That's not what I'm saying, I disagree with people all the time, but rarely with someone with such simplistic ideas. Tell me, what's so much worse about the politics of envy than the politics of greed?
So what's the simplistic idea (compared to your clearly complex and highly developed position of anyone who is "rich" should pay a higher percentage of tax) and where do I mention the politics of greed?
You seem fast to insult and quick to be hurt- if you are disrespectful to folk they are likely to do it back
While not wanting to be seen to be bickering where do you get fast to insult and quick to be hurt from? Where's the insult? Where's the hurt? Seems to me you were the first to be taking cheap shots or did you not notice that bit? Or perhaps maybe you feel you suffer from envy of those with greater wealth than you and (incorrectly) assumed I was having a pop at you? Perhaps you're the fragile one?
Whatever, it could have been an interesting debate, but like so many on here, it got a bit derailed and petty.
Farmer_John - Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15819873
The top 10% (48k and over) pay 53% of the cost of running the country.
That only refers to income tax which doesn't come close to covering the cost of running the country. There's also National Insurance, VAT, alcohol duty, corporation tax ....
where do I mention the politics of greed?
Chuckles- he is doing a caricature of your position based on the politics of envy caricature you employed. I have no idea why you need that explaining to you
Where's the insult?
You want me to quote them again?
Where's the hurt?
ok I accept you dont care, happy now
Seems to me you were the first to be taking cheap shots or did you not notice that bit?
thankfully the thread is in chronological order it is there for all to see whatever your protest.
Or perhaps maybe you feel you suffer from envy of those with greater wealth than you and (incorrectly) assumed I was having a pop at you?
like i would be incorrectly assuming that this is having a pop at me 🙄
Whatever, it could have been an interesting debate, but like so many on here, it got a bit derailed and petty.
it was everyone else wasnt it?
I struggle with long sentences but my tuppence worth is we need Parliament to have a genuine will to ensure we all pay our fair share whether we earn £12000 pa or £1m+. The system is seriously failing when you pay less because you earn enough to buy an avoidance scheme. It's socially and morally wrong to permit the rich to avoid direct taxes. The rate would be lower for us all if we resourced HMRC better and allowed it to:
a) genuinely tackle the black economy and the 'social' acceptance of tax evasion as 'fair game'
b) prosecute 10x more cases similar to the DWP
c) chase debts owed rather than writing debt off as uncommercial and thus promoting more cases of none payment
d) clamp down on and/or prosecute those behind aggressive tax avoidance/evasion schemes
As for the poster who looked forward to HMRC being privatised, be careful what you wish for.
+1
As for the poster who looked forward to HMRC being privatised, be careful what you wish for.
Privateers?
HMRC currently provide a service to a large number of low income/tax credit claimants. That wouldn't be hugely profitable. Plenty of profit in targetting the easy money but none in tackling the many many hard core avoiders/none payers at the lower end of the scale. The latest 'efficiency savings reinvested' were c£917m to return c£20billion after 5 years and c£7billion for each year thereafter. A decent return by anyone's standards surely?
