Socialism

[Cobby]

Socialism is great, until you run out of other people’s money.

Whereas capitalism is great because if you're wealthy you never run out of other people's money. :|

 

[Cobby]

No one is trying to do that. No one even suggested that capitalism was good. I think we have all agreed so far that neither capitalism nor socialism is really perfect, but us on the cap side reckon capitalism is the best of a bad bunch...

Sorry! :/
I was trying to jump out in front of that because the response to "Capitalism currently lets people have *too much* money" is usually a passionate but blind strawman in its favour.

So here's a thought experiment: Consider a town with a particularly high level of homelessness (shouldn't be hard at the moment)... The State works out that long term it's more cost efficient to use up some of its housing stock to simply give to the homeless than to continue providing a portion of municipal services in support.

Now where on the spectrum does that help fall? Capitalism or socialism? Sure, it's a big social handout, but it's also the most effective and efficient way of spending tax income and increasing economic spending strength (via the now homed and participating residents).

Now it's only a thought experiment so there's little value in deconstructing the premise based on political biases, but its always good to see people's thoughts...

 

[NickGrogan]

In general, as a capitalist I'd support this - efficient use of taxes, etc, but with a few caveats.

Give? No

Allow to live rent free for as long as needed or until they can afford somewhere better? Yes

Allow to live rent free, when they are earning enough to pay reasonable rents? No

I'd extend this beyond homeless people and make available to all those working in medicine, education, military, etc who are earning low wages.

More cost effective, means lower taxes and incentives people to take on these roles.

 

[ffox]

So here's a thought experiment: Consider a town with a particularly high level of homelessness (shouldn't be hard at the moment)... The State works out that long term it's more cost efficient to use up some of its housing stock to simply give to the homeless than to continue providing a portion of municipal services in support.

Isn't this similar to Thatcher's Right-to-buy scheme from the 80s?

30 years on that has been a huge contributor to a huge UK housing crisis. Capitalism, or Socialism, current decisions have impact 10, 20 or 30 years down the line.

Policies must be managed to be effective.

 

[Mr D]

Isn't this similar to Thatcher's Right-to-buy scheme from the 80s?

30 years on that has been a huge contributor to a huge UK housing crisis. Capitalism, or Socialism, current decisions have impact 10, 20 or 30 years down the line.

Policies must be managed to be effective.

Giving houses?
Yes it works for some people. Councils have been doing it for decades.
Doesn't solve all problems - someone unable to manage a tenancy will still be unable to manage a tenancy.
Help can only be given when the person accepts help. Some homeless people have had multiple properties given to them, what they have problems with isn't getting properties.


Housing crisis isn't down to right to buy, those houses usually are purchased and lived in by someone. Whether a council tenant, a housing association tenant, a private tenant renting from a private landlord or an owner occupier the house is still occupied.

People generally didn't do the right to buy scheme with the intention of leaving the property empty and simply removing housing stock from use.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The big question is whether natural human progression means that socialism will become an inevitable requirement for highly developed nations.

Capitalism relies massively on the principle of people giving their time in exchange for money. More to the point, it relies on people being useful in some way.

That may not last forever. It's only a matter of time before robots, AI and automation become better (and cheaper) at many jobs than humans are. This has been claimed for decades, and many time estimations have been wrong, but it's inevitable nonetheless if we continue to progress as we currently are.

There's also the dependency ratio. Lifespans are getting longer, but working lifespans are not increasing at the same rate. That means the amount of dependent adults will increase relative to the amount of working adults to cause a greater welfare burden.

Right now in Europe, there are four working age adults for every person over 65. By 2050, this is expected to drop to only two working adults per person over 65.

The combination of the two may therefore result in a highly productive economy, but one where humans are dispensable in all but the most highly skilled jobs. The time-for-money model would fail, and capitalism as we know it would cease to function.

What then?

 

[Mr D]

Right now in Europe, there are four working age adults for every person over 65. By 2050, this is expected to drop to only two working adults per person over 65.

The combination of the two may therefore result in a highly productive economy, but one where humans are dispensable in all but the most highly skilled jobs. The time-for-money model would fail, and capitalism as we know it would cease to function.

What then?

The obvious answer already being implemented is increase the pension age. Those who want to retire early can do so, those who want to work later can do so - as has been the case for a while outside of government and council workers - and the state starts paying pension later and for longer.

There may be other options.

