FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Patriotic millionaires
Patriotic millionaires
Jump to: Newest in thread
First time of heard of this group. It was mentioned on Sunday with LK.
Hugh F-W was advocating a tax on wealth, the other two guests, 1 saying it would stifle growth and the other saying it'd have to be done carefully. Surely there's a way of doing this while promoting growth (a tax with tax relief?) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
While it's admirable that millionaires want to do something for the country, these groups always end up failing to reach a consensus on what's the right thing to do.
Let's say they have a million pounds to spend. Some may want that to be invested in cancer research, some may want it to be invested in cardiovascular research, some want it to build council houses, some want to to go for physical handicapped while others may want on educational institutions. Unfortunately, there is no single right or wrong answer here.
The above becomes a problem only after they figure out where the money is going to come from, which is another problem that doesn't have a simple solution. If they are going to tax people, they need to find the right place to draw the line so that you get enough money and also not scare people out of the country or make it useless to invest or make money. No one has solved that problem either.
Given the above problems, I would rather have individuals spend the money on things they care about instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare to decide how and where the money is going. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *andu66Couple 36 weeks ago
South Devon |
"While it's admirable that millionaires want to do something for the country, these groups always end up failing to reach a consensus on what's the right thing to do.
Let's say they have a million pounds to spend. Some may want that to be invested in cancer research, some may want it to be invested in cardiovascular research, some want it to build council houses, some want to to go for physical handicapped while others may want on educational institutions. Unfortunately, there is no single right or wrong answer here.
The above becomes a problem only after they figure out where the money is going to come from, which is another problem that doesn't have a simple solution. If they are going to tax people, they need to find the right place to draw the line so that you get enough money and also not scare people out of the country or make it useless to invest or make money. No one has solved that problem either.
Given the above problems, I would rather have individuals spend the money on things they care about instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare to decide how and where the money is going. "
If you listen to the podcast I think you will find some suggested solutions to your queries, you may like them, you my not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"While it's admirable that millionaires want to do something for the country, these groups always end up failing to reach a consensus on what's the right thing to do.
Let's say they have a million pounds to spend. Some may want that to be invested in cancer research, some may want it to be invested in cardiovascular research, some want it to build council houses, some want to to go for physical handicapped while others may want on educational institutions. Unfortunately, there is no single right or wrong answer here.
The above becomes a problem only after they figure out where the money is going to come from, which is another problem that doesn't have a simple solution. If they are going to tax people, they need to find the right place to draw the line so that you get enough money and also not scare people out of the country or make it useless to invest or make money. No one has solved that problem either.
Given the above problems, I would rather have individuals spend the money on things they care about instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare to decide how and where the money is going.
If you listen to the podcast I think you will find some suggested solutions to your queries, you may like them, you my not."
Given how you already wasted my time once making me read an article that didn't tell me anything different, I would rather avoid it. If you have a point to make, you can mention it yourself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 36 weeks ago
South Devon |
"While it's admirable that millionaires want to do something for the country, these groups always end up failing to reach a consensus on what's the right thing to do.
Let's say they have a million pounds to spend. Some may want that to be invested in cancer research, some may want it to be invested in cardiovascular research, some want it to build council houses, some want to to go for physical handicapped while others may want on educational institutions. Unfortunately, there is no single right or wrong answer here.
The above becomes a problem only after they figure out where the money is going to come from, which is another problem that doesn't have a simple solution. If they are going to tax people, they need to find the right place to draw the line so that you get enough money and also not scare people out of the country or make it useless to invest or make money. No one has solved that problem either.
Given the above problems, I would rather have individuals spend the money on things they care about instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare to decide how and where the money is going.
If you listen to the podcast I think you will find some suggested solutions to your queries, you may like them, you my not.
Given how you already wasted my time once making me read an article that didn't tell me anything different, I would rather avoid it. If you have a point to make, you can mention it yourself."
That's not the real reason is it  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days."
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation."
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 36 weeks ago
South Devon |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation."
Ok I understand now, it has nothing to do with what they are saying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society."
I don't think anyone would argue with the that. Of course millionaires *can* afford to pay a bit more. The question is *should* they pay more, and should they be *forced* to pay more? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"While it's admirable that millionaires want to do something for the country, these groups always end up failing to reach a consensus on what's the right thing to do.
Let's say they have a million pounds to spend. Some may want that to be invested in cancer research, some may want it to be invested in cardiovascular research, some want it to build council houses, some want to to go for physical handicapped while others may want on educational institutions. Unfortunately, there is no single right or wrong answer here.
The above becomes a problem only after they figure out where the money is going to come from, which is another problem that doesn't have a simple solution. If they are going to tax people, they need to find the right place to draw the line so that you get enough money and also not scare people out of the country or make it useless to invest or make money. No one has solved that problem either.
Given the above problems, I would rather have individuals spend the money on things they care about instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare to decide how and where the money is going.
If you listen to the podcast I think you will find some suggested solutions to your queries, you may like them, you my not.
Given how you already wasted my time once making me read an article that didn't tell me anything different, I would rather avoid it. If you have a point to make, you can mention it yourself.
That's not the real reason is it "
That's the reason. If you have heard the podcast, do let us know what you heard and why you believe the points are important. Instead, if you randomly share links everywhere, no one will waste their time reading/watching it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society. "
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it."
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
I don't think anyone would argue with the that. Of course millionaires *can* afford to pay a bit more. The question is *should* they pay more, and should they be *forced* to pay more?"
Yes. And yes.
Unless of course they believe that those on lower incomes should shoulder a greater burden as a percentage of their income. But that’s the sort of argument only the selfish would make. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
I don't think anyone would argue with the that. Of course millionaires *can* afford to pay a bit more. The question is *should* they pay more, and should they be *forced* to pay more?"
No they shouldn't. Not a fan of 'progressive' tax rates tbh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 36 weeks ago
South Devon |
"While it's admirable that millionaires want to do something for the country, these groups always end up failing to reach a consensus on what's the right thing to do.
Let's say they have a million pounds to spend. Some may want that to be invested in cancer research, some may want it to be invested in cardiovascular research, some want it to build council houses, some want to to go for physical handicapped while others may want on educational institutions. Unfortunately, there is no single right or wrong answer here.
The above becomes a problem only after they figure out where the money is going to come from, which is another problem that doesn't have a simple solution. If they are going to tax people, they need to find the right place to draw the line so that you get enough money and also not scare people out of the country or make it useless to invest or make money. No one has solved that problem either.
Given the above problems, I would rather have individuals spend the money on things they care about instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare to decide how and where the money is going.
If you listen to the podcast I think you will find some suggested solutions to your queries, you may like them, you my not.
Given how you already wasted my time once making me read an article that didn't tell me anything different, I would rather avoid it. If you have a point to make, you can mention it yourself.
That's not the real reason is it
That's the reason. If you have heard the podcast, do let us know what you heard and why you believe the points are important. Instead, if you randomly share links everywhere, no one will waste their time reading/watching it."
People need to be allowed to form their own opinion after they listen to it, if people comment on it without listening to it then it's just ridiculous..... unfortunately there seems to be a lot of opinions which are based on no fact or evidence, and to be honest it's just noise that is designed to be derogative, flood space and distract from the original subject , it's very easy to spot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society. "
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"While it's admirable that millionaires want to do something for the country, these groups always end up failing to reach a consensus on what's the right thing to do.
