FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Food Banks and poverty
Food Banks and poverty
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Have you seen the poverty in the US or China? You'll say I'm deflecting. I'll say clearly poverty is much more than economy. Heres what the UN say: Poverty entails more than the lack of income and productive resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods. Its manifestations include hunger and malnutrition, limited access to education and other basic services, social discrimination and exclusion as well as the lack of participation in decision-making." So your answer is that you do not know. Easier just to say so perhaps  | |||
| |||
" Before all you anti EU, Brexit supporters get all excited, I saw this on Twitter and it is an interesting question. " Then why try to make it so? However, There isn't a country in the developed world that doesn't have food banks or poverty. The pandemic has proved that countries can spend a lot more money on things that are necessary (furlough, business support, for example). Into the future, this is going to become an awkward question for those governments too - 'well we spend billions in the pandemic, why can't we do that for poverty' Germany for example have many more food banks than the UK and the same questions get asked there without a real and clear response. What can we do? Lobby your MP, join your local action group, donate. | |||
"Major Tom went into space! Captain Tom raised money for NHS Charities. " Ground control to . . .  | |||
"Have you seen the poverty in the US or China? You'll say I'm deflecting. I'll say clearly poverty is much more than economy. Heres what the UN say: Poverty entails more than the lack of income and productive resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods. Its manifestations include hunger and malnutrition, limited access to education and other basic services, social discrimination and exclusion as well as the lack of participation in decision-making. So your answer is that you do not know. Easier just to say so perhaps "No one knows, not the UK nor the other nations with great economies. I'll say it again. Poverty isn't strictly just about a countries economic wealth | |||
" Before all you anti EU, Brexit supporters get all excited, I saw this on Twitter and it is an interesting question. Then why try to make it so " In answer to your question - I tried to make it clear that I was not discussing what is obviously your favourite subject as you either deflect or defend anything which you consider to be against your blinkered Brexit viewpoint. Why not actually discuss the questions raised on the post for a change or, if it hurts too much to not keep turning things round, just ignore the post? | |||
"Have you seen the poverty in the US or China? You'll say I'm deflecting. I'll say clearly poverty is much more than economy. Heres what the UN say: Poverty entails more than the lack of income and productive resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods. Its manifestations include hunger and malnutrition, limited access to education and other basic services, social discrimination and exclusion as well as the lack of participation in decision-making. So your answer is that you do not know. Easier just to say so perhaps
No one knows, not the UK nor the other nations with great economies.
I'll say it again. Poverty isn't strictly just about a countries economic wealth"I have been a staunch Tory supporter for most of my life and the goverment in power for majority of my life has been Tory. In reality, when you think about it, if the government was genuinely looking after the people, we should not be in this position. China had a massive population as has the USA but the UK should be able to manage better - or Inwould hope they should. What went wrong? | |||
| |||
" Before all you anti EU, Brexit supporters get all excited, I saw this on Twitter and it is an interesting question. Then why try to make it so In answer to your question - I tried to make it clear that I was not discussing what is obviously your favourite subject as you either deflect or defend anything which you consider to be against your blinkered Brexit viewpoint. Why not actually discuss the questions raised on the post for a change or, if it hurts too much to not keep turning things round, just ignore the post?" lmao. 1. I did talk about the question. Directly. As you can read above. 2. Do we have to go on and on and on in this endless circle of childish repost! A MOD posted just two day ago about bickering. Please. For gawds sake get past it. | |||
" Before all you anti EU, Brexit supporters get all excited, I saw this on Twitter and it is an interesting question. Then why try to make it so In answer to your question - I tried to make it clear that I was not discussing what is obviously your favourite subject as you either deflect or defend anything which you consider to be against your blinkered Brexit viewpoint. Why not actually discuss the questions raised on the post for a change or, if it hurts too much to not keep turning things round, just ignore the post? lmao. 1. I did talk about the question. Directly. As you can read above. 2. Do we have to go on and on and on in this endless circle of childish repost! A MOD posted just two day ago about bickering. Please. For gawds sake get past it." I hope that the MOD has got your name... | |||
"Have you seen the poverty in the US or China? You'll say I'm deflecting. I'll say clearly poverty is much more than economy. Heres what the UN say: Poverty entails more than the lack of income and productive resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods. Its manifestations include hunger and malnutrition, limited access to education and other basic services, social discrimination and exclusion as well as the lack of participation in decision-making. So your answer is that you do not know. Easier just to say so perhaps
No one knows, not the UK nor the other nations with great economies.
I'll say it again. Poverty isn't strictly just about a countries economic wealth
I have been a staunch Tory supporter for most of my life and the goverment in power for majority of my life has been Tory.
In reality, when you think about it, if the government was genuinely looking after the people, we should not be in this position.
China had a massive population as has the USA but the UK should be able to manage better - or Inwould hope they should.
What went wrong?"I see, because China and the USA have large populations we can't ask why they also struggle? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I see, because China and the USA have large populations we can't ask why they also struggle? Not at all - I was suggesting that it is because of the large populations that they struggle. Their land mass must also come into it. Back to the UK though - and my original question. Perhaps better not to focus on the economy but to focus on the poverty and food banks. Why, in this day and age in a modern society like the UK is there so much poverty. So much difference between rich and poor in fact? Perhaps it is simply how our society works - will it get worse? Is it a good thing? Personally, if I could change it (or knew how to), I would." The point is that it isn't a UK problem. It is the same the world over. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The wealth is concentrated in very few hands in the U.K. " I agree very much with this. There is too big a difference between the two. I do not believe in communism but capitalism has perhaps gone too far.. | |||
"What can we do? Lobby your MP, join your local action group, donate." Out of the 3 options the only viable one is to lobby your MP. Of course, we need enough people to do so and the MP to feel threatened (of losing his or her seat), before any change could take place. | |||
"What can we do? Lobby your MP, join your local action group, donate. Out of the 3 options the only viable one is to lobby your MP. Of course, we need enough people to do so and the MP to feel threatened (of losing his or her seat), before any change could take place." If you join an action group that is the stronger lobby - if you donate you help between time. So, all three are viable and really the only solution short and long term. | |||
"How come, if the UK is the world's 6th biggest economy, that it cannot manage to feed its population? Before all you anti EU, Brexit supporters get all excited, I saw this on Twitter and it is an interesting question. This is not pro EU or anti Brexit - OKAY? But a perfectly reasonable question. Why has such a successful country got so much poverty in this day and age? Why did poor old Major Tom (and plenty others) have to walk for charity to raise money for our NHS? We should be better than this. " We have a government that is happy to allow thousands to go hungry and use the excuse that a few people are benefits cheats to justify it. We have a population that chooses to believe that narrative because it’s not them. While we prioritise the rights of companies over the rights of people, this will not end. | |||
"The wealth is concentrated in very few hands in the U.K. I agree very much with this. There is too big a difference between the two. I do not believe in communism but capitalism has perhaps gone too far.." Yes 1% of the U.K. own 25% of its wealth. Even reducing that by 45% would result in much better standard for all. I don’t mean hand outs to those who don’t want to work but those who do should keep more of their tax and the state services should be better such as education roads hospitals. | |||
| |||
"Major Tom went into space! Captain Tom raised money for NHS Charities. "  | |||
| |||
| |||
" Because some people have less mo eye than others and thus cannot afford one things no that’s got nothing to do with the economy of a given country it’s just how the bell curve falls on a personal level. " I’m a little confused, are you saying that tor’s the fault of the people who need to use food banks that they haven’t got enough money to buy food and not the economy of the country they live in? | |||
" Because some people have less mo eye than others and thus cannot afford one things no that’s got nothing to do with the economy of a given country it’s just how the bell curve falls on a personal level. I’m a little confused, are you saying that tor’s the fault of the people who need to use food banks that they haven’t got enough money to buy food and not the economy of the country they live in?" It’s not anyone’s “fault” per se just a fact that some people don’t have money and others do … such is life. | |||
"How come, if the UK is the world's 6th biggest economy, that it cannot manage to feed its population? Before all you anti EU, Brexit supporters get all excited, I saw this on Twitter and it is an interesting question. This is not pro EU or anti Brexit - OKAY? But a perfectly reasonable question. Why has such a successful country got so much poverty in this day and age? Why did poor old Major Tom (and plenty others) have to walk for charity to raise money for our NHS? We should be better than this. " Politicians & the people/money behind them choose not too. Why spend money on ensuring we ALL have the basics of life, whilst we can spend £'s on nuclear weapons, military, HS2 & a ton of other stuff. The system is rigged to ensure that the people at the bottom are left to struggle whilst the ones at the top make sure that things don't change. | |||
" Before all you anti EU, Brexit supporters get all excited, I saw this on Twitter and it is an interesting question. Then why try to make it so? However, There isn't a country in the developed world that doesn't have food banks or poverty. The pandemic has proved that countries can spend a lot more money on things that are necessary (furlough, business support, for example). Into the future, this is going to become an awkward question for those governments too - 'well we spend billions in the pandemic, why can't we do that for poverty' Germany for example have many more food banks than the UK and the same questions get asked there without a real and clear response. What can we do? Lobby your MP, join your local action group, donate. " It is an on going problem and although I knew its not a UK specific problem given other countries problems I was shocked at Germany. | |||
" Because some people have less mo eye than others and thus cannot afford one things no that’s got nothing to do with the economy of a given country it’s just how the bell curve falls on a personal level. I’m a little confused, are you saying that tor’s the fault of the people who need to use food banks that they haven’t got enough money to buy food and not the economy of the country they live in? It’s not anyone’s “fault” per se just a fact that some people don’t have money and others do … such is life. " The existence of billionaires and food banks in the same country shows our economic system isn’t fit for purpose. | |||
" Because some people have less mo eye than others and thus cannot afford one things no that’s got nothing to do with the economy of a given country it’s just how the bell curve falls on a personal level. I’m a little confused, are you saying that tor’s the fault of the people who need to use food banks that they haven’t got enough money to buy food and not the economy of the country they live in? It’s not anyone’s “fault” per se just a fact that some people don’t have money and others do … such is life. The existence of billionaires and food banks in the same country shows our economic system isn’t fit for purpose." What utter nonsense!! | |||
 | |||
" The existence of billionaires and food banks in the same country shows our economic system isn’t fit for purpose. What utter nonsense!!" Why is it nonsense? The duty of any Government is to protect and care for its population - all of them. The irony in this country is that those at the bottom of the pile need the most help, but get the least help whilst those at the top are facilitated in increasing their wealth to the point that the wealth gap gets bigger and bigger every year. There is no excuse for people to be homeless and there is no excuse for people to be relying on food banks. There is also no excuse for people who make literally £billions from the ordinary people on this country not to pay more tax to support those who are far, far less well off. There just has to be a will in Government to change things and to do that we need a bit of honesty about taxation. | |||
" Because some people have less mo eye than others and thus cannot afford one things no that’s got nothing to do with the economy of a given country it’s just how the bell curve falls on a personal level. I’m a little confused, are you saying that tor’s the fault of the people who need to use food banks that they haven’t got enough money to buy food and not the economy of the country they live in? It’s not anyone’s “fault” per se just a fact that some people don’t have money and others do … such is life. The existence of billionaires and food banks in the same country shows our economic system isn’t fit for purpose. What utter nonsense!!" If you worked on a production line doing the same job as the guy next to you, you both had a wife and two kids but he didn’t pay tax yet you did, would you consider that fair? | |||
"I'm sure the trickle down of wealth will happen any day soon. Its been a while and I'm positive its in the pipeline. Any day now... "Bit like a stalactite ??  | |||
| |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty." There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable." But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind. | |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind." The absolute is that we can afford to make sure everyone has enough food so we should. We could start by ensuring that rich people and corporations pay their fair rate of tax, not how much they legally have to pay but a rate determined by the government. No more tax dodges, which interestingly the EU is cracking down on but the likes of the fabulously wealthy Rees-Mogg and his vulture capitalist chums didn't want us to join in with. Then we can support smaller businesses to pay a living, rather than minimum, wage while making it illegal for larger companies to pay dividends until all of their staff are paid at the living wage level. Just a couple of ideas. | |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind." You would know if you were a regular in here you can only compare what they want you to compare if it goes against what they believe its not allowed. | |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind.You would know if you were a regular in here you can only compare what they want you to compare if it goes against what they believe its not allowed. "Take the 36th by per capita and still the question remains why do people in this country need food banks. ( some don’t but use them) when we have plenty of money to give away to people using tax avoidance ? | |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind.You would know if you were a regular in here you can only compare what they want you to compare if it goes against what they believe its not allowed.
