Life is hard living on £120k a year.

Home Forum Chat Forum Life is hard living on £120k a year.

Viewing 45 posts - 451 through 495 (of 537 total)
  • Life is hard living on £120k a year.
  • grum
    Member

    The figure shouldn’t be seen in isolation. In exchange for paying higher tax you get to live in a better off, fairer, nicer society….

    Indeed footflaps:

    In society where there is more income inequality the poor are worse off than in a society with less income inequality
    In a society where there is more income inequality the average person is worse off than in a society with less income inequality
    In a society where there is more income inequality the rich are worse off than in a society with less income inequality

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Subscriber

    Any threshold. Would you want 75% of your earnings being taken away from you?

    Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, if it was redistributed properly.

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Subscriber

    There is a lot of published evidence (google is you want) showing that people are happier the less inequality there is, or basically inequality breeds unhappiness…

    Personally, I’d rather be happy than rich.

    Premier Icon jambalaya
    Subscriber

    @aa – understood, we definitely agree on that, we can afford it.

    @molgrips – understood also. Our social security budget is huge though, is it all spent wisely ? How much of the Disability budget actually goes into the care of those most of us would recognise as really needing assistance ? It’s easier to ask for more money (especially from that group the rich who can afford it and who are all tax cheaters anyway) than to look at whether the current money is being spent wisely. We cannot afford what we are spending, we run a big budget deficit. If we don’t address it we will have a far inferior social security net and a much worse health and education service. That’s the danger I see.

    LHS
    Member

    I wouldn’t have a problem with it, if it was redistributed properly

    So redistributed properly includes fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, building HS2, funding MP’s second homes and renewing a Nuclear fleet of submarines?

    But even so, if you paid me £1m a year and taxed me 75% I’d still be pretty chuffed.

    Why would you ever work harder though? There becomes a point where the returns don’t equal the work put in. It breeds mediocrity.

    mudshark
    Member

    Well it would be hard if a 75% tax was introduced rather than always being there as suddenly there’d be a bigger dent in income than before. People tend to resent that sort of thing however rich they are.

    grum
    Member

    jambalaya – didn’t we do the stuff about benefits before?

    You had to admit that actually the vast majority of the benefits bill goes to pensioners and the working poor (thereby effectively subsidising the profits of many large companies), and that benefit fraud is a tiny percentage of the total.

    It’s easier to ask for more money

    The issue isn’t asking for more money – it’s making sure people actually pay the money we are already asking for.

    Premier Icon DaRC_L
    Subscriber

    Do you think a 75% tax rate is fair?

    Incorrect argument – do I think anyone needs more than 150K to live comfortably? So if the 75% tax rate was set for incomes above 200K (including bonuses) then I think it’s more than fair. They’re profiting from our society and so their contribution should reflect their profit.

    LHS
    Member

    Incorrect argument – do I think anyone needs more than 150K to live comfortably? So if the 75% tax rate was set for incomes above 200K (including bonuses) then I think it’s more than fair. They’re profiting from our society and so their contribution should reflect their profit.

    And we’re almost at communism.

    So the idealistic view is that we tell people how much they can earn and make an assessment of their level of happieness and then restrict them from doing anything which doesn’t fall in line with this idealistic view point.

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Subscriber

    So redistributed properly includes fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, building HS2, funding MP’s second homes and renewing a Nuclear fleet of submarines?

    That’s quite an impressive conclusion you’ve drawn there…..

    Redistributed properly, to me, means that tax rates are raised on higher earners with the intention of evening out the wealth across the population. Rather than say upping the tax rate on those earning £100k, so they can offer tax cuts to billionaires, which would be the traditional Tory / Neocon strategy.

    As for the list in your ‘leap of faith’ conclusion I don’t really have a problem with any of them, except perhaps the war. MPs expenses are in the noise, so don’t care. Nuclear subs and HS2 are massive infrastructure projects in the UK, so the money gets re-circulated within UK industry, which is fine by me.

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    There is a lot of published evidence (google is you want) showing that people are happier the less inequality there is, or basically inequality breeds unhappiness…

    That’s what the guy who used to be chief inspector of schools in Finland puts their education performance down to – an equal society.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    footflaps – Member

    The figure shouldn’t be seen in isolation. In exchange for paying higher tax you get to live in a better off, fairer, nicer society….

    Incredibly complicated feedback loops too- more money spent on schools, infrastructure, health etc means more effective workforces and conditions in which to do business, which trickles up.

    grum
    Member

    That’s what the guy who used to be chief inspector of schools in Finland puts their education performance down to – an equal society.

