belfast_birty wrote:
> I was poor once,and decided to do something about it.As the
> Yanks say 'go figure'
Hear hear - a sensible attitude.
Why should the rich pay more tax than the poor?
-
alicia_fan_uk
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Why should the rich pay more tax than the poor?
"Someone who earns ?200,000 probably pays an accountant to get as much as possible of their income into the tax deductible category. I do that and I don't earn anywhere near ?200,000".
Yes, many of such people will. Regardless of what %age rate is applied, people will continue to try to work round or outside the rules. Fuck ethics or whatever, some people don't want to pay tax (some not at all).
Also, it's a fair point about the property owner, but I assume you present it ONLY in terms of the people who own one house, bought many years ago (pre-property boom). Otherwise (or, indeed, even so), what's fair about creating a special rule for someone who chose to buy a big house in a posh area when a smaller house in a less salubrious area would have been a fraction of that price? Otherwise, it's back to the "different rules for different people", which I believe you would be against, given the premise of your original point. Would you apply the same rule to someone who 20 years ago choose to take out a 30 year bond, whilst simultaneously accepting a smaller/less appealing house to be able to invest in that bond?
"Does anyone think that the government does a good job in spending our money anyway?"
Generally, yes. But when spending billions and billions of pounds then waste, mismanagement and fuck ups are, I suggest, par for the course. We all think we can do it better, but never seem to get off our arses and prove it....
Yes, many of such people will. Regardless of what %age rate is applied, people will continue to try to work round or outside the rules. Fuck ethics or whatever, some people don't want to pay tax (some not at all).
Also, it's a fair point about the property owner, but I assume you present it ONLY in terms of the people who own one house, bought many years ago (pre-property boom). Otherwise (or, indeed, even so), what's fair about creating a special rule for someone who chose to buy a big house in a posh area when a smaller house in a less salubrious area would have been a fraction of that price? Otherwise, it's back to the "different rules for different people", which I believe you would be against, given the premise of your original point. Would you apply the same rule to someone who 20 years ago choose to take out a 30 year bond, whilst simultaneously accepting a smaller/less appealing house to be able to invest in that bond?
"Does anyone think that the government does a good job in spending our money anyway?"
Generally, yes. But when spending billions and billions of pounds then waste, mismanagement and fuck ups are, I suggest, par for the course. We all think we can do it better, but never seem to get off our arses and prove it....
-
alicia_fan_uk
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Why should the rich pay more tax than the poor?
Just to confirm, I am not defending the mansion tax (above); just a more general point about the arguments surrounding "ring-fencing" those who are wealthy via property from those who are wealthy in other ways.
For example, I presume that belfast_birty has worked very hard to further himself - and well done to him for doing so. However, I also presume that he would be rightly pissed off if he got hit for a tax that someone who was equally wealthy did not have to pay, simply because that other person decided to transfer more of his/her wealth into bricks and mortar.
For example, I presume that belfast_birty has worked very hard to further himself - and well done to him for doing so. However, I also presume that he would be rightly pissed off if he got hit for a tax that someone who was equally wealthy did not have to pay, simply because that other person decided to transfer more of his/her wealth into bricks and mortar.
Re: Why should the rich pay more tax than the poor?
Houses: yes, one house but again you may have bought a house in a less salubrious area 30 years and it is now gentrified. My nan was offered her council house many, many years ago for about ?400 but she didn't have it so when she died, it went back to the council. She lived on the Isle of Dogs where houses now go for very large sums - when she lived there it was a dump.
Government spending: There are vast areas that can be cut back without harming essential services such as schools, hospitals and the police. We seemed to cope quite well without outreach workers, co-ordinators and their tribe. Why is the NHS paying a consultant ?1,000-a-day to tell them where to cut costs? I can think of an immediate saving of ?1,000-a-day! Most of us COULD do a better job - how many people think the best idea when you are in debt is to carry on spending? We have to work within budgets - the problem with public money is that no one regards it as "their" money so they just spend endlessly. If government ministers were legally responsible for spending in the same way local councillors are/were, they may think twice about what they spent public money on...
Government spending: There are vast areas that can be cut back without harming essential services such as schools, hospitals and the police. We seemed to cope quite well without outreach workers, co-ordinators and their tribe. Why is the NHS paying a consultant ?1,000-a-day to tell them where to cut costs? I can think of an immediate saving of ?1,000-a-day! Most of us COULD do a better job - how many people think the best idea when you are in debt is to carry on spending? We have to work within budgets - the problem with public money is that no one regards it as "their" money so they just spend endlessly. If government ministers were legally responsible for spending in the same way local councillors are/were, they may think twice about what they spent public money on...
