To be sick of politicians using 'fairness' as justification for tax rises?

[Itchthescratch]

Fairness is completely subjective and I notice that this is often shorthand for giving more money to those that contribute the least.

Of course there will always be those that can't contribute much due to factors outside of their control, but we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that there aren't already lots of people that are scraping by doing the bare minimum (sometimes even less) and making completely irresponsible decisions knowing the state will ultimately insulate them from the consequences.

I personally know people that have had lots of children that they can't afford and can't parent properly simply because they wanted to. They are now on an incredible amount of money as the two child cap has been lifted. I know people that have stopped working because they weren't much better off than being on benefits and they couldn't be bothered with the hassle. I know young people that are already planning to stay on disability benefits their whole lives for mental health issues as they want to stay home and game.

Is it really 'fair' to charge the rest of us more to subsidise all of this?

I wouldn’t waste time on that poster. He thinks business owners can sell the same business every year 😆

Question for you, OP

Is it fair that many opportunities to become self-sufficent are mired in prohibitive cost, debt creation and bureaucracy?

Is it fair that the unprecedented speed of technological progress (yea, AI and automation) is changing the economic, cultural / socioligical and psychological working landscape so fast that as fast as one expensive qualification is achieved, it is almost rendered obsolete?

Is it fair that since the pandemic we have seen the biggest recorded wealth shift from the middle and working classes into the hands of the already wealthy?

Is it fair that billionaires are sinking money into insane vanity projects like colonising Mars and building bunkers "just in case" while avoiding tax and buying political leverage?

Is it fair that the cost of living outstrips dual income households and requires state support?

Who do you think has allowed this utter geopolitical shitshow to evolve, and why? Do you think there might just be a tiny bit of manipulation going on to divert attention away from the "do as I say not as I do" brigade and their nefarious behind the scenes immorality? Do you think there might just be a bit more to it than Shaz and Gaz and their 18 children living it up on White Lightening and selling pit bulls on the side?

And finally, because I caught a certain whiff from one or two posts - what IS your final solution? Because yes, the numbers of those who won't be able to "contribute" will rise. The goalposts will move. Those who thought themselves untouchable because "right thinking, responsible, etc etc" will certainly be very bewildered when they can't rely on the industries and networks and suddenly their lot is defined by an arbitrary cut off point for a multitude of reasons that it wasn't possible to plan for. Or it was, but the plans have been thwarted by mysterious "market forces."

Because from where I'm sitting none of what's going on in the world is fair to anybody other than those with the sharpest elbows, the biggest guns and the least understanding of humanity.

But it is never going to be a vote winner unless we deport all foreign criminals before their sentence. Women who have children and live on benefits have always been targeted. But if you add up the stupid behaviour of lads, who land themselves in hospital, then the criminal system, then the unlimited spending on asylum costs, welfare becomes a drop in the ocean. At least giving money to families, has a return.
So there are ten teens in an area. Five are job seeking and getting nowhere. Two have jobs. The three who sit off and won't look for work doesn't matter. There aren't jobs for everyone. We need to start with sensible discussions about population levels. Globally people can't keep having children. How do we tell a British person, who has failed your test that we won't support any children they have. But then say it was fine to have lots of children, in a war zone, In a place were you knew couldn't sustain human life, or to a Mother who hasn't been allowed to learn to read, or a underage girl, who your society has ok'd child marriage in? I'm a child of immigrants, even as a child of immigrants, it seemed to me that it was only British women in the 80s being told that they shouldn't be having children.

In that case, I think Andy Burnham will have a job for him. Numeracy seems to be actively discouraged.

We lent you Mark Carney :)

It's about numbers. We have around 150 billionaires in the UK. Of those, most only have £1 billion. Very few people are hoarding billions in the UK. We lost 20 of them in the past 4 years so the number of billionaires is dropping quote significantly. What happens if they leave?

Jeff Bezos doesn't pay tax in the UK. If you mean Amazon should pay more tax, you're undoubtedly right but Amazon only pay more tax in America. We are the country where they pay the second most tax. It's a complex mix of business rates, employment taxes etc that helps lift this number. They are a global company and have global tax instruments. The UK can't really stop this alone.

None of this legitimises our astronomical welfare bill and people taking the piss. It undermines us financially due to the sheer numbers of people doing this and morally as people hate people taking advantage of the welfare state.

He’d have fitted right in with Rachel. Fingers crossed the Tresury is in more sensible hands now, but that would not be hard. What a disappointment she was!

Oh please. Don't you dare start using terms like 'final solution' to me. Absolutely appalling! I know what you're implying and that is disgusting.

So do you want to correct PP on what you think we can do to solve the issue or...?

Well what do you propose should happen to people who ypu consider to be a drain on society? I notice you haven't actually answered any other question but have jumped straight onto the outrage?

I won't be responding to you any further. You have added no value to my thread and I just find you a bit goady to be honest. Obviously I can't stop you posting here but wanted you to know that you have exhausted my patience.

