4 ms·

Tax those who can afford it to help those that can't. At some point if the rich continue to demand sacrifice of the poor to prop up their gathering of wealth,

by Latty 4y ago

Tax those who can afford it to help those that can't. At some point if the rich continue to demand sacrifice of the poor to prop up their gathering of wealth, it'll be guillotines in the streets. Historically Britain's upper class has been sensible at offering compromise to avoid extreme change, but it appears the current crop think their control of the media is enough to keep the population placid while they suffer. So far, they appear to have been right. Who knows how long that'll continue as things get significantly harder for the average person.

mathverse 4y ago
The problem with the approach of "tax this and tax that" is that it often ends up hurting the lower and middle classes the most. I am very skeptical about any new taxes aiming for wealth distribution that are not very explicit about who should pay that tax.
- philipwhiuk 4y ago
  This is basically an inverted 'trickle down economics' argument which has been shown time and again to be bunk. Taxing rich folk more doesn't hurt poor people who don't pay those taxes.
  - mathverse 4y ago
    Who is the rich folk? Because any tax increases I have experienced so far affected me and I dont feel rich at all.
    - jacknews 4y ago
      That would be shareholders. ie profits accruing from other people's hard work should be taxed heavily.
- Latty 4y ago
  Yes? That's why I was very specific about who should pay it. This is such a common response to any taxation. It is true that any solution done wrong can make things worse, but that's not a reason not to try and solve the problem, it's a reason to do it right. The alternative, not taxing anyone much, has been tried: it gets us here, with public services collapsing and the country becoming less and less desirable to exist in. We are so far on the left of the Laffer curve it is laughable, even if we ignore the insanity of assuming that the value of having a society that functions isn't relevant.
  - mathverse 4y ago
    I have not seen this done correctly anywhere. I have only experienced taxes getting higher and higher with nothing much to show for it. Meanwhile the really rich folk are also getting richer.
    - Latty 4y ago
      The NHS is great. I've lived my life with access to it and in a society provided for by it, and wouldn't trade it for anything. Taxes have paid for it, and should continue to do so. What alternative are you offering? Not taxing anyone much leaves us with a society that simply doesn't function, we see that right now. FUD about "well, they could tax the wrong people" is pretty irrelevant when we are already in a situation where most people are facing poverty and ruin. If this is all we can expect, then might as well roll the dice on doing it right. Of course, the idea there is no way to actually tax the rich is absurd, we can do it, we have just had decades of government with no will to do so.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        > Of course, the idea there is no way to actually tax the rich is absurd, we can do it, we have just had decades of government with no will to do so. Which way is that, other than the ways we already do it?
        Latty 4y ago
guardiangod 4y ago
>Tax those who can afford it to help those that can't. So...tax those whose income is higher than Latty's income - 1 pound? I am sure you can afford it. A new progressive tax regime requires a lot of research, consultations, political capitals, and most importantly, time. We don't have a lot of time right now.
- Latty 4y ago
  Yes, I am relatively well off and actively support paying more tax myself. I would argue that we should target wealth as much as income, either way. Taxation is paying for a service: the service of living in a nice society. I want to pay to make the country nicer for me to exist in. I don't want people I meet to be struggling, I don't want people I care about to be suffering. We don't have a lot of time, that's a reason to start now rather than delaying the solution even further: people will suffer the longer we pretend we can have the country function as a funnel to the wealthy instead of a place for people to live.
data_maan 4y ago
I think there are phase transitions happening in terms of how much the population can accept. And usually these occurs rather quickly, after a prolonged stalement. Let's see if the current upper class can read the signs before a critical threshold is reaches.

by Latty 4y ago

mathverse 4y ago

The problem with the approach of "tax this and tax that" is that it often ends up hurting the lower and middle classes the most. I am very skeptical about any new taxes aiming for wealth distribution that are not very explicit about who should pay that tax.

philipwhiuk 4y ago
This is basically an inverted 'trickle down economics' argument which has been shown time and again to be bunk. Taxing rich folk more doesn't hurt poor people who don't pay those taxes.
- mathverse 4y ago
  Who is the rich folk? Because any tax increases I have experienced so far affected me and I dont feel rich at all.
  - jacknews 4y ago
    That would be shareholders. ie profits accruing from other people's hard work should be taxed heavily.
Latty 4y ago
Yes? That's why I was very specific about who should pay it. This is such a common response to any taxation. It is true that any solution done wrong can make things worse, but that's not a reason not to try and solve the problem, it's a reason to do it right. The alternative, not taxing anyone much, has been tried: it gets us here, with public services collapsing and the country becoming less and less desirable to exist in. We are so far on the left of the Laffer curve it is laughable, even if we ignore the insanity of assuming that the value of having a society that functions isn't relevant.
- mathverse 4y ago
  I have not seen this done correctly anywhere. I have only experienced taxes getting higher and higher with nothing much to show for it. Meanwhile the really rich folk are also getting richer.
  - Latty 4y ago
    The NHS is great. I've lived my life with access to it and in a society provided for by it, and wouldn't trade it for anything. Taxes have paid for it, and should continue to do so. What alternative are you offering? Not taxing anyone much leaves us with a society that simply doesn't function, we see that right now. FUD about "well, they could tax the wrong people" is pretty irrelevant when we are already in a situation where most people are facing poverty and ruin. If this is all we can expect, then might as well roll the dice on doing it right. Of course, the idea there is no way to actually tax the rich is absurd, we can do it, we have just had decades of government with no will to do so.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      > Of course, the idea there is no way to actually tax the rich is absurd, we can do it, we have just had decades of government with no will to do so. Which way is that, other than the ways we already do it?
      - Latty 4y ago

guardiangod 4y ago

>Tax those who can afford it to help those that can't. So...tax those whose income is higher than Latty's income - 1 pound? I am sure you can afford it. A new progressive tax regime requires a lot of research, consultations, political capitals, and most importantly, time. We don't have a lot of time right now.

Latty 4y ago
Yes, I am relatively well off and actively support paying more tax myself. I would argue that we should target wealth as much as income, either way. Taxation is paying for a service: the service of living in a nice society. I want to pay to make the country nicer for me to exist in. I don't want people I meet to be struggling, I don't want people I care about to be suffering. We don't have a lot of time, that's a reason to start now rather than delaying the solution even further: people will suffer the longer we pretend we can have the country function as a funnel to the wealthy instead of a place for people to live.

data_maan 4y ago

I think there are phase transitions happening in terms of how much the population can accept. And usually these occurs rather quickly, after a prolonged stalement. Let's see if the current upper class can read the signs before a critical threshold is reaches.