Reply to: flat tax system

[ASB]

Joking aside, my first inclination is to look after my family myself, your first inclination is for everyone else to look after you and your family.

No, that is your inference. I expect people to look after themselves - and those they are responsible to if they can. What I do believe is that there will be some situations where that is not possible.

I agree with there being no excuse for people to be on benefit and not working (though I can see there is a sort of "slave labour" type argument I don't buy it).

[PAH]

Ditch the flipping lot and charge a rate depending on what you buy and sell (including your labour). Call it VAT if you want to

The problem with that is people would see they're paying well over 50% of their income out in tax if it was labelled as one tax, where as at the moment they are under the illusion they aren't, seeing as it's broken down into many many smaller taxes.

[EternalOptimist]

Whats all this talk about PAYE and thresholds and paying zero tax as an average??

Ditch the flipping lot and charge a rate depending on what you buy and sell (including your labour). Call it VAT if you want to

[Mailman]

One bizarre one (from the left) was that increasing the personal allowances would have the effect of taking a lot of poorer people out of the tax system and they would then be stigmatised as non contributing members of society.

I dont believe this will be the case because people will now see that working actually pays. I mean, why would you work when you can get, in some cases, more being a shiftless parasite then you would get working?

Also, one of the aims of a flat tax system is to make it cheaper for the rich to actually pay their tax instead of paying someone to devise complicated ways of them not paying.

Having said that, arent the rich already on a flat tax system, what with that £30k flat fee about to come in to force and all that?

Anyway, as a few have already said, a flat tax system will never be implemented in this country as far too many people have far too much invested in the current scheme...I mean, who from HMRC would be in their right mind to introduce or support a system that will mean 50% of their staff will be made even more useless than they already are?

Mailman

[DodgyAgent]

At least by your qualification I deserve benefits (though I don't get any other than child benefit).

What you are in effect saying is:-

1) Every job should pay a living wage... yes
2) We should have full employment.... yes
3) Until we get to this point somebody who cannot get a job which fits in 1) above should simply starve... yes
4) When we have got this point if an individuals level of ability is such as they can't fit in with 1) then they should simply starve.. yes

There is a lot wrong with our benefits system, most of it caused by inept political meddling (often as a result of a baying mob). To rubbish everyone within it does most - but by no means all - of them an injustice.

I guess if your children, grandchildren or whatever are unable to fulfil your aspirations due to lack of ability you will be quite happy to watch their decline. It won't happen to you of course since if everything does go tits up for you you will just bear it stoically as you seek out a new cardboard box.

Joking aside, my first inclination is to look after my family myself, your first inclination is for everyone else to look after you and your family.
And my children funny enough will have their own aspirations which provided they are legal and dont cost me money (once they have left Uni) I will support.

we already have checks and balances in place to help people when they are ill or homeless (the fact that they dont work is another matter). I have never understood why paying somone to sit at home is better than not paying them and forcing them to work. There is no excuse for people to be on benefits (except for single mothers.. which is a grey area and another debate) at all in todays Britain, with the exception of the old and terminally ill.

The worse thing for someone is to have no purpose, no routine, nothing to do, why people to do it?

[threaded]

I think it's more fundamental than that, I believe PAYE is completely wrong, because people have their tax money taken from them before it gets into their hands, then the amount they get taxed becomes a bit of an academic exercise, related to some strange codes and incomprehensible numbers on their pay slip.

Lets face it if a graduate has a problem with compound interest, what hope is there for the great unwashed to understand their pay slip and how much tax they're paying.

You'd have to kill off PAYE, and do a considerable amount of education, before you can have a hope at getting a flat tax rate in the UK.

[ASB]

No one except the terminally and seriously ill should be on benefits for more than 3-6 months. If ASB you know of someone who somehow "deserves to be on benefits" then you pay them not me. Benefits should also be linked to an insurance scheme where people pay back or pay for their benefits when they are working. "The best she can" my ar*e

At least by your qualification I deserve benefits (though I don't get any other than child benefit).

