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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Rich people should pay more because they have more money to contribute simple as that. Until we see prices in the shops proportional to how much you earn then we need a system of progressive taxation to ensure that everyone can afford services that would be too expensive for many in the free market. When prices in the shops are proportional to income then we can have proportional taxation but that isn't going to happen in the near future. No offence but if I had the choice between a cushy office job with perks or stacking shelves in Sainsbury's I know which I'd choose - more money usually means less work. I disagree with spending money on unnecessary wars and on bloated defence forces but I pay my taxes anyway.
Dear me, you are desperate using Nigel Lawson as an example of a good chancellor. The reason the tax take increased in 1988 was because of the historical context at the time. The newly privatised industries were beginning to start paying fat-cat salaries which meant the richest 10% got a lot richer, along with a general large increase in wages above inflation due to the boom in the City at the time which meant that there was bigger revenue from the tax on share dividends and the general effects of the Lawson Boom. This also meant that the easy access to consumer credit meant that the rich were borrowing more and therefore spending more and so increasing tax revenues from the VAT on the goods they bought. Hence the 15% increase in taxation takings. It's not for these people to use accountants and tax havens to deny paying their fair share - the government shouldn't give in to them instead it should close the loopholes and stop them taking their money abroad.
Just because it's a council estate doesn't mean everyone is on benefits. I live on a council estate and most people here work either in white collar jobs or as blue collar workers like plasterers, builders or plumbers - lucrative work. I reckon you just object to people you think are beneath you (wrong voice, wrong clothes etc) getting things you think you are somehow automatically entitled to yourself. Most people who are genuinely on benefits are lucky if they can afford to go to Butlin's let alone abroad, I think you should examine how people on benefits really live and get your head out of the Daily Hate Mail and its ignorant stereotypes you're perpetuating on here.
Because they can afford it. Unless you are telling me that someone like myself - in the higher tax bracket - cannot afford to pay a higher rate...?
On the contrary I have every idea what I'm talking about and I'm not jealous of rich people because I have a good enough life myself, I have a roof over my head, food in the fridge and the bills are taken care of which is all anyone needs.
I am one of the people that complain about fat cat salaries, do you see nothing morally wrong with people earning 6-7 figure sums when you have people struggling to survive? They shouldn't be paid so much because it is a waste of the country's resources which is why the government should tax these people more. Yes I do know what their work entails - all expenses trips to different global cities, company cars and chauffeurs, free private healthcare and generous pensions and share dividends for sitting in meetings, mouthing off about stuff which really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. You must be mad if you think it requires a lot of time and effort - how much effort does it take to sit through meetings? Virtually none. Also on the time front, they work less hours than most of us because of all their jollies abroad, games of golf and cocktail parties - so exhausting :rolleyes:. I have no problem with paying people large amounts of money if they earn it but Company Directors are parasites on the hard work of those below them and if we got rid of them we'd find things ran a lot better without their stupid schemes and initiatives which in an attempt to keep themselves in work frustrates staff and customers alike. How do you know it's a lack of ambition that stops the cleaner from earning a lot? At least the cleaner is productive, more so than management I would say because they couldn't operate without cleaning staff yet many companies work a lot better when managers are away.
My "real issue" with the idle rich is that they do not contribute to the country. They don't work but live off the proceeds of others. They are taking things away, if they had jobs they would be doing productive work, contributing to income tax and increasing our growth and GDP rates instead of which they lounge about doing nothing and if people on benefits do that on a miniscule amount of the same income they're denounced as parasites!
No I claimed Jacq didn't read my post properly which I then corrected her on. I believe life should be different because it isn't fair unlike you I actually believe that we can improve people's lot and that we don't have to accept the current system which isn't working to the advantage of most people in this country. I don't think you can understand that the reason that it is unfair and immoral is reason enough in itself to change things.
People at the age of 18, don't just walk in to a 6-7 figure sum. They have to work. They may not be working as much or as hard when they are on that wage, but they will have worked damn ahrd to get there. What would the point be of taxing these people more than the average person when they have worked hard enough to get lot's of it taken away? If they want Cocktail parties they can have it... it's their money. Should a person who is to lazy to get off their backside have these oppertunities? I don't think so!
