The rich already pay more in actual amounts. If a person earns £5000 a year, a 10% tax rate takes £500 from them. If they earn £50,000 a year, a 10% tax rate takes £5000 (the entire amount of the first person).

If you earn 10 times more, you pay 10 times more. "Progressive" tax rates only punish the rich until the point where nobody is classed as "rich" anymore, and then because of the same progressive tax, the government gets hardly any money at all.

(August 18, 2009 at 6:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The rich already pay more in actual amounts. If a person earns £5000 a year, a 10% tax rate takes £500 from them. If they earn £50,000 a year, a 10% tax rate takes £5000 (the entire amount of the first person).

If you earn 10 times more, you pay 10 times more. "Progressive" tax rates only punish the rich until the point where nobody is classed as "rich" anymore, and then because of the same progressive tax, the government gets hardly any money at all.

I don't know what you understand by progressive taxation. I understand it as being where the more you get( not earn, note ) the more tax you pay. In that way, the wealthier help the poorer out. Have you a problem with that? That's probably rhetorical.

Progressive taxation is where people who earn under a certain amount (say £5000) pay 10% tax, people who earn between £5000 and say £15,000 pay 20% tax, etc. etc. Correct?

Yes I have a problem with it. It's unfair. People should be treated equally, and there is no justifiable reason why the rich should be punished by having to sacrifice a larger percentage of their salary.

Where does progressive tax stop? You want to make the divide between rich and poor smaller, and the best way of doing that is to tax millionaires and billionaires with a 90% tax rate. I don't see many people buying into something like that. If you set a limit of taxation (as we have in the UK) of 40%, then the mega rich are still going to be mega-rich, especially since this tax applies to everyone earning over 30-odd thousand.

In a fixed rate tax system, people who earn more still give more, but the same proportion of their salary. As people get richer, the more money is pumped back into the government, so the rich still help the poor out. Why do you have a problem with that? It just seems like you hate rich people and want them to suffer. I don't hate either the rich or the poor, which is why I treat them equally in the eyes of taxation.

(August 18, 2009 at 2:10 pm)bozo Wrote:

(August 18, 2009 at 1:50 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(August 18, 2009 at 12:03 pm)bozo Wrote: Tell me what they can do or what the government can do to avoid them claiming benefit? And please don't say they can all start their own businesses.

Why don't they do what a lot of students are doing and get a degree? Once the recession has blown over, they will have skills for jobs that will be available. I agree with you, they probably couldn't create businesses for themselves; we aren't living in a Libertarian society (yet). There is too much regulation and control over business; it needs to be lifted so that the people with ideas get the encouragement and support when setting up their own company.

Simply getting a degree is no answer. Nowadays a degree= debt. Worse, there simply aren't the jobs around for youngsters either with or without a degree.
My main point is that it isn't the unemployed's fault that they are jobless ( I accept a minority might welcome it ) and a civilised society looks after them through the benefit system.

Depends on the type of degree you get. Something like Hotel Management or Floral design aren't even worth the time, effort, and money. Engineering, chemistry, computer tech, law enforcement, psychology, sociology, biology, geology, physics....are all good fields of study and a person can work anywhere in the world with those jobs. A geologist with a BS can start making 40 grand to 100 grand depending on what type of job they get. A doctorate or masters in Geology can land someone a 150+ per year job. I don't know about the others but I'm sure they are close. With a masters or a doctorate you can work for a university as a professor or can work on research jobs. Those people make a TON of money and they get awesome benefits.

---

(August 18, 2009 at 6:40 pm)bozo Wrote:

(August 18, 2009 at 6:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The rich already pay more in actual amounts. If a person earns £5000 a year, a 10% tax rate takes £500 from them. If they earn £50,000 a year, a 10% tax rate takes £5000 (the entire amount of the first person).

If you earn 10 times more, you pay 10 times more. "Progressive" tax rates only punish the rich until the point where nobody is classed as "rich" anymore, and then because of the same progressive tax, the government gets hardly any money at all.

I don't know what you understand by progressive taxation. I understand it as being where the more you get( not earn, note ) the more tax you pay. In that way, the wealthier help the poorer out. Have you a problem with that? That's probably rhetorical.

I don't know about what Adrian thinks about that but I have a problem with it. Those poor people didn't earn that money. What makes them so special? Because they are poor? Just because they are poor doesn't mean we need to take money from people who EARNED it and give it to them. That's basically theft!!!!

---

(August 18, 2009 at 10:11 am)Rockthatpiano06 Wrote: I completely agree Adrian. I am thankful such programs exist for those that use them for the intended purpose and not as a longterm paycheck. I truly believe the government needs to create more 'workfare' type programs which would be a better long term solution then handing out paychecks.

