Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would it not have been quicker to say that our essentials are 'food, water, clothing and shelter?'
It may have been, but it's less impactful than seeing it spelled out, just hearing what everyone knows, because there are some people who REALLY believe having the latest iPhone is an essential.
Labour have said they will bring back the 50p in the pound rate for what they judge are high earners. Plus, national insurance on top of that.
You can bet after a while in power, even that rate won't be high enough for them.
We can only speculate what either party might do further down the road.
What alternative would you suggest then Dave to fund our struggling public services?
Also, why do you characterize income tax as stolen money? Again, what alternative is there?
We can only speculate what either party might do further down the road.
What alternative would you suggest then Dave to fund our struggling public services?
Also, why do you characterize income tax as stolen money? Again, what alternative is there?
Because all tax taken from people is theft geoff. Legal theft by the government. Whoever thought up PAYE was on a winner. The money is removed from wages, before the worker ever sees it. Also National Insurance. There it is on your wage slip. You earn so much, tax and National Insurance is removed. You get to keep what's left. You have no choice, it's taken whether you like it or not. What else would you call that but theft?
Now, as you say, we accept this as the price of having the NHS, pensions in our old age, unemployment benefits, and all the rest. Then, the money left after the government has dipped it's beak, is then taxed again. If you are a house owner or renter you pay Council Tax to local government. You go to the shops, and buy things, 20% VAT is added to your bill. Same if you have a plumber or electrician to your house. So much for them, and then 20% added on to go to the government. We have no choice but to pay all this tax.
So, a responsible government, tries to take as little as possible of your money in theory, to do the things it has to do to run society as we know it. But some types of government, decide they can take more and more in tax to fund their grand ideas. This is what we're seeing from the Labour party in it's plans revealed this last few weeks. I won't list the freebies they are preparing to give various groups of people. All this costs money. A lot of money. The Labour party are now once again using the word 'socialists' to describe themselves. Well, from what I've seen in my long life, is that 'socialists' spend, and spend other people's money, until there isn't any more to take. As in the note left in the Treasury for the incoming Tory government in 2010. 'The money's all gone.' It was some sort of joke left by someone in the Labour party to anger the incoming Tory government. It would be funny, but it's true. The public finances were in a mess, and they had borrowed internationally to the hilt to try and survive the 2008 crash.
If Labour get in next week, we will see more of the same within a few years, after they spend money on all their grand schemes. All the years of austerity recovering from the 2008 crash would have been for nothing. We would be in another financial mess. Sorry geoff........I'm not voting for that.
Last edited by English Dave; 12-05-2019 at 02:59 PM..
I'm the same as you geoff. I don't envy others, who have more than I have. Good luck to them, especially if they earned what they have, and didn't inherit it. I wasn't always like that. When I joined the army in 1970, I visited London for the first time in my life. Boy, it was an eye opener. I saw the rich for the first time.
I saw the fancy cars, the beautiful clothes, the loud laughter as they entered theatres at night, and came out of fancy restaurants. I saw them sneering at ticket touts, outside theatres, with the touts shouting back at them, "I knew you when you had nothing." Yes, I admit I was envious of them, and what they had.
I listened to Dennis Healey in the mid 70s, when as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said he'd squeeze the rich, until the pips squeaked. I thought, 'that's right Dennis, you do that. What right have they got to so much, when we have so little in comparison.'
I watched the city brokers in the 80s, waving their bonus cheques at the cameras on the telly news. At the same time, few in my home town could find work. Thatcher's recession bit deep. My dad couldn't find any work. He was 50 years old, and on the scrapheap. He went for a cleaning job, and there were a dozen other men waiting in line for even that work. He didn't get it, and just gave up. He died a few years later. I hated Thatcher, and all she stood for.
But, the years pass. I stopped envying others doing better than me. I had a job that kept the wolf from the door. I was content with my lot. I grew to realise, the guys who do well, are generally smart, or connected. They pay a lot of income tax. Their employers work hard to create a business. Many don't make it, and end up bankrupt. But where would we be without such people? The ones willing to take a risk?
Then you hear slogans like 'all tax is theft.' You start to think about that, and yes, all tax is theft. Legal theft by government decree. We earn our wages, and pay income tax, and national insurance. We go and buy things, and we're taxed again through VAT. We fill our cars with petrol, and pay the majority of it as tax. That's the way it is.
Now, the well off, like say top footballers, pay massive amounts of tax. Most accept this as fair. But, there is a limit. You can't keep taking a larger and larger percentage of what they earn. What right has any government to keep taking more and more? Why, just because they can? We accept we have to pay tax for things we take for granted like the NHS. We expect the well off to pay more than we do. But, all tax IS theft, and there is a limit to what can be stolen from people. It is legal theft, but theft never the less.
