[Archived] Benefit tv

[Mike E]

Read the articles and then decide whether it is fair.

I have, but I've no need to respond to a spiteful comment with no foundation such as 'it would to you'. You're worse than any right-winger this side of Nick Griffin for being deliberately provocative in the name of 'having the right opinion'.

At least Drog can occasionally be funny.

[jim mk2]

Toys exit pram at high velocity.

Next.

Didn't the east European countries that adopted flat tax get hit harder than similar sized countries that didn't have it in 2008-9? I may have read that somewhere, but I cannot remember it.

Anyway, a flat tax would probably mean the end of the NHS, more military cuts and a massive increase in the gap between the richest and poorest. I doubt any government would bin the nuclear subs though, as they'd all rather scrap every bit of help for the unemployed and disabled before that. The elderly will be OK though, as more of them vote.

Flat tax is an interesting idea, but it does essentially put more burden on the lower earners.

Flat tax isn't interesting; it's regressive and unfair.

[thenodrog]

Flat tax isn't interesting; it's regressive and unfair.

It is completely fair. The only fairer system would be for everyone to pay the exact same amount to the revenue. As it is a Flat tax rate sees everyone pay the same %age of their wage. Surely a good socialist principle?

If it is unfair to any then it is unfair to the higher earners. They are required to put more than their share in and most likley will take less out.

[jim mk2]

Read these Gordon. Learn summat.

http://www.usnews.co...s-class-warfare

http://www.theguardi...payers-alliance

[Mike E]

Toys exit pram at high velocity.

Ok I'll play your game (and I admit I'm not particularly business minded). That Guardian article talks about a bunch of reforms outside of the flat-rate tax but doesn't give a reason why, other than 'the TPA report also says they'll do this')

Would it not be feasible to have a flat-rate on income tax and leave everything else (benefits, tax credits etc) as it is? If not, why not?

[jim mk2]

From the BBC website:

"Under a flat tax system the wealthiest would enjoy substantial - maybe massive - tax cuts.

Those on low incomes would almost certainly pay more because around the world flat tax systems are associated with high National Insurance contributions - that hit the lowest paid hardest.

So flat taxes are really about cutting taxes for the best off, cutting services (like the NHS) massively and requiring payment for their use instead, and increasing tax, overall, for the least well off. That's the reality.

And as for simplification? That won't happen, first because business needs complex tax systems to let it do the complex trades it undertakes, and second, because most of the complexity is about defining just what is taxable. That's the hard bit. Multiplying by two percentage rates rather than one is, in comparison, no problem at all.

So flat tax would simplify almost nothing, but leave you paying to see the doctor or educate you children. That's what the flat taxers fail to mention."

There's plenty of stuff on the internet on why flat tax is wrong. Do your own research, as they say.

[thenodrog]

From the BBC website:

"Under a flat tax system the wealthiest would enjoy substantial - maybe massive - tax cuts.

Those on low incomes would almost certainly pay more because around the world flat tax systems are associated with high National Insurance contributions - that hit the lowest paid hardest.

So flat taxes are really about cutting taxes for the best off, cutting services (like the NHS) massively and requiring payment for their use instead, and increasing tax, overall, for the least well off. That's the reality.

And as for simplification? That won't happen, first because business needs complex tax systems to let it do the complex trades it undertakes, and second, because most of the complexity is about defining just what is taxable. That's the hard bit. Multiplying by two percentage rates rather than one is, in comparison, no problem at all.

So flat tax would simplify almost nothing, but leave you paying to see the doctor or educate you children. That's what the flat taxers fail to mention."

There's plenty of stuff on the internet on why flat tax is wrong. Do your own research, as they say.

Why punish successful people? Why punish the hard workers and the entrepreneurs? Why punish the imaginative and the creative? Just to reward the 'drones' in the colony? Why not go back to the stone age and ask why punish the hunter gatherers? If they had then Man might not have been so successful.

It's just cutting ones own nose off to spite ones face. Hasn't it dawned on you yet Jim that attempting such goes right against the grain of human behaviour and is effectively why comminism failed and continues to fail around the world? That is unless the jackboot of the ruling elite under disguise of the State is kept firmly on the back of the neck of the people?

Precisely why communism failed the world over.

[Al]

It's not a question of trying to punish people Gordon. It's a question of trying to spread the burden across the people who can best afford it. Obviously the people on low income cannot afford as much as the higher earners. The current tax bands are an attempt to do this fairly.