Let's say they have a million pounds to spend. Some may want that to be invested in cancer research, some may want it to be invested in cardiovascular research, some want it to build council houses, some want to to go for physical handicapped while others may want on educational institutions. Unfortunately, there is no single right or wrong answer here.
The above becomes a problem only after they figure out where the money is going to come from, which is another problem that doesn't have a simple solution. If they are going to tax people, they need to find the right place to draw the line so that you get enough money and also not scare people out of the country or make it useless to invest or make money. No one has solved that problem either.
Given the above problems, I would rather have individuals spend the money on things they care about instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare to decide how and where the money is going.
If you listen to the podcast I think you will find some suggested solutions to your queries, you may like them, you my not.
Given how you already wasted my time once making me read an article that didn't tell me anything different, I would rather avoid it. If you have a point to make, you can mention it yourself.
That's not the real reason is it
That's the reason. If you have heard the podcast, do let us know what you heard and why you believe the points are important. Instead, if you randomly share links everywhere, no one will waste their time reading/watching it.
People need to be allowed to form their own opinion after they listen to it, if people comment on it without listening to it then it's just ridiculous..... unfortunately there seems to be a lot of opinions which are based on no fact or evidence, and to be honest it's just noise that is designed to be derogative, flood space and distract from the original subject , it's very easy to spot."
And your solution is to share random links to podcasts and articles that totally agree with your own bias? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?"
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect."
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'."
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
"
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect."
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things?"
Yes, they do, but they’re less able to help fund them. Society takes everyone in order to succeed, doesn’t it?
We could of course bring it down to the lowest denominator, but that’s going to impact everyone negatively. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more."
So you’re suggesting a high tax society in order to fund services properly? Where do we sign up? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 36 weeks ago
South Devon |
"While it's admirable that millionaires want to do something for the country, these groups always end up failing to reach a consensus on what's the right thing to do.
Let's say they have a million pounds to spend. Some may want that to be invested in cancer research, some may want it to be invested in cardiovascular research, some want it to build council houses, some want to to go for physical handicapped while others may want on educational institutions. Unfortunately, there is no single right or wrong answer here.
The above becomes a problem only after they figure out where the money is going to come from, which is another problem that doesn't have a simple solution. If they are going to tax people, they need to find the right place to draw the line so that you get enough money and also not scare people out of the country or make it useless to invest or make money. No one has solved that problem either.
Given the above problems, I would rather have individuals spend the money on things they care about instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare to decide how and where the money is going.
If you listen to the podcast I think you will find some suggested solutions to your queries, you may like them, you my not.
Given how you already wasted my time once making me read an article that didn't tell me anything different, I would rather avoid it. If you have a point to make, you can mention it yourself.
That's not the real reason is it
That's the reason. If you have heard the podcast, do let us know what you heard and why you believe the points are important. Instead, if you randomly share links everywhere, no one will waste their time reading/watching it.
People need to be allowed to form their own opinion after they listen to it, if people comment on it without listening to it then it's just ridiculous..... unfortunately there seems to be a lot of opinions which are based on no fact or evidence, and to be honest it's just noise that is designed to be derogative, flood space and distract from the original subject , it's very easy to spot.
And your solution is to share random links to podcasts and articles that totally agree with your own bias?"
Come on this is silly, have a listen, it will be interesting to hear your views, then let's chat. If you don't want to listen then that is fine, but then let's just leave it as they're is not point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more."
Also, did I suggest a 60% tax rate anywhere? Oh no, that’s you projecting things yet again. You do that a lot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things?
Yes, they do, but they’re less able to help fund them. Society takes everyone in order to succeed, doesn’t it?
We could of course bring it down to the lowest denominator, but that’s going to impact everyone negatively. "
So because they can afford to then?
Sounds very 'progressive'  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things?
Yes, they do, but they’re less able to help fund them. Society takes everyone in order to succeed, doesn’t it?
We could of course bring it down to the lowest denominator, but that’s going to impact everyone negatively.
So because they can afford to then?
Sounds very 'progressive' "
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
(I note that you don’t actually argue my point about bringing tax to the lowest denominator) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things?
Yes, they do, but they’re less able to help fund them. Society takes everyone in order to succeed, doesn’t it?
We could of course bring it down to the lowest denominator, but that’s going to impact everyone negatively.
So because they can afford to then?
Sounds very 'progressive'
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
(I note that you don’t actually argue my point about bringing tax to the lowest denominator)"
Everyone should be taxed at the same rate imo.
You still haven't given me any reason other than the one I asked not to receive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more.
Also, did I suggest a 60% tax rate anywhere? Oh no, that’s you projecting things yet again. You do that a lot."
You know you are intentionally ignoring the point I am making.
- You randomly came up with a tax percentage of 50-55% for millionaires. Hence I asked how you would tax the billionaires
- Another completely unrelated point I made was about how even Scandinavian countries have tax rates for millionaires. In fact, UK follows a more progressive taxation than Sweden. In Sweden, all you have to do is to earn over 47K GBP to fall into the higher tax bucket. Everyone earning lower than that pay about 30% in municipal tax, which is higher than what people with similar income in UK pay.
If you want a social welfare society, you also need a socially responsible society where everyone can trust each other. Scandinavian countries try to achieve this by getting everyone to pay more tax so that they feel responsible towards it. Instead you are suggesting a very few people to take the burden of the entire society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things?
Yes, they do, but they’re less able to help fund them. Society takes everyone in order to succeed, doesn’t it?
We could of course bring it down to the lowest denominator, but that’s going to impact everyone negatively.
So because they can afford to then?
Sounds very 'progressive'
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
(I note that you don’t actually argue my point about bringing tax to the lowest denominator)
Everyone should be taxed at the same rate imo.
You still haven't given me any reason other than the one I asked not to receive. "
Because once again you’re trying to dictate things with silly clauses.
The wealthy can better afford to help provide for society. That’s unarguable. They want well funded services, the money is needed for said services. They are best placed to provide the lions share of that funding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things?
Yes, they do, but they’re less able to help fund them. Society takes everyone in order to succeed, doesn’t it?
We could of course bring it down to the lowest denominator, but that’s going to impact everyone negatively.
So because they can afford to then?
Sounds very 'progressive'
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
(I note that you don’t actually argue my point about bringing tax to the lowest denominator)
Everyone should be taxed at the same rate imo.
You still haven't given me any reason other than the one I asked not to receive.
Because once again you’re trying to dictate things with silly clauses.
The wealthy can better afford to help provide for society. That’s unarguable. They want well funded services, the money is needed for said services. They are best placed to provide the lions share of that funding. "
I said in my first post, 'apart from'. You could've just said you don't have a different answer. Would've saved this nonsense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
"
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more.
Also, did I suggest a 60% tax rate anywhere? Oh no, that’s you projecting things yet again. You do that a lot.
You know you are intentionally ignoring the point I am making.
