Should it be illegal to own a billion dollars?

Some ideas about how to make the world better require careful, nuanced thinking about how best to balance competing interests. Others don’t: Billionaires are bad. We should presumptively get rid of billionaires. All of them.

Does this sound like an incitement to the most dreaded kind of revolution, when people are struck down by the mob simply on the basis of some crude simple standard? It is not. The people who have a billion dollars are fine; they may go on living. It is just that, for the sake of everyone else (and, honestly, for their own sake) they must not be allowed to possess a billion dollars.

No one needs a billion dollars. No one deserves a billion dollars. There is a widespread moral and conceptual error, in a society saturated in the ideology of competition and monetary success, that the property a person has gotten does not simply belong to that person but is, somehow, itself an embodiment of their personhood—that to separate a person from property is to attack their human existence.

This is true to an extent—to the extent that property secures a person food, and shelter, and physical security, and health and futurity. Even, despite the inequities and injustices that have emerged by this level, a person’s opportunities to have leisure, to make art, etc.

None of this comes anywhere near adding up to a billion dollars.

Another error is the belief that billionaires have made their money by adding value to society, of which they take a minor share. One pictures some great industrialist inventing and manufacturing a useful item, which makes every single person’s life better, and in return receiving a small share of the price of the item.

A kindergarten teacher, teaching 25 new people a year not to bite each other and to work in occasional harmony with strangers, produces far more social good in a lifetime than an industrialist does. Even to picture the billionaire as a productive industrialist is too optimistic—read up and down the Forbes list, larded with monopolists, retailers, retail monopolists, the heirs of retail monopolies, real estate magnates, Mark Zuckerberg.

What do they do with all their extra money? They buy atrocious houses. They shut down publications. They buy politicians, over and under the table. Now a whole batch of them have moved directly into government—and we have the most corrupt and incompetent executive branch in memory to show for it.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

Well just putting an idea out there....If people were only allowed a certain amount of wealth, like if it were capped, wouldn’t it spread the wealth a little more?
Not sure how or if it could work but it’s an idea.

Mao had ideas.

What were they? Nutshell please, I don’t do long boring articles and lectures.

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

Well just putting an idea out there....If people were only allowed a certain amount of wealth, like if it were capped, wouldn’t it spread the wealth a little more?
Not sure how or if it could work but it’s an idea.

In the UK they more or less tried that in the 70s when top tax rates were around 90%. The result was rich people left in droves.

Everyone here would probably say I'm pretty LW (yes I know you don't like the labels, but high taxes on wealth + distributing wealth to the needy IS the definition of LW economics). Yet, despite my leftist leanings, even I see the disaster that is a cap on earnings.

A few have already mentioned this, but if I build a company and make £1 million personal income a year, I'm doing pretty well. Maybe I even employ a hundred people. But I'm ambitious, I want to earn tens of millions a year and make my first billion.

With no cap on earnings, I do just that. Now I employ a thousand people. Soon I'll reach my billion pound goal. I can afford to give my employees pay rises and even provide a pension package. Plus, I can expand to various cities around the UK too, not just my own city.

WITH a cap on earnings, (whatever it is) I realise that due to high taxes I'm never going to be able to personally earn hundreds of millions a year. A few million is the limit. So I stop taking risks. My medium sized company is doing well, but expansion will only mean higher taxes for me personally. So I maintain my small workforce and just the one site. At least I'M doing all right.

The consequences of the cap - fewer jobs created, less well paid jobs with fewer benefits, less in taxes paid = less wealth distribution and less help for the poor.

A benefit cap helps no one. There's nothing inherently wrong with people getting 'filthy rich'. In fact it can and should be good for society (but to greed, this currently isn't always the case).

Now of course I am a leftist, and support regulation to maintain ethical and environmental standards, and somewhat high taxes to support govt projects, but never over half one's income and certainly no caps.

Eilzel wrote:
For didge, because your post does not respond to this whatsoever.

And for Eds, because this was a response to you

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

What were they? Nutshell please, I don’t do long boring articles and lectures.

Not that anyone advocating any form of socialism wants anything like what Mao did...

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

What were they? Nutshell please, I don’t do long boring articles and lectures.

Not that anyone advocating any form of socialism wants anything like what Mao did...

I can think of many on the far left advocating the same

Espically when  some students make an apologist argument for the gulags

Man at times you are naive

So yes there is certainly people on the far left advocating such hate

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:



I can think of many on the far left advocating the same

Espically when  some students make an apologist argument for the gulags

Man at times you are naive

So yes there is certainly people on the far left advocating such hate

Show me concrete evidence of people on the Left asking for exactly what Mao did

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:
For didge, because your post does not respond to this whatsoever.

And for Eds, because this was a response to you

You are doing a Tommy now

So lets ask again

How is it equality to ask people to pay more than others?

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:



I can think of many on the far left advocating the same

Espically when  some students make an apologist argument for the gulags

Man at times you are naive

So yes there is certainly people on the far left advocating such hate

Show me concrete evidence of people on the Left asking for exactly what Mao did

No problem

Just look at the polices in  North Korea and China, towards religious minorities

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

No problem

Just look at the polices in  North Korea and China, towards religious minorities

 We're talking about people in the west, you criticisms are blatantly aimed at Leftist in the UK and US advocating socialism. Anyone in those places asking for that?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

You are doing a Tommy now

So lets ask again

How is it equality to ask people to pay more than others?

People who earn loads of money pay a higher percentage of their earnings in tax, so they are paying more in proportion to their earnings. However, those who earn less than the tax threshold pay nothing in tax, so is there a case for them paying some tax too if you want equality?

I earn twice as much as some people I work with, but I don't take home twice the amount they do - because they don't pay tax.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

You are doing a Tommy now

So lets ask again

How is it equality to ask people to pay more than others?

People who earn loads of money pay a higher percentage of their earnings in tax, so they are paying more in proportion to their earnings. However, those who earn less than the tax threshold pay nothing in tax, so is there a case for them paying some tax too if you want equality?

I earn twice as much as some people I work with, but I don't take home twice the amount they do - because they don't pay tax.

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

 We're talking about people in the west, you criticisms are blatantly aimed at Leftist in the UK and US advocating socialism. Anyone in those places asking for that?

Okay Tommy/Eilzel, I guess you do not want to answer

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

People who earn loads of money pay a higher percentage of their earnings in tax, so they are paying more in proportion to their earnings. However, those who earn less than the tax threshold pay nothing in tax, so is there a case for them paying some tax too if you want equality?

I earn twice as much as some people I work with, but I don't take home twice the amount they do - because they don't pay tax.

Missing the point being made or understanding what equality is

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

 We're talking about people in the west, you criticisms are blatantly aimed at Leftist in the UK and US advocating socialism. Anyone in those places asking for that?

Okay Tommy/Eilzel, I guess you do not want to answer

Notice here, how we keep on getting this same nonsense over and over again with both the Dodger and Maddog on these threads...

Unable to overcome their shared economic illiteracy, and unwilling to differentiate between communist dictatorships and the more moderate democratic forms of socialism, these 'corporatist Pollyannas' keep on "shooting the messengers" on here, launching more of their personal attacks falsely mis-labelling their more social-minded opponents as Marxists, layabouts and autocrats...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Missing the point being made or understanding what equality is

Explain then instead of getting on your high horse and being vague. You didn't explain to Les either.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

People who earn loads of money pay a higher percentage of their earnings in tax, so they are paying more in proportion to their earnings. However, those who earn less than the tax threshold pay nothing in tax, so is there a case for them paying some tax too if you want equality?

I earn twice as much as some people I work with, but I don't take home twice the amount they do - because they don't pay tax.

That's one reason why you also have "indirect" taxation --  in the form of VAT/sales taxes, levies and duties --  as well as "direct" taxation on incomes, 'profits', rents and dividends..