Take the 36th by per capita and still the question remains why do people in this country need food banks. ( some don’t but use them) when we have plenty of money to give away to people using tax avoidance ? "The answer is to create more well paid jobs, just having more tax coming in does not solve the problem. | |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind. The absolute is that we can afford to make sure everyone has enough food so we should. We could start by ensuring that rich people and corporations pay their fair rate of tax, not how much they legally have to pay but a rate determined by the government. No more tax dodges, which interestingly the EU is cracking down on but the likes of the fabulously wealthy Rees-Mogg and his vulture capitalist chums didn't want us to join in with. Then we can support smaller businesses to pay a living, rather than minimum, wage while making it illegal for larger companies to pay dividends until all of their staff are paid at the living wage level. Just a couple of ideas." I thought we were not supposed to compare with other countries. Now we have to compare with the EU? Anyway, you can't solve the problem of poverty by taxing only the rich. The money you get out of it is hardly enough to solve poverty at the scale of the whole country. I agree with you that tax avoidance is a bad thing and laws must be passed to stop people from cutting corners. But Germany and France are in 19th and 27th in per capita GDP while they have poverty index of 14.8% and 13.5% respectively. The UK is 37th at per capita GDP and has poverty index of 18.6% Not a big difference if you take the respective economies into account. If you really want to curb poverty using social welfare, the only way you do that is by increasing tax on everyone. Not just the rich. You and I also should be ready to pay extra 10 percent tax. | |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind. The absolute is that we can afford to make sure everyone has enough food so we should. We could start by ensuring that rich people and corporations pay their fair rate of tax, not how much they legally have to pay but a rate determined by the government. No more tax dodges, which interestingly the EU is cracking down on but the likes of the fabulously wealthy Rees-Mogg and his vulture capitalist chums didn't want us to join in with. Then we can support smaller businesses to pay a living, rather than minimum, wage while making it illegal for larger companies to pay dividends until all of their staff are paid at the living wage level. Just a couple of ideas. I thought we were not supposed to compare with other countries. Now we have to compare with the EU? Anyway, you can't solve the problem of poverty by taxing only the rich. The money you get out of it is hardly enough to solve poverty at the scale of the whole country. I agree with you that tax avoidance is a bad thing and laws must be passed to stop people from cutting corners. But Germany and France are in 19th and 27th in per capita GDP while they have poverty index of 14.8% and 13.5% respectively. The UK is 37th at per capita GDP and has poverty index of 18.6% Not a big difference if you take the respective economies into account. If you really want to curb poverty using social welfare, the only way you do that is by increasing tax on everyone. Not just the rich. You and I also should be ready to pay extra 10 percent tax. " No you can't cure poverty by taxing just the rich. However there is such a thing as excessive disposable income. It is clearly immoral (although it happens to not be illegal) that there are some in society who acquire money faster than it is possible for them ever to be able to spend it, merely by virtue of already having more money than they could spend in their lifetime, while there are others working full time who have to make choices between feeding their children or keeping them warm. It clearly should be illegal for anybody to be buying their fourth mansion while there is a single person in the country who is living on the street. As for fair taxation - yes, why not raise taxes on everybody. However the tax should be performed annually upon the income and savings of everybody above a threshold limit, say a flat 10% on everybody that had more than whatever is the mean disposable income measured across the entire population (with a little bit of jiggling for those right on the boundary, so there isn't a penalising step for anbody just because they are £1 over the critical value). Then take the entire sum raised and divide it absolutely equally to every head of the population. Repeat every year. By definition, nobody pays if they cannot afford to. Everybody with below average income gets a boost that actually helps them. The ultra rich do not even notice losing money that they could never spend in their lifetime anyway. | |||
| |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind. The absolute is that we can afford to make sure everyone has enough food so we should. We could start by ensuring that rich people and corporations pay their fair rate of tax, not how much they legally have to pay but a rate determined by the government. No more tax dodges, which interestingly the EU is cracking down on but the likes of the fabulously wealthy Rees-Mogg and his vulture capitalist chums didn't want us to join in with. Then we can support smaller businesses to pay a living, rather than minimum, wage while making it illegal for larger companies to pay dividends until all of their staff are paid at the living wage level. Just a couple of ideas. I thought we were not supposed to compare with other countries. Now we have to compare with the EU? Anyway, you can't solve the problem of poverty by taxing only the rich. The money you get out of it is hardly enough to solve poverty at the scale of the whole country. I agree with you that tax avoidance is a bad thing and laws must be passed to stop people from cutting corners. But Germany and France are in 19th and 27th in per capita GDP while they have poverty index of 14.8% and 13.5% respectively. The UK is 37th at per capita GDP and has poverty index of 18.6% Not a big difference if you take the respective economies into account. If you really want to curb poverty using social welfare, the only way you do that is by increasing tax on everyone. Not just the rich. You and I also should be ready to pay extra 10 percent tax. No you can't cure poverty by taxing just the rich. However there is such a thing as excessive disposable income. It is clearly immoral (although it happens to not be illegal) that there are some in society who acquire money faster than it is possible for them ever to be able to spend it, merely by virtue of already having more money than they could spend in their lifetime, while there are others working full time who have to make choices between feeding their children or keeping them warm. It clearly should be illegal for anybody to be buying their fourth mansion while there is a single person in the country who is living on the street. As for fair taxation - yes, why not raise taxes on everybody. However the tax should be performed annually upon the income and savings of everybody above a threshold limit, say a flat 10% on everybody that had more than whatever is the mean disposable income measured across the entire population (with a little bit of jiggling for those right on the boundary, so there isn't a penalising step for anbody just because they are £1 over the critical value). Then take the entire sum raised and divide it absolutely equally to every head of the population. Repeat every year. By definition, nobody pays if they cannot afford to. Everybody with below average income gets a boost that actually helps them. The ultra rich do not even notice losing money that they could never spend in their lifetime anyway." no the ultra rich wont notice but the people who have been working hard, investing wisely and saving so they can give their children and grandchildren a better start to life will. A lot of the ultra rich you are on about dont even live here they reside in Monaco where they dont pay any tax. | |||
| |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind. The absolute is that we can afford to make sure everyone has enough food so we should. We could start by ensuring that rich people and corporations pay their fair rate of tax, not how much they legally have to pay but a rate determined by the government. No more tax dodges, which interestingly the EU is cracking down on but the likes of the fabulously wealthy Rees-Mogg and his vulture capitalist chums didn't want us to join in with. Then we can support smaller businesses to pay a living, rather than minimum, wage while making it illegal for larger companies to pay dividends until all of their staff are paid at the living wage level. Just a couple of ideas. I thought we were not supposed to compare with other countries. Now we have to compare with the EU? Anyway, you can't solve the problem of poverty by taxing only the rich. The money you get out of it is hardly enough to solve poverty at the scale of the whole country. I agree with you that tax avoidance is a bad thing and laws must be passed to stop people from cutting corners. But Germany and France are in 19th and 27th in per capita GDP while they have poverty index of 14.8% and 13.5% respectively. The UK is 37th at per capita GDP and has poverty index of 18.6% Not a big difference if you take the respective economies into account. If you really want to curb poverty using social welfare, the only way you do that is by increasing tax on everyone. Not just the rich. You and I also should be ready to pay extra 10 percent tax. No you can't cure poverty by taxing just the rich. However there is such a thing as excessive disposable income. It is clearly immoral (although it happens to not be illegal) that there are some in society who acquire money faster than it is possible for them ever to be able to spend it, merely by virtue of already having more money than they could spend in their lifetime, while there are others working full time who have to make choices between feeding their children or keeping them warm. It clearly should be illegal for anybody to be buying their fourth mansion while there is a single person in the country who is living on the street. As for fair taxation - yes, why not raise taxes on everybody. However the tax should be performed annually upon the income and savings of everybody above a threshold limit, say a flat 10% on everybody that had more than whatever is the mean disposable income measured across the entire population (with a little bit of jiggling for those right on the boundary, so there isn't a penalising step for anbody just because they are £1 over the critical value). Then take the entire sum raised and divide it absolutely equally to every head of the population. Repeat every year. By definition, nobody pays if they cannot afford to. Everybody with below average income gets a boost that actually helps them. The ultra rich do not even notice losing money that they could never spend in their lifetime anyway." I'm not sure what's more absurd. Telling people they can't spend their own money how they see fit or telling people they don't have to work so hard because they'll be 'topped up' by the people who do work hard  | |||