- You randomly came up with a tax percentage of 50-55% for millionaires. Hence I asked how you would tax the billionaires
- Another completely unrelated point I made was about how even Scandinavian countries have tax rates for millionaires. In fact, UK follows a more progressive taxation than Sweden. In Sweden, all you have to do is to earn over 47K GBP to fall into the higher tax bucket. Everyone earning lower than that pay about 30% in municipal tax, which is higher than what people with similar income in UK pay.
If you want a social welfare society, you also need a socially responsible society where everyone can trust each other. Scandinavian countries try to achieve this by getting everyone to pay more tax so that they feel responsible towards it. Instead you are suggesting a very few people to take the burden of the entire society."
I’ve suggested nothing of the sort. I’ve suggested an additional tax band. That’s it.
I’d suggest you stop reading so much into stuff other people say, and maybe ask more questions to establish details
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs."
I chose to ignore a Karl Marx quote  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs."
Indeed, most humans are selfish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more.
Also, did I suggest a 60% tax rate anywhere? Oh no, that’s you projecting things yet again. You do that a lot.
You know you are intentionally ignoring the point I am making.
- You randomly came up with a tax percentage of 50-55% for millionaires. Hence I asked how you would tax the billionaires
- Another completely unrelated point I made was about how even Scandinavian countries have tax rates for millionaires. In fact, UK follows a more progressive taxation than Sweden. In Sweden, all you have to do is to earn over 47K GBP to fall into the higher tax bucket. Everyone earning lower than that pay about 30% in municipal tax, which is higher than what people with similar income in UK pay.
If you want a social welfare society, you also need a socially responsible society where everyone can trust each other. Scandinavian countries try to achieve this by getting everyone to pay more tax so that they feel responsible towards it. Instead you are suggesting a very few people to take the burden of the entire society.
I’ve suggested nothing of the sort. I’ve suggested an additional tax band. That’s it.
I’d suggest you stop reading so much into stuff other people say, and maybe ask more questions to establish details
"
You said you want create a new tax band for millionaires. I made a couple points arguing against it, one about taxes for billionaires and another about Scandinavian tax systems which you once praised doesn't follow a progressive taxation at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more.
Also, did I suggest a 60% tax rate anywhere? Oh no, that’s you projecting things yet again. You do that a lot.
You know you are intentionally ignoring the point I am making.
- You randomly came up with a tax percentage of 50-55% for millionaires. Hence I asked how you would tax the billionaires
- Another completely unrelated point I made was about how even Scandinavian countries have tax rates for millionaires. In fact, UK follows a more progressive taxation than Sweden. In Sweden, all you have to do is to earn over 47K GBP to fall into the higher tax bucket. Everyone earning lower than that pay about 30% in municipal tax, which is higher than what people with similar income in UK pay.
If you want a social welfare society, you also need a socially responsible society where everyone can trust each other. Scandinavian countries try to achieve this by getting everyone to pay more tax so that they feel responsible towards it. Instead you are suggesting a very few people to take the burden of the entire society.
I’ve suggested nothing of the sort. I’ve suggested an additional tax band. That’s it.
I’d suggest you stop reading so much into stuff other people say, and maybe ask more questions to establish details
You said you want create a new tax band for millionaires. I made a couple points arguing against it, one about taxes for billionaires and another about Scandinavian tax systems which you once praised doesn't follow a progressive taxation at all. "
I’m all for a high tax system as you’ve mentioned. I don’t for one second think it would wash in the U.K. where we see tax as a burden rather than a means of helping society.
You didn’t argue against a 50-55% band for millionaires, you simply asked me my plan for Billionaires. An invention of yours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'."
"Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner."
That's a good reason why rich people might want to pay more taxes. It's not a good reason to force them to do so.
After all, if they agree that we all want this lovely society, surely they will just hand over the money given a simple opportunity to do so. If they aren't doing so, maybe it's because they don't want the society you think we all want. Maybe they want something different.
So again, should rich people be forced to hand over their money to fund a society that they don't agree with? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
I chose to ignore a Karl Marx quote "
After millions of deaths over the last century, one would have guessed other people would have started ignoring him too. But apparently not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish."
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?"
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more.
Also, did I suggest a 60% tax rate anywhere? Oh no, that’s you projecting things yet again. You do that a lot.
You know you are intentionally ignoring the point I am making.
- You randomly came up with a tax percentage of 50-55% for millionaires. Hence I asked how you would tax the billionaires
- Another completely unrelated point I made was about how even Scandinavian countries have tax rates for millionaires. In fact, UK follows a more progressive taxation than Sweden. In Sweden, all you have to do is to earn over 47K GBP to fall into the higher tax bucket. Everyone earning lower than that pay about 30% in municipal tax, which is higher than what people with similar income in UK pay.
If you want a social welfare society, you also need a socially responsible society where everyone can trust each other. Scandinavian countries try to achieve this by getting everyone to pay more tax so that they feel responsible towards it. Instead you are suggesting a very few people to take the burden of the entire society.
I’ve suggested nothing of the sort. I’ve suggested an additional tax band. That’s it.
I’d suggest you stop reading so much into stuff other people say, and maybe ask more questions to establish details
You said you want create a new tax band for millionaires. I made a couple points arguing against it, one about taxes for billionaires and another about Scandinavian tax systems which you once praised doesn't follow a progressive taxation at all.
I’m all for a high tax system as you’ve mentioned. I don’t for one second think it would wash in the U.K. where we see tax as a burden rather than a means of helping society.
You didn’t argue against a 50-55% band for millionaires, you simply asked me my plan for Billionaires. An invention of yours."
The problem in UK is every leftist wants to tax people who earn more than them. No one wants to pay more tax themselves.
I asked you a question about how the progressive taxation system would work. Would it stop with millionaires or go to billionaires too. Also, is it based on income or wealth? If it's based on income, you won't make any money at all with that change because very few people earn that much. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund."
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more.
Also, did I suggest a 60% tax rate anywhere? Oh no, that’s you projecting things yet again. You do that a lot.
You know you are intentionally ignoring the point I am making.
- You randomly came up with a tax percentage of 50-55% for millionaires. Hence I asked how you would tax the billionaires
- Another completely unrelated point I made was about how even Scandinavian countries have tax rates for millionaires. In fact, UK follows a more progressive taxation than Sweden. In Sweden, all you have to do is to earn over 47K GBP to fall into the higher tax bucket. Everyone earning lower than that pay about 30% in municipal tax, which is higher than what people with similar income in UK pay.
If you want a social welfare society, you also need a socially responsible society where everyone can trust each other. Scandinavian countries try to achieve this by getting everyone to pay more tax so that they feel responsible towards it. Instead you are suggesting a very few people to take the burden of the entire society.
I’ve suggested nothing of the sort. I’ve suggested an additional tax band. That’s it.
I’d suggest you stop reading so much into stuff other people say, and maybe ask more questions to establish details
You said you want create a new tax band for millionaires. I made a couple points arguing against it, one about taxes for billionaires and another about Scandinavian tax systems which you once praised doesn't follow a progressive taxation at all.
I’m all for a high tax system as you’ve mentioned. I don’t for one second think it would wash in the U.K. where we see tax as a burden rather than a means of helping society.
You didn’t argue against a 50-55% band for millionaires, you simply asked me my plan for Billionaires. An invention of yours.
The problem in UK is every leftist wants to tax people who earn more than them. No one wants to pay more tax themselves.
