It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Budget 2009: Alistair Darling targets rich with 50% tax

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
A better vision would be to have a clearly hierarchical society, with mobility in between the levels based on merit.


but surely a person from the upper classes would be starting out with an advantage, how do you propose to level the field.

or is it the case where you believe that someone from the upper classes is entitled to an advantage by virtue of their family position?




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


It's undeniable that a person from the upper class would be at an advantage because of their family's capital possession.

The first thing we have to consider is- is that really so unfair? The hard/ genius work has been put in at some stage by their ancestors. I don't begrudge anyone for being born rich.

Class mobility goes both ways- a person could easily move down if their aspiration is insufficient.

Why must the field be leveled? That's all I'm saying...

As long as a person from the lower class can move up to the higher class (which is indubitably possible) then what's the harm in having an unbalanced playing field to begin with?

We all have our own strengths/ luck. Some of us were born taller than others, some were born more athletic, some were born into higher class families and some were born richer than others. Why is it only the latter two that provokes a reaction of wanting to level the playing field?

Let's say a man is a millionaire through his entrepreneurial work setting up a restaurant chain. Let's say he has a son, and that son happens to have a mental disability. In what way is the field balanced or unbalanced in that case?

Genius and brilliance will shine through regardless of the point of origination. The richest men in this world were often born into humble families, and their intrinsic hunger for more led them higher.

The world will never be a level playing field. It's only the weak players who will blame the field's unbalanced nature. The strong ones will run uphill and overtake even those who were born on the summit.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Jesus Christ, nothing in life is fair. Get over it. Do you want those with talents to produce or not?

Regarding the confiscatory taxation for high income earners, the ugly truth of modern, automated, efficient society is that ten percent of the people provide ninety percent of the value produced. "Socialism" (or whatever euphemism you wish to use to describe it) is another way of saying, "we should give free food to the ninety percent of the population who used to dig ditches but now are useless."

Clearly, when the useless are able to rob the useful at will, the end of the nation is near.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Everyone is entitled to NHS Dental care, if they can register with an NHS practice! However its not free anymore, I work, so I'm uncertain if unemployed etc have to pay? Taxing people is all well and good, but its where the money goes that bothers a lot of people, id cards anyone?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


i guess it all comes down to what you value most.
you believe that a man is worth more if he is greedy and exploitative, i think he is worth more if he can offer an enhancement to the society as a whole.

i see the type of person you hold up as exemplative of human ability as parasitic. they possess nothing except the ability to prosper from exploitation of the exertions of others.

there is certainly a value attached to the ability to organise and co-ordinate labour, but this value is certainly not 2 or 3 hundred times the value of the labour itself.

so yeah, by all means have a society that is unfair, but have one that is unfair relative to the ability of it's members rather than unfair relative to the size of daddies check book.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   
In fact, this new tax does not hit the well and truly rich members of society. £150,000 and above - many hard working individuals are going to be effected by this horrific decision.

Confiscation of income, what's next? private property



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
so yeah, by all means have a society that is unfair, but have one that is unfair relative to the ability of it's members rather than unfair relative to the size of daddies check book.


Significant amount of our richest members in the United Kingdom are not there due to their parents wealth - that is a classiest stereotype. In your society, hard working citizens are punished for achieving wealth while others become dependent on the state. This "utopia" allows the underclass to effectively blame the rich for their own misfortune. Classic socialism.

We are not and never will be a truly equal society, so let's admit it and move on. Procrastinating or believing in poor misguided fantasy is destroying this country.

As I said in another thread, destruction of higher education is a consequence of an equal society - it loses its value and meaning when everyone get's a degree. The teaching and learning becomes devalued and inadequate. In other words, a degree becomes worthless.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Significant amount of our richest members in the United Kingdom are not there due to their parents wealth - that is a classiest stereotype.


have you got figures for that? am i to just take your word on it?


In your society, hard working citizens are punished for achieving wealth while others become dependent on the state.


what society is that, do you want to respond to what i said or just mouth off on a pre-programmed rant. responding to a point i never made is a fairly lazy way of responding, why even bother?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



Thankfully someone on this site has a brain cell in their head and can understand how taxation works instead of just making stupid brash anti tax, anti government statements when they hear something they don't fully understand.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
have you got figures for that? am i to just take your word on it?


Sorry but what a ridiculous statement.

So what you are saying is.. everyone in the UK that is wealthy has received it from their parents?

London is probably the wealthiest city on the planet.. are you trying to tell me that everyone with money in London has had it handed down.

So, if you are not, then we can agree that a significant number of wealthy UK citizens made their fortunes themselves yes?

Do you still need those figures?




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman


to be fair, the people above £150k a year are the ones benefiting from all these banking bail-outs, don't see why they shouldn't have to pay the biggest proportion of their wages until it's all paid back, the bailouts are all going to have to be funded from taxes after all is said and done, why the heck shouldn't those who benefit most contribute most.

[edit on 22/4/09 by pieman]


that actually does not make any sense- I would say the stunning vast majority of those earning £150k a year are not bankers and as for being the ones "benefiting" from bail outs, that is not strictly true, we all benefited from the banking system not collapsing



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by pieman
have you got figures for that? am i to just take your word on it?


So what you are saying is.. everyone in the UK that is wealthy has received it from their parents?


that's clearly not what i said, can you read? here, let me spell it out for you, clearly ypu're not doing well with comprehension.

i am responding to a statement that a significant number of the richest members in the UK made their own money, without figures this is a meaningless statement, is 2% significant, 10%, 90%? am i to assume that the figure is significant because i'm told it is?

