[Closed] the equality of sacrifice

The government has recently announced that they're taking my tax free allowance away so I will be worse off and pay more tax.

Why - so some sponger can have a DVD player and an XBox.

😆

oh dear

Can you give me examples of people who mad emoney without exploiting the poor - paying them less in wages than they earn for their labour?

Why is paying people who work for you less than you earn yourself exploitation? There are many reasons why the business owner is entitled to a higher income, they often work harder, take more personal risks and ideally have had the clever idea, spotted the niche in the market that others haven't. The whole point is people are not equal, what people contribute through their labour is not equal, hence renumeration is not equal.

it's normally best to step away from any political thread on stw as you just get shouted down by the same bitter voices.

advice I think I am now going to take and leave the it's not fair you have more than me brigade to their whinging.

Don't, Trailmonkey. It's not funny.

you're right. it's scary to think these people are allowed out.

i wonder what he's a doctor of exactly ? 😯

being satisfied at being fairly well off

Why is paying people who work for you less than you earn yourself exploitation

You right wingers cant keep arguing you just tell use we are jealous Does any one say here shout that they want to be as rich as you or do they just suggest the wealthy should pay more than the poor? You seem to act as if you are the ones who have lost out in life when in fact you are the big winners however much you are taxed.

advice I think I am now going to take and leave the it's not fair you have more than me brigade to their whinging.

I'm perfectly well off thanks 🙂

And most of the whining seems to be coming from RS**** ([i]hilarious[/i] user name btw) 😐

the poor should just work more, eat less.

Eloquently put Junkyard. Well, it would be if it'd been in English.....

I DON'T MIND PAYING TAX!!!!!

But, I do mind being critiqued just becuase I've made an effort in life to secure a decent salary. I've lived the poor life as a student (I don't come from a wealthy family by any means) and I've worked hard at my education and career.

And now I understand that I can play a part in paying back to society.

Just stop with the rich men are all tossers jibes please. LOOK at the cartoon that started this all. This is the point.

Would it be too much for you poor people to wave as I drove past? Or send me a Christmas card thanking me?

I DON'T MIND PAYING TAX!!!!!

So what you moaning about benefit scroungers and it's soo unfair and all that for then? Sorry, but it seems to be that you [i]do[/i] mind paying tax. Make your mind up... 🙄

You're just pissed off because you came on here with a crappy ill-conceived moan, then got made to look a bit silly.

Just stop with the rich men are all tossers jibes please.

Where are they, then? I can't see any.

Would it be too much for you poor people to wave as I drove past?

So, where has anyone who's pointed out your folly revealed their own level of income, then? How do you know they don't earn more than you?

You've made yourself look a right wally. I'm sorry, but it's true.

Eloquently put Junkyard. Well, it would be if it'd been in English

I've lived the poor life as a student

It's the benefit brigade that bug me. Why should they enjoy a nice house, with nice furniture and nice belongings when they've not worked for them?

your claims that you are 'friends' with people on benefits is clearly bollo... maybe these friends of yours are criminals on benefits perhaps.. Or maybe these 'friends are just people you have encountered briefly or read about..?

honest people existing on benefits have little indeed to be glad about.. at least not by your standards..

i've not read everything on here, because it would annoy me too much, but i haven't seen many mention that one of the main targets for cuts are tax credits. these are predominantly paid to low paid workers, to supplement their income (and as a subsidy to employers to enable them to pay less than lving wages)

these are not dole scroungers, they are people working but who cannot get by on their wage alone. these people are also facing cuts in housing benefit (many will get partial help towards their rent) and will struggle.

kinda puts a lie to the tory line that it's cracking down on layabouts.

i guess it's easier to just label the welfare cuts as hitting a target that everyone hates, rather than addressing the truth

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Something to think about while you're choosing a slightly cheaper bottle of wine.

This'll probably just shine a light on my own ****lessness rather than be constructive ('tis what the internet's for though eh?), but the bit that stood out most to me was:

DrRS**** - Member

I work stupid hours doing something stressful.

Why do it? There must surely be a point when earning becomes an obsession, wouldn't it make more sense to earn x-amount less for a life y-amount more enjoyable? (i hear people can enjoy stress, and i'm as much of an overtime whore as the next man, but the two together - really?)
as sweeping generalisations are fun, would earning, say, 60 grand per year rather than 75 make that much difference to one's ablility to buy nice things/live nice places/have nice holidays etc? This is presuming one wasn't inextricably tied to a lifestyle that necessitated 75k (addiction to helicopters or somesuch). A three bed detached in a very select area compared to a three bed semi in a nice area?