    Sounds like communism to me.

    LHS
    Member

    Rather than say upping the tax rate on those earning £100k

    Remember for equality this should be for household income. It would be unfair to penalise a single income family of £100k over a double income family when both parents are earning £50k. So the 75% tax band should be for those earning £50k too.

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    Do Dave and chums look as if they give a flying **** whether the majority of the population are living happy, fulfilling and rewarding lives? Or even make a living wage?

    As long as their rich friends are… job done! Its been interesting watching question time last night, and news night this week. While the Pfizer takeover of Astra Zenecca was being discussed, plenty of people (and not just pinko commies) are now readily using the word ‘Tax Haven’ when referring to the UK

    Maybe concentrating on personal taxation is a bit of a red herring. What we should be looking at is how little business contributes , as a percentage of its profits. Far far less than the bastion of capitalism, the US.

    Are they really that deluded that they think a race to the bottom on corporate taxation will benefit the countries economy in the long term? Do they even care?

    dragon
    Member

    are now readily using the word ‘Tax Haven’ when referring to the UK

    So what? That’s been evident for years. Ireland have been playing that game even more. At the end of the day with highly mobile companies and workforces, it’s hard to see how corporation tax will even exist in 50 years.

    Junkyard
    Member

    And we’re almost at communism.

    Marxism/communism relates to the control of capital within an economy- in one it is in private ownership in the other collectively owned. Therefore altering tax rates does not make you more or less communist it makes you more or less fair / redistributive.

    So the idealistic view is that we tell people how much they can earn and make an assessment of their level of happieness and then restrict them from doing anything which doesn’t fall in line with this idealistic view point.

    What they meant was what they said

    They’re profiting from our society and so their contribution should reflect their profit.

    🙄

    mashiehood
    Member

    The People’s Republic of United Kingdom according to the great wisdom of STW.

    Hail the great Leaders!

    Are they really that deluded that they think a race to the bottom on corporate taxation will benefit the countries economy in the long term? Do they even care?

    Alex salmond believes so – he is committing Scotland to lower rates of corp tax than rUK. Funny old world.

    LHS
    Member

    Lesser of two evils. A nation full of jobs and investment but no corporation tax, or a nation without both.

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Subscriber

    The People’s Republic of United Kingdom according to the great wisdom of STW.

    It’s not that radical, most Scandinavian countries have a much more redistributive tax system…

    Perhaps we can all become Harrison Bergeron? There’s a thought for lunch,

    grum
    Member

    The People’s Republic of United Kingdom according to the great wisdom of STW.
    Hail the great Leaders!

    Great argument. Well made.

    Premier Icon ransos
    Subscriber

    It’s not that radical, most Scandinavian countries have a much more redistributive tax system…

    They’re also healthy, prosperous and well-educated. It’ll never catch on…

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Subscriber

    They’re also healthy, prosperous and well-educated. It’ll never catch on…

    Yep, goes against everything we Brits stand for, with our heads held high surrounded by poverty and ignorance.

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    Are they really that deluded that they think a race to the bottom on corporate taxation will benefit the countries economy in the long term? Do they even care?

    Alex salmond believes so – he is committing Scotland to lower rates of corp tax than rUK. Funny old world.

    Alex Salmond? The legendary economic sage? That half-wit, pre-crash, in his ‘Arc of Prosperity’ speech (which he inexplicably now tries to deny the existence of) said he wanted the tax regime of Ireland, coupled with the regulatory framework of Iceland. Given the banks based in Edinburgh, if he’s achieved this, then an independent Scotland would presently be making Greece look like Monaco.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Our social security budget is huge though, is it all spent wisely ?

    Of cousre not – there is wastage, but is eliminating all wastage possible? Is it possible to catch everyone who’s taking the piss without penalising those who are in genuine need? I suspect not.

    But even so, if you paid me £1m a year and taxed me 75% I’d still be pretty chuffed.
    Why would you ever work harder though?

    What you earn doesn’t have much relation to how hard you work, does it? I do quite well but I don’t work hard at all. It’s pure luck that I was born with an aptitude that pays well.

    As for not working hard – at that end of the pay scale, there are other rewards. I suspect most people up there are more motivated by ambition, power and responsibility than money. It’s certainly the case in my job. Many of us our working hard to get promoted, even though it rarely results in higher pay; it simply gives us more senority and makes our job more interesting. We can do things our way instead of having to take crap from someone else.

    A nation full of jobs and investment but no corporation tax, or a nation without both.

    Or perhaps somewhere in between..?

