FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Hand up if you want to pay more tax
Hand up if you want to pay more tax
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Seems to me we all want the same things but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seems to me we all want the same things but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ? "
You are a naughty bitch. I would definitely pay more tax to avoid a Newcastle relegation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seems to me we all want the same things but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ? "
Pay more tax; no thank you
Im avoiding tax legally by paying huge amounts of AVC's into my pension, sad thing is they have caught onto this and now capped a maximum yearly payment of £40k
nothing lasts for ever |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'd be happy to pay more tax, if that would mean I was earning more money
I'd be happy to pay more, if it meant a brighter future for young people, we don't own this earth, we borrow it from our children |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Seems to me we all want the same things but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ?
You are a naughty bitch. I would definitely pay more tax to avoid a Newcastle relegation."
Do you know what...
I'm in shock...... I honestly thought all those people bent on shredding the governments arse would have maxed out this thread demanding a chance to pay more in tax ..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seems to me we all want the same things but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ?
You are a naughty bitch. I would definitely pay more tax to avoid a Newcastle relegation."
I think appointing Rafa is a masterstroke - just wish they'd done it months ago. If we avoid relegation I will never refer to him as a Spanish waiter again! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seems to me we all want the same thingso but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ?
You are a naughty bitch. I would definitely pay more tax to avoid a Newcastle relegation.
Do you know what...
I'm in shock...... I honestly thought all those people bent on shredding the governments arse would have maxed out this thread demanding a chance to pay more in tax ..... "
I said I would, can I have something from the treat cupboard pleeeeeese  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Seems to me we all want the same thingso but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ?
You are a naughty bitch. I would definitely pay more tax to avoid a Newcastle relegation.
Do you know what...
I'm in shock...... I honestly thought all those people bent on shredding the governments arse would have maxed out this thread demanding a chance to pay more in tax .....
I said I would, can I have something from the treat cupboard pleeeeeese "
Oh,,,, go-on.... help yourself to a pink wafer biscuit,, but don't tell the rest ......
Money doesn't grow on trees you know... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Seems to me we all want the same things but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ?
You are a naughty bitch. I would definitely pay more tax to avoid a Newcastle relegation.
I think appointing Rafa is a masterstroke - just wish they'd done it months ago. If we avoid relegation I will never refer to him as a Spanish waiter again!"
It's the best thing the Toon has done for decades ....... I'm feeling positive...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yeah ban all tax and let's support the stuff we love with charity..
.
.
Yeah let's see how that works out for the less fortunate.
 "
I never said ban all tax. Obviously you need a certain level of tax to sustain society. I wouldn't pay more though, I'm already a higher rate tax payer so quite enough is being squeezed out of me. If any cause wants more it's going to have to be on a voluntary basis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seems to me we all want the same things but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ?
You are a naughty bitch. I would definitely pay more tax to avoid a Newcastle relegation.
I think appointing Rafa is a masterstroke - just wish they'd done it months ago. If we avoid relegation I will never refer to him as a Spanish waiter again!
It's the best thing the Toon has done for decades ....... I'm feeling positive... "
Yeah, but he did fuck all for the scousers.
Raise the income tax ... For the Geordies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yeah ban all tax and let's support the stuff we love with charity..
.
.
Yeah let's see how that works out for the less fortunate.
I never said ban all tax. Obviously you need a certain level of tax to sustain society. I wouldn't pay more though, I'm already a higher rate tax payer so quite enough is being squeezed out of me. If any cause wants more it's going to have to be on a voluntary basis. "
.
Do you remember when you were young and money meant nothing to you!.... I think that's the real reason why we all hanker for our childhoods back.
.
.
I have a tendency to disparage religion, but I've always quite liked that line, it will be hard for a rich person to get into heaven |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Last time I opened a tax thread it didn't go that positively.
If those with the least don't get disproportionately hammered, as has happened under this government, then I'd be up for it.
I'd pay more tax for health, education, social care and welfare, at least. I'd be good for 5p per pound increase, on average.
Also remember that the invisible taxes have been massively increased, so don't assume that all increases are levied just against income. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seems to me we all want the same things but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ?
You are a naughty bitch. I would definitely pay more tax to avoid a Newcastle relegation.
Do you know what...
I'm in shock...... I honestly thought all those people bent on shredding the governments arse would have maxed out this thread demanding a chance to pay more in tax ..... "
Good post this Soxy..I can remember once on Question Time a guy wanted a blanket ban on smoking overnight.He was going on about how much it cost the NHS and so on.When it was pointed out that if a blanket ban was brought in..he and everyone else would have to pay a extra 10p in every pound in tax from their earnings...would he be happy with that...the answer was No.
This is going back a few years now,things may have changed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems to me we all want the same things but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ?
You are a naughty bitch. I would definitely pay more tax to avoid a Newcastle relegation.
I think appointing Rafa is a masterstroke - just wish they'd done it months ago. If we avoid relegation I will never refer to him as a Spanish waiter again!
It's the best thing the Toon has done for decades ....... I'm feeling positive...
Yeah, but he did fuck all for the scousers.
Raise the income tax ... For the Geordies."
Erm only won us the greatest ever Champions League final, FA cup and almost won us the league.....but you're right, he done fuck all for us  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't have a problem paying more tax if the money were used effectively. How much more I would be willing to pay would depend on how it was going to be used. I guess I'd have to look at my finances, but overall I have no problem paying more tax for the right reasons.