 

[Paul Norman]

The big question is whether natural human progression means that socialism will become an inevitable requirement for highly developed nations.

Capitalism relies massively on the principle of people giving their time in exchange for money. More to the point, it relies on people being useful in some way.

That may not last forever. It's only a matter of time before robots, AI and automation become better (and cheaper) at many jobs than humans are. This has been claimed for decades, and many time estimations have been wrong, but it's inevitable nonetheless if we continue to progress as we currently are.

There's also the dependency ratio. Lifespans are getting longer, but working lifespans are not increasing at the same rate. That means the amount of dependent adults will increase relative to the amount of working adults to cause a greater welfare burden.

Right now in Europe, there are four working age adults for every person over 65. By 2050, this is expected to drop to only two working adults per person over 65.

The combination of the two may therefore result in a highly productive economy, but one where humans are dispensable in all but the most highly skilled jobs. The time-for-money model would fail, and capitalism as we know it would cease to function.

What then?

Under the current thinking, which portrays the 'choice' of unemployment as fundamentally immoral, and resents anyone receiving money other than as a wage, we would have to cull the population.

You are correct, Scott. We have to rethink how things will work. Socialism is, of course, too binary to do that fully. But it seems a healthier start as it begins with the abandonment of the link between having money and having human value.

 

[ffox]

Housing crisis isn't down to right to buy, those houses usually are purchased and lived in by someone.

But, the right-to-buy scheme, and the regulations under which it operated did distort the housing market. This has led to a massive shift away from professional housing stock management to management by less capable groups and individuals, and massive escalation in property value.

With something in excess of 6tn tied up in residential property in the UK any change in this market has impact on UK Ltd.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Allow to live rent free for as long as needed or until they can afford somewhere better? Yes

Allow to live rent free, when they are earning enough to pay reasonable rents? No

I'd extend this beyond homeless people and make available to all those working in medicine, education, military, etc who are earning low wages.

More cost effective, means lower taxes and incentives people to take on these roles.

Not sure that would be more cost effective, as every single individual would have to be continually assessed to determine when they are earning enough to pay reasonable rents, and the level of reasonable rents would have to be continually assessed as well.

 

[Mr D]

Under the current thinking, which portrays the 'choice' of unemployment as fundamentally immoral, and resents anyone receiving money other than as a wage, we would have to cull the population.

You are correct, Scott. We have to rethink how things will work. Socialism is, of course, too binary to do that fully. But it seems a healthier start as it begins with the abandonment of the link between having money and having human value.

Like the National Socialism we saw last century in a European country?
You had human value based on your race, nationality, parentage, religion, sexuality and physical or mental ability.
Not valued if you belonged to the 'wrong' group or outside the 'normal' view of society.

Here in this country some will value you at this time of year based on you wearing a symbol on your clothing. Not a yellow star or pink triangle, its a poppy.

 

[NickGrogan]

Lifespans are getting longer, but working lifespans are not increasing at the same rate.

Seems fairly simple to solve.

we would have to cull the population.

Sounds a bit drastic.

Population growth is falling and if trends carry on will start to fall, developed countries tend to have lower/negative growth rates already.

Ultimately regardless of your politics, most people would accept that the globe cannot support an infinite population.

 

[NickGrogan]

Not sure that would be more cost effective, as every single individual would have to be continually assessed to determine when they are earning enough to pay reasonable rents, and the level of reasonable rents would have to be continually assessed as well.

Assess once a year based on tax returns, (information we already have), back to rent free if they lose job.
Rent reviews annually / biannually, build lots of similar properties.

Not that hard.

 

[Mr D]

But, the right-to-buy scheme, and the regulations under which it operated did distort the housing market. This has led to a massive shift away from professional housing stock management to management by less capable groups and individuals, and massive escalation in property value.

With something in excess of 6tn tied up in residential property in the UK any change in this market has impact on UK Ltd.

It distorted the council house market by giving the councils less places they could put someone, and impacted the selling market due to its discounts - a long term tenant could purchase the house they were in as seen for up to 50% off an already low price. And the moment you declare an intention to buy you are removed from any planned repair schedule in a number of council areas.
If the house was still occupied however it made zero difference to the availability overall of UK housing. Someone living in the house is still going to be living somewhere.