[edit on 23/4/09 by pieman]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
we all benefited from the banking system not collapsing


in what way?
and the banking system has collapsed, we are now propping it up with our taxes. it would be cheaper for the government to just buy the banks, offer loans itself and use the profits from, what should be, a profitable industry to support itself.

instead we are pouring money into the system with no ownership or control. it is not beneficial.

the bankers are saying that despite the fact that their system of economics doesn't work, unless we continue to support them through interest or transfer of tax revenues, they will penalise us. it is just blackmail dressed up as economics.

[edit on 23/4/09 by pieman]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Any donkey can do hard work.

I could easily be a manual labourer, but instead I choose to follow a path of subtle value creation.

Where does your "exploiting the masses" argument work with scientific researchers who invent new drugs or medical devices? Where does it work with those who paint pictures, or those who write books? According to you, are all these people workshy?

I respect hard work, but I respect smart work even more. It takes a donkey to carry stone, it takes a clever man to realise that he can utilize a donkey to carry stone for him.

I look forward to the day when robots replace manual labourers. Then we'll see who is truly replaceable...



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
have you got figures for that? am i to just take your word on it?


Reading the biographies of the Sunday Times rich list you'll see many didn't inherit their wealth and some never even had access to higher education.

May be you should stop stereotyping the rich




what society is that, do you want to respond to what i said or just mouth off on a pre-programmed rant. responding to a point i never made is a fairly lazy way of responding, why even bother?


Well seeing you criticised my viewpoint, therefore you didn't support it and are in the favour of the complete opposite.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Where does your "exploiting the masses" argument work with scientific researchers who invent new drugs or medical devices? Where does it work with those who paint pictures, or those who write books? According to you, are all these people workshy?


can you not read either? here, i'll quote it.



there is certainly a value attached to the ability to organise and co-ordinate labour, but this value is certainly not 2 or 3 hundred times the value of the labour itself.

so yeah, by all means have a society that is unfair, but have one that is unfair relative to the ability of it's members rather than unfair relative to the size of daddies check book.



Originally posted by infinite
Well seeing you criticised my viewpoint, therefore you didn't support it and are in the favour of the complete opposite.


see, there are more than just two points of view in the world, even if you would like to try to restrict me to the arguement you are comfortable having. just because i believe you're wrong doesn't mean i think the exact opposite is true either.

EDIT: and you're the one who said significant, what is significant? what proportion of wealth is in the hands of people that earned it from their own work? it's a simple idea. people should be valued for their worth, not their social class.

[edit on 23/4/09 by pieman]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
unfair relative to the size of daddies check book.


That's what I was referring to.

You are automatically assuming it has everything to do with the rich, a classic socialist argument. Have you thought the problem could be associated to the labour force, too political, weak and unproductive?

Are you seeing why Thatcher restricted the voice of the Trade Unions? Give the workers a voice allowed them to asking questions and gave them the belief they are in control.

But their not and never will be.




[edit on 23-4-2009 by infinite]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
people should be valued for their worth, not their social class.


Again, you make this about class and wealth.
It isn't.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Pieman, I think it's time for you to shut your piehole.

You're beginning to argue just for the sake of it.

Scientists and researchers do not fall into the category of management. They are highly skilled workers, whose "value added" on the job is monumentally higher than a bricklayer.

Can you show me precisely how a scientist exploits other people in his work?

Additionally, you stated


so yeah, by all means have a society that is unfair, but have one that is unfair relative to the ability of it's members rather than unfair relative to the size of daddies check book.


Then what's your gripe? Why do you want to tax excessively the rich on income? Income means the capital is being actively earnt, not gained through inheritance.

If you truly believe that then we are on the same page aren't we? I believe in a disproportionate society based on the market determining the ability of each person and rewarding them accordingly. I think were we disagree is that you think the playing field must/ can be levelled, while I think it is neither necessary nor possible.



people should be valued for their worth, not their social class.


You say that now... but when a person is fairly valued by the market (eg a supermarket shelf stacker on minimum wage), you bitch and gripe and claim that they are being exploited. Make your mind up man!

[edit on 23-4-2009 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
You are automatically assuming it has everything to do with the rich, a classic socialist argument. Have you thought the problem could be associated to the labour force, too political, weak and unproductive?


yes, i have thought about it and, having considered it, i have understood it is an argument based more in rote learning and regurgitation of the ideas handed down by the classical education system rather than any real understanding of the economic or philosophical ideas behind the concept.


Are you seeing why Thatcher restricted the voice of the Trade Unions? Give the workers a voice allowed them to asking questions and gave them the belief they are in control.

But their not and never will be.


mwahahahaha, we are in control, we will not be deposed. you might be right, but i doubt it.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Pieman, I think it's time for you to shut your piehole.


bite my piehole, i'm arguing because you're wrong. i'm just sorry there wasn't the addition of a 75% rate over 500k. the reason all these taxes are required is to keep the rich in the manner to which they have become accustomed, i say screw em to the wall.

the weathiest 5% of the population are not the 5% of most worth, the are the most just the best able to exploit the 95%. scientists and doctors and whatnot are certainly not the majority of this 5% and as far as i'm concerned they should pay more towards this bailout fiasco as they are the ones that benifit from it.

[edit on 23/4/09 by pieman]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join