Eat the Rich

[Famine]

Oooh, for comparison's sakes...

Say someone earns £22,000 a year - the average annual wage in the UK, and equivalent to roughly $39,000. How much of that salary goes in taxation and other things deducted at source?

In the UK that person would earn £1833.33 gross per month. They would pay roughly £304 a month in income tax and £91.66 a month National Insurance at 5% (which goes, in effect, to pay your state pension once retired). Many people have private pensions too and will pay at between 5% and 6% (depending on the scheme) of their basic salary to this.

Our £22,000 earner, at £1833.33 ($3263.33) gross a month would take home £1437.66 ($2559.03) a month net (or £1346 ($2395.88) a month net with private pension contributions - voluntary - at 5%).

 

[Famine]

Okay - something weird just happened and my post doesn't show up - if it now shows up twice, I apologise...

Edit: It did. I do. Sorry.

 

[Danoff]

I'm at a loss. Who paid for the rest of it? I was speaking of "the UK taxpayer" as a single entity, rather than a single UK taxpayer.

My bad. I thought you were still talking about your brother and referring to him as a taxpayer. I misunderstood.

Should people with seven children pay more tax, to cover schooling costs for their children, than people with none? If they then send the children to private schools, should they receive rebates for the five years extra tax they paid before the children were of school age?

Wouldn't those things be fair????

what if no-one in your neighbourhood experiences a fire?

We've talked about the fire department. I thought I explained to you why it was necessary that the governmnet do that. That's the point though, the government should only be invovled in what is necessary - what private industry can't do right or won't do at all.

I do not object to my tax money being used to educate children for the betterment of mankind.

That doesn't matter!!! It's beside the point!

Whether or not you agree with the Tax is totally 100% beside the point

What matters is if it is justifiable to force everyone else (who just might not agree with you) to pay.

 

[Famine]

Sorry about that - no page 7 showed up for me. Bugger.

I did ask why the Fire Department couldn't be run by private industry - I don't see why there would be any more conflict of interest than privately-run hospitals. If I'd require health insurance in the unlikely event I become ill and need hospital treatment, why not fire insurance in the unlikely event my house sets on fire? There hasn't been a house fire requiring fire department attendance at my home, or any of the surrounds, in 40 years (which is when they were built) - yet we all pay tax for the service. A house fire runs the risk of affecting other properties nearby. A communicable disease runs the risk of affecting other people nearby.


Now, I didn't say I agreed with the system of tax - just as I've not said our system is better than anyone else's - I merely said I do not object to it. I agree that everyone else's opinions are as important in this - only a fool or dictator would disagree - but after all we ARE a democracy. If we didn't like it, we would say so at the ballot box.

 

[Danoff]

only a fool or dictator would disagree - but after all we ARE a democracy.

That doesn't make the decision of the democracy right. The fact that the majority are willing to wrong the minority doesn't make it any less wrong.

I did ask why the Fire Department couldn't be run by private industry - I don't see why there would be any more conflict of interest than privately-run hospitals. If I'd require health insurance in the unlikely event I become ill and need hospital treatment, why not fire insurance in the unlikely event my house sets on fire? There hasn't been a house fire requiring fire department attendance at my home, or any of the surrounds, in 40 years (which is when they were built) - yet we all pay tax for the service. A house fire runs the risk of affecting other properties nearby. A communicable disease runs the risk of affecting other people nearby.

This comparison works for emergency scenarios which is why I have mentioned that I think emergency rooms in hospitals should still be government funded.

 

[87chevy]

You still seem to think that every dollar a person earns is stolen from someone else. This simply isn't true.

To borrow some of famine's words for a minute, Maybe you should read what i say, and not what you think lies underneath, I'll try to do that more also. Ironically, you can just as easily miss something by trying to read between the lines, as you can by not reading between the lines.

Have you (danoff, duke, ///M) ever read Mark Twains "The Lowest Animal"? you should.

 

[Famine]

That doesn't make the decision of the democracy right. The fact that the majority are willing to wrong the minority doesn't make it any less wrong.

