Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

Who will you vote for?

  • Total voters
    1,453
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most people wont bother voting either, it took a few days for this poll to get anywhere near the last one in terms of voting, and it's still shy of the total.
 
StriderX said:
Can someone explain to me why we have like 10+ different taxes?

Why not just have a flat tax rate on income, remove VAT, remove everything really and to make up the shortfall, a much harsher tax on land/property (dont start, a great deal of economists feel its a good thing)?
Click to expand...

Two reasons, I think. One good, one bad. The good one is that it allows more nuanced taxation and thus can be fairer and more precise. The bad one is that it allows governments to do "stealth" taxation whereby they promise not to raise taxes or even that they'll lower them. Yet somehow you still end up paying more somehow.
 
dalehitchy1 said:
I am very very suprised that the majority of our media has come out and warned not to vote labour today ......... /s
but the real question is....

Can Jeremy Corbyn eat a bacon sandwich correctly?



Finding twitter funny.... #lastminutecorbynsmears

Jeremy Corbyn reheats tea in the microwave, and thinks "Snickers" is a far better name than "Marathon". #LastMinuteCorbynSmears


Corbyn buys jam at Waittose and steams the stickers off to pretend he made it

Jeremy Corbyn thinks Phantom Menace is better than Empire Strikes Back #LastMinuteCorbynSmears

Jeremy Corbyn didn't rewind a VHS of 'Kes' before returning it to Blockbuster #LastMinuteCorbynSmears

Jeremy Corbyn once had an unexpected item in the bagging area #lastminutecorbynsmears

Jeremy Corbyn eats After Eights at 7:59 #LastMinuteCorbynSmears

Corbyn doesn't even know what covfefe means. #lastminutecorbynsmears
Click to expand...

My favourite is:
Jeremy Corbyn had sex with Diane Abbott #LastMinuteCorbynSmears
 
Angilion said:
I think the question is flawed because it assumes that every person should pay the same amount of tax regardless of how much money they have - that's the only way that there can be such a thing as X number of people's tax - and thus can't be answered in those terms without accepting the assumption.
Click to expand...

The question contains no such assumption. I'm not trying to be disingenuous here, I'm trying to strip away the varnish and get at what the poster actually thought in meaningful terms. And they confirmed in the end that they thought it fair if someone on £150,000 paid as much as eleven to fifteen people on £25,000. I phrase this in terms of morality rather than as cheesyboy suggested "necessity" because it is a moral question. (Apologies to cheesyboy that I didn't reply - I'll do so after this point). You can talk about cause and effect, you can talk about what is needed to achieve a given result. But the moment a poster such as Greebo starts talking about what somebody should pay, it becomes a question of moral viewpoint. I find the contrast of one person being made to pay eleven or more times that of their fellows difficult to reconcile with most moral systems including fairness. I don't think it is fair. Which brings us neatly onto the rest of your post where you discuss whether it is fair or not because of factors such as are they really contributing 7.5 times as much to society (actually, the appropriate multiplier would be the 11 to 15 of the tax equivalent if we're talking about fairness of taxation as that is what they are paying in Greebo's scenario). The most effective way we have of measuring someone's contribution is to put a value on their services. As a society we handle such a monstrously complex matter by crowdsourcing the assessment to a nationwide body of people who carry out continuously updated assessments of the value of that service in relative terms to other services within the nation by a tool known as money. *ahem*. Well, it's the best we have. Of course this doesn't recognize the value added of things not measured in money such as kindness or raising children. But then if it's not sold in terms of money then it's not taxed either, so that works. This is my answer to the rest of your post below. I do think you can make meaningful moral judgements about tax burdens even if £1 is less vital to a rich person than to a poor. It's besides the point. I say so because fair distribution of financial burden does not depend on how happy or unhappy the tax payers are to pay it. If one person is charged eleven times more than another person, whether they care or not doesn't change the size of the multiplier. You seem to be arguing for a system of fairness based on perceived worth but such is neither objective nor workable. Nobody can tell me how much worth I place on something, except for I myself.

Angilion said:
I think it's a much more complex issue without clear answers.
Click to expand...

It's a more complex issue without clear answers if you're trying to do what you're trying to do. But it's a pretty easy one if you're trying to do what I'm trying to do which is to get Greebo to tell me how many people on £26k they think it's morally appropriate for a person earning £125k to pay the equivalent of. Turns out Greebo thinks if you earn 7.5 times the national average salary, you should pay as much as 11.6 to 15.0 times as much tax as anyone on that average. That's what they perceive as fair.

@cheesyboy The reason I used morality rather than necessity is as given above - it's a moral question the moment Greebo starts talking about how much people SHOULD give. I don't think one can make it about necessity unless one first discusses what necessity means. And perhaps the best way to do that is to say what you think would happen if the condition were violated. E.g. are you saying it's necessary to prevent riots, necessary to prevent inequality, necessary for social mobility. I'm happy to discuss. Interested even. But "necessary" means very different things to different people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom