2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[MiniFox]

If you can walk past a mansion, and then walk past someone starving on the street and think 'oh well they haven't developed as rapidly, they'll get there', then I think you need to have a good long look in the mirror to be honest. The rich aren't starving the poor, but the 1% could do a lot more to help the people who need it most. Tax them till they are very comfortable and you've got a ridiculous amount of money to give to the very poorest sections of society, you, Moose and Matt might not think that's very fair and it's not. But the world as it is currently, is a lot less fair. I know it's not that simple a situation, but why would you want to vote for the party that just doesn't seem to care about the widening divide between rich and poor at all?

I'd rather see the rich have to pay the extra 5% of tax than see people starving that's for sure. 

The thing is a lot of people don't really care as long as the situation isn't affecting them.

[Mark_w]

Racism and homophobia fall away naturally over time

 

Racism and Homophobia (and sexism, xenephobia etc.) fall away when people and politicians actively challenge them and actually try to educate people about them. The barriers don't go away by themselves and those that are still in place won't unless people challenge them. Thankfully I think both of the major parties want these things challenged to some degree, but I think it's dangerous to fall into the trap of thinking issues like that are going to sort themselves out. I suppose it's still relevant to the thread because the way to sort them out certainly isn't voting UKIP or BNP for example.

[Webbo]

I'd rather see the rich have to pay the extra 5% of tax than see people starving that's for sure. 

The thing is a lot of people don't really care as long as the situation isn't affecting them.

This is a mistake a lot of people make. They think if you put up taxes by X% you'll get X% more money. It doesn't work like that. Higher taxes discourage investment and effort and encourage tax avoidance and evasion. The cut in the higher rate of tax coincided with the start of the high growth we're enjoying now.

[Mark_w]

Why would anyone go to work if they could just sit back and get somebody else to pick up the tab?

 

Why would anyone go to work if they could just sit back and inherit enough money to keep them rich for the rest of their life?

I'm talking about the poor and the homeless, and trying to challenge such issues by giving people houses and food. If they want extra luxuries, as most do, then they should work for them. I'm not a ****ing communist Webbo, I'm just not happy about the fact that there are people anywhere in the world who can't afford to live, yet whenever I enter this thread there are people crying about the suggestion that the obscenely rich should lose a bit more money to help keep less privileged people alive. God forbid they should live like normal human beings just so some nasty lazy poor person in some rubbish country can have a house, food and clean water.

[MiniFox]

This is a mistake a lot of people make. They think if you put up taxes by X% you'll get X% more money. It doesn't work like that. Higher taxes discourage investment and effort and encourage tax avoidance and evasion. The cut in the higher rate of tax coincided with the start of the high growth we're enjoying now.

I'm not saying go with the 60% tax rate like the greens, but I can't see the masses fleeing if the top tax rate goes up to 50%, if people are going to avoid tax or evade it legally, they probably will whether the top tax rate is 30% or 60%, because they can.

[Webbo]

Why would anyone go to work if they could just sit back and inherit enough money to keep them rich for the rest of their life?

I'm talking about the poor and the homeless, and trying to challenge such issues by giving people houses and food. If they want extra luxuries, as most do, then they should work for them. I'm not a ****ing communist Webbo, I'm just not happy about the fact that there are people anywhere in the world who can't afford to live, yet whenever I enter this thread there are people crying about the suggestion that the obscenely rich should lose a bit more money to help keep less privileged people alive. God forbid they should live like normal human beings just so some nasty lazy poor person in some rubbish country can have a house, food and clean water.

There are people who manage well on benefits and there are people on good salaries who still spend more than they earn. We're all responsible for our own lives. Where do you draw the line? The worse you are at managing money the more you should be given?

[Webbo]

I'm not saying go with the 60% tax rate like the greens, but I can't see the masses fleeing if the top tax rate goes up to 50%, if people are going to avoid tax or evade it legally, they probably will whether the top tax rate is 30% or 60%, because they can.

Risk to reward ratio, if it's only a small amount then you probably won't risk it.

[MiniFox]

Risk to reward ratio, if it's only a small amount then you probably won't risk it.

There are plenty of legal tax evasion methods, where, correct me if I'm wrong, there is no risk, some of the biggest corporations use them, like I said because they can, corporation tax is only around 20% (I think) so why do they have to? Surely that isn't too high is it?

[Webbo]

There are plenty of legal tax evasion methods, where, correct me if I'm wrong, there is no risk, some of the biggest corporations use them, like I said because they can, corporation tax is only around 20% (I think) so why do they have to? Surely that isn't too high is it?