I can't think of many CEOs who can justify earning even 20% of what they take home. Not to mention the 6-figure bonuses and pensions they pocket, even when the company is doing badly.
In the meantime floor workers, who are the ones who keep the company alive and actually do some work, get laid off and have to pay the price for the incompetence and supreme greed of their bosses.
Anyone earning more than 100K should be made to pay considerably more tax to redistribute the money they steal from the workers and put it back into society.
Let's bring this problem closer to home. Your earning a 100K, how would you feel about giving lots of it away to help the lazy arses who DONT make any effort to work and would rather do fuck all. Of course, your probably not on that salary now, so you would have to work. But how would you feel?
A 50% tax on any amount over 100K, 60% on amounts over 200K, etc, would not affect the quality of life of those who are in such wages. But the increased revenues would make a big difference to those who don’t sit on their corporate arses all day long and yet have to rely on public health and public transport because they can’t afford anything else.
But in any case I would suggest you do a bit of informed research and give the tabloids a miss for a while because:
- Taxes are used to pay for a wide range of services. Benefits are a small part of it.
- A great proportion of those on benefits would rather work and DO NOT sit around "doing fuck all" like you suggest.
Benefits does go towards other services, I know. So why can't it stay as it is? They get enough money to survive. We don't need to increase it, do we? But the people who get 100k, may actually work so hard... from getting 8 grand a month, we'd cut it to 4... which is a lot still but it's a lot to cut. It would put people off of the proffesions that did earn 100k. We may actually need these proffesions for every day life.
I know people on benefits and to be honest they do fuck all, all day long and have no intentions of working, yet moan about how little they get.
Suppose you earn £50,000 per year. The first £4500 you earn per year are tax-free. Amounts between £4501 and £10,000 get taxed 10%. Amounts between £10,001 and £28,000 get taxed 23%. And amounts above £28,000 get taxed 40%.
So if you earn £50,000 you'd get taxed £550 for the first bracket, £4,140 for the second bracket and £8,800 for the higher earner bracket.
Everybody now gets taxed 40% of their earnings above £28,000. If the government was to introduce a 50% on amounts above £100,000 the difference it would make would be of little significance. If you earn 150K it would make a difference of 5 grand on a £50,000 amount.
That anyone earning 150K- let alone 500k or 1m a year- should complain at the prospect of paying a few more grand in tax is simply breathtaking.
Whoa, Britain seems to be the place to live regarding tax. In Denmark someone earning around 50K a year (pounds) would not give any amount under 50% of the salary, though 60% could also be very likely.
And yet anyone suggests here that the very rich get taxed an extra 10% on the higher part of their salary and all hell breaks loose.
Public schools are already a total failure here. Most places it's a given fact that private schools have a higher standard. Education as a whole is a lot more succesfull in the UK and US than Denmark. No competition, no ambitions for most.
Health care is nothing to yell hurrah for either. Other countries may have a harder deal getting to the docotor, but once they get there, they know they're under the best care.
I can honestly say that after more than a year going from doctor to doctor, people who're known as specialist, this really isn't the case in Denmark.
And I have never ever ever heard anyone in Denmark complain over the taxes being to low. Regardless of amount of money they have and don't have. Quite the oppposite really.
Right, hypothetically speaking, I'm earning 100k a year. I've been in this job about 3 years now, so I've got 300k plus the other savings I had, money from bonuses and a fair few company shares. I've also got a nice company car with all travel costs paid for and private healthcare.
That means I can afford to buy a decent size house in a good area, maybe even a swimming pool. I can send my children to private school and we can all go on holidays abroad. Even after spending that I've still got a vast amount left and my income too.
So my life is pretty much perfect. Infact I can live more than comfortably for the rest of my life, so can my family.
How would I feel parting with some of my money to help the society that I have fed off and done well from? Well since I aimed for such a high-paid job that entails walking around in a suit as if I own the world whilst exploiting people to enable such a high salary; I would care because I'm a greedy, heartless, selfish person.
That may be all that you need, but it is not the same for everyone. Some choose to live lifestyles that exceed that. What right of your's is it to critise that and try to take that away from them.