I'm sorry? Is there a system other than one person, one vote you would consider superior?

The turnout at the last General Election in the UK was 35%. The Labour Party netted a little over 45% of this vote - meaning that the government was elected by only 15.8% of the electorate. Hardly the majority.

This comparison works for emergency scenarios which is why I have mentioned that I think emergency rooms in hospitals should still be government funded.

So in the hypothetical suggested earlier, the baby with meningitis would receive treatment from the doctor by the holding of a gun to the head of the rich man. as ER treatment ought to be government-funded?

 

[87chevy]

That doesn't matter!!! It's beside the point!

Whether or not you agree with the Tax is totally 100% beside the point

What matters is if it is justifiable to force everyone else (who just might not agree with you) to pay.

oh, now this is classic!!!!!! danoff who determines what's justifiable?? uh, we, the people. "the people" being made up of individuals. So, uh, yeah it matters what he thinks.

Our civilisations would be nothing without the "little people" who clean up our mess - and many of them don't receive enough money to tax. Are they theiving from our society because they've taken the free education and not used it (or were incapable of using it through learning difficulties) or repaid it, or are they actually helping our society by providing us with services we need but often do not recognise?

^ 👍 👍

 

[Danoff]

Chevy,

Defending the horribly wealthy just turns my soul

I think it is this statement that is making Duke (and myself) think that you feel somehow the rich are taking money from the rest of us. Why else would they need to defend themselves and why else would it be so horrible to be rich? Perhaps you can explain.



Famine,

So in the hypothetical suggested earlier, the baby with meningitis would receive treatment from the doctor by the holding of a gun to the head of the rich man. as ER treatment ought to be government-funded?

As long as it is enough of an emergency to qualify for the ER. But the mother could still be liable for neglect if she allowed the case to get that bad. I don't know, I'm not all that familiar with meningitis but isn't it somewhat gradual? Doesn't it come on over the course of weeks? I don't know.

I'm sorry? Is there a system other than one person, one vote you would consider superior?

Heh! No! The whole reason we have a bill of rights here in America is to point out that the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority. Imagine the majority wanted to make it law that all red haired people be murdered... that wouldn't work out. Imagine the majority decided to make it law that all super rich people have to give up a ton of thier income... oh wait... that's what happened.

Hmmm... ammendment to the bill of rights??? No person's income shall be taxed by the government more than any other person's? Seems fair to me.

 

[Danoff]

oh, now this is classic!!!!!! danoff who determines what's justifiable?? uh, we, the people. "the people" being made up of individuals. So, uh, yeah it matters what he thinks.

Still missing the point.

We the people have decided to kill all red haired individuals.

 

[87chevy]

your right, i see how you saw that. Okay replace "rich people" with "greed" and that is what i guess i really meant. I suppose sometimes rich people represent greed to me. So if you just swap those out then that is how i really meant it. ok?

 

[Famine]

As long as it is enough of an emergency to qualify for the ER. But the mother could still be liable for neglect if she allowed the case to get that bad. I don't know, I'm not all that familiar with meningitis but isn't it somewhat gradual? Doesn't it come on over the course of weeks? I don't know.

Ah - apologies. I put you on the spot without thinking about the medical minutiae...

With children - and doctors say this all the time - the general problem is that they are perfectly healthy up until the point they die. This is true of babies in particular, as they can't actually tell you they're unwell other than by crying.

Meningitis can exhibit symptoms and kill inside 8 hours. First signs are 'flu-like symptoms (at which point most people think they have 'flu - naturally), but by the time other, more tell-tale symptoms are observed - intolerance of light, stiff neck, a rash on the skin which does not disappear with compression - it's almost critical. Of course with babies they would need SCBU/IC (Special Care Baby Unit/Intensive Care) treatment after initial Casualty (our version of ER) treatment.

Heh! No! The whole reason we have a bill of rights here in America is to point out that the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority. Imagine the majority wanted to make it law that all red haired people be murdered... that wouldn't work out. Imagine the majority decided to make it law that all super rich people have to give up a ton of thier income... oh wait... that's what happened.

