OT: Tax

Really? So where are all the people in the community dealing with the louts? Sat at home not getting involved because they're not suffering directly from it.

Actually they do. There is a welfare state in the US but it doesn't support freeloaders as long as ours.

If I could convince the missus, I would have years ago.

I will never go back to the USA unless there are some big changes out there.

I will, however, more likely than not be moving to the Czech Republic in the not too distant future. 40% tax if you're self employed, and the Rangie isn't exactly welcome, but right now things are cheap, but they have the fastest growing economy in Europe and I'd like to be a part of it.

No it doesn't. The only difference is that the misshapen stuff is=20 thrown away. Or did you miss the programmes on TV where some farmers=20 were slinging over 1/3 of a harvest because it "didn't look right"?

It's companies knowing they can get away with it.

In addition to the tax on my income? How many ways am I expected to pay=20 for the NHS I can't get access to and supporting the scroungers?

It's cheaper than here.

--=20 Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't=20 looking good either. - Scott Adams

Irrelevent.

Again, irrelevent.

No, it's not.

Because it governs how much money people have in their pockets as 'disposable income', which governs how much you can charge for something.

Read that again, and come back when you can tell me what effect throwing away 1/3 of the crop does to the price....

Market forces.

If people weren't buying at current price points, then the price would move downwards.

It's all one pot.

You want headline low rate taxes (people fall for this election after election) the money will get taken back somewhere else.

Diesel is, petrol isn't.

But the difference is nowhere near as great as it was 10 years ago.

Who was paying for that pension, then? - given that it was a nationalised industry?

Final salary, compusory schemes such as that are now few and far between. There is no real incentive to invest in a pension for a lot of people due to the pathetic returns and mis-management of funds we have seen in recent years.

That sounds very low.

Have you factored into account how much the current cash will be worth in 30 years? - that's how I'm doing my calculations, and it doesn't look pretty.

Remember, the state pension is pretty much index-linked.

Canada. And they tend to do most public services better. Alberta's public education system rips the piss out of most countries private education. There's something about cold weather, I tells ya!

I think for many people, the annoyance comes from the underhand way taxes are implemented.

Hmmmm, you may be right.

Canada has an overall rate of 33.5% against the US at 37%.

The government can't win.

If you collect taxes directly from income, people complain about high rates of income tax.

If you cut income tax and raise it elsewhere, people complain about 'stealth' taxes.

We do, however, have social responsibilities - unless we want people begging on the streets, then there is no easy answer to cutting taxes.

I'm not sure Conor is suggesting that. I wouldn't interpret it that way. I think that more of a take-care-of-you-and-yours would be a good thing. I have a friend who has grown up on a big council estate with parents who didn't work and had everything given to them and now he's trying to find a way to "get on the sick, so I can just do my music and art". I find that deplorable. The extreme reaction to your retort to Conor's post is that you must evidently support the right of capable people to not work and claim the sick to do art and music. Bollocks to that.

Even before the marvellous welfare state we have now, the flotsam and jetsam of society were looked after by churches and charitable organisations - social structures that would well be a good thing to be encouraged again i.e. take-care-of-you-and-yours...

To you maybe. But perhaps that is a bias introduced by your pre- existing opinion of Conor? I certainly don't think he's suggested anything outrageous.

I'm not saying there aren't any faults with the system - there obviously are.

However, it's the way the money is spent once it's collected that's currently the issue.

That's no reason to suggest we should cut the taxation, though - we just need to spend the money in better ways.

That may well have worked when the church had a place in our society, it certainly wouldn't work these days.

Are you suggesting that all disabled and / or deserving poor should be forced to rely on the charity of the super-rich? - 'cos that just wouldn't work either. Mostly because if we moved towards the 'I'm alright, Jack' train of thought would actually make people *more* selfish with their money.

Oh, if you read the thread, he effectively has.

He reckons we shouldn't be taking taxes to pay for healthcare or the welfare state, instead making it the responsibility of the individual to invest their money for 'rainy days'.

Yes, I have a pre-existing opinion, but he's not helping himself by posting such self-centred, arrogant crap.

I do to a certain extent. I mean, I don't wish anyone any particular harm (just like Moe out of The Simpsons!), but I really don't give a f*ck about strangers. Sure, if they are in the shit and have exhausted every avenue available to them, I'll see if I can chip in, but I wouldn't go out of my way to make someone elses life significantly better if they couldn't do it themselves through sheer un-arsedness. OK, mentally challenged older folk - I'll happily pay some sort of tax so they can be fed, clothed and housed, but nothing else. I'll take care of my own if necessary, and I know I'd get that in return from my family. It is an example of a social unit taking responsibility for itself. I don't want my taxes being used for some f****it somewhere to absolve his responsibilities, if you can follow my example :-/

We have that here too. There will always be those who 'slip through the net', but the US has an OK system for such things. They are generally a more charitable bunch than we are too, so maybe that enables an effective tax offset?

So, is your objection that we raise taxes, or the way in which they're spent?

There is a very big difference between the two.

We don't have the proper, poor, underclass that exists in America, at least not to anywhere near the same extent.

We also don't have people who can't get access to adequate medical care for life-threatening condiditions because they couldn't afford the insurance payments etc.

Yeah, I should have made it clear I wasn't alluding to a church based system (I wouldn't, I'm an atheist) but rather close groups / families should show more responsibility towards their own.

No

That's a bold claim! I don't think it would stand up fully either.

I've sort of already addressed that in reply Conor's post.

That's what I'd advocate too, I really don't see what is wrong with that. I've been brought up to exercise responsibility over my earnings and plan for my future. It's a good thing, really. Unless, of course, I'm missing something from your posting.

My objection is partly how they are raised, and partly how they are (mis)spent.

OK, I'll have to ask for your definition of the "proper poor underclass" before I can carry on with any hearty debate.

I think you'll find we do! Our system isn't perfect, neither is America's but they do actually have a bottom of the barrel healthcare system. At least the NHS is cheaper over all, I suppose.

Yes, that's a good thing.

However, for many people, especially those doing minimum wage jobs, this will never work.

If you're in a dead-end job, earning, say £11.5k / year (roughly min. wage) - then you are highly unlikely to be able to afford private healthcare and a private pension that's index linked to inflation.

The way the market has driven property prices in recent years, it's highly unlikely you'd have *any* money left at the end of the month after paying for food, housing, heating and transport.

How would you fix it?

Whilst we do have an element of people living on the streets in big cities, we don't have it to the same extent as many other countries. I'm especially looking towards the USA, but it also is evident to a greater extent in continental Europe where they have less well developed welfare systems.

At least in the UK, they don't check your insurance before deciding what quality of hospital they take you to.....

There may be a bottom of the barrel catch over there, but I prefer the UK system - due to family history and a couple of current complaints, I'd get quite a hefty loading for private healthcare if the company didn't provide it for me..... that's just bad luck on my part, and whilst I can see why others may have an objection to paying out for people with faulty genes, at least we have some kind of system that generally makes medical care free to all, regardless of financial standing.

Actually I'd think a lot of people disagree with you. It's just you're one of those people who are incapable of seeing two sides of a discussion. You think you're right and everyone else is always wrong, and will never admit you're wrong no matter how many people disagree with you, just take a look through your previous posts. Now when you say anything most people either ignore you or just assume you're trolling again.