-
alicia_fan_uk
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Why should the rich pay more tax than the poor?
As I said above, I readily recognise that waste, mismanagement and fuck ups are par for the course when we are dealing with hundreds of billions of pounds of annual (public) spend. Only a fool would deny that.
However, everyone thinks they could do a better job, but few care to actually get stuck in. If it's so easy to earn ?1,000 a day as a waste consultant (slogan: "metaphorically, not literally, talking shite....unless we're dealing with refuse management") then why isn't everyone doing it? It's akin to the country full of armchair football managers out there; everyone knows better, but Man Utd never come knocking for some reason...
Also, are BP not pissing tens of billions up against the wall at the moment, in response to a rather public fuck up they've been involved in of late? I have always worked for the private sector, and can assure you there is a lot of waste and mismanagement there, too, especially in bigger organisations.
Either sector can be held to account for a number of failings.
However, everyone thinks they could do a better job, but few care to actually get stuck in. If it's so easy to earn ?1,000 a day as a waste consultant (slogan: "metaphorically, not literally, talking shite....unless we're dealing with refuse management") then why isn't everyone doing it? It's akin to the country full of armchair football managers out there; everyone knows better, but Man Utd never come knocking for some reason...
Also, are BP not pissing tens of billions up against the wall at the moment, in response to a rather public fuck up they've been involved in of late? I have always worked for the private sector, and can assure you there is a lot of waste and mismanagement there, too, especially in bigger organisations.
Either sector can be held to account for a number of failings.
Re: Why should the rich pay more tax than the poor?
Yes I agree but the difference between public and private is that if for example BP have another spill, they could (but probably won't) go bust.
When did you last hear of a publicly-funded project go bust? Wembley millions of pounds overbudget, the Scottish Parliament the same, the Millennium Dome cost untold millions - if those three projects had been built by a private company they would not have cost so much.
The same firm that built the Emirates for Arsenal built Wembley but because they were paid by a private company (Arsenal) not a public one (us!) they returned the project ontime and within budget...
Trouble is, what is the incentive for anyone working in the public sector to produce something at a value for money cost - they know because it is a public project it must be built and hang the cost...
I didn't say it was easy to earn ?1,000-a-day - I was remarking on the ridiculousness of a public organisation employing someone at a fee most of us can only dream about to tell it how to save money. It's the same with most public organisations who have to produce reports, make press statements - they have to justify their existence. Truth is, we could do without most of them...
When did you last hear of a publicly-funded project go bust? Wembley millions of pounds overbudget, the Scottish Parliament the same, the Millennium Dome cost untold millions - if those three projects had been built by a private company they would not have cost so much.
The same firm that built the Emirates for Arsenal built Wembley but because they were paid by a private company (Arsenal) not a public one (us!) they returned the project ontime and within budget...
Trouble is, what is the incentive for anyone working in the public sector to produce something at a value for money cost - they know because it is a public project it must be built and hang the cost...
I didn't say it was easy to earn ?1,000-a-day - I was remarking on the ridiculousness of a public organisation employing someone at a fee most of us can only dream about to tell it how to save money. It's the same with most public organisations who have to produce reports, make press statements - they have to justify their existence. Truth is, we could do without most of them...
-
alicia_fan_uk
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Why should the rich pay more tax than the poor?
Yes, certainly SME-type private entities would simply go bust, but you only need to look at the bank billions bailout to see that some we, the taxpayer, step in to clear up their mess (because they are "too big to fail", allegedly). (Actually, in reply to your query, I see many "publicly-funded projects" go bust....millions are awarded to private sector bodies via business loans, development funding, tax breaks etc - private sector businesses which then fail)
The very first example you cite, of Wembley Stadium, was only c.20% funded by the public purse, so this is actually an example of private-sector managed fuck up, of which you claim "would not" happen. Well, it did. Fair play on the other examples, though (and the Scottish Parliament looks like it was designed by someone on acid, and a nasty batch of it at that).
There is a lot of scrutiny of public sector spending (more so than private sector spending). Part of the reason we hear so much about public sector excess/fuck ups is because the information is generally available and in the open, much more so than private entities.