Hmmm... ammendment to the bill of rights??? No person's income shall be taxed by the government more than any other person's? Seems fair to me.

In the UK laws can only be created by the proposal in the House of Commons (followed by several readings and different coloured papers), approval by the Members of Parliament and finally approval by the House of Lords. Even if there were a party dedicated to the eradication of redheads (male, obviously. Redheaded girls are great), that party's MPs would have to be elected by the majority of the turnout in at least 50% of the 600-odd constituencies and then they could push the paper through the Commons. Even then it could be defeated in the Lords.

Define "more" - More by value, or by percentage?

I calculated this morning that I pay more tax than three people earning half my wage - effectively subsidising them. As you move up the scale the differences increase until you reach the 40% band. A person with a one billion pound salary earns as much as 100 people with ten million pound salaries, but pays only 99 times as much tax. The super-rich ten-millionaires are now subsidising the hyper-rich billionaire...

 

[Danoff]

In the UK laws can only be created by the proposal in the House of Commons (followed by several readings and different coloured papers), approval by the Members of Parliament and finally approval by the House of Lords. Even if there were a party dedicated to the eradication of redheads (male, obviously. Redheaded girls are great), that party's MPs would have to be elected by the majority of the turnout in at least 50% of the 600-odd constituencies and then they could push the paper through the Commons. Even then it could be defeated in the Lords.

Does that make sense for government structure? Should they be able to push a law that infringes the rights of the citizens? Certainly innocent citizens have the right not to be executed.

Define "more" - More by value, or by percentage?

More by value is the fair way to do business, but since that would mean that the average household would pay more than $20,000 per year in taxes and some of them barely make that much... the government has to shrink before it can be fair. For now, I would settle for equality of percentage.

 

[Famine]

Does that make sense for government structure? Should they be able to push a law that infringes the rights of the citizens? Certainly innocent citizens have the right not to be executed.

And innocent citizens also have the right not to be effecitvely executed through inaction... It's terribly circular.

It makes perfect sense for government structure - if an idea is good enough that the majority vote for it. However, bear in mind that it's not simply enough for the majority to vote for it - there must be a majority in at least half of the constituencies. In effect this means you must stand a candidate in each and every constituency of over 650 - and it must be a different candidate in each - at a cost of £500 per contituency (£325,000+), then convince a majority of those that bother to turn up (usually around 35%) to vote for you.

It's possible to be the ruling party without an overall majority - you can have less than 50% of the MP's seats in the Commons but still have more than any other party (just not all of them put together).

Then, as I said, you must propose the law. It'll be debated and, eventually, voted upon to be either approved or rejected. Should it pass approval it will then go to the House of Lords - an unelected body - who will vote on it. Laws cannot be passed without the Lords' approval (in effect - this isn't totally true). And ultimately, even if the law is approved by the Lords, the monarch has the final say. Still. It's not actually happened that I'm aware of - most crackpot schemes get kicked out at the Commons - but it's still possible.


Given that a policy such as "kill all redheads" would not only first require the reinstitution of the death penalty in the UK (which is a pretty big hurdle) but is also unconstitutional - yes, we DO have a constitution - any party openly advocating this course of action would probably be banned. Again, I'm not aware of any political party, even the BNP, being banned but it is technically possible. Any party with such a policy kept to themselves would be found out very quickly upon the first reading, as the Commons is televised. The electorate could demand a further by-election in any given constituency.

So, in theory, any idea can become law. In practice it'd take a whole load of numbers adding up just right and overcoming at least 7 stages of checkpoints (Constitutional policy, electorate, parliamentary majority, first reading, Commons vote, Lords vote, monarch approval). On the other hand I am aware of at least one case in Georgia where an unelected school board has voted to teach creationism theory alongside evolution, directly contradicting the US Constitution which pledges to keep religion out of the public school system...

