It is very hard for the British people to make a serious choice in this election without talking about one factor above all others – class. This isn't about David Cameron's background; it's about his policies. It is a provable fact that he will redistribute wealth – substantially – but in a strange direction: from everyone in the big wide middle and bottom of British society, to the very top.Here are the facts. He will give a £1.2bn inheritance tax cut to the richest 2 per cent in Britain – with most going to the 3,000 wealthiest estates (including his wife's). Then he promises to end the 50p top rate of tax, giving another £2.4bn to the richest 1 per cent. Then he has pledged to cut taxes on the pensions of the richest, handing another £3.2bn to the same 1 per cent. Then his marriage tax relief policies will give 13 times more to the rich than the poor. To pay for this, he will slash programmes for the middle and the skint, like the Child Trust Fund, SureStart and state schools.
Chat Forum
[closed]
If you're looking for class war, just read Cameron's policies
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
you are of course assuming that money = class, but I get the point
TBH only the libdems have proposed an even faintly redistributive tax structure and one I agree with. £10k allowances, 50% top rate, ditch tax credits, reduce VAT, up the middle rate of tax. Get properly redistributive.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Sorry, remind me again, why should people who are successful and earn good money pay for those who don't? And why should we redistribute wealth?
Surely the fairest tax would be for everyone to pay the same percentage of income tax irrelevent of earnings. That way those who earn more pay more, those who earn less pay less. Simple...surely?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Let me guess which way lunge will be voting...
So how rich you are is solely down to how hard you work. In that case the bloke who owns and runs the corner shop near me should be a millionairre.
But he's not.
Edit: Your flat rate tax assumes everyone has the same marginal utility of money, and that assumption is codswallop.Posted 2 years ago # -
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
Adam Smith. I'd put together more of a point, but I have to go out and spend all my meagre income on food now.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Look, we need a sticky thread up there that explains the whole "every person pays the exact same percentage of his or her Income in tax" concept and how it is complete **** BOLLOCKS.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Trolling aside, much of the debate around redistribution and income tax is based around stereotypes.
1 half believe that those who are rich stay rich through internal help and luck, whilst those who are poor toil away for virtually nothing with no chance of progressing. So the rich should give to the poor to make up for all the help they received.
The other half think the rich all earned there wealth through honest work and the poor just didn't try hard enough. So why should those who work hard pay for those who didn't.
The reality is as always somewhere in the middle.
Posted 2 years ago # -
deadlydarcy, are you saying it is a good or a bad idea? I would genuinely be interested reading either side of the debate.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It really gets on my t1ts when people come out with the "successful" thing! Successfull at what exactly? making money? what about all the "successfull" people who dont earn a fortune? If the only way you rate a person's success in life is how much money you earn I think you've a pretty sad and pathetic life.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's a shit idea lunge. Go back through any of the recent threads on the economic policies of the various political parties and you'll get good explanations.
Posted 2 years ago # -
People judge success in different ways, some on how much money they earn, some on how many people they help, some on how many people they have slept with.
I will judge my success on how well I can provide for my family, like it or not, the more I earn the better I can provide. Yes, you can earn not much and still provide, in fact I do just that at the moment but i would love to be in a postion to give them a little bit more by earning a little bit more.
Posted 2 years ago # -
deadlydarcy I would rather not trawl through a load of politically charged rubbish (not unlike what i am spouting here). I would much rather read something relatively impartial written by someone who is not an armchair politician on a mountain bike forum (and I do include myself in that).
Does such an article exist?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Just a little point - reducing the rate of tax that someone pays is not "giving" them money - it's helping yourself to less of theirs.
Oh, and can you think of a more morally despicable thing that robbing the dead?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Define success how you will but you cant get away from the fact that a lot of people find pleasure with making lots of money, it can after all (regardless of the cliches) buy a lot of happiness. A nice bike perhaps or a holiday etc..
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm just wondering what to have for supper...
Stuffed peppers with minty minced lamb?
Stir-Fry beef in Black Bean Sauce?
Rump Steak with chips, beans and mushrooms?
Pasta with Chorizo and Mozzarella?
Tuna Sweetcorn Baked Potato?Any ideas?