If you want my opinion the very highest tax rates attract so little to the common purse that I believe they are there to please the lower earners and are in the main unnecessary. It's just a case of jealousy.

[jim mk2]

The income tax system is designed around a simple principle: the more you earn, the more you pay. In other words, those who extract the most economic benefit from our system should return the most to it. Unfortunately there are folk (see 2 above) who cannot see beyond the end of their own nose.

[Mike E]

The income tax system is designed around a simple principle: the more you earn, the more you pay. In other words, those who extract the most economic benefit from our system should return the most to it. Unfortunately there are folk (see 2 above) who cannot see beyond the end of their own nose.

Pot, kettle, black.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

From todays Guardian-

David Cameron's is a Government of naked class interest. It's the leading party of the political wing of the City of London. For all its Liberal Democrat fig leaves it's waging war on the poor while slashing taxes for banks, corporate giants and the richest people in Britain. It's cuts have hit the most deprived, the disabled and women hardest.

In crucial ways-the scale of it's attacks on social security, service privatisation and falling living standards for the majority- Cameron's coalition has outdone even Margaret Thatcher. It's austerity programme halted recovery for four years and has cut peoples real term pay deeper and over a longer period than at any time since the 19th century. Wealth is being energetically redistributed up the income scale.

This is the Government of foodbanks, payday loans and the bedroom tax. None of that is of course, very popular. So to divert anger from the top to the bottom- from those who caused the economic crisis to it's victims- Tory politicians and their allies have turned their fire on migrants and benefit claimants.

If they can convince enough people that the crash of 2008 has been the result of too much welfare spending, rather than financial speculation and recovery choking austerity, they're in with a shout at the next election. In this task they have the advantage of a mostly pliable media running a daily campaign against " welfare " and immigration.

Latest up has been Channel 4's Benefit Street series about a deprived area of Birmingham, which kicked off with a Little Britain style portrayal of un-employed claimants as criminals, scroungers and addicts. It's only one of a string of such shows whose themes are the meat and drink of Tory tabloids ".

[thenodrog]

It's not a question of trying to punish people Gordon. It's a question of trying to spread the burden across the people who can best afford it. Obviously the people on low income cannot afford as much as the higher earners. The current tax bands are an attempt to do this fairly.

If you want my opinion the very highest tax rates attract so little to the common purse that I believe they are there to please the lower earners and are in the main unnecessary. It's just a case of jealousy.

Really? Well it's certainly not a reward for achievement is it?

With a flat tax rate the incentive is there for all to work hard and strive for success.

[thenodrog]

The income tax system is designed around a simple principle: the more you earn, the more you pay. In other words, those who extract the most economic benefit from our system should return the most to it. Unfortunately there are folk (see 2 above) who cannot see beyond the end of their own nose.

Someone who earns 100k pa and pays 25% income tax puts 5x more into the economy than someone who earns 20k pa and pays 25% income tax. What do you outdated old lefties want? Blood?

From todays Guardian-

David Cameron's is a Government of naked class interest. It's the leading party of the political wing of the City of London. For all its Liberal Democrat fig leaves it's waging war on the poor while slashing taxes for banks, corporate giants and the richest people in Britain. It's cuts have hit the most deprived, the disabled and women hardest.

In crucial ways-the scale of it's attacks on social security, service privatisation and falling living standards for the majority- Cameron's coalition has outdone even Margaret Thatcher. It's austerity programme halted recovery for four years and has cut peoples real term pay deeper and over a longer period than at any time since the 19th century. Wealth is being energetically redistributed up the income scale.

This is the Government of foodbanks, payday loans and the bedroom tax. None of that is of course, very popular. So to divert anger from the top to the bottom- from those who caused the economic crisis to it's victims- Tory politicians and their allies have turned their fire on migrants and benefit claimants.

If they can convince enough people that the crash of 2008 has been the result of too much welfare spending, rather than financial speculation and recovery choking austerity, they're in with a shout at the next election. In this task they have the advantage of a mostly pliable media running a daily campaign against " welfare " and immigration.

Latest up has been Channel 4's Benefit Street series about a deprived area of Birmingham, which kicked off with a Little Britain style portrayal of un-employed claimants as criminals, scroungers and addicts. It's only one of a string of such shows whose themes are the meat and drink of Tory tabloids ".

"Well they would say that wouldn't they"?

Lets not forget that the Guardian is to the Left wing what the Daily Mail is to the right.