No. The government doesn't need to start trying to find jobs for welfare people. How hard is it for someone to get in their car and drive to the local unemployment office? We already have those people working to provide people with jobs. There is always a job for someone who wants to do it. Digging ditches, roofing, mowing lawns...I mean if someone is desperate for a job I guarantee they will find one. Whether it can support their ten kids I don't know....but there are jobs for people to do.

(August 18, 2009 at 7:22 pm)dry land fish Wrote: I don't know about what Adrian thinks about that but I have a problem with it. Those poor people didn't earn that money. What makes them so special? Because they are poor? Just because they are poor doesn't mean we need to take money from people who EARNED it and give it to them. That's basically theft!!!!

You could say that the wealthy stole it from the poor in the first place. That's usually how it works. The wealthy can be earning money they can't use whilst trimming their employees earnings etc to the bone to maximise profits. That's the way business works. The people making the profit for the wealthy are kept as low down as possible. It gets extreme when you talk about the gross exploitation of the 3rd world.

(August 18, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(August 18, 2009 at 1:50 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Why don't they do what a lot of students are doing and get a degree? Once the recession has blown over, they will have skills for jobs that will be available. I agree with you, they probably couldn't create businesses for themselves; we aren't living in a Libertarian society (yet). There is too much regulation and control over business; it needs to be lifted so that the people with ideas get the encouragement and support when setting up their own company.

Question Adrian ... do you really think that that many people having degrees (gnu-Labour reckons it wants 50% of all school leavers to get degrees) is a good thing? I know I don't ... I genuinely believe that 1 or 2% of degrees (when degrees were "blue sky") actually meant something as opposed to now.

Kyu

Yet you only have to look at various strikes in the UK to see how much power the workers have over their "rich" bosses. That is the idea of capitalism, you get paid a decent wage, and if you don't think your wage is good enough, you can either rally the troops or go find another job. Either way can be a threat to the company, as they don't want all of their workers walking out; it costs them money.

Adrian, progressive taxation is fair but the rich aren't taxed enough at the moment.
We live in a society and everyone contributes to that society. The rich are privileged ( the very rich even more so ),the poor are under-privileged. It is fair and just that the rate of tax the rich and very rich pay should be greater than the poor. It is not " robbery ". The poor have been " robbed " down the centuries, creating wealth for the very rich.
If I were rich or very rich, I would consider myself very fortunate and paying more tax to make a better society would be money well spent.
You say people won't buy it....well most people aren't filthy rich, so I disagree with you.
I've dealt with your fixed rate idea. I reject it.
I don't hate rich people persay, I might hate some of them. As a socialist though I have more affinity with the ordinary man or woman than I do with the rich. You, on the other hand, do not. You are quick to bash the feckless poor, but defend the interests of the wealthy. Your choice.
As to your reference to strikes, organised labour was stripped of its power by the Thatcher government's anti-union legislation which is still in force and makes taking strike action very hard to do.
Capitalism has always been a battleground between employer and worker, it can't be anything else! The employer wants labour at the lowest cost. The worker wants the best wage his labour can obtain. It is a constant. Whatever gains have been made by the worker have been through struggle and not through the benevolence of the boss class.

dry land fish, you live in a different country so I can't talk with knowledge about the situation there, but here in the UK finding work is DIFFICULT. It is difficult for people with degrees as well as for less-qualified people. Have you heard of the recession?

Looking after the poor is part and parcel of a civilised society. You appear to prefer dog-eat-dog, only the strong survive etc.etc. Well that's your choice...I hope it never comes to that, but it might when the capitalist system ends.

I tell you frankly, if I were unemployed and on benefit, and I was offered work that brought home less than my benefit, I would stay on benefit. Something is wrong, either benefit is too high or the wage too low. You can probably guess which I think is the case. Poor people don't make the system, they have to play by it and even beat it, if that's what it takes to survive.

(August 19, 2009 at 3:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 18, 2009 at 7:22 pm)dry land fish Wrote: I don't know about what Adrian thinks about that but I have a problem with it. Those poor people didn't earn that money. What makes them so special? Because they are poor? Just because they are poor doesn't mean we need to take money from people who EARNED it and give it to them. That's basically theft!!!!

You could say that the wealthy stole it from the poor in the first place. That's usually how it works. The wealthy can be earning money they can't use whilst trimming their employees earnings etc to the bone to maximise profits. That's the way business works. The people making the profit for the wealthy are kept as low down as possible. It gets extreme when you talk about the gross exploitation of the 3rd world.

The wealthy steals money from the poor? How is that? The federal government and state government set minimum wage requirements. It's smart business practices to pay people the bare minimum. When you are in busisness you are in it for the money and not to provide jobs, insurance, or other perks to your employees. Those people who are working those low paying jobs should have went to college shouldn't they? Third world countries are none of our concern. If I owned a business that required someone to assemble a large amount of products I'd move to China too. It's SMART for corporations to do that. I guarantee that if it were you that owned that company you would do the same thing.