    Premier Icon Lifer
    Subscriber

    teamhurtmore – Member

    Perhaps we can all become Harrison Bergeron? There’s a thought for lunch

    Oh ffs

    Junkyard
    Member

    Alex salmond believes so – he is committing Scotland to lower rates of corp tax than rUK. Funny old world

    MUST RESIST 😉

    What you earn doesn’t have much relation to how hard you work, does it? I do quite well but I don’t work hard at all. It’s pure luck that I was born with an aptitude that pays well.

    Wise words molly wise words

    IME the hardest jobs I have ever done paid the least

    Premier Icon richmars
    Subscriber

    IME the hardest jobs I have ever done paid the least

    It’s just how do you define ‘hard’?

    Hard physically? Mentally? Most responsibility? Biggest cost if you cock up?

    konabunny
    Member

    And we’re almost at communism.

    How did you get to communism with that?

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    It’s just how do you define ‘hard’?

    Exactly.

    dragon
    Member

    IME the hardest jobs I have ever done paid the least

    Really? Most low paid jobs I’ve done were a doddle. Take basic shop work in Tesco’s or where ever, not hard.

    When you look at pay, market conditions and responsibility have a big factor.

    grum
    Member

    Really? Most low paid jobs I’ve done were a doddle.

    Hardest job I’ve ever had was either working in McDonalds as a teenager or working in a CD packing warehouse.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Take basic shop work in Tesco’s or where ever, not hard.

    I worked at a supermarket when I was younger. It was incredibly hard. Not physically, but mentally. I suppose we’re all different.

    Premier Icon ransos
    Subscriber

    Really? Most low paid jobs I’ve done were a doddle. Take basic shop work in Tesco’s or where ever, not hard.

    Really? My experience is the exact opposite.

    mashiehood
    Member

    depends on what defines ‘hard’ – during my time at Uni, I worked in a sheet metal factory, I couldn’t lift the sheets or get my arms around them but the pay was great and I stuck at it. That was physically hard.

    Today, my job is mentally challenging, at the start the challenge was big but over the years, development and learning together with a great employer has meant my job, whilst challenging is also very satisfying.

    Premier Icon ransos
    Subscriber

    Today, my job is mentally challenging, at the start the challenge was big but over the years, development and learning together with a great employer has meant my job, whilst challenging is also very satisfying.

    I found the mind-numbing tedium of low-paid work to be mentally-challenging. What I do now is mentally-stimulating.

    Tom_W1987
    Member

    So the idealistic view is that we tell people how much they can earn and make an assessment of their level of happieness and then restrict them from doing anything which doesn’t fall in line with this idealistic view point

    Yup. We actually live in a society where we rely on each other…we don’t live in a truly free market society, if we did people like me would be able to kill the rich in their sleep and seize their wealth.

    We live in a society with lots and lots of restrictions placed upon we do or what we can own, I don’t see why there has to be an arbitary line over wealth either.

    At the end of the day economic policy should come down to identifying evidence based policy that best serves the economic interests of the majority of the country, eg growth and job creation. If that means redistributing wealth through higher taxes then so be it. This isn’t communism, it’s cold hard utilitarianism.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    I don’t pay any of my money in tax. The bit deducted from my nominal salary isn’t mine to begin with.

    mefty
    Member

    They’re also healthy, prosperous and well-educated. It’ll never catch on..

    I don’t know we are led by a centre right coalition just like Norway, Finland and Sweden.

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    Their centre is further to the left than ours.

    mefty
    Member

    Really, you should look up the Swedish Finance Minister

    Borg has been recognised as the mastermind behind the new Swedish government’s economic doctrine, focusing on proactive measures against unemployment. An incremental dismantling of the social democratic welfare state, with larger self-financing of welfare systems, lower taxes and fewer benefits are seen as the way to create new motivation to work and more business opportunities and creation of jobs. He developed these new policies in his role as chief economist in the Moderate Party.

    focusing on proactive measures against unemployment.

    You should read the whole article. According to the same source as you mefty : “who has served as Minister for Finance in the Swedish Government since 2006.”

    So look at what’s been happening to unemployment in Sweden since 2006 :

    BTW, guess what year the “Moderate” Party came to power ? Yep, you’ve got it…….1991

    Thatcher and the Tories made a great song and dance about the 1.5 million unemployed in 1979 with the most famous general election slogan in British politics : “Labour isn’t working”. So tackling unemployment could rightly be seen as their priority. Within 2 or 3 years they had more than doubled unemployment.

Viewing 45 posts - 451 through 495 (of 537 total)

The topic ‘Life is hard living on £120k a year.’ is closed to new replies.