I asked you a question about how the progressive taxation system would work. Would it stop with millionaires or go to billionaires too. Also, is it based on income or wealth? If it's based on income, you won't make any money at all with that change because very few people earn that much."
“every leftist wants to tax people who earn more than them. No one wants to pay more tax themselves.”
- that’s a broad statement. I assume you can back it up?
(You can’t, you’re talking abject bollocks based upon your own prejudices) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country."
I see the comedy act has arrived.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country."
By your argument, anyone who pays for any non-essential (TV streaming, new clothing, a wristwatch, a hobby) is selfish, because that money could have gone elsewhere?
Don’t make assumptions on what others do via voluntary work, charity etc. - it makes you look like a cunt, and destroys any credibility you may have thought you had. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country.
I see the comedy act has arrived.
"
What's wrong with the point I made? You are calling other people selfish for not doing more to the society while you are using your money to get a paid account on a swingers website. That's money that could be used to feed someone. Isn't your act just selfish? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country.
By your argument, anyone who pays for any non-essential (TV streaming, new clothing, a wristwatch, a hobby) is selfish, because that money could have gone elsewhere?
Don’t make assumptions on what others do via voluntary work, charity etc. - it makes you look like a cunt, and destroys any credibility you may have thought you had."
Not everyone goes around the internet lecturing other people about selfishness. You are the one who is doing so. So whose is lacking credibility here again? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country.
I see the comedy act has arrived.
What's wrong with the point I made? You are calling other people selfish for not doing more to the society while you are using your money to get a paid account on a swingers website. That's money that could be used to feed someone. Isn't your act just selfish?"
No, because we all have the right to enjoy hobbies/interests etc - because that’s what life is about. That doesn’t mean that as a society we can’t do more to help provide services that we all need.
I can’t believe you need that explaining to you.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more.
Also, did I suggest a 60% tax rate anywhere? Oh no, that’s you projecting things yet again. You do that a lot.
You know you are intentionally ignoring the point I am making.
- You randomly came up with a tax percentage of 50-55% for millionaires. Hence I asked how you would tax the billionaires
- Another completely unrelated point I made was about how even Scandinavian countries have tax rates for millionaires. In fact, UK follows a more progressive taxation than Sweden. In Sweden, all you have to do is to earn over 47K GBP to fall into the higher tax bucket. Everyone earning lower than that pay about 30% in municipal tax, which is higher than what people with similar income in UK pay.
If you want a social welfare society, you also need a socially responsible society where everyone can trust each other. Scandinavian countries try to achieve this by getting everyone to pay more tax so that they feel responsible towards it. Instead you are suggesting a very few people to take the burden of the entire society.
I’ve suggested nothing of the sort. I’ve suggested an additional tax band. That’s it.
I’d suggest you stop reading so much into stuff other people say, and maybe ask more questions to establish details
You said you want create a new tax band for millionaires. I made a couple points arguing against it, one about taxes for billionaires and another about Scandinavian tax systems which you once praised doesn't follow a progressive taxation at all.
I’m all for a high tax system as you’ve mentioned. I don’t for one second think it would wash in the U.K. where we see tax as a burden rather than a means of helping society.
You didn’t argue against a 50-55% band for millionaires, you simply asked me my plan for Billionaires. An invention of yours.
The problem in UK is every leftist wants to tax people who earn more than them. No one wants to pay more tax themselves.
I asked you a question about how the progressive taxation system would work. Would it stop with millionaires or go to billionaires too. Also, is it based on income or wealth? If it's based on income, you won't make any money at all with that change because very few people earn that much.
“every leftist wants to tax people who earn more than them. No one wants to pay more tax themselves.”
- that’s a broad statement. I assume you can back it up?
(You can’t, you’re talking abject bollocks based upon your own prejudices)"
I have never come across one who wants to pay more tax than they already do. Oh wait! You can actually pay more tax voluntarily and donate to government funds if you want. And how many leftists who do pay more tax than their existing tax rates? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country.
By your argument, anyone who pays for any non-essential (TV streaming, new clothing, a wristwatch, a hobby) is selfish, because that money could have gone elsewhere?
Don’t make assumptions on what others do via voluntary work, charity etc. - it makes you look like a cunt, and destroys any credibility you may have thought you had.
Not everyone goes around the internet lecturing other people about selfishness. You are the one who is doing so. So whose is lacking credibility here again?"
‘Lecturing’? Aren’t you the one who initially said
“most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs”?
That’s you introducing the concept of selfishness to the conversation, is it not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country.
I see the comedy act has arrived.
What's wrong with the point I made? You are calling other people selfish for not doing more to the society while you are using your money to get a paid account on a swingers website. That's money that could be used to feed someone. Isn't your act just selfish?
No, because we all have the right to enjoy hobbies/interests etc - because that’s what life is about. That doesn’t mean that as a society we can’t do more to help provide services that we all need.
I can’t believe you need that explaining to you.
"
Different people have different hobbies. Would it be wrong for a millionaire to spend it on his favourite hobby of doing a space flight or buying a yacht and throw expensive parties every week? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more.
Also, did I suggest a 60% tax rate anywhere? Oh no, that’s you projecting things yet again. You do that a lot.
You know you are intentionally ignoring the point I am making.
- You randomly came up with a tax percentage of 50-55% for millionaires. Hence I asked how you would tax the billionaires
- Another completely unrelated point I made was about how even Scandinavian countries have tax rates for millionaires. In fact, UK follows a more progressive taxation than Sweden. In Sweden, all you have to do is to earn over 47K GBP to fall into the higher tax bucket. Everyone earning lower than that pay about 30% in municipal tax, which is higher than what people with similar income in UK pay.
If you want a social welfare society, you also need a socially responsible society where everyone can trust each other. Scandinavian countries try to achieve this by getting everyone to pay more tax so that they feel responsible towards it. Instead you are suggesting a very few people to take the burden of the entire society.
I’ve suggested nothing of the sort. I’ve suggested an additional tax band. That’s it.
I’d suggest you stop reading so much into stuff other people say, and maybe ask more questions to establish details
You said you want create a new tax band for millionaires. I made a couple points arguing against it, one about taxes for billionaires and another about Scandinavian tax systems which you once praised doesn't follow a progressive taxation at all.
I’m all for a high tax system as you’ve mentioned. I don’t for one second think it would wash in the U.K. where we see tax as a burden rather than a means of helping society.
You didn’t argue against a 50-55% band for millionaires, you simply asked me my plan for Billionaires. An invention of yours.
The problem in UK is every leftist wants to tax people who earn more than them. No one wants to pay more tax themselves.
I asked you a question about how the progressive taxation system would work. Would it stop with millionaires or go to billionaires too. Also, is it based on income or wealth? If it's based on income, you won't make any money at all with that change because very few people earn that much.
“every leftist wants to tax people who earn more than them. No one wants to pay more tax themselves.”
- that’s a broad statement. I assume you can back it up?
(You can’t, you’re talking abject bollocks based upon your own prejudices)
I have never come across one who wants to pay more tax than they already do. Oh wait! You can actually pay more tax voluntarily and donate to government funds if you want. And how many leftists who do pay more tax than their existing tax rates?"
Ah, so because you’ve never come across anyone who’s willing to pay more, they don’t exist?