I have jumped onto the outrage because that post brought genocide into a debate around controlling the welfare bill. How on earth would you jump to this instead of assuming I had ideas around reintroducing the two child cap etc? The extremist thinking on these threads is insane. You can control the welfare bill without killing people off.

You have also added no value to your thread either, that's my point. I am being goady though that's fair, I'm just fed up of seeing people with your attitude and nothing helpful to say

I do think it’s funny how many people want to ignore me because they don’t like what I post, so they think I am confused!

my quote about top earners paying 12% net tax was a search for UK, not U.S.

And I don’t have any idea why someone seems to think that I believe that you can sell the same business annually.

No, I am not an accountant and nor have I run a business, but I have for most of my life paid tax at the highest rate and I invest in both publicly traded shares and small private equities, and I can see the tax advantages accruing to the owners.

It is a fact that most (successful) business owners will pay themselves a small salary, so they won’t hit the higher tax bands and the rest as a mixture of dividends and pension contributions (although a lot of that benefit has recently been destroyed).

Although, yes, you do pay corporate tax on profits and then tax again when you receive the dividend, it is still a lot less than the personal tax bands (about 5% if you are paying tax at the highest rate).

And, as for taking capital gains, you can sell a share in your business via private equity if you have a medium size successful business. Most small private equity companies will look at any business with a net worth of over 5 million, which means an EBITDA of under one million at a reason ratio. That isn’t a huge business by any means. So, yes, you can release bits of your business over time. It isn’t all or nothing.

If I am wrong, I am happy to be challenged with actual facts, but not dismissed with nebulous accusations of having no idea what I am talking about.

Do people seriously believe that owners of medium (with medium starting quite low) to large successful businesses pay a net tax rate of 45%? Why do you think a wealth tax is being mooted (although will never happen)?

You don't think it's extreme thinking to de-humanise and other human beings ?

This thread was started on the premise of fairness. It appears to have been started from an intellectually dishonest standpoint, as soon enough the welfare bill got brought into it.

Extremism is rising on many fronts - race, economy, religion etc etc, because very few people are willing to recognise the failing neo-liberal capitalist system as causing the ills of the world, not just the UK.

The same traps are being set that have been set before, but if it's pointed out, that's all conspiracy theory.

Not you.

*tax saving of 5%, not total tax of 5%. Was a bit unclear in my post.

Ok, explain to me how I'm not funding it alongside other net contributors?

Your tax is a drop in the ocean and is being used to fund the debt that the Conservative Govt ran up while selling off our assets to their chums. The UK is completely debt ridden. You’re one of the useful idiots paying for it while blaming the people it has affected the most.

@Wallaseyite

The problem with this argument is that Jeff Bezos doesn’t live in the UK and therefore has zero UK tax liability. So saying he is a drain on uk resources is eccentric at best. Maybe you mean Amazon as a company should pay more taxes? If so I’d love to hear which taxes you think they underpay, and what the UK government can do about it.

I think for the UK the “billionaires should pay more tax and that would solve our problems” argument is basically a red herring, because there aren’t enough of them. Google suggests that UK resident billionaires have about £700bn of wealth put together. Even if we taxed that at 2% p.a. (a big stretch) on top of what they’re current paying, that’s £14bn of extra revenue. The annual benefits bill (including pensions) is over £300bn. So anyone who thinks taxing billionaires more would make a big difference to anything is clearly wrong. Maybe it’s more true in the US.

I have never dehumanised or othered anybody on this thread. I have always been at absolute pains to state that people are people, no matter how much money they have. We are all subject to the same selfish desires and there are always people wanting to abuse the system in every socio economic class. I myself have been poor and I'm now not. It hasn't fundamentally changed me as a person. The idea that the poor or disabled are a different species that none of us can speak about with knowledge is hugely dehumanising and othering in itself.

I haven't suggested anything even vaguely extremist. Reference to welfare was in the initial post. It's a fundamental part of the premise. Why do politicians pretend that some of us need to pay more to pay our 'fair' share whilst never really questioning why some are contributing so little and taking so much? Not everyone in this category is vulnerable or disabled before we go down that rabbit hole again.

The poll is clear that most people agree with me. On a democracy this should bring about change and hopefully it will do soon. You can complain about capitalism all you want but we are a long way from unpicking that system.

Yep, it mentioned welfare straight away. Someone posted that people on benefits are a "burden". May as well come out and say "useless eaters".
Not to mention the posts about how people should be trying to contribute from cradle to grave. How can a baby contribute? No one asked to be born. Is the point of life earning as much as you can? What a sad way to view things.

And now language like "net contributors" and benefit claimants... a lot of people fall between those groups.

You don't know where my tax money is going. If is totally plausible that some is being used to fund the welfare bill. Your false certainty is scary.

The op isn’t extreme. If a key figure in the Labour party can ask the same question as her it’s not an extreme one.

Whereas your certainty that you are paying for those on benefits is...?