The wealthy understand the plight of the less fortunate which is why they often generously make charitable donations and support charitable foundations.
And yet they'd prefer not to pay taxes. Where's the intellectual disjoint between knowing a liberal democracy needs a tax-based source of funds to pay for the social net and preferring tax avoidance followed by giving to charity to help those in a less fortunate circumstance? Is it time to re-brand tax?
12 Nov 11, 12:44 PM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs
 |
Top_Class wrote:
Is it time to re-brand tax?
The wealthy understand the plight of the less fortunate which is why they often generously make charitable donations and support charitable foundations.
And yet they'd prefer not to pay taxes. Where's the intellectual disjoint between knowing a liberal democracy needs a tax-based source of funds to pay for the social net and preferring tax avoidance followed by giving to charity to help those in a less fortunate circumstance? Is it time to re-brand tax?
For example here's an e-petititon which says "Replace tax avoidance with charity donations".
|
The rich are proportionally the least charitable members of society. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
|
12 Nov 11, 12:45 PM
Natural_Born_Sub
UK(PR), 3 yrs
|
I cant stand these "philanthropists" who make their money off the blood & sweat of their workers, pay them minimum wage, then make a whole song & dance about how much money they give to charity.
Here's an idea, why not pay your workers higher wages!
Top_Class wrote:
Is it time to re-brand tax?
The wealthy understand the plight of the less fortunate which is why they often generously make charitable donations and support charitable foundations.
And yet they'd prefer not to pay taxes. Where's the intellectual disjoint between knowing a liberal democracy needs a tax-based source of funds to pay for the social net and preferring tax avoidance followed by giving to charity to help those in a less fortunate circumstance? Is it time to re-brand tax?
For example here's an e-petititon which says "Replace tax avoidance with charity donations".
|
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain
|
12 Nov 11, 1:31 PM
Top_Class
UK(GU), 2 yrs
|
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Top_Class wrote:
Is it time to re-brand tax?
The wealthy understand the plight of the less fortunate which is why they often generously make charitable donations and support charitable foundations.
And yet they'd prefer not to pay taxes. Where's the intellectual disjoint between knowing a liberal democracy needs a tax-based source of funds to pay for the social net and preferring tax avoidance followed by giving to charity to help those in a less fortunate circumstance? Is it time to re-brand tax?
For example here's an e-petititon which says "Replace tax avoidance with charity donations".
|
The rich are proportionally the least charitable members of society.
|
Which proportion had you in mind?
"Fork handles?"
"No, not 'fork handles' ... four candles."
|
12 Nov 11, 1:32 PM
Top_Class
UK(GU), 2 yrs
|
Natural_Born_Sub wrote:
I cant stand these "philanthropists" who make their money off the blood & sweat of their workers, pay them minimum wage, then make a whole song & dance about how much money they give to charity.
Here's an idea, why not pay your workers higher wages!
Top_Class wrote:
Is it time to re-brand tax?
The wealthy understand the plight of the less fortunate which is why they often generously make charitable donations and support charitable foundations.
And yet they'd prefer not to pay taxes. Where's the intellectual disjoint between knowing a liberal democracy needs a tax-based source of funds to pay for the social net and preferring tax avoidance followed by giving to charity to help those in a less fortunate circumstance? Is it time to re-brand tax?
For example here's an e-petititon which says "Replace tax avoidance with charity donations".
|
|
Do you think it's through guilt? "Fork handles?"
"No, not 'fork handles' ... four candles."
|
12 Nov 11, 1:54 PM
Natural_Born_Sub
UK(PR), 3 yrs
|
Yes I do think its guilt, and ego, being seen as a charitable person flatters them, and I think its got some connection to religion, after all religion teaches to you to be charitable but you have to have people to give charity too..
If all the "philanthropists" actually paid there workers in line with company profits instead of minimum wage would there be as many charitable cases?
Top_Class wrote:
Natural_Born_Sub wrote:
I cant stand these "philanthropists" who make their money off the blood & sweat of their workers, pay them minimum wage, then make a whole song & dance about how much money they give to charity.
Here's an idea, why not pay your workers higher wages!
Top_Class wrote:
Is it time to re-brand tax?
The wealthy understand the plight of the less fortunate which is why they often generously make charitable donations and support charitable foundations.
And yet they'd prefer not to pay taxes. Where's the intellectual disjoint between knowing a liberal democracy needs a tax-based source of funds to pay for the social net and preferring tax avoidance followed by giving to charity to help those in a less fortunate circumstance? Is it time to re-brand tax?
For example here's an e-petititon which says "Replace tax avoidance with charity donations".
|
|
Do you think it's through guilt?
|
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain
|
12 Nov 11, 3:54 PM
Empress_Martine
UK(HA), 2 yrs
£
  
  |
Natural_Born_Sub wrote:
Yes I do think its guilt, and ego, being seen as a charitable person flatters them, and I think its got some connection to religion, after all religion teaches to you to be charitable but you have to have people to give charity too..
If all the "philanthropists" actually paid there workers in line with company profits instead of minimum wage would there be as many charitable cases?