What you are in effect saying is:-

1) Every job should pay a living wage
2) We should have full employment
3) Until we get to this point somebody who cannot get a job which fits in 1) above should simply starve
4) When we have got this point if an individuals level of ability is such as they can't fit in with 1) then they should simply starve

There is a lot wrong with our benefits system, most of it caused by inept political meddling (often as a result of a baying mob). To rubbish everyone within it does most - but by no means all - of them an injustice.

I guess if your children, grandchildren or whatever are unable to fulfil your aspirations due to lack of ability you will be quite happy to watch their decline. It won't happen to you of course since if everything does go tits up for you you will just bear it stoically as you seek out a new cardboard box.

[DodgyAgent]

I personally don't have a general problem with people on benefits. A friend of mine has a number of issues. She is doing the best she can, and it generates her little income so she sponges off the rest of the population for the balance. This is the profile of the vast majority.


The question is simply where you put the bar between the two.

No one except the terminally and seriously ill should be on benefits for more than 3-6 months. If ASB you know of someone who somehow "deserves to be on benefits" then you pay them not me. Benefits should also be linked to an insurance scheme where people pay back or pay for their benefits when they are working. "The best she can" my ar*e

[DodgyAgent]

No proof of effectiveness in a developed economy (but Hong Kong has a flat tax system)

One bizarre one (from the left) was that increasing the personal allowances would have the effect of taking a lot of poorer people out of the tax system and they would then be stigmatised as non contributing members of society.

I think they would manage to live with that dont you?
after all there are a large number of super rich in this country who dont seem to have a problem with not paying tax.

SBs right there is a whole industry that depends on employing 100s of people (labour voters) to administer it and enough accountants and lawyers feeding from the same trough to ensure that the private sector doesnt push for change either.

[VectraMan]

I wonder if the reason we don't have flat tax is that the great unwashed don't understand what "%" means - i.e. they think the rich should pay more, but they don't understand that if everyone pays the same rate the rich do pay more anyway.

[ASB]

Well your 50% figure seems a little arbitrary. I was alluding more to the "considerable number" you mentioned which can be as large or small as your own personal patience and benevolence extend.
In my case an ever-decreasing number!!

I'm not sure it is arbitrary. The ultimate goal of flat tax is that the average pays nothing. so in terms of numbers it is likely to be well over 50% - I believe that some 70% of the population earn less than the average. After all there is only one of you but you probably generate the same economic activity as 4 shop workers.

I personally don't have a general problem with people on benefits. A friend of mine has a number of issues. She is doing the best she can, and it generates her little income so she sponges off the rest of the population for the balance. This is the profile of the vast majority.

But yes, there are a number of people who will exploit the system, make no attempt to fulfil a useful purpose in society and should be dealt with by gengis khans department of foreign relations.

The question is simply where you put the bar between the two.

[shaunbhoy]

So in your utopia 50% of any population are parasites. Interesting view.

Whilst undoubtedly there are a considerable number of insert usual string of expletives parasites I don't think that simply being unable to get a well paid job fulfils the criteria.

Well your 50% figure seems a little arbitrary. I was alluding more to the "considerable number" you mentioned which can be as large or small as your own personal patience and benevolence extend.
In my case an ever-decreasing number!!

[ASB]

They already ARE in my book. Parasites!!! Grrrrrrrrrr

So in your utopia 50% of any population are parasites. Interesting view.

Whilst undoubtedly there are a considerable number of insert usual string of expletives parasites I don't think that simply being unable to get a well paid job fulfils the criteria.

[ratewhore]

hmmm, I see a pattern forming. It confirms my suspicions...

[shaunbhoy]

the effect of taking a lot of poorer people out of the tax system and they would then be stigmatised as non contributing members of society.

They already ARE in my book. Parasites!!! Grrrrrrrrrr