"I'm a Marxist you see , not something Russia ever really had much to do with"
stagger_lee
Marxism advocates the single most inefficient economic system ever invented by man nor beast and every time it has ever been attempted the people live in misery, poverty and in fear of the state.
maybe i should call mr staggers the new day robin hood.
:uhoh:
Seen several posts banding the phrase Capitalism around, but as there is no precise definition (I think the following is a well worded summation) it would be an interesting point to understand what those using the term actually mean as their definition.
There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.
There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.
The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.
Some define capitalism as a system in which all the means of production are privately owned, and some define it more loosely as one in which merely "most" are in private hands — while others refer to the latter as a mixed economy biased toward capitalism. More fundamentally, others define capitalism as a system in which production is carried out to generate profit and is governed by the laws of capital accumulation; regardless of the legal ownership titles.
Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including the determination of how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property
We find it helps the debate if we understand what the other is talking about rather than assuming 'their' definition is the same as 'ours' when things might be heading off at a tangent.
We must be to pay these bills
Amount British taxpayers contributed to the EU in 2010.
£94billion
The nine tenths of the EU's budget in 2009 that was “materially affected” by irregularities, projects that included the spending of more than £350,000 “improving the lifestyle and living standard of dogs” in Hungary.
£2billion
The annual cost of paying pensions to Eurocrats by 2040, British taxpayers will end up paying £350million of the total.
£136million
The amount British taxpayers paid for EU pensions in 2010, giving the average retired Eurocrat an income of almost £60,000.
1,023
The number of unelected EU civil servants who pocket bigger salaries than David Cameron's annual income of £142,500.
£328,000
The annual pay and perks package for Baroness Ashton, the EU foreign minister and highest paid female politician in the world
2,558
The number of senior EU officials, earning £185,000 a year, who were entitled to three months time off work on full pay last year.
£67million
The amount that the European Parliament’s 736 MEPs can collectively claim this year in “daily subsistence” and “general expenditure” expenses without having to provide any receipts or proof of expenditure.
£150million
The annual cost of moving the entire EU parliament hundreds of miles from Brussels to Strasbourg for a plenary sitting once a month as a symbol of Franco-German reconciliation.
£90million
The European House of History, to be built by 2014 by MEPs, despite a continuing argument over fundamental historical event, such as what happened during the Second World War.
£8million
The annual cost of EuroparlTV, a television channel, which highlights the work of MEPs, and has only 830 daily viewers, less than 10 per cent of the 9,000 people working in the parliament every day.
£410,000
Cash to train teenagers in Burkina Faso and Mali, two of the world's poorest countries, in “therapeutic dancing” because Africans find that “expression of feelings through the spoken word is often difficult and complicated”.
£162,000
The funding went to the London-based Flying Gorillas troupe, whose acts includes the “brilliant smelly foot dance”.
In my view the 50P top tax rate is potentially damaging as it means that those who enter this bracket have 20% less net income over £150K to spend or save. There is no guarantee that if they were paying 40% that their expenditure would entirely go to the UK as potentially it could be on goods or services imported from overseas which would mean the UK economy would not benefit in full. The 50% tax rate ensures that all the additional tax goes direct to the Treasury.
These are difficult times and the tax is a way of making those who can afford to contribute a bit more to get us out of the hole that the last Government left us in. The current situation is not entirely the last Government's fault as it was the Banking crisis that caused the global turmoil, but there is no doubt that had the last Government actually saved for a rainy day then it would have been an awful lot easier to face up to the flood that was the Banking Crisis. The UK taxpayer does of course own a share in the Banks that were bailed out and eventually that share will be sold hopefully for a profit but it is clear that something was required to plug the gap caused by the need to bail out the banks and the 50% tax is one of those measures.
Long term it will must go as over time it will prove a disincentive for businesses to grow and reward their founders and Senior Executives for the effort in acheiving that growth, but for the time being those new businesses that will be potential success stories of the future are still at a fledging stage and owners of those businesses will be ploughing whatever they can back into their businesses to fund start up costs & expansion and few will be expecting a return in excess of £150K.
Therefore until the Global economy gets moving again and until confidence has returned to the Banking sector so that the Government can recoup all of the money used on the bailout plus inflation, the 50p rate has to remain.
A suggestion of a Mansion tax to replace the 50p band is folly and unfair. That has the potential to hit those who may well have paid in full for their houses through hard endeavours in the past and could now be retired and earning far less than £150K from investments and Pensions. Also it would hit those who may be on moderate incomes and perhaps have lived in their home all their lives and have suddenly found themselves in an area where property prices have gone up. Examples are Country Cottages in rural villages that have become popular for second homes thus inflating local property prices. It would be hard to expect someone who has lived in a house for 40 years to suddenly find themselves classed as being a millionaire when they might be only be on modest pension and the only significant asset they have is the house which they would rather pass on to their next of kin than be forced to sell and lose the memories of happy times in said house.
The total tax "take" in this country is a joke and should be completely reviewed.
