AWOL Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I don't agree. There will always be winners and losers. It's about winning fairly. There's room for that. I cannot agree with you as we would both be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Think about that for a moment, it’s the rich tax payer, the people that pay a lot of tax that funds the difference, it’s not the poor or middle income that fund it, they are generally the beneficiaries of the funding. I thought about your argument and it took me less than a moment to dismiss it. I've heard it before and it's wrong. Higher earners will always pay more tax. That doesn't afford them any special kudos and certainly no right to pick and choose what they think their taxes are supporting at any given moment to support whatever flawed argument they are currently using. Their taxes are paying proportionately to fund all the things that everybode elses' taxes are paying proportionately to fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yes, agree with that. If businesses had to pay wages that met the full cost of living they would get a shock - the minimum wage would be nearer £10/hour for one breadwinner to support a very basic lifestyle for their family. Like you say the taxpayer funds the difference. Great for businesses who it seems still can't get enough out of the state - remember the scandal over people working for free at Tesco and other places. The one single thing that could get living costs back to reasonable levels would be to reduce rents and house prices. After that fuel prices. That would be a very big leap to £10 p/h. I don't doubt Barclays and asda and tesco could cope - comfortably. Small businesses would get hammered in the main and what about the public sector ? Care workers and cleaners suddenly getting a huge wage rise. Have councils got the capacity to cover that ? I doubt it. If you are/near the bottom of the wage scale it's hard. Harder still when you people who don't work not a deal worse of or better off than you. I don't know the solution but it's likely to be very very painful for everyone. Tax the rich is the obvious answer, but why don't we be a bit smarter. 40% of nothing is nothing. Maybe close a load of loopholes and put the rate at 10% ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingray-man Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 the funniest thing about it all is we just sit and complain about it on online forums instead of actually doing something about it, on here we can get a massive range of idea's that would help us all but instead we all just sit on here complaining and arguing between each other over what should be done instead of putting our heads together and trying to make a change all the while the toff boys are taking us for the proverbial ride and laughing while they do, remember without no worker ants their is no colony. have people forgot that each and everyone of us pay tax, which is then split up to provide us all with the things we need ie, benefits system and nhs etc. our tax's pay for everything in this country so why in gods name do we let silver spoon fed rich boys tell us people in the real world how our lives should go and where our money should go meanwhile they have 2 houses and nice cars and dont need to worry about mortgages , while the children get education that costs £30'000 + a year, how many people on here can afford that kind of education for their kids i wonder ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I thought about your argument and it took me less than a moment to dismiss it. I've heard it before and it's wrong. Higher earners will always pay more tax. That doesn't afford them any special kudos and certainly no right to pick and choose what they think their taxes are supporting at any given moment to support whatever flawed argument they are currently using. Their taxes are paying proportionately to fund all the things that everybode elses' taxes are paying proportionately to fund. Quite clearly you didn't think about it long enough, someone on tax credits isn't paying enough tax to fund their own tax credits are they. The people receiving any kind of benefit aren't paying enough tax to fund the benefits they receive. So a company that pays low wages will make more profit and pay more tax on said profit which is then used to subsidise the low wages they pay their staff. It’s not the low amount of tax that their staff pay that subsidises the tax credits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 The biggest money pit is benefits. Cut those hard, replace cash payments with basic vouchers for food and domestic services, and we'll be on the right track. i hope that goes for the benefit scrounging mps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 That would be a very big leap to £10 p/h. I don't doubt Barclays and asda and tesco could cope - comfortably. Small businesses would get hammered in the main and what about the public sector ? Care workers and cleaners suddenly getting a huge wage rise. Have councils got the capacity to cover that ? I doubt it. If you are/near the bottom of the wage scale it's hard. Harder still when you people who don't work not a deal worse of or better off than you. I don't know the solution but it's likely to be very very painful for everyone. Tax the rich is the obvious answer, but why don't we be a bit smarter. 40% of nothing is nothing. Maybe close a load of loopholes and put the rate at 10% ? A lower, flat rate might be a solution if the tax can be collected successfully. Nothing should be ruled out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Quite clearly you didn't think about it long enough, someone on tax credits isn't paying enough tax to fund their own tax credits are they. The people receiving any kind of benefit aren't paying enough tax to fund the benefits they receive. So a company that pays low wages will make more profit and pay more tax on said profit which is then used to subsidise the low wages they pay their staff. It’s not the low amount of tax that their staff pay that subsidises the tax credits. a company that pays low wages - Starbucks make more profit and pay more tax - err, not Starbucks It's the rest of we taxpayers who are subsidising Starbucks' shareholders' income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Quite clearly you didn't think about it long enough, someone on tax credits isn't paying enough tax to fund their own tax credits are they. The people receiving any kind of benefit aren't paying enough tax to fund the benefits they receive. So a company that pays low wages will make more profit and pay more tax on said profit which is then used to subsidise the low wages they pay their staff. It’s not the low amount of tax that their staff pay that subsidises the tax credits. Nope, I thought about it plenty. The current system is a complete shambles and your argument is poor - the bit were it all falls apart for you is companies paying tax. A lot of companies avoid paying huge chunks of tax. It would be better if living costs weren't artificially high and there was no complex system in place to top up wages to cope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Quite clearly you didn't think about it long enough, someone on tax credits isn't paying enough tax to fund their own tax credits are they. The people receiving any kind of benefit aren't paying enough tax to fund the benefits they receive. So a company that pays low wages will make more profit and pay more tax on said profit which is then used to subsidise the low wages they pay their staff. It’s not the low amount of tax that their staff pay that subsidises the tax credits. my bold does vodaphone/starbucks etc pay enough tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.