What level of taxation is "fair"?

[kwerk]

So no education, no healthcare, no regulation?

Private education.
Private healthcare.
Private insurance.
Private consumer protection.
Mandatory 1 year military service.
Stragglers can be mopped up by private charities.

Without all the taxes and without government money inflating the prices those things would be quite affordable.

There are creative ways to do stuff like for example instead of government student loans you could have a contract where the university takes 3% of your future earnings in order to pay for your education (up to a ceiling). Everything would be incentive/results driven.

The only regulations would relate to infrastructure/property rights. Drivers licenses, liability insurance, fraud regulations, etc.

I'd also like to see a private charity that pays people to get sterilized.

Basically you're replacing taxes and debt fueled government ponzi schemes with competitive private insurance. Health, disability, unemployement. Good news for actuaries, not so good for public sector paper shufflers.

 

[George Hincapie]

You're missing my point. The rich can and should pay more taxes because they've made their fortunes on society's back (the publicly educated workforce, the roads to transport goods, etc). They get more out of society in a year than a person on benefits will in their entire life.

No, it's you that's missing the point. The wealthiest 1% of this country also pay the lion's share of the tax. This is tax which has paid for the infrastructure your babbling on about. They have (generally) gotten rich through sheer hard work and skill, they should keep as much of their success as possible. You, like many others in this forum, display a completely retarded ideal - there is no entitlement for poor people to benefit from the rich. You seem to want to reward the ****less and work-shy by elevating them to the same status as those above them, and giving them freely what other people have had to work their balls off to get.

**** that.

 

[Monkeymatt]

I advocate making taxation voluntary, some people say that taxation by its definition could not be voluntary because then it would not be taxation. But I still advocate making what we call taxation, voluntary. Specifically the income tax and the national insurance and council tax. If they were voluntary and people who opted out could not receive all the wonderful government services that you get from paying taxes, but could still pay individually for such a service directly if desired. This would introduce the necessary incentives that could increase the value for money that we see from government services. At the same time open up the markets that the government monopolies to private competition and allow people who want to use another type of rubbish collection for example to do so. This way the people that want government can continue on as normal but the people that don't want it, like me, can save 30% of their salary a year.

The government has many revenue streams, admittedly making income tax, national insurance and council tax voluntary would reduce their revenue substantially, however demand for their goods and services would also decrease. This will also introduce the right mechanisms and incentives that will allow for the government to more appropriately allocate resources.

That is a ridiculous step backwards and would lead to our country having the same problems that we had in the past, and what the US has now. People on low incomes and the unemployed would find it incredibly difficult to afford healthcare, this in turn would lead to more people being unable to work..

What would you do then? Leave them all to die on no income? Or give them benefits to help them pay for healthcare and get them back into work? Tax revenue would decrease but the amount spent on benefits would increase.. Smart move..

Plus as seen in the past, removing government monopolies often doesn't lead to the desired amount of competition, instead you get a few large companies who dominate the market and the people who rely on that service suffer..

At the end of the day, you are never going to get everybody thinking the rate of tax is right regardless of what it is set at but I would prefer to live in a state with high taxes where everybody has access to healthcare and schooling than a state with low taxes but all services provided by private sector and having to be paid for on consumption.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

You're missing my point. The rich can and should pay more taxes because they've made their fortunes on society's back (the publicly educated workforce, the roads to transport goods, etc). They get more out of society in a year than a person on benefits will in their entire life.

Prove that 'the rich' do.

 

[Monkeymatt]

You're missing my point. The rich can and should pay more taxes because they've made their fortunes on society's back (the publicly educated workforce, the roads to transport goods, etc). They get more out of society in a year than a person on benefits will in their entire life.

The government provide infrastructure, education, healthcare etc. so that the "rich" can create wealth. Then the government tax them and their businesses and use this money to fund infrastructure, education and healthcare in the future so more "rich" people can provide wealth and the circle goes round..

