tax revenue to deliver services to these areas, they simply would be ignored.
So you have three options:
1. Do not interfere with the market, accept that people in rural areas have no service, because no private company wants to spend the money.
2. Use tax revenue to partner with the BT (etc) to make those areas viable (happened in Cornwall recently, we now have fibre which otherwise would not have been brought here).
3. Use legislation/ regulation to force BT (etc) to provide those services. This is also state interference, and will indirectly cost you money when BT raise their prices as a result.
You say that it's immoral to take money in taxation to spend it. It is demonstrably necessary in many places.
That's without getting into the "morality" of allowing corporations and powerful individuals to lobby for changes to the law, which conveniently benefit themselves to the detriment of others.
People should accept that the state can do things that the private sector cannot. And those things cost money.
Those people will not die without fibre broadband, good grief, if they choose to live in a rural area that's the fact of life, it is such a trifling matter that coercion cannot be justified to achieve that end.
The state can do things the private sector cannot, but only a handful of things like the military and police force.
It is a very bad thing for the government to be providing services in general as that gives them control over society.
Lobbying is a terrible thing, and it is what happens when you give the government this sort of control over infrastructure! It is exactly why we need a small government that does not have power that private companies can use to their ends.
The state can do things the private sector cannot, but only a handful of things like the military and police force.
It is a very bad thing for the government to be providing services in general as that gives them control over society.
Lobbying is a terrible thing, and it is what happens when you give the government this sort of control over infrastructure! It is exactly why we need a small government that does not have power that private companies can use to their ends.
The whole justice system is far more than just personal protection, private companies cannot provide an independent unbiased judicial system and police force that can enforce the countries laws.
I have no problem with private fire services. I think military is essential yes in the world we live in, whether it should be the size it is a totally separate discussion altogether!
I have no problem with private fire services. I think military is essential yes in the world we live in, whether it should be the size it is a totally separate discussion altogether!
(
Don't think you really appreciate what the poll question was. It asked whether an increased tax should be imposed for "moral reasons" even if it didn't raise any more money. I.e. these "peasants" you term people don't benefit in anyway. It's purely making other people poorer for no financial or service gain to them.
Don't think you really appreciate what the poll question was. It asked whether an increased tax should be imposed for "moral reasons" even if it didn't raise any more money. I.e. these "peasants" you term people don't benefit in anyway. It's purely making other people poorer for no financial or service gain to them.
Oh that's a good one, private fire service.
I'm assuming that you split the country into regions with their own franchises put out to tender. I'm assuming that a bidding company *has* to cover the whole of its franchise area, and cannot simply refuse to put out fires in areas that are "too expensive to service". By stipulating this, however, you are interfering with market forces and imposing "the will of others" via regulation. Because the "will of the company" will be to only service those areas that are most profitable, and let the extremely rural houses burn
Due to this interference the costs of the company will rise and thus the charge to the end user. This is a form of indirect taxation, no? Unless we choose to let some houses burn to keep costs down. Your call on that one.Now take an area with low population density and a large area to cover. Say, Cornwall. An area that also has very depressed wages.
You mentioned morality earlier. How "moral" is it to expect low-paid Cornish people to pay the most for their fire service? Or should we say to all these low-paid Cornish people that they should move to London. Leaving only retired people inhabiting Cornwall, and work-from-home types. So now there's no supermarket staff in Cornwall and no care workers, etc, because they couldn't afford the costs of the private fire service, private police force, private....
Or.... you could "immorally" tax the whole country, and use this shared tax burden to finance a country-wide police and fire service.
I'm not sure how you conclude that this is immoral. It just seems to make more sense than the alternatives.
We seem to be on the same side here, just a question of what is the bare essentials the government needs to provide.
I don't think you're going to convince me that private companies can provide a judicial system suitable for trying offences that can entail life imprisonment, or a police force that can go after suspected criminals. It's too open to conflicts of interest that don't enter into things like arbitration.
Why do we need a military? Things like ISIS spring to mind as a good example, the nature of the threat has changed, it's not other countries military forces that are going to invade us, but radical terrorist organisations that are trying to harm us and need to be wiped out.
The trouble is, countries cannot survive and thrive purely by the will of private companies. Many private corps are extremely short sighted, and worse if publicly traded, seeking only to return maximum value to their shareholders.
We need another "will" - the will of the people to move forwards, to improve, to invest, to nurture. These are things that private companies may not be good at, because they may not be profitable in the short term.
We need another "will" - the will of the people to move forwards, to improve, to invest, to nurture. These are things that private companies may not be good at, because they may not be profitable in the short term.
Works in areas of the USA.
I'm assuming that you split the country into regions with their own franchises put out to tender. I'm assuming that a bidding company *has* to cover the whole of its franchise area, and cannot simply refuse to put out fires in areas that are "too expensive to service". By stipulating this, however, you are interfering with market forces and imposing "the will of others" via regulation. Because the "will of the company" will be to only service those areas that are most profitable, and let the extremely rural houses burn
Now take an area with low population density and a large area to cover. Say, Cornwall. An area that also has very depressed wages.
You mentioned morality earlier. How "moral" is it to expect low-paid Cornish people to pay the most for their fire service? Or should we say to all these low-paid Cornish people that they should move to London. Leaving only retired people inhabiting Cornwall, and work-from-home types. So now there's no supermarket staff in Cornwall and no care workers, etc, because they couldn't afford the costs of the private fire service, private police force, private....
Or.... you could "immorally" tax the whole country, and use this shared tax burden to finance a country-wide police and fire service.
I'm not sure how you conclude that this is immoral. It just seems to make more sense than the alternatives.
Can you explain why it would be immoral for a fire service to charge more in one area that another? In capitalism a transaction is always a win-win, both parties get something they want, the exchange of money for services or goods, no one is pointing a gun to anyone's head as they are in socialism.
I think that the act of imposing your will on someone else is inherently immoral, that's all there is too it really.
We're really not on the same page. I think your position is ludicrous! I just think it's stupid to say we shouldn't have x, y, and z, but that we should have a, b, and c. It's just inconsistent.
Why couldn't arbitration work? Have private prosecutions rather than relying on the CPS (private prosecutions as we're allowed now), then have courts paid for by anyone who wants to bring a private prosecution but have a legal underpinning whereby they have to be impartial etc etc. Just have Dog the Bounty hunter over here so anyone who's been a victim of crime can hire him to hunt down the perpetrators... why should non-victims subsidise the justice seeker of victims?
Yet we have the fifth most expensive military in the World and aren't using it to fight ISIS outside of relatively insignificant special forces missions we don't hear about. Is that really a good example of why we need a military? That threat we're not currently using our military to deal with?
It is not inconsistent to say that the government should only provide services that private companies cannot provide.
I'll reply to this thread more in the morning. Goodnight.
I don't think you know any idea what morality is.
You've stated that a rich person should be allowed to keep his earnings and that it's "immoral" to take and spend his money via taxation.
You've then stated that it's perfectly fair for a wage-depressed rural area like Cornwall to pay more for their services than an affluent urban area. And that if they don't like it they should move (would the last non-retired person leaving Cornwall please turn out the lights when you go).
Your idea of morality is backwards.
Or perhaps you believe that a fire service - or indeed medical care - should be optional, and poor people can choose not to pay, but accept that if their house burns down or they get sick they will be left to rot? Because you can't have any social care is it's "immoral" to tax people to provide a social care system.
- Status