Meaning a wider tax base, and sharing out the payment of taxes.

As higher-earning people also tend to 'take more' from society, while at the same time have a larger relative negative impact on the environment, it's only fair that they contribute a larger share of their incomes into the overall taxation revenue pot..

IF they wish to contribute to charities and worthwhile causes, genuine donations will be 'tax deductible'.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Missing the point being made or understanding what equality is

Explain then instead of getting on your high horse and being vague. You didn't explain to Les either.

He knows exactly what I am talking about, because a system based on true equality would have everyone equally pay the same.

Its the one area in society today and world wide, where equality is taken out of the equation in regards to tax levels.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Explain then instead of getting on your high horse and being vague. You didn't explain to Les either.

He knows exactly what I am talking about, because a system based on true equality would have everyone equally pay the same.

Its the one area in society today and world wide, where equality is taken out of the equation in regards to tax levels.

Eilzel wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Notice here, how we keep on getting this same nonsense over and over again with both the Dodger and Maddog on these threads...

Unable to overcome their shared economic illiteracy, and unwilling to differentiate between communist dictatorships and the more moderate democratic forms of socialism, these 'corporatist Pollyannas' keep on "shooting the messengers" on here, launching more of their personal attacks falsely mis-labelling their more social-minded opponents as Marxists, layabouts and autocrats...

Yep, and it's so pointless. It is so stupid to think anyone here wants what Mao and Stalin wanted. Everyone here would condemn those leaders. There is simply no comparison - just a nonsensical red herring designed to discredit the left without actually engaging with ideas

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

People who earn loads of money pay a higher percentage of their earnings in tax, so they are paying more in proportion to their earnings. However, those who earn less than the tax threshold pay nothing in tax, so is there a case for them paying some tax too if you want equality?

I earn twice as much as some people I work with, but I don't take home twice the amount they do - because they don't pay tax.

That's one reason why you also have "indirect" taxation --  in the form of VAT/sales taxes, levies and duties --  as well as "direct" taxation on incomes, 'profits', rents and dividends..

Meaning a wider tax base, and sharing out the payment of taxes.

As higher-earning people also tend to 'take more' from society, while at the same time have a larger relative negative impact on the environment, it's only fair that they contribute a larger share of their incomes into the overall taxation revenue pot..

IF they wish to contribute to charities and worthwhile causes, genuine donations will be 'tax deductible'.

But I'm paying the same VAT as the people who don't pay any tax, so I'm still paying more tax in proportion to what I earn. In fact, if I can buy more because I earn more, I'm paying more VAT than them.

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Notice here, how we keep on getting this same nonsense over and over again with both the Dodger and Maddog on these threads...

Unable to overcome their shared economic illiteracy, and unwilling to differentiate between communist dictatorships and the more moderate democratic forms of socialism, these 'corporatist Pollyannas' keep on "shooting the messengers" on here, launching more of their personal attacks falsely mis-labelling their more social-minded opponents as Marxists, layabouts and autocrats...

Yep, and it's so pointless. It is so stupid to think anyone here wants what Mao and Stalin wanted. Everyone here would condemn those leaders. There is simply no comparison - just a nonsensical red herring designed to discredit the left without actually engaging with ideas

 

Stop getting so pathetically defsense and yes many on the Far left follow the same the same philosophy and idelology that Mao followed

See its the leaders that you again condemn, not the ideology

So no red herring at all, as this is where you go wrong

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:
 

Stop getting so pathetically defsense and yes many on the Far left follow the same the same philosophy and idelology that Mao followed

See its the leaders that you again condemn, not the ideology

So no red herring at all, as this is where you go wrong

Name one person on THIS FORUM, OR in the modern Labour party, advocating collectivisation.

One person.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But I'm paying the same VAT as the people who don't pay any tax, so I'm still paying more tax in proportion to what I earn. In fact, if I can buy more because I earn more, I'm paying more VAT than them.