Posted 2 years ago # -
RepacK, you've got a point there...
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm confused now.
Is "class" something you are born into and cannot change?
Can someone born in a slum change their "class" by working hard and earning lots of money?
Who should I be at war with?Posted 2 years ago # -
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense,
Its not unreasonable the rich should contribute to the society that has helped them or their ancestors (if they inherited) become rich. My issue is with the size of the public expense and what its spent on. Over the last 10 years government spending has more or less doubled and the productivity of the public sector has fallen. In the meantime over the same period productivity in the private sector has increased 20%. I think people would have less problem with the tax burden if they could see the money being spent more effectively.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"if the money were being spent more effectively"
You hit the nail on the head there buddy..
Posted 2 years ago # -
Is "class" something you are born into and cannot change?
Can someone born in a slum change their "class" by working hard and earning lots of money?It's a cultural state not an economic one and not something readily changeable, imho.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Who should I be at war with?
Islam?
Aslam?
Aslef?
Azerbaijan?Posted 2 years ago # -
Define success how you will but you cant get away from the fact that a lot of people find pleasure with making lots of money, it can after all (regardless of the cliches) buy a lot of happiness. A nice bike perhaps or a holiday etc..
i love anecdotes passed on as universal truths
Posted 2 years ago # -
t a lot of people find pleasure with making lots of money
Because they/we've been indoctrinated to believe that in order to be a worthwhile member of society you have to acquire lots of shiny things, and these things will make you happy.
Some people grow out of it.
I will judge my success on how well I can provide for my family
Interesting that you seem to see that in purely financial terms - providing for your family isn't just about making sure they can have a skiing holiday every year or whatever. Emotional well-being is surely more important.
Posted 2 years ago # -
MrK its a fact some people do find pleasure in being financially successful, you may not like it but it is true. Its not an anecdote nor did I say it was a universal truth. Not everybody who is wealthy is happy.
Oh Grum yeah some do grow out of it - all I was doing was stating something that is true..
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm just getting my man-servant to lightly saute me a swans-liver, washed down with a nice vat of Krug
Anyone care to join me?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ooh! Can I have a packet of Skips and some Tizer please?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Here comes the sweeping generalisation of the day: I reckon there are more happy poor people than rich people in the world.
Think about it (even if it is a struggle).
Posted 2 years ago # -
I will judge my success on how well I can provide for my family
Interesting that you seem to see that in purely financial terms - providing for your family isn't just about making sure they can have a skiing holiday every year or whatever. Emotional well-being is surely more important.
Indeed you are right, but having a few extra pounds in your pocket can help as well.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Its a general truth that more egalitarian societies have less crime, less mental health issues, and a higher level of happiness.
There just seems to be something about wealth driven US-style western society that f**ks people up, and thats ignoring the fact that large numbers of people in these societies stay poor.Posted 2 years ago # -
deadlydarcy, I would be interested in what you think poor is and what you think rich is in relation to that suggestion.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm just getting my man-servant to lightly saute me a swans-liver, washed down with a nice vat of Krug
Aye, but I'll 'ave a pint of bitter if it's all the same. Oh, and it's sauté mate.
Actually I am really confused about this whole class thing. My grandfather used to line up outside the docks each morning to see if he could get work. My father left school without a single qualification at 15 and worked his arse off building several businesses before he retired. I went to private school and ended up as a civil servant - exactly what shaped chip am I supposed to have on my shoulder?
Posted 2 years ago # -
binners I'm having my man-servant lightly sauted in a vat of Krug, with swan-livers of course! I'm more successfull than you!
Care to join me in my "happiness"?
Or I might just have a kebabPosted 2 years ago # -
Oh, and can you think of a more morally despicable thing that robbing the dead?
Not helping the living?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Class war? Get real!
I'm presently listening to Any Questions on Radio 4. My old class mate and now health secratary Andy Burnham is on. He's not doing well.
As the representative of the second safest labour seat in the country, he empathised with his unemployed and poor constituents by forcing through a £20 grand expenses claim for a new kitchen in his second home.
Yeah... the class war's really on in this election isn't it?
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's a cultural state not an economic one and not something readily changeable, imho.
I've read some bollocks on STW in the past but that one really takes the prize.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