" No you can't cure poverty by taxing just the rich. However there is such a thing as excessive disposable income. It is clearly immoral (although it happens to not be illegal) that there are some in society who acquire money faster than it is possible for them ever to be able to spend it, merely by virtue of already having more money than they could spend in their lifetime, while there are others working full time who have to make choices between feeding their children or keeping them warm. It clearly should be illegal for anybody to be buying their fourth mansion while there is a single person in the country who is living on the street. As for fair taxation - yes, why not raise taxes on everybody. However the tax should be performed annually upon the income and savings of everybody above a threshold limit, say a flat 10% on everybody that had more than whatever is the mean disposable income measured across the entire population (with a little bit of jiggling for those right on the boundary, so there isn't a penalising step for anbody just because they are £1 over the critical value). Then take the entire sum raised and divide it absolutely equally to every head of the population. Repeat every year. By definition, nobody pays if they cannot afford to. Everybody with below average income gets a boost that actually helps them. The ultra rich do not even notice losing money that they could never spend in their lifetime anyway." There is nothing immoral about it. You act like wealth is a zero sum property. Everybody can create wealth if they work for it. Take the top ten richest persons right now. You see people from all economic levels. Also, making more money with the money they already have is not simple as people make you believe it. Just like people have made lot of money using investments, there are also enough people who have lost money doing it. If someone decides to have 5 kids while not being in a position to pay for a decent living for the kids, why is a person who worked, took risks and earned more money obligated to pay for them? That for me is immoral. If someone decides to get a useless degree that's not going to pay them enough, why should people who get degrees on fields that are genuinely useful to the society compensate for that? That's immoral too. | |||
" No you can't cure poverty by taxing just the rich. However there is such a thing as excessive disposable income. It is clearly immoral (although it happens to not be illegal) that there are some in society who acquire money faster than it is possible for them ever to be able to spend it, merely by virtue of already having more money than they could spend in their lifetime, while there are others working full time who have to make choices between feeding their children or keeping them warm. It clearly should be illegal for anybody to be buying their fourth mansion while there is a single person in the country who is living on the street. As for fair taxation - yes, why not raise taxes on everybody. However the tax should be performed annually upon the income and savings of everybody above a threshold limit, say a flat 10% on everybody that had more than whatever is the mean disposable income measured across the entire population (with a little bit of jiggling for those right on the boundary, so there isn't a penalising step for anbody just because they are £1 over the critical value). Then take the entire sum raised and divide it absolutely equally to every head of the population. Repeat every year. By definition, nobody pays if they cannot afford to. Everybody with below average income gets a boost that actually helps them. The ultra rich do not even notice losing money that they could never spend in their lifetime anyway. There is nothing immoral about it. You act like wealth is a zero sum property. Everybody can create wealth if they work for it. Take the top ten richest persons right now. You see people from all economic levels. Also, making more money with the money they already have is not simple as people make you believe it. Just like people have made lot of money using investments, there are also enough people who have lost money doing it. If someone decides to have 5 kids while not being in a position to pay for a decent living for the kids, why is a person who worked, took risks and earned more money obligated to pay for them? That for me is immoral. If someone decides to get a useless degree that's not going to pay them enough, why should people who get degrees on fields that are genuinely useful to the society compensate for that? That's immoral too." Quite right. why would people bother to work hard building business. They might as well not do anything and claim the top ups. Of course there would not be anyone still bothering so no one to pay for the top ups | |||
" No you can't cure poverty by taxing just the rich. However there is such a thing as excessive disposable income. It is clearly immoral (although it happens to not be illegal) that there are some in society who acquire money faster than it is possible for them ever to be able to spend it, merely by virtue of already having more money than they could spend in their lifetime, while there are others working full time who have to make choices between feeding their children or keeping them warm. It clearly should be illegal for anybody to be buying their fourth mansion while there is a single person in the country who is living on the street. As for fair taxation - yes, why not raise taxes on everybody. However the tax should be performed annually upon the income and savings of everybody above a threshold limit, say a flat 10% on everybody that had more than whatever is the mean disposable income measured across the entire population (with a little bit of jiggling for those right on the boundary, so there isn't a penalising step for anbody just because they are £1 over the critical value). Then take the entire sum raised and divide it absolutely equally to every head of the population. Repeat every year. By definition, nobody pays if they cannot afford to. Everybody with below average income gets a boost that actually helps them. The ultra rich do not even notice losing money that they could never spend in their lifetime anyway. There is nothing immoral about it. You act like wealth is a zero sum property. Everybody can create wealth if they work for it. Take the top ten richest persons right now. You see people from all economic levels. Also, making more money with the money they already have is not simple as people make you believe it. Just like people have made lot of money using investments, there are also enough people who have lost money doing it. If someone decides to have 5 kids while not being in a position to pay for a decent living for the kids, why is a person who worked, took risks and earned more money obligated to pay for them? That for me is immoral. If someone decides to get a useless degree that's not going to pay them enough, why should people who get degrees on fields that are genuinely useful to the society compensate for that? That's immoral too. Quite right. why would people bother to work hard building business. They might as well not do anything and claim the top ups. Of course there would not be anyone still bothering so no one to pay for the top ups" True. The socialism experiment has been tried and tested everywhere and fails everytime. Still there are people think that's the way to go. | |||
| |||
" The socialism experiment has been tried and tested everywhere and fails everytime. Still there are people think that's the way to go." Hasn't worked anywhere in the whole history of person kind.
| |||
"The system described above would make it pretty pointless earning more money, and why bother saving if you are gonna be penalised each year because you have been careful with your money. I think it would lead to people only doing what they had too and everyone would be relying on the state in old age when they can no longer work. It would kill this country. " Do you remember the 1970’s? There was a true middle class and ordinary working people could afford to buy a house, and a car on more or less one wage whilst Mum looked after the kids - despite being an era of high taxation, particularly on the very, very wealthy. Socially democratic countries in Europe have high levels of ration and yet appear to be some of the happiest people in the world. Paying tax does not equal unhappiness if the tax take is spent making the country a better place to live. | |||
" True. The socialism experiment has been tried and tested everywhere and fails everytime. Still there are people think that's the way to go." The foundations of ALL modern economies have socialism at their heart. In this country, without socialism there wouldn’t be an NHS, there wouldn’t be a public education system, there would not be local services like refuse collection, local fire and police etc. Paying into a central pot for the benefit of all is a fundamental backbone of most democracies. Some take the concept further by taking more money to pay for social infrastructure projects to improve towns and communities and to improve schools and adult education. There are others who ignore the socialist foundations of their own country and demand that less and less tax is taken and more and more public services get cut. | |||
" True. The socialism experiment has been tried and tested everywhere and fails everytime. Still there are people think that's the way to go. The foundations of ALL modern economies have socialism at their heart. In this country, without socialism there wouldn’t be an NHS, there wouldn’t be a public education system, there would not be local services like refuse collection, local fire and police etc. Paying into a central pot for the benefit of all is a fundamental backbone of most democracies. Some take the concept further by taking more money to pay for social infrastructure projects to improve towns and communities and to improve schools and adult education. There are others who ignore the socialist foundations of their own country and demand that less and less tax is taken and more and more public services get cut."
A trend that i hope can be reversed before it gets worse | |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind.You would know if you were a regular in here you can only compare what they want you to compare if it goes against what they believe its not allowed.
