Informed_Debate's profile . Informed_Debate group posts
 |
| Lush_Life |
on Thu 15 Dec 11, 9:00 AM to the Informed_Debate group.
Every now and again, some liberal democunt Independent reading type splutters out a remark about how we should all pay more tax. For Edu-ma-cation and the 'ennui-aitch-arse' probably. Not for fighting wars or anyfink bad.
I disagree with this view point and I want to pay less tax.
Significantly less tax.
I have found a solution. I will pay, grudgingly, what the taxman requires. The liberal democunt, on the other hand, can pay that and then in addition, write out a cheque to the taxman for whatever sum of money will help deal with their guilt.
Either that or increase VAT on couscous, polenta, other luxury items of the liberal democunts.
What say you ?
Edited Wed 4 Jan 12, 9:10 PM by Lush_Life
| 15 Dec 11, 11:12 AM AstronautMikeDexter UK(E), 2 yrs |
That's cool. Just as long as the people paying more get priority access to health care, education, social & community services and so on. | |||
| 15 Dec 11, 11:15 AM emark UK, 9 yrs |
I wonder if we could have a mature debate without making up childish insults? Anyhow, what you say is hardly an argument against more tax. By your logic, we should argue against tax altogether, by proposing a system where everyone only pays what they choose to. Would you be okay with that? There are many reasons in favour of having taxation, but "feeling guilt" is usually not one of them. Indeed, many people who advocate tax increases do so for other people not including themselves (e.g., high earners), so your argument wouldn't work at all there. If there's a case where someone includes themselves in who would pay higher taxes, then that's a viewpoint that at least is an honest one, rather than being self-serving. If you also propose increasing VAT on things you don't buy, then your argument isn't even consistent. It's just a selfish position of wanting others to pay for tax, so you can freeload. ETA: Do you have a ref/link for what this post is based on - where a Lib Dem MP proposed higher taxes? Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement Edited 15 Dec 11, 11:21 AM by emark | |||
| 15 Dec 11, 11:41 AM Prunesquallor UK(RG), 7 yrs |
I thought it was only American right-wingers who referred to their opponents in such a way. I didn't actually read the posting, because I was put off my the title. Good way of getting out what you wish to say. 'To loose' means 'to let go'. 'Lose' means you can't find it. 'Discrete' means separate. 'Crescendo' means 'growing'. 'Fulsome' doesn't mean 'full'. 'Unique' doesn't mean 'very unusual'. | |||
| 15 Dec 11, 12:31 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
I've yet to meet someone who *wants* to pay tax. The question is whether you *should* pay tax. I really don't give a fuck what you want.
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | |||
| 15 Dec 11, 1:33 PM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
The tax burden being shifted from the serfs to the gentry would be a start. You can get more money from fewer people, who will be proportionally taxed less, if the tax burden is shouldered by the richest people. Those are after all the people who demand the most from the system. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. | |||
| 15 Dec 11, 2:07 PM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs      |
I agree with you that the rich can and should pay more. But, I suspect you are wrong about them getting more out if the system. They tend to pay ( from taxed incone) for healthcare privately and education privately ( both of which activities generate further taxed income for the state, as well as costing the state nothing). They pay more towards their kids' higher education.. They don't use subsidised housing and they are less likely to spend time on benefits. Prepared to by contradicted. By data. My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) | |||
| 15 Dec 11, 2:26 PM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
A rich person will have employees, somebody has to educate them, somebody has to keep them in good health, somebody has to get them to work. A rich person may well have a business, this business will certainly depend upon the national infrastructure, it will rely on the existence of a legal system and such like. Those businesses may well have to deal with people and places outside the UK, which requires that the UK have a military to protect those interests. No man is an island, and no rich person can get rich without the contribution of others. Take Richard Branson for example, self made man, but how far would he get if none of his thousands of employees in the UK could read and write? How far does his empire stretch if there's no road system? Tax and government spending creates the circumstances in the country that allow individuals to excel and fulfil their potential. Those who acquire the most owe the most to the state. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. | |||
| 15 Dec 11, 2:29 PM Lush_Life UK(NW), 2 yrs |
I want to pay less, I do not want to stop paying altogether. The people - typically Liberal Democunts - who believe that we all should be paying more can lead by example and start writing cheques out to HMRC. "Plays vile tennis and even worse billiards" | |||
| 15 Dec 11, 3:44 PM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs |
I agree with your last. But remind you that those that employ people pay their wages and their taxes. Rich entrepreneurs create wealth by providing employment. I agree the rich should pay even more tax. But you implied they pay less. Data please My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) | |||
| 15 Dec 11, 3:45 PM Belasarius UK(M), 8 yrs |
There is a serious debate to be had here. This isn't it.
My goal - to save women from nature (Dior) |
