pants you would pay more tax than you legally had to.

Given that many people on here openly discuss getting bike and other bits cheap from abroad by avoiding import duty then I think that’s a fairly obvious +1. 🙂

Everyone pays the same percentage. Do you really think that the top tax payers are paying anything like 30%? No, too many loopholes.

Ok I’ll repeat: how is this fairer? It’s seems some have forgot about the “fair” poll tax.

Politics of envy…deary,deary me. You missed the point I was making:

but money brings political influence which has distorted Government policy in their favour. This needs to be greatly diminished.

in the meantime they’ve done something useful for the rest of society rather than sitting at home on the playstation.

Right-whinge standard sweeping statement no.101.

And pants you would pay more tax than you legally had to.

Given that many people on here openly discuss getting bike and other bits cheap from abroad by avoiding import duty then I think that’s a fairly obvious

Interestingly, to tie in with another current thread, would peole also try to get bikes/parts as cheap as possible? Hence the increase in targetted crime of bikes and components? Are morals ‘flexible’ when it comes to keeping hold of as much money as possible?

To put tax/NI and the average man into perspective, we’re just helping my parents move and found an old wage slip for my Dad.

In 1971 he earnt £22.60 and took home £21.10 (then both mortgage and children did impact the tax code). My Mum didn’t work, there were two (young) children and a mortgage of £3000 to pay.

Just an average job in a factory and total tax/NI take of about 5% – compare to now…

Finally I can’t possibly have any faith in any twerp who doesn’t know what fair means. Puicture the scene. Usain Bolt and me with my screwed knees that can’t run upstairs. Do we start together and him finish before I have run a few yards or let me start 10 metres from the line and both go on the gun so we finish together. For some reason some people seem to think that the latter is fair. Fair means you treat everyone the same. Same tax rate etc. if we stopped wasteing so much money we would be straight a lot sooner.

And so when your knees gasp for their last breath, you’ll not want any healthcare for them? Usain Bolt doesn’t need it, so why should you? That’s fair, right?

The irony is Usain Bolt probably has his knees checked every time he clicks his fingers.

I’d rather we live in a world of equal opportunities.

Sorry Junkyard, I think you misunderstand me.

In my post I said tax everyone at the same rate. This would be a starting point. There would be a need to look at the bottom end of the scale and say that you only start paying tax when you are earning above a certain threshold. Above that everyone pays the same percentage, no wriggle room for ludicrous tax dodges, i.e. paying money into offshore accounts a la Jimmy Carr.

I too think that it is disgusting that that someone earning far more than me should pay less of a percentage of their income. This cannot be defended. But I am wary of penalising people for improving their lot hence my suggestion of a fixed percentage.

It would also be interesting to understand who comes under the umbrella of the “wealthy”. Do we have an arbitrary figure in mind? A certain demographic? This is missing from the debate.

#edit – WTF has the poll tax got to do with it? That was a fixed amount per person, not a fixed % of income. Below a certain threshold you got a reduction, above that you paid the same amount as the guy next door.

But I am wary of penalising people for improving their lot hence my suggestion of a fixed percentage.

I think this is a myth perpetrated by the rich. We’re always hearing politicians (especially those from priveledged backgrounds of inherited wealth) banging on about encouraging entrepreneurs. Then the taxation is set accordingly

Trouble is that if you look at the actual figures, social mobility is back at Victorian levels. So whatevers happening in our society, entrepreneurs from modest backgrounds are getting nowhere.

This is just used as a cover for those already rich (and if you look at the present cabinet, none are entrepreneurs, they were all born into wealth) to decrease their contribution to society

We’ve been scammed

Be honest with yourselves and grow up, if you earned “that” sort of salary you would want to keep as much salary as you could, you’d probably pay tax and like all those in that position look to avoid paying vast sums.

Again, not all – see JK RowlIng or the other author I posted the letter from earlier. Not all rich people are selfish and greedy, and it’s a pretty depressing view of human nature just to assume everyone is and be happy about that fact.

People have been conditioned to accept it.

if you look at the present cabinet, none are entrepreneurs, they were all born into wealth

Really?

Micheal Gove, for one, must be pretty upset about that…

I think this is a myth perpetrated by the rich.

It is. i’ve already given an example (Scandinavia) where high taxation does not lead to the dreaded ‘brain drain’, but instead actually helps create a more attractive society in which to live, with lower crime and poverty levels and excellent education, healthcare and greater social equality. Helping level the playing field so that those at the bottom have improved access to things like healthcare and education, and more equality of opportiunity, is surely better than keeping people divided and perpetuating resentment between social groups?

Gove still in the cabinet? 😉

Ah well, at least his conniving ‘new money’ ways will not leak into budget/tax/fiscal policy in his current post eh?

Michael Gove is just a fig leaf. And a particularly stupid one at that!, He somehow seems to think that by out-right-winging the toffs by being even more incredibly arrogant and obnoxious, they’ll somehow accept him.

A useful idiot.

Whichever way you slice it, the present Tory cabinet is stuffed to the gunnels with old money, who’s interests they represent to the total exclusion of the rest of society

Not all rich people are selfish and greedy

True. Many become rich by being selfish and greedy though.

