Should the rich pay more?

[u8myufo]

At the end of the day we are all responsible for our own lives, if you are working 60 hours a week and being paid pennies then do something about it. Nothing is for free in this life, and there are no excuses for not succeeding - you are the master of your own destiny!

Hmmm, that could be the title for my next book

How Naive, I can see why a lot of people end up arguing with you Joe, do you actualy think about things before posting? Or are you just skilled at loading the gun and standing back? And yes I do appreciate things in life aint free, but if you think it is that easy in this day and age to put right, then you seriously need to think again.

 

[onomatopoeia]

You should try avoiding right wing tabloids, if you're trying to backup an argument.

Only as much as you should avoid the Manchester Guardian when trying to back up an argument.

Lots of newspapers blatantly editorialize the news, not just The Sun and The Mail.

 

[cambsno]

Only as much as you should avoid the Manchester Guardian when trying to back up an argument.

Lots of newspapers blatantly editorialize the news, not just The Sun and The Mail.

We all know that each paper has its own agenda. The Sun is a right wing paper, the Mirror a left wing one, same as the Telegraph and Guardian. Just because its in one paper doesnt mean its false!

 

[Johnd2000]

We all know that each paper has its own agenda. The Sun is a right wing paper, the Mirror a left wing one, same as the Telegraph and Guardian. Just because its in one paper doesnt mean its false!

Seriously, if you're basing your world view on tabloids (of any flavour) you've got a big problem. I'm not talking about "editorial slant/bias" I'm talking about barefaced lies.

 

[Johnd2000]

You should read today's sun. A unemployed woman has lost a lot of weight and the nhs won't do a tummy tuck. Do she is trying to have a baby as then she will get one, then will probably give it up for adoption!!

10 minutes research (Google) reveals:

- she's not unemployed, she's a "financial advisor".
- she hasn't been offered a tummy tuck on the nhs and won't be.
- she wanted children anyway and was told it would be I'll-advised to have a tummy tuck before getting pregnant.
- she has a history of selling slimming sob-stories.

All in all not much of a story, unless you can spin it into a bit of anti-benefit propaganda.

 

[joescrivens]

How Naive, I can see why a lot of people end up arguing with you Joe, do you actualy think about things before posting? Or are you just skilled at loading the gun and standing back? And yes I do appreciate things in life aint free, but if you think it is that easy in this day and age to put right, then you seriously need to think again.

Sorry rich, but I don't have that attitude. Too many people play the victim card these days.

The world is full of opportunity and everyone can achieve success if they put their mind to it. Everyone has a different view if what success is, as long as you achieve success in your mind then it's all good.

 

[nilagin]

10 minutes research (Google) reveals:

- she's not unemployed, she's a "financial advisor".
- she hasn't been offered a tummy tuck on the nhs and won't be.
- she wanted children anyway and was told it would be I'll-advised to have a tummy tuck before getting pregnant.
- she has a history of selling slimming sob-stories.

All in all not much of a story, unless you can spin it into a bit of anti-benefit propaganda.

She was a financial advisor in 2011, she may well be unemployed now.
How can you be sure all the other info is factual.

 

[TriggerHappy]

She was a financial advisor in 2011, she may well be unemployed now.
How can you be sure all the other info is factual.

It's just as likely as the paper in question being factual

 

[Johnd2000]

She was a financial advisor in 2011, she may well be unemployed now.
How can you be sure all the other info is factual.

From the articles published elsewhere about her.

 

[nilagin]

From the articles published elsewhere about her.

How do you know these other articles didn't come from one biased (or unbiased) source, but just rewrote it as their own.

 

[Keith W]

How do you know these other articles didn't come from one biased (or unbiased) source, but just rewrote it as their own.

I do not see where John said he did know :shrug:

What I did see was John explaining, by example, that you shouldn't take anything for granted

 

[u8myufo]

Sorry rich, but I don't have that attitude. Too many people play the victim card these days.

The world is full of opportunity and everyone can achieve success if they put their mind to it. Everyone has a different view if what success is, as long as you achieve success in your mind then it's all good.

Well Joe achieving success in the mind is a little different to just going out and changing jobs if you are working long hours for little pay. It is a well known fact that the majority of all jobs advertised through jobcentres are either temp or part time. Yes there are those that Milk the system but what you have to avoid is tarnishing everybody who is out of work with the same brush.

 

[Johnd2000]

How do you know these other articles didn't come from one biased (or unbiased) source, but just rewrote it as their own.

I'm saying there's enough contradictory evidence to not take the Sun's version as gospel. Another interpretation of the common facts between all 3 reports is that she found that she could fund her private tummy tuck by selling a cock and bull story to the Sun.

I don't have a link to hand, but "Tabloid Watch" is worth a visit from time to time.