-Courtney |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'd happily pay more tax to get better quality public services. Privatisation of such services usually leads to unscrupulous sorts trying to maximise profit as opposed to quality of service. So provide the resources to those who need it and ensure accountability. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Seems to me we all want the same things but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ?
You are a naughty bitch. I would definitely pay more tax to avoid a Newcastle relegation.
I think appointing Rafa is a masterstroke - just wish they'd done it months ago. If we avoid relegation I will never refer to him as a Spanish waiter again!
It's the best thing the Toon has done for decades ....... I'm feeling positive...
Yeah, but he did fuck all for the scousers.
Raise the income tax ... For the Geordies.
Erm only won us the greatest ever Champions League final, FA cup and almost won us the league.....but you're right, he done fuck all for us "
Excellent. Any chance of us doing the same? Remind me, why did you lot sack him? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I would be happy to pay more tax if I thought that it would actually get used for what it's supposed to be and not given away to support other countries 
Don't get me wrong I do support charities privately and am happy to but it's about time they propped up this country a bit more now.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I agree with a post a few above, we need to get the larger companies that pay less tax, thanks to George Osbournes rules, to pay the correct taxes they should. Google, Apple and Facebook are amongst the group. Google are reported to have earned £4.9bn last year. Yet £130 million for 10 years of missed tax is a win for the chancellor. That's what you get for trusting a namby pamby history student to manage finance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I agree with a post a few above, we need to get the larger companies that pay less tax, thanks to George Osbournes rules, to pay the correct taxes they should. Google, Apple and Facebook are amongst the group. Google are reported to have earned £4.9bn last year. Yet £130 million for 10 years of missed tax is a win for the chancellor. That's what you get for trusting a namby pamby history student to manage finance. "
Bit of a sweeping judgement there in your last sentence fella. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Personally I think there should be a flat rate tax of about 10%.
Those on low incomes pay less. Those on high incomes pay less too but still a lot more than those on low incomes.
This would negate the need for tax avoidance and possibly create more tax income overall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I agree with a post a few above, we need to get the larger companies that pay less tax, thanks to George Osbournes rules, to pay the correct taxes they should. Google, Apple and Facebook are amongst the group. Google are reported to have earned £4.9bn last year. Yet £130 million for 10 years of missed tax is a win for the chancellor. That's what you get for trusting a namby pamby history student to manage finance.
Bit of a sweeping judgement there in your last sentence fella. "
I agree it is a broad statement, but would you appoint a person with a BA in history or somebody with financial qualifications and experience into that position? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Personally I think there should be a flat rate tax of about 10%.
Those on low incomes pay less. Those on high incomes pay less too but still a lot more than those on low incomes.
This would negate the need for tax avoidance and possibly create more tax income overall."
This seems to be the plan right now, but the poor can't afford the rates the richer people can. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I agree with a post a few above, we need to get the larger companies that pay less tax, thanks to George Osbournes rules, to pay the correct taxes they should. Google, Apple and Facebook are amongst the group. Google are reported to have earned £4.9bn last year. Yet £130 million for 10 years of missed tax is a win for the chancellor. That's what you get for trusting a namby pamby history student to manage finance.
Bit of a sweeping judgement there in your last sentence fella.
I agree it is a broad statement, but would you appoint a person with a BA in history or somebody with financial qualifications and experience into that position? "
To Chancellor? It's ultimately a political position. It doesn't matter what their degree is in.
And as it happens, all other things being equal I'd appoint a history graduate over an accountancy graduate into a finance position any day of the week.
There are many reasons to criticise Gideon, being a historian seems a bizarre one to choose.
Sincerely,
A namby pamby historian and financial manager |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I agree with a post a few above, we need to get the larger companies that pay less tax, thanks to George Osbournes rules, to pay the correct taxes they should. Google, Apple and Facebook are amongst the group. Google are reported to have earned £4.9bn last year. Yet £130 million for 10 years of missed tax is a win for the chancellor. That's what you get for trusting a namby pamby history student to manage finance.
Bit of a sweeping judgement there in your last sentence fella.
I agree it is a broad statement, but would you appoint a person with a BA in history or somebody with financial qualifications and experience into that position?
To Chancellor? It's ultimately a political position. It doesn't matter what their degree is in.
And as it happens, all other things being equal I'd appoint a history graduate over an accountancy graduate into a finance position any day of the week.
There are many reasons to criticise Gideon, being a historian seems a bizarre one to choose.
Sincerely,
A namby pamby historian and financial manager"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems to me we all want the same things but how many of us wouldn't feel screwed over paying more in tax to have those things......
How much extra tax would you be willing to pay to fund the things you feel passionate about ? "
. I fail to see how paying more tax would help.. It is likely that more money would just be wasted.
If we want to improve services , we need to have rigorous control over immigration and refugees . We should refuse to accept any form of health tourism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't think I want to pay more tax. What for? I don't get value for what I pay now. From here it looks like the civil service takes my money and wastes it on frivolous crap, incompetence and services I don't use or have no interest in.
I would be more interested to see just exactly how the money I do pay, is spent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I agree with a post a few above, we need to get the larger companies that pay less tax, thanks to George Osbournes rules, to pay the correct taxes they should. Google, Apple and Facebook are amongst the group. Google are reported to have earned £4.9bn last year. Yet £130 million for 10 years of missed tax is a win for the chancellor. That's what you get for trusting a namby pamby history student to manage finance.
Bit of a sweeping judgement there in your last sentence fella.
I agree it is a broad statement, but would you appoint a person with a BA in history or somebody with financial qualifications and experience into that position?