This isn't a problem imo. If I pay more taxes than many, it means I'm doing well, if means I can afford more and live a better life. If someone pays no tax and buys little, they can't bear the extra burden of taxes as some of the rest of us can. At the top, they can afford to pay more tax still, and IF the country needs it then it is fairer it the burden falls on those with the broadest shoulders.

Let me place a caveat here: IF poor people can have equality of opportunity, have quality free healthcare and good education and pensions WITHOUT needed very high corporate taxes and high taxes on the rich - then by all means cut taxes. BUT, if we NEED to have high taxes to pay for those things to provide for those less fortunate, then we need higher taxes - and a billionaire taxed at 50% is still a billionaire, they don't suffer.

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:
 

Stop getting so pathetically defsense and yes many on the Far left follow the same the same philosophy and idelology that Mao followed

See its the leaders that you again condemn, not the ideology

So no red herring at all, as this is where you go wrong

Name one person on THIS FORUM, OR in the modern Labour party, advocating collectivisation.

One person.

I can name those that advocate that group identity is paramount

And most of Laboour MP's are not Far left

Hence a ridiculous point

Many of the Far left do advocate also collectivisation

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

I can name those that advocate that group identity is paramount

And most of Laboour MP's are not Far left

Hence a ridiculous point

Many of the Far left do advocate also collectivisation

I'm not asking about the Far Left in places like North Korea or the China though, didge. I'm asking about politicians and people on this forum, hell, even famous political commentators in England and the US. Any of them advocating collectivisation?

So that's a no for Labour and a no to this forum.

So your comparison with Mao is ridiculous then.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But I'm paying the same VAT as the people who don't pay any tax, so I'm still paying more tax in proportion to what I earn. In fact, if I can buy more because I earn more, I'm paying more VAT than them.

This isn't a problem imo. If I pay more taxes than many, it means I'm doing well, if means I can afford more and live a better life. If someone pays no tax and buys little, they can't bear the extra burden of taxes as some of the rest of us can. At the top, they can afford to pay more tax still, and IF the country needs it then it is fairer it the burden falls on those with the broadest shoulders.

Let me place a caveat here: IF poor people can have equality of opportunity, have quality free healthcare and good education and pensions WITHOUT needed very high corporate taxes and high taxes on the rich - then by all means cut taxes. BUT, if we NEED to have high taxes to pay for those things to provide for those less fortunate, then we need higher taxes - and a billionaire taxed at 50% is still a billionaire, they don't suffer.

But why should someone who earns a lot of money pay a higher proportion of their earnings? If they paid 20% like others who pay tax, they'd still be paying a lot more.

People who work full time on minimum wage have to pay tax, and yet they really don't earn much compared to what they have to spend on housing costs, etc. Those who pay no tax are paid more in relation to the work they do. As I said, if someone does half the hours I do, they take home more than half the amount I take home, so they're being paid more per hour than I am. That's without taking NI into account as well.

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

I can name those that advocate that group identity is paramount

And most of Laboour MP's are not Far left

Hence a ridiculous point

Many of the Far left do advocate also collectivisation

I'm not asking about the Far Left in places like North Korea or the China though, didge. I'm asking about politicians and people on this forum, hell, even famous political commentators in England and the US. Any of them advocating collectivisation?

So that's a no for Labour and a no to this forum.

So your comparison with Mao is ridiculous then.

So again a ridiculous copout, as do you think collectivisation is the only philosophy of Communism

So your arguments and copouts are what is ridiculous here

Its like sayin g that the BNP is not like Nazism, even though they basically share the same philosophy

Just because they do not advocate murdering Jews, does not take away the fact they share very much the same philosophy

So stop with the pathetic excuses, its boring now, your Far left apologism

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But why should someone who earns a lot of money pay a higher proportion of their earnings? If they paid 20% like others who pay tax, they'd still be paying a lot more.

People who work full time on minimum wage have to pay tax, and yet they really don't earn much compared to what they have to spend on housing costs, etc. Those who pay no tax are paid more in relation to the work they do. As I said, if someone does half the hours I do, they take home more than half the amount I take home, so they're being paid more per hour than I am. That's without taking NI into account as well.

