marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
your tax relief is based on the tax you pay, so if you pay 40% tax, you get relief of 40% on your pension contributions
Public want taxes that hurt the rich says Fabian poll
- Thread starter elbows
- Start date
your tax relief is based on the tax you pay, so if you pay 40% tax, you get relief of 40% on your pension contributions
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
Ah, I see. Thanks.
A flat tax would solve that matter nicely, but if you don't support one, what solution would you suggest?
reverse the tax relief - more tax relief for low earners(40%), less for high earners(20%)
dennisr
the acceptable face
No the point quoted did not "lead" to such societies at all. Your point mearly reflects the betrayal of such ideals by these dictators. Given your propensity to 'follow the empirically strongest' you would - without any sense of irony - have been one of those servile fecks who shut up, kept your head down and cheered when deemed appropriate as the Stalinists tightened their grip on power in the Soviet Union.
The same point you are making could be made of plenty of societies calling themselves capitalist - including modern 'democratic' countries - take a look at Iraq etc etc etc. What do you think that is if not 'give up your stuff or we will bomb you into the stone age'
The only reason 'democratic' institutions have ever been adopted, given the entire development of capitalist society has been one of imposition and enforcement by arms from robber barons onwards (for example, what do you think colonialism represented?), is because of preasure from below - often led by people calling themselves socialist. 'democratic' institutions and elections have never been given from above and have usually been paid for on the backs of the super exploitation of other people around the world when conceded under preasure.
You are a moron Zach.
dennisr
the acceptable face
poor, poor rich bastards. that bought a tear to my eye. the poor darlings.
where do you think extreme (to the point of meaningless for an individual) wealth comes from? hard work?
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
i don't have a problem with that - if your pension pot is worth 2m rather than 3m, it doesn't make much difference, whereas the lower paid would struggle to have a decent private pension
and doing well? - millionaire bankers getting millions of bonuses for screwing up the economy - they deserve a financial smack imo
Pressure from BELOW.
often LED by people calling themselves socialist????????
To me that is part of your problem dennis and those of other orthodox leftists like the SWP.
You say you believe in socialism from below etc but seem to think it needs to be led by what you might term the most progressive elements etc etc.
I really dont see that as a great recipe for success.
And why call Zach a moron?. He is obviously interested enough to engage in ideas of social justice etc. Does he really deserve to be called a moron?
What kind of socialism is it that so easily writes people off?
dennisr
the acceptable face
fuck off baldwin - another moron
_angel_
.
They also over estimated the cost of benefit fraud and under estimated the cost of tax dodgers.
I wonder what age the people surveyed there were... expecting people to fall into jobs so quick after losing them... Obviously cannot have lived through losing their jobs before, I reckon.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
You can't generalise. For some it comes from extremely hard work; for others it doesn't; others are in-between the two poles.
I oppose graduated-taxes because they undermine property rights, which ultimately puts us all in jeopardy. (And the people who suffer most on graduated-taxes are those in the middle, not "rich bastards", for whom, as has been said, wealth becomes academic after a certain point.)
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
No they dont
Not true (unless you are accounting for the ultra-riches tax dodging, but tories like you dont usually include such things)
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
about 37k i think, but you only pay the 40% on income above 37k, you still pay the 20% or whatever it is on income up to there, so they are hardly suffering having to pay extra
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
It always comes from extremely hard work. The hard work of the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of people the worthless parasites have exploited. Or in many cases, the people their parents or other ancestors have exploited.
Even higher than that because the tax bands are on top of the personal allowance
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
My case doesn't rest on the moral worth of X rich person, but on the benefit that comes from upholding individual property rights. If the state can plunder wealth when it's convenient, it implies that our property is ours by the state's good grace, instead of ours by absolute right.
And speaking on-topic, how will it benefit the economy if "super-taxes" are introduced?
But the idea that a person can own land, and has an absolute right to have their legal claim to to ownership upheld is actually very dubious.
It's one thing for a monkey to mark its territory with excretions, but that's not so unreasonable, since it can only mark the territory it can occupy. But with humans it just gets ridiculous. We mark our territory with ink excretions on bits of paper, and then have this notion that we can own a territory far larger than we can occupy purely by means of this fiction.
And requires us to pay for licensed thugs to enforce the fictional "rights" of absentee landlords.
Well, I think I'm right in saying that if you don't move out of your home once a possession order's been granted by a court, then the police will attend and force you to, or alternatively bailiffs will force you to and the police will attend to ensure you don't cause any trouble to the bailiffs.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Yes, the benefit to people who own property - and detriment to those who don't.
TAX AVOIDANCE: My company sucks in revenue of £250,000. Unfortunately we have to pay out £100,000 on materials, premises and labour. I avoid paying tax on the £100,000 expense.quote
Those polled significantly underestimated the cost to the Exchequer of tax avoidance by the wealthy and over-estimated the cost of benefit fraud.
unquote
Funny coincidence! - that's exactly how the media portray it too.
Fuck me, naughty or what?
TAX EVASION: I get half my clients to pay me overseas in a "quiet" account, but still offset the £100,000 expenses.
Now THAT'S evasion.
Whereas the benefit fraudsters ...
JohnnyOrange
All The World...
Well, I've worked in a range of jobs from fast food joints through to IT via telephone sales.
I'd say that some of the burger flippers I've met worked harder than some of the IT people and vice versa, obviously with a huge difference in income.
So, are you saying we should tax people on how hard they work, given that that has no absolute correlation to income? And, possibly, making the assumption that the less you earn the harder you work, which patently isn't a rule of thumb?
Or have I misunderstood?
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
The whole ability to have wealth at any kind of level above the trivial is entirely a result of the mechanisms and processes contained within the state. Therefore, your property is indeed yours only by the state's good grace.
Just look at it pragmatically to see that this must be the case -- any kind of notion of "rights" must contain within it the ability to enforce those rights, or they are simply completely meaningless. There is no "inherent" right to property.
Similar threads
