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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


I have nothing more to say to a moron like you.

If you really believe that scientists and doctors benefit from banking bailouts then you need your head examined. A doctor who goes to medical school for 6 years, then specialises for another 7 years most definitely deserves a salary of over 100k a year, and doesn't deserve to have a massive portion of that taken away. If you believe otherwise, then we don't just have a minor disagreement... we are really on opposing sides of two armies.

But please, go ahead with your class war. Go ahead with your Robin Hood fantasies. At the end of the day plutocracy will never disappear- the rich will always evade taxes or leave the country, the elite will always retain power through some avenue or the other.

Marx claimed that religion was the opiate of the masses. He was wrong. The real opiate is politics and activism- go ahead, keep believing you can change the world into a socialist workers' paradise... it'll keep you enslaved for that much longer under the rule of the elite.




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
The raising of the upper tax level to 50% stinks of popularist politics.
The amount raised by this move is negligible when balanced against how much this country now owes due to the bailing out of the banks.

Like most people, I recognise that we all can not come first, indeed some people deserve to come last due to their unwillingness to contribute nothing whatsoever to society.

Just one question of soulslayer and infinite; you advocate a system governed by an elite few, presumably some of these elite few are those responsible for the debacle's surrounding Northern Rock, RBS etc.
If we, the uneducated, thick, replaceable rabble hadn't allowed the bail out's then what would have happened to these superior people?
They are not infallible, far from it.
I know this from my own personal experiences.

You two would not last five minutes in my world!
However, I can, indeed have, been quite a success and have moved quite comfortably in 'higher' circles.
That I am where I am now is as much by personal choice as by external forces.

You are both intelligent people with at times well reasoned arguements, (even though I disagree with a lot of them), however, I think your beliefs are based on a mis-guided sense of superiority and no matter how many Nietzsche quotes you throw about it will not gloss over your smug arrogance.

I am no tree hugging, kumbaya singing, do-gooder, PC, pinko, liberal
, indeed I am quite the realist, but I find your views on the non-elite quite disturbing.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I've never advocated elitism, only confirmed that we are not all equal and the doctor should not be labelled as equivalent to the shop worker.

Interesting, this 50% Tax Rate is a temporary measure and will be removed at some point in the next Parliament (by either party.) Labour knows it preaches to the socialists and Middle England will vacate in large numbers.

The policy is damage limitation, protecting the core vote.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


The bailout was a wrong move. Capitalism without failure is like Christianity without the threat of Hell.

The elites should have been allowed to fail- I wager they would have started over again.

I must pull up on the point of:


If we, the uneducated, thick, replaceable rabble hadn't allowed the bail out's then what would have happened to these superior people?


Who pays the majority of taxes in the UK? It's the corporations and the middle/ upper class. The plebs could only have "allowed" the move because of their vast numbers. Monetarily, who is pickup up the bill? (hint: thread title).

What you see from Infinite and I is a backlash against the equality-driven agenda of the current government. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Infinite and I are the only two people in this thread who have grown up for the majority of their lives under a Labour government. I know that is certainly the case for me... I have seen the equality agenda destroy the success of many men. A simple example is the father of my one of my friends, who ran an insurance company employing about 100 people. As a result of tax hikes and changes in tax policy (non-dom issue, pension grab) he chose to wind up the company and move to a tax haven.

His success was penalised, 100 people lost their jobs and the Treasury lost money. In a true market-centric system, that would never have occured.

As for not being able to succeed in your world... I'm sure you're right. I chose a path of academic rigour in order to avoid being a worker. There's no reason for me to be a worker... I earn my salary with my mind, not by hard work.

It's interesting that you claim to have some choice over your position. Might I ask why you chose to be in the working class rather than the owning class?

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



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Advocating that only people above a certain IQ level should be eligible for voting is elitism!

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
What you see from Infinite and I is a backlash against the equality-driven agenda of the current government.


Exactly. See the right to vote thread and our detailed description of the assessment we presented.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Infinite and I are the only two people in this thread who have grown up for the majority of their lives under a Labour government.