Seems like an excessive trade off of quality of life to my eye, and that probably explains how i'm wormed my way from middle to working class (not in values my w/class brothers and sisters, just the registrar general's classification)

Just taking a punt here but I reckon our man s**** is in fact MrNutt.

It would hardy be out of character now would it?

Could be, could be. Woon't put it past Nutt; he is a racist at heart actually.

I'm above using an alter dear hearts, my money's on it being a surfer, and i claim my five pounds.

ha ha, very funny DR****, nobody is that much of a self-centred ****. very good!

I work stupid hours doing something stressful.

Ah so [i]that's[/i] why you're bitter. Here's an idea - get a smaller house/mortgage - work less, doing something less stressful - have a better life?

my money's on it being a surfer

On balance I think not. He's been able to keep posting this long without a mention of "blue chip clients", his boat, "stealth bomber" or his fun nights partying on the beach with his friends while swapping over batteries on his phone.

Just got to end of this thread and wanted to know how if I was on £100k per annum I could earn £12.5 net a month? Could somebody point me in the direction of the accountant who performed this miracle?

I pay road tax

come on chaps - this is still a cycling forum isn't it - how did you miss this one?

Can you give me examples of people who mad emoney without exploiting the poor - paying them less in wages than they earn for their labour? You do understand how capitalism works dont you?

Please elucidate so I can shoot down the right one.

The point is Britain is one of the most unequal of all western industrial societies. The gap between the rich and poor is huge and is getting bigger. The reason this happens is because the people who are relatively rich whinge the most. As evidenced by this thread. They are able to nurse a genuine sense of greivance even while they stand to benefit the most from society being set up the way it is. Every single neutral commentary on these latest spending cuts have said that they impact the poor more than the rich: Doesn't seem to get through to the affluent middle classes does it?

Can't stomach the whole thread, but two points:

1) not all poor people on benefits are workshy scum living a comfy life. In fact most are not.
2) you don't really understand the point of tax. You don't pay into it to get something back, you pay into it to help run the country and that includes helping those in need.

If you don't like helping those in need then you're not a nice person.

The gap between the rich and poor is huge and is getting bigger

People keep banging on about this, but:

Take a very equal society, where the gap between rich and poor is low. Then move in a load of super-rich folk from overseas, suddenly the gap is huge. Calamity? Disaster? Regressive move?

No.

You're entirely right, RS****. I punched the numbers into an online calculator and then promptly read the wrong line.

£5,400 after tax.

According to this: [url] http://listentotaxman.com/index.php [/url]

Still plenty for most.

Meanwhile in socialist worker utopia, the gap between rich and poor is narrowed by a top rate of tax of 100% driving the rich overseas. Who cares that there's less money in the total economy so the poor have 10% less money, so long as the rich have 50% less?

Aracer - unfortunatly thats not how it works . If it did work like that germany italy norway etc would not be richer than us as they tax higher and have lower inequlities

According to this: http://listentotaxman.com/index.php

"For high earners they've recently scrapped the tax free allowance. And, not only that, but that part of your salary is now taxed at 40%!
DrRS****"

No quite right, and I'd worry if that's the advice your accountant is giving you. Any lost personal allowance is taxed at 20%.

Meanwhile a couple of other points are clear:
gross £100k, net £65310.40
gross £113k, net £70390.40, net change £2590
- that's a marginal rate of tax/NI of 61% on that 13k
- somebody earning £113k is losing 2.3% of their gross income, 3.5% of their net income

I'm far from being an apologist for high earners (I'm unlikely to even pay 40% tax in my lifetime), but we really should get our facts straight.

Please elucidate so I can shoot down the right one

If I was a highly qualified medical doctor, I'd feel pretty lucky I could get paid hansomely by the state.

GP's have it much easier since Labour gave them a massive pay rise and relieved them of the obligation to open all hours.

Any one who goes into medicine in the UK knows they will be highly likely to work stupid hours - people don't just get sick during the normal working week!

Of course, if you feel that you are being unfairly over taxed in your role as well paid doctor, there's always the option to take your expertise and go and work elsewhere in the world.