To Chancellor? It's ultimately a political position. It doesn't matter what their degree is in.
And as it happens, all other things being equal I'd appoint a history graduate over an accountancy graduate into a finance position any day of the week.
There are many reasons to criticise Gideon, being a historian seems a bizarre one to choose.
Sincerely,
A namby pamby historian and financial manager"
I will sincerely get back in my box. I still don't feel he is the correct person to be put in that political position. I cannot say whom, out of the current party, would be best suited as they all seem to have done a "fantastic" job in their current political positions.
I assume you have had previous experience of the job before being put into said financial managerial position? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I would happily pay more tax if it were for a costed program that I believed in, and would benefit the majority of people.
I hope that we shall have such a choice at the next election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yeah ban all tax and let's support the stuff we love with charity..
.
.
Yeah let's see how that works out for the less fortunate.
"
Well it didn't work that well in the past so doubt it would well now.
Unfortunately we've heard all this before. An extra 1p or 2p in the pound on tax to save this service or protect that service but it never actually seems to work. And everyone wants someone else to be taxed more but never themselves. The rich want the poor taxed by reducing benefits, the boor want rich taxed more. The real question everyone should be asking themselves is how much more actual money they are willing to pay in hard cash for what they say they want, not how much they think someone else should pay. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Last time I opened a tax thread it didn't go that positively.
If those with the least don't get disproportionately hammered, as has happened under this government, then I'd be up for it.
I'd pay more tax for health, education, social care and welfare, at least. I'd be good for 5p per pound increase, on average.
Also remember that the invisible taxes have been massively increased, so don't assume that all increases are levied just against income. "
So, assuming your earnings £25,000 that's about £600 a year extra you're willing to pay? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personally I think there should be a flat rate tax of about 10%.
Those on low incomes pay less. Those on high incomes pay less too but still a lot more than those on low incomes.
This would negate the need for tax avoidance and possibly create more tax income overall.
This seems to be the plan right now, but the poor can't afford the rates the richer people can."
But that's my point, those on low incomes will not pay much |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Personally I think there should be a flat rate tax of about 10%.
Those on low incomes pay less. Those on high incomes pay less too but still a lot more than those on low incomes.
This would negate the need for tax avoidance and possibly create more tax income overall.
This seems to be the plan right now, but the poor can't afford the rates the richer people can.
But that's my point, those on low incomes will not pay much"
Flat tax rates ignore the fact that a certain amount of money is needed to live. That is in hard terms, not percentages. To someone who makes £10,000 a year, that £1,000 in tax will make much more of a difference than to the person who makes £100,000 and pays £10,000 in tax.
Not to mention that you would have to set the flat rate higher than 10% because you would have to assume a certain number of people wouldn't pay because they don't have jobs, and you'd have to make up the lost tax revenue for the upper classes that currently pay based on higher tax rates. So that flat tax would have to be relatively high to make up for lost income - thus hurting the poorer person even more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Personally I think there should be a flat rate tax of about 10%.
Those on low incomes pay less. Those on high incomes pay less too but still a lot more than those on low incomes.
This would negate the need for tax avoidance and possibly create more tax income overall.
This seems to be the plan right now, but the poor can't afford the rates the richer people can.
But that's my point, those on low incomes will not pay much
Flat tax rates ignore the fact that a certain amount of money is needed to live. That is in hard terms, not percentages. To someone who makes £10,000 a year, that £1,000 in tax will make much more of a difference than to the person who makes £100,000 and pays £10,000 in tax.
Not to mention that you would have to set the flat rate higher than 10% because you would have to assume a certain number of people wouldn't pay because they don't have jobs, and you'd have to make up the lost tax revenue for the upper classes that currently pay based on higher tax rates. So that flat tax would have to be relatively high to make up for lost income - thus hurting the poorer person even more."
.
Plus mega wealthy people don't wanna pay 10% tax they want 0% tax because they've bought there own hype about being wealth creators |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inzi LTV/TS
over a year ago
The Garden of Eden in Beautiful North Wales |
40% of every pound I earned but no tax on births, deaths, council tax, water, alcohol, cigarettes, road tax or fuel and a lot more that I can't think of at the moment.
40% is a lot (especially times, say 20m+ working population), probably 6 or 7% more than I'm paying at the moment between tax and NI but there are people risking their lives to work in this fucked up country, yet others that only live down the road and can't be bothered! Then you have your limp wristed politicians that screw the system more than the public...
What fucking chance do you have?
Sorry, Rant over. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm not saying it's the sole reason but.
From ww2 through to about 1965ish in nearly most first world countries the top tax rate was above 70%, JFK in the states was seen as the great liberal tax cutter cutting from 90% down to 70%.
In the UK we cut tax from 95% for the top tax rate down to 40% in 40 years...
Top tax rate payers weren't alone CT was more than halved in that 40 years.
So 60% tax cuts across the board for the wealthy and businesses, while everybody else saw very menial tax cuts but at the same time a massive increase in hidden tax's like vat, stamp duty, alcohol, fuel, cigs etc etc.
Somebody earning 25k a year nowadays pays about 65% tax in total take give or take their lifestyle while the mega wealthy have reduced their total tax by at least 60%...
Now if that was great for growth, I'd be willing to bite the bullet however, the greatest growth the world ever saw was from 1945-1970... The very same period that had the highest tax's for the very wealthiest |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not saying it's the sole reason but.