The rich already pay a large amount of tax and if you keep increasing it then they will just move abroad, which is harmful for our economy in the long run.

 

[robgmun]

i wonder how many of those were miners, manufacturers and engineers that the tories made redundant....

After 22 years and they still haven't got a jobless then they're hopeless

 

[kwerk]

That is a ridiculous step backwards and would lead to our country having the same problems that we had in the past, and what the US has now. People on low incomes and the unemployed would find it incredibly difficult to afford healthcare, this in turn would lead to more people being unable to work..

What would you do then? Leave them all to die on no income? Or give them benefits to help them pay for healthcare and get them back into work? Tax revenue would decrease but the amount spent on benefits would increase.. Smart move..

Plus as seen in the past, removing government monopolies often doesn't lead to the desired amount of competition, instead you get a few large companies who dominate the market and the people who rely on that service suffer..

At the end of the day, you are never going to get everybody thinking the rate of tax is right regardless of what it is set at but I would prefer to live in a state with high taxes where everybody has access to healthcare and schooling than a state with low taxes but all services provided by private sector and having to be paid for on consumption.

Do you know why it's so expensive to start with? The US government spends over $1 trillion a year on healthcare. They have no incentive to care though because it's not their money. Easy government money = inflated prices. Same for education. Same for the housing bubble when Clinton demanded mortgages for poor people.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

remember that this recession has been caused by greedy millionaires getting the poor to take out credit they couldnt afford.

God I remember those days, you couldn't move in the high street for millionaires using cattle prods to force people into banks to sign up for loans they couldn't afford

 

[George Hincapie]

God I remember those days, you couldn't move in the high street for millionaires using cattle prods to force people into banks to sign up for loans they couldn't afford

LMAO

 

[elmarko]

How can you pay less than market value, what ever you pay is market value if someone is willing to take it!.

Yawn...

The value of the labour is always more than the wages (otherwise they wouldn't pay somebody to do it) - keep up.

The rich providing work for those well off is another benefit that they provide to society.

Demand creates jobs..., not the rich... I take it economics isn't your strong point?.

You don't know what you're talking about here. If the banks didn't have money, they couldn't lend and in turn the poorer in society couldn't then borrow money to buy houses or setup a business if they choose to. It's ignorance to suggest otherwise.

Do you really think the banks loan the money that the rich put into the account? - is that really how you think it works?.

The average poor person puts 100% back into the economy? It's no different to a rich person! A poor person buys a Sony TV, where does some of that money go? Abroad. To suggest that poor peoples money is somehow ringfenced to within the UK only is disengenuous.

I never suggested such a thing, nice straw man argument.

Even purchasing a Sony TV from a shop in the UK is contributing towards the UK economy.

You're wrong. It really is as simple as that.

Best argument ever, you should debate for a living.

The only parasites would be people who stuff cash under their bed where it's of no use to no one.

Please explain how somebody who is putting cash under the bed is extracting labour/goods or materials from the economy without putting anything back (being a parasite).

This should be good for a laugh.

 

[elmarko]

Mandatory 1 year military service.

Yeah! - let's brainwash the entire nation by forcing military servitude to corrupt governments.

Funny how some conservatives are the most authoritarian of the lot.

 

[Castiel]

Yeah! - let's brainwash the entire nation by forcing military servitude to corrupt governments.

Funny how some conservatives are the most authoritarian of the lot.

Are you suggesting that serving soldiers in this country voluntarily serve a corrupt government and are brainwashed?

 

[George Hincapie]

Are you suggesting that serving soldiers in this country voluntarily serve a corrupt government and are brainwashed?

They serve the Government. If you follow the premise that power corrupts (and I think you would recognise frequent examples of this in the media), then yes, they do voluntarily serve a corrupt Government. I don't accept they are brainwashed however. Many Service personnel feel a far greater affinity to the Royal family than the Government of the day.