I'm on a council estate at the moment (owner occupier in ex council house). Cannot offhand see that professional housing stock management is better than private landlord or owner occupier housing management. Not on my estate anyway.
Flats across the road had flooding earlier in the year in the downstairs flats - they've had floods under council ownership and floods under housing association ownership. If they'd been owner occupiers they'd still have had flooding unless some brave soul knocked down the flats and rebuilt to avoid flooding.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Assess once a year based on tax returns, (information we already have),

We only have tax returns for a very small percentage of the population here. Not like in the USA where everyone does one.

 

[Mr D]

Assess once a year based on tax returns, (information we already have), back to rent free if they lose job.
Rent reviews annually / biannually, build lots of similar properties.

Not that hard.

Lots of similar properties?
Like the council did with housing estates.

 

[Mr D]

We only have tax returns for a very small percentage of the population here. Not like in the USA where everyone does one.

We have only a small portion completing tax returns. We have rather a lot more where the employer supplies HMRC with income data. No need for separate tax returns on a lot of people, data already held at HMRC.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The obvious answer already being implemented is increase the pension age. Those who want to retire early can do so, those who want to work later can do so - as has been the case for a while outside of government and council workers - and the state starts paying pension later and for longer.

There may be other options.

But what happens if AI and automation replace so many jobs that older people can't get a job even if they want to? It would be bad enough as it is for everyone else trying to find work.

This is the issue. Even with the world as it is today, there will be an ever-increasing percentage of the population dependent on the state, but eventually we'll start to include more and more people of normal working age as well.

Plus, even if your suggestion would work, increasing the pension age can only take us so far. When I say that the working lifespan is not increasing at the same rate, I mean the person's ability to work based on their mental and physical faculties. Just because a person lives an extra 10 years, it doesn't mean that age-related impairments are delayed by 10 years as well.

 

[NickGrogan]

Lots of similar properties?
Like the council did with housing estates.

Yes, exactly like that, or the new apartments that are being built at Canary Wharf if you want a more upmarket example.

 

[Mr D]

But what happens if AI and automation replace so many jobs that older people can't get a job even if they want to? It would be bad enough as it is for everyone else trying to find work.

This is the issue. Even with the world as it is today, there will be an ever-increasing percentage of the population dependent on the state, but eventually we'll start to include more and more people of normal working age as well.

Plus, even if your suggestion would work, increasing the pension age can only take us so far. When I say that the working lifespan is not increasing at the same rate, I mean the person's ability to work based on their mental and physical faculties. Just because a person lives an extra 10 years, it doesn't mean that age-related impairments are delayed by 10 years as well.

So far we've had automation / machinery taking jobs for a couple of centuries. What is the unemployment rate like currently? Pretty good?
People find other work.

How much social care work will be needed with an ageing population?
How much health work?

OK can replace a driver of a vehicle, can you replace the ambulance crew working on an injured person?

Machines can replace people in some jobs, harder to replace in others.

 

[Mr D]

Yes, exactly like that, or the new apartments that are being built at Canary Wharf if you want a more upmarket example.

I don't know London. I'm usually somewhere down south, Manchester or Leicester or Hereford but not near enough to see London areas.

 

[NickGrogan]

I don't know London. I'm usually somewhere down south, Manchester or Leicester or Hereford but not near enough to see London areas.

Ok, similar properties like these.

https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/resources/2018s-most-exciting-manchester-property-developments/

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

So far we've had automation / machinery taking jobs for a couple of centuries. What is the unemployment rate like currently? Pretty good?
People find other work.

Only because robotics and AI are currently fairly primitive compared to humans. It's catching up though, pretty darn quickly.

I don't think you're appreciating the scale of what could happen given enough time. Look at how far technology has come in the last 50 years. Now add another century or two to that. The ability of technology could blow our minds much in the same way an iPhone would appear almost alien-like if it was suddenly put in the hands of someone in the 1950s.

Drop a squadron of F-35s into World War Two and people really would think that aliens had arrived.

And then you have recent developments in artificial neural networks. Robotics and AI don't necessarily have to be programmed with tasks now. They can learn themselves by studying examples.

OK can replace a driver of a vehicle, can you replace the ambulance crew working on an injured person?

Of course. Given enough time, there's very little that would prevent that from happening. That sort of level is a long way off, but unless something happens that curtails human development, it's a case of when, not if.

In the interim, however, the bigger risk is what automation and AI can replace that's already on the horizon: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42170100

Retraining that many people, particularly when human-dependent jobs will require ever-increasing levels of skill and knowledge, is not going to be easy. And eventually, there will simply be too many people for too few jobs, no matter how hard they train.