Your ignorance astounds me. Even for a 17-year-old, you are basing your arguments on some major misconceptions.
You are living in a dream world if your think that that is what Company Directorship entails. Far from being parasites, they are the people keeping the companies running. If you got rid of them and their role within the company, it would collapse into chaos.
They don't just sit through meetings and swan around the world, they devise company strategies, plan for the future and try to grow the company. If it weren't for them and their actions, there would be a lot more unemployment. There'd be no-one working ing the offices, let alone cleaning them.
You sound like a relic from the 80s. Hardly anybody gets all-expenses paid trips anymore. Companies have had to tighten their belts considerably and no longer advocate that sort of activity. You'll often find that business people travelling in First Class on an airplane have paid out of their own pocket to do so.
Company directors work considerably more hours than the majority of people. Have you ever met somebody who runs a large company. Rather than strolling in at 9 and leaving at 5, they have to be in the office for much lengthier part of the day. You have to be up early to make calls to the Far East, and stay in late to call America. The amount of time these people have to invest, I can begrudge them a couple of hours to play golf. By the way, have you ever played golf? It's a great way to relax. Try it, you sound like you need a hobby.
Company Directors more than earn their money. In fact, for the work that they do, I think they should be paid more.
Cleaning is an easy job. If somebody leaves their job as a cleaner, they can easily be replaced. The same goes for most labour intensive jobs. I know because I once worked for a removal firm. I was working with people who loathed their jobs, hated how little money they were getting. But they carried on, because the didn't have the drive, ambition or courage to try to advance themselves. All they had was misplaced pride in how 'hard' they worked.
Seeing as you appear to know so little about wealthy people, how can you comment on what they do and don't do with their lives and money.
Nobody complains about the 'idle rich' "lounging about not doing anything" is because they aren't using tax payers' money to do it with. People with private wealth are free to do with it as they please.
You didn't "correct", you simply threw some sexist remarks in her direction.
There is nothing wrong with 'the system'. Some people are rich and others are poor. Some people work long hours in high-pressure jobs, and others do manual labour for a few hours per day. People get paid to the level of work they put in and the responsibilty that the job entails. It's logical and straightforward. Morality doesn't come into it.
I've just noticed that you claim to live on the moon. That'd be right, because you're certainly not from this planet. :rolleyes:
Your ignorance astounds me - I'm 18, get it right.
Really? The bank I worked for was more than happy to fund a management all expenses paid trip to Ascot with their own marquee not to mention the costs of flowers, champagne and strawberries and cream. If you thought things were bad in the 80s, they're worse now - managers are greedier and much more willing to sack ordinary workers to save their own skins. When the bosses came over from Washington they got their tickets paid for them not to mention the free gym membership, free private healthcare, free transport....
Yes I have met people who run large companies. They'd come in at 10 go for a three hour lunch at 12 and leave at 4. The real work was done by the traders and people like me who actually answered the phones. Yes I have played golf and don't attack my personality to make up for your lack of one - all the money in the world can't buy you that.
People like that work bloody hard, damn sight more than company directors and they don't get free healthcare and all those perks - they're lucky if they get minimum wage.
I know a lot of wealthy people so am perfectly entitled to comment that they don't deserve what they have because I've seen how they barely work. It is a waste of resources - what part of that can you not understand? They should be out working and contributing to the economy not lounging around doing sod all - especially if they're as hard working as you claim. :rolleyes:
I didn't throw any sexist remarks at Jacq, she was talking about the rich in general and I was talking about the idle rich - I pointed that out to her.
Of course there's things wrong with the system - even you with your neo Thatcherite views must accept that it's wrong for the increasing numbers of executives to fuck up a company and walk away with millions. If these executives were able to create profits by a method other than sacking workers then good for them, I have no problem with them being better off than myself or anyone else, I do have a problem with obscene wealth gaps though and that is what we have in this country. Manual work is high pressured too, more than sitting in a cushy office all day.
