Why overtaxing the rich is wrong

[hmmm]

there are plenty bleeding this country in one way or another, the are plenty over charging for things, there are plenty of cash in hands lose the vat , there are plenty of back handers there are plenty of this and plenty of that.. i read some of the righteous nonsense on here of all the angels that law abide do no wrong and everything by the book..

i smell banana boats ,i smell the sweet smell of country side bu115hit and the absolute stink of false holier than tho self proclaimed god like attitudes ..

 

[bdw]

I see you made an edit to the above. It didn't work. I still have no idea where you are coming from.

.

 

[hmmm]

nope me neither

 

[MASSEY]

So it's ok to manipulate the system if you're in business but not so if you are on benefit. Great logic.

Ofcourse it is. You run things to avoid paying tax that is not necessary. It's a business. Tax avoidance is a completely different ball game to tax evading. Your scraping the barrel there.

 

[Podge]

Ofcourse it is. You run things to avoid paying tax that is not necessary. It's a business. Tax avoidance is a completely different ball game to tax evading. Your scraping the barrel there.

In you opinion.....

In what way is a woman getting pregnant to manipulate a system that pays for her children, thereby taking tax out of the system, any different to a tax payer who manipulates the system to avoid paying the true taxes due thereby taking tax out of the system. Neither are doing anything illegal, just getting what they can.

 

[hmmm]

Ofcourse it is. You run things to avoid paying tax that is not necessary. It's a business. Tax avoidance is a completely different ball game to tax evading. Your scraping the barrel there.

oh the power of the english language ..

but is there really any difference when we apply logic

 

[Dawg]

In you opinion.....

In what way is a woman getting pregnant to manipulate a system that pays for her children, thereby taking tax out of the system, any different to a tax payer who manipulates the system to avoid paying the true taxes due thereby taking tax out of the system. Neither are doing anything illegal, just getting what they can.

"to avoid paying the true taxes due" would mean that the law is being broken.

However comparing a woman who manipulates the system by getting pregnant and a business who uses legal tax avoidance:

The woman is using other people's money, (she has earnt or created no money/value).
The business is trying to keep it's own money, (money or profit it created as a business).

Seems different to me.

 

The woman is using other people's money, (she has earnt or created no money/value).

Your mum may have told you that.

But the rest of us have a higher opinion of human beings.

Earl

 

[Dawg]

Your mum may have told you that.

But the rest of us have a higher opinion of human beings.

Earl

Nice to know your Mum did suffer fools gladly...

 

[hmmm]

"to avoid paying the true taxes due" would mean that the law is being broken.

However comparing a woman who manipulates the system by getting pregnant and a business who uses legal tax avoidance:

The woman is using other people's money, (she has earnt or created no money/value).
The business is trying to keep it's own money, (money or profit it created as a business).

Seems different to me.

depends if you count all tax/vat she has ever paid in things such as food fags clothes and many other items including all that was brought for her by the parents since birth

 

[Dawg]

depends if you count all tax/vat she has ever paid in things such as food fags clothes and many other items including all that was brought for her by the parents

What about her grandparents, and their inlaws? Why don't you count all the money they spent too?
Ooops ...because they are probably all on benefits too. You know, Benefits, other peoples money.

 

[hmmm]

What about her grandparents, and their inlaws? Why don't you count all the money they spent too?
Ooops ...because they are probably all on benefits too. You know, Benefits, other peoples money.

hmmm

so now i have to think what are the odds of the parent grand parent and all relations all claiming hmmmmm .
i think just by stating that should give you some idea of what a nonsense statement you just made and your answer.
yes lets count all the inlaws that ever spent money on her.indirectly she has contributed.......
again we come to the subject as in many threads of a thing called worth

benefits is not your money...you gave away your taxes for the big guys to do as they wish

 

[Matt1959]

depends if you count all tax/vat she has ever paid in things such as food fags clothes and many other items including all that was brought for her by the parents since birth

theres a distinction between those claiming benefits that cant get work and those that could - I thought we were talking about the latter? If not, you can't lump all people claiming benefits in together. How did we get to the position whereby we're in support of scroungers just because they are claimants?