JK Rowliong has something quite pertinent to say on this matter of taxation:

“The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating expats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

“A second reason was that I am indebted to the welfare state… When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major, was there to break the fall.”

She’s done ok for a ‘benefit scrounger’, I’d say. Had hse been forced to do unpaid labour as per the plans of some people, then perhaps she would never have had the time to write, become so successful and therefore never have ended up in a position where she pays millions in tax back into the country which made her. Maybe she’d have simply languished on the dole, or in poorly paid employment where she remained a burden to the state.

James Dyson is another worthy of mention for being a decent hard working honest British taxpayer.

Among the 54 billionaires resident in 2006 (the most up-to-date figures) a total of £14.7m was paid in tax. Mr Dyson alone paid £9m of that. In 2010, Dyson’s company paid 88 per cent of its total tax bill in Britain, giving the Exchequer £50m.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-billionaires-who-do-pay-their-bills-including-james-dyson-and-jk-rowling-7873607.html

Vince Cable might turn nasty too.

Is that Vince ‘don’t let him make any actual decisions’ Cable? 😉

I’m still waiting to hear this explanation about how Gove was born into wealth Binners 😉

See my post above then….

😉

You’re not seriously going to try and suggest that this present lot are in some way representative of a ‘Meritocracy’, are you?

I’m not suggesting anything – it was you who told us that the cabinet were all born into wealth

Even the one who adopted at four months old 😳

Zulu-Eleven – Member

I’m still waiting to hear this explanation about how Gove was born into wealth Binners

…is that really all you can find in this thread to call him out on? 😉 and indeed 😆

David Davis is a better example of what happens to uppity commoners who have the temerity to try and establish themselves in the party above their ‘betters’

That is david call me dave Davis

A rarity in either party in that he has actual principles.

Bet he never joined in with The Tory high jinls of clanging glasses and shouting steward at Prescott.

Neither party is that good these days at having a cross section of society but The Tories have never really had a tradition of this

Labour do seem to be getting more “elitist” or white middle class graduate etc but have some way to go to achieve the heridatry millionairre status of the Tory cabinet

but have some way to go to achieve the heridatry millionairre status of the Tory cabinet

The difference is Z-11 is that he was the exeption, rather than the rule. In the same way Gove or DD are for the Tories

As far as the present labour party is concerned, I went to school with a present Labour shadow minister, and I’m proper northern working class scum

*polishes chip on shoulder* 😉

It’s true, I’ve met him. He really is frightfully common.

Zulu: Benn: oh the irony. You even hotlinked the picture from the coalition of resistance website: I expect you will have to have a little lie down after all that. 😆

I can’t see Osborne setting up workers co-operatives to help failing industries, and joining the Stop The War coalition after he retires.

Still, if there is any merit in that old-fashioed idea of political extremism being a ‘horseshoe’ shape, then Z-11 and Tony Benn should be about ready to jump off their respective ends and swap political places altogether. 😉

Your patheticness knows no bounds Zulu-Eleven. You come on here playing the smart arse with your truly pathetic point scoring, in this particular case absurdly pretending that the present cabinet doesn’t represent wealth and privilege.

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that your moronic claims are false, and yet that seems to have no effect on you at all – you just keep banging on the same old bollox regardless, without the slightest hint of shame.

Even the Daily Mail, yes that’s right, the Daily Mail – standard bearer of right-wing voters, fully accepts that Cameron’s cabinet represents the privileged few :

The coalition of millionaires

It is the £60million Cabinet. David Cameron’s coalition Government may have adopted ‘fairness’ as one of its defining slogans, but his team of Ministers has been drawn almost exclusively from the ranks of the financial elite – leading to accusations that politics is once again becoming the preserve of the wealthy.

Of the 29 Ministers entitled to attend Cabinet meetings, 23 have assets and investments estimated to be worth more than £1million.

But of course you Zulu-Eleven, would like to pretend otherwise. As you always do – when you find the truth inconvenient.

in this particular case absurdly pretending that the present cabinet doesn’t represent wealth and privilege

Where did I suggest that?

I simply pointed out that the widespread perception that all the current cabinet were born into wealth was false, indeed I could also point to the number of millionaires on the Labour front bench (Miliband, Harman, Balls, Cooper, Byrne, Woodward, Benn Jr, not to mention the wealth of Blair, Benn Sr, Mandelson) as proof of the shallowness and hypocrisy of allegations being pointed towards any particular party, as opposed to the majority of the entire ‘political class’

That’s a tad disingenuous though isn’t it Z-11, to be fair.

For example: Millibean’s parents arrived here as penniless migrants, escaping persecution, so are the very advert for the kind of post-war social mobility that has now all but disappeared

All the present Tory lot (with the exception of Pob) just got handed an absolutely mahoossive (offshore tax free) trust fund as they were packed off to Eton to embark on their life of inherited privilege inside the establishment – where every door is opened for them

Establishment?

You mean the tories who studied PPE at Oxford? Boris, Dave, Osbourne et al?