Yes (Is only 23)

I departed from higher education because, well, I found it too easy and very insulting. University lacks any significant attachment to it - the student life style is purely decadent and redundant. The absolute repugnance of the teaching makes you wonder why you are accumulating the vast amount of student debt.

Majority of my fellow students would harass me for help, leaving me wondering why the university even accepted them. Is that higher education? The fact we were encouraged to open a textbook, read and then interpret was insulting. Again, is that higher education?

When you provide unlimited access to all, the system fails to cope.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Did I?


Originally posted by infinite
Restricting the vote allows the right individuals to gain power, not the most popular. Criminals, homeless and those who seek to influence politics via money (extremely rich) should be denied the vote.


Hmm, don't think so.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


And I my friend witnessed the full effects of Capitalism when Thatcher destroyed whole communities just to satisfy the wishes of her 'elite' backers.

Thatcher and her successors fed the housing boom by selling off ALL council housing thus forcing young couples to buy houses on mortgages they couldn't afford and feeding the spiralling house prices.
How the chickens have come home to roost there!

I agree with some of what both you and Infinite say...but it is wrapped up in smug, arrogant superiority.

As in all things, there are no simple or easy answers, but one thing is certain, the popularist politics of Brown and Cameron achieves absolutely nothing.
They leap on anything the other says or does and reply 'We won't do that' whilst offering absolutely nothing of value in return.

Taxation will always be a contentious issue, but it is a necessary evil whether we like it or not.

[edit on 23/4/09 by Freeborn]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
I agree with some of what both you and Infinite say...but it is wrapped up in smug, arrogant superiority.


It is only arrogant, smug or elitism is you believe humanity is equal. But it is not.

The truth is, we are different and society should reflect that. I'm not referring to apartheid or separation, on the contrary, society would operate better (and the nation would be stronger) if the country was structured and we did live in a diverse environment (not equal.)

Nothing of what I've said on this topic represents inner arrogance towards society or any social class.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by infinite]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
so far then infinite your perfect society is one where only the `best` type of person could vote , and thats its a republic..... hmmm sounds VERY NWO to me.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Apologies,
It was soulslayer who advocated having a minimum IQ level eligibility for voting rights.

You stated that all those on benefits should be ineligible to vote, regardless of circumstance and that it may be beneficial to ban all government employees from voting! ( I have a friend who works in a government building canteen, I suppose she should be denied the vote?).
I think you also agreed with soulslayer on several occassions.

Still, that is for the other thread, further apologies for going off topic.

That major companies can announce record profits in the current climate is a bitter pill for people to swallow and there is a groundswell in favour of raising taxes even further for these companies.

Of course this could have detrimental repercussions for lot's of businesses but the activities of Tesco / BP etc does not help business in general's case.

I just despise the party politics surrounding taxation; Labour tends to advocate higher income taxation, especially for the higher earners and The Tories advocate increased taxation on products etc.

As far as I can see, they all just want my money.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
You stated that all those on benefits should be ineligible to vote, regardless of circumstance


I'm sorry, that is a lie. Many will confirm I suggested those who refuse to work and claim benefits - I did not generalise all those on benefit.

Regarding government workers, I played the devil's advocate and suggested it would be too complex because these individuals do have insight to governmental workings. Perfect for the democratic system.

Freedom of speech, you can disagree with me but you have no right to take my words out of context and effectively lie to win an argument.

Anyway, the 50% Tax Rate might not even come into force - the government have misinterpreted public mood and the majority are frustrated Darling has played politics with the budget.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I have nothing more to say to a moron like you.

nice, insults. good stuff. the fact that you immediately follow "i have nothing more to say" with three paragraphs speaks volumes.


If you really believe that scientists and doctors benefit from banking bailouts then you need your head examined. A doctor who goes to medical school for 6 years, then specialises for another 7 years most definitely deserves a salary of over 100k a year, and doesn't deserve to have a massive portion of that taken away.


i don't believe either doctors or scientists earn enough above the £150k a year level to be affected hugely. you keep harping on about these people but the sad fact is that while these people are probably among the most valuable to society they are far from the highest paid.