As for the extreme left wingers on here - don't waste your breath on them as they have no idea what is fair, or what is really going on.

If it did work like that germany italy norway etc would not be richer than us as they tax higher and have lower inequlities

In any case, are you suggesting that the wealth of a country is solely dependent on the taxation system and the rich/poor divide? Or is it possible that those countries you mention might still be richer than us even if they did have more inequality and lower taxation? Come to that, how do you know those countries wouldn't be richer still if they had our taxation system?

Meanwhile in socialist worker utopia

It's fairly unusual for you aracer to use the sort of crass rhetoric which is more commonly associated with the likes of ratty.

You sound as if you might be a litle rattled mate - are you ?

Is it a lonely and frustrating business trying to defend the indefensible ?

Or is it that you were itching for a fight but no one seemed very keen so you thought you'd up the antes ?

Still, you finally got a response so I guess it worked.

I'll certainly not be hiring you as my accountant.

Just as well I'm a lawyer..!

It is a pointless debate

when you see billion pound annual profits for companies it is ,IMHO,excessive

You sound as if you might be a litle rattled mate - are you ?

Or are you denying:
- you read Socialist Worker
- 100% upper rate of tax is the sort of Policy the SWP would have
- such a rate of tax wouldn't actually benefit the country

Goodness me, you are grumpy tonight 😐

What's up mate ?

You can tell me.........no one's listening.

Do I hear you sidestepping my question?

Such figures are totally meaningless without context.

when you see billion pound annual profits for companies [ [b]probably better to have said individuals personal wealth of billions[/b]]it is ,IMHO,excessive and that sort of wealth should be more fairly shared amongst the world's citizens- people starve to death , cannot educate their children , drink clean water yet we have people with more money than they can ever spend

If you're one of those million shareholders, why should your pension money be spent on overseas aid just because you've invested in a big company?

I gave you the context

Someone has enough money to invest they cant eat...which is the greater need ?

I do wonder what you're doing on here when you clearly don't need a computer or an internet account (or a mountain bike), and could instead send everything you earn apart from what you need for basics to people poorer than you. Or don't you practice what you preach? Are you in fact more motivated by wealth and personal possessions than social responsibility?

Someone has enough money to invest they cant eat...which is the greater need ? Help me out it is a tricky one.As I said you are either Ok with this or you want wealth /momey more fairly distributed.

so who decides the redistribution of wealth? you're idea of fair, certainly will not be the same as someone from a different religion/geographical location/tribe.

you see, fairness would depend on humans being completely altruistic and we're not genetically designed that way otherwise we'd have died out as species. The strong survive and protect their tribe at the cost of the weak. It's the same all over the animal kingdom. Just because we wear a suit doesn't suddenly remove us from that fact.

god dam tree hugging lefties

Not until now you didn't,

they'd just avoid our tax system altogether by leaving and taking their toys with them - remember these are the people largely driven by greed and personal wealth.

See my mention of pensions there? It's not wealthy people I'm talking about here, but ordinary ones,

and could instead send everything you earn apart from what you need for basics to people poorer than you. Or don't you practice what you preach? Are you in fact more motivated by wealth and personal possessions than social responsibility?

Is that picture a scene from 'The Human Centipede?'

I'll have to get down to Blockbusters tomorrow, I like political thrillers.

Hmmmm. Some interesting (read infuriating) views here.

The whole tax increase rich vs poor arguement kinda works on paper, but it's just numbers and numbers can be manipulated to whatever end in which they become most useful. e.g. £20,000 household income with £400 /month rent will be hit a ridiculous amount compared to £30,000 household income with £400 /month rent. But say those with £30,000 , £50,000 , £70,000 household income don't want to live in a £400 /month house? They can afford £1,000+ /month rent or mortgage. They can afford £100+ /month for a nice car, etc. And the household bills increase due to there being more home to heat, car insurance increases cos it's a nicer car, and very quickly you end up with a higher income family having not much more free cash than a single income/social income family.
But that's the fault of the higher income family? That have strived for better? The arguement seems to be "you earn more than me, so why shouldn't you pay more to keep my family off the breadline?"
Well I don't buy that. We *do* pay more!