Take the 36th by per capita and still the question remains why do people in this country need food banks. ( some don’t but use them) when we have plenty of money to give away to people using tax avoidance ? The answer is to create more well paid jobs, just having more tax coming in does not solve the problem."Reducing tax on companies SME’s who pay tax or sole traders etc helps them invest in more and better paid jobs. Giving money to already mega ruch individuals does not create wealth it concentrates it. | |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind. The absolute is that we can afford to make sure everyone has enough food so we should. We could start by ensuring that rich people and corporations pay their fair rate of tax, not how much they legally have to pay but a rate determined by the government. No more tax dodges, which interestingly the EU is cracking down on but the likes of the fabulously wealthy Rees-Mogg and his vulture capitalist chums didn't want us to join in with. Then we can support smaller businesses to pay a living, rather than minimum, wage while making it illegal for larger companies to pay dividends until all of their staff are paid at the living wage level. Just a couple of ideas. I thought we were not supposed to compare with other countries. Now we have to compare with the EU? Anyway, you can't solve the problem of poverty by taxing only the rich. The money you get out of it is hardly enough to solve poverty at the scale of the whole country. I agree with you that tax avoidance is a bad thing and laws must be passed to stop people from cutting corners. But Germany and France are in 19th and 27th in per capita GDP while they have poverty index of 14.8% and 13.5% respectively. The UK is 37th at per capita GDP and has poverty index of 18.6% Not a big difference if you take the respective economies into account. If you really want to curb poverty using social welfare, the only way you do that is by increasing tax on everyone. Not just the rich. You and I also should be ready to pay extra 10 percent tax. " It’s not just about welfare it’s about workers being able to keep more their money while mega rich pay a fair share to help with NHS defence social services etc. | |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind. The absolute is that we can afford to make sure everyone has enough food so we should. We could start by ensuring that rich people and corporations pay their fair rate of tax, not how much they legally have to pay but a rate determined by the government. No more tax dodges, which interestingly the EU is cracking down on but the likes of the fabulously wealthy Rees-Mogg and his vulture capitalist chums didn't want us to join in with. Then we can support smaller businesses to pay a living, rather than minimum, wage while making it illegal for larger companies to pay dividends until all of their staff are paid at the living wage level. Just a couple of ideas. I thought we were not supposed to compare with other countries. Now we have to compare with the EU? Anyway, you can't solve the problem of poverty by taxing only the rich. The money you get out of it is hardly enough to solve poverty at the scale of the whole country. I agree with you that tax avoidance is a bad thing and laws must be passed to stop people from cutting corners. But Germany and France are in 19th and 27th in per capita GDP while they have poverty index of 14.8% and 13.5% respectively. The UK is 37th at per capita GDP and has poverty index of 18.6% Not a big difference if you take the respective economies into account. If you really want to curb poverty using social welfare, the only way you do that is by increasing tax on everyone. Not just the rich. You and I also should be ready to pay extra 10 percent tax. No you can't cure poverty by taxing just the rich. However there is such a thing as excessive disposable income. It is clearly immoral (although it happens to not be illegal) that there are some in society who acquire money faster than it is possible for them ever to be able to spend it, merely by virtue of already having more money than they could spend in their lifetime, while there are others working full time who have to make choices between feeding their children or keeping them warm. It clearly should be illegal for anybody to be buying their fourth mansion while there is a single person in the country who is living on the street. As for fair taxation - yes, why not raise taxes on everybody. However the tax should be performed annually upon the income and savings of everybody above a threshold limit, say a flat 10% on everybody that had more than whatever is the mean disposable income measured across the entire population (with a little bit of jiggling for those right on the boundary, so there isn't a penalising step for anbody just because they are £1 over the critical value). Then take the entire sum raised and divide it absolutely equally to every head of the population. Repeat every year. By definition, nobody pays if they cannot afford to. Everybody with below average income gets a boost that actually helps them. The ultra rich do not even notice losing money that they could never spend in their lifetime anyway. no the ultra rich wont notice but the people who have been working hard, investing wisely and saving so they can give their children and grandchildren a better start to life will. A lot of the ultra rich you are on about dont even live here they reside in Monaco where they dont pay any tax. " A lot of the ultra rich live in London. The money resides elsewhere. | |||
" No you can't cure poverty by taxing just the rich. However there is such a thing as excessive disposable income. It is clearly immoral (although it happens to not be illegal) that there are some in society who acquire money faster than it is possible for them ever to be able to spend it, merely by virtue of already having more money than they could spend in their lifetime, while there are others working full time who have to make choices between feeding their children or keeping them warm. It clearly should be illegal for anybody to be buying their fourth mansion while there is a single person in the country who is living on the street. As for fair taxation - yes, why not raise taxes on everybody. However the tax should be performed annually upon the income and savings of everybody above a threshold limit, say a flat 10% on everybody that had more than whatever is the mean disposable income measured across the entire population (with a little bit of jiggling for those right on the boundary, so there isn't a penalising step for anbody just because they are £1 over the critical value). Then take the entire sum raised and divide it absolutely equally to every head of the population. Repeat every year. By definition, nobody pays if they cannot afford to. Everybody with below average income gets a boost that actually helps them. The ultra rich do not even notice losing money that they could never spend in their lifetime anyway. There is nothing immoral about it. You act like wealth is a zero sum property. Everybody can create wealth if they work for it. Take the top ten richest persons right now. You see people from all economic levels. Also, making more money with the money they already have is not simple as people make you believe it. Just like people have made lot of money using investments, there are also enough people who have lost money doing it. If someone decides to have 5 kids while not being in a position to pay for a decent living for the kids, why is a person who worked, took risks and earned more money obligated to pay for them? That for me is immoral. If someone decides to get a useless degree that's not going to pay them enough, why should people who get degrees on fields that are genuinely useful to the society compensate for that? That's immoral too." I have two degrees sadly, I chose nursing, I can also prescribe all medications. Responsibility with no power and shit pay. I was useful, my degree was useful for society. My profession affected me physically and psychologically- I've seen things and experienced things I cannot believe I have survived. | |||
"The system described above would make it pretty pointless earning more money, and why bother saving if you are gonna be penalised each year because you have been careful with your money. I think it would lead to people only doing what they had too and everyone would be relying on the state in old age when they can no longer work. It would kill this country. Do you remember the 1970’s? There was a true middle class and ordinary working people could afford to buy a house, and a car on more or less one wage whilst Mum looked after the kids - despite being an era of high taxation, particularly on the very, very wealthy. Socially democratic countries in Europe have high levels of ration and yet appear to be some of the happiest people in the world. Paying tax does not equal unhappiness if the tax take is spent making the country a better place to live." Do you seriously believe that people in 1970s led a more positive life than now? Most statistics say otherwise. Again, in social democratic countries, everyone pays high tax. Not just the rich. Housing problem is down to population explosion and socialism is not going to help in anyway. It's a simple supply/demand problem. | |||
" True. The socialism experiment has been tried and tested everywhere and fails everytime. Still there are people think that's the way to go. The foundations of ALL modern economies have socialism at their heart. In this country, without socialism there wouldn’t be an NHS, there wouldn’t be a public education system, there would not be local services like refuse collection, local fire and police etc. Paying into a central pot for the benefit of all is a fundamental backbone of most democracies. Some take the concept further by taking more money to pay for social infrastructure projects to improve towns and communities and to improve schools and adult education. There are others who ignore the socialist foundations of their own country and demand that less and less tax is taken and more and more public services get cut." Depends on what benefit we are talking about. I am happy with social healthcare and education too. Education is necessary for economic mobility. Health problems could come out of nowhere and it's not under anyone's control. If a social welfare project will benefit majority of people, it is a good thing and it will work. There are two things we need to balance. How much money ar you taking from the people who work an earn and how many people are going to benefit from it? If you get the balance wrong in either of these, it will result in the economy going haywire. In the original post, the poster was saying that someone buying a fourth home is a crime. That's taking it too far. | |||
" No you can't cure poverty by taxing just the rich. However there is such a thing as excessive disposable income. It is clearly immoral (although it happens to not be illegal) that there are some in society who acquire money faster than it is possible for them ever to be able to spend it, merely by virtue of already having more money than they could spend in their lifetime, while there are others working full time who have to make choices between feeding their children or keeping them warm. It clearly should be illegal for anybody to be buying their fourth mansion while there is a single person in the country who is living on the street. As for fair taxation - yes, why not raise taxes on everybody. However the tax should be performed annually upon the income and savings of everybody above a threshold limit, say a flat 10% on everybody that had more than whatever is the mean disposable income measured across the entire population (with a little bit of jiggling for those right on the boundary, so there isn't a penalising step for anbody just because they are £1 over the critical value). Then take the entire sum raised and divide it absolutely equally to every head of the population. Repeat every year. By definition, nobody pays if they cannot afford to. Everybody with below average income gets a boost that actually helps them. The ultra rich do not even notice losing money that they could never spend in their lifetime anyway. There is nothing immoral about it. You act like wealth is a zero sum property. Everybody can create wealth if they work for it. Take the top ten richest persons right now. You see people from all economic levels. Also, making more money with the money they already have is not simple as people make you believe it. Just like people have made lot of money using investments, there are also enough people who have lost money doing it. If someone decides to have 5 kids while not being in a position to pay for a decent living for the kids, why is a person who worked, took risks and earned more money obligated to pay for them? That for me is immoral. If someone decides to get a useless degree that's not going to pay them enough, why should people who get degrees on fields that are genuinely useful to the society compensate for that? That's immoral too. I have two degrees sadly, I chose nursing, I can also prescribe all medications. Responsibility with no power and shit pay. I was useful, my degree was useful for society. My profession affected me physically and psychologically- I've seen things and experienced things I cannot believe I have survived. " You know who/what you have to thank for you being paid less even though you have a nursing degree which is in high demand? Socialism. The highest paid nurses are in the world are in the US, simply because hospitals are privately run and they have to pay based on supply/demand. In any service that is run by the government, that won't be the case. Though I support social healthcare, this is one of the bad outcomes of socialism. | |||