Personally I agree totally with the cuts to the public sector which is where the tax is going and a complete overhaul of the tax take with a view to it becoming an incentive for growth and business.
"Income" tax - why should anyone who has worked to get a good education and secure themselves a good, highly paid job pay a higher % rate of tax? Income tax should be a flat % payment payable by everyone. High earners will contribute more money anyway.
"National Insurance" - the stealth tax - review with an eye introducing private insurance opt out.
Fuel Duty - reduced significantly for the transportation industry as an incentive to expand.
"Weather changing tax" otherwise known as vehicle excise duty. Refund the money stolen in the name of climate change and make this tax collectible via fuel sales. More fuel you use, more road use - more tax payment.
I could go on and on with the tax paid by people who save for a rainy day and pay tax on the savings on their interest, Inheritance tax which gets you after your dead and all of the other tax takes that go to prop up an unweildy and inefficient public service.
The statement yesterday that the very wealthiest in society are to be "targetted" by a special tax investigation team is symptomatic of a society that has become focused on envy. The statement that they are focusing on these people to make sure they are neither avoiding or evading their tax contribution is wrong because it has always been perfectly legal to strategically avoid paying tax and we all do it all of the time by selectively making lifestyle and economic choices on a day to day basis. Tax evasion is wrong of course but I just wonder at the purpose of making a statement publically that the rich are being targetted. Call my cynical but that just does not sound right to me - do it, by all means, but why shout about it?
oh right...so you think a flat rate tax across the board eh....
Well I agree as long we all get a flat rate pay rate across the board !!
I hear people shout then....people get paid what they area worth to their employer !!
Yea so you telling me the merchant banker, that basically gambles with our money, and through their recklessness has brought the world oconomy to its knees, is worth £100k plus a year
whilst the
Young soldier in afganhistan, is risking life and limb, so we can be free from terrorist threats, gets £25k a year.
Yes.....the former pays more tax.....and so he should....unless ofcause as I say you going to pay them both the same !!!!!!
That is one view Dean - let me give you another.
Child does well at school and goes on to University, studies hard and becomes a well paid Doctor, Lawyer or Accountant.
What incentive is there if you charge the person to go to University then charge him a higher rate of tax than everyoone else for endeavouring to better himself in life?
We could on the other hand continue to dumb down society to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. We are getting there with that actually - the great schooling expirement has failed so badly and we now churn out semi illiterate children from High Schools but it doesn't matter because the set placement concept ensures that everyone now gets a grade. At least these children are generally unlikely to become higher rate tax payers and they will surely be claiming as much benefit as they possibly can thereby creating a dumbed down equal society for all of our futures.
Incidentally, I am quite sure know that a 25% tax take on someone earning £100,000 a year is £25,000? A 25% tax take on someone earning £15,000 a year is £3,750 - ie higher salary = higher tax take. Do you just not like it that someone can earn £100,000 if you can't? Is it about envy? Why not be glad for someone who has applied themselves to work hard and achieve things and deserve what they have got and what they are earning - instead of persecuting them by charging them a higher tax levy?
indeed to hott...we can trade these all day...
Do you think the premership player who earns £100k a week should be paying the same tax as a hard working farmer or electician then !!!!!!
Personally I think not. There are differances in payments and so should there be differances in taxation. It doesn't equall things out, it just means there contribution is higher. It what people generally call a fairer society.
Why isn't paying the same tax rate fair Dean?
One person on 100,000 pays x amount of tax. Another on 20,000 pays y amount. Now if the tax rate was 20% then the higher earner pays 20,000 and the lower earner payers 4,000.
If the Higer earner earns 5 times as much but pays 5 times as much tax then is that not fair?
The worth of a person or their job is a different matter though
Dave_Notts
as I say Dave..pay all the same...and i'll agree to tax everyone the same !!
Untill then I'm sorry but I think the premership footballer and the Banker....should pay more than the soldier, farmer and electrician.
This is where I am getting confused with your arguement Dean. The 100,000 employee is paying more than the lower earner.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I read your view as wanting fairness, equality, etc.....yet to create this fairness you would like the tax system to increase the rate on higher earners thus making the tax system unequal.......in my view that makes the system unfair.
Dave_Notts
now sit down dave,...and let me explain..lol
I am happy with current system and think it is only fair that those who don't neccessarily deserve more money pay more tax.
ie: the premership footballer pays more than the soldier !
However if you wish to pay both the same.....then I accept they would both pay the same tax...and ofcause would accept that also. never going to happen thou is it !!
What I don't think is fair is in these times that belts are being tightened, we lower the tax burden of the highest paid ......but do nothing to help the lower paid !!
By the way - just as an aside. If anyone thinks that Premiership footballers think about paying, tax you are dreaming.
They see themselves as above all that nonsense and make their salary claims on the income that they will receive. Yes it means a bigger tax take but don't for one second think they bemoan paying that money - their negotiations are all based on what they will actually receive - this is why the pay scales are out of all proportion to reality but as long as Sky is around not much will change.
:rotflmao: 
