Fairness

Chippy_boy

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Aug 2008
Messages
29,907
Location
Downstairs
Team supported
God's chosen team
With the election looming, I keep hearing this word fairness.

It's like those with left wing tendenancies seem to want to claim the moral high ground and portray Labour as being about fairness, as opposed to the tories who are evil, and most certainly not "fair".

Well who gets to define what's "fair".

If you are walking down the street with £100 in your wallet and you are robbed, is that fair? What if the person who is robbing you is less well off that you? Is that now OK?

Taking money off people to give it to other people is not automatically "fair". In most cases the people who have more money have worked bloody hard for it. How is it "fair" to say, sorry mate I know you've worked your arse off for this, but we are taking it off you?

I don't like tax, no-one does. But I understand it is a necessary evil and yes, it is an evil. Taking money off people with menaces, is surely an evil whether the robber does it, or the government does it. But I do not accept that taking even more of it is more "fair".

As it stands TODAY, somone on £30k/year pays £4k tax and perhaps gets back some in benefits. Someone on £200k/year pays £76,000. 19 times as much tax on less than 7 times the income. And we are told this is not fair on the poorer person?!?!? Bonkers, just bonkers.
 
Chippy_boy said:
With the election looming, I keep hearing this word fairness.

It's like those with left wing tendenancies seem to want to claim the moral high ground and portray Labour as being about fairness, as opposed to the tories who are evil, and most certainly not "fair".

Well who gets to define what's "fair".

If you are walking down the street with £100 in your wallet and you are robbed, is that fair? What if the person who is robbing you is less well off that you? Is that now OK?

Taking money off people to give it to other people is not automatically "fair". In most cases the people who have more money have worked bloody hard for it. How is it "fair" to say, sorry mate I know you've worked your arse off for this, but we are taking it off you?

I don't like tax, no-one does. But I understand it is a necessary evil and yes, it is an evil. Taking money off people with menaces, is surely an evil whether the robber does it, or the government does it. But I do not accept that taking even more of it is more "fair".

Today,as it stands, someone on £30k a year pays £4,000 in tax and NI and perhaps gets some of it back in benefits. Someone on £200,000 pays £84,000 in tax. So less than 7 times the salary and you pay 21 times the amount of tax.

Ed wants to increase that differential even further. How on earth would that be more fair?

How the fuck did you work that out?
 
chabal said:
How the fuck did you work that out?

Edited as above. It's £76,000 tax on £200,000 of income. There's plenty of calculators about.

The richer person "only" pays 19 times more tax than the person on £30,000. Sorry for the mistake.
 
Chippy_boy said:
chabal said:
How the fuck did you work that out?

Edited as above. It's £76,000 tax on £200,000 of income. There's plenty of calculators about.

The richer person "only" pays 19 times more tax than the person on £30,000. Sorry for the mistake.

I thought it looked wrong.
 
chabal said:
Chippy_boy said:
chabal said:
How the fuck did you work that out?

Edited as above. It's £76,000 tax on £200,000 of income. There's plenty of calculators about.

The richer person "only" pays 19 times more tax than the person on £30,000. Sorry for the mistake.

I thought it looked wrong.


Who the fuck are you, Rachel Riley?
 
Chippy_boy said:
chabal said:
Chippy_boy said:
With the election looming, I keep hearing this word fairness.

It's like those with left wing tendenancies seem to want to claim the moral high ground and portray Labour as being about fairness, as opposed to the tories who are evil, and most certainly not "fair".

Well who gets to define what's "fair".

If you are walking down the street with £100 in your wallet and you are robbed, is that fair? What if the person who is robbing you is less well off that you? Is that now OK?

Taking money off people to give it to other people is not automatically "fair". In most cases the people who have more money have worked bloody hard for it. How is it "fair" to say, sorry mate I know you've worked your arse off for this, but we are taking it off you?

I don't like tax, no-one does. But I understand it is a necessary evil and yes, it is an evil. Taking money off people with menaces, is surely an evil whether the robber does it, or the government does it. But I do not accept that taking even more of it is more "fair".

Today,as it stands, someone on £30k a year pays £4,000 in tax and NI and perhaps gets some of it back in benefits. Someone on £200,000 pays £84,000 in tax. So less than 7 times the salary and you pay 21 times the amount of tax.

Ed wants to increase that differential even further. How on earth would that be more fair?

How the fuck did you work that out?

Edited as above. It's £76,000 tax on £200,000 of income. There's plenty of calculators about.
Unless an immigrant, anyone earning 200k will only have got there having benefited from all the things that society brings. I have no problem paying 20x as much tax as someone scraping by on minimum wage I can't understand the mentality of people who have a lot and who have benefited hugely, yet begrudge contributing.
 
EalingBlue2 said:
Chippy_boy said:
chabal said:
How the fuck did you work that out?

Edited as above. It's £76,000 tax on £200,000 of income. There's plenty of calculators about.
Unless an immigrant, anyone earning 200k will only have got there having benefited from all the things that society brings. I have no problem paying 20x as much tax as someone scraping by on minimum wage I can't understand the mentality of people who have a lot and who have benefited hugely, yet begrudge contributing.

Why not hand 99% of your income over then? Where do you draw the line?

And where is your concept of "they deserve it"? It's like you suggest everyone is rich only got rich because of other people's hardship. Maybe they got rich because of things that THEY actually did and perhaps just perhaps they deserve to keep most of it?
 
Chippy_boy said:
EalingBlue2 said:
Chippy_boy said:
Edited as above. It's £76,000 tax on £200,000 of income. There's plenty of calculators about.
Unless an immigrant, anyone earning 200k will only have got there having benefited from all the things that society brings. I have no problem paying 20x as much tax as someone scraping by on minimum wage I can't understand the mentality of people who have a lot and who have benefited hugely, yet begrudge contributing.

Why not hand 99% of your income over then?
Because as I don't earn 100 million a year and the state doesn't Feed and house my family it wouldn't work out, I don't think in any of your examples or in any country in the western world anyone Pays close to that even at the serious extremes of top rates of 90 you would have to earn many many millions to get close
 
EalingBlue2 said:
Chippy_boy said:
EalingBlue2 said:
Unless an immigrant, anyone earning 200k will only have got there having benefited from all the things that society brings. I have no problem paying 20x as much tax as someone scraping by on minimum wage I can't understand the mentality of people who have a lot and who have benefited hugely, yet begrudge contributing.

Why not hand 99% of your income over then?
Because as I don't earn 100 million a year and the state doesn't Feed and house my family it wouldn't work out, I don't think in any of your examples or in any country in the western world anyone Pays close to that even at the serious extremes of top rates of 90 you would have to earn many many millions to get close

That's not the point. Your argument is that rich people should pay more. Well they already do pay more. A LOT more already. But you say no, it needs to be more still. How much more?
 
Chippy_boy said:
EalingBlue2 said:
Chippy_boy said:
Why not hand 99% of your income over then?
Because as I don't earn 100 million a year and the state doesn't Feed and house my family it wouldn't work out, I don't think in any of your examples or in any country in the western world anyone Pays close to that even at the serious extremes of top rates of 90 you would have to earn many many millions to get close

That's not the point. Your argument is that rich people should pay more. Well they already do pay more. A LOT more already. But you say no, it needs to be more still. How much more?
When? Not that I am arguing with the sentiment some of the tax levels paid by very rich businessmen is awful, plenty of billionaires paying less than 5%
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.