Help Changes to UK tax system

[Scouse]

Exactly, fuck the state and all its inequality. Everyone should put in to the state whether through finance or through labour. Playing Xbox and watching Jeremy Kyle is not benefiting the state.

Weak ass thinking there too Raven.

Not every argument is about benefit scroungers you know. This is about super-rich people. It's got fuck all to do with what you do with the money that comes in.

Like provide world-class free education for all. Or feed the entire planet, several times over.

 

[Scouse]

So what happens when you need private investment of billions of pounds? A privately built bridge or giant factory? Since no one is ALLOWED to have that much money, they won't be able to invest. It's such a stupid policy.

Again, massive fail in your brain there. Most of those investments come from private companies.

These companies would still exist. And be managed by the same people. And still be able to invest.

It's just their personal wealth we're talking about.


How about you think about what I've said rather than rant and rave "oh the commies!!111!". Two seconds thought and you'd have had your own answer.

 

[Chilly]

Again, massive fail in your brain there. Most of those investments come from private companies.

These companies would still exist. And be managed by the same people. And still be able to invest.

It's just their personal wealth we're talking about.


How about you think about what I've said rather than rant and rave "oh the commies!!111!". Two seconds thought and you'd have had your own answer.

The companies would exist in some bastard state where no one was allowed a controlling stake (because you cant own more than a joke percentage of any large company) and thus will never do anything groundbreaking. Committees never do anything good. I stand by my position.

 

[Raven]

Weak ass thinking there too Raven.

Not every argument is about benefit scroungers you know. This is about super-rich people. It's got fuck all to do with what you do with the money that comes in.

Like provide world-class free education for all. Or feed the entire planet, several times over.

What's the difference between someone who sponges off an inheritance and someone who sponges off the state? Nothing really.

 

[Scouse]

Failure of imagination here is staggering.

Glad none of you are running for office

 

[Raven]

If I said you could have really high inheritance tax but lower income taxes, VAT and corp tax which would you choose?

The argument that the state leeches or wastes money is becoming less viable as well. By 2018 we will be spending the lowest % of GDP on public spending since WW2 (assuming, of course, that proposed cuts continue and GDP grows as forecast). Dunno about you I had no idea this was the case until today.

For personal reasons I would like to see lower inheritance tax but on a total fairness point of view I would like to see lower income tax coupled with lower "job seekers" payouts.

And while I know the actual cost to the state in relative terms is pretty small for supporting the lazy it is inherently unfair that I have to work for a living but some people don't. I don't mean those unable, they should be supported in any civilised society but those that point blank refuse to contribute for no other reason other than they can't be arsed should be excluded

 

[Gwadien]

I'm a raving Tory, fuck everyone else.

Fixed

 

[old.Tohtori]

Does the UK tax the unemployment benefits? They do in Finland(bet there's a reason for it even if it seems dumb). 20% tax off everything the state gives you.

 

[Raven]

Fixed

I don't see that as much of an insult though. I would rather be called a Tory than a socialist. I actually spoil my ballots rather than vote for cunts though.

 

[Raven]

Does the UK tax the unemployment benefits? They do in Finland(bet there's a reason for it even if it seems dumb). 20% tax off everything the state gives you.

No because that would be retarded and generate more paperwork within the public services...actually Labour would think of something that dumb so they can throw some more jobs at people to buy votes.

Although I do find it odd that public sector workers pay income tax seeing as it comes out of the public purse anyway. May as well just pay them X% less and get rid of their income tax.

 

[Gwadien]

Personally, if we're going down this politics road, I think there's a balance which can be achieved.

Socialism without the waste, it'd benefit all and it wouldn't be the stage where we have seat-fillers.

 

[Raven]

Socialism where everyone contributes, equally. Perfectly fine by me. Socialism where only some contribute, off you fuck.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No because that would be retarded and generate more paperwork within the public services...actually Labour would think of something that dumb so they can throw some more jobs at people to buy votes.

I believe, from somewhat googling, that it's because it actually costs less to do it that way as benefits are just counted as regular income like any other.

 

[Scouse]

lower "job seekers" payouts

You've got that. It's at pretty much the same level it was in 1996.

60 quid then, 60 quid now. Nearly twenty years later.

Apart from the fact that you could get a pint for 95p and a two bed terrace for 25 grand it's really fucking easy on them.

But still fuck all to do with this conversation.

 

[Fweddy]

Again, massive fail in your brain there. Most of those investments come from private companies.

These companies would still exist. And be managed by the same people. And still be able to invest.

It's just their personal wealth we're talking about.

What if I founded a company, floated it on the stock market and it grew so my controlling stake was worth more than $100 million? Would I have to sell some of my shares and give up control of my company to other people?

 

[Raven]

But still fuck all to do with this conversation.

Yarp.

But it has brought up something interesting (imo) which is why bother taxing the public sector when the public sector is almost entirely funded by taxation. Its like sending £50 in the post to a friend who wants £40 and then driving over to get £10 back.

 

[Scouse]

What if I founded a company, floated it on the stock market and it grew so my controlling stake was worth more than $100 million? Would I have to sell some of my shares and give up control of my company to other people?