On the matter of the incentive for people in the public sector to deliver things efficiently and effectively; a mix of morality, job role/responsibility, personal ethics, professionalism, financial reward, promotion, progression, belief in society and the overall common good would be a few reasons. I could invert the question and ask what incentive is there for a private sector provider to take on a contract and not cut as many corners as possible to maximise the director bonuses, to the detriment of doing it to the highest possible quality? There are ways and means to mitigate against this, but my overall point is there are lazy/shady/unprofessional/incompetent etc people on both sides of that coin.
I can also assure you that the same consultants do similar work in the private sector, too (oftern at higher rates). We can debate the merits of consultants until we are blue in the face, but my point is it is not just a public sector phenomenon.
We could do without pretty much all public sector organisations; humanity would not cease if they disappeared. Many would argue that the police, fire, health and local authorities are the most important services - that is, anarchy would otherwise reign and people with insufficient insurance/pre-existing conditions would either suffer poor health/die or rely on whatever charities which existed. I presume your issue is more on central government-type quangos (although you suggest that "most of them (public bodies)" aren't needed, so perhaps my presumption is wrong?). No one likes many central govt bodies, until they either (i) need them in future, or (ii) they disappear but then they find out later that they did something which turned out to be needed afterall - and they then complain bitterly about shitty govt lack of service.
alicia_fan_uk
The very first example you cite, of Wembley Stadium, was only c.20% funded by the public purse, so this is actually an example of private-sector managed fuck up, of which you claim "would not" happen. Well, it did. Fair play on the other examples, though (and the Scottish Parliament looks like it was designed by someone on acid, and a nasty batch of it at that).
There is a lot of scrutiny of public sector spending (more so than private sector spending). Part of the reason we hear so much about public sector excess/fuck ups is because the information is generally available and in the open, much more so than private entities.
On the matter of the incentive for people in the public sector to deliver things efficiently and effectively; a mix of morality, job role/responsibility, personal ethics, professionalism, financial reward, promotion, progression, belief in society and the overall common good would be a few reasons. I could invert the question and ask what incentive is there for a private sector provider to take on a contract and not cut as many corners as possible to maximise the director bonuses, to the detriment of doing it to the highest possible quality? There are ways and means to mitigate against this, but my overall point is there are lazy/shady/unprofessional/incompetent etc people on both sides of that coin.
I can also assure you that the same consultants do similar work in the private sector, too (oftern at higher rates). We can debate the merits of consultants until we are blue in the face, but my point is it is not just a public sector phenomenon.
We could do without pretty much all public sector organisations; humanity would not cease if they disappeared. Many would argue that the police, fire, health and local authorities are the most important services - that is, anarchy would otherwise reign and people with insufficient insurance/pre-existing conditions would either suffer poor health/die or rely on whatever charities which existed. I presume your issue is more on central government-type quangos (although you suggest that "most of them (public bodies)" aren't needed, so perhaps my presumption is wrong?). No one likes many central govt bodies, until they either (i) need them in future, or (ii) they disappear but then they find out later that they did something which turned out to be needed afterall - and they then complain bitterly about shitty govt lack of service.
alicia_fan_uk
Re: Why should the rich pay more tax than the poor?
Incentives - yes you list some very good reasons and some of course do apply to private and public sector employees but for the most part (banks excepted) if you are spending someone else's money you are likely to be less careful with it than if you were spending your own... unless you have legal responsibility.
As you correctly surmise I meant quangos which seem to exist as sops to failed politicians so they can be paid a large sum of money for 2 days a week. But I would also include local councils who employ climate change co-ordinators and the like or one I saw recently cheerleading development officer. A complete waste of public money...
The last government put several hundred thousand people on the public pay roll most of whom worked in jobs that did not exist before 1997. Yet who would say public services are better now than then? Certainly no one who has their bins emptied once a fortnight now or less often if they put too much in their wheelie bin and it is slightly ajar.
Where does the money come from to pay all these people? From our taxes of course... The private sector has to pay for an enlarged public sector; yes the public sector pay taxes but they are not "creating" anything.
And yes consultants are hired by private companies but most would say private companies can spend their money on whatever they like, whereas public employers must be accountable to the public.
As you correctly surmise I meant quangos which seem to exist as sops to failed politicians so they can be paid a large sum of money for 2 days a week. But I would also include local councils who employ climate change co-ordinators and the like or one I saw recently cheerleading development officer. A complete waste of public money...
The last government put several hundred thousand people on the public pay roll most of whom worked in jobs that did not exist before 1997. Yet who would say public services are better now than then? Certainly no one who has their bins emptied once a fortnight now or less often if they put too much in their wheelie bin and it is slightly ajar.