 

[Castiel]

They serve the Government. If you follow the premise that power corrupts (and I think you would recognise frequent examples of this in the media), then yes, they do voluntarily serve a corrupt Government. I don't accept they are brainwashed however. Many Service personnel feel a far greater affinity to the Royal family than the Government of the day.

I see, so you think that the British Government is corrupt and by association all military personnel that follow that Government (which they actually don't as they are bound by domestic and international law rather than being the mindless slaves of the government, they in fact serve the country, not the government) are also corrupt....?

 

[George Hincapie]

I see, so you think that the British Government is corrupt and by association all military personnel that follow that Government (which they actually don't as they are bound by domestic and international law rather than being the mindless slaves of the government, they in fact serve the country, not the government) are also corrupt....?

OMG! Way to get get completely the wrong end of the stick!

Of course parts of the British Government is corrupt. Jesus, anyone with half an ounce of sense can see that. Parts of every Government in the World are corrupt. It's human nature. I am not suggesting the entire Government is corrupt.

While the Military may in theory serve the Country, they take their orders from the Government. I'm not suggesting the Military are corrupt.

I posted to sort of agree with what you're saying, but now I'm like 'WTF are you on about?!'

 

[kwerk]

Yeah! - let's brainwash the entire nation by forcing military servitude to corrupt governments.

Funny how some conservatives are the most authoritarian of the lot.

They are already getting brainwashed in government schools. Just look at this thread.

 

[Castiel]

OMG! Way to get get completely the wrong end of the stick!

Fair enough...although it isnt parts of the Government that are corrupt, but some individuals that may be corrupt.....a corrupt Government implies that they operate outside of the law without being subject to it....The British Govt is not like that and neither are the individuals in Govt above the laws of the State or the International Laws to which we are beholden.

 

[Woden]

Private education.
Private healthcare.
Private insurance.
Private consumer protection.
Mandatory 1 year military service.
Stragglers can be mopped up by private charities.

Without all the taxes and without government money inflating the prices those things would be quite affordable.

No, no and no. None of that would ever work. Private healthcare and insurance, see the US of A. Cleaners, Labourers etc can't afford basic healthcare and if they are too sick to work they don't get paid so cant eat, pay rent etc. That's a slippery slope.
1 year mandatory military service is useless in a system with 6 months *initial* training.

There are creative ways to do stuff like for example instead of government student loans you could have a contract where the university takes 3% of your future earnings in order to pay for your education (up to a ceiling). Everything would be incentive/results driven.

That's basically how student loans work now. A percentage of my wage is taken to pay it off.

The only regulations would relate to infrastructure/property rights. Drivers licenses, liability insurance, fraud regulations, etc.

Why stop there? Private security, private insurance to cover yourself from fraud and untrained drivers. Need to go somewhere? Privately built toll roads. We can also drop the attempts to reduce dug abuse, cos that harms no one! Especially as you can afford your own security to protect yourself from there crimes to feed their habit anyway.

I'd also like to see a private charity that pays people to get sterilized.

Seriously? Eugenics? When has that ever been moral. Or ever worked? On what basis would they get paid?

Basically you're replacing taxes and debt fueled government ponzi schemes with competitive private insurance. Health, disability, unemployement. Good news for actuaries, not so good for public sector paper shufflers.

No, basically your replacing the current, albeit broken system, with no system at all. All for one and all for me. We would be back to the days of workhouses, children in factories and mines. Anyone that wants that is inhuman.

 

[mollymoo]

We would be back to the days of workhouses, children in factories and mines. Anyone that wants that is inhuman.

I don't know, maybe the easter holidays have taken their toll, the kids are getting bored and beginning to bug me, but it sounds absolutely fantastic just at the moment.

 

[George Hincapie]

Fair enough...although it isnt parts of the Government that are corrupt, but some individuals that may be corrupt

Accepted. This is the way I should have phrased it.