 

[nilagin]

I do not see where John said he did know :shrug:

What I did see was John explaining, by example, that you shouldn't take anything for granted

But that doesn't necessarily mean that what The Sun wrote in the first place was wrong and what John found was correct, yet John implies that because it was reported in The Sun, it must be wrong.

Personally I don't read any newspapers other than crosswords.

 

[joescrivens]

Well Joe achieving success in the mind is a little different to just going out and changing jobs if you are working long hours for little pay. It is a well known fact that the majority of all jobs advertised through jobcentres are either temp or part time. Yes there are those that Milk the system but what you have to avoid is tarnishing everybody who is out of work with the same brush.

At the end of the day rich if you put your mind to it you can achieve. That's all I'm saying

I won't accept sob stories from any unemployed people who say they can't get work. Unless they are physcally unable then anything is possible if you put in the effort.

 

[nilagin]

At the end of the day rich if you put your mind to it you can achieve. That's all I'm saying

I won't accept sob stories from any unemployed people who say they can't get work. Unless they are physcally unable then anything is possible if you put in the effort.

Think you need to replace that with "something". They may well be able to find a job, but it doesn't mean it would be a job they had gone to the trouble of getting qualifications for.

 

[joescrivens]

Think you need to replace that with "something". They may well be able to find a job, but it doesn't mean it would be a job they had gone to the trouble of getting qualifications for.

Disagree. There is evidence every single day of people achieving all kinds of things. You just have to really put your mind to it.

 

[POAH]

After listening to a rather angry caller on LBC radio today, saying that higher earners should pay substantially more tax than lower earners, I was wondering if I was in a big minority who thinks this is unfair? Why should people who have (generally) worked blooming hard to attain a job worthy of a large salary be penalised?

yip

 

[POAH]

took me two years to get a crappy part time job.

I won't accept sob stories from any unemployed people who say they can't get work. Unless they are physcally unable then anything is possible if you put in the effort.

 

[nilagin]

Other than a handful of weeks of part time work my son has been unemployed since leaving college in 2011. He has applied for what would seem an infinite number of jobs, yet only recieved one interview. He has had to resort to working voluntarily at my expense for food and petrol for 120 mile round trips 5 days a week, just so he could build on his experience and gain contacts but he has still been unable to find a full time job. He's put in more effort than some, but as of yet, he hasn't been able to achieve anything worthwhile. Perhaps you'd like to pass on one of your tips from your infamous self help books. Come next July I might be in need of the same if my employer fails to offer me alternative eployment that they are currently promising.

 

[cambsno]

At the end of the day rich if you put your mind to it you can achieve. That's all I'm saying

I won't accept sob stories from any unemployed people who say they can't get work. Unless they are physcally unable then anything is possible if you put in the effort.

There are many stories of people from very poor and harsh childhoods who have done very well. Duncan bannatyne for example is one person who was nothing in his twenties.

There is nothing to stop most of us becoming a millionaire.

 

[nilagin]

There are many stories of people from very poor and harsh childhoods who have done very well. Duncan bannatyne for example is one person who was nothing in his twenties.

There is nothing to stop most of us becoming a millionaire.

Picking the right lottery numbers would do for a start.

No seriously, I know what you mean, but for most it is finding that lucky break and (or) having the ability and notion to get there. For alot of people those factors never present themselves, whilst for others it seemingly falls at their feet.

 

[new2me]

There are many stories of people from very poor and harsh childhoods who have done very well. Duncan bannatyne for example is one person who was nothing in his twenties.

There is nothing to stop most of us becoming a millionaire.

Do you mean on a global level?

 

[simon ess]

I sort of understand where Joe is coming from, but it really is a little bit of an idealistic fantasy.

Some people try very hard and get nowhere. Some people may be very nice people who just don't have the necessary.

Some people, rather like myself, have certain "issues" which don't allow them to maximise opportunities.

Etc.

Oh and......

Perhaps you'd like to pass on one of your tips from your infamous self help books.

The only person that a self help book helps is the author.

 

[ding76uk]

There is nothing to stop most of us becoming a millionaire.

But if you come from a privileged background then things are a lot easier. Some people on here seem to forget that.

 

[joescrivens]

Other than a handful of weeks of part time work my son has been unemployed since leaving college in 2011. He has applied for what would seem an infinite number of jobs, yet only recieved one interview. He has had to resort to working voluntarily at my expense for food and petrol for 120 mile round trips 5 days a week, just so he could build on his experience and gain contacts but he has still been unable to find a full time job. He's put in more effort than some, but as of yet, he hasn't been able to achieve anything worthwhile. Perhaps you'd like to pass on one of your tips from your infamous self help books. Come next July I might be in need of the same if my employer fails to offer me alternative eployment that they are currently promising.

I don't write self help books. If you can't help yourself then I can't either.