Is this like when you said everyone moves politically right as they age (despite data suggesting it’s untrue) because you and your mates did? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country.
I see the comedy act has arrived.
What's wrong with the point I made? You are calling other people selfish for not doing more to the society while you are using your money to get a paid account on a swingers website. That's money that could be used to feed someone. Isn't your act just selfish?
No, because we all have the right to enjoy hobbies/interests etc - because that’s what life is about. That doesn’t mean that as a society we can’t do more to help provide services that we all need.
I can’t believe you need that explaining to you.
Different people have different hobbies. Would it be wrong for a millionaire to spend it on his favourite hobby of doing a space flight or buying a yacht and throw expensive parties every week?"
If they’re paying their taxes in full correctly, why not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country.
By your argument, anyone who pays for any non-essential (TV streaming, new clothing, a wristwatch, a hobby) is selfish, because that money could have gone elsewhere?
Don’t make assumptions on what others do via voluntary work, charity etc. - it makes you look like a cunt, and destroys any credibility you may have thought you had.
Not everyone goes around the internet lecturing other people about selfishness. You are the one who is doing so. So whose is lacking credibility here again?
‘Lecturing’? Aren’t you the one who initially said
“most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs”?
That’s you introducing the concept of selfishness to the conversation, is it not? "
I said that as a fact. I am not judgemental. I would place my own and my family's needs over everyone else's in the world. If that's selfish, so be it. When others do that, I don't criticise them either. You on the other hand are asking other people to become less selfish while you won't do it yourself. You are as selfish as most other people while telling us about how selfishness is a bad thing. That's hypocrisy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more.
Also, did I suggest a 60% tax rate anywhere? Oh no, that’s you projecting things yet again. You do that a lot.
You know you are intentionally ignoring the point I am making.
- You randomly came up with a tax percentage of 50-55% for millionaires. Hence I asked how you would tax the billionaires
- Another completely unrelated point I made was about how even Scandinavian countries have tax rates for millionaires. In fact, UK follows a more progressive taxation than Sweden. In Sweden, all you have to do is to earn over 47K GBP to fall into the higher tax bucket. Everyone earning lower than that pay about 30% in municipal tax, which is higher than what people with similar income in UK pay.
If you want a social welfare society, you also need a socially responsible society where everyone can trust each other. Scandinavian countries try to achieve this by getting everyone to pay more tax so that they feel responsible towards it. Instead you are suggesting a very few people to take the burden of the entire society.
I’ve suggested nothing of the sort. I’ve suggested an additional tax band. That’s it.
I’d suggest you stop reading so much into stuff other people say, and maybe ask more questions to establish details
You said you want create a new tax band for millionaires. I made a couple points arguing against it, one about taxes for billionaires and another about Scandinavian tax systems which you once praised doesn't follow a progressive taxation at all.
I’m all for a high tax system as you’ve mentioned. I don’t for one second think it would wash in the U.K. where we see tax as a burden rather than a means of helping society.
You didn’t argue against a 50-55% band for millionaires, you simply asked me my plan for Billionaires. An invention of yours.
The problem in UK is every leftist wants to tax people who earn more than them. No one wants to pay more tax themselves.
I asked you a question about how the progressive taxation system would work. Would it stop with millionaires or go to billionaires too. Also, is it based on income or wealth? If it's based on income, you won't make any money at all with that change because very few people earn that much.
“every leftist wants to tax people who earn more than them. No one wants to pay more tax themselves.”
- that’s a broad statement. I assume you can back it up?
(You can’t, you’re talking abject bollocks based upon your own prejudices)
I have never come across one who wants to pay more tax than they already do. Oh wait! You can actually pay more tax voluntarily and donate to government funds if you want. And how many leftists who do pay more tax than their existing tax rates?
Ah, so because you’ve never come across anyone who’s willing to pay more, they don’t exist?
Is this like when you said everyone moves politically right as they age (despite data suggesting it’s untrue) because you and your mates did? "
How many people in the country pay excess tax voluntarily? I am pretty sure it's not even close to number of leftists in the country. How much excess tax did you pay by the way? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country.
By your argument, anyone who pays for any non-essential (TV streaming, new clothing, a wristwatch, a hobby) is selfish, because that money could have gone elsewhere?
Don’t make assumptions on what others do via voluntary work, charity etc. - it makes you look like a cunt, and destroys any credibility you may have thought you had.
Not everyone goes around the internet lecturing other people about selfishness. You are the one who is doing so. So whose is lacking credibility here again?
‘Lecturing’? Aren’t you the one who initially said
“most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs”?
That’s you introducing the concept of selfishness to the conversation, is it not?
I said that as a fact. I am not judgemental. I would place my own and my family's needs over everyone else's in the world. If that's selfish, so be it. When others do that, I don't criticise them either. You on the other hand are asking other people to become less selfish while you won't do it yourself. You are as selfish as most other people while telling us about how selfishness is a bad thing. That's hypocrisy."
What won’t I do myself?
Do you know how I help? What charities I support? What I do in my free time?
You don’t, do you? Because once again, you’re making snap judgements based upon your own inherent biases and prejudice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
And how about someone with over billion? 60%? That's a great way to tell people that after a point, they should neither invest nor work more and eventually bring the economy down.
Even the Scandinavian countries that many leftists wank over doesn't have such a tax system. In Sweden, anyone who earns an income over an equivalent of £47,000 pay a tax rate over 50%. People earning lower than that pay 30%. They tax everyone. They don't punish people for having the audacity to earn more.
Also, did I suggest a 60% tax rate anywhere? Oh no, that’s you projecting things yet again. You do that a lot.
You know you are intentionally ignoring the point I am making.
- You randomly came up with a tax percentage of 50-55% for millionaires. Hence I asked how you would tax the billionaires
- Another completely unrelated point I made was about how even Scandinavian countries have tax rates for millionaires. In fact, UK follows a more progressive taxation than Sweden. In Sweden, all you have to do is to earn over 47K GBP to fall into the higher tax bucket. Everyone earning lower than that pay about 30% in municipal tax, which is higher than what people with similar income in UK pay.
If you want a social welfare society, you also need a socially responsible society where everyone can trust each other. Scandinavian countries try to achieve this by getting everyone to pay more tax so that they feel responsible towards it. Instead you are suggesting a very few people to take the burden of the entire society.
I’ve suggested nothing of the sort. I’ve suggested an additional tax band. That’s it.
I’d suggest you stop reading so much into stuff other people say, and maybe ask more questions to establish details
You said you want create a new tax band for millionaires. I made a couple points arguing against it, one about taxes for billionaires and another about Scandinavian tax systems which you once praised doesn't follow a progressive taxation at all.
I’m all for a high tax system as you’ve mentioned. I don’t for one second think it would wash in the U.K. where we see tax as a burden rather than a means of helping society.
You didn’t argue against a 50-55% band for millionaires, you simply asked me my plan for Billionaires. An invention of yours.
The problem in UK is every leftist wants to tax people who earn more than them. No one wants to pay more tax themselves.
I asked you a question about how the progressive taxation system would work. Would it stop with millionaires or go to billionaires too. Also, is it based on income or wealth? If it's based on income, you won't make any money at all with that change because very few people earn that much.