If it's legal it's avoidance, evasion is illegal.

[Mark_w]

There are people who manage well on benefits and there are people on good salaries who still spend more than they earn. We're all responsible for our own lives. Where do you draw the line? The worse you are at managing money the more you should be given?

 

If they're bad enough at managing their money that they're homeless or starving then yes, I think they should be given some more of the obscenely rich people's money and ideally some useful education and monitoring to make sure that they don't reach the same stage again.

[Webbo]

If they're bad enough at managing their money that they're homeless or starving then yes, I think they should be given some more of the obscenely rich people's money and ideally some useful education and monitoring to make sure that they don't reach the same stage again.

You talk as if they haven't had any education and there's no monitoring in place already.

[MiniFox]

If it's legal it's avoidance, evasion is illegal.

Knew it was one of the 2 but still my point stands, they could pay tax that isn't that high but they choose not to.

[Mark_w]

You talk as if they haven't had any education and there's no monitoring in place already.

 

Well the education and monitoring clearly isn't good enough if it's failing as often as you seem to think it's failing.

[Webbo]

Knew it was one of the 2 but still my point stands, they could pay tax that isn't that high but they choose not to.

Some don't most do.

[Webbo]

Well the education and monitoring clearly isn't good enough if it's failing as often as you seem to think it's failing.

Or maybe we don't live in a police state and we can't force people to live how we think they ought to.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Knew it was one of the 2 but still my point stands, they could pay tax that isn't that high but they choose not to.

Why would you pay tax if you don't need to? If there's a way of avoiding it then you're obviously going to, just like a lot of people have an ISA, thats technically tax avoidance.

[MiniFox]

Why would you pay tax if you don't need to? If there's a way of avoiding it then you're obviously going to, just like a lot of people have an ISA, thats technically tax avoidance.

Of course the majority of people given the opportunity probably wouldn't pay tax, but they should, which is why the government need to put more in place to stop this one way or another, my problem is that the Conservatives won't.

[Webbo]

Of course the majority of people given the opportunity probably wouldn't pay tax, but they should, which is why the government need to put more in place to stop this one way or another, my problem is that the Conservatives won't.

But they have, they've done far more to stop tax evasion than Labour did.

[MiniFox]

But they have, they've done far more to stop tax evasion than Labour did.

Such as what?

[Carl the Llama]

Such as what?

If they did anything then that's already a big step up.

[Rincewind]

My brother has done advice on money managing and he said some of those that were worse for personal budgeting were those that owned businesses.

 

I do not want to go into a long post on the subject or sound preachy  but there are many reasons for a person being homeless not all self inflicted. Broken home, care home, mental illness, abusiive  relationship, relationship breakdown to name but a few. Any of these can lead to substance abuse or criminal activities which can also be areason.

[MiniFox]

If they did anything then that's already a big step up.

But in terms of the next government I think Labour would do more now to tackle tax avoidance. 

[Webbo]

Such as what?

There has been stories in the papers about celebs like Lineker, Gary Barlow, Jimmy Carr and others I can't think of at the minute being forced to pay tax they have avoided, as well people we haven't heard of.

 

Also'

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/osborne-pay-now-argue-later-tax-avoiders

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/22/george-osborne-clampdown-tax-avoidance

But in terms of the next government I think Labour would do more now to tackle tax avoidance. 

They didn't last time.

[ADK]

Most of the work isn't actually done by the rich, "richness" is meant to be the carrot on the end of the stick to encourage hard work, investment and entrepreneurism. It is a bit like the lottery. Nobody would buy tickets if you couldn't win, but those who have won don't buy tickets.

 

Massive salaries are bad because it means a relative few have disproportionate power.

 

"Richness" is just a gentleman's agreement anyway. It always make me laugh that people think the country would grind to a halt if "the rich" decided to leave.  

[MiniFox]

There has been stories in the papers about celebs like Lineker, Gary Barlow, Jimmy Carr and others I can't think of at the minute being forced to pay tax they have avoided, as well people we haven't heard of.

 

Also'

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/osborne-pay-now-argue-later-tax-avoiders

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/22/george-osborne-clampdown-tax-avoidance

They didn't last time.

But I still don't see how the likes of Amazon can get away with paying so little in tax, it's all well and good making some celebrities pay tax but with corporations the tax avoidance is worth billions, some of the business owners who signed the letter in support of the Tories were tax avoiders, which says a lot in itself.