Taxing the rich to pay for the poor

While we are all being offended by proxy, can I just say I am deeply offended by the statement that any student not paying off their student loan is doing so deliberately and with the intent of defrauding the taxpayer. My DD, as a primary school teacher, is highly unlikely to pay off her loan. The interest being added every year frequently exceeds what she repays. I will be sure to tell her that she needs to work harder to compensate for her poor career choices.

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

maddyone

Whitewavemark2

We have the rule of law in this country.

“Everyone is equal before the law”

And thank heaven we aren’t reliant on people like GSM, whose sole raisin d’etre is self enrichment.

This is a vile thing to say about another poster.
I thought GN was better than this.

I totally reject your comment.

GSM has made is absolutely clear that she would never become a criminal lawyer simply because it doesn’t pay sufficiently - she has also made it clear on numerous occasions that she sees enrichment as extremely important to her, makes frequent disparaging remarks about people whose life chances or through choice have taken poorly paid employment.

So if all lawyers thought as GSM there would be no pro bono work carried route and the poor would find access to the law difficult if not impossible.

So I afraid i don’t apologise for my post, and find your post unpleasant and given without due regard.

GSM has told us of the unpaid voluntary work she has done over the years on top of her paid work so you were out of order Whitewave
I might add, again, which surprises me in fact.

Presumably you have worked in a lowly, badly-paid career all your life for altruistic purposes.

I'm afraid I also think your comment was below the belt Whitewave and I'm also surprised..

Germanshepherdsmum

*Glorianny*, it has always been patently obvious that the rules of student loan repayments are such that some will never pay back anything at all. I have fallen for nothing. It’s very much the fault of those using the system in the knowledge that they will never earn enough to repay their debt - basically, it’s fraud. Would you order something, or engage a tradesman, knowing that you were not going to be able to pay?

That’s quite unfair to many, nurses and primary school teachers are just two examples. Both now require a degree. Both start on relatively low salaries, both have stayed on low incomes due to austerity, it’s hardly their fault they don’t pay much back due to their incomes, it’s not a deliberate ploy on their part. Also, it’s a complete disgrace that Student Loans administration was privatised and now charges interest!

foxie48

Doodledog exactly my POV. Home ownership, and the value of those houses, fuel inequality probably more than anything else. We have a situation now where it's very difficult for even well paid young people to buy their own home unless they have parents who can give them some cash and once they are renting, the rents are so high it makes it difficult for them to save. It also means that it's becoming increasingly difficult in some areas of the country to employ teachers, doctors, nurses, let alone people who are on much lower salaries, because they just can't afford to live there. "Levelling up" just hasn't produced results and "trickle down" really doesn't work, so I believe we need some radical thinking.

👏👏👏👏👏👏

“The Tories have actually said they intend to cut benefits to reduce the number that could work but don’t work.”

The Tories have already cut welfare benefits in many ways in the last 14 years, introducing Universal Credit and scrapping Tax Credits, introducing the Benefit Cap, the Cap in Housing Benefit, Child Benefit Changes, changes to benefit advances, and huge penalties in the form of fines and suspending benefits.

On paper it looks like more people are in work, the truth is many of these people are being propped up by being topped up by Universal Credit, we see zero hour contracts, (which in my option should be outlawed) and too many people still “fiddling” their taxes and expenses, and paying and receiving “cash in hand”, which is legal, but must be declared.

They’ve had 14 years to sort out welfare and failed. Ditto migration!

Doodledog exactly my POV. Home ownership, and the value of those houses, fuel inequality probably more than anything else. We have a situation now where it's very difficult for even well paid young people to buy their own home unless they have parents who can give them some cash and once they are renting, the rents are so high it makes it difficult for them to save. It also means that it's becoming increasingly difficult in some areas of the country to employ teachers, doctors, nurses, let alone people who are on much lower salaries, because they just can't afford to live there. "Levelling up" just hasn't produced results and "trickle down" really doesn't work, so I believe we need some radical thinking.

I don’t have a problem with that, David. There are too many people who could work, but won’t. I am someone who has always worked despite having epilepsy, asthma and clinical depression - I could, without doubt, have played on the latter but when my condition became unbearable I went to my GP in tears, asking for ‘something to help me carry on working’. I have always worked hard and I have no time for those who could, but won’t. I practise what I preach. At the end of the day the only sanction which will get these people off their backsides is stopping their benefits. I don’t pay tax to enable the work shy to sit around living on benefits.

The Tories have actually said they intend to cut benefits to reduce the number that could work but don’t work

David49 if people are unable to work through sickness or disablement then they should be helped to live a good life by the safety net that is the welfare state/benefits system.

This should also help those who are temporarily unemployed by no fault of their own.

