Would you support this policy?

[A Century United]

Point of order about the first post - it is in fact possible to get "benefits only" mortgages. Under certain circumstances people on long term benefits, for instance full time carers for seriously disabled partners/children, will have the interest on their mortgages paid. This is only the interest, and it is more tightly controlled than housing benefit which pays rent. If that person then needs to buy (or have built) an adapted house for the benefit of the disabled partner/child, some mortgage companies will advance a mortgage. Dumfermline Building Society will, for example.

This does not apply to unemployed people working cash in hand, however!

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Going back to the original idea of benefit fraud, I always used to think it unfair that if I worked a couple of hours part time, I lost the equivalent money from my benefits. ie work for x amount a week, or don't work for it.

Surely it'd make more sense for someone working part time to lose say 50p of benefits for every £1 earned? Thereby creating an incentive for work, and less reason for fraud. People will still cheat the system, but there would be less reason for it.

 

[steveo]

How about increasing income tax by 5p in the pound over 50k pa and 10p over 100k and then using the money to pay councils more so that they can gainfully employ more of these people to cut the park, sweep the streets etc

Why? Why would you want to clobber the people who are already paying more, presumably due to their hard work and or intelligence?

Is it because they are an easy target? Higher earners already pay more in hard cash because of the higher percentage they are on. Why not reverse it and take a bigger percentage from the lower paid to encourage them to get a higher paid job?

 

[Mad Cyril]

I would argue that intelligent people should give more to society purely because they are able to do so.

Whether this contribution is made by higher tax contributions or by working on a cure for cancer is irrelevant.

Less intelligent people do not deserve a sub standard of life any more than those who were unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong country.

 

[Firestorm]

Why? Why would you want to clobber the people who are already paying more, presumably due to their hard work and or intelligence?

Is it because they are an easy target? Higher earners already pay more in hard cash because of the higher percentage they are on. Why not reverse it and take a bigger percentage from the lower paid to encourage them to get a higher paid job?

Its a social conscience thing, those who can assist those who can't.
Its left wing , I wouldn't expect you to agree :P

Taxation is not a penalty , its a contribution to society based on your means.
I agree that there are some people who by some quirk of nature ar nuture are capable of earning vast sums of money, I just don't think that it absolves them from any right to contribute based on their ability to afford it.

 

[steveo]

So how about the bloke who risks losing everything by starting his own business and ends up making a lot of money, compared to the bloke who never takes a chance and never pushes himself. If they both paid tax at the same rate, the richer bloke would still pay more, which would probably be fair.

However, the richer bloke not only pays more, he pays at a higher rate, which as you know means he pays even more, and you propose he should pay more than even more.

 

[Mad Cyril]

So how about the bloke who risks losing everything by starting his own business and ends up making a lot of money, compared to the bloke who never takes a chance and never pushes himself. If they both paid tax at the same rate, the richer bloke would still pay more, which would probably be fair.

No, it wouldn't because it would mean the poorer elements of society would pay proportionally more tax.

 

[steveo]

i missed a bit, it should have said:

So how about the bloke who risks losing everything by starting his own business and ends up making a lot of money, compared to the bloke who never takes a chance and never pushes himself. If they both paid tax at the same rate, the richer bloke would still pay more, which would probably be fair.

However, the richer bloke not only pays more, he pays at a higher rate, which as you know means he pays even more, and you propose he should pay more than even more.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I would argue that intelligent people should give more to society purely because they are able to do so.

Whether this contribution is made by higher tax contributions or by working on a cure for cancer is irrelevant.

Less intelligent people do not deserve a sub standard of life any more than those who were unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong country.

the fing is intelligent people wood start fiegning idiocy

 

[Firestorm]

So how about the bloke who risks losing everything by starting his own business and ends up making a lot of money, compared to the bloke who never takes a chance and never pushes himself. If they both paid tax at the same rate, the richer bloke would still pay more, which would probably be fair.