I have nothing but respect for those out there struggling with single or no income. The stress is unreal. I know: I'm currently one of them. But I certainly don't blame the current government and their spending review for it. I don't blame anyone*. It's all just shit that happens that us small people have no control over and just have to deal with. I think the spending review is about as sensible as things could be right now, and I'm thankful Labour and their 'scorched earth' policy are out of the way. People may well lose their jobs, which is an individual tragedy in each case, but what would we rather have? Russia 1992? The Weimar Republic 1921-1923? Yes I know that's exaggeration and hot air, but it seems to work for the tabloids.

*well, maybe I blame Labour a little bit. Maybe I'd have blamed whoever was in control at the time? I can't say.

Onzadog
I haven't read any of the replies yet, but that was a good answer.

On "Have I got News For You" last week, one of the panellists said, about Philip Green, who has nominated his Monaco-living wife as head of his company so that he doesn't have to pay tax because he thinks £285 million is too much to pay, this:

"Of course you have to pay £285 million - you earned £1.2 BILLION, you fat greasy pig".

A criticsim I find hard to fault.

I am often moved, when Green is on the News, to note that he seems most self-satisfied when photographed with his coke-whore model girlfriend on his arm...

But perhaps that IS a little unfair. What does the team think?

And the household bills increase due to there being more home to heat, car insurance increases cos it's a nicer car, and very quickly you end up with a higher income family having not much more free cash than a single income/social income family

numbers can be manipulated to whatever end in which they become most useful.

And that Junkyard is where our arguments differ.

You think it's fair to ask the well off (not the billionaires) to tighten their belts so that others don't have to.

I think I contribute a fair amount already. I work hard and don't really want to have to sell my Mondeo to buy a "less" glamorous car.....

Being as simplistic as saying someone on 50k has more than someone on 30k is going a bit too far. People live within their means - but what the government are suggesting will make it a larger adjustment for those on better incomes.

OK, so they might not find themselves on the breadline, but that was never the point of the posts. It's the expectation from the lower incomes that the higher earners will bail them out. And on top of that it's the venom and bile that seems directed at those on better incomes.

Anyway - it's kept me entertained.

but what the government are suggesting will make it a larger adjustment for those on better incomes.

Not according to the IFS.

Being as simplistic as saying someone on 50k has more than someone on 30k is going a bit too far.

It's just a simple fact.

It's the expectation from the lower incomes that the higher earners will bail them out.

It's the other way round mate.

It was ordinary working class people who bailed the bankers out. It is them who contribute the largest amount by far to the government.

And the Tory LibDem government is determined to keep it that way........£7 billion in benefit cuts, and £7 billion in bonuses for bankers.

The Tories and LibDems like to "balance" the books.

DrRS**** - Member

And that Junkyard is where our arguments differ.

You think it's fair to ask the well off (not the billionaires) to tighten their belts so that others don't have to.

This is not what is happening. Teh poorest will be losing a bigger % of their income according to the ifs

It was ordinary working class people who bailed the bankers out. It is them who contribute the largest amount by far to the government.

And the Tory LibDem government is determined to keep it that way........£7 billion in benefit cuts, and £7 billion in bonuses for bankers.

Being as simplistic as saying someone on 50k has more than someone on 30k is going a bit too far

yep he agrees it is 20 k more

You think it's fair to ask the well off (not the billionaires) to tighten their belts so that others don't have to

. It's the expectation from the [s]lower incomes[/s]bankers that the [s]higher[/s]lower earners will bail them out.

* we are all being expected to bale out the bankers and we are putting a disproportionate burden on "normal " people and the poorest in our society. £2.7 billion from child benefits £2.5 billion bank tax. You seem to think the poor should be paying for tte [very] rich. If we are all in this together surely the better off, who have the broadest financial shouldres, should carry the largest burden - yes the already do I know but as above they can afford it unless 50 k realy is not more than 30k

we are all being expected to bale out the bankers

we are putting a disproportionate burden on "normal " people and the poorest in our society. £2.7 billion from child benefits

The government are giving bonuses to bankers? That's scandalous.

My my, you are in a silly mood this weekend aracer.

The government have let the bankers off the hook - so they can pay themselves nice bonuses. So yes, the government is responsible for the fact that bankers are going to have a good recession.

Take the £7billion off the bankers and use it to plug the benefit bill. They are after all the cause of the global mess and behind the burden of raising unemployment.