Are you in favour of your taxes going towards people who could work but don’t work ?

winterwhite

Why are the poor never described as hard-working? That seems to me a fundamental injustice. Skilled and qualified nurses and teachers using food banks. Is anyone content to see that?

No, I’m not!! Maybe if we valued people (and paid them) for their worth in the community rather than their money making abilities things would take a more even, fairer, keel.

However, we live in a western economy, which is based on people making money, paying taxes, employing people.

We need entrepreneurs, people prepared to take risks and give opportunities to others to do the same.

Sometimes when people accumulate wealth from solely their own efforts and with financial support from others, they spend quite frugally and save and invest safely. My parents saved far more than they needed to, were very generous to a fault to others and saved diligently, the result? When they died, as an only child, who looked after them when they could no longer do so, I was left enough money to pay off my mortgage and retire two years before my state pension date (this coming December). As I’ve worked full time and brought up four children and since my mid 40’s had fibromyalgia and now arthritis, I’m forever grateful to them, BUT I’d still rather they’d spent more money on themselves.

They were scared they wouldn’t have enough money if they needed full time care.

I understand the fear of running out of money in your later years with no means of replacing it.

However, I’d still be happy to pay 2/3p more in the £ tax if it went directly to public services.

Many many people work for others their entire lives and never have the luxury of saving. Where would we be without our retail staff, hospitality staff, hairdressers, cleaners, carers, nursery school workers, nurses, teachers? Indeed all the “normal, average” people who work extremely hard but whom will never be wealthy and not everyone is capable of “bettering” themselves.

Thank you Allsorts. I will always do my best to help with a legal question. When I qualified the President of the Law Society told us that whatever area of law we went into we must always try to use our qualification to help people. That doesn’t mean you have to do legal aid work. It means giving of that thing of which you have so very little - time - to do pro bono work. It’s something that the profession takes very seriously. I will never forget some of the very decent people I met that way - none of them unsavoury criminals.

GrannyGravy13

winterwhite

OK then, I replace ‘the GoNers’ with ‘those GNers’ and stand by the rest of my post.
We def need overhaul of the tax system, which will take longer than the five years of the next Parliament.
I’d prob fall into your middle income category myself and for the short term I’d rather pay more tax than see a revenue shortfall made good by cuts to welfare.

Nobody wants to see cuts to welfare (that I am aware of) however I and some others are doubtful of how these extra taxes will be spent (if and when they are implemented)

I have no faith in anything I have seen, heard or read from any of the main parties. Nothing that will help the less fortunate, nothing to incentivise businesses and employers.

Ergo I am against tax for taxes sake to win votes…

The Tories have actually said they intend to cut benefits to reduce the number that could work but don’t work.

Well I don't think that taxing unearned wealth in houses is a silly idea, but then I wouldn't, as it is on the back of my fag packet .

I agree that it would need to be more finely tuned, but I really do think that geographical unfairness (amongst others) needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. People have had enough, and yes, we are very likely to get a Labour government very soon (and I'm glad of that if nor rejoicing) but Farage is probably right that he and his ilk will be the opposition, and given the rise of the Far Right in Europe and the US, it would be foolish to ignore that. The Far Right flourishes when people feel disenfranchised and ignored, and we've had years of that. People are ridiculed for disagreeing, dismissed as ignorant or of acting out of base motives (eg the 'politics of envy' slurs), populist language, soundbites and memes have replaced debate, and the country is more divided than ever.

House prices are just one way in which many people feel cut off from 'British values'. Other ways include lack of investment, poor transport links, the imposition of things such as free ports and more. These things are concentrated in areas where people feel trapped and hopeless - when that tips into real resentment we are in trouble.

As I outlined upthread, the implications of the huge differentials in house prices go way further than simply one person having more notional money than another - they spread to care in old age, geographical mobility and employment opportunities, inheritance and more.

I am not coming at this from the perspective of someone wanting others to pay - I would be a 'victim' of my own policy in the unlikely event that my one-woman party came to power. I am not remotely driven by envy, and I absolutely believe that hard work should be rewarded. I'm not a communist - I'm politically quite moderate, which is why I don't want to see extremists in power. I think it's a real risk, though, if we don't shift the status quo a bit - even if that is uncomfortable for some of those who have benefited by it.

Whitewave, what possessed you to say what you did about GSM, who is entitled to her opinion whether you agree or not, there was no reason for your very unkind and untrue comments. I have only known her to put the facts of any subject of which she has knowledge, she has shown nothing but kindness to those who are struggling with anything she can be of help as she has me, she had nothing to gain.
It’s a pity people can’t have an intelligent debate without getting personal about someone of which you know nothing.

It's actually not unrealistic. It's a reversal.