More by value is the fair way to do business, but since that would mean that the average household would pay more than $20,000 per year in taxes and some of them barely make that much... the government has to shrink before it can be fair. For now, I would settle for equality of percentage.

Which is what we have. Everyone knows that up to £4600 is taxed at 0%. Everyone knows that everything between £4600 and £6100 is taxed at 10%. Everyone knows that everything between £6100 and £36000 is taxed at 22% (average wage falls into this bracket at £22,000 - so most of your salary would be taxed at 22%, with a little at 10% and a little at 0%), and everyone knows that anything over that is taxed at 40%. I did some quick spot-calculations earlier - you'd have to be earning close to £100 million a year in paid salary to be coming close to having 40% of your overall wage taxed. As you pointed out earlier, most people making this kind of income aren't paid it, but are using money they have been paid to make more money - this kind of income is untaxed.

Granted it's not quite what you mean, which I believe is a flat-rate tax percentage across the board from $0.01 to $10,000,000 (well... see above...), but with a GDP of $35,000 and a population of 273 million you'd be looking at a phenomenal tax load per capita to cover the US Budget (I'd estimate somewhere around 25% which would give about 2.4 trillion dollars - I don't know the US Budget offhand). But we KNOW what to expect, and we can either accept it, change the government or go somewhere else. On which subject - can anyone answer my £20,000 example from earlier on. I am genuinely interested.

Unfortunately, and I think I find myself agreeing with you here, like electricity, lots of tax money is "lost" in the process of putting into the government's coffers and it coming back out again as benefit to the public.

 

[Duke]

And innocent citizens also have the right not to be effecitvely executed through inaction... It's terribly circular.

This is precisely where the idea of positive rights comes in. Positive rights are false rights, because they can only be provided to one person by denying the natural rights of another person. The whole idea of natural rights is that every single human being on earth enjoys equal and sacrosanct entitlement to them.

 

[Danoff]

It makes perfect sense for government structure - if an idea is good enough that the majority vote for it.

Like slavery?

Citizens' rights should not be and (for the most part) are not up for vote in America. This is with good reason. Our government, no matter what, should be fair with its citizens.

I don't care how convoluted the process is to pass law. In America we have rights that are considered inalienable. Without that, we would have no foundation for freedom.

 

[HareTurtle]

Look at what is in the Constitution. As danoff says, you, your property, and effects are not subject to unreasonable seizure without a warrant issued for probable cause.

The Preamble also states that the purpose of the entire Constitution - and by extension, the United States of America - is to protect the rights of individual citizens. The People are securing the blessings to liberty to themselves by this set of laws. Primary among the blessings of liberty is the right to own property.

Also in the Constitution:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

"Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

And lets read the entire preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(emphasis added).

It is obvious that it was never the intent that the 4th Amendment prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure would prevent the government from imposing taxes. Nor isa protecting property rights the only purpose of the Constitution or the government.

 

[Famine]

Like slavery?

Citizens' rights should not be and (for the most part) are not up for vote in America. This is with good reason. Our government, no matter what, should be fair with its citizens.

I don't care how convoluted the process is to pass law. In America we have rights that are considered inalienable. Without that, we would have no foundation for freedom.

And yet an unelected school board in a small county in a single state (Cobb County, Georgia) can vote to bypass your Constitution without consultation with your elected governmental bodies?

 

[Duke]

Also in the Constitution:
It is obvious that it was never the intent that the 4th Amendment prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure would prevent the government from imposing taxes. Nor isa protecting property rights the only purpose of the Constitution or the government.

You are correct, the "search and seizure" rule was never intended to prohibit all taxes. Just unreasonable ones. There is an amendment specifically stating that the government has the right to levy taxes.

I did not say that property rights were the only purpose of the Constitution. But protecting citizens' rights.