"The UK is the sixth largest economy based on its total GDP. But you have to compare that with the population. If we look at the GDP per capita it is at 37th position. We should be considering that if we are to compare the performance of economy with poverty. There’s no need, the levels of poverty we have in this country are completely unacceptable and it’s not like it couldn’t be fixed. Comparisons with other other countries just let idiots say things like “but we’re not as bad as xxxxxxxx”. We have people in full time employment having to resort to using food banks and that is completely unacceptable. But the original post itself is a comparison to other countries? He mentioned about how we are sixth largest economy but we have poverty. If you don't want to compare, instead of the ranking of the country in GDP, you should take absolute value in GDP, compare it with population and then find an answer for where the UK stands. Also while we are at it, please tell us the solutions you have in mind. The absolute is that we can afford to make sure everyone has enough food so we should. We could start by ensuring that rich people and corporations pay their fair rate of tax, not how much they legally have to pay but a rate determined by the government. No more tax dodges, which interestingly the EU is cracking down on but the likes of the fabulously wealthy Rees-Mogg and his vulture capitalist chums didn't want us to join in with. Then we can support smaller businesses to pay a living, rather than minimum, wage while making it illegal for larger companies to pay dividends until all of their staff are paid at the living wage level. Just a couple of ideas. I thought we were not supposed to compare with other countries. Now we have to compare with the EU? Anyway, you can't solve the problem of poverty by taxing only the rich. The money you get out of it is hardly enough to solve poverty at the scale of the whole country. I agree with you that tax avoidance is a bad thing and laws must be passed to stop people from cutting corners. But Germany and France are in 19th and 27th in per capita GDP while they have poverty index of 14.8% and 13.5% respectively. The UK is 37th at per capita GDP and has poverty index of 18.6% Not a big difference if you take the respective economies into account. If you really want to curb poverty using social welfare, the only way you do that is by increasing tax on everyone. Not just the rich. You and I also should be ready to pay extra 10 percent tax. It’s not just about welfare it’s about workers being able to keep more their money while mega rich pay a fair share to help with NHS defence social services etc. " What do you mean by fair share? They already pay a higher percentage of tax than others. NHS, defense and social services cost a lot more than what they could pay with their tax. You cannot improve any of it by increasing taxes for just the rich. You need to tax everyone. | |||
"The system described above would make it pretty pointless earning more money, and why bother saving if you are gonna be penalised each year because you have been careful with your money. I think it would lead to people only doing what they had too and everyone would be relying on the state in old age when they can no longer work. It would kill this country. Do you remember the 1970’s? There was a true middle class and ordinary working people could afford to buy a house, and a car on more or less one wage whilst Mum looked after the kids - despite being an era of high taxation, particularly on the very, very wealthy. Socially democratic countries in Europe have high levels of ration and yet appear to be some of the happiest people in the world. Paying tax does not equal unhappiness if the tax take is spent making the country a better place to live." I was born in 74 but I do remember my father working all hrs plus weekends and my mother also worked too and they struggled like he'll to raise me and my sister, I dont remember life being easy for them or me for that matter, my grandparents lent my parents the money to get a mortgage on a house which they struggled to pay with two kids but under the system that was described above what would have been the point of saving and buying a property if every time you earned a little extra it was taken, my father my aswell of only worked 5 days a week and my mother not all because they would have never been any better off than someone who just couldn't be arsed to work. Taking peoples savings i am afraid is something I just don't agree with, if someone has worked hard and sacrificed things to save a nest egg why should it be taken from them. I am sure my mum who was a nurse would have been really happy having what little she earned and saved for herself and us kids being taken away, that would have been a great way to thank her for her service to the community wouldn't it. I am all for those paying what they should, and maybe some really should pay more, but taking peoples savings or being penalised because someone in the family died and left a house is wrong. | |||
| |||
"The system described above would make it pretty pointless earning more money, and why bother saving if you are gonna be penalised each year because you have been careful with your money. I think it would lead to people only doing what they had too and everyone would be relying on the state in old age when they can no longer work. It would kill this country. Do you remember the 1970’s? There was a true middle class and ordinary working people could afford to buy a house, and a car on more or less one wage whilst Mum looked after the kids - despite being an era of high taxation, particularly on the very, very wealthy. Socially democratic countries in Europe have high levels of ration and yet appear to be some of the happiest people in the world. Paying tax does not equal unhappiness if the tax take is spent making the country a better place to live. I was born in 74 but I do remember my father working all hrs plus weekends and my mother also worked too and they struggled like he'll to raise me and my sister, I dont remember life being easy for them or me for that matter, my grandparents lent my parents the money to get a mortgage on a house which they struggled to pay with two kids but under the system that was described above what would have been the point of saving and buying a property if every time you earned a little extra it was taken, my father my aswell of only worked 5 days a week and my mother not all because they would have never been any better off than someone who just couldn't be arsed to work. Taking peoples savings i am afraid is something I just don't agree with, if someone has worked hard and sacrificed things to save a nest egg why should it be taken from them. I am sure my mum who was a nurse would have been really happy having what little she earned and saved for herself and us kids being taken away, that would have been a great way to thank her for her service to the community wouldn't it. I am all for those paying what they should, and maybe some really should pay more, but taking peoples savings or being penalised because someone in the family died and left a house is wrong." The point of my suggested system was that I think you would find that nearly every single person in the country would receive an increase in their disposable income, other than those who already have so much that it is literally impossible for them to spend it faster than it just magically appears in their coffers. By definition, nobody would get rich by doing nothing but at least they wouldn't starve on the streets, every hard working person struggling to make ends meet would get a damn good Christmas present, every middle class person would get a moderate boost. The mega rich might have to delay the purchase of their fifth yacht in Monte Carlo harbour for another couple of days. It is the current system that makes it difficult for the hardest working people to live decently. As for the points in some other posts about how anybody can get to the top just by their own hard work - if you look you will find that actually not a single one of the mega rich has got there solely by their own efforts. Yes some of them have worked hard, but every one of them had the advantage of starting with family big money and/or the type of prestigious family contacts that no ordinary person has. One of the biggest lies in our society is that money trickles down from the top, and that it is possible to work your way up from the very bottom. In verifiable fact the money currently only trickles upwards, becoming a torrent by the time it gets to the top, and the further down you start the more limited your prospects are in life. And the ones being stomped on hardest are often the ones that most deny that there is any problem. | |||
"If someone has the money why should it be illegall if they want to buy there 4th 5th or 6th mansion?? There money to do with what they please,pretty sure no one else on here would like to be told what they could and couldnt spend there money on" I didn't say that it should be illegal for anybody to buy their 4th 5th 6th mansion. What i said is that it is immoral that some have enough that they can choose which of 200 bedrooms to sleep in, while there are some who are literally starving on the streets. In a rich country only when everybody has at least the minimum to allow them to live, should some be allowed to have more than they could possibly use if they lived a hundred lifetimes. | |||
" The point of my suggested system was that I think you would find that nearly every single person in the country would receive an increase in their disposable income, other than those who already have so much that it is literally impossible for them to spend it faster than it just magically appears in their coffers. By definition, nobody would get rich by doing nothing but at least they wouldn't starve on the streets, every hard working person struggling to make ends meet would get a damn good Christmas present, every middle class person would get a moderate boost. The mega rich might have to delay the purchase of their fifth yacht in Monte Carlo harbour for another couple of days. It is the current system that makes it difficult for the hardest working people to live decently. As for the points in some other posts about how anybody can get to the top just by their own hard work - if you look you will find that actually not a single one of the mega rich has got there solely by their own efforts. Yes some of them have worked hard, but every one of them had the advantage of starting with family big money and/or the type of prestigious family contacts that no ordinary person has. One of the biggest lies in our society is that money trickles down from the top, and that it is possible to work your way up from the very bottom. In verifiable fact the money currently only trickles upwards, becoming a torrent by the time it gets to the top, and the further down you start the more limited your prospects are in life. And the ones being stomped on hardest are often the ones that most deny that there is any problem." When the mega rich buy a yacht, it actually results in many people who worked on it getting paid. That's much better than taking away their money and giving it for free to everyone. Your point about every one of the rich person having support from family is wrong. Look at the top ten richest in the world. At least two of them are from lower class families, majority from middle class. Even in the overall population, the number of people who have moved to middle class from poverty level in the last few decades is much higher than the news media would make it look like. As of now, if you want to become rich, you don't need rich parents to invest in you. All you need is a good business idea and some work experience to prove that you are a dedicated hard worker. There are plenty of venture capitalists who are willing to invest in you. I have seen plenty of rags to riches story and riches to rags stories everywhere. You just have to open your eyes and see them. | |||
"If someone has the money why should it be illegall if they want to buy there 4th 5th or 6th mansion?? There money to do with what they please,pretty sure no one else on here would like to be told what they could and couldnt spend there money on I didn't say that it should be illegal for anybody to buy their 4th 5th 6th mansion. What i said is that it is immoral that some have enough that they can choose which of 200 bedrooms to sleep in, while there are some who are literally starving on the streets. In a rich country only when everybody has at least the minimum to allow them to live, should some be allowed to have more than they could possibly use if they lived a hundred lifetimes." We can extend that to everything. Why just houses? No one should be allowed to own more than seven pieces of clothing. Why do people take vacations while there are others struggling to put food on their plates? Let's ban vacations too. It's easy to preach others on what's moral and immoral. Hard to practice. | |||
| |||
"The system described above would make it pretty pointless earning more money, and why bother saving if you are gonna be penalised each year because you have been careful with your money. I think it would lead to people only doing what they had too and everyone would be relying on the state in old age when they can no longer work. It would kill this country. Do you remember the 1970’s? There was a true middle class and ordinary working people could afford to buy a house, and a car on more or less one wage whilst Mum looked after the kids - despite being an era of high taxation, particularly on the very, very wealthy. Socially democratic countries in Europe have high levels of ration and yet appear to be some of the happiest people in the world. Paying tax does not equal unhappiness if the tax take is spent making the country a better place to live. I was born in 74 but I do remember my father working all hrs plus weekends and my mother also worked too and they struggled like he'll to raise me and my sister, I dont remember life being easy for them or me for that matter, my grandparents lent my parents the money to get a mortgage on a house which they struggled to pay with two kids but under the system that was described above what would have been the point of saving and buying a property if every time you earned a little extra it was taken, my father my aswell of only worked 5 days a week and my mother not all because they would have never been any better off than someone who just couldn't be arsed to work. Taking peoples savings i am afraid is something I just don't agree with, if someone has worked hard and sacrificed things to save a nest egg why should it be taken from them. I am sure my mum who was a nurse would have been really happy having what little she earned and saved for herself and us kids being taken away, that would have been a great way to thank her for her service to the community wouldn't it. I am all for those paying what they should, and maybe some really should pay more, but taking peoples savings or being penalised because someone in the family died and left a house is wrong. The point of my suggested system was that I think you would find that nearly every single person in the country would receive an increase in their disposable income, other than those who already have so much that it is literally impossible for them to spend it faster than it just magically appears in their coffers. By definition, nobody would get rich by doing nothing but at least they wouldn't starve on the streets, every hard working person struggling to make ends meet would get a damn good Christmas present, every middle class person would get a moderate boost. The mega rich might have to delay the purchase of their fifth yacht in Monte Carlo harbour for another couple of days. It is the current system that makes it difficult for the hardest working people to live decently. As for the points in some other posts about how anybody can get to the top just by their own hard work - if you look you will find that actually not a single one of the mega rich has got there solely by their own efforts. Yes some of them have worked hard, but every one of them had the advantage of starting with family big money and/or the type of prestigious family contacts that no ordinary person has. One of the biggest lies in our society is that money trickles down from the top, and that it is possible to work your way up from the very bottom. In verifiable fact the money currently only trickles upwards, becoming a torrent by the time it gets to the top, and the further down you start the more limited your prospects are in life. And the ones being stomped on hardest are often the ones that most deny that there is any problem." I dont see where the money would come from to give virtually everyone an increase in there wage though to be honest, there would be no incentive to work more hours to earn more money, thus paying more tax in, if you didn't get to keep any of the extra you earned, so surely there would be less going into the pot to begin with. And I am sorry but I still think its wrong to rob people of there savings if they have been careful and worked hard, not that people would bother saving any longer if they were going to have it taken anyway. I agree whole heartedly that big business should pay more in and extremely wealthy people should not be able to use the loop holes to hide there money, but I don't agree in taking savings from a family thats worked hard and managed to save a few quid for there kids or something. | |||