Rather than stamp duty at purchase, the purchaser could get a mortgage on the price - higher mortgage but less to save (deposit and stamp duty).

Norah

maddyone

But seriously, if any government decides to tax people on the increased value of their houses when they’re sold, it will simply push prices up further. Sellers will want to recoup the money that’s to be paid in extra taxation. And that won’t help anyone, least of all first time buyers.
In any case, house purchases are already taxed, it’s called stamp duty. You just pay it at the beginning rather than the end.

I like the idea. Seller pays. Buyer finances at whatever the new price is and doesn't have to pay stamp duty. Better for buyers.

It's an unrealistic and really silly idea which would do nothing to help the stagnant housing market.

Taxes are paid when purchasing. Taxes may be paid by heurs if someone dies and their house has increased in value, especially in some areas of the South-east.

winterwhite

OK then, I replace ‘the GoNers’ with ‘those GNers’ and stand by the rest of my post.
We def need overhaul of the tax system, which will take longer than the five years of the next Parliament.
I’d prob fall into your middle income category myself and for the short term I’d rather pay more tax than see a revenue shortfall made good by cuts to welfare.

Nobody wants to see cuts to welfare (that I am aware of) however I and some others are doubtful of how these extra taxes will be spent (if and when they are implemented)

I have no faith in anything I have seen, heard or read from any of the main parties. Nothing that will help the less fortunate, nothing to incentivise businesses and employers.

Ergo I am against tax for taxes sake to win votes…

Whitewavemark2

maddyone

Whitewavemark2

We have the rule of law in this country.

“Everyone is equal before the law”

And thank heaven we aren’t reliant on people like GSM, whose sole raisin d’etre is self enrichment.

This is a vile thing to say about another poster.
I thought GN was better than this.

I totally reject your comment.

GSM has made is absolutely clear that she would never become a criminal lawyer simply because it doesn’t pay sufficiently - she has also made it clear on numerous occasions that she sees enrichment as extremely important to her, makes frequent disparaging remarks about people whose life chances or through choice have taken poorly paid employment.

So if all lawyers thought as GSM there would be no pro bono work carried route and the poor would find access to the law difficult if not impossible.

So I afraid i don’t apologise for my post, and find your post unpleasant and given without due regard.

GSM has told us of the unpaid voluntary work she has done over the years on top of her paid work so you were out of order Whitewave
I might add, again, which surprises me in fact.

Presumably you have worked in a lowly, badly-paid career all your life for altruistic purposes.

maddyone

But seriously, if any government decides to tax people on the increased value of their houses when they’re sold, it will simply push prices up further. Sellers will want to recoup the money that’s to be paid in extra taxation. And that won’t help anyone, least of all first time buyers.
In any case, house purchases are already taxed, it’s called stamp duty. You just pay it at the beginning rather than the end.

I like the idea. Seller pays. Buyer finances at whatever the new price is and doesn't have to pay stamp duty. Better for buyers.

OK then, I replace ‘the GoNers’ with ‘those GNers’ and stand by the rest of my post.
We def need overhaul of the tax system, which will take longer than the five years of the next Parliament.
I’d prob fall into your middle income category myself and for the short term I’d rather pay more tax than see a revenue shortfall made good by cuts to welfare.

Yes, there's been page after page of detail often personal about what constitutes a fair level for graduated higher tax, and I don't think we'll find agreement.

"Middle Incomes" cover a really wide range of people.

👏👏👏

winterwhite

GG13 I think your comment re GNers wanting others to pay more tax but not themselves was uncalled for, and not supported by the rest of the thread.

And for the self-enrichment of those in need, read relief from want and the provision of decent services. That’s why many of us would readily pay more tax. Robin Hood is just who we need here and now.

If only you had read my post properly winterwhite

I said some posters, which is an accurate description of this thread.

Some posters are more than willing to pay extra taxes even those who are less well off.

Some posters are asking for the wealthy to pay more taxes, whilst discussing and not coming to an agreement as to what constitutes being wealthy including myself.

Billionaires are a totally different entity from someone who has saved and owns their home and or SME.

Going after the easy targets of middle incomes is not the answer.

GG13 I think your comment re GNers wanting others to pay more tax but not themselves was uncalled for, and not supported by the rest of the thread.

And for the self-enrichment of those in need, read relief from want and the provision of decent services. That’s why many of us would readily pay more tax. Robin Hood is just who we need here and now.

It's one of those phrases that has to have context to become a "slur" I agree it's not a slur as such.

Depends if "self enrichment" has a cost to others which is unacceptable.

Without re reading the whole thread I'd have to check back!

Whitewavemark2

As far as I am concerned the matter is closed.

Yes, HQs have closed it. The comment has been deleted for breaking guidelines.