Why are people complaining about the low end jobs? Is this what people see as their future? Assembly line worker? Fast food worker? Gas station clerk? I mean seriously.....aim higher! If people don't like the way they are treated by a company they can go union. I'm pro union IF one can come in. I understand why corporations do what they do to people but if people want to make a career out of factory work or Wal Mart or Kroger then they had better get themselves a union or they are going to keep getting screwed.

---

(August 19, 2009 at 11:38 am)bozo Wrote: Adrian, progressive taxation is fair but the rich aren't taxed enough at the moment.
We live in a society and everyone contributes to that society. The rich are privileged ( the very rich even more so ),the poor are under-privileged. It is fair and just that the rate of tax the rich and very rich pay should be greater than the poor. It is not " robbery ". The poor have been " robbed " down the centuries, creating wealth for the very rich.
If I were rich or very rich, I would consider myself very fortunate and paying more tax to make a better society would be money well spent.
You say people won't buy it....well most people aren't filthy rich, so I disagree with you.
I've dealt with your fixed rate idea. I reject it.
I don't hate rich people persay, I might hate some of them. As a socialist though I have more affinity with the ordinary man or woman than I do with the rich. You, on the other hand, do not. You are quick to bash the feckless poor, but defend the interests of the wealthy. Your choice.
As to your reference to strikes, organised labour was stripped of its power by the Thatcher government's anti-union legislation which is still in force and makes taking strike action very hard to do.
Capitalism has always been a battleground between employer and worker, it can't be anything else! The employer wants labour at the lowest cost. The worker wants the best wage his labour can obtain. It is a constant. Whatever gains have been made by the worker have been through struggle and not through the benevolence of the boss class.

dry land fish, you live in a different country so I can't talk with knowledge about the situation there, but here in the UK finding work is DIFFICULT. It is difficult for people with degrees as well as for less-qualified people. Have you heard of the recession?

Looking after the poor is part and parcel of a civilised society. You appear to prefer dog-eat-dog, only the strong survive etc.etc. Well that's your choice...I hope it never comes to that, but it might when the capitalist system ends.

I tell you frankly, if I were unemployed and on benefit, and I was offered work that brought home less than my benefit, I would stay on benefit. Something is wrong, either benefit is too high or the wage too low. You can probably guess which I think is the case. Poor people don't make the system, they have to play by it and even beat it, if that's what it takes to survive.

It is hard for some to find work in the USA right now. You are right. I do prefer a dog eat dog society. We need to stop protecting the weak and let natural selection take over. If you haven't noticed the human race has basically exploded all over the Earth and helping the weak only contributes to the population problem. There will become a time when we have taxed all of our natural resources due to our over population. Certain states in the USA are running out of water. Florida and Nevada are two of those states. When the aquifer is depleted then they will have to find other more expensive ways of treating their water and getting it to customers. I have always wondered why we make laws to protect stupid people and why we just can't let them die. Animals don't protect weak or stupid animals. We ARE no differnt than animals. We have no soul and we aren't special. Natural selection is the way mother nature keeps everything in balance...we have seriously screwed it up.

(August 19, 2009 at 12:51 pm)dry land fish Wrote: The wealthy steals money from the poor? How is that? The federal government and state government set minimum wage requirements. It's smart business practices to pay people the bare minimum. When you are in busisness you are in it for the money and not to provide jobs, insurance, or other perks to your employees.

They set a low pay barrier because those greedy fuks will pay as little as they can get away with. This is economics. You produce in the cheapest way possible to make maximum profit.

(August 19, 2009 at 12:51 pm)dry land fish Wrote: Those people who are working those low paying jobs should have went to college shouldn't they?

You should have too. You're barely literate.

(August 19, 2009 at 12:51 pm)dry land fish Wrote: Third world countries are none of our concern. If I owned a business that required someone to assemble a large amount of products I'd move to China too. It's SMART for corporations to do that. I guarantee that if it were you that owned that company you would do the same thing.

You support exploitation. That is the way of your country. It's appalling and shameful.

(August 19, 2009 at 12:51 pm)dry land fish Wrote: Why are people complaining about the low end jobs? Is this what people see as their future? Assembly line worker? Fast food worker? Gas station clerk? I mean seriously.....aim higher!

The vast majority of a civilised population earns just below the national subsistence level. Capitalism would fail without this.

(August 19, 2009 at 12:51 pm)dry land fish Wrote: If people don't like the way they are treated by a company they can go union. I'm pro union IF one can come in. I understand why corporations do what they do to people but if people want to make a career out of factory work or Wal Mart or Kroger then they had better get themselves a union or they are going to keep getting screwed.

Unions are history. They didn't achieve much anyway. Law is on the side of people with money.

Civilised society supports moral bankruptcy.

dry land fish,
i've changed my opinion of you. Yoo call yourself a Libertarian, I call you a fascist, based on your recent postings.