“every leftist wants to tax people who earn more than them. No one wants to pay more tax themselves.”
- that’s a broad statement. I assume you can back it up?
(You can’t, you’re talking abject bollocks based upon your own prejudices)
I have never come across one who wants to pay more tax than they already do. Oh wait! You can actually pay more tax voluntarily and donate to government funds if you want. And how many leftists who do pay more tax than their existing tax rates?
Ah, so because you’ve never come across anyone who’s willing to pay more, they don’t exist?
Is this like when you said everyone moves politically right as they age (despite data suggesting it’s untrue) because you and your mates did?
How many people in the country pay excess tax voluntarily? I am pretty sure it's not even close to number of leftists in the country. How much excess tax did you pay by the way?"
I see no need to share my current tax details with you. I’ve already told you I’m a higher rate payer (and that’s none of your business, but you’re welcome).
I have previously paid voluntary additional tax, as it happens. But I wouldn’t dream of doing so under the current regime, as they’ve proved themselves unworthy of trust with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country.
By your argument, anyone who pays for any non-essential (TV streaming, new clothing, a wristwatch, a hobby) is selfish, because that money could have gone elsewhere?
Don’t make assumptions on what others do via voluntary work, charity etc. - it makes you look like a cunt, and destroys any credibility you may have thought you had.
Not everyone goes around the internet lecturing other people about selfishness. You are the one who is doing so. So whose is lacking credibility here again?
‘Lecturing’? Aren’t you the one who initially said
“most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs”?
That’s you introducing the concept of selfishness to the conversation, is it not?
I said that as a fact. I am not judgemental. I would place my own and my family's needs over everyone else's in the world. If that's selfish, so be it. When others do that, I don't criticise them either. You on the other hand are asking other people to become less selfish while you won't do it yourself. You are as selfish as most other people while telling us about how selfishness is a bad thing. That's hypocrisy.
What won’t I do myself?
Do you know how I help? What charities I support? What I do in my free time?
You don’t, do you? Because once again, you’re making snap judgements based upon your own inherent biases and prejudice. "
Do you know how millionaires help others? What charities they support?
You don't, do you? Yet you are here wanting them to pay more taxes. Before asking them, you could sacrifice your fab membership fee to begin with and donate that money to charity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country.
By your argument, anyone who pays for any non-essential (TV streaming, new clothing, a wristwatch, a hobby) is selfish, because that money could have gone elsewhere?
Don’t make assumptions on what others do via voluntary work, charity etc. - it makes you look like a cunt, and destroys any credibility you may have thought you had.
Not everyone goes around the internet lecturing other people about selfishness. You are the one who is doing so. So whose is lacking credibility here again?
‘Lecturing’? Aren’t you the one who initially said
“most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs”?
That’s you introducing the concept of selfishness to the conversation, is it not?
I said that as a fact. I am not judgemental. I would place my own and my family's needs over everyone else's in the world. If that's selfish, so be it. When others do that, I don't criticise them either. You on the other hand are asking other people to become less selfish while you won't do it yourself. You are as selfish as most other people while telling us about how selfishness is a bad thing. That's hypocrisy.
What won’t I do myself?
Do you know how I help? What charities I support? What I do in my free time?
You don’t, do you? Because once again, you’re making snap judgements based upon your own inherent biases and prejudice.
Do you know how millionaires help others? What charities they support?
You don't, do you? Yet you are here wanting them to pay more taxes. Before asking them, you could sacrifice your fab membership fee to begin with and donate that money to charity."
*sigh* I think we’re done here. I’m not going to engage with your nonsense about a fiver on fabs vs a properly funded society.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I see no need to share my current tax details with you. I’ve already told you I’m a higher rate payer (and that’s none of your business, but you’re welcome).
I have previously paid voluntary additional tax, as it happens. But I wouldn’t dream of doing so under the current regime, as they’ve proved themselves unworthy of trust with it. "
That's good to know. Because in the year ending 2022, a massive sum of £2108 was received by the government in forms of voluntary tax donations. I guess the leftists in the country are definitely putting the money where their mouth is 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
Yeah the stupidity of socialism can be captured in this one line. Not everyone has same needs and human needs aren't bounded. Also, most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs. They have their own needs they want to satisfy first before thinking about satisfying other people's needs.
Indeed, most humans are selfish.
Do you think you are one of those selfish humans?
I think I’m certainly less selfish than many. I’m sure we all have our limits on what we’re happy helping to fund.
You are here with a paid account on a swingers website while that money could be used to pay for someone's meals. I am pretty sure that makes you more selfish than most people in the country.
By your argument, anyone who pays for any non-essential (TV streaming, new clothing, a wristwatch, a hobby) is selfish, because that money could have gone elsewhere?
Don’t make assumptions on what others do via voluntary work, charity etc. - it makes you look like a cunt, and destroys any credibility you may have thought you had.
Not everyone goes around the internet lecturing other people about selfishness. You are the one who is doing so. So whose is lacking credibility here again?
‘Lecturing’? Aren’t you the one who initially said
“most humans with ability do not want to use their ability to satisfy other people's needs”?
That’s you introducing the concept of selfishness to the conversation, is it not?
I said that as a fact. I am not judgemental. I would place my own and my family's needs over everyone else's in the world. If that's selfish, so be it. When others do that, I don't criticise them either. You on the other hand are asking other people to become less selfish while you won't do it yourself. You are as selfish as most other people while telling us about how selfishness is a bad thing. That's hypocrisy.
What won’t I do myself?
Do you know how I help? What charities I support? What I do in my free time?
You don’t, do you? Because once again, you’re making snap judgements based upon your own inherent biases and prejudice.
Do you know how millionaires help others? What charities they support?
You don't, do you? Yet you are here wanting them to pay more taxes. Before asking them, you could sacrifice your fab membership fee to begin with and donate that money to charity.
*sigh* I think we’re done here. I’m not going to engage with your nonsense about a fiver on fabs vs a properly funded society.
"
You are trying to draw an arbitrary line on what makes one selfish and what makes one selfless. You are trying your best to draw it in a way so that you will look less selfish than most other people. But unfortunately it's not easy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Getting back to the topic, how would you feel about getting rid of government run social services in favour of UBI and setting the UBI based on GDP?
This way, people can use the welfare in a way they want, instead of government choosing it for them. Youngsters could use it for housing and they will pay less for medical insurance whereas old people will pay more for medical insurance.
We could also get rid of government bureaucracy and let private companies compete with each other for the services.
Setting UBI proportionate to GDP could also act as an incentive for people to be more productive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Getting back to the topic, how would you feel about getting rid of government run social services in favour of UBI and setting the UBI based on GDP?
This way, people can use the welfare in a way they want, instead of government choosing it for them. Youngsters could use it for housing and they will pay less for medical insurance whereas old people will pay more for medical insurance.
We could also get rid of government bureaucracy and let private companies compete with each other for the services.
Setting UBI proportionate to GDP could also act as an incentive for people to be more productive."
So not the topic  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Getting back to the topic, how would you feel about getting rid of government run social services in favour of UBI and setting the UBI based on GDP?
This way, people can use the welfare in a way they want, instead of government choosing it for them. Youngsters could use it for housing and they will pay less for medical insurance whereas old people will pay more for medical insurance.