I thought the minimum wage is below the income tax threshold? Has that changed now?

Yes, if all paid 20%, the rich WOULD still pay more. But my main point is on how government pays for this like welfare, the NHS, education, defense and infrastructure etc.. and these things are not cheap, and on who should bear the burden of funding those things. Because regardless of how 'even' taxation is, those things DO need paying for and the money has to come from somewhere.

Taxing the poor a higher % would be damaging. Taxing someone earning 1 million a year at 50% is not going to affect them so much.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But why should someone who earns a lot of money pay a higher proportion of their earnings? If they paid 20% like others who pay tax, they'd still be paying a lot more.

People who work full time on minimum wage have to pay tax, and yet they really don't earn much compared to what they have to spend on housing costs, etc. Those who pay no tax are paid more in relation to the work they do. As I said, if someone does half the hours I do, they take home more than half the amount I take home, so they're being paid more per hour than I am. That's without taking NI into account as well.

I thought the minimum wage is below the income tax threshold? Has that changed now?

Yes, if all paid 20%, the rich WOULD still pay more. But my main point is on how government pays for this like welfare, the NHS, education, defense and infrastructure etc.. and these things are not cheap, and on who should bear the burden of funding those things. Because regardless of how 'even' taxation is, those things DO need paying for and the money has to come from somewhere.

Taxing the poor a higher % would be damaging. Taxing someone earning 1 million a year at 50% is not going to affect them so much.

The current national living wage for those over 25 (ie, mimumum wage) is £7.83 per hour. If someone is working full time - say 40 hours per week, they're earning £16,286 a year. The personal allowance is £11,850 a year, so yes, they will pay tax on their earnings.

I think that taking half of what someone earns will make them resentful. Remember that's not including NI payments, so they would end up actually taking home less than half what they earn.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The current national living wage for those over 25 (ie, mimumum wage) is £7.83 per hour. If someone is working full time - say 40 hours per week, they're earning £16,286 a year. The personal allowance is £11,850 a year, so yes, they will pay tax on their earnings.

I think that taking half of what someone earns will make them resentful. Remember that's not including NI payments, so they would end up actually taking home less than half what they earn.

It might make some resentful, but not all. I suppose it depends on if people appreciate their lot in life or not.

In Denmark the top tax rate is a whopping 60% (which even I wouldn't support). When the top tax rate was slashed from 50% to 45% in the UK, Peter Jones (from Dragon's Den, net worth of around 450 million pounds) said the government was wrong to do that and should have used the 5% to spend of programmes to encourage and invest in entrepreneurs. Bill Gates has also said taxes are too low.

It isn't unheard of for rich people to give a shit about those less well off

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The current national living wage for those over 25 (ie, mimumum wage) is £7.83 per hour. If someone is working full time - say 40 hours per week, they're earning £16,286 a year. The personal allowance is £11,850 a year, so yes, they will pay tax on their earnings.

I think that taking half of what someone earns will make them resentful. Remember that's not including NI payments, so they would end up actually taking home less than half what they earn.

It might make some resentful, but not all. I suppose it depends on if people appreciate their lot in life or not.

In Denmark the top tax rate is a whopping 60% (which even I wouldn't support). When the top tax rate was slashed from 50% to 45% in the UK, Peter Jones (from Dragon's Den, net worth of around 450 million pounds) said the government was wrong to do that and should have used the 5% to spend of programmes to encourage and invest in entrepreneurs. Bill Gates has also said taxes are too low.

It isn't unheard of for rich people to give a shit about those less well off

But why should people totally pay for those who pay no tax? Those who pay no tax or NI get the same benefits - healthcare, etc, and yet they pay nothing for it. In fact, many people who pay no NI get NI credits, so they get the state pension as well as everything else without paying a penny into the system. The burden is falling largely on those who work full time but earn the minimum wage/national living wage.

