libspero Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Er...... Yes Sure? Here's my fag-packet calcs.. perhaps we can compare: £6 per hour (32 hour week) With tax credits is £12,000 per year Tax + NI £2500 per year. £3 per hour (32 hour week) With tax credits is £9500 Tax + NI = £1430 So net pay = £9500 in 2010 net pay = £8000 in 1998 The debate then is perhaps whether the cost of housing, food, petrol, gas, water, electricity has gone up by more than £29 per week in the last 12 years. If so, then people on minimum wage now are poorer than they were before minimum wage in real terms. [disclaimer: all tax + benefits calculated at todays rates.. assumed tax is payable on benefits, if not, the balance swings in favour of those on lower salaries]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 You don't really understand the idea of taxation, then ? I understand it just fine, thanks. VAT, we all pay the same - that seems fair. Income Tax, the richer pay more to subsidise the poor - that seems not so fair. To complain that low earners still have to pay a small portion toward services, when in reality they are getting the best deal on services of all tax payers, seems a bit rich. The higher earners pay far more for the exact same services. It very much depends on what you call 'fair'. Paying for what you get is my preference, but others think high earners should subsidise low earners. Back to my example, would it seem fair for high earners to pay twice the price at the checkout in a shop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Back to my example, would it seem fair for high earners to pay twice the price at the checkout in a shop? I think I know what answer you'll get to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 (edited) I understand it just fine, thanks. You seem to understand the mathemetics but not the philosophy. edit: Paying for what you get is my preference and that's the nub. You're treating it as a financial transaction in which the only thing that is going on is that you are paying for services you receive. It's way more complicated than that. Edited March 25, 2010 by Mal Volio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HPC001 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 You seem to understand the mathemetics but not the philosophy. Of wealth redistribution? Maybe we think that's something for people to do voluntarily, not governments to force. Genuine charity is sparse precisely because of government intervention (which doesn't actually benefit hardworking people most of the time). We don't have a free market if there is price fixing, unequal rules (some chains can bypass rules that would otherwise apply to them, aka collusion) and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Of wealth redistribution? Quite You're of course entitled to your view; the problem comes when someone tries to insist that it's the only valid view there is. Right now our society doesn't work that way; you may wish it did, and if you can convince most other people then perhaps it might change to being that way. But right now that's not how it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HPC001 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Quite You're of course entitled to your view; the problem comes when someone tries to insist that it's the only valid view there is. Right now our society doesn't work that way; you may wish it did, and if you can convince most other people then perhaps it might change to being that way. But right now that's not how it is. Well it would require a shift in mindset, which isn't going to happen overnight. There's this hilarious misconception that because a minority of gigantic families get a large payout from the system, the rest of us are magically well off enough on the dole to buy Sky TV, two cars and other crap. I'd rather not have that anyway, I'd rather earn a living with my own effort than be silver spooned. Doing something productive rather than chasing agencies all day is preferable to me personally... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Agreed. Right now our tax system is generally (intended to be (somewhat)) redistributive, and it would indeed need a huge change to shift that. That's all I meant, really, in my first post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 You seem to understand the mathemetics but not the philosophy. edit: and that's the nub. You're treating it as a financial transaction in which the only thing that is going on is that you are paying for services you receive. It's way more complicated than that. The philosophy of wealth distribution is not the same as taxation. Taxation is just where the government takes your money and spends it on your behalf. Why shouldn't I be able to just pay for the services I receive? Granted, I may want to pay some towards those who need it (to keep the fed, clothed, warm, from robbing me etc), but where is my choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Agreed. Right now our tax system is generally (intended to be (somewhat)) redistributive, and it would indeed need a huge change to shift that. That's all I meant, really, in my first post. Perhaps asserting that I don't understand how taxation works, wasn't the best way to share this point with the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HPC001 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 (edited) Agreed. Right now our tax system is generally (intended to be (somewhat)) redistributive, and it would indeed need a huge change to shift that. That's all I meant, really, in my first post. I might think differently were I entitled to the more generous payments for individuals aged 25+ (tax credit, double the housing benefit, 30% increase in basic dole). I do wonder if the government is deliberating shafting the youth to prevent them becoming truly independent... Of course, receiving those makes a minimum wage job worth similar or less, with the added 40 hours graft each week - so I can see why an increasing number are not bothering. Edited March 25, 2010 by HPC001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 (edited) Well it would require a shift in mindset, which isn't going to happen overnight. There's this hilarious misconception that