 

[Mr D]

Only because robotics and AI are currently fairly primitive compared to humans. It's catching up though, pretty darn quickly.

I don't think you're appreciating the scale of what could happen given enough time. Look at how far technology has come in the last 50 years. Now add another century or two to that. The ability of technology could blow our minds much in the same way an iPhone would appear almost alien-like if it was suddenly put in the hands of someone in the 1950s.

Drop a squadron of F-35s into World War Two and people really would think that aliens had arrived.

And then you have recent developments in artificial neural networks. Robotics and AI don't necessarily have to be programmed with tasks now. They can learn themselves by studying examples.



Of course. Given enough time, there's very little that would prevent that from happening. That sort of level is a long way off, but unless something happens that curtails human development, it's a case of when, not if.

In the interim, however, the bigger risk is what automation and AI can replace that's already on the horizon: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42170100

Retraining that many people, particularly when human-dependent jobs will require ever-increasing levels of skill and knowledge, is not going to be easy. And eventually, there will simply be too many people for too few jobs, no matter how hard they train.

I can appreciate the scale, some of my projects depend on the advance of tech.

The arguments about humans being replaced have been made since early in the industrial revolution.
I expect it will be a while before the care and human elements of some jobs are abolished.
Will a robot helping someone into bed be a viable cost effective alternative any time soon?
Sure for some of us there may be beds that adjust up and down, already capable of that - but cost effective compared to other methods? Like a hoist?

Not all tech improvements find their way immediately into every space they can occupy. The first motor cars (and first electric vehicles) were beyond the affordability of most people, horses were much cheaper.
Over time vehicles have improved such that horses aren't used as much. Still instances where horses are used and are better, despite over a century of motor vehicles, than using expensive motor vehicles are.

Tech takes time to become cost effective for more uses and to replace some processes. There's already robots capable of doing surgery on you - the cost to buy and maintain however and ability to deal with unexpected still favours the humans working on you in surgery for plenty of stuff. Expect changes there in next 20 years - for those able to afford it!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I can appreciate the scale, some of my projects depend on the advance of tech.

The arguments about humans being replaced have been made since early in the industrial revolution.
I expect it will be a while before the care and human elements of some jobs are abolished.
Will a robot helping someone into bed be a viable cost effective alternative any time soon?
Sure for some of us there may be beds that adjust up and down, already capable of that - but cost effective compared to other methods? Like a hoist?

Not all tech improvements find their way immediately into every space they can occupy. The first motor cars (and first electric vehicles) were beyond the affordability of most people, horses were much cheaper.
Over time vehicles have improved such that horses aren't used as much. Still instances where horses are used and are better, despite over a century of motor vehicles, than using expensive motor vehicles are.

Tech takes time to become cost effective for more uses and to replace some processes. There's already robots capable of doing surgery on you - the cost to buy and maintain however and ability to deal with unexpected still favours the humans working on you in surgery for plenty of stuff. Expect changes there in next 20 years - for those able to afford it!

We seem to agree then. I've never suggested that this tech epidemic will happen any time soon. Merely that it will eventually, unless something happens to curtail it.

That being said, while I think some time predictions are very optimistic, I don't think we'll have to wait hundreds upon hundreds of years. I think the technological singularity is a possibility, where continuously self-improving artificial intelligence, getting better at improving itself with every version, could create a runaway chain reaction. An "intelligence explosion", if you will.

Currently, the progression of technology is limited by the human brain, which hasn't really changed much for thousands of years. The tipping point will be when (or some say, if) we create intelligence better than our own. If that happens, the seemingly impossible problems could fall like dominoes. Human intelligence could even become a drag on the progression of civilisation.

What a time to be alive, huh?

PS: Apologies for derailing the thread somewhat.

 

[Mr D]

We seem to agree then. I've never suggested that this tech epidemic will happen any time soon. Merely that it will eventually, unless something happens to curtail it.

That being said, while I think some time predictions are very optimistic, I don't think we'll have to wait hundreds upon hundreds of years. I think the technological singularity is a possibility, where continuously self-improving artificial intelligence, getting better at improving itself with every version, could create a runaway chain reaction. An "intelligence explosion", if you will.