Wouldn't it be fairer for low earners to pay some tax and NI?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But why should people totally pay for those who pay no tax? Those who pay no tax or NI get the same benefits - healthcare, etc, and yet they pay nothing for it. In fact, many people who pay no NI get NI credits, so they get the state pension as well as everything else without paying a penny into the system. The burden is falling largely on those who work full time but earn the minimum wage/national living wage.

Wouldn't it be fairer for low earners to pay some tax and NI?

I think this is where our different political outlooks come in here Raggs

No, I think the income tax threshold should be raised so minimum wage earners pay no tax too; and then put the top rate back up to 50%

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But why should people totally pay for those who pay no tax? Those who pay no tax or NI get the same benefits - healthcare, etc, and yet they pay nothing for it. In fact, many people who pay no NI get NI credits, so they get the state pension as well as everything else without paying a penny into the system. The burden is falling largely on those who work full time but earn the minimum wage/national living wage.

Wouldn't it be fairer for low earners to pay some tax and NI?

I think this is where our different political outlooks come in here Raggs

No, I think the income tax threshold should be raised so minimum wage earners pay no tax too; and then put the top rate back up to 50%

That means that many people are contributing absolutely nothing to society - financially speaking. I think they should as they're using the services too.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That means that many people are contributing absolutely nothing to society - financially speaking. I think they should as they're using the services too.

Well, financially contributing isn't everything. Some of them may be carers, for instance. Some may do charitable volunteer work. That is contribution even if not financial. And they still pay taxes - in the form of VAT mainly but that is still tax. Point is, they really can't afford it while others definitely can. That doesn't mean they aren't 'contributing to society' and for those that ARE paying in, well rest assured that those people have more opportunities in life anyway.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Ragga' is making the classical mistake of assuming that income tax is the main source of taxation revenue...

When the real world truth is that taxation on payrolls (i.e. wages, salaries, commissions..) in most western countries only contributes around 35% -->> 40% of the total tax revenue 'pie'..

The rest coming from business/company tax, VAT/GST, sales taxes/levies, import duties, "fids & feds", stamp duty, etc.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why should they be a help or hindrance to society? They can have as much money as they want. Why do some people think they shouldn't have it?

Well just putting an idea out there....If people were only allowed a certain amount of wealth, like if it were capped, wouldn’t it spread the wealth a little more?
Not sure how or if it could work but it’s an idea.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That means that many people are contributing absolutely nothing to society - financially speaking. I think they should as they're using the services too.

Well, financially contributing isn't everything. Some of them may be carers, for instance. Some may do charitable volunteer work. That is contribution even if not financial. And they still pay taxes - in the form of VAT mainly but that is still tax. Point is, they really can't afford it while others definitely can. That doesn't mean they aren't 'contributing to society' and for those that ARE paying in, well rest assured that those people have more opportunities in life anyway.

Some of them work part time by choice too, and yet they're paying nothing into society. Rich people might also do charitable work, and so might those who work full time on minimum wage, so that argument doesn't wash. Those people also pay VAT so they are paying more all the way down the line.

Those who work part time could afford to pay a little tax, and it's good for people to do so because then they're contributing to the welfare of everyone, including themselves. It does sound like you don't believe in equality.

What do you mean - those who are paying in have more opportunities in life?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some of them work part time by choice too, and yet they're paying nothing into society. Rich people might also do charitable work, and so might those who work full time on minimum wage, so that argument doesn't wash. Those people also pay VAT so they are paying more all the way down the line.

Those who work part time could afford to pay a little tax, and it's good for people to do so because then they're contributing to the welfare of everyone, including themselves. It does sound like you don't believe in equality.

What do you mean - those who are paying in have more opportunities in life?

Because they have more money (in some cases a lot more) so they can do more. Buy more and better food. Send their kids to better schools. Afford better healthcare. Have a nicer house. A faster car. More holidays etc. etc.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some of them work part time by choice too, and yet they're paying nothing into society. Rich people might also do charitable work, and so might those who work full time on minimum wage, so that argument doesn't wash. Those people also pay VAT so they are paying more all the way down the line.

