Two excellent reasons to OPPOSE gay marriage in the UK

[Tiberius]

Under a progressive tax system, people who have the least amount of money would have more to spend and people with the most amount of money would, in any reasonable sense, still have vast amounts of money to spend on whatever they wanted without any practical limit.

Unless there is something approaching equality in income (there is not and I think you'll agree that it should not be), then equality in taxation is not really fair at all.

Well, I think this highlights a misunderstanding of the point of taxation. It isn't supposed to leave people with the same (or even similar) amount of money to themselves; the function of taxation is to fund government and society.

There is nothing inherently unfair about a millionaire being left with more money than they could ever spend after being taxed, whilst I do think it is unfair to leave a person with less money than they need to survive after being taxed. At the end of the day, a millionaire isn't at fault for earning that much (unless they earn it through illegal means), so there is no reason to punish them for it.

That's why I don't agree with the progressive tax system which tries to take more money from millionaires just because they have more. It is their money; and even if they don't spend it all, there are ways in which to spend it (buying islands, donating to charity, etc.)

Another thing that should be noted is that millionaires often contribute to society yet do not necessarily require the functions that society gives. As an extreme example, there could be a billionaire who lives in a remote mansion, with its own generators, and access to private healthcare / other facilities, without ever requiring society's help. Should this person be taxed? Yes, of course, just as someone who chose to live in the woods should be taxed if they earn an income, but there is no reason to tax them more than their fair share.

There were a few complaints from a number of billionaires in the UK recently, as they were getting a winter fuel allowance from the government, since all people over a certain age are given it. The billionaires wanted a method of giving it back or opting out, because it's silly to give benefits out to people who clearly have no use for them. So the system works badly in both ways in that respect.

[ideologue08]

There were a few complaints from a number of billionaires in the UK recently, as they were getting a winter fuel allowance from the government, since all people over a certain age are given it. The billionaires wanted a method of giving it back or opting out, because it's silly to give benefits out to people who clearly have no use for them. So the system works badly in both ways in that respect.

I don't agree with that. If the govt begins excluding those who are wealthier from the benefits they are entitled to, this could lead to resentment (although not necessarily so). This is why I was unhappy with the current govt scrapping child benefit for those in the higher income tax bracket, why should they in the future vote for those benefits to be handed to the poor, it's a risky strategy than can cause class warfare. It's an interesting thing you used the words "fair share". George Osborne believes that the rich must pay higher amount if they want to pay their fair share. And we all know Obama's re-election strategy; an increase in taxes for the wealthy so that everyone has a "fair shot..pays their fair share...plays by the same rules". You can't tell me the word "fair" isn't subjective

[rexbeccarox]

Is there a reason you're not answering my question?

[Psykhronic]

It's nice to see the face of a fellow Muslim.

[Ryantology]

Well, I think this highlights a misunderstanding of the point of taxation. It isn't supposed to leave people with the same (or even similar) amount of money to themselves; the function of taxation is to fund government and society.

I did not think this had anything to do with the point of taxation.

There is nothing inherently unfair about a millionaire being left with more money than they could ever spend after being taxed, whilst I do think it is unfair to leave a person with less money than they need to survive after being taxed. At the end of the day, a millionaire isn't at fault for earning that much (unless they earn it through illegal means), so there is no reason to punish them for it.

The alternative is punishing the poor for not being millionaires by requiring them to pay an amount which is, relative to their situation, vastly larger. If you view taxation as a punishment, that is. I think of it as the price of admission for living in a civilized society. I pay taxes, and some people pay less of a percentage than I do. Is that fair? Maybe it's not, but I don't care, and I should care far less if my wealth approached grotesque levels.

The thing is, 'fairness' is a really flexible term. Is fair always right? What could be more fair than to distribute wealth equally to everyone, so that nobody has more than anybody else? But, of course, not every job requires equal education. It would be unfair to pay a burger flipper as much as a neurosurgeon, right? But, of course, while working in a fast food restaurant is far from mentally challenging, it is hard, tiring and soul-crushing work, so why is it fair that a burger flipper makes half as much as someone who sits in a comfortable, air conditioned office all day doing paperwork? Someone who does my job in India or China probably makes a fraction of what I do. Simply having the fortune to live in an advanced society has given me benefits many people around the world could never enjoy. Is that fair? I also very likely pay more in taxes than they do. Is that fair? That's why I do not think it is very unfair for the wealthy to pay more of their money than I do, all other things considered. The simple possession of their wealth grants them benefits in the economy, society and politics, entirely outside getting and spending, that I could not reasonably ever hope to enjoy.

The problem, many times, with fairness is that there are often several competing standards of fairness on most topics. Which one should predominate in this? I advocate progressive taxation not because it is fair numerically, but because it has the least negative practical impact upon the greatest number of people.

[rexbeccarox]

I guess since ideologue08 won't answer a basic question regarding his views on this subject, he won't mind being called a coward.

ideologue08, you are a coward.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. Gay marriage opens the door to a plethora of new definitions of how "marriage" is defined, a door which the majority of people,especially in the UK, would like to see shut. Consenting adults in a loving relationship is NOT a good enough reason to re-define marriage.

Appeal to consequences, denied.

2. Gay marriage legislation will lead to religious oppression and a rejection of religious freedom.

Non seq, denied.

Gay marriage leads to gay marriage. How hard is that to understand?

[Tiberius]

It would be unfair to pay a burger flipper as much as a neurosurgeon, right? But, of course, while working in a fast food restaurant is far from mentally challenging, it is hard, tiring and soul-crushing work, so why is it fair that a burger flipper makes half as much as someone who sits in a comfortable, air conditioned office all day doing paperwork?

That's actually an interesting point that I hadn't really considered before. My only objection is that you can't really assume that more skilled jobs / jobs that are mentally challenging rather than physically challenging are less hard, tiring, and soul-crushing.

It really depends on the situation. My job is certainly very nice, and I enjoy coming to work every day (something I could not say if I worked at McDonalds). However, a comfortable, air-conditioned office doesn't always mean job satisfaction is high. Workplace stress is probably much higher in such places, especially for people who work in management or other critical positions. Doing paperwork can be a mind-numbingly boring task, especially if it is repetitive.

---

I don't agree with that. If the govt begins excluding those who are wealthier from the benefits they are entitled to, this could lead to resentment (although not necessarily so). This is why I was unhappy with the current govt scrapping child benefit for those in the higher income tax bracket, why should they in the future vote for those benefits to be handed to the poor, it's a risky strategy than can cause class warfare. It's an interesting thing you used the words "fair share". George Osborne believes that the rich must pay higher amount if they want to pay their fair share. And we all know Obama's re-election strategy; an increase in taxes for the wealthy so that everyone has a "fair shot..pays their fair share...plays by the same rules". You can't tell me the word "fair" isn't subjective

I didn't suggest excluding people from benefits. I suggested having a system where people can voluntarily opt-out or return the money. Alan Sugar was annoyed that there was no way for him to return the money to the government, when really there should be. In fact, there should be a way for people to give extra money to government. There are millionaires and billionaires out there who actively campaign for higher taxes on their incomes, but for now, it would be good to have a system whereby they could give money to government...a sort of voluntary extra tax.

[Praetorian]

So the whole argument is still the same old, tired, slippery slope argument? Wasn't that argument put forth against rock and roll music in the 50's?

[frankiej]

This thread should be moved to the humour section.