Originally posted by infinite
Anyway, the 50% Tax Rate might not even come into force - the government have misinterpreted public mood and the majority are frustrated Darling has played politics with the budget.


yeah, i'm sure the people will take to the streets over it. people are frustrated with the fact that rich, privileged idiots who wouldn't know the breadline if the tripped over it are whining about being asked to pay their way for a change.

[edit on 23/4/09 by pieman]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I don't like this and no i'm not rich. I've commented on this website about limiting the maximum amount earned by an individual, however this isn't the correct way. As others have stated if someone is earning 149k and someone else is earning 150k then the 150k person gets screwed over.

Nope i think the entire system needs assessing again.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
yeah, i'm sure the people will take to the streets over it. people are frustrated with the fact that rich, privileged idiots who wouldn't know the breadline if the tripped over it are whining about being asked to pay their way for a change.


Another socialist stereotype.

So you are suggesting, some one like Sir Alan Sugar (came from a Jewish working class family, never went to university) is a "privilege idiot"? The rich already pay their way, the government gains a significant amount from Corporation Tax.

The City of London provided majority of the finance for the government's PFI program, your hospital was probably built by them and the schools too (if they are PFI.) Our economic growth over the last 12 years came from the Square Mile, were you complaining then?

In fact, judging by the level of your argument I would conclude you are mid adolescent years (15-17.)



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
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?


Don't worry, I know what you "meant".. no need to get ratty.

It was an immature statement that didn't really pan out too well for you. My condolences.

My statement still stands btw.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Everything you said is subjective opinion, tainted by your bias towards workers rather than owners.


I don't really have any bias to be frank. I just took great offence to your orignal statement that Britain was made Great only by those that had money. Back in the day, there was little social mobility and many of those with the dosh to stuff did indeed inherit their money.

I notice you have swung the nuance of this point into the present day without even considering the huge social differences between 1700's Britain and 2000 Britain. Clever....

It makes me look like a socialist when in actual fact I am staunch Conservative and was merely addressing an erroneous assessment of the industrial revolution. I did not really want to address the social issues of today as they are totally different.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Workers are entirely replaceable in the grand scheme of things. A person who starts up a mill is far harder to find than one who works in a mill...


Not really, if we're sticking to purely historical accounts. Anyone with some money could, and indeed did, start their own factories and mills back in the Industrial Rev. Or they bought land abroad and started plantations.

The point I was making, which is entirely different to the argument you're trying to make for the modern day, is those people back then were rich because of inherited money, hence why they had the capital available to start the factories in the first place. of course, many middle class people went into business too, but on the back of credit provided by those same landed/monied classes.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
and that's why the market rewards the owner a higher share of profits- because he is rarer to find than a labourer, and he takes the risk of ownership.


Indeed, I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is your blanket assessment of Rich=Great and Poor=Waste of space.

There could be a future Steven hawking on a council estate right now, but if he doesn't get the right schooling or get into the right Uni (or more likely get sidetracked from school all together by other things, such as having to care for himself as his parents both have to work long hours) then he is a lost talent.

Just because he is poor, that doesn't make him worthless, does it? It seems that is what you're saying. He just needs the right opportunity and he could be someone, opportunities which the richer classes find easier to provide for their young.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I'm not the one playing games of class here. The market is a faceless, classless, raceless system. If a person is good enough to elevate from one class to another, they can do so. If you think otherwise, then how do you explain the concept of "nouveau riche"?


Neither am I. Like I said, this originally started with your incorrect belief about British history.

I know people can rise through the classes, I am currently "upper-middle", if the class structure is to be believed, but I certainly did not start there, I came from a working class background.

My dad (single parent as my mum left) couldn't even afford to buy me new school shoes and my soles were falling off, all the while the rich kids who came from families with plenty of money looked down upon me for being "poor". They can all suck my balls now. Every one went to Uni with daddy paying for it, yet every one earns half what I do, with some being unemployable with their Micky Mouse degrees in "History of Art"...


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
The problem with the majority of the lower class is that they allow themselves to think that their position was determined by birth and that they cannot rise up in stature. After all, claiming that their position was fixed by their birth is an easy route (defeatism).


That's not true and is a blanket statement which means nothing. It took me several years of bloody hard work to get where I am today and there were times along the way I thought I had failed. It is hard work to rise up the ranks, believe me.

