If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Aren't taxes too high?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I feel that personal allowance should be raised to £7000 and the basic and higher rates of income tax be lowered to 14% and 26% respectively. It's also prudent that national insurance is abolished.
Since taxation can be viewed as a form of theft (even though I'm not an anarchist), people must have as much of their own money to spend as they see fit.
The state must be leaner.
Since taxation can be viewed as a form of theft (even though I'm not an anarchist), people must have as much of their own money to spend as they see fit.
The state must be leaner.
0
Comments
and the high cost of petrol should stay high. it's a precious commodity that should be taxed heavily.
The only thing I agree with is the petrol tax. Surely the burden of tax in this country must be regressive as opposed to progressive.
The higher rate payers in particular could afford to pay a lot more and that wouldn't affect their lifestyle in the slightest. The benefits would be enormous. Better health, education, transport, policing and infrastructure for everyone.
If my income tax was to go up to 23% or 24% it would affect my cash flow and I would definitively notice the difference in the money I took home (for the worst). However that's a sacrifice I am prepared to make in order to improve our public services. It is funny how the people who could really afford much higher tax without even noticing it are always screaming murder when someone suggests the 40% should be increased. Not very good Christians methinks.
The simple fact is that the economy would grow faster with lower taxes, hence increasing everybody's standard of living. The government should not steal great quantities of money from its people.
I don't think people should be taxed to their deaths. But the mention of even 1 extra penny in the pound for the higher tax band earners produces blood-spitting headlines from the usual press. At present those earning over 29,900 get tax of 40% over that amount. Now, if the government were to say that in addition everyone earning over £100,000 would be taxed an extra 3% or so, the extra amount would not make any difference to the very rich individuals who earn such salaries. I think our ailing public services need every penny they can get.
Nonetheless that still does not mean that taxes cannot be lowered.
Someone tell me why the state should demand that citizens surrender some of their property to it? Is that just? Not in my view.
Ergo, taxes must remain as low as feasibly possible to permit the people to retain their rightful property.
Prudent?!? Prudent for who?
Where would the unemployment benifit, and state pension come from?
Actually this is the first time i've heard a call for lower tax's generally, normally its lower tax's for those on low incomes (ie raise the tax free allowence to £7K) but higher tax's for the rich (ie 60% on income above £50K).
What i really object to is all the tax i'm paying but unaware of it.
If it was paid in direct tax's i would know how much I am paying, and it would be taken in a convienient way.
Unfortunatly any gov that does this will loose support because people will only see the number on their pay check, not the savings that they are making in other areas.
This would be fair if the people didn't expect the goverment to provide things for them, police, unemployment benifit, prisons, librarys, schools....
Personaly i think its worth me paying an amount of what i earn to provide these things, even if i personally dont use them.
They help members of sociaty that may not be able to pay for these things themselves, and that improves the society i live in, this is why i think its worth paying.
Edited to say :
well done... you managed to answer the rhetorical question, and ignore the real and relevent ones.
EVERYTHING is taxed. And the first time I heard that in other coutries they only tax "luxury items" I was quite shocked.
Every product is 25% more expensive than the original price due to the VAT.
Sometimes this seems as an ideal country for people in the like of Steelgate, as "the more you earn, the more tax you pay". People in good earbing jobs, can pay around 60-75% (maybe more) of their wage to the taxes. At times it just doesn't seem fair, and just yesterday it has been published that un-qualified workers earn more in average than f. ex. a qualified nurse.
Though when going abroad, or hearing from people in other countries, you do get to appericiate the fact that the state pays for education and health service.
Of course you can always go private, it's just a matter priorities.
In the health care, it usually doesn't make a big difference. You are faster in the que, and put in a more "cosey" hospital. But the treatment should be the same.
Though I have noticed a difference when doing the Public- vs. Private Schools.
So the violation of people's property rights can justifty paying for 'services that others cannot afford'?
I answered because there was not much of an effect.
Did you mean this?.. something tells me you didn't... but i'm not too sure what you did mean.
On the off chance that you do mean it, i'll answer :
I don't need to justify "paying for services others cannot afford", out of context its called charity, and most people wouldn't need justification for doing it either.
Ignoreing that, because you probibly did not mean it...
What property rights are these that you refer to? IS there a specific list, or document? Or even an established theory for these rights?
Or are they something undefined that you think should exist?
Even if they exist did I think the right to education, health care etc etc would tak precedence, in the UK if no-where else.
At the end of the day, if you don't want to pay tax...
Sorry, correction : If you want to preserve your property rights, you can go some-place where you don't get taxed.
Ant-arctica is the only place i can think of off hand.
How?
My money is MY property, irrespective of whether the state believes it can take it from me. I have a human right to own property (I suppose you'll ask what human rights back up my claim now...:rolleyes: ).