Currently, the progression of technology is limited by the human brain, which hasn't really changed much for thousands of years. The tipping point will be when (or some say, if) we create intelligence better than our own. If that happens, the seemingly impossible problems could fall like dominoes. Human intelligence could even become a drag on the progression of civilisation.

What a time to be alive, huh?

PS: Apologies for derailing the thread somewhat.

Yes, one danger of the future is if we created intelligence better than our own and the problems of the world were put to it.

The solution that is deemed best may not be a solution we find to be nice.

'Kill those humans in that building' pointing at parliament may be an answer.
While some would probably not shed a tear for particular politicians there would be plenty that others rely on as family, friend, lover, colleague etc.

Humans at least have the chance of deciding a particular solution isn't viable for them. Or deciding worse as more than one national leader has done.

 

[Scott Hawksworth]

Conceptually Socialism seems wonderful. There's a lot to the idea that no one should have to worry about food, shelter, or money. There's a lot to the idea that we're a cooperative species and a utopia of everyone working for the best of their communities is the best solution.

But in practice, you need governments or authority to enforce these rules.

In practice, humans are not all good willed and willing to accept less so that everyone can get the same amount.

Pure socialism, in my mind, is an impossible thing to achieve because humans simply don't behave that way, and our existing systems make adoption, and weeding out corruption etc. near impossible. We've tried.

 

[Newchodge]

Pure socialism, in my mind, is an impossible thing to achieve because humans simply don't behave that way, and our existing systems make adoption, and weeding out corruption etc. near impossible. We've tried.

So what is your better alternative?

 

[Cobby]

Pure socialism, in my mind, is an impossible thing to achieve because humans simply don't behave that way, and our existing systems make adoption, and weeding out corruption etc. near impossible. We've tried.

This is also the downfall of capitalism and free-market ideology. Human nature is the faulty component. We know, we've tried.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Human nature is the faulty component

Human nature is the faulty component in every political and economic system.
Every. Single. One.

 

[Scott Hawksworth]

So what is your better alternative?

I think there's a lot to be said about the idea of Universal Basic Income. Also healthcare for all, in addition to education for all.

You can weave in "socialist" concepts using a government framework and taxes as a way to curb economic inequality.

At the same time, allowing some of the benefits/incentives of our existing systems (competition, innovation) to remain in tact.

It's a good thing if someone is motivated to create a new product or disrupt a market and they want the rewards of being rich... they can have that... then we have systems which tax them fairly and subsidize programs (such as UBI) which make it so everyones standard of living is better.

Put another way, let some people drive a Porche if they can. But those people should also pay to allow everyone else to be able to drive a very solid Toyota to get them where they need to go.

Ultimately, that's better for everyone, I think.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Put another way, let some people drive a Porche if they can. But those people should also pay to allow everyone else to be able to drive a very solid Toyota to get them where they need to go.

Ultimately, that's better for everyone, I think.

No, that's only better for the person who gets a free Toyota.

I do like the idea of free healthcare for all, and I certainly get the benefit of it...but we would have a more robust NHS if the people who can afford to would pay something into the system when they use it.
For example, when I get a prescription from the pharmacy, I don't have to pay (in Scotland, its free for everyone). I can afford to pay £8 for a box of tablets when I need them, so I think I should, rather than making it free for everyone it should be free for the people who need it to be free.
My dad is over 60 and he gets a free bus pass. He has a car, and plenty money to pay for transport, but the government gave him a free bus pass so he uses it, costing the country money, meaning less money going to the people who need it.

taxes as a way to curb economic inequality.

Taxes don't "curb economic inequality". They shift the equality from one end of the scale to the other. Socialism aims for equality of outcome, which is not fair for anyone. Capitalism aims for equality of opportunity, which is fair for everyone.

 

[NickGrogan]

It's a good thing if someone is motivated to create a new product or disrupt a market and they want the rewards of being rich... they can have that... then we have systems which tax them fairly and subsidize programs (such as UBI) which make it so everyones standard of living is better.

Can you explain why someone who already paying more tax than the average person being made to pay even more tax is fair?

Can you also tell me when the word "Everyone" stopped mean all people and started to mean all poor people.

If you live/work in the UK, you are probably in the richest 1 or 2% globally.

Would you be happy to be taxed at 50 - 75% of your total income and this money sent to the poorest people in the world? - it would really change their lives.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Was Micheal Foot ex Lord Foot the last real socialist and before him Aneurin Bevan

 

[Mr D]

Can you explain why someone who already paying more tax than the average person being made to pay even more tax is fair?