 

[hmmm]

so if someone would like to do the math from birth every bit of vat/tax ever spent on the average child till 16 as lets face it this would not be there if she wasnt born..
even workers get child benefit and tax credits and other benefits...whos money is that?
but the amount of "scroungers " that actually full bore down dont want to work ,in the whole picture this is a minute amount that really shouldnt be effecting the out come

 

[Matt1959]

so if someone would like to do the math from birth every bit of vat/tax ever spent on the average child till 16 as lets face it this would not be there if she wasnt born..
even workers get child benefit and tax credits and other benefits...whos money is that?

so tax paid on expenditure per child for 16 years exceeds the beneifit paid for that child? Like you said, we need some sums

rough calculation - one child costs say £1800 pa in benefits. To get that back in say VAT, you'd have to be spending £9000 a year on the child:|

sorry I'm making it sound like children are commodities - tis not meant that way.....

 

[hmmm]

so tax paid on expenditure per child for 16 years exceeds the beneifit paid for that child? Like you said, we need some sums

rough calculation - one child costs say £1800 pa in benefits. To get that back in say VAT, you'd have to be spending £9000 a year on the child:|

sorry I'm making it sound like children are commodities - tis not meant that way.....

i dont think you sound that way as we are only chatting about things..
when doing the math we have to deside how long someone is without work how someone is ever going to work. the woman may only be out of work a short time or have a partner at some stage. £1800 a yr then we take off that all vat as lets face it that £1800 is going back into the system or a good proportion is

 

[Matt1959]

i dont think you sound that way as we are only chatting about things..
when doing the math we have to deside how long someone is without work how someone is ever going to work. the woman may only be out of work a short time or have a partner at some stage. £1800 a yr then we take off that all vat as lets face it that £1800 is going back into the system or a good proportion is

its the first time I've seen it said that the benefit culture has advantages for the economy

 

[hmmm]

maybe benefits are the governments way of losing "avoiding"some of the tax that they owe to the masters

 

[hmmm]

if we look at the country as one big company we can possibly see the benefit system as a way of keeping the people happy maybe happy is the wrong word but what i mean is when some companies take employees to the races or the pub or weekends away any social or "present giving" its a way to keep those in house happy and get team spirit...the benefit system is kind of like that if you like..just as some will drink 20 double vodkas and others will have 3 cokes on a company night out all paid for,some on benefits will take as much as they can and take advantage and some will just have what is given and not abuse it..its all swings and round abouts that we know are there but we can manage around to keep harmony

 

[Jeff FV]

so if someone would like to do the math from birth every bit of vat/tax ever spent on the average child till 16 as lets face it this would not be there if she wasnt born..
even workers get child benefit and tax credits and other benefits...whos money is that?
but the amount of "scroungers " that actually full bore down dont want to work ,in the whole picture this is a minute amount that really shouldnt be effecting the out come

My bold in the above.

But if the money was not spent on the child as they had not been born, it would have been spent on something else, thus still generating VAT income.

I'm pretty sure that I've spent a huge sum of money on my two little darlings - if I hadn't of had children I wouldn't have saved all that money, I'd have just spent it on something else

Jeff

 

[hmmm]

My bold in the above.

But if the money was not spent on the child as they had not been born, it would have been spent on something else, thus still generating VAT income.

I'm pretty sure that I've spent a huge sum of money on my two little darlings - if I hadn't of had children I wouldn't have saved all that money, I'd have just spent it on something else

Jeff

this is true and a good point..but fact is you did have the children and it was spent on them..and the whole point of this is where is it being spent rather than where might it have been,which in turn creates a worth

 

[Dawg]

hmmm

so now i have to think what are the odds of the parent grand parent and all relations all claiming hmmmmm .
i think just by stating that should give you some idea of what a nonsense statement you just made and your answer.
yes lets count all the inlaws that ever spent money on her.indirectly she has contributed.......
again we come to the subject as in many threads of a thing called worth

benefits is not your money...you gave away your taxes for the big guys to do as they wish

Jeebus wept ...