From ww2 through to about 1965ish in nearly most first world countries the top tax rate was above 70%, JFK in the states was seen as the great liberal tax cutter cutting from 90% down to 70%.
In the UK we cut tax from 95% for the top tax rate down to 40% in 40 years...
Top tax rate payers weren't alone CT was more than halved in that 40 years.
So 60% tax cuts across the board for the wealthy and businesses, while everybody else saw very menial tax cuts but at the same time a massive increase in hidden tax's like vat, stamp duty, alcohol, fuel, cigs etc etc.
Somebody earning 25k a year nowadays pays about 65% tax in total take give or take their lifestyle while the mega wealthy have reduced their total tax by at least 60%...
Now if that was great for growth, I'd be willing to bite the bullet however, the greatest growth the world ever saw was from 1945-1970... The very same period that had the highest tax's for the very wealthiest"
I'm not sure you can attribute growth from 1945-1970 to having a high top rate of tax. There were a few other things going on at the time... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not sure you can attribute growth from 1945-1970 to having a high top rate of tax. There were a few other things going on at the time..."
Suggests it wasn't detrimental though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not sure you can attribute growth from 1945-1970 to having a high top rate of tax. There were a few other things going on at the time...
Suggests it wasn't detrimental though."
I'm not dismissing that possibility. But that's not the same as being good for growth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personally I think there should be a flat rate tax of about 10%.
Those on low incomes pay less. Those on high incomes pay less too but still a lot more than those on low incomes.
This would negate the need for tax avoidance and possibly create more tax income overall.
This seems to be the plan right now, but the poor can't afford the rates the richer people can.
But that's my point, those on low incomes will not pay much
Flat tax rates ignore the fact that a certain amount of money is needed to live. That is in hard terms, not percentages. To someone who makes £10,000 a year, that £1,000 in tax will make much more of a difference than to the person who makes £100,000 and pays £10,000 in tax.
Not to mention that you would have to set the flat rate higher than 10% because you would have to assume a certain number of people wouldn't pay because they don't have jobs, and you'd have to make up the lost tax revenue for the upper classes that currently pay based on higher tax rates. So that flat tax would have to be relatively high to make up for lost income - thus hurting the poorer person even more."
Yes the exact rate would need calculating properly but the pint is those on the higher tax rates now would no longer have to use tax avoidance schemes and could end up paying more than they do now. The same goes for corporation tax etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not sure you can attribute growth from 1945-1970 to having a high top rate of tax. There were a few other things going on at the time...
Suggests it wasn't detrimental though.
I'm not dismissing that possibility. But that's not the same as being good for growth. "
No but it's a fair point against the "wealth creation" bollocks - which if we dig deep is arguably actually "debt creation" under a promise of future prosperity, which is largely how all big business now operates. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Are you suggesting that top-rate taxpayers only avoid paying tax as some kind of vote-with-their-feet protest against the unfairness of the tax system, because I really don't think that's the case? Those that are minded to avoid tax, and can afford the accountants to do it, will do so whether it's 10% or 40% they are paying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not sure you can attribute growth from 1945-1970 to having a high top rate of tax. There were a few other things going on at the time...
Suggests it wasn't detrimental though.
I'm not dismissing that possibility. But that's not the same as being good for growth.
No but it's a fair point against the "wealth creation" bollocks - which if we dig deep is arguably actually "debt creation" under a promise of future prosperity, which is largely how all big business now operates."
Except we don't know what growth would have been had the rates been different. I'm generally suspicious of using historical precedents as reasons for setting taxes at certain levels. If it doesn't work as a solid argument for the laffer curve and setting taxes at lower rates, which it doesn't, then it doesn't work this way round either.
And the threshold for that highest rate kicking in needs to be higher than £150k. (And the higher rate threshold needs to be far, far higher than £42,385!) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Personally I think there should be a flat rate tax of about 10%.
Those on low incomes pay less. Those on high incomes pay less too but still a lot more than those on low incomes.
This would negate the need for tax avoidance and possibly create more tax income overall.
This seems to be the plan right now, but the poor can't afford the rates the richer people can.
But that's my point, those on low incomes will not pay much
Flat tax rates ignore the fact that a certain amount of money is needed to live. That is in hard terms, not percentages. To someone who makes £10,000 a year, that £1,000 in tax will make much more of a difference than to the person who makes £100,000 and pays £10,000 in tax.
Not to mention that you would have to set the flat rate higher than 10% because you would have to assume a certain number of people wouldn't pay because they don't have jobs, and you'd have to make up the lost tax revenue for the upper classes that currently pay based on higher tax rates. So that flat tax would have to be relatively high to make up for lost income - thus hurting the poorer person even more.
Yes the exact rate would need calculating properly but the pint is those on the higher tax rates now would no longer have to use tax avoidance schemes and could end up paying more than they do now. The same goes for corporation tax etc."
Firstly, that avoids my entire first point about a flat tax being unfair to poorer people.
And second, wealthy people don't avoid taxes because the taxes are more than they can afford. They are, by definition, only a percentage of their earnings, thus affordable. They avoid taxes because they can. If you want to stop wealthy people avoiding taxes then close tax loopholes and put more money into investigating tax fraud.
Flat taxes won't solve the problem you are referring to and they would create a whole host of other problems for the poorest in society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Except we don't know what growth would have been had the rates been different. I'm generally suspicious of using historical precedents as reasons for setting taxes at certain levels. If it doesn't work as a solid argument for the laffer curve and setting taxes at lower rates, which it doesn't, then it doesn't work this way round either.