Top_Class wrote:
Natural_Born_Sub wrote:
I cant stand these "philanthropists" who make their money off the blood & sweat of their workers, pay them minimum wage, then make a whole song & dance about how much money they give to charity.
Here's an idea, why not pay your workers higher wages!
Top_Class wrote:
Is it time to re-brand tax?
The wealthy understand the plight of the less fortunate which is why they often generously make charitable donations and support charitable foundations.
And yet they'd prefer not to pay taxes. Where's the intellectual disjoint between knowing a liberal democracy needs a tax-based source of funds to pay for the social net and preferring tax avoidance followed by giving to charity to help those in a less fortunate circumstance? Is it time to re-brand tax?
For example here's an e-petititon which says "Replace tax avoidance with charity donations".
|
|
Do you think it's through guilt?
|
|
An idea already in action. Both John Lewis and the co-op society do this share of the profits given to the workers.Now how do we get the other individuals to do it? http://empressm7.uboot.com/ http://www.socialkink.com/empressmartine Vampire, pro/lifestyle ts dom/switch.Ageplay mummy/aunty/AB,medical play,domestic,energy, outdoor specialist."Who you calling"@?!;:$£<Σ#"!" "Did you just call me a "@€$££!?"!
Edited 12 Nov 11, 7:21 PM by Empress_Martine
|
12 Nov 11, 4:00 PM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs
|
Top_Class wrote:
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Top_Class wrote:
Is it time to re-brand tax?
The wealthy understand the plight of the less fortunate which is why they often generously make charitable donations and support charitable foundations.
And yet they'd prefer not to pay taxes. Where's the intellectual disjoint between knowing a liberal democracy needs a tax-based source of funds to pay for the social net and preferring tax avoidance followed by giving to charity to help those in a less fortunate circumstance? Is it time to re-brand tax?
For example here's an e-petititon which says "Replace tax avoidance with charity donations".
|
The rich are proportionally the least charitable members of society.
|
Which proportion had you in mind?
|
Poor people give more of what they have to charity, in terms of the total amount they have. They also pay much more tax out of what they have in total compared to the rich. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
|
12 Nov 11, 5:24 PM
Belasarius
UK(M), 8 yrs
  
  |
A reform that would make a great deal of perceptual difference, in my view, would be to stop public sector employees paying tax and pay them net.
After all, tax in the public sector is purely a paper transaction (all the tax raised on a public sector employee's wages has to go to pay the tax on the same employees wages).
By doing this, we'd have a clearer idea of what each public service costs and whether we value it. We would also be in no doubt about who pays for it. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior)
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99
|
12 Nov 11, 5:29 PM
Top_Class
UK(GU), 2 yrs
|
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Top_Class wrote:
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Top_Class wrote:
Is it time to re-brand tax?
The wealthy understand the plight of the less fortunate which is why they often generously make charitable donations and support charitable foundations.
And yet they'd prefer not to pay taxes. Where's the intellectual disjoint between knowing a liberal democracy needs a tax-based source of funds to pay for the social net and preferring tax avoidance followed by giving to charity to help those in a less fortunate circumstance? Is it time to re-brand tax?
For example here's an e-petititon which says "Replace tax avoidance with charity donations".
|
The rich are proportionally the least charitable members of society.
|
Which proportion had you in mind?
|
Poor people give more of what they have to charity, in terms of the total amount they have. They also pay much more tax out of what they have in total compared to the rich.
|
Well, it's certainly true that comparing two people, one with 100 pounds to his name and 1 with a 1000 who both give 1 pound to charity that the one who gives 1 of a 100 will have given more proportionally than the one who gave 1 of a 1000. Of course it's also true that, in absolute terms, they've both given identically.
So it's a no brainer to conclude that if the 1 pound was a tax payment instead of a donation to charity then the poor person has proportionally paid more of his wealth than the salary-man even though they both pay an identical amount.
It seems that people like "giving money to charity" but don't like "paying taxes" ... rich people who can avoid taxes still give money to charity ... they're not averse to having their wealth reduce, they are averse to having it reduce by command, they're not adverse to handing some of their wealth to other people to be used to alleviate the needs of those less fortunate than themselves but have a mental block about that being what taxation is doing.
When the payment is mandatory they try and avoid it and when it's voluntary they're queuing at the door to hand their money over. Seems to me "tax" needs a makeover.
"Fork handles?"
"No, not 'fork handles' ... four candles."
|
12 Nov 11, 6:06 PM
Belasarius
UK(M), 8 yrs
|
Top_Class wrote:
So it's a no brainer to conclude that if the 1 pound was a tax payment
When the payment is mandatory they try and avoid it and when it's voluntary they're queuing at the door to hand their money over. Seems to me "tax" needs a makeover.
|
It's not as simple as most large charity donations from rich individuals have an ulterior motive. In fact, that motive is often tax avoidance. But it might equally be political or social influence. Or manoeuvring into pole position for a business deal.
Tax is a duty and a responsibility. Many ( not all) rich individuals are poor at both. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior)
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99
|