We could also get rid of government bureaucracy and let private companies compete with each other for the services.
Setting UBI proportionate to GDP could also act as an incentive for people to be more productive.
So not the topic "
Sorry I latched on to your point about retaining growth while also taxing people. Didn't realise you were focusing specifically on wealth tax.
The biggest problem with wealth tax is the difficulty in setting value of wealth. Properties and stock values fluctuate a lot. That's why they are taxed at sale rather than just taxing someone for possessing wealth. After all, they bought the asset from income for which they already paid tax. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 36 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
It’s basically the argument that bill gates and warren buffet both make in the states…. Which is “why as a percentage of their income are they paying less tax than the average person”
The answer is better accounts taking advantage of tax loopholes…….
The other thing is that you then have to believe that “trickle down “ actually works…. It doesn’t! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things?
Yes, they do, but they’re less able to help fund them. Society takes everyone in order to succeed, doesn’t it?
We course bring it down to the lowest denominator, but that’s going to impact everyone negatively.
So because they can afford to then?
Sounds very 'progressive'
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
(I note that you don’t actually argue my point about bringing tax to the lowest denominator)"
So your point is if you work hard and save to own you a home and pay in to a private pension. You should be taxed more than someone how spends what they earn and don't plan for tomorrow. MILLION is not alot of money in the world we now live in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things?
Yes, they do, but they’re less able to help fund them. Society takes everyone in order to succeed, doesn’t it?
We course bring it down to the lowest denominator, but that’s going to impact everyone negatively.
So because they can afford to then?
Sounds very 'progressive'
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
(I note that you don’t actually argue my point about bringing tax to the lowest denominator)
So your point is if you work hard and save to own you a home and pay in to a private pension. You should be taxed more than someone how spends what they earn and don't plan for tomorrow. MILLION is not alot of money in the world we now live in."
No, that’s not my point. Taxation on earnings has nothing to do with how you spend/plan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things?
Yes, they do, but they’re less able to help fund them. Society takes everyone in order to succeed, doesn’t it?
We course bring it down to the lowest denominator, but that’s going to impact everyone negatively.
So because they can afford to then?
Sounds very 'progressive'
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
(I note that you don’t actually argue my point about bringing tax to the lowest denominator)
So your point is if you work hard and save to own you a home and pay in to a private pension. You should be taxed more than someone how spends what they earn and don't plan for tomorrow. MILLION is not alot of money in the world we now live in.
No, that’s not my point. Taxation on earnings has nothing to do with how you spend/plan."
But a tax on wealth would mean exactly this if you work hard and do well you pay more tax. If you party all your life and spend as you earn yon would pay less as you would never be wealth " a millionaire " |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things?
Yes, they do, but they’re less able to help fund them. Society takes everyone in order to succeed, doesn’t it?
We course bring it down to the lowest denominator, but that’s going to impact everyone negatively.
So because they can afford to then?
Sounds very 'progressive'
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
(I note that you don’t actually argue my point about bringing tax to the lowest denominator)
So your point is if you work hard and save to own you a home and pay in to a private pension. You should be taxed more than someone how spends what they earn and don't plan for tomorrow. MILLION is not alot of money in the world we now live in.
No, that’s not my point. Taxation on earnings has nothing to do with how you spend/plan.
But a tax on wealth would mean exactly this if you work hard and do well you pay more tax. If you party all your life and spend as you earn yon would pay less as you would never be wealth " a millionaire ""
Someone earning (for example 50k) and saving it will pay the same amount of tax as someone earning the same 50k and spunking it up the wall, will they not?
That’s why I said ‘taxation on earnings’ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
How did you arrive at the conclusion? Did you have a mathematical formula for it? Whatever formula you choose, I am pretty sure you will ensure that it's higher than the money you make so that you don't have to be responsible for it.
I’m a higher rate taxpayer now. Do I complain about it? No. I accept that taxes are a part of any responsible society.
Yes. But then you seem to set a higher bar for millionaires. How much more do you want them to pay?
I think a stepped tax system is perfectly fine - I’d have to look at the figures to establish exactly how much tax (as a percentage) a millionaire should pay on their earnings. A 50-55% bracket would be sufficient, I’d expect.
Why should someone who earns 1m pay more (as a percentage) than someone who earns 20k?
Apart from 'because they can afford to'.
Because they also want a well funded, safe society with good services, good education possibilities for their children, and are better placed to assist in its creation than a low income earner.
So because they can afford to then?
Don't low income earners also want those things?
Yes, they do, but they’re less able to help fund them. Society takes everyone in order to succeed, doesn’t it?
We course bring it down to the lowest denominator, but that’s going to impact everyone negatively.
So because they can afford to then?
Sounds very 'progressive'
“ From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
(I note that you don’t actually argue my point about bringing tax to the lowest denominator)
So your point is if you work hard and save to own you a home and pay in to a private pension. You should be taxed more than someone how spends what they earn and don't plan for tomorrow. MILLION is not alot of money in the world we now live in.
No, that’s not my point. Taxation on earnings has nothing to do with how you spend/plan.
But a tax on wealth would mean exactly this if you work hard and do well you pay more tax. If you party all your life and spend as you earn yon would pay less as you would never be wealth " a millionaire "
Someone earning (for example 50k) and saving it will pay the same amount of tax as someone earning the same 50k and spunking it up the wall, will they not?
That’s why I said ‘taxation on earnings’"
Agreed but the OP's point is about taxing the wealthy more as in millionaire's would guess not meany people earn over a million each year and if they do are allready getting taxed on it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society. "
But they already are!! High rate income tax, dividend tax, inheritance tax, VAT and duties on purchases etc etc. How else do you encourage hard work and effort if you take everything away in tax? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
But they already are!! High rate income tax, dividend tax, inheritance tax, VAT and duties on purchases etc etc. How else do you encourage hard work and effort if you take everything away in tax?"
Well it would require some long-term education for a whole nation about what taxes are actually supposed to be there for, plus some chain spending on services (as opposed to cuts) to demonstrate properly what well funded social system can do.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
But they already are!! High rate income tax, dividend tax, inheritance tax, VAT and duties on purchases etc etc. How else do you encourage hard work and effort if you take everything away in tax?"
Also, inheritance tax isn’t a tax on the living. It’s a tax on the dead, and they shouldn’t be too concerned about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 36 weeks ago
South Devon |
The very rich are able to – entirely legally – reduce their taxes by structuring their affairs to take their remuneration as capital gains and corporate dividends.
These are forms of remuneration that attract a significantly lower tax rate than income tax.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/wealthy-uk-tax-cost-rate-capital-gains-income-tax-a9566211.html |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The very rich are able to – entirely legally – reduce their taxes by structuring their affairs to take their remuneration as capital gains and corporate dividends.
These are forms of remuneration that attract a significantly lower tax rate than income tax.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/wealthy-uk-tax-cost-rate-capital-gains-income-tax-a9566211.html"
Well done, that's 2 posts and 2 links can you make it 3 out of 3 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 36 weeks ago
South Devon |
"The very rich are able to – entirely legally – reduce their taxes by structuring their affairs to take their remuneration as capital gains and corporate dividends.