And the threshold for that highest rate kicking in needs to be higher than £150k. (And the higher rate threshold needs to be far, far higher than £42,385!) "
Well obviously if those historical things were proven to work this discussion would be a bit pointless
I think a salary at about the same level as the PM is reasonable as the highest tax band. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are you suggesting that top-rate taxpayers only avoid paying tax as some kind of vote-with-their-feet protest against the unfairness of the tax system, because I really don't think that's the case? Those that are minded to avoid tax, and can afford the accountants to do it, will do so whether it's 10% or 40% they are paying."
I disagree, they definitely wouldn't avoid the tax if the account cost more than the taxed saved, any more than you would. And tax avoidance is not really the issue because, as it's legal, it simply takes those making the laws to change them (which they're now doing). And don't forget that we all avoid tax, even if it's only on the first £10,000 we earn. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not saying it's the sole reason but.
From ww2 through to about 1965ish in nearly most first world countries the top tax rate was above 70%, JFK in the states was seen as the great liberal tax cutter cutting from 90% down to 70%.
In the UK we cut tax from 95% for the top tax rate down to 40% in 40 years...
Top tax rate payers weren't alone CT was more than halved in that 40 years.
So 60% tax cuts across the board for the wealthy and businesses, while everybody else saw very menial tax cuts but at the same time a massive increase in hidden tax's like vat, stamp duty, alcohol, fuel, cigs etc etc.
Somebody earning 25k a year nowadays pays about 65% tax in total take give or take their lifestyle while the mega wealthy have reduced their total tax by at least 60%...
Now if that was great for growth, I'd be willing to bite the bullet however, the greatest growth the world ever saw was from 1945-1970... The very same period that had the highest tax's for the very wealthiest
I'm not sure you can attribute growth from 1945-1970 to having a high top rate of tax. There were a few other things going on at the time..."
.
Like I said it's not the sole reason!.
I'm just saying that this modern conception that low tax creates growth has no historical context at all.
What low tax does IMO is waste capitol, because instead of trying to claw back what was lost in tax, you can now just sit back and think of more tax avoidance schemes, were ploughing capitol into politics trying to create tax avoidance instead of ploughing it into business to make money to pay tax's!.
I'm sure bill gates is very generous with his wealth, he gives lots and lots to charity, however the system works in such away, that for every dollar he gives away he seems to get a buck and a half back?.... Now far be it from me what bill spends his charity on and mostly it seems really good natured, however for ever bill there's a koch and not a good cock but a very insidious one!.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There's always wastage.
But there's be more wastage(ie of your and ours money)if everything was privatised.
What's crap/more worthwhile spending to you will be vice versa to someone else.
Tell me what services and institutions are better run, or provide more value to the public after Thatcher and successive Tory governments began selling off all the family jewelery?
"I don't think I want to pay more tax. What for? I don't get value for what I pay now. From here it looks like the civil service takes my money and wastes it on frivolous crap, incompetence and services I don't use or have no interest in.
I would be more interested to see just exactly how the money I do pay, is spent."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's always wastage.
But there's be more wastage(ie of your and ours money)if everything was privatised.
What's crap/more worthwhile spending to you will be vice versa to someone else.
Tell me what services and institutions are better run, or provide more value to the public after Thatcher and successive Tory governments began selling off all the family jewelery?
"
Well here's a few I can think of without too much effort.
A
?Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries
?Anglian Water
?Atomic Weapons Establishment
?Austin Rover Group
B
?British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
?BP
?British Aerospace
?British Airways
?British Coal
?British Electricity Authority
?British Energy
?British European Airways
?British Leyland
?British Overseas Airways Corporation
?British Rail
?British Road Services
?British Shipbuilders
?British South American Airways
?British Steel
?British Telecom
?British Transport Docks Board
?British Waterways
C
?Central Electricity Authority
?Central Electricity Generating Board
?David Colville & Sons
?Consett Iron Company
D
?Dee Valley Water
E
?East Midlands Electricity
?Eastern Counties Omnibus Company
?Eastern Electricity Board
?Electricity Council
?English Steel Corporation
H
?Heathrow Airport Holdings
I
?Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain
J
?John Summers & Sons
L
?Lancashire Steel Corporation
M
?MANWEB
?Metropolitan Water Board (London)
?Midland Red
?Midlands Electricity
N
?National Bus Company (UK)
?National Coal Board
?National Express Coaches
?National Freight Corporation
?National Grid plc
?National Power
?National Shipbuilders Securities
?National Smelting Company
?New Electricity Trading Arrangements
?North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
?North Thames Gas Board
?North West Water
?North Western Gas Board
?Northern Electric
?Northumbrian Water Group
?NORWEB
O
?Oxford Bus Company
P
?Pickfords
?Post Office Telecommunications
?Public electricity supplier
R
?Railway and Canal Traffic Control
?Red Star Parcels
?Richard Thomas and Baldwins
?Rolls-Royce Holdings
?Rover Group
?Royal Ordnance Factory
S
?Scottish Bus Group
?Scottish Gas Board
?Scottish Nuclear
?Scottish Power
?Scottish Transport Group
?SEEBOARD
?Severn Trent
?South of Scotland Electricity Board
?South Wales Electricity
?South Western Electricity
?Southern Electric
?Southern Water
?Steel Company of Wales
T
?Thames Water
?Thomas Cook & Son
?Transport Holding Company
U
?Ulster Transport Authority
?Unipart
V
?Victoria Coach Station
W
?Welsh Water
?Wessex Water
Y
?Yorkshire Electricity
?Yorkshire Water
"
I don't think I want to pay more tax. What for? I don't get value for what I pay now. From here it looks like the civil service takes my money and wastes it on frivolous crap, incompetence and services I don't use or have no interest in.