I've just noticed that you claim to live in Switzerland. Would that be because you can't bear to be too far from your bank account? :rolleyes:
Let me see if I've got this straight. You worked in the the City for a while. Whilst you were there, you say a few people who you didn't think were doing a great deal of work. You also saw examples of corporate hospitality. Because you see this as being unjust, you now want all wealthy people to pay much higher taxes. You also want to take away people's freedom not to work if they have the financial security.
I'm not sure about neo-Thatcherite, but I would prefer to see a Conservative government in power.
I thought I was posting on The Site, not the Communist Review. And I thought a 2-term Labour government was bad...
What a witty riposte! I've clearly underestimated you.
I live in Switzerland, because my father works here. He is - you guessed it - a Company Director of a larg(ish) multinational. We left because it was the only place my father could get a decent job. Believe it or not, a well paying Company Directorship is a hard job to come by. Certainly when Labour is in power.
No I've seen the City at work first hand, have you? They only run a four day week because they all take Fridays off for boozing. Not to mention the three hour lunches senior people took every day. I saw daily examples of management incompetence and self-interest, from the state of most British firms you see reported on the news this is hardly an isolated case. You say corporate hospitality I say abuses of power for a greedy day out, all this I might add while the same firm is sacking people for the management's incompetence in losing that £5million I mentioned before. In an ideal world no-one would pay taxes, I'm not in favour of them but we have things the state needs to provide and so they should be funded properly and our public services have been continuously underfunded since 1979 to fund unnecessary tax cuts to a rich minority and its about time we got our money back. I think people who don't work are lazy and aren't contributing to the nation, at least the unemployed have an excuse they can't find work - these people could be earning if they could be bothered.
I thought I was posting on the site not the Conservative Future forums. And I thought a six term Tory government was bad... :rolleyes:
It doesn't matter how many terms a party is in power so long as they're doing a good job. Do you give blanket support to the Tory party then? Would you have preferred the corrupt, sleazy, clueless Major government to have continued after 97 then?
As for "well paid company directorships", I wonder what do you consider a decent wage. $2,000,000 a year perhaps?
Let me ask you something. What did you think of GlaxoSmithKline's shareholders voting against the supremely greedy chairman wanting to award himself a golden parachute package even in the event of failure? I mean, how dare they deny the man his hard-earn money, eh? If his time in office proves to be a failure, they just need to sack a few hundred floor employees and everyone's happy!
I think you're following the wrong career path. You should be in comedy. The World really needs another disgruntled comic :rolleyes:
As for seeing the City in action, you've already noticed that I live in Zurich - a major financial base. I know plenty of people who work for the major financial institutes. Many of my friends' parents work the City jobs that you are specifically complaining. Yes they get paid well and live a nice life, but they also work 6 day weeks.
Perhaps you should try working somewhere else in the City. I wouldn't condemn people just because you had a bad time. Where were you working anyway, Barings?
Managers sack people, it's part of the job description. If you'd looked closer, you'd probably have found that people were being sacked for the poor quality of work they were doing, or because they were surplus to requirements. You don't need that many people, just to answer phones.
Many unemployed people are lazy and chose not to work. If they were really that determined to seek employment, they'd look all over and be prepared to make serious changes to their lives and where they live.
I meant that they had only just started that job so would have 100k coming in for many years. I think that would just enough to survive on...unless you took to eating gold and diamonds three times a day.
Gordon Brown is still acting as if he has Carte Blanche to heavily tax who and what he pleases.
Let me get this right, you're asking me which inept, corrupt government I would most prefer - the current Blair government, or a Tory government. I'd go with the Tories, they do corruption with so much more style. :rolleyes:
I consider a decent wage to be enough money to provide well for your family after heavy taxation.
If you'll look back at my previous posts, I've never said that these people should be paid highly whatever they do and however the company performs. I was simply defending the rights of people to be paid highly to perform high-profile, high-responsibilty jobs well.
I'd rather live on the moon than on a planet with a supposedly intelligent race that lacks compassion and understanding and is fuelled by greed, bigotry and selfishness.
There are people who don't have homes, people who work over 50 hours a week and still don't have enough to support their family, children who have nothing but disease and you're saying the system is fair? The system is clearly unfair and works in favour of those who control it.
And clearly there are people who see a person in a suit, making money as someone to be feared and loathed.