Raising taxes, or cutting public services - you decide?

[tbaldwin]

Brilliant so paying for services is a tax. So presumably you think that Dentist fees and Prescription services are taxes as well?
You have given new meaning to the word tax.
Congratulations,A truly Brilliant mind.

 

[redsquirrel]

Brilliant so paying for services is a tax. So presumably you think that Dentist fees and Prescription services are taxes as well?
You have given new meaning to the word tax.
Congratulations,A truly Brilliant mind.

So petrol duty isn't tax?
VAT isn't tax?
Idiot.
Your argument is a contradiction, if increasing taxes will cause the rich to leave Britian, how will forcing them to pay tuition fees not? In both cases they are paying more money than before for the same services.

 

[tbaldwin]

So petrol duty isn't tax?
VAT isn't tax?
Idiot.
Your argument is a contradiction, if increasing taxes will cause the rich to leave Britian, how will forcing them to pay tuition fees not? In both cases they are paying more money than before for the same services.

The difference between petrol duty and VAT is that they are taxes levied by the govt on goods.
Paying for a service is different.
You know that,I know that and everybody reading this knows it.
Even by your own standards this latest attempt to catch me out is feeble.

If the rich leave before they get free H/E thats bad is it?
And if they leave after thats OK?

Nice thinking RS,very impressive.........

 

[audiotech]

Some of the wealthy left back then because of a very high tax bracket. There is no possibility of returning to those rates, as every main political oppose doing that.

 

[redsquirrel]

The difference between petrol duty and VAT is that they are taxes levied by the govt on goods.
Paying for a service is different.

No it isn't, it's exactly the same. If the government started charging people every time they used casualty that would be a tax. Charging for services is no different whatsoever than charging for goods, both generate income for the government ie they're taxation. Jesus this is hardly rocket science.

If the rich leave before they get free H/E thats bad is it?
And if they leave after thats OK?

Nice thinking RS,very impressive.........

I'm not even addressing the question of whether HE fees are good or not, I'm simpl;y pointing out that you're contradicting yourself.

 

[tbaldwin]

No it isn't, it's exactly the same. If the government started charging people every time they used casualty that would be a tax. Charging for services is no different whatsoever than charging for goods, both generate income for the government ie they're taxation. Jesus this is hardly rocket science.
I'm not even addressing the question of whether HE fees are good or not, I'm simpl;y pointing out that you're contradicting yourself.

You really are a said.
Tax is not the same as paying for a service.U Twat.
Tax can be levied on what is earnt or paid,which makes it different from paying for a service.

 

[redsquirrel]

You really are a said.
Tax is not the same as paying for a service.U Twat.
Tax can be levied on what is earnt or paid,which makes it different from paying for a service.

Cobblers taxes are taken on services all the time. There is absolutely no difference between goods and services in regard to this.

 

[tbaldwin]

This, according to the IMF, will need to be addressed by either raising taxes, or cutting public services.

The IMF need somebody really really clever,(i wont mention any names as i dont want to embarrass anyone)to explain to them that taxes and services are really just the same thing and that it doesnt really matter.....

 

[Sorry.]

re: the OP

when was the last time the IMF turned round and told a government "you know, a bit of government spending could give your economic growth a real kickstart"

they're always ordering people that they best cut spending or else...

 

[redsquirrel]

The IMF need somebody really really clever,(i wont mention any names as i dont want to embarrass anyone)to explain to them that taxes and services are really just the same thing and that it doesnt really matter.....

Where the fuck have I ever argued that?
Look I really can't be bothered with this arguement anymore. You seem to believe that taxes can't be applied to services that's falt out wrong (there are real life examples that disprove it for instance VAT). And when a government starts charging you for a service that was previously free then it is equivalent to a new tax.

 

[parallelepipete]

AS H/E students are likely to earn more as a result of the privellege of going into H/E it seems only fair they should pay more.
As a Socialist i want to see more money spent on education for all not just a privellged group.
Do you still think Old Etonians should get free H/E subsidised by people who never had H/E?

I think I will never understand this argument.

If a graduate earns more as a result of his degree, then he/she will pay more income tax. Because of progressive taxation, he/she will pay a higher proportion of his/her income in tax the larger the effect of the degree. In other words, they will pay more tax. This money is then in the public purse to fund HE for all students, so that their families' economic status does not affect the chances of them going to university and completing their degrees. How is this a bad thing, and how is charging students directly for something which is likely to lead to them paying more tax in the future constructive?