Nothing to do with envy ,regardless how some wish to paint it, desiring social justice, where a very at the top earn vast amounts more than the bottom half while some 22% from recall live in some degree of poverty. and the top had the wealth and influence
The status quo was once a trade off. The poor had certain social benefits and permitted these benefits to a degree for self preservation.
They could maintain their status, but to prevent gated communities and fear of crime and social discord in the political area the rest were more or les left alone and tolerated.
Not enough for the elites of course, who applauded austerity and greater controls over the rest in the workplace (post unions) increased laws controlling malcontents, ever growing surveillance over people's lives and less freedoms.
Now why do the rich afford their share of taxes? Because they can through creative accounting. Easy as ABC. What they claim as their taxable income and pay 20% tax on is purely declared income and not total income earned. Nothing illegal in most cases, but not what it may appear to casual observers. The rich who pay income tax do so for a reason. They are in receipt of grossly more lucre than the rest.
I've no idea why people as yourself feel the need to defend these people. They get by amply well enough already. It does show I suppose just how 'confused' society out there is when members of the working class feel the urge to defend those at the very top in the holders of wealth in the country, be it held off shore or in tax minimization schemes, odd indeed. Especially when austerity has played such havoc on their economic/class demographic.
So all tax is theft? How do you envisage a society to function? Back to the days of serfs and public floggings in order to keep the masses in check?
If the wealth continues to be acquired among the few, then of course they can be taxed more. A greater distribution of wealth would witness a greater distribution of the tax burden.
One thing about the top few per cent where they deserve credit. They are top rate at mudding the waters and convincing lesser mortals that they deserve their too often inflated status not to say wealth.
Because all tax taken from people is theft geoff. Legal theft by the government. Whoever thought up PAYE was on a winner. The money is removed from wages, before the worker ever sees it. Also National Insurance. There it is on your wage slip. You earn so much, tax and National Insurance is removed. You get to keep what's left. You have no choice, it's taken whether you like it or not. What else would you call that but theft?
Now, as you say, we accept this as the price of having the NHS, pensions in our old age, unemployment benefits, and all the rest. Then, the money left after the government has dipped it's beak, is then taxed again. If you are a house owner or renter you pay Council Tax to local government. You go to the shops, and buy things, 20% VAT is added to your bill. Same if you have a plumber or electrician to your house. So much for them, and then 20% added on to go to the government. We have no choice but to pay all this tax.
So, a responsible government, tries to take as little as possible of your money in theory, to do the things it has to do to run society as we know it. But some types of government, decide they can take more and more in tax to fund their grand ideas. This is what we're seeing from the Labour party in it's plans revealed this last few weeks. I won't list the freebies they are preparing to give various groups of people. All this costs money. A lot of money. The Labour party are now once again using the word 'socialists' to describe themselves. Well, from what I've seen in my long life, is that 'socialists' spend, and spend other people's money, until there isn't any more to take. As in the note left in the Treasury for the incoming Tory government in 2010. 'The money's all gone.' It was some sort of joke left by someone in the Labour party to anger the incoming Tory government. It would be funny, but it's true. The public finances were in a mess, and they had borrowed internationally to the hilt to try and survive the 2008 crash.
If Labour get in next week, we will see more of the same within a few years, after they spend money on all their grand schemes. All the years of austerity recovering from the 2008 crash would have been for nothing. We would be in another financial mess. Sorry geoff........I'm not voting for that.
Don't fret, Dave. Those nasty socialists won't be coming around yours to check you are not living beyond your social entitlement and redistribute anything judged to be in excess of your needs.
Can't speak for the other lot, in order to gain entitlement. Could well be a return to the old days, when a household was entitled to bare essentials, with excess required to be sold before any benefit was paid.
Rich don't tend to have a problem with VAT. They claim it fairer as all pay at point of purchase. Thing being of course they have more disposable lucre beforehand to flout, hence this impost again falls unfairly in burden on wage earners and the poorer members.
Same with same per cent tax impost. Higher earners again come out better than the present progressive tax impost.
Giving tax concessions to those least in need is a real burden. A burden on society and makes for greater austerity.
You know there is a reason Denmark is one of the happiest countries on earth, indeed some surveys suggest the happiest . Worth giving a little thought perhaps?
Last edited by the troubadour; 12-05-2019 at 04:38 PM..
Nothing to do with envy ,regardless how some wish to paint it, desiring social justice, where a very at the top earn vast amounts more than the bottom half while some 22% from recall live in some degree of poverty. and the top had the wealth and influence
The status quo was once a trade off. The poor had certain social benefits and permitted these benefits to a degree for self preservation.
They could maintain their status, but to prevent gated communities and fear of crime and social discord in the political area the rest were more or les left alone and tolerated.
Not enough for the elites of course, who applauded austerity and greater controls over the rest in the workplace (post unions) increased laws controlling malcontents, ever growing surveillance over people's lives and less freedoms.