[jim mk2]

It's all over the internet but still Gordon doesn't get it (or can't read)

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/reich/article/Flat-tax-a-flat-out-fraud-2325085.php

http://www.ragingwisdom.com/the-flat-tax-a-simple-plan-to-trick-simple-people/

[yoda]

It's all over the internet but still Gordon doesn't get it (or can't read)

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/reich/article/Flat-tax-a-flat-out-fraud-2325085.php

http://www.ragingwisdom.com/the-flat-tax-a-simple-plan-to-trick-simple-people/

can't see what you are doing there Jim, both articles relevant to USA only

[thenodrog]

can't see what you are doing there Jim, both articles relevant to USA only

Quite obvious that Jim is a great admirer of all things USA Yoda.

[Amo]

Apart from when he's wishing genocide on them.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Someone who earns 100k pa and pays 25% income tax puts 5x more into the economy than someone who earns 20k pa and pays 25% income tax. What do you outdated old lefties want? Blood?

"Well they would say that wouldn't they"?

Lets not forget that the Guardian is to the Left wing what the Daily Mail is to the right.

It doesn't mean it's not correct though does it ?

[jim mk2]

can't see what you are doing there Jim, both articles relevant to USA only

Just 2 of many articles on flat tax. There are similar UK ones if you look. The list of countries that have a flat tax is on here. Note the quality. Gordon's on his way to Mongolia at this very minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I've paid PAYE all my working life. Never avoided tax, never bitched about paying it either. If you want a civilised society it goes with the territory.

[Mike E]

From todays Guardian-

David Cameron's is a Government of naked class interest. It's the leading party of the political wing of the City of London. For all its Liberal Democrat fig leaves it's waging war on the poor while slashing taxes for banks, corporate giants and the richest people in Britain. It's cuts have hit the most deprived, the disabled and women hardest.

In crucial ways-the scale of it's attacks on social security, service privatisation and falling living standards for the majority- Cameron's coalition has outdone even Margaret Thatcher. It's austerity programme halted recovery for four years and has cut peoples real term pay deeper and over a longer period than at any time since the 19th century. Wealth is being energetically redistributed up the income scale.

This is the Government of foodbanks, payday loans and the bedroom tax. None of that is of course, very popular. So to divert anger from the top to the bottom- from those who caused the economic crisis to it's victims- Tory politicians and their allies have turned their fire on migrants and benefit claimants.

If they can convince enough people that the crash of 2008 has been the result of too much welfare spending, rather than financial speculation and recovery choking austerity, they're in with a shout at the next election. In this task they have the advantage of a mostly pliable media running a daily campaign against " welfare " and immigration.

Latest up has been Channel 4's Benefit Street series about a deprived area of Birmingham, which kicked off with a Little Britain style portrayal of un-employed claimants as criminals, scroungers and addicts. It's only one of a string of such shows whose themes are the meat and drink of Tory tabloids ".

That would be either the Guardian or the Tories (both being two sides of the same @#/?-stained coin) being utterly stupid.

Nobody (to my knowledge) has made such a connection, be it friends, journalists or politicians. The only connection I've seen is that the crash of 2008 has RESULTED in more welfare spending.

That and the incorrect use of possessive apostrophes in the word 'its' bother me about journalism in general. How such 'professional' writing gets to press is beyond me. Same goes for every paper on the left and right sides.

And to think that this conversation started from an enquiry about the merit or not of flat tax. In that time I've been judged as unable to see past the end of my nose and seen genocide wished upon America haha.

I love this site!

[thenodrog]

I've paid PAYE all my working life. Never avoided tax, never bitched about paying it either. If you want a civilised society it goes with the territory.

Very good, and very public spirited I'm sure. One gets accustomed to PAYE I suppose.

However an alternative view carries more weight imo..... "I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” Winston Churchill.

[jim mk2]

Churchill loved gambling and lost a fortune in the stock market crash of 1929. He was short of money throughout his life. Perhaps he should have taxed the poor more to help the rich like his Tory successors.

Next.

[yoda]

Churchill loved gambling and lost a fortune in the stock market crash of 1929. He was short of money throughout his life. Perhaps he should have taxed the poor more to help the rich like his Tory successors.

Next.

your resorting to very tenuous if not invalid links lately Jim

[thenodrog]

Churchill loved gambling and lost a fortune in the stock market crash of 1929. He was short of money throughout his life. Perhaps he should have taxed the poor more to help the rich like his Tory successors.

Next.

So what? Lots of people did too. How tf could he contemplate raising taxes given the above quotation? Your post is not relevant in any way.

Next.