Those who work part time could afford to pay a little tax, and it's good for people to do so because then they're contributing to the welfare of everyone, including themselves. It does sound like you don't believe in equality.

What do you mean - those who are paying in have more opportunities in life?

Because they have more money (in some cases a lot more) so they can do more. Buy more and better food. Send their kids to better schools. Afford better healthcare. Have a nicer house. A faster car. More holidays etc. etc.

Those on national living wage can't afford all those sorts of things. In fact, many people who work part time are doing so for extra money for holidays and cars, etc.

Also, bear in mind that people who work full time do actually have less leisure time, and they're probably more tired than those who work part time.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Those on national living wage can't afford all those sorts of things. In fact, many people who work part time are doing so for extra money for holidays and cars, etc.

Also, bear in mind that people who work full time do actually have less leisure time, and they're probably more tired than those who work part time.

I already said people on minimum wage shouldn't pay income tax.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Those on national living wage can't afford all those sorts of things. In fact, many people who work part time are doing so for extra money for holidays and cars, etc.

Also, bear in mind that people who work full time do actually have less leisure time, and they're probably more tired than those who work part time.

I already said people on minimum wage shouldn't pay income tax.

What about those who earn more than minimum wage but not enough to afford private schools, expensive holidays, and cars?

You seem to think that all those who work part time have no choice, or that they're doing other important things so they don't have time to work full time.  

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What about those who earn more than minimum wage but not enough to afford private schools, expensive holidays, and cars?

You seem to think that all those who work part time have no choice, or that they're doing other important things so they don't have time to work full time.  

You've lost me on the point you're trying to make here Raggs

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What about those who earn more than minimum wage but not enough to afford private schools, expensive holidays, and cars?

You seem to think that all those who work part time have no choice, or that they're doing other important things so they don't have time to work full time.  

You've lost me on the point you're trying to make here Raggs

I suppose my point is that everyone should be contributing financially if they earn anything. People often say that rich people should contribute a higher percentage in tax, but they never think about those who are using public services but never contribute a penny in tax or NI. I guess I'm more community-minded than I thought.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What about those who earn more than minimum wage but not enough to afford private schools, expensive holidays, and cars?

You seem to think that all those who work part time have no choice, or that they're doing other important things so they don't have time to work full time.  

You've lost me on the point you're trying to make here Raggs

I suppose my point is that everyone should be contributing financially if they earn anything. People often say that rich people should contribute a higher percentage in tax, but they never think about those who are using public services but never contribute a penny in tax or NI. I guess I'm more community-minded than I thought.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I suppose my point is that everyone should be contributing financially if they earn anything. People often say that rich people should contribute a higher percentage in tax, but they never think about those who are using public services but never contribute a penny in tax or NI. I guess I'm more community-minded than I thought.

It's cruel to tax people who are barely getting by as it is.

Tax a billionaire's entire fortune at a whopping 50 percent and he still has $500 million.

Tax a person making $20,000 at even 10 percent and he will have to make tough choices about groceries, rent, etc.

Raggamuffin wrote:What nobody is taking into account here is the effort which has to be put in to earn more money. Cruel to tax people even a tiny bit? Perhaps they could work more hours then.

Raggamuffin wrote:What nobody is taking into account here is the effort which has to be put in to earn more money. Cruel to tax people even a tiny bit? Perhaps they could work more hours then.

Thor wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I suppose my point is that everyone should be contributing financially if they earn anything. People often say that rich people should contribute a higher percentage in tax, but they never think about those who are using public services but never contribute a penny in tax or NI. I guess I'm more community-minded than I thought.

It's cruel to tax people who are barely getting by as it is.

Tax a billionaire's entire fortune at a whopping 50 percent and he still has $500 million.

Tax a person making $20,000 at even 10 percent and he will have to make tough choices about groceries, rent, etc.

So in reality you should be thankful, for the huge proportion of money that the rich provide to society then?