because a minority of gigantic families get a large payout from the system, the rest of us are magically well off enough on the dole to buy Sky TV, two cars and other crap. I'd rather not have that anyway, I'd rather earn a living with my own effort than be silver spooned. Doing something productive rather than chasing agencies all day is preferable to me personally... Agreed, it won't happen overnight, but when I keep here politicians coming on TV telling me what is 'fair' or 'the right thing to do' it makes my flesh crawl. One person's opinion of fair may/will differ from others - forcibly taking money from someone, to give it to others, with or without their consent, doesn't seem as fair as they claim. The socialist view of paying your dues to society is just one way of looking at things. I think it is a view which will be more openly challenged in the coming years, but perhaps that is just me being hopeful! Edited March 25, 2010 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pootle Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 In this case 'disingenuous' being repurposed to mean 'exposed the implicit flaw in the argument'. Yet it exposes the implicit flaw in your argument. Your premise is that increased wages equals improved buying power when it clearly doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Perhaps asserting that I don't understand how taxation works, wasn't the best way to share this point with the rest of us. Works for me. It remains a reasonable inference from your original post; that was predicated on the idea of the principle of taxation being a direct (and directly-corresponding) payment for services received. It's not. I appreciate that you'd like it to be, but that's not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Why shouldn't I be able to just pay for the services I receive? Granted, I may want to pay some towards those who need it (to keep the fed, clothed, warm, from robbing me etc), but where is my choice? Your choice operates at the same level as mine - at societal level. We collectively invest some of our political authority at community/society/state level in exchange for the leverage that gives us. The details of operation of that power at that level then become something decided at that level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Works for me. It remains a reasonable inference from your original post; that was predicated on the idea of the principle of taxation being a direct (and directly-corresponding) payment for services received. It's not. I appreciate that you'd like it to be, but that's not the same thing. See my earlier post: taxation does not equal redistribution. Governments may choose to redistribute the income accrued through taxation, but taxation isn't redistribution in itself. My post merely questioned why people consider it fair that high earners people should pay more than low earners, for the same services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 My post merely questioned why people consider it fair that high earners people should pay more than low earners, for the same services. Yep. Which as I say indicates that you don't really understand the philosophy behind taxation; it's not a direct (and directly corresponding) payment for services delivered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Your choice operates at the same level as mine - at societal level. We collectively invest some of our political authority at community/society/state level in exchange for the leverage that gives us. The details of operation of that power at that level then become something decided at that level. Or - we have zero power to stop being stolen from, and rather than face the humiliation of being ruled by grubby men like Mandleson, we make up myths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 we make up myths. Indeed you do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Your choice operates at the same level as mine - at societal level. We collectively invest some of our political authority at community/society/state level in exchange for the leverage that gives us. The details of operation of that power at that level then become something decided at that level. Indeed, but the current system can be changed by society at any time too. Socialism (paying dues to society), with the precedes divided up among the populous is one configuration. Something more akin to a free market - such as Libertarianism - is another configuration. Taxation occurs in both configuration, but the level of redistribution is much lower in the latter. I don't argue that we live in a partly socialist (social democracy) society, but I don't think this is the only way (nor the best way) for a country to govern itself. In time, maybe others will see the alternatives too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Yep. Which as I say indicates that you don't really understand the philosophy behind taxation; it's not a direct (and directly corresponding) payment for services delivered. Taxation != redistribution. How many times... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Volio Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Taxation != redistribution. How many times... Which is why complaining that it's not a direct payment for services received is a bit of a logical fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 (edited) Which is why complaining that it's not a direct payment for services received is a bit of a logical fail. No, I complained that it wasn't fair that didn't we all pay the same price for the services received. Edited March 25, 2010 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Low wages aren't the problem. The problem is high living costs caused by high house price. Reduce house prices by 90% and everyone could afford to live comfortably for half of minimum wage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jie Bie Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 And now they are on disability. Really? Really? Funny that, cos I seem to remember having a p/t job aged 16 in 1998 that paid £2.89 p/h. It got increased once the NMW came in, and rather than being on disability I now earn a fairly decent salary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.