"The system described above would make it pretty pointless earning more money, and why bother saving if you are gonna be penalised each year because you have been careful with your money. I think it would lead to people only doing what they had too and everyone would be relying on the state in old age when they can no longer work. It would kill this country. Do you remember the 1970’s? There was a true middle class and ordinary working people could afford to buy a house, and a car on more or less one wage whilst Mum looked after the kids - despite being an era of high taxation, particularly on the very, very wealthy. Socially democratic countries in Europe have high levels of ration and yet appear to be some of the happiest people in the world. Paying tax does not equal unhappiness if the tax take is spent making the country a better place to live. I was born in 74 but I do remember my father working all hrs plus weekends and my mother also worked too and they struggled like he'll to raise me and my sister, I dont remember life being easy for them or me for that matter, my grandparents lent my parents the money to get a mortgage on a house which they struggled to pay with two kids but under the system that was described above what would have been the point of saving and buying a property if every time you earned a little extra it was taken, my father my aswell of only worked 5 days a week and my mother not all because they would have never been any better off than someone who just couldn't be arsed to work. Taking peoples savings i am afraid is something I just don't agree with, if someone has worked hard and sacrificed things to save a nest egg why should it be taken from them. I am sure my mum who was a nurse would have been really happy having what little she earned and saved for herself and us kids being taken away, that would have been a great way to thank her for her service to the community wouldn't it. I am all for those paying what they should, and maybe some really should pay more, but taking peoples savings or being penalised because someone in the family died and left a house is wrong. The point of my suggested system was that I think you would find that nearly every single person in the country would receive an increase in their disposable income, other than those who already have so much that it is literally impossible for them to spend it faster than it just magically appears in their coffers. By definition, nobody would get rich by doing nothing but at least they wouldn't starve on the streets, every hard working person struggling to make ends meet would get a damn good Christmas present, every middle class person would get a moderate boost. The mega rich might have to delay the purchase of their fifth yacht in Monte Carlo harbour for another couple of days. It is the current system that makes it difficult for the hardest working people to live decently. As for the points in some other posts about how anybody can get to the top just by their own hard work - if you look you will find that actually not a single one of the mega rich has got there solely by their own efforts. Yes some of them have worked hard, but every one of them had the advantage of starting with family big money and/or the type of prestigious family contacts that no ordinary person has. One of the biggest lies in our society is that money trickles down from the top, and that it is possible to work your way up from the very bottom. In verifiable fact the money currently only trickles upwards, becoming a torrent by the time it gets to the top, and the further down you start the more limited your prospects are in life. And the ones being stomped on hardest are often the ones that most deny that there is any problem. I dont see where the money would come from to give virtually everyone an increase in there wage though to be honest, there would be no incentive to work more hours to earn more money, thus paying more tax in, if you didn't get to keep any of the extra you earned, so surely there would be less going into the pot to begin with. And I am sorry but I still think its wrong to rob people of there savings if they have been careful and worked hard, not that people would bother saving any longer if they were going to have it taken anyway. I agree whole heartedly that big business should pay more in and extremely wealthy people should not be able to use the loop holes to hide there money, but I don't agree in taking savings from a family thats worked hard and managed to save a few quid for there kids or something." Why is it that nobody seems to get the idea that basically if 100 people in the world were allowed to be extremely rich, but not so obscenely rich that they couldn't get rid of the money even if they burned it, then everybody else would pay less tax. Very recently three multi billionaires have in fact literally burned billions of pounds riding around in rockets, yet each of them will by now have got more money than when they set off. And have these men been working 100 hours a week to put food on their families tables? No, they have been having jolly good fun riding around in rockets. "if you didn't get to keep any of the extra you earned" - of course you get to keep some of the extra you earned, most of it in fact. You already pay tax that takes away minimum 20% of your earnings and 15% of your spendings. I suggest that you should pay less tax and that vomit-makingly rich people should pay more, and everybody says that I'm the one stealing from the poor? That the only system that could possibly work is the one where people that already have enough money to never ever need to work again and still have absolutely anything they want are the ones that inexorably get richer, at the expense of basically every other person in the world? What is wrong with saying that when there exist people who can have 96 houses if they want and never even live in 90 of them, who just acquire money without ever needing to do anything, perhaps they should give 10% of what they can never get round to spending so that people who have nowhere to live get a roof over their heads? I am in no way saying that the poor must all be made rich and the rich should all be made poor. Just calling for a very slightly fairer playing field. | |||
"The system described above would make it pretty pointless earning more money, and why bother saving if you are gonna be penalised each year because you have been careful with your money. I think it would lead to people only doing what they had too and everyone would be relying on the state in old age when they can no longer work. It would kill this country. Do you remember the 1970’s? There was a true middle class and ordinary working people could afford to buy a house, and a car on more or less one wage whilst Mum looked after the kids - despite being an era of high taxation, particularly on the very, very wealthy. Socially democratic countries in Europe have high levels of ration and yet appear to be some of the happiest people in the world. Paying tax does not equal unhappiness if the tax take is spent making the country a better place to live. I was born in 74 but I do remember my father working all hrs plus weekends and my mother also worked too and they struggled like he'll to raise me and my sister, I dont remember life being easy for them or me for that matter, my grandparents lent my parents the money to get a mortgage on a house which they struggled to pay with two kids but under the system that was described above what would have been the point of saving and buying a property if every time you earned a little extra it was taken, my father my aswell of only worked 5 days a week and my mother not all because they would have never been any better off than someone who just couldn't be arsed to work. Taking peoples savings i am afraid is something I just don't agree with, if someone has worked hard and sacrificed things to save a nest egg why should it be taken from them. I am sure my mum who was a nurse would have been really happy having what little she earned and saved for herself and us kids being taken away, that would have been a great way to thank her for her service to the community wouldn't it. I am all for those paying what they should, and maybe some really should pay more, but taking peoples savings or being penalised because someone in the family died and left a house is wrong. The point of my suggested system was that I think you would find that nearly every single person in the country would receive an increase in their disposable income, other than those who already have so much that it is literally impossible for them to spend it faster than it just magically appears in their coffers. By definition, nobody would get rich by doing nothing but at least they wouldn't starve on the streets, every hard working person struggling to make ends meet would get a damn good Christmas present, every middle class person would get a moderate boost. The mega rich might have to delay the purchase of their fifth yacht in Monte Carlo harbour for another couple of days. It is the current system that makes it difficult for the hardest working people to live decently. As for the points in some other posts about how anybody can get to the top just by their own hard work - if you look you will find that actually not a single one of the mega rich has got there solely by their own efforts. Yes some of them have worked hard, but every one of them had the advantage of starting with family big money and/or the type of prestigious family contacts that no ordinary person has. One of the biggest lies in our society is that money trickles down from the top, and that it is possible to work your way up from the very bottom. In verifiable fact the money currently only trickles upwards, becoming a torrent by the time it gets to the top, and the further down you start the more limited your prospects are in life. And the ones being stomped on hardest are often the ones that most deny that there is any problem. I dont see where the money would come from to give virtually everyone an increase in there wage though to be honest, there would be no incentive to work more hours to earn more money, thus paying more tax in, if you didn't get to keep any of the extra you earned, so surely there would be less going into the pot to begin with. And I am sorry but I still think its wrong to rob people of there savings if they have been careful and worked hard, not that people would bother saving any longer if they were going to have it taken anyway. I agree whole heartedly that big business should pay more in and extremely wealthy people should not be able to use the loop holes to hide there money, but I don't agree in taking savings from a family thats worked hard and managed to save a few quid for there kids or something. Why is it that nobody seems to get the idea that basically if 100 people in the world were allowed to be extremely rich, but not so obscenely rich that they couldn't get rid of the money even if they burned it, then everybody else would pay less tax. Very recently three multi billionaires have in fact literally burned billions of pounds riding around in rockets, yet each of them will by now have got more money than when they set off. And have these men been working 100 hours a week to put food on their families tables? No, they have been having jolly good fun riding around in rockets. "if you didn't get to keep any of the extra you earned" - of course you get to keep some of the extra you earned, most of it in fact. You already pay tax that takes away minimum 20% of your earnings and 15% of your spendings. I suggest that you should pay less tax and that vomit-makingly rich people should pay more, and everybody says that I'm the one stealing from the poor? That the only system that could possibly work is the one where people that already have enough money to never ever need to work again and still have absolutely anything they want are the ones that inexorably get richer, at the expense of basically every other person in the world? What is wrong with saying that when there exist people who can have 96 houses if they want and never even live in 90 of them, who just acquire money without ever needing to do anything, perhaps they should give 10% of what they can never get round to spending so that people who have nowhere to live get a roof over their heads? I am in no way saying that the poor must all be made rich and the rich should all be made poor. Just calling for a very slightly fairer playing field." | |||