Would involve a voting rights change. You couldn't hold that value of shares, but there's no reason voting rights couldn't be amended. In fact, a whole raft of changes would be needed for such a basic change to make sense. But it's perfectly doable.

Don't know why people wouldn't automatically support it. Guess it's fear of change, indoctrinated brains and a genuine failure of imagination. Everyone stands to gain massively apart from the few thousand people who "own" more wealth than more than most of the rest of the world put together - and their lifestyle would only change downwards to that of people who have 100 million pounds in the bank.

Woe is them, eh?

 

[Raven]

Its all relative, how much of your money have you given away to people who have absolutely nothing?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Its all relative, how much of your money have you given away to people who have absolutely nothing?

I could use some of that money right about now.

 

[Raven]

I'll take that facepalm as none then shall I?

Live how you preach or gtfo.

 

[Scouse]

Its all relative, how much of your money have you given away to people who have absolutely nothing?

Again. Nothing to do with this conversation. But rather than bow down to your frankly ludicrous line of questioning I'll say that rather than look for work this last year I've spent the time looking after my sick mother, who nearly died 12 months ago.

That's cost me a years salary, a fuckload of my time, a massive big gap in my CV and a lot of heartache because, frankly, I fucking hate the bitch but if I didn't do it my sister, who has a family and who lives round the corner from her (as opposed to my 130 miles away) would have had to shoulder the lot at a time when she really needs to be focussing on my nieces and their A-Levels and GCSE's.

I've started applying for jobs this week - my brother has come back home from Australia to do the job I was previously doing.

That enough?


Now, answer a question for me @Raven. Justify personal wealth above One Hundred Million Pounds, when the excess would be transformative to the entire planet on an unimaginable social scale at the cost of making a tiny number of super-rich animals have to buy a smaller private jet.

Edit:

I'll take that facepalm as none then shall I?

Live how you preach or gtfo.

Lol. Nice timing. I fucking do - and your inability to hold a conversation about a theoretical subject without bringing emotional irrelevancies ("benefits" and cut-your-nose off to spite your face idiocy) winds me the fuck up.

You're scared of change and don't even make an argument - just dismiss others. I'm out of here because I'm literally spitting feathers right now.

Edit edit: If I had a paltry 10 million dollars I'd have hired a full time nurse. But I don't. Justify why that sort of help is denied thousands of carers the world over (or different help) - simply to keep the mega-mega rich's bank account growing - even when they can't and don't spend it.

 

[Raven]

While admirable, your work circumstances have nothing to do with it. that is not what I asked.

I can't justify people having over 100 million but neither can I justify the confiscation of wealth from an individual for no other reason other than they have too much. Where would it stop? How would it be calculated. Would property be included? Art? Businesses? Would the state take part ownership of facebook for example? Or would Mark Zuckerwhatever have to randomly pick people to donate parts of his business to? What would shareholders think of that if they had to pay for their part but others got it free because nobody is allowed to have more than X amount. How would it be administered? How much would that cost with endless court cases chasing people all around the world.

Its a wishy washy socialist dream.

 

[Scouse]

I can't justify people having over 100 million but neither can I justify the confiscation of wealth from an individual for no other reason other than they have too much. Where would it stop?

You can't justify people having over 100million because there IS no justification.

You can justify the confiscation of wealth from a tiny number of individuals for the reason that it would be transformative for the entire planet.

We're animals that have evolved and ended up creating a monetary system that is structured the way it is, now it's time for that structure to be evolved.

We created capitalism in its current form. It's nothing more than a set of rules that we made up. Made up. Conjured out of thin air. And built on it and made it work. We can do it again.


It needs amending for the transformative good of billions at the cost of mildly inconveniencing a tiny amount of super-rich.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Scouse, if you have 10mil, would you give me say 100k?

Or in smaller numbers if you had a 100k, would you give me 5k to get by?

 

[Scouse]

What the fuck has that got to do with anything seel? We're talking about structural changes to an economic system.

Troll teh fuck somewhere else.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It directly correlates to you saying "anyone having too much money should just give it away". If you can't even hypothetically do that, then you're talking arse.

 

[Embattle]

As usual close all the various ways of getting around the various taxes, things like avoiding income tax via corporation tax etc. Personally I think the book should state the legal ways of paying tax with all others automatically illegal, it shouldn't come down to having to write what is illegal since they will always create new schemes to get around tax.

I really have wanted to do a detailed post about such things but it probably isn't worth the effort

 

[Tom]

Replace council tax with a land tax. There are too many housing companies hoarding land and restricting the housing market. Force them to pay for what they own, that way, the tax system encourages them to build houses.

Also, I do not see why only married people see tax benefits. Such benefits should be available to a wide range of people in relationships. For instance, the dutiful daughter looking after an elderly parent. The two brothers sharing a house and taking care of oneanother. The friend looking after her disabled friend, in the same property. Why should these relationships not be valued by the state?

Get rid of Vehicle Excise Duty. It's a stupid tax that should be replaced, in its entirety, by duty on fuel.

 

[Bahumat]

Push students into slave labour and increase course prices which go straight to me.

 

[Scouse]

It directly correlates to you saying "anyone having too much money should just give it away". If you can't even hypothetically do that, then you're talking arse.

I haven't said that. F off. Not interested in talking to you about it, as I made clear earlier.