Your comment about Old Etonians is more perceptive though. Historically, university students generally came from the upper/middle classes because of their families' abilities to pay fees. University entrance may still be skewed somewhat towards the upper socio-economic groups, but far less than 50 years ago. Why is this? Probably because of publicly funded secondary education (including universal entitlement to free education between the end of compulsory education at 16 and A-levels at 18), and because of the system of grants which helped poorer families fund their children's studies.

Finally, it would be unlikely even under a system of completely publicly-funded HE that non-graduates would be on average funding Old Etonian graduates, because (a) in a class-based society they would be higher earners, and (b) in a fair and non-class-based society, the Old Etonian tag would not by itself bring any financial benefits.

 

[tbaldwin]

I think I will never understand this argument.

If a graduate earns more as a result of his degree, then he/she will pay more income tax. Because of progressive taxation, he/she will pay a higher proportion of his/her income in tax the larger the effect of the degree. In other words, they will pay more tax. This money is then in the public purse to fund HE for all students, so that their families' economic status does not affect the chances of them going to university and completing their degrees. How is this a bad thing, and how is charging students directly for something which is likely to lead to them paying more tax in the future constructive?

Your comment about Old Etonians is more perceptive though. Historically, university students generally came from the upper/middle classes because of their families' abilities to pay fees. University entrance may still be skewed somewhat towards the upper socio-economic groups, but far less than 50 years ago. Why is this? Probably because of publicly funded secondary education (including universal entitlement to free education between the end of compulsory education at 16 and A-levels at 18), and because of the system of grants which helped poorer families fund their children's studies.

Finally, it would be unlikely even under a system of completely publicly-funded HE that non-graduates would be on average funding Old Etonian graduates, because (a) in a class-based society they would be higher earners, and (b) in a fair and non-class-based society, the Old Etonian tag would not by itself bring any financial benefits.

Erm,
First of all if you accept that graduates earn more than non graduates.
So then you can say (as you seem to be) thats OK because they pay more tax.
Or you could say that paying more tax on higher incomes is OK and so is paying more for the privellege that helps you to get into a higher income bracket.

Your right to say that H/E has become less elitist in recent years, this has arisen despite Liberal lefties arguing for years that cutting grants or introducing fees would make it more elitist. There arguements havent stood up at all.

Do you think that H/E for people who went to private/public schools should be heavily subsidised?

 

[ViolentPanda]

re: the OP

when was the last time the IMF turned round and told a government "you know, a bit of government spending could give your economic growth a real kickstart"

they're always ordering people that they best cut spending or else...

No no no, they don't "order people that they best cut spending or else...", they offer them a "structural adjustment programme" that allows the country's resources to be pillaged by capital, and provide no alternative to their prescription.

 

[tbaldwin]

No no no, they don't "order people that they best cut spending or else...", they offer them a "structural adjustment programme" that allows the country's resources to be pillaged by capital, and provide no alternative to their prescription.

VP what do you think of Hilary Benn?
Do you see him as doing his best or just part of the problem?

 

[ViolentPanda]

VP what do you think of Hilary Benn?
Do you see him as doing his best or just part of the problem?

I think that he's both.
I believe that he believes that he is doing his best, and he does a good job within his remit. BUT he has chosen to do his job at DfID under the rubric of "Blairism", and that is going to cause problems, not least because that has increasingly meant reactive aid and aid policy rather than the preventative and/or pro-active kind. Concentrating on being reactive is not exactly a "best value" practice, especially when prevention can make the limited pot of money go a lot further.
I'm also worried that DfID appear to be giving creedence to the US model of "tied aid", which actually has little to do with effective aid and a lot to do with acting as a support mechanism for the donor's industries. I really don't want to see that happen, and yet young Benn seems comfortable with the idea, something even ankle-biter Short didn't have time for.

 

[tbaldwin]

So Violent Panda if you think his intentions are OK, what do you think he should do?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So Violent Panda if you think his intentions are OK, what do you think he should do?

If you'd actually bothered to read what I wrote you'd find "what I think he should do" implicit in the text.