"The system described above would make it pretty pointless earning more money, and why bother saving if you are gonna be penalised each year because you have been careful with your money. I think it would lead to people only doing what they had too and everyone would be relying on the state in old age when they can no longer work. It would kill this country. Do you remember the 1970’s? There was a true middle class and ordinary working people could afford to buy a house, and a car on more or less one wage whilst Mum looked after the kids - despite being an era of high taxation, particularly on the very, very wealthy. Socially democratic countries in Europe have high levels of ration and yet appear to be some of the happiest people in the world. Paying tax does not equal unhappiness if the tax take is spent making the country a better place to live. I was born in 74 but I do remember my father working all hrs plus weekends and my mother also worked too and they struggled like he'll to raise me and my sister, I dont remember life being easy for them or me for that matter, my grandparents lent my parents the money to get a mortgage on a house which they struggled to pay with two kids but under the system that was described above what would have been the point of saving and buying a property if every time you earned a little extra it was taken, my father my aswell of only worked 5 days a week and my mother not all because they would have never been any better off than someone who just couldn't be arsed to work. Taking peoples savings i am afraid is something I just don't agree with, if someone has worked hard and sacrificed things to save a nest egg why should it be taken from them. I am sure my mum who was a nurse would have been really happy having what little she earned and saved for herself and us kids being taken away, that would have been a great way to thank her for her service to the community wouldn't it. I am all for those paying what they should, and maybe some really should pay more, but taking peoples savings or being penalised because someone in the family died and left a house is wrong. The point of my suggested system was that I think you would find that nearly every single person in the country would receive an increase in their disposable income, other than those who already have so much that it is literally impossible for them to spend it faster than it just magically appears in their coffers. By definition, nobody would get rich by doing nothing but at least they wouldn't starve on the streets, every hard working person struggling to make ends meet would get a damn good Christmas present, every middle class person would get a moderate boost. The mega rich might have to delay the purchase of their fifth yacht in Monte Carlo harbour for another couple of days. It is the current system that makes it difficult for the hardest working people to live decently. As for the points in some other posts about how anybody can get to the top just by their own hard work - if you look you will find that actually not a single one of the mega rich has got there solely by their own efforts. Yes some of them have worked hard, but every one of them had the advantage of starting with family big money and/or the type of prestigious family contacts that no ordinary person has. One of the biggest lies in our society is that money trickles down from the top, and that it is possible to work your way up from the very bottom. In verifiable fact the money currently only trickles upwards, becoming a torrent by the time it gets to the top, and the further down you start the more limited your prospects are in life. And the ones being stomped on hardest are often the ones that most deny that there is any problem. I dont see where the money would come from to give virtually everyone an increase in there wage though to be honest, there would be no incentive to work more hours to earn more money, thus paying more tax in, if you didn't get to keep any of the extra you earned, so surely there would be less going into the pot to begin with. And I am sorry but I still think its wrong to rob people of there savings if they have been careful and worked hard, not that people would bother saving any longer if they were going to have it taken anyway. I agree whole heartedly that big business should pay more in and extremely wealthy people should not be able to use the loop holes to hide there money, but I don't agree in taking savings from a family thats worked hard and managed to save a few quid for there kids or something. Why is it that nobody seems to get the idea that basically if 100 people in the world were allowed to be extremely rich, but not so obscenely rich that they couldn't get rid of the money even if they burned it, then everybody else would pay less tax. Very recently three multi billionaires have in fact literally burned billions of pounds riding around in rockets, yet each of them will by now have got more money than when they set off. And have these men been working 100 hours a week to put food on their families tables? No, they have been having jolly good fun riding around in rockets. "if you didn't get to keep any of the extra you earned" - of course you get to keep some of the extra you earned, most of it in fact. You already pay tax that takes away minimum 20% of your earnings and 15% of your spendings. I suggest that you should pay less tax and that vomit-makingly rich people should pay more, and everybody says that I'm the one stealing from the poor? That the only system that could possibly work is the one where people that already have enough money to never ever need to work again and still have absolutely anything they want are the ones that inexorably get richer, at the expense of basically every other person in the world? What is wrong with saying that when there exist people who can have 96 houses if they want and never even live in 90 of them, who just acquire money without ever needing to do anything, perhaps they should give 10% of what they can never get round to spending so that people who have nowhere to live get a roof over their heads? I am in no way saying that the poor must all be made rich and the rich should all be made poor. Just calling for a very slightly fairer playing field." I dont disagree with you about the rich and what they could pay although quite how you get it out of them unless every country adopted a similar system i dont know, its just the extra taxing of savings by hard working families that I disagree with, so no I am not exactly saying you are stealing from the poor, I agree with you on most of what you have said as I have stated. | |||
"I do wonder how certain people might feel if they got kicked out and ended up on the street. Or if they ended up unable to feed themselves & their loved ones. Would they still shrug and say "hey what are ya gonna do? Poverty's just inevitable"? " One has to make phenomenally big mistakes to go from middle class to the streets. | |||
| |||
" Why is it that nobody seems to get the idea that basically if 100 people in the world were allowed to be extremely rich, but not so obscenely rich that they couldn't get rid of the money even if they burned it, then everybody else would pay less tax." Because the math here is wrong. By just preventing those 100 people from becoming rich, you gain nothing. 1) The country's population is huge. There is not much you can provide for this huge population by only taking away the excess money from the ultra-rich. 2) Once you start doing that, the same rich people will stop trying to make that extra money. Why do all the hard work, only for the state to steal the money? So it won't be long before that pot becomes empty and we are back to square one. All you have done is to pull down some rich people while poverty stays the same. " Very recently three multi billionaires have in fact literally burned billions of pounds riding around in rockets, yet each of them will by now have got more money than when they set off. And have these men been working 100 hours a week to put food on their families tables? No, they have been having jolly good fun riding around in rockets." They didn't burn of the extra money. There are thousands of employees directly or indirectly working on these flights. They all got their salaries paid because they went on these flights. Humanity is moving towards the next frontier. " You already pay tax that takes away minimum 20% of your earnings and 15% of your spendings. I suggest that you should pay less tax and that vomit-makingly rich people should pay more, and everybody says that I'm the one stealing from the poor? That the only system that could possibly work is the one where people that already have enough money to never ever need to work again and still have absolutely anything they want are the ones that inexorably get richer, at the expense of basically every other person in the world? " The rich already pay high taxes - 45% while others pay much lower taxes. They don't make money by not working. They made their money by working. Then they make their money work by investing. These investments create more jobs and improves the economy. The worst thing they could do is to sit and horde the cash without investing or spending it anywhere. " What is wrong with saying that when there exist people who can have 96 houses if they want and never even live in 90 of them, who just acquire money without ever needing to do anything, perhaps they should give 10% of what they can never get round to spending so that people who have nowhere to live get a roof over their heads? I am in no way saying that the poor must all be made rich and the rich should all be made poor. Just calling for a very slightly fairer playing field." Again, they do not make money by doing nothing. Most of them didn't sleep properly for a decade, to reach the place they are in. Taking away their money after they have put so much effort, is not fair playing field. A fair playing field is one where people get what they deserve for their hard work and risk-taking abilities. Nost of them run charities where they indeed donate a lot of money they make for the causes that they feel is important. That's how it should be done. Them voluntarily giving away money is fair. Forcefully taking their legally earned money is unfair and counter-productive for the entire economy. Wealth is not a zero sum property. Everyone can create it. The method you suggested will take down the rich people without any benefit for the poor people. You make a society better by encouraging people in lower economic level to make more money, not by pulling down people in the higher economic level. | |||
"If someone has the money why should it be illegall if they want to buy there 4th 5th or 6th mansion?? There money to do with what they please,pretty sure no one else on here would like to be told what they could and couldnt spend there money on I didn't say that it should be illegal for anybody to buy their 4th 5th 6th mansion. What i said is that it is immoral that some have enough that they can choose which of 200 bedrooms to sleep in, while there are some who are literally starving on the streets. In a rich country only when everybody has at least the minimum to allow them to live, should some be allowed to have more than they could possibly use if they lived a hundred lifetimes." your words were it should clearly be illegal for anyone buying there 4th mansion so tell me how i got your quote wrong | |||
| |||
" Why is it that nobody seems to get the idea that basically if 100 people in the world were allowed to be extremely rich, but not so obscenely rich that they couldn't get rid of the money even if they burned it, then everybody else would pay less tax. Because the math here is wrong. By just preventing those 100 people from becoming rich, you gain nothing. 1) The country's population is huge. There is not much you can provide for this huge population by only taking away the excess money from the ultra-rich. 2) Once you start doing that, the same rich people will stop trying to make that extra money. Why do all the hard work, only for the state to steal the money? So it won't be long before that pot becomes empty and we are back to square one. All you have done is to pull down some rich people while poverty stays the same. Very recently three multi billionaires have in fact literally burned billions of pounds riding around in rockets, yet each of them will by now have got more money than when they set off. And have these men been working 100 hours a week to put food on their families tables? No, they have been having jolly good fun riding around in rockets. They didn't burn of the extra money. There are thousands of employees directly or indirectly working on these flights. They all got their salaries paid because they went on these flights. Humanity is moving towards the next frontier. You already pay tax that takes away minimum 20% of your earnings and 15% of your spendings. I suggest that you should pay less tax and that vomit-makingly rich people should pay more, and everybody says that I'm the one stealing from the poor? That the only system that could possibly work is the one where people that already have enough money to never ever need to work again and still have absolutely anything they want are the ones that inexorably get richer, at the expense of basically every other person in the world? The rich already pay high taxes - 45% while others pay much lower taxes. They don't make money by not working. They made their money by working. Then they make their money work by investing. These investments create more jobs and improves the economy. The worst thing they could do is to sit and horde the cash without investing or spending it anywhere. What is wrong with saying that when there exist people who can have 96 houses if they want and never even live in 90 of them, who just acquire money without ever needing to do anything, perhaps they should give 10% of what they can never get round to spending so that people who have nowhere to live get a roof over their heads? I am in no way saying that the poor must all be made rich and the rich should all be made poor. Just calling for a very slightly fairer playing field. Again, they do not make money by doing nothing. Most of them didn't sleep properly for a decade, to reach the place they are in. Taking away their money after they have put so much effort, is not fair playing field. A fair playing field is one where people get what they deserve for their hard work and risk-taking abilities. Nost of them run charities where they indeed donate a lot of money they make for the causes that they feel is important. That's how it should be done. Them voluntarily giving away money is fair. Forcefully taking their legally earned money is unfair and counter-productive for the entire economy. Wealth is not a zero sum property. Everyone can create it. The method you suggested will take down the rich people without any benefit for the poor people. You make a society better by encouraging people in lower economic level to make more money, not by pulling down people in the higher economic level. " All very good value points snd I agree just taking off one to give to another isn’t the answer . However your point on 45% is only for employees not the rich in question. Trust funds offshore allow the owners of companies such as the daily mail and JCB to pay virtually no tax on their vast incomes. That should be stopped. Globally £465B was not paid due to legal avoidance of which 65% went through London. That’s a lot of hospitals and social care which at the moment is paid by employees. Corporation tax is only paid in profits so a company can re invest and avoid which ok fair enough but a day of reckoning must come when profits are declared and “management fees” from the British Virgin islands designed to hide those profits must be stopped. | |||