Where does the money come from to pay all these people? From our taxes of course... The private sector has to pay for an enlarged public sector; yes the public sector pay taxes but they are not "creating" anything.
And yes consultants are hired by private companies but most would say private companies can spend their money on whatever they like, whereas public employers must be accountable to the public.
-
alicia_fan_uk
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Why should the rich pay more tax than the poor?
"Who would say public services are better now than then?".
Me. It used to take months or even years to get treated on the NHS - now it's generally weeks for most conditions. The public sector is faced with finite resources v infinite demand - an uneviable conundrum.
"The public sector pay taxes but they are not "creating" anything".
The public sector creates a lot; safer streets for everyone, safety in times of emergencies, the general infrastructure on which we rely every day, an educated populace who are tooled up to go on and do a whole manner of new and brilliant things, a plethora of doctors and nurses who are trained up to literally save life after life after life, a rich creative and cultural smorgasbord we can dip into as and when we wish. Oh, and yes, it also produces waste and mismanagement (as previously acknowledged).
On the consultants point: you seem very keen on private sector (fair enough - as I said before, I work there), which relies heavily on consultants. Surely then it is fitting that public bodies adopt the very private sector methods you endorse....such as engaging the same private sector consultants? Unless both the private and public sectors are wasting money on them, of course....
Me. It used to take months or even years to get treated on the NHS - now it's generally weeks for most conditions. The public sector is faced with finite resources v infinite demand - an uneviable conundrum.
"The public sector pay taxes but they are not "creating" anything".
The public sector creates a lot; safer streets for everyone, safety in times of emergencies, the general infrastructure on which we rely every day, an educated populace who are tooled up to go on and do a whole manner of new and brilliant things, a plethora of doctors and nurses who are trained up to literally save life after life after life, a rich creative and cultural smorgasbord we can dip into as and when we wish. Oh, and yes, it also produces waste and mismanagement (as previously acknowledged).
On the consultants point: you seem very keen on private sector (fair enough - as I said before, I work there), which relies heavily on consultants. Surely then it is fitting that public bodies adopt the very private sector methods you endorse....such as engaging the same private sector consultants? Unless both the private and public sectors are wasting money on them, of course....
Re: Why should the rich pay more tax than the poor?
I would agree that the NHS has improved - from my limited experience I was treated well and quickly but then it was an emergency and I think that has always been the case. There has been some spin on the NHS - yes you will get seen by a cancer consultant within x number of weeks but that doesn't mean that you will get treated during that timescale and often not at all which is why we have the postcode lottery where some get excellent treatment and others don't. One way to save money in the NHS would be to insist that many "self-inflicted" "injuries" such as tattoo removal, and non-essential stuff such as sex change operations and IVF are done privately not on the public purse.
The public sector doesn't actually create anything in terms of directly benefiting the economy whereas private companies do. I would also dispute that the public sector turns out an educated populace - as would the bosses of Tesco, Marks & Spencer and BT.
As for doctors and nurses, if the public sector turns them out why do we need to employ so many doctors and nurses from overseas? As I said my brief experience of the NHS was favourable but the one difficulty I had was I found it difficult to understand the nurses - I am not denigrating their caring, their professionalism merely their inability to speak comprehensible English which must be disturbing if you happen to be an OAP.
Just going back to a point you made before: if it is so easy to do these things why don't people get off their arses and get involved?
I think I could run things a lot better than most politicians but how can I get involved? By standing for election. Even if I got elected (local council, Commons) my power as an independent would be severely limited because unless you belong to one of the big parties you are virtually impotent... So how can someone change things?
Consultants a waste of money? Perish the thought!
The public sector doesn't actually create anything in terms of directly benefiting the economy whereas private companies do. I would also dispute that the public sector turns out an educated populace - as would the bosses of Tesco, Marks & Spencer and BT.
As for doctors and nurses, if the public sector turns them out why do we need to employ so many doctors and nurses from overseas? As I said my brief experience of the NHS was favourable but the one difficulty I had was I found it difficult to understand the nurses - I am not denigrating their caring, their professionalism merely their inability to speak comprehensible English which must be disturbing if you happen to be an OAP.
Just going back to a point you made before: if it is so easy to do these things why don't people get off their arses and get involved?
I think I could run things a lot better than most politicians but how can I get involved? By standing for election. Even if I got elected (local council, Commons) my power as an independent would be severely limited because unless you belong to one of the big parties you are virtually impotent... So how can someone change things?
Consultants a waste of money? Perish the thought!