I would be more interested to see just exactly how the money I do pay, is spent."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You think those are better run?!
Try having a look at what you copied & pasted - like what's actually going on with them. People getting fat out of supplying people with water.. that's a good example of privatisation?
The state of public transport?.. etc. etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
That's okay, in ten years time he'll be able to copy and paste the same thing but with the NHS, the police force, fire service, education system and judiciary into it as well.
More worthless crap.
I wanna know what things we spend on worthless crap anyway.
ANd no, I have no idea of how to counter a list as a response either, or have any knowledge of how to even if he presented an argument for the vast majority of them being better off privatised.
COuld start with British Rail and the Water authorites odf a starter.
Oh.
And BT.
British Gas.
The Post Office(bit tenuous that one, admittedly, but hell. Why not).
And so on.
"You think those are better run?!
Try having a look at what you copied & pasted - like what's actually going on with them. People getting fat out of supplying people with water.. that's a good example of privatisation?
The state of public transport?.. etc. etc."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not sure you can attribute growth from 1945-1970 to having a high top rate of tax. There were a few other things going on at the time...
Suggests it wasn't detrimental though.
I'm not dismissing that possibility. But that's not the same as being good for growth.
No but it's a fair point against the "wealth creation" bollocks - which if we dig deep is arguably actually "debt creation" under a promise of future prosperity, which is largely how all big business now operates.
Except we don't know what growth would have been had the rates been different. I'm generally suspicious of using historical precedents as reasons for setting taxes at certain levels. If it doesn't work as a solid argument for the laffer curve and setting taxes at lower rates, which it doesn't, then it doesn't work this way round either.
And the threshold for that highest rate kicking in needs to be higher than £150k. (And the higher rate threshold needs to be far, far higher than £42,385!) "
.
Laffer is a great point and entirely a reasonable one.
However laffer sold Reagan his theory, written on a napkin in a ten minute briefing in 81ish...
Which world leader genuinely trying to do his best for everyone buys that bollocks in a ten minute meeting unless... Low and behold it fits with Reagan's personal right wing philosophy that those that have created wealth should keep every penny, and that wealth would trickle down enriching us minions.
So here we are 35 years later, laffers curve has been discredited and disproven by hundreds of papers and economists for nearly what 25 years...
But how do we do QE from 2010-2016 ... Trickle down laffer curve!
And it's not just the UK... Everybody does trickle down!.
The one exception, Australia just after the credit crunch, they bought debt from everyday citizens in the form of tax credits.
And guess what Australia fared better than everybody else...
We didn't learn that lesson because we're not interested in learning lessons to improve stuff, what we're interested in is preserving the status quo and that message is very clear.
We need them, they don't need us!
.
.
My personal opinion is that is a very great illusion of the exact opposite! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Wealthy people can buy houses with that right to buy scheme, using my tax money and i can't afford to use the right to buy thing. Fuck you and pay for your own shit thanks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not sure you can attribute growth from 1945-1970 to having a high top rate of tax. There were a few other things going on at the time...
Suggests it wasn't detrimental though.
I'm not dismissing that possibility. But that's not the same as being good for growth.
No but it's a fair point against the "wealth creation" bollocks - which if we dig deep is arguably actually "debt creation" under a promise of future prosperity, which is largely how all big business now operates.
Except we don't know what growth would have been had the rates been different. I'm generally suspicious of using historical precedents as reasons for setting taxes at certain levels. If it doesn't work as a solid argument for the laffer curve and setting taxes at lower rates, which it doesn't, then it doesn't work this way round either.
And the threshold for that highest rate kicking in needs to be higher than £150k. (And the higher rate threshold needs to be far, far higher than £42,385!) .
Laffer is a great point and entirely a reasonable one.
However laffer sold Reagan his theory, written on a napkin in a ten minute briefing in 81ish...
Which world leader genuinely trying to do his best for everyone buys that bollocks in a ten minute meeting unless... Low and behold it fits with Reagan's personal right wing philosophy that those that have created wealth should keep every penny, and that wealth would trickle down enriching us minions.
So here we are 35 years later, laffers curve has been discredited and disproven by hundreds of papers and economists for nearly what 25 years...
But how do we do QE from 2010-2016 ... Trickle down laffer curve!
And it's not just the UK... Everybody does trickle down!.
The one exception, Australia just after the credit crunch, they bought debt from everyday citizens in the form of tax credits.
And guess what Australia fared better than everybody else...
We didn't learn that lesson because we're not interested in learning lessons to improve stuff, what we're interested in is preserving the status quo and that message is very clear.
We need them, they don't need us!
.
.
My personal opinion is that is a very great illusion of the exact opposite!"
Actually the meeting was between Laffer and Donald Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney in 1974. Ronald was never there.
Whilst the simple bell shaped curve of the Laffer curve has been discredited by some, that does not discredit the theory behind as the theory behind does not predict that a tax rate above 50% necessarily results in a drop of in total tax take. The theory only predicts that a tax rate of 0% and 100% will result in no tax take and that somewhere above 0% and below 100% at least one optimum rate exists above or below which tax take falls. What rate you get as the optimum rate depends completely on what you take into consideration but most Laffer Curves used tend to be between 35% and 70% as an optimum tax rate. It is possible to have a binomial or even polynomial Laffer curve (eg increasing tax rates up to 30% increases tax take, between 30% to 55% decreases tax take, between 55% to 70% increases tax take, above 70% decreases tax take - illustrative only).
