Taxing the rich to pay for the poor

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

The biggest problem with the very wealthy is that their wealth is tied up in businesses of one kind or another, often in several countries.
Their wealth is mainly company shares which they only pay tax on when they are sold for more than original value.

Germanshepherdsmum

We can’t afford free university education Glorianny. But those who decide to take a poorly paid job rather than earn decent money are getting free education by the back door.

But it isn't the fault of those using the system if the system is flawed, anymore than it is the fault of those in lower paid jobs that they don't earn enough.
The system was set up to persuade people like you that poorer people were not getting a free education but everyone was paying for it, and guess what? You fell for it.

HPQ, I have never been a conveyancer. You really have no idea.

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?

David49

The biggest problem with the very wealthy is that their wealth is tied up in businesses of one kind or another, often in several countries.
Their wealth is mainly company shares which they only pay tax on when they are sold for more than original value.

Shares pay dividends, which are taxed. Having business interests in several countries obviously complicates their tax position.

Germanshepherdsmum

*HPQ*, I have never been a conveyancer. You really have no idea.

Oh I know perfectly well what you did for a living, you have told us all, often. I am just mystified why you think your branch of practice, making money for property developers, is somehow superior to other branches of law simply because it pays more.

The work I did was very intellectually challenging and the sums of money for which I was responsible were eye-watering. It’s as far removed from being a conveyancer as you can get in property. It paid well because of the level of difficulty, the sheer length and intricacy of the documents to be drafted and negotiated and the level of responsibility. One mistake could see the much-publicised end of your career against a huge claim on your indemnity insurance.

Germanshepherdsmum

Wyllow3

Just wanted to support Foxie's post on those who work in the Legal Aid system. No doubt some of them are mediocre as are those working in other areas but many have chosen it as a form of vital public service and accept its limitations on salaries. As for it being "interesting" or not, well, surely that's in the eye of the beholder?

Will they ever repay their student loans? Highly unlikely. To both be paid by the taxpayer and not repay your debt to the taxpayer is, in my book, unacceptable.

So how do you suggest what’s left of legal aid is provided GSM. I have friends who specialise in crime or family. They work hard in challenging areas

I can see that the clients and their situations would be challenging, and I wouldn’t have the patience. As regards legal aid, far too much of the budget is going to pay the immigration and human rights lawyers who make up fairy stories, or advise getting baptised, to enable illegal immigrants to stay in this country. There would be far more legal aid available to UK citizens needing access to justice were it not haemorrhaging into these questionable lawyers’ pockets.

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.

Wyllow3

Just wanted to support Foxie's post on those who work in the Legal Aid system. No doubt some of them are mediocre as are those working in other areas but many have chosen it as a form of vital public service and accept its limitations on salaries. As for it being "interesting" or not, well, surely that's in the eye of the beholder?

I guess that’s why criminal barristers have been striking then!

This article highlights the many areas that people can no longer get legal aid help or enough legal aid help since legislation in 2013.
www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/press-office/press-releases/a-decade-of-cuts-legal-aid-in-tatters

maddyone

Wyllow3

Just wanted to support Foxie's post on those who work in the Legal Aid system. No doubt some of them are mediocre as are those working in other areas but many have chosen it as a form of vital public service and accept its limitations on salaries. As for it being "interesting" or not, well, surely that's in the eye of the beholder?

I guess that’s why criminal barristers have been striking then!

Even the very committed deserve a reasonable income!

Yes, found Law Society article on it :

www.lawsociety.org.uk/Contact-or-visit-us/Press-office/Press-releases/Baffling-government-stance-on-criminal-legal-aid-galvanising-the-solicitor-profession

The criminal justice system is a mess atm

www.lawsociety.org.uk/Contact-or-visit-us/Press-office/Press-releases/Backlogs-continue-to-spiral-in-crisis-ridden-criminal-justice-system

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.

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.

Raisin d’etre! Love it!

But how wrong you are.

You can reject it all you like Whitewave, but it is a disgraceful comment.
I thought better of you.

As far as I am concerned the matter is closed.

Wyllow I agree. I think the criminal barristers have been treated disgracefully by the government, much as have the junior doctors.
Both groups should be paid their true worth after years of hard study.
Nonetheless the work is not as challenging as work in other areas of law, much like junior doctor’s work is not as challenging as that of senior consultants.
My barrister son (not a criminal barrister) thinks criminal barristers should be paid much more.
My doctor daughter thinks junior doctors should be paid much more.

Surely the point of some folks on GN being eager to pay more tax or more accurately be in favour of others to pay more tax is in order to enable the less well off and poorly to self enrich and lead a better life?

I asked up thread when did it become a crime to want to better oneself either educationally, financially, culturally or by acts of philanthropy (which includes volunteering, charitable donations etc) ?

To use self enrichment as a slur seems odd to me.

wwm, actually I didn’t say I wouldn’t have become a criminal lawyer simply because it doesn’t pay sufficiently’, did I. Did you not understand what I said about intellectual challenge?

Maybe you haven’t read, or you would rather forget - because it doesn’t fit with your idea of who I am - what I have posted in the past about doing pro bono work. It’s something to which each firm I have worked with since the late 80s has been committed, a certain number of hours of pro bono work being required of all qualified solicitors, partners included, each year. Not easy to fit in with a heavy workload, but non-negotiable. I have advised in law centres, helped illiterate people to fill in forms and mentored a girl in an inner city school in a poor area. Perhaps you would like to revisit your very nasty and ill-informed post.

Whitewavemark2

As far as I am concerned the matter is closed.

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

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!

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.

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.