However, the richer bloke not only pays more, he pays at a higher rate, which as you know means he pays even more, and you propose he should pay more than even more.

And if the risk fails he loses everything and the the bloke who did not take a gamble would be paying more.....

And yes, regardless of how the money was obtained, if someone is in a position where they are earning a considerable amount of money, I feel that they have a moral obligation to contribute more to society.

To be honest, the Left socialist vs the Right Capitalist views on taxation have been discussed for many many years now. The partial redistribution of wealth by the means of taxation has lost favour amongst politicians and the masses these days. There is a majority of people whose primary concern is no 1 and what the country / society can do for them as opposed to what they can do for society. It has been a way of life now since Mrs T bribed her way to a second term by flogging off the countries assets to her pals but sweetening the electorate by giving them a slice of the share action and their council houses dirt cheap (a large percentage of both being sold off quickly for a quick buck), and its not going to change. It still doesn't make it right, in my mind.

 

[steveo]

I feel that they have a moral obligation to contribute more to society.

So you dont think the people that can't be bothered to do better, have a morale obigation to contribute more to society then, by maybe working harder or pushing themsleves more?

 

[Rayleigh Weir]

the fing is intelligent people wood start fiegning idiocy

And cluelessness?

 

[Rayleigh Weir]

i missed a bit, it should have said:

So how about the bloke who risks losing everything by starting his own business and ends up making a lot of money, compared to the bloke who never takes a chance and never pushes himself. If they both paid tax at the same rate, the richer bloke would still pay more, which would probably be fair.

However, the richer bloke not only pays more, he pays at a higher rate, which as you know means he pays even more, and you propose he should pay more than even more.

Would be a more convincing argument if food, fuel, houses etc were all proportionately cheaper the lower a persons income. Being a more glass half full kind of guy I prefer not to see a higher tax percentage as some form of penalisation for a decent salary/income, but rather that people on lower income are given a tax break as they are less able to afford lifes basics which many take for granted...

 

[Firestorm]

So you dont think the people that can't be bothered to do better, have a morale obigation to contribute more to society then, by maybe working harder or pushing themsleves more?

So the less well off are only less well off because they can't be bothered to push themselves more....

 

[Winkle]

Benefits should be a safety net for thows who unfortunately for one reason or another find themselves incapable of working.There are lots of jobs out there for people who truly want to work! I work with loads of european people who do all the menial jobs that lazy brits would not get out of bed for. Then you might say ,"ahh but they dont have the expensive living costs that we do, and we cannot work for that kind of money ".... its bollox, total bollox. I.M.H.O. As a country we should stop all benefits after six months to anyone who does not have a valid reason why they cannot work. We should offer vouchers for childrens food an clothing but thats it. It makes me sick the amount of abuse our benefit system gets. In fact I would go as far as to say that anyone who smokes or drinks alchohol should not be able to claim benefits until they provide satisfactory evidence that they have given up both. Stopping peoples cushty benefits would soon get the long term unemployed back to work, it would be either that or starve, harsh yes but something as to be done!

 

[steveo]

So the less well off are only less well off because they can't be bothered to push themselves more....

In some cases yes.

 

[Rayleigh Weir]

So the less well off are only less well off because they can't be bothered to push themselves more....

In some cases yes.

I'd say that was actually true in most cases - I'm certainly less well off because I can't be bothered to push myself more - that is to say I'd be better off if I did push myself more. Can many people say different?

 

[steveo]

So are you happy with the fact the man who pushes himself and earns more, subsidises you by paying more tax than you do?

 

[Mad Cyril]

So are you happy with the fact the man who pushes himself and earns more, subsidises you by paying more tax than you do?

He is not necessarily subsidising me or you. He may be helping the child that needs a life saving operation or paying for equipment for the armed forces.

 

[steveo]

Absolutely right. Just helping a little bit more than the bloke who pays less.