| |||
" Why is it that nobody seems to get the idea that basically if 100 people in the world were allowed to be extremely rich, but not so obscenely rich that they couldn't get rid of the money even if they burned it, then everybody else would pay less tax. Because the math here is wrong. By just preventing those 100 people from becoming rich, you gain nothing. 1) The country's population is huge. There is not much you can provide for this huge population by only taking away the excess money from the ultra-rich. 2) Once you start doing that, the same rich people will stop trying to make that extra money. Why do all the hard work, only for the state to steal the money? So it won't be long before that pot becomes empty and we are back to square one. All you have done is to pull down some rich people while poverty stays the same. Very recently three multi billionaires have in fact literally burned billions of pounds riding around in rockets, yet each of them will by now have got more money than when they set off. And have these men been working 100 hours a week to put food on their families tables? No, they have been having jolly good fun riding around in rockets. They didn't burn of the extra money. There are thousands of employees directly or indirectly working on these flights. They all got their salaries paid because they went on these flights. Humanity is moving towards the next frontier. You already pay tax that takes away minimum 20% of your earnings and 15% of your spendings. I suggest that you should pay less tax and that vomit-makingly rich people should pay more, and everybody says that I'm the one stealing from the poor? That the only system that could possibly work is the one where people that already have enough money to never ever need to work again and still have absolutely anything they want are the ones that inexorably get richer, at the expense of basically every other person in the world? The rich already pay high taxes - 45% while others pay much lower taxes. They don't make money by not working. They made their money by working. Then they make their money work by investing. These investments create more jobs and improves the economy. The worst thing they could do is to sit and horde the cash without investing or spending it anywhere. What is wrong with saying that when there exist people who can have 96 houses if they want and never even live in 90 of them, who just acquire money without ever needing to do anything, perhaps they should give 10% of what they can never get round to spending so that people who have nowhere to live get a roof over their heads? I am in no way saying that the poor must all be made rich and the rich should all be made poor. Just calling for a very slightly fairer playing field. Again, they do not make money by doing nothing. Most of them didn't sleep properly for a decade, to reach the place they are in. Taking away their money after they have put so much effort, is not fair playing field. A fair playing field is one where people get what they deserve for their hard work and risk-taking abilities. Nost of them run charities where they indeed donate a lot of money they make for the causes that they feel is important. That's how it should be done. Them voluntarily giving away money is fair. Forcefully taking their legally earned money is unfair and counter-productive for the entire economy. Wealth is not a zero sum property. Everyone can create it. The method you suggested will take down the rich people without any benefit for the poor people. You make a society better by encouraging people in lower economic level to make more money, not by pulling down people in the higher economic level. All very good value points snd I agree just taking off one to give to another isn’t the answer . However your point on 45% is only for employees not the rich in question. Trust funds offshore allow the owners of companies such as the daily mail and JCB to pay virtually no tax on their vast incomes. That should be stopped. Globally £465B was not paid due to legal avoidance of which 65% went through London. That’s a lot of hospitals and social care which at the moment is paid by employees. Corporation tax is only paid in profits so a company can re invest and avoid which ok fair enough but a day of reckoning must come when profits are declared and “management fees” from the British Virgin islands designed to hide those profits must be stopped. " I agree with this point completely. We certainly need to revisit the taxation policy. Tax policies in most countries were written when globalisation was not a big thing. It was not that easy to move money abroad. And most big companies were operating within their countries. With rapid globalisation, every decently sized company is expanding operations and making profits from other countries while using "management fees", "royalty fees for small entities of the same companies in countries with lower taxes" as ways to pay less taxes. This is where governments should interfere. Biden's global corporate tax plan is a step in the right direction. But it is a big change. So there will definitely be some roadblocks. I hope they iron out those differences and get it implemented soon enough. | |||
"The system described above would make it pretty pointless earning more money, and why bother saving if you are gonna be penalised each year because you have been careful with your money. I think it would lead to people only doing what they had too and everyone would be relying on the state in old age when they can no longer work. It would kill this country. Do you remember the 1970’s? There was a true middle class and ordinary working people could afford to buy a house, and a car on more or less one wage whilst Mum looked after the kids - despite being an era of high taxation, particularly on the very, very wealthy. Socially democratic countries in Europe have high levels of ration and yet appear to be some of the happiest people in the world. Paying tax does not equal unhappiness if the tax take is spent making the country a better place to live." Ah the 70's, what a decade in history. Up to 83% income tax, national strikes, rubbish pilled in the streets, picket lines, winter of discontent. What's not to like | |||
"The system described above would make it pretty pointless earning more money, and why bother saving if you are gonna be penalised each year because you have been careful with your money. I think it would lead to people only doing what they had too and everyone would be relying on the state in old age when they can no longer work. It would kill this country. Do you remember the 1970’s? There was a true middle class and ordinary working people could afford to buy a house, and a car on more or less one wage whilst Mum looked after the kids - despite being an era of high taxation, particularly on the very, very wealthy. Socially democratic countries in Europe have high levels of ration and yet appear to be some of the happiest people in the world. Paying tax does not equal unhappiness if the tax take is spent making the country a better place to live. Ah the 70's, what a decade in history. Up to 83% income tax, national strikes, rubbish pilled in the streets, picket lines, winter of discontent. What's not to like" Power cuts, 3 day week. Yep the 70's were great. | |||
| |||
"Look how the Scandinavian countries manage their income tax and social services. Very high taxation yet free child care, a good health service, good education etc.etc. The wealth distributed differently. This does not only apply to Norway who are oil rich but to the other Scandinavian countries. There is obviously no perfect system and for every plus there will be a minus but high taxation does not have to mean that the UK would return to the 1970's." We couldn't ever do that, though. That would mean the rich might have to actually pay their taxes. | |||
"Look how the Scandinavian countries manage their income tax and social services. Very high taxation yet free child care, a good health service, good education etc.etc. The wealth distributed differently. This does not only apply to Norway who are oil rich but to the other Scandinavian countries. There is obviously no perfect system and for every plus there will be a minus but high taxation does not have to mean that the UK would return to the 1970's." They have high taxation for all not just the rich | |||
| |||
"Yes - and everyone benifits" I see people saying tax the rich more and stop the avoidance but not so much tax everyone more including those on the lowest incomes. | |||
"Yes - and everyone benifits I see people saying tax the rich more and stop the avoidance but not so much tax everyone more including those on the lowest incomes." Probably because the rich are the ones with huge amounts of untaxed money. | |||
"Yes - and everyone benifits I see people saying tax the rich more and stop the avoidance but not so much tax everyone more including those on the lowest incomes. Probably because the rich are the ones with huge amounts of untaxed money." Probably but that's not what is being asked for above. They prefer higher taxes / higher benefits for all | |||
"Yes - and everyone benifits I see people saying tax the rich more and stop the avoidance but not so much tax everyone more including those on the lowest incomes. Probably because the rich are the ones with huge amounts of untaxed money. Probably but that's not what is being asked for above. They prefer higher taxes / higher benefits for all" I just answered the question you had asked. | |||
| |||
"(Implied, rather. You didn't use a question mark, to be fair.)" Yeah I was more talking about the poster who prefers the Scandinavian system which has plenty of merits but does involve everyone paying more tax not just the rich | |||
"(Implied, rather. You didn't use a question mark, to be fair.) Yeah I was more talking about the poster who prefers the Scandinavian system which has plenty of merits but does involve everyone paying more tax not just the rich" Oh fair enough. I think higher taxes for all is fine if all benefit from the arrangement as and when they need it. | |||
"Yes - and everyone benifits I see people saying tax the rich more and stop the avoidance but not so much tax everyone more including those on the lowest incomes." You don’t have to tax everyone more you just haven’t race everyone fairly . If you’re a high earnibg employee then you pay 45% A mega earning business owner pays nothing . If they pay 45% then that’s fair . He/she still ends up with more . | |||
| |||
"Hi earning employee sorry for the typo " FFS High | |||
"Yes - and everyone benifits I see people saying tax the rich more and stop the avoidance but not so much tax everyone more including those on the lowest incomes. You don’t have to tax everyone more you just haven’t race everyone fairly . If you’re a high earnibg employee then you pay 45% A mega earning business owner pays nothing . If they pay 45% then that’s fair . He/she still ends up with more . " Yes the type of quote I was referring to when mentioning what most advocate here as opposed to taxing everyone more like the other poster mentioned. Granted it has merits in very good welfare state but not sure the lowest paid will be keen on the extra taxes | |||
"Yes - and everyone benifits I see people saying tax the rich more and stop the avoidance but not so much tax everyone more including those on the lowest incomes. You don’t have to tax everyone more you just haven’t race everyone fairly . If you’re a high earnibg employee then you pay 45% A mega earning business owner pays nothing . If they pay 45% then that’s fair . He/she still ends up with more . Yes the type of quote I was referring to when mentioning what most advocate here as opposed to taxing everyone more like the other poster mentioned. Granted it has merits in very good welfare state but not sure the lowest paid will be keen on the extra taxes" I don’t agree that lower paid pay more I think they pay slightly less to avoid food banks etc but only slightly less. The elite paying a fair share would accommodate better welfare state and less burden on the lowest paid such as care workers. | |||
" Because some people have less mo eye than others and thus cannot afford one things no that’s got nothing to do with the economy of a given country it’s just how the bell curve falls on a personal level. I’m a little confused, are you saying that tor’s the fault of the people who need to use food banks that they haven’t got enough money to buy food and not the economy of the country they live in? It’s not anyone’s “fault” per se just a fact that some people don’t have money and others do … such is life. The existence of billionaires and food banks in the same country shows our economic system isn’t fit for purpose. What utter nonsense!!" I will echo that. What a load of rubbish. The argument is especially in this country in recent time if you study hard enough and do well and put your mind to it you can be anything you want to be with hard work. To much lazyness in the world. Not just in this country. Not applying oneself. Not saying it would make everyone rich but if they took a job. Any job and let's fa e it there are thousands of jobs out there. It's to easy not to bother and go on the social and knock out kids ten to the dozen. | |||
"I'm sure the trickle down of wealth will happen any day soon. Its been a while and I'm positive its in the pipeline. Any day now... "I am 57 now. Unfortunately not in my lifetime. | |||
 | |||