The theory is not a new idea of the 20th century and was not actually Laffer's; in fact the idea is talked about by the 14th-century social philosopher Ibn Khaldun.
It also has nothing to do with the trickle down of wealth which is a completely different theory all together. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
For myself, whilst definitely not being happy to pay more tax than I currently pay, I would be willing to pay more tax if I believed that paying more tax would actually solve the problems in the NHS, social services, benefits or whatever else people seem to think a few extra pence on income tax would actually fix, but I don't. Gordon Brown added an extra 1p in the pound to NI back in 1997. This was meant to solve the NHS funding problems then. It clearly has not. All it did was kick the problem a few years further down the road. I see no reason to believe that even an increase of 5p in the pound would have a significantly different result.
People talk about a few pence in the pound extra, or tax the rich more, or cut benefits, or clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion, or increase corporation tax; because it's a simple way of kicking down the road the real problem and not addressing the real issue now. And that issue is quite simple, with an ageing population the demand on services will increase whilst the taxable base will decrease so, if we don't fundamentally change the way we fund these services, they will become totally unaffordable and they will fail us all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'd be happy to pay more tax, if that would mean I was earning more money
I'd be happy to pay more, if it meant a brighter future for young people, we don't own this earth, we borrow it from our children"
human attitudes need to change.. Otherwise there will be no future.. We are by far, the biggest threat to the planet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We wouldn't need to pay more tax if it were spent wisely, if it were not so complicated and easier to police, and also if there wern't greedy bastards creaming off us.. like politicians. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I agree with a post a few above, we need to get the larger companies that pay less tax, thanks to George Osbournes rules, to pay the correct taxes they should. Google, Apple and Facebook are amongst the group. Google are reported to have earned £4.9bn last year. Yet £130 million for 10 years of missed tax is a win for the chancellor. That's what you get for trusting a namby pamby history student to manage finance. "
yes Osborne is a big twat
but at the same time, although we all know Google, Amazon and the likes avoid tax and damage the UK, the majority of people still keep using them, that is the biggest problem
everyone should avoid and stop using |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arry247Couple
over a year ago
Wakefield |
" I'd happily pay more tax to get better quality public services. Privatisation of such services usually leads to unscrupulous sorts trying to maximise profit as opposed to quality of service. So provide the resources to those who need it and ensure accountability."
People should understand that loop holes such as those used by multi national companies were specifically put in place by governments round the world to get companies to “base” themselves in the country concerned.
This worked well for countries like the UK for a while until of smaller countries decided to attract the multi nationals by having lower tax rates.
Don’t blame multi national companies for taking advantage of laws set up for them to do just that.
Countries and governments do not have any money of their own they charge tax to enable the country to purchase what it needs and prosper.
As with individuals some governments are careful with the money they have and spend it wisely others squander it, most lie somewhere between the two extremes.
Workers want higher wages to improve their living standards but don’t take into account that to pay for higher wages the costs of their “product” or goes up. This means that those on low wages or fixed income then automatically have a lower standard of living.
All those Union led strikes for higher wages do not affect the rich or the higher paid but they do have a drastic effect on the low paid and people with fixed incomes.
When I started working in the late 1960s the average weekly wage was around the average hourly wage today.
Since then though there are more gadgets and electronics in houses the standard of living is about the same. Yes more families have cars but the cost of getting to work as a proportion of the wage is roughly the same or in some cases higher.
More people have holidays abroad but they have to work more hours during the year to fund those holidays (obviously there are exceptions depending on the destinations).
The cost of basics has changed very little over the decades as the increases in wages have been absorbed paying the extra costs due to the costs others have to impose for them to live.
Perhaps most surprising fact is people today work longer hours to survive than medieval peasants worked slaving for their Lords.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" I'd happily pay more tax to get better quality public services. Privatisation of such services usually leads to unscrupulous sorts trying to maximise profit as opposed to quality of service. So provide the resources to those who need it and ensure accountability.
People should understand that loop holes such as those used by multi national companies were specifically put in place by governments round the world to get companies to “base” themselves in the country concerned.
This worked well for countries like the UK for a while until of smaller countries decided to attract the multi nationals by having lower tax rates.
Don’t blame multi national companies for taking advantage of laws set up for them to do just that.
Countries and governments do not have any money of their own they charge tax to enable the country to purchase what it needs and prosper.
As with individuals some governments are careful with the money they have and spend it wisely others squander it, most lie somewhere between the two extremes.
Workers want higher wages to improve their living standards but don’t take into account that to pay for higher wages the costs of their “product” or goes up. This means that those on low wages or fixed income then automatically have a lower standard of living.
All those Union led strikes for higher wages do not affect the rich or the higher paid but they do have a drastic effect on the low paid and people with fixed incomes.
When I started working in the late 1960s the average weekly wage was around the average hourly wage today.
Since then though there are more gadgets and electronics in houses the standard of living is about the same. Yes more families have cars but the cost of getting to work as a proportion of the wage is roughly the same or in some cases higher.
More people have holidays abroad but they have to work more hours during the year to fund those holidays (obviously there are exceptions depending on the destinations).
The cost of basics has changed very little over the decades as the increases in wages have been absorbed paying the extra costs due to the costs others have to impose for them to live.
