To be confused by 'high earners' complaining about taxes?

[tutuland]

So high earners pay lots of tax. The top 20% pay for 70% or whatever the numbers are.

But (beyond printing more money) isn't the money there high income people make just coming from the paying public? No matter who you work for, your company's profit is just an accumulation of normal people paying for things.

So ultimately, isn't it all our money anyway? Just beacuse the game is rigged and you get paid 400K for management whatever, it doesn't mean you're more deserving of that money than anyone.

There is archeological evidence of people with old.injuries.(broken legs, no teeth) being looked after.well.past the point they could have survived on their own. Also a very heartbreaking case of a disabled child found in a cave. I think archeologists theorised she was kept alive for years by her family but at some point something must have happened to them out getting food and they never returned and she starved to death.

But yes,.on the whole life was tough. Either you depended on your family/social structures to support you or you died. Thank goodness we don't live like that now.

People weren't necessarily supported in "feudal times". Mass starvation was common in famine years.

Archaeological evidence of caring for the elderly and disabled is different - these would have been relatives.

Yes, but there was an expectation that the church was supposed to provide even if reality didn't match it. How well that worked in famine years is, as you said, dubious. There was also a differentiation between deserving poor (elderly and infirm, crippled, single mothers) and the undeserving. And famines tended to lead to social panic about large numbers of poor moving across local borders (from parish to parish). Especially young men (who should in their have been able to provide for themselves but couldn't because there weren't sufficient jobs/food).

It was only in 1602, with the first poor laws that it was basically illegal to let people starve to death - that's when the legal obligation was on Parishes who raised money through rates.

And in Victorian times you got a resurgence of the idea that not allowing people to starve to death was mollycoddling (plus rich people resented not being able to keep all their money) and the rise of Trevelyan and about a million people died and a further million people were forced out of their homes in Ireland.

So certainly a mixed history but in the UK at least there has been a legal obligation to help the vulnerable keep body and soul together since 1602.

Because they sell a lot? I don't know what you mean by this at all.

Yes, agree about the archeological evidence being relatives caring. I put that in more as a counter to the idea there weren't any old/Ill people around in pre-feudal times. There were, though their survival was very dependent on the goodwill and abilities of those immediately around them. Otherwise you died.

If people on benefits should be made to "volunteer" for their benefits in the low paid jobs, then what happens to the people that are currently in those low paid jobs? Do they get fired, then taken on again as super cheap labour?
A poster said that that people could be traffic wardens for their benefits. That is a paid role, and one that sometimes attracts assault. A young female traffic warden where I live had a pot of paint thrown over her.

What would you class as a "proper wage"? Wage levels in the private sector are set by supply and demand are are voluntarily agreed to in a labour contract.

Slavery is inherently forced and involuntary.

Slightly off topic, I was chatting to a friend with a psychology degree who said that fear of public speaking and other social phobias feel so powerful, and so horrendous, because being rejected socially was originally a literal death sentence for humans.

I think you’re misunderstanding how sloth taxes work. They wouldn’t be forced to do jobs, it would be a volunteer system to contribute to society in order to not be charged sloth taxes on their benefits. It would be along the lines of someone who pays 40% tax so they’d be expected to contribute 2 8 hour days each week. It wouldn’t be taking jobs from people, it would be doing jobs that we currently leave to bringing people from 6000 miles away who can’t speak English and haven’t received 13 years of tax funded education and in some cases don’t even have a gender studies degree.

Google tells me nothing except 'sloth tax' being something from the game Neopets.

Odd that she hadn't used that same support or 'hard work' to already enable her to hold down a job?

But anyway, I also agree that too many young people have totally failed to grasp the concept of what work is. They will only countenance a job that they find inspiring, rewarding, interesting, reflects their towering sense of inner worth etc.

Er, no.

Our lovely DD graduated with a good arts degree from a naice university. Bless her, but she initially assumed she could rest on her laurels whilst waiting for a sweet job in a gallery, museum, creative studio etc.