Your son will get there in the end if he keeps at it. No one said it would be easy or that it would be quick. In time with the right effort he'll get there if he keeps trying.

 

[nilagin]

I don't write self help books. If you can't help yourself then I can't either.

I know, for some reason the :tongue in cheek: smiley doesn't work.

 

[shedman]

there is far too many taking out of the pot when they havent put any in.....

 

[Phil1974]

Wow, we seem to have got 10 pages in (TP App) and not gone too far off topic or had any blazing rows
Some really interesting views and its good to see I'm not on my own. I don't really have an issue with the way the system works now as I can see the need for it. My original gripe was (and has been mentioned since) that people seem to be penalised for success. Surely we need some incentive to work hard and achieve. If higher earners are taxed even more this incentive seems to disappear and probably makes some look for ways to pay even less. Morally, this may be wrong but can you blame them if its not against the law?

 

[KayJay]

Shouldn't that be "Not all"? All are not implies that none are...

That's what I meant but before I had a chance to edit it, it was already quoted. I'm hoping most people are intelligent enough to know what I meant, at least more intelligent than myself which isn't hard.

 

[dod]

After listening to a rather angry caller on LBC radio today, saying that higher earners should pay substantially more tax than lower earners, I was wondering if I was in a big minority who thinks this is unfair? Why should people who have (generally) worked blooming hard to attain a job worthy of a large salary be penalised?

I don't know if you're in a minority but the govt figures clearly show higher
earners already pay significantly more tax.

Personally I don't want to pay a penny more than I absolutely have to. I do however want to pay a lot more than I do at the moment

 

[gadgeteer]

I hate the argument that the rich should pay more because they can afford to. It completely ignores all facts and is simply the politics of envy.

In the UK, the top 1% of earners pay a quarter of all income tax. The next 9% pay the next 29%. In short the top 10% of earners pay over 50% of all income tax.

Then who do you think pays more VAT? Stamp duty? Petrol duty? The poor who is scrimping by on the basics, most of which are 0 rated? Or the affluent?

By any measure you care to apply, the rich already pay more....a lot more. And the irony is that I don't hear any of them moaning. Not in the UK anyway. France yes but then they have just introduced a mindboggling stupid 75% tax rate.

Who is rich? Rich is a relative measure. To some earning £150k is rich. To Simon Cowell £150k would probably be what he spends on teeth whitening. And that's a big problem. Everyone thinks someone else is richer and therefore should pay more. Meanwhile the likes of Cowell b****r off abroad paying no taxes but still have UK business interests. I'd rather have 30% of a bit than 50% of nothing.

The current EU budget negotiations are very interesting to me. I've not heard a single person in the UK who thinks we should be paying more money into the EU budget. In fact I think it's pretty universal that we all think that there should be a budget cut. That Europe needs to live within its means. Correct?

If you look at the split of countries it's pretty much the ones who are net beneficiaries who are arguing more money is needed for investment etc. Eg. Poland, Italy, Spain etc. And the ones arguing we need a real cut are the UK, Germany, Sweden etc.

What's interesting is that it's the rich countries who are arguing for a cut and the poorer ones who are arguing for a rise. Anyone see the irony yet?

So for those who think the rich should pay more because they can afford to, can you tell me if you are happy to pay more money into Europe?

 

[Johnd2000]

I hate the argument that the rich should pay more because they can afford to. It completely ignores all facts and is simply the politics of envy.

I say complaining about taxes, whilst public services are being decimated, is the politics of greed.

 

[gadgeteer]

I say complaining about taxes, whilst public services are being decimated, is the politics of greed.

Have you looked at the size of our deficit? It's far too big to expect a rise in taxes to make up the shortfall.

In 2011-2012, HMRC took a total of £466billion (source). That's all taxes. We spent £694 billion (source).

Now if you look at the breakdown of tax receipts it's clear to me that there is absolutely no way to even come close to closing that gap without large cuts to public services.

If you know of a way then please do tell the government because trust me they will want to know. Turkey's don't vote for xmas and politician's don't vote for cuts unless they are forced to. The latter is very much the reason why we're in this mess. We've spent money we should never have spent in the first place.

 

[Johnd2000]

Have you looked at the size of our deficit? It's far too big to expect a rise in taxes to make up the shortfall.

In 2011-2012, HMRC took a total of £466billion (source). That's all taxes. We spent £694 billion (source).

Now if you look at the breakdown of tax receipts it's clear to me that there is absolutely no way to even come close to closing that gap without large cuts to public services.

If you know of a way then please do tell the government because trust me they will want to know. Turkey's don't vote for xmas and politician's don't vote for cuts unless they are forced to. The latter is very much the reason why we're in this mess. We've spent money we should never have spent in the first place.