Perhaps most surprising fact is people today work longer hours to survive than medieval peasants worked slaving for their Lords.
"
Quality post |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not saying it's the sole reason but.
From ww2 through to about 1965ish in nearly most first world countries the top tax rate was above 70%, JFK in the states was seen as the great liberal tax cutter cutting from 90% down to 70%.
In the UK we cut tax from 95% for the top tax rate down to 40% in 40 years...
Top tax rate payers weren't alone CT was more than halved in that 40 years.
So 60% tax cuts across the board for the wealthy and businesses, while everybody else saw very menial tax cuts but at the same time a massive increase in hidden tax's like vat, stamp duty, alcohol, fuel, cigs etc etc.
Somebody earning 25k a year nowadays pays about 65% tax in total take give or take their lifestyle while the mega wealthy have reduced their total tax by at least 60%...
Now if that was great for growth, I'd be willing to bite the bullet however, the greatest growth the world ever saw was from 1945-1970... The very same period that had the highest tax's for the very wealthiest
I'm not sure you can attribute growth from 1945-1970 to having a high top rate of tax. There were a few other things going on at the time....
Like I said it's not the sole reason!.
I'm just saying that this modern conception that low tax creates growth has no historical context at all.
What low tax does IMO is waste capitol, because instead of trying to claw back what was lost in tax, you can now just sit back and think of more tax avoidance schemes, were ploughing capitol into politics trying to create tax avoidance instead of ploughing it into business to make money to pay tax's!.
I'm sure bill gates is very generous with his wealth, he gives lots and lots to charity, however the system works in such away, that for every dollar he gives away he seems to get a buck and a half back?.... Now far be it from me what bill spends his charity on and mostly it seems really good natured, however for ever bill there's a koch and not a good cock but a very insidious one!.
"
Ah; hands up I didn't read your first line. My bad. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" I'd happily pay more tax to get better quality public services. Privatisation of such services usually leads to unscrupulous sorts trying to maximise profit as opposed to quality of service. So provide the resources to those who need it and ensure accountability.
People should understand that loop holes such as those used by multi national companies were specifically put in place by governments round the world to get companies to “base” themselves in the country concerned.
This worked well for countries like the UK for a while until of smaller countries decided to attract the multi nationals by having lower tax rates.
Don’t blame multi national companies for taking advantage of laws set up for them to do just that.
Countries and governments do not have any money of their own they charge tax to enable the country to purchase what it needs and prosper.
As with individuals some governments are careful with the money they have and spend it wisely others squander it, most lie somewhere between the two extremes.
Workers want higher wages to improve their living standards but don’t take into account that to pay for higher wages the costs of their “product” or goes up. This means that those on low wages or fixed income then automatically have a lower standard of living.
All those Union led strikes for higher wages do not affect the rich or the higher paid but they do have a drastic effect on the low paid and people with fixed incomes.
When I started working in the late 1960s the average weekly wage was around the average hourly wage today.
Since then though there are more gadgets and electronics in houses the standard of living is about the same. Yes more families have cars but the cost of getting to work as a proportion of the wage is roughly the same or in some cases higher.
More people have holidays abroad but they have to work more hours during the year to fund those holidays (obviously there are exceptions depending on the destinations).
The cost of basics has changed very little over the decades as the increases in wages have been absorbed paying the extra costs due to the costs others have to impose for them to live.
Perhaps most surprising fact is people today work longer hours to survive than medieval peasants worked slaving for their Lords.
"
.
That's fine but then if you look at wages growth and productivity growth on a graph they pretty much follow each other for about 100 years, ie the workers share in the extra wealth created... That is until 1976 ish... Because around then productivity took off massively while wages stayed on the same slow increase.
So all this extra productivity meaning extra wealth but the workers aren't getting any extra money, sure they work about 4 hrs less a week on average but we're talking a 280% increase on production in 40 years while wages flatline in real terms after inflation!.
What we've actually done I'll agree is make stuff cheaper by being more productive allowing the average wage to stagnate while the extra wealth created by the productivity has gone to the very top 0.1% who then are completely avoiding the tax on the extra income, hence the proliferation of the uber rich |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So nearing the half way point..... it seems we have a number of people who would be willing to pay more in tax...... we have a number of people who expect others to fund their wish list.... we have an number of people who clearly feel we already pay too much tax but still think the government is at fault for pretty much everything included the weather...
Oh and an argument within an argument about the past credentials and future potential of a guy called Rafa....
So all in all, so far so good , I'd say its all going rather well...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have heard some countries have better standards than ours, but they pay a lot more tax.
If things got better, not just used for more politicians moats to be cleaned then I would consider it."
Exactly. I begrudge donating anything to thieves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So nearing the half way point..... it seems we have a number of people who would be willing to pay more in tax...... we have a number of people who expect others to fund their wish list.... we have an number of people who clearly feel we already pay too much tax but still think the government is at fault for pretty much everything included the weather...
Oh and an argument within an argument about the past credentials and future potential of a guy called Rafa....
So all in all, so far so good , I'd say its all going rather well...... "
.
I'm not willing to pay tax, nobody is, humans are piss poor at making long term decisions today.
Which is why we get people in at subjects who are experts and then we agree to let them guide are decisions by force, yes we force people to drive slower, drink less, smoke less, eat healthy..
And we should force people to pay tax to further the place we live.
Give humans a choice to fuck over the place they live for ten Bob and then retire to Spain without paying tax... They pretty much do in droves because at heart... There's a bit of a cunt in all of us |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