 

[ledhed]

Famine your making too much of the Georgia hilllbillys example. its a small comunity with a core of well meaning idiots and a bunch of people that aggree with them. Its like trying to censure a poker game in the sceme of things or a small church gathering. Nothing stops them from attempting to pass or passing unconstitutional decrees. It takes only one person to challenge it and it will be declared void and thats it case closed, clear now for the next idiot.
Nothing wrong with a small community deciding to buck the system, although I'm shure if you could ask king George he might not aggree

 

[Famine]

To be fair, if you asked King George III anything, he'd probably have dribbled a bit then accused you of being a mackerel.

If this community can decide to ignore the Constitution on this matter - small to some, quite large to others - what's to stop them ignoring the Constitution on any other given matter? As far as I'm aware, the Cobb County school board's decision hasn't been repealed yet - and they aren't even an elected body, acting on the wishes of the majority...

 

[ledhed]

That the whole point. Their descision carrys no weight. If it did it would only affect the school in the district they represent and at any rate they would be unable to implement it.
The school board is appointed by the mayor or the city/town council and is answerable to that body. Seems like someone has an agenda in a comunity of a couple thousand people.
Its no wonder no one cares about them, in fact I'm suprised it made it over to your neck of the woods..but then again its always fun to laugh at the 'merican red necks !
Hmmm seems you guys are looking for an example of laws that hurt that are constitutional or at one time are declared to be . I can think of two right away both supported by the majority and on the face of it clearly unconstitutional but implemented anyway.
First would be the law in the begining of WW2 giving the government the right to forcibly relocate Japenese CITEZENS of the US into internment camps. Taking thier property away and thier liberty . quite the good show considering what we were fighting for.
The second would be a slam dunk, SLAVERY alot of challenges to it until the civil war , but in every case found constitutional.
An argument can be made that loss of liberty is worse than death. In that case we have at least two examples of how the majority can affect the minority in a very undesireable way , and not be protected by a constitution .
I will also use this argument against the ninnys that claim war has no uses, or that war is not needed.

 

[Famine]

Its no wonder no one cares about them, in fact I'm suprised it made it over to your neck of the woods..but then again its always fun to laugh at the 'merican red necks !

Penn & Teller's Bull****!...

 

[Danoff]

Ok, so it sounds like we’ve reached a consensus about the way things ought to be.


The majority should not be able to vote away the rights of the minority.

and

Socialism is not fair and capitalism is.


Fair enough? Shall we move on to a new thread?

 

[ledhed]

Whats Penn and teller say ?

 

[Famine]

Probably "Bull****!". Although Teller wouldn't say anything.

It's a Fox programme - they basically "investigate" things, from the safety of a studio, reviewing video clips. The programme I'm referring to covers Evolution vs Creation (or more specifically, why Creation theory shouldn't be taught as even remotely scientific, or even at all in the US's religion-free public schools), but they also cover bottled water, baby-products, self-help guides, apocalypse-theory-exploiters, Feng Shui (classic), alternative medicines, green activism and all that kind of stuff.

Like Michael Moore, you have to remember that very few objective people get paid loads to make investigative "documentary" style programming, but what they say is generally funny and aimed at pseudo-scientific nonsense-talkers.

 

[Danoff]

bump

(see the libertarian party thread for the reason)

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I am a Capitalist. I am a Republican. I believe in the reduction of taxes. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE ELIMINATION OF TAXES BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD ELIMINATE GOVERNMENT.

 

[dbartucci]

Careful Brian, elimination of income taxation is different from elimination of all taxation. Some taxes, like those on pollution, and some sin taxes are efficient. It doesn't make sense economically to do so, while it may be politically desirable to do away with or increase them

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Careful Brian, elimination of income taxation is different from elimination of all taxation.

You're right -- I should have been more specific.

Some taxes, like those on pollution, and some sin taxes are efficient. It doesn't make sense economically to do so, while it may be politically desirable to do away with or increase them

True. However, the Libertarian stance is to reduce government to police, courts, and military. Defense spending the United States is relatively high, but everything else (especially Entitlements) would be eliminated. Minarchists like Dan would eliminate almost all (but not entirely) forms of taxation. Anarcho-capitials on the other hand don't want ANY taxes, or ANY government for that matter...