Just like the rest of them

Miliband (PPE degree from Oxford)
Miliband (PPE degree from Oxford)
Purnell (PPE degree from Oxford)
Balls (PPE degree from Oxford).
Smith (PPE oxford)
Cooper (PPE oxford)
Kelly (PPE oxford)
Mandelson (PPE oxford)

They’re all the same – the idiots are the ones who think that the parties represent anything different, they’re all from the same mould.

they did that argument ^^ on another thread the other week zulu. As you would doubtless be keen to point out if it was being discussed within, say, the context of failiing social mobility with regard to the advantages and tax breaks of the private school system, studying PPE at Oxford is hardly a measure of “born into wealth and priviliege” any more.

As I recall the ‘cabinet/shadow cabinet CV’s comparison’ just highlighted the difference in real-world experience the current shadow cabinet has over the real one. 😕

Just going to Oxford surely represents a minor part of the overall package that allows the likes of Dave and Gideon to coast through life, insulated from the harsh realities that the other 99.5% of the population have to endure

I’ll concede this point if you can find me any photos of any labour frontbencher in this kind of set up…..

I went to school with the Shadow Health Minister Andy Burnham. We went to a comp in Newton. Every morning we passed the picket line at the local coal mine, during the miners strike. So witnessing, first-hand, the divisive poverty and misery created by Thatcherism. I’m sure Frances Maude had similar experiences 😉

St Aelred’s or Selwyn Jones binners?

Binners …and to be completely fair, your final paragraph is not strictly true is it?

Of more concern to me is that fact that modern politics is dominated at the top level by a very narrow strata of society especially in terms of tertiary education and importantly the same degree. And this is a cross-party issue. To some extent that is a natural outcome as the best universities are more likely to be the breeding grounds for the successful than the worst ones (albeit not in an exclusive sense). Which is not the same thing as arguing that current access to them is correct BTW. But look at how many members of the front benches on both sides of the house read PPE at roughly the same time and often at the same place and then ask why is it that none of them have an idea of how to tackle the current economic crisis? They were all taught the same models and frameworks for understanding a reality that is completely different from the one we are facing now. Hence the stalemate and paralysis.

But are politicians ever going to sort out social mobility, or the lack of it, in the UK? Sadly I doubt it. The OECD concluded that:

Parental influence still makes a big difference to a child’s education in the UK, especially compared to other countries – in fact in the UK the influence of your parents is as important as the quality of the school – unlike Germany, say, where the school has a much bigger role

So shouldn’t the real focus be in our homes, not the Palace of Westminster. Perhaps its not just charity that begins at home?

{edit: sorry this was a X-post with the list of PPE students!]

As I recall the ‘cabinet/shadow cabinet CV’s comparison’ just highlighted the difference in real-world experience the current shadow cabinet has over the real one

Aye this- I believe i did the list till I got bored
What surprised me was milliband taught economics at Hravard iirc.

Doing PPE is what prospective politicians do these days it is like complaining that your Doctor has a degree in medicine. It is however part of the debate of the Labour party reducing its broad appeal and taking “commoners ”

It is not proof that they are as wealthy or privledged as the Tories but you know this.

St Aelred’s Coyote. I is a left-footer innit? 😉

JY – why use Prescott as an example? There are surely better examples of people across parties who had less traditional routes to their current roles. Yes, Prescott got further than most (unbelievably) but his long list of policy failures and non-starters is an embarrassment to the cause of social mobility in politics IMO. Like most failed politicians he is given the respect and forgiveness that is due in retirement now (and Labour kept him marginalised in effect while in power despite his title) but without better role models or poster boys/girls, the cause is unlikely to be furthered much in the future.

Did you know it has shut down and been flattened? Merged with Selly’s to form the Hope Academy.

Yes, Prescott got further than most (unbelievably) but his long list of policy failures and non-starters is an embarrassment to the cause of social mobility in politics IMO

Yes… because at the other end of the social spectrum, Gideon is presently proving that the most expensive education money can buy leads to some fantastic policy decisions, isn’t he? Dear God! Not in Prescotts wildest dreams would Blair have given him the free reign to cause the absolute carnage to the countries economy that Dave’s good old Eton chum is presently wreaking! 🙄

Coyote. I did know, but I’ve not actually seen it. Will have to have a look next time I’m over that neck of the woods

Binners, perhaps the real problem is that GO has little if any formal economics training. He read modern history. Leaving aside the small fact that they were not actually at school together (pedantic I know), I am not sure how he caused the carnage of excess leverage throughout all parts of the economy, but I will certainly agree that he shows no sign of understanding how to deal with it.

JY – why use Prescott as an example

I used him as an example of how the Tories treat those from normal backgrounds,

GO has little if any formal economics training

you are right given the loud and near deafening voices we had from economists about the imment danger pre craqsh and the need for regulation and whow we could not trust the markets or bankers to behave responsibly what we need is more economists to grip the tiller for us …what could possibly go wrong?
We may as well have soothsayers in the cabinet as an economist for all the good it will do.

IIRC Cable warned about this and we know how much you respect him.