In my mind, helping some prick who cannot better themselves is secondary to retaining as much of my property as possible. Charity, schmarity as far as I am concerned.
Services such as the NHS could easily be provided by the private sector if necessary. Certainly there has to be room for greater private investment into the service.
Well your 'economics teacher' would (or at the very least should
Or hasn't this person ever heard of Keynes..:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yes please...
Yes, private investment, but not privately run. WIth a single sentence - "the NHS could easily be provided by the private sector" - you show just how little you really know about the NHS or the demands it faces. There isn't a company in the world who could adequately deal with such demands, at least without signoificant investment. Something which currently comes from the taxes you want to cut..
BTW as someone who once claimed UB, how does this fit with you "helping some prick who cannot better themselves" comment...
As for human rights (taken from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html):
Such an Article from the Universal Declaration is applicable here.
Keynesianism is an outdated theory anyway. The least of all macroeconomic ideologies.
Inequality is an inherent aspect of capitalism, irrespective of how 'neo-liberal' a specific government's economic policies are.
Things 'won't get worse'. With increased growth all eventually would increase their living standards.
I'd be perfectly happy to reside in a state where taxes were at a minimum.
S/he can find work. What is stopping them from doing so?
Actually Bentham stated that the greatest amount of happiness should be given to the greatest number. If my thinking is 'antiquated' tell me why all governments post-Thatcher have essentially implemented her taxation policies?
Yes, indirect taxation can harm the poor. Nevertheless, doesn't direct taxation harm the rich?
Interesting word that - "eventually", what happened in the intervening period? You lived on state benfits, as you say for nearly two years.
Would you have survived without?
Yes, lets look at that declaration shall we? I assume that as you are quoting it, you believe in each of its Articles and that each should be enshrined in law (noting that at present they mean fuck all)
So lets start at the begining:
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Or in otherwards, look after your fellow man, don't let him starve because you'd rather keep all your "property" for yourself.
This article also goes against your view that we should only seek to help NATO countries, as you said in another thread...
You might also look at this:
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
this:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control
and this:
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Nonsense. Such an Article denotes that humans are not 'superior' to one another and all possess the rights laid out in the Declaration. What is wrong with aiding NATO allies anyhow?
Incidentally I don't believe in all of the Articles. I reckon the worth of some are subjective in nature.
I never said that either, but how do you propose to supply many of these "rights" unless they come from Govt, do you expect any corporation to provide them? Free Education perhaps...
"Spirit of brotherhood"
So you'd let your brother starve?
Point out to me where I said that we should support oour NATO allies...
You can't because I didn't say that. I merely pointed out the inconsistency between this article and your assertion that we should only help our NATO allies...
and I think that is the problem, if you are happy to quote them as proof of your rights then you should accept them all, not just the ones which fit your screwy view of the world.
back to defending my good name ....
Property rights are simply the 'right' not to have one's property violated. Perhaps someone of greater political nous would have heard of them.
Property rights i still have not heard of.
Human rights i have.
Can you give me a source of these property rights? It would be for the good of the board to increase my political nous, don't you think?
When it comes to issues like paying tax you cannot just look at the economic theorys and laws, but also look at the ethical situations and issues that would arrise.
I still say that by paying tax i'm making life batter for all those around me, which makes my own life better.
And what is wrong in doing that? My right to retain as much of what I earn is of greater consequence to me than some dopey kid's education.
Ethics, schmethics.
The notion of 'morality' is subjective anyhow. My own personal 'ethics' states that people should find solutions to their own problems instead of seeking help from the state.
Lovely.
You do realise that if you paid zero tax, but had to pay private companies for all of the services currently provided by the government, you'd end up with less in your pocket than you've got now?
Ah. that makes sense.
Well done, you seem to be an ideal candidate for a government minister.
Or you would be, if you hadn't of said that.....
I was under the impression that this was a discussion that was about to the real world, not a purely theoretical debate focusing on the economic implecations of altering the tax system.
Sorry to have intruded.
Unless the state is helping your personally I suppose?
Such as paying you unemployment benefits, and providing you with an "education"...
Hypocrite.
Just because I had a 'free' education, it does not mean that I must agree with such a notion.
There is no law which says that you must attend state school, nor that you must claim unemployment benefit.
No, but to take advantage of such a service, something which is your human right, and to then decry it makes you a hypocrite. I presume that in order to maintain your political integrity *coughs* you have offered to pay the Govt back for the education you recieved.
Yes there is dimwit. Parents can be prosecuted if they refuse to send their children to a state school (whilst their children are registered at a state school).
And about hypocrisy? Well I guarantee when I was 5-16 I wouldn't have given TWO SHITS about politics then!!