Well, not cutting tax rates for high earners would be a start. Not writing off £80bn+ in corporate tax, would help a bit more. Maybe getting a few quid back from Banks who caused this whole mess in the first place might save a few hospitals and schools.

And if you're seriously saying politicians don't like cutting spending, you must live in another country. Tory councillors in Croydon cheered like hooligans at the decision to cut Council Tax relief last week. Cheered. What scum.

 

[gadgeteer]

I think you must be referring to the 50p tax rate which was nothing more than a political boobytrap set by the last government. It raised very little money, encouraged people to shift their income to minimise their tax liabilities, discouraged successful people from coming to the UK to work and encouraged some to leave.

Not sure where you are getting the £80 billion figure from. So it's hard to comment.

The banks caused a real mess in 2008. Noone disputes that. But the reason we're still in the toilet is because what it did was wake investors up to the fact that all these western governments (and the UK being one of the worst) are up to their eyeballs in debt. Before 2008 believe it or not it was widely considered that western sovereign nations do not go bankrupt and therefore loans were handed out like candy. Iceland, Ireland and Greece pretty much kyboshed that theory.

It's the structural deficit which is the millstone around our necks now. The banking crisis is pretty much over (although we still have a long way to go to put rules in place to make sure it can never happen again).

Bankers and immigrants have now become the convenient scapegoats and of course the MP's are happy for that to continue because it means noone is shouting at them.

 

[Johnd2000]

I think you must be referring to the 50p tax rate which was nothing more than a political boobytrap set by the last government. It raised very little money, encouraged people to shift their income to minimise their tax liabilities, discouraged successful people from coming to the UK to work and encouraged some to leave.

Not sure where you are getting the £80 billion figure from. So it's hard to comment.

The banks caused a real mess in 2008. Noone disputes that. But the reason we're still in the toilet is because what it did was wake investors up to the fact that all these western governments (and the UK being one of the worst) are up to their eyeballs in debt. Before 2008 believe it or not it was widely considered that western sovereign nations do not go bankrupt and therefore loans were handed out like candy. Iceland, Ireland and Greece pretty much kyboshed that theory.

It's the structural deficit which is the millstone around our necks now. The banking crisis is pretty much over (although we still have a long way to go to put rules in place to make sure it can never happen again).

Bankers and immigrants have now become the convenient scapegoats and of course the MP's are happy for that to continue because it means noone is shouting at them.

Take the cost of the bank bailout out of the equation and the deficit labour left wouldve been lower than that inherited from Major.

The tax cut I was referring to is what you are saying you're entitled to. But the 50p rate cut also applies. When I was growing up, in the 70's, the top rate was higher.

 

[Matt]

Leave the politics out of it.

 

[PJ S]

there is far too many taking out of the pot when they havent put any in.....

You do realise those unemployed aren't exempt from VAT and other duties when they buy/sell things on ebay/cigarettes/alcohol/etc?

Some people have a weird notion that the money only goes one way rather than circulates!

Same goes for pensioners, albeit a free bus pass so they can get themselves out of the house, if able.

 

[Laudrup]

I hate the argument that the rich should pay more because they can afford to. It completely ignores all facts and is simply the politics of envy.

In the UK, the top 1% of earners pay a quarter of all income tax. The next 9% pay the next 29%. In short the top 10% of earners pay over 50% of all income tax.

Then who do you think pays more VAT? Stamp duty? Petrol duty? The poor who is scrimping by on the basics, most of which are 0 rated? Or the affluent?

By any measure you care to apply, the rich already pay more....a lot more. And the irony is that I don't hear any of them moaning. Not in the UK anyway. France yes but then they have just introduced a mindboggling stupid 75% tax rate.

Who is rich? Rich is a relative measure. To some earning £150k is rich. To Simon Cowell £150k would probably be what he spends on teeth whitening. And that's a big problem. Everyone thinks someone else is richer and therefore should pay more. Meanwhile the likes of Cowell b****r off abroad paying no taxes but still have UK business interests. I'd rather have 30% of a bit than 50% of nothing.

The current EU budget negotiations are very interesting to me. I've not heard a single person in the UK who thinks we should be paying more money into the EU budget. In fact I think it's pretty universal that we all think that there should be a budget cut. That Europe needs to live within its means. Correct?

If you look at the split of countries it's pretty much the ones who are net beneficiaries who are arguing more money is needed for investment etc. Eg. Poland, Italy, Spain etc. And the ones arguing we need a real cut are the UK, Germany, Sweden etc.

What's interesting is that it's the rich countries who are arguing for a cut and the poorer ones who are arguing for a rise. Anyone see the irony yet?

So for those who think the rich should pay more because they can afford to, can you tell me if you are happy to pay more money into Europe?

What share of their income do the top 1% or 10% pay in tax? What do you think of people like Warren Buffett saying he and his mega rich friends should be paying more tax?