Now why do the rich afford their share of taxes? Because they can through creative accounting. Easy as ABC. What they claim as their taxable income and pay 20% tax on is purely declared income and not total income earned. Nothing illegal in most cases, but not what it may appear to casual observers. The rich who pay income tax do so for a reason. They are in receipt of grossly more lucre than the rest.
I've no idea why people as yourself feel the need to defend these people. They get by amply well enough already. It does show I suppose just how 'confused' society out there is when members of the working class feel the urge to defend those at the very top in the holders of wealth in the country, be it held off shore or in tax minimization schemes, odd indeed. Especially when austerity has played such havoc on their economic/class demographic.
So all tax is theft? How do you envisage a society to function? Back to the days of serfs and public floggings in order to keep the masses in check?
If the wealth continues to be acquired among the few, then of course they can be taxed more. A greater distribution of wealth would witness a greater distribution of the tax burden.
One thing about the top few per cent where they deserve credit. They are top rate at mudding the waters and convincing lesser mortals that they deserve their too often inflated status not to say wealth.
What's confused is to determine the morality of the amount taken based how much someone earns? If you take 40% of someone earning £20k its immoral and unfair, but it's fair to take 40% of someone earning £95k? How's those cognitive dissonant bells sounding? Unless of course you have subjective ethics.
Yes all tax is theft, the Mafia call it a protection racket, you pay or you get your lumps, just like the IRS or inland revenue (you get arrested, fined, imprisoned for tax evasion), the only difference between the actions of a government in regards to taxation and the Mafia is that the government considers what it does as legal, but the Mafia is illegally doing the same. You pay under threat of violence.
What's confused is to determine the morality of the amount taken based how much someone earns? If you take 40% of someone earning £20k its immoral and unfair, but it's fair to take 40% of someone earning £95k? How's those cognitive dissonant bells sounding? Unless of course you have subjective ethics.
Yes all tax is theft, the Mafia call it a protection racket, you pay or you get your lumps, just like the IRS or inland revenue (you get arrested, fined, imprisoned for tax evasion), the only difference between the actions of a government in regards to taxation and the Mafia is that the government considers what it does as legal, but the Mafia is illegally doing the same. You pay under threat of violence.
Rather obvious I'd have thought. You play with lower figures, but the system works well on a progressive scale. Giving more to high earners will not necessary impact on spending behaviour. But giving more to lowest income earners will surely impact in a positive way their spending. Better for the economy. Better for society and certainly better for that individual or house hold.
Without tax the majority would have little recourse for the use of hospitals, aged care and survival beyond a serf like existence, still experienced in many developing world countries, where an illness can bankrupt a family, if indeed can afford any treatment at all.
That would be real violence against the well being of the individual not your Mafia manufactured example.
Because all tax taken from people is theft geoff. Legal theft by the government. Whoever thought up PAYE was on a winner. The money is removed from wages, before the worker ever sees it. Also National Insurance. There it is on your wage slip. You earn so much, tax and National Insurance is removed. You get to keep what's left. You have no choice, it's taken whether you like it or not. What else would you call that but theft?
Now, as you say, we accept this as the price of having the NHS, pensions in our old age, unemployment benefits, and all the rest. Then, the money left after the government has dipped it's beak, is then taxed again. If you are a house owner or renter you pay Council Tax to local government. You go to the shops, and buy things, 20% VAT is added to your bill. Same if you have a plumber or electrician to your house. So much for them, and then 20% added on to go to the government. We have no choice but to pay all this tax.
So, a responsible government, tries to take as little as possible of your money in theory, to do the things it has to do to run society as we know it. But some types of government, decide they can take more and more in tax to fund their grand ideas. This is what we're seeing from the Labour party in it's plans revealed this last few weeks. I won't list the freebies they are preparing to give various groups of people. All this costs money. A lot of money. The Labour party are now once again using the word 'socialists' to describe themselves. Well, from what I've seen in my long life, is that 'socialists' spend, and spend other people's money, until there isn't any more to take. As in the note left in the Treasury for the incoming Tory government in 2010. 'The money's all gone.' It was some sort of joke left by someone in the Labour party to anger the incoming Tory government. It would be funny, but it's true. The public finances were in a mess, and they had borrowed internationally to the hilt to try and survive the 2008 crash.
If Labour get in next week, we will see more of the same within a few years, after they spend money on all their grand schemes. All the years of austerity recovering from the 2008 crash would have been for nothing. We would be in another financial mess. Sorry geoff........I'm not voting for that.
Do you think Dave that the country isn't in a mess? Trouble is people are becoming desensitised into thinking that foodbanks and rough sleepers are a part of normal life.
You still haven't indicated what your solution is to the perceived notion that income tax is theft.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
