Tradescanthia Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Aww wassup Nimrod? Someone upset you? Did they dare to be successful without your permission or something :hihi::hihi:. Nobody begrudges you your success, you have probably earned it. What some of us do object to is the robbing of the poor to feed the rich. Raiding the benefits pot, robbing disabled and disadvantaged people. Robbing OAP's and the like. Thats what Camerons mob are up to. [And Tony B Liar wasn't much better] Make sure you provide for the future, you never know whats round the corner. [Just look back on my posts, search 'Nimrod and Cancer'] You will then see where I am coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 And as I've said to you before, what I earn is none of your damn business. The only reason you require that is because you want a stick to beat someone with. I almost certainly earn more than you. Deal with it. Now if you want to discuss in the general terms, I'm more than happy to, but I fear your obvious vindictive, spiteful and medacious manner in which you always approach this topic will invariably get in the way. I remain however willing to be conviced otherwise, so if you can - please - discuss it rationally. Perfectly happy to discuss it rationally, but how do you expect us to form an opinion on whether or not someone is deserving of their renumeration when they won't tell us how they got it. But using general terms, I know of a Paramedix who earns £25000 per year and I know someone who owns a burger van and earns considerably more than that. Do you think the differences in what they earn is merited because I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 You could explain to us the groups of people who somehow will pay more tax under legislation designed to let them pay less. I fail to see how this can happen and would like a good example of such a person. Because if you ask them for less money, people will move their tax dues from somewhere else and pay them here instead.... How is this a problem for you? Or do you really beleive that everyone lives and works in just one single tax system? There are 195 countries in the world after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Perfectly happy to discuss it rationally, but how do you expect us to form an opinion on whether or not someone is deserving of their renumeration when they won't tell us how they got it.. Sadly that's not the question asked. I asked you. "...to explain why it's reasonable to take money preferentially from any section of society?" Not in the specific case. Since you are wilfully refusing to acknowledge that point and clearly want to cause an argument I don't intend to discuss it further. You had your chance and your vindictivness derailed it, as usual. But using general terms,.. Thankyou I know of a Paramedix who earns £25000 per year.. whoops you just went specific.... sorry... go back to Go, do not collect £200 etc. and I know someone who owns a burger van and earns considerably more than that. Do you think the differences in what they earn is merited because I don't. It doesn't matter what I think if it's deserved or not. That's not the question that was being asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 Because if you ask them for less money, people will move their tax dues from somewhere else and pay them here instead.... How is this a problem for you? Or do you really beleive that everyone lives and works in just one single tax system? There are 195 countries in the world after all... That would be a very tiny percentage of the people affected by this change. Most people affected will be salaried and working in this country and I fail to see how they will pay more by reducing their liaibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 Sadly that's not the question asked. I asked you. "...to explain why it's reasonable to take money preferentially from any section of society?" Not in the specific case. Since you are wilfully refusing to acknowledge that point and clearly want to cause an argument I don't intend to discuss it further. You had your chance and your vindictivness derailed it, as usual. Thankyou whoops you just went specific.... sorry... go back to Go, do not collect £200 etc. It doesn't matter what I think if it's deserved or not. That's not the question that was being asked. Put simply you cannot have a discussion about a fair taxation policy without a debate on how people have arrived at their renumeration. Yep I think those getting paid over £150000 should be paying the higher rate of tax as they've been blessed with the ability to earn more, but this doesn't make them meriting of it as other people with different skills could argue the same but as those skills don't make money then they aren't as valued. In my firm the Sales people get paid the most, but in most peoples eyes they don't earn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 You could explain to us the groups of people who somehow will pay more tax under legislation designed to let them pay less. I fail to see how this can happen and would like a good example of such a person. Besides the blatant strawman argument in there (nice try)...You did not read the Wiki I linked earlier, did you? Come on, own up, as it kind of shows: you are (still) completely missing the point of the measure, and therefore failing to understand how its effect is achieved. I'll certainly not "hold it" against you at all (I know your 'bias' after all, already pointed out), just don't expect me to engage with you on the topic until you bother to understand the measure and how it works (whether you agree with the measure or not is actually moot) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 You did not read the Wiki I linked earlier, did you? Come on, own up, as it kind of shows: you are (still) completely missing the point of the measure, and therefore failing to understand how its effect is achieved. I'm afraid you are wrong there as I did read it and found it interesting. The fact still remains though that this viewpoint could never be proven as too many other variables come into it. I'm not even sure how the Government is measuring the results of the policy, are they looking at revenue from the individuals affected or taxation as a whole? Ultimately I still come back to my viewpoint in that I cannot see a specific type of person who would end up paying more tax following a reduction in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Well one solution might be to increase the tax on goods and services in this country and reduce the personal tax each person pays. Since everyone living here has to buy and use goods and services we all pay equally more. Kinda like the system Hong Kong has, no income tax but you pay for everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I wonder about the process of quantitative easing and recapitalisng banks. They have recieved hundreds of billions in taxpayers money pushing up the level of national debt. Given that the banks have held on to the money rather than lent it to businesses needing to expand or pay their debts, perhaps it might have been more sensible to give each person in the country the eqivalent equal share of the money - since people are more likely to spend it, especia;lly those on low incomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.