Are we? I must have missed that bit - I thought the banks were making profit, some of which was going into the treasury because we own them, and that we were actually bailing out the last government's structural overspending.

aracer you are turning into ratty - are you really suggesting that the banking crisis has no cost to the public finances? And if we are making some of that money back from the banks - isn't that because of the last government's good response to the crisis? You can't have it both ways.

one banks investment arm earned a good few billion. the few top dudes awarded themselves 1/4 of this in bonuses. Millions each. Thats money that is not going to the government that could and should be.

No one needs or deserves bonuses worth millions. Thats not reward, thats just greed.

here read up -

The financial crisis of 2007 to the present is a crisis triggered by a liquidity shortfall in the United States banking system.[1] It has resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market has also suffered, resulting in numerous evictions, foreclosures and prolonged vacancies. It is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[2] It contributed to the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars, substantial financial commitments incurred by governments, and a significant decline in economic activity.[3] Many causes have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[4] Both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration,[5] while significant risks remain for the world economy over the 2010–2011 periods.[6]

The collapse of the housing bubble, which peaked in the U.S. in 2006, caused the values of securities tied to real estate pricing to plummet thereafter, damaging financial institutions globally.[7] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability, and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during late 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period as credit tightened and international trade declined.[8] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st century financial markets.[9] [b]Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus[spending], monetary policy expansion, and institutional bailouts.[/b]

The government have let the bankers off the hook

Take the £7billion off the bankers

aracer you are turning into ratty - are you really suggesting that the banking crisis has no cost to the public finances?

They spent to get us out of the recession - so did all governments and now we are paying the price - too quickly IMHO-what western govt did not end up with a structural defecit ?

FWIW I'm far from an apologist for the bankers and totally agree with TJ's latest post - the thing is, unlike most people on this thread I'm a realist rather than an idealist and not interested in ideological class war.

The money which was spent on bailing out the banks is gone and is part of our debt

You seem very nonchalant about this. Also, that doesn't include the wider damage done to the economy by the economic crisis, which even people like Mervyn King admit was largely caused by the banking sector. Which is [i]still[/i] not lending money as it should, yet making astronomical profits and bonuses again.

unlike most people on this thread I'm a realist rather than an idealist

So being a realist is just blindly accepting the status quo - I wonder where we would be without 'idealists' throughout human history? William Wilberforce, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela: hopeless idealists eh?

unlike most people on this thread I'm a realist rather than an idealist and not interested in ideological class war.

but describing the current spending cuts as being to "bale out the bankers"

You seem very nonchalant about this. Also, that doesn't include the wider damage done to the economy by the economic crisis, which even people like Mervyn King admit was largely caused by the banking sector. Which is still not lending money as it should, yet making astronomical profits and bonuses again.

So being a realist is just blindly accepting the status quo

Thanks for linking to what a structural defecit is

The structural defecit was in decline - see link and table

deleted post - actually why bother

So the Govt are doing well out of the banks they part own and the investment is returning a profit.

So without the crisis and need to invest in the banks we'd be even worse off?

Blaming the banks for this whole mess is like putting a hole in a bucket and blaming the water for running out.

Better to blame whoever made the hole, no?

god dam tree hugging lefties

I'm a tree hugging leftie but I agree with Tazzy.

Heh heh heh

Rather than dwelling on the fairness or not of the 'solution' - how about whether it will work or not?

Paul Krugman in the New York Times says it won't.

[url= http://nyti.ms/aYgA8g ]NY Times[/url]

http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/there-was-no-other-choice-%E2%80%93-now-george-osborne-must-hold-his-nerve

Apparently, of the £7Bn in bonuses, approximately £4.5Bn will be coming back to the government in the form of taxes.

Of course, the folk earning these bonuses will have them included in their contract of employment. I'm sure all you union-lefty-whingers wouldn't want to see these workers having their contracts ripped up at a whim. Or is it OK in their case but not in the case of a nurse or a miner?

I think it tells you all you need to know that Rupert Murdoch has welcomed the Tory measures - I'm very confident that he has all our best interests at heart.

I really do find the "fair" taxation argument interesting!

how is a progressive taxation system 'fair'?

Taxation that is progressive/regressive neutral is 'fair' - ie, the rich and poor are affected [u]equally![/u]

How is it fair for the rate to go up as you earn more? - the rich already pay more [b]thats how percentages work[/b]

Even funnier is the 'Keynsian economics' argument for financial stimulus!