Can you also tell me when the word "Everyone" stopped mean all people and started to mean all poor people.

If you live/work in the UK, you are probably in the richest 1 or 2% globally.

Would you be happy to be taxed at 50 - 75% of your total income and this money sent to the poorest people in the world? - it would really change their lives.

There are already people who question sending foreign aid to India. A nuclear armed country with a space program and quite a few poor people.
We have poor people here of course, some of them probably live and work in London.

 

[Newchodge]

Was Micheal Foot ex Lord Foot the last real socialist and before him Aneurin Bevan

John Smith? and potentially jeremy Corbyn?

 

[Mr D]

I think there's a lot to be said about the idea of Universal Basic Income. Also healthcare for all, in addition to education for all.

You can weave in "socialist" concepts using a government framework and taxes as a way to curb economic inequality.

At the same time, allowing some of the benefits/incentives of our existing systems (competition, innovation) to remain in tact.

It's a good thing if someone is motivated to create a new product or disrupt a market and they want the rewards of being rich... they can have that... then we have systems which tax them fairly and subsidize programs (such as UBI) which make it so everyones standard of living is better.

Put another way, let some people drive a Porche if they can. But those people should also pay to allow everyone else to be able to drive a very solid Toyota to get them where they need to go.

Ultimately, that's better for everyone, I think.

Great. So which country is trying such a policy of universal basic income?
Presumably we will wait to see it working before we try experimenting with people's lives here.

Healthcare for all I've experienced all my life. If I have chest pains I can have a scan within 6 months and results within a further 3 months. And an operation inside a decade.
I've relatives in the US, they get chest pains they have an operation in less than 4 days. Not healthcare for all, merely much greater chances of staying alive.

We don't have a system of taxing fairly in this country, we have a system of taxing the higher income people more. Plus taxing businesses multiple ways which ultimately gets paid by owners, staff or customers.

 

[Cobby]

Can you explain why someone who already paying more tax than the average person being made to pay even more tax is fair?

"Fair" is a somewhat malleable term in this discussion, but consider these two aspects of "fairness":

- Lifestyle: A billionaire paying 50% tax could pay 60% tax and be able to afford one less new yacht each year. That extra 10% won't provide them a higher standard of living, but will improve the lives of those in the society that allows the billionaire to make such huge sums of money in the first place.

- Costs: Taxation is relative, trading costs are absolute. The cost of a thing, let's say a season ticket for train travel into work from arbitrary point A to arbitrary point B, is £5 thousand pounds. That doesn't become cheaper for less well-off people or more expensive for rich people. For the poorer person, that can be 20% of their yearly wage, for the richer person it's less than half of a percent of their yearly wage.

Socialism aims for equality of outcome, which is not fair for anyone. Capitalism aims for equality of opportunity, which is fair for everyone.

If the outcome of a system allows people to suffer then the attribution of intended fairness is meaningless.

 

[NickGrogan]

@Cobby so why not use the more accurate word - more.

Rich people should pay more tax than poor people. They should pay more in real terms and they should pay more as a percentage. This is so that people can be supported by the state, when they cannot support themselves.

As rich people pay more tax, they should get benefits/incentives that are not available to lower rate tax payers. This could include the right to drive in bus lanes, park on double yellow lines, exclusive queues at passport control, etc

Rich people will benefit too, as the poorer people with have more to spend, money which will make it's way back to the rich people again.

See, much clearer and more honest than trying to reframe fair as meaning something else.

 

[Mr D]

@Cobby so why not use the more accurate word - more.

Rich people should pay more tax than poor people. They should pay more in real terms and they should pay more as a percentage. This is so that people can be supported by the state, when they cannot support themselves.

As rich people pay more tax, they should get benefits/incentives that are not available to lower rate tax payers. This could include the right to drive in bus lanes, park on double yellow lines, exclusive queues at passport control, etc

Rich people will benefit too, as the poorer people with have more to spend, money which will make it's way back to the rich people again.

See, much clearer and more honest than trying to reframe fair as meaning something else.

Hey look, we do charge higher earners both more in real terms and as a percentage.
We don't currently have a wealth tax so the rich don't pay anything on wealth - just their income and their spending like other people do.
So far the socialists / envious haven't figured out a workable plan to tax the wealth someone has and get away with it.
Best that can be managed is tax the inheritance of wealth which of course has its multiple means of bypass too.