Many do not have the lucky breaks I did and things could have been different for me had certain opportunities not come along at exactly the right time.

To say all are "defeatist" is quite ignorant. Many want to advance and do better and many have the ability, but you do not always have the chance to shine. Such is life, I know that, but you don't have to rub their faces in it by sweeping generalisations such as the one above.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Life is the test of success. Those who failed, failed. Simple as that. What you may ascribe to misfortune or theft, I may ascribe to a lack of acumen.


You start off with something I can agree with, but then again you characterise all those who didn't succeed as having a lack of acumen. Many fail through no fault of their own.

I am pretty sure that you could have failed at any point along the way should have something outside your control happened and I am pretty sure you still can fail through no fault of your own.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge, matey...Karma is a bitch...


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I take your point though. You characterise most rich men as lucky bastards who inherited their wealth while I characterise most rich men as hard working business owners who made their fortunes for themselves.


Not at all. Your confusing my statement about 18th century mill owners with todays rich.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I characterise the working class as devoid of aspiration, mundane and replaceable, while you characterise them as hard working and given a raw deal.


That isn't a fair statement in the slightest. Some may be, but such a sweeping statement against all those who are "working class" is just wrong.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I'm sorry if you feel that I have been intentionally contorting your words, I certainly never intended to.

Perhaps I do need to brush up on my social history...

As for the rest, I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what we believe is possible. For your "council estate Stephen Hawking", I believe he would naturally rise up as he would be inclined towards academia anyway. Perhaps I'm just being naive...

I characterise the lower classes who complain against the upper classes as defeatist for a reason. You mentioned your story of rising up the class system- were you lucky? From your story it sounds like you rose up because of your intrinsic ability being higher than your working class peers.

I have never been able to accept this argument that there are diamonds in the rough who need special care and attention because their parents cannot afford them the same privileges as rich parents can. I admit on the face of it that does seem to be the case, yet any policy directed to address this will fail. I believe that those who are capable of climbing classes will do so, regardless of their surroundings.

You spoke of having no new school shoes- would new shoes have helped you climb classes? I respect what you have achieved, and that is why I don't believe that the lower classes need special attention. I know what is possible... I have family members who were born in houses in the third world without running water or electricity, and yet today they are millionaires. I know what is possible from the darkest depths of the economic well, and by comparison the challenges faced by the lower class in the developed world seem easy.

As for the question of luck/ acumen, I was only saying that we may differ on our opinions of such. What you may ascribe to misfortune, I may ascribe to a lack of acumen. What examples are there of an exceptionally gifted member of the lower class being derailed purely by bad luck?

I could have failed, and I can fail at any point in my life. I accept that and I am ready for it if and when it comes. My response will be fundamentally different to the dejection of certain members of the lower class though... I will aim for the top again.

You made a very important point about changing social context. I will indubitably have to go and study the trends involved. However would you not agree that presently in the UK, major class movement is almost over?
By that I mean that those who are presently lower class and in their middle age must not be as skilled as those who are middle or upper class? Didn't enough class mobility exist for them to move up through their life? I don't characterise children in any form- they have yet to face the test of life... I speak of the present middle aged lower class.

You climbed classes. How can you not recognise that you must be intrinsically better than your former working class peers? Unless you won the lottery or barring some other massive stroke of luck, I presume you worked hard to get where you are. Why didn't your former peers do the same?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I'm sorry if you feel that I have been intentionally contorting your words, I certainly never intended to.


No worries. I'm sure I do the same!


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
As for the rest, I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what we believe is possible. For your "council estate Stephen Hawking", I believe he would naturally rise up as he would be inclined towards academia anyway. Perhaps I'm just being naive...


I think there is a certain level of naivety there. He may well be naturally inclined to learn, but the environment conducive to good learning might not be available.

He may be under external pressure from peers and family to do other things than study, he might get caught up in the wrong crowd, or he might be unlucky enough to be in the catchment for an abysmal school, where no amount of ability will enable you to progress as the teachers and other pupils will drag him down.

There are many factors involved as to why an otherwise intelligent individual might be doomed to a crappy life.



Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I characterise the lower classes who complain against the upper classes as defeatist for a reason. You mentioned your story of rising up the class system- were you lucky? From your story it sounds like you rose up because of your intrinsic ability being higher than your working class peers.


Well, I was lucky to be in the right place at the right time in terms of opportunities that came along, that's for sure.

But I suppose I could be regarded as "higher ability". I did an apprenticeship at Nortel and to get on that I was selected out of 5000 people for 20 places, apparently testing in the top 2 percentile of my peers. So without blowing my own horn, I suppose am rather bright, but I know others who are as bright as me that didn't have the same opportunities.

I was lucky to read the right paper at the right time to see the advert!



Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I have never been able to accept this argument that there are diamonds in the rough who need special care and attention because their parents cannot afford them the same privileges as rich parents can. I admit on the face of it that does seem to be the case, yet any policy directed to address this will fail. I believe that those who are capable of climbing classes will do so, regardless of their surroundings.


I am sure that does happen, but it isn't a rule I would follow that rigidly. I have come across plenty of intelligent people that, due to the course life has taken them, have not lived up to their potential. Some of it is self-inflicted, sure, but others have litterally been held back through no fault of their own.

Throwing money at the problem of course won't fix it, I agree. But the field of play is far from fair. If schools around the Uk were of the same standard, then that would be fair enough for me, but there is such a difference between schools that some otherwise talented kids are doomed before they even start. Others will be lucky enough to fall into the catchment of a good school, like me. It makes life that little bit easier if your not running uphill from the start.



Originally posted by 44soulslayer
You spoke of having no new school shoes- would new shoes have helped you climb classes?


Not likely, but it would have made life easier at school!! It was just to illustrate how "poor" I was really.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I respect what you have achieved, and that is why I don't believe that the lower classes need special attention. I know what is possible... I have family members who were born in houses in the third world without running water or electricity, and yet today they are millionaires. I know what is possible from the darkest depths of the economic well, and by comparison the challenges faced by the lower class in the developed world seem easy.


Totally agree )and thanks for the kudos!!) and I too dispise those that will happily languish at the bottom of the pile consuming resources they have not ever worked towards. Likewise, I also do not like people complaining about how hard life is here when, to be honest, it is one the best places in the world to live! Beats the hell out of Sub-saharan africa, that's for sure!


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
What examples are there of an exceptionally gifted member of the lower class being derailed purely by bad luck?


I doubt I could find one, as it would be like proving a negative. I could only cite people I know personally which wouldn't mean much to you.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I could have failed, and I can fail at any point in my life. I accept that and I am ready for it if and when it comes. My response will be fundamentally different to the dejection of certain members of the lower class though... I will aim for the top again.


An excellent attitude to have



Originally posted by 44soulslayer
You made a very important point about changing social context. I will indubitably have to go and study the trends involved. However would you not agree that presently in the UK, major class movement is almost over?


That does appear to be the case. Those stuck on the council estates or drawing benefit for their entire lives will no doubt breed more people who will do the same. Unfortunately, the benefit system enables people to do this. If it was harsher, the evolution would kick in. At this time, it provides no impetus to better oneself if they can sit at home all day and get money for nothing. There is no competition, which is the basis of all life on earth, so they are happy to languish and fester.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
By that I mean that those who are presently lower class and in their middle age must not be as skilled as those who are middle or upper class? Didn't enough class mobility exist for them to move up through their life? I don't characterise children in any form- they have yet to face the test of life... I speak of the present middle aged lower class.


I'd agree with that statement, in that context. There have been opportunities for years. However, we are drifting away from about the only point I disagreed with you on, which is that Poor=Bad. having said that though, you have qualified your statements with further clarification, so I better understand your position.


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
You climbed classes. How can you not recognise that you must be intrinsically better than your former working class peers? Unless you won the lottery or barring some other massive stroke of luck, I presume you worked hard to get where you are. Why didn't your former peers do the same?


I may be "better", but I am also lucky. I am not going to look down upon those "below" me as unachievers or idiots, because that isn't fair. Not all are lower class through their own volition. Many might be, but many aren't.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


At the same time MPs admit that rich will escape taxation by using loopholes, like it was before. See today's Metro.co.uk.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join