These are forms of remuneration that attract a significantly lower tax rate than income tax.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/wealthy-uk-tax-cost-rate-capital-gains-income-tax-a9566211.html
Well done, that's 2 posts and 2 links can you make it 3 out of 3 "
Bless you, all that fact and evidence, must be difficult to accept....3 out of 3!
Study that threats to a person’s identity do cause resistance to taking new factual arguments on board, and we know negative emotions seem to play a part
https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/why-it-so-hard-persuade-people-facts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
But they already are!! High rate income tax, dividend tax, inheritance tax, VAT and duties on purchases etc etc. How else do you encourage hard work and effort if you take everything away in tax?
Well it would require some long-term education for a whole nation about what taxes are actually supposed to be there for, plus some chain spending on services (as opposed to cuts) to demonstrate properly what well funded social system can do.
"
The only things that will result from a well funded social system is inefficiency and waste, and we have enough of both already. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 36 weeks ago
South Devon |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
But they already are!! High rate income tax, dividend tax, inheritance tax, VAT and duties on purchases etc etc. How else do you encourage hard work and effort if you take everything away in tax?
Well it would require some long-term education for a whole nation about what taxes are actually supposed to be there for, plus some chain spending on services (as opposed to cuts) to demonstrate properly what well funded social system can do.
The only things that will result from a well funded social system is inefficiency and waste, and we have enough of both already. "
Is that an opinion or can back that up with facts and evidence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
But they already are!! High rate income tax, dividend tax, inheritance tax, VAT and duties on purchases etc etc. How else do you encourage hard work and effort if you take everything away in tax?
Well it would require some long-term education for a whole nation about what taxes are actually supposed to be there for, plus some chain spending on services (as opposed to cuts) to demonstrate properly what well funded social system can do.
The only things that will result from a well funded social system is inefficiency and waste, and we have enough of both already.
Is that an opinion or can back that up with facts and evidence?"
From observation and experience. The NHS, defence procurement, pandemic PPE, consultancies .....just Google |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 36 weeks ago
South Devon |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
But they already are!! High rate income tax, dividend tax, inheritance tax, VAT and duties on purchases etc etc. How else do you encourage hard work and effort if you take everything away in tax?
Well it would require some long-term education for a whole nation about what taxes are actually supposed to be there for, plus some chain spending on services (as opposed to cuts) to demonstrate properly what well funded social system can do.
The only things that will result from a well funded social system is inefficiency and waste, and we have enough of both already.
Is that an opinion or can back that up with facts and evidence?
From observation and experience. The NHS, defence procurement, pandemic PPE, consultancies .....just Google "
So just an opinion, I do agree regarding some you say but not with a brush stroke statement like this....The only things that will result from a well funded social system is inefficiency and waste, and we have enough of both already. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
But they already are!! High rate income tax, dividend tax, inheritance tax, VAT and duties on purchases etc etc. How else do you encourage hard work and effort if you take everything away in tax?
Well it would require some long-term education for a whole nation about what taxes are actually supposed to be there for, plus some chain spending on services (as opposed to cuts) to demonstrate properly what well funded social system can do.
The only things that will result from a well funded social system is inefficiency and waste, and we have enough of both already.
Is that an opinion or can back that up with facts and evidence?
From observation and experience. The NHS, defence procurement, pandemic PPE, consultancies .....just Google
So just an opinion, I do agree regarding some you say but not with a brush stroke statement like this....The only things that will result from a well funded social system is inefficiency and waste, and we have enough of both already. "
Fair enough, but if taxpayers just accept the highest levels of taxation since WWII with piss-poor public services, things will just get worse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 36 weeks ago
South Devon |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
But they already are!! High rate income tax, dividend tax, inheritance tax, VAT and duties on purchases etc etc. How else do you encourage hard work and effort if you take everything away in tax?
Well it would require some long-term education for a whole nation about what taxes are actually supposed to be there for, plus some chain spending on services (as opposed to cuts) to demonstrate properly what well funded social system can do.
The only things that will result from a well funded social system is inefficiency and waste, and we have enough of both already.
Is that an opinion or can back that up with facts and evidence?
From observation and experience. The NHS, defence procurement, pandemic PPE, consultancies .....just Google
So just an opinion, I do agree regarding some you say but not with a brush stroke statement like this....The only things that will result from a well funded social system is inefficiency and waste, and we have enough of both already.
Fair enough, but if taxpayers just accept the highest levels of taxation since WWII with piss-poor public services, things will just get worse. "
I agree but I think we all agree the NHS and it's staff do a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances. I see some very quick fixes, from jailing those who are involved in the PPE scandal which sends a message to all politicians you are accountable, pay NHS staff such as nurses a proper wage, investment as most people don't mind paying a few pennies more in tax for NHS, plus people will not go private takng away staff from NHS...yes there is a lot more but it's all possible.... they want you to believe it's not so they can privatise it, it's just a dividend to them, think water companies making millions yet no investment whilst we swim with brown fish and kill the rivers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you mean millionaire or billionaire? A million quid will barely buy you a semi in Putney these days.
That a £Million is not particularly wealthy to the extent that it attracts special wealth taxation.
I’d definitely argue that a million+ is someone who can afford to burden a little more towards society.
But they already are!! High rate income tax, dividend tax, inheritance tax, VAT and duties on purchases etc etc. How else do you encourage hard work and effort if you take everything away in tax?
Well it would require some long-term education for a whole nation about what taxes are actually supposed to be there for, plus some chain spending on services (as opposed to cuts) to demonstrate properly what well funded social system can do.
The only things that will result from a well funded social system is inefficiency and waste, and we have enough of both already.
Is that an opinion or can back that up with facts and evidence?
From observation and experience. The NHS, defence procurement, pandemic PPE, consultancies .....just Google
So just an opinion, I do agree regarding some you say but not with a brush stroke statement like this....The only things that will result from a well funded social system is inefficiency and waste, and we have enough of both already.
Fair enough, but if taxpayers just accept the highest levels of taxation since WWII with piss-poor public services, things will just get worse.
I agree but I think we all agree the NHS and it's staff do a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances. I see some very quick fixes, from jailing those who are involved in the PPE scandal which sends a message to all politicians you are accountable, pay NHS staff such as nurses a proper wage, investment as most people don't mind paying a few pennies more in tax for NHS, plus people will not go private takng away staff from NHS...yes there is a lot more but it's all possible.... they want you to believe it's not so they can privatise it, it's just a dividend to them, think water companies making millions yet no investment whilst we swim with brown fish and kill the rivers."
I'm not sure the NHS actually do a fantastic job tbh. I've accessed healthcare worldwide as an ex pat. The NHS is mediocre at best (although doubtless has some excellent staff).
As for water companies, people forget that privatisation took place because of declining potable water quality (due to acid rain). The water companies invested and now we are in the top 10 water quality countries in the world. Sewage is complicated because we are one of the few countries that combine storm water and sewage. It's a legacy problem nobody wants to fund. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ornLordMan 36 weeks ago
Wiltshire and London |
"Sewage is complicated because we are one of the few countries that combine storm water and sewage. It's a legacy problem nobody wants to fund."
Yep, because lining shareholders' pockets is more important for privatised water companies than actually providing (all) the services they're supposed to. Legacy problems are inherited along with all the rest and they should darn well suck that up and deal with it. Providing clean drinking water is the least they can do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