This is Pot Kettle par excellence.
I was trying to be ironic. Yet again, in the face of weapons grade bovine thought it seems to have been missed.
And now you want to debate 'worth'?

Palm, meet face.
Leave it, 'e ain't worf it...

(Shall we rename this thread: 'lets defend scroungers on a business forum, as that's likely to be a good place to do it'?)

 

[hmmm]

Jeebus wept ...

This is Pot Kettle par excellence.
I was trying to be ironic. Yet again, in the face of weapons grade bovine thought it seems to have been missed.
And now you want to debate 'worth'?

Palm, meet face.
Leave it, 'e ain't worf it...

(Shall we rename this thread: 'lets defend scroungers on a business forum, as that's likely to be a good place to do it'?)

lol smell my cheese

i thought you might of thanked me for my excellent analogeeeeeeeeeeeeee

so back to the original thread..
overtaxing the rich,is it wrong .yes
taxing them more erm maybe not but also maybe yes......im unsure

 

[OptiRick]

How many times do we have to listen to that misleading, cliched and probably apocryphal story?

The fact is that we have a benefit system. As a result of this benefit system people who in need of it are awarded some benefits. I have heard dozens of stories (in this forum alone) of people are awarded £500 or £600 per week in benefits for them and their 12 children (and presumably go around seeking out small business people to reveal how much benefit they are receiving).

They live the life of Reilly on this, they have a nice car and take holidays abroad. And then we have the others who refuse to take jobs because they get enough on the dole to take two holidays a year and buy 42" tellys and all manner of luxury goods. What about the others who have not worked for 20 years and who spend every night in the pub drinking cider?

I live in a very deprived area with high unemployment and I frequent the local hostelries. You would think that I would have met some of these people in my area wouldn't you? But no, I have never come across any of them. Where are they all? The vast majority of the ones I know that are on benefits don't have any of these things. They don't starve and they have a roof over their heads but they live a life of struggle to afford most of the things we all take for granted. That is the reality for the vast majority of people on benefits.

I am not denying that there are isolated cases of people on the dole who seem to be doing well but there are benefit cheats who work on the side or have other income that they do not declare. They are most certainly not typical.

Well for a start I don't take any of the 'luxuries' I enjoy for granted, I worked hard for them.

And just because *you* don't see something happening doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I grew up on a council estate and now 20 years later live in an area with approx 30% unemployment so I feel qualified to comment on the matter.

In any case it's gone off topic, I mentioned the benefit situation as one reason that people resent taxation.

The government need £loads and they have to take it from someone. Who should they take it from if not the 'rich'?

It doesn't matter how much the rich deserve to keep their money or how hard they worked to earn it, the simple fact is that they have more of it. You can't tax money that people don't have, you can only take it from those who do have it.

Earlier in this thread we had the opinion that the rich shouldn't be taxed heavily because their lifestyles are more expensive, is that OK as an excuse for hanging onto wealth, that one is so rich that it costs one a fortune to keep oneself in the lifestyle to which one has become accustomed?

It's probably that sort of thinking that keeps approximately 1 billion people in the world undernourished.

 

[Dawg]

If you raise the tax on the rich, after a certain % the revenue raised will go down.
As ever there are two core options: raise money or cut expenditure.
If your method of raising money has hit the buffers then you have to cut expenditure.
So if you raise tax rates for the rich to the extent that revenues actually go down then you have to start cutting.
This is why, on purely practical grounds, overtaxing the rich is wrong: it's wrong because it won't work.
And when it doesn't work the inevitable cuts will hit the poor before they hit the rich.

If you can show me any feasible economic argument which refutes this I would be glad to hear it, as the above is part of a rather pessimistic scenario.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

"to avoid paying the true taxes due" would mean that the law is being broken.

However comparing a woman who manipulates the system by getting pregnant and a business who uses legal tax avoidance:

The woman is using other people's money, (she has earnt or created no money/value).
The business is trying to keep it's own money, (money or profit it created as a business).

Seems different to me.

How do you know the woman has neither earnt nor created any money/value?