Er, no. After (gently) reading her the Riot Act and making it clear that the Parental Bank was officially closed, she swiftly found a job within 3 weeks. She heartily disliked it, it had nothing to do with her degree and the hours were very unsociable. Because she hated it, it motivated her to find something slightly nicer, which she did.

It's only now, two years after she graduated that she's finally working in the creative industry, actually using her degree.

Good on you for pushing your DD to work. There was another thread a while back suggesting YPs should quickly claim UC if they can't get a job because "they are entitled to it".

We would have taken a very dim view of her claiming UC, unless it was absolutely necessary.

Benefit claimants should do things that otherwise wouldn’t be done, like picking litter etc.

This sort of attitude is infuriating - and is commonplace on mn. Some people have no comprehension of quite how unaffordable these benefits are.

This incident should been prosecuted.
Otherwise I see no reason why benefits claimants can't do this job.
As well as fruit picking, streets cleaning etc. At the moment such jobs are done by migrants mainly. At least in SE.
As to slavery - it's quite opposite now, they are "paid" proper living wages but without contributing anything back.

I would exclude those who obviously can't work at all due to health issues.

It’s frustrating reading this thread to see so many people who don’t see the alignment between personal ambition and social benefit. It’s cultural—we simply don’t have a get ahead, wealth appreciating society today. It felt quite different when I was a kid. My parents fought to drag us up, to own a house, to be educated, to get good jobs. I’m second generation immigrant and we learned from their example. My sibling and I are business owners. Entrepreneurs. Investors.

We have the wrong tax structure to promote wealth creation and innovation. Flatter tax systems that treat everyone more equally still maintain steady revenue without penalising success. Their simplicity keeps them cheap to operate. When taxes fund universal services rather than redistributing income, you still have essential infrastructure but without discouraging wealth generation. I absolutely despair at people here who seem to think it is the nation’s wealth and should be endlessly moved around. It’s not the government’s money, it’s yours and mine.

There is significant evidence that flat taxes increase national wealth growth. They also tend to make the richer even richer. By design, because they are a pro-wealth policy. That makes them a hard sell in cultures where envy, class warfare, and a redistribution mindset prevail. Which seems to be here, now.

Similar. I lose about 1/3 of my income to the tax man (not including post income taxes such as Council Tax and VAT.)

I don’t qualify for any form of rebate, assistance, benefits. And it does irk, while I understand things need to be paid for. But having to par back what I can spend on because I lose a chunk does grate.

Where is this evidence on flat taxes delivering growth?

The current tax cliff edges encourage people to go down to 4 days a week or defer spending by putting money into their pensions, rather than immediately spending money in the economy.

Flat rate taxes are also fairer with everybody paying their fair share as a percentage of their income.

You don't actually want evidence, though, do you? You just want to 'tax the rich'.

Try Googling "estonia flat taxes growth rate". It went to flat taxes and had off the charts growth. 20 or so other countries copied it, and had similar results. Another great example is Hong Kong, which had a famously combative attitude to UK govt attempts to make it have a UK-like system. We eventually gave up because HK's results were so good. China then imitated the HK system (a mix of tax and trade rules) creating the Shenzhen economic 'miracle'. Plenty of other examples if you do a bit of research. (Or just ask an AI).

The poor and the middle class will rarely be in agreement on this topic but the bottom line is if you disincentvise people like I am to from earning more than the poor suffer as less tax is generated. May be the left woudl love everyone to earn less even if that means the poor have less - fine if that is their aim, but they are shooting themself in the foot. At all income levels the system encourages us to work less hard and earn less. I would support a much smaller state and low flat and capped taxes, but I do not see that happening any time soon.

The gulf has no personal income tax, minimal corporation tax and is a hub of growth and investment and entrepreneurship.

It’s not a maybe. Preferring redistribution to wealth generation is explicit policy. They know how the numbers work and would prefer to create a flatter society even at the cost of an overall richer one.