"We will borrow even more money to create jobs.”

That would be brilliant if we thought you could be trusted to decide which kinds of jobs ought to be created. Only you don’t. I don’t. No-one does. Better to lift the dead hand of centralist interveners and politicians and let people create their own jobs through innovation, experimentation and – yes! – failure.

Wiltshire covers 1,346 square miles. That works out at around 5,098,649,600 square yards. We could generate work for tens of thousands of carpet-fitters by agreeing to cover Wiltshire in carpet. Does that make any sense? Well no. But what would make sense?

Do you know where economic growth will come from in 5 years time… do I…. does anybody? Nope!

I'm a tree hugging leftie but I agree with Tazzy.

I'm a tree hugging couldn't give a sh1t about politics-ist but big hugs in hairy lets love the planet and be excellent to each other kind of way 😆

aracer - Member

I'm a realist rather than an idealist and not interested in ideological class war.

And yet you support a bunch of politicians who are in the process of launching an undeclared ideological class war on the British people. That rather smacks of hypocrisy.

Professor David Blanchflower is a very highly respected economist holding posts at Stirling, Bonn, Munich and Dartmouth universities. For three years he was a member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee which sets interest rates to enable the inflation targets to be met.

Last year he was awarded the CBE for services to Industry and the Bank of England, after correctly predicting in November 2007 that the UK would face a recession. He is precisely the sort of person you would expect David Cameron, George Osborne, and Nick Clegg, to listen to.

This is what Professor David Blanchflower has had to say about the present government's economic policies :

[b][i]"Implementing an austerity package on the scale and at the speed proposed by the coalition has the potential to be the greatest macro economic mistake of the century

"There's no example in history where such a thing as this has ever worked. The only examples in history is where you've done this and it's failed"[/i][/b]

The warnings are all there ..... there is no proof or evidence that Osborne's plan will succeed in its [u]stated[/u] aim.
But the Bullingdon Boys don't care.

Because if unemployment, low wages, poverty, homelessness, and social deprivation - with all its consequences of rising crime etc, all increase, they will simply blame Labour for everything.

They have already had remarkable success blaming this [i]whole[/i] mess on Labour - despite the clear evidence to the contrary.

But more, much more than that, they are determined to achieve their lifetime's burning ambition - to role back "socialism" and leave Britain and the British people in the hands of unfettered rampant Capitalism.

You don't need a well-educated, healthy, fully employed, wealthy population, living in nice houses, to make vast amounts of profit and wealth - Victorian industrialists and financiers managed to do that extremely well.

The Tories just need people to vote for them. And the people have (just about) and undoubtedly will again, specially if the Tories keep Rupert and his media empire on their side. Which I think is pretty much guaranteed - especially now that they have well and truly shafted the BBC for him.

And even if they lose an election, its really no big deal - Labour governments of the 21st century have proved to, utterly lack both the courage and determination, to take on the industrialists, the financiers, and the media moguls. Or in any way at all, to reverse previous Tory governments agendas.

The Tories and their LibDem stooges have fired the first shots in a new ideological class war.....whilst Labour sits twiddling their thumbs consumed with worry about what the newspapers will say about them.

Zulu-eleven

Fair is what the other guy has to pay and I don't.

ourmaninthenorth - Member

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - said by someone cleverer than me...

Isn't that Marxism in a nutshell? Brilliant idea, with one tiny problem. Human nature.

Taxation that is progressive/regressive neutral is 'fair' - ie, the rich and poor are affected equally!

the rich already pay more thats how percentages work

[img] [/img]

some STW forum members earlier today...

Isn't that Marxism in a nutshell? Brilliant idea, with one tiny problem. Human nature.

No it isn't really Marxism in a nutshell - there's more to that quote for a start.

As as far as "human nature" is concerned, "normal" human nature is rather hard to define - it changes with time. There was a time when watching humans being eaten alive by starving animals was perfectly normal human nature. As was keeping slaves. I could go on......

It's also fair to say that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" has been practised throughout the overwhelming history of our species - millions of years in fact. So it would be hard to argue that it doesn't fit in with human nature.

Although I fully accept the sentiments behind your comment - human society is clearly not at that level of development. And God only knows how long it would take to reach that.

That's why it should read as part of the [i]whole[/i] quote.