Monaco avoid 75% super tax

[Danishfurniturelover]

So you're saying that there are efforts that make sense both long term socio-economically and from a human perspective, but we shouldn't do it because short term the rich would have slightly less money?

Long term you could have fewer criminals, more educated people in jobs paying taxes, more parents capable of taking care of their families and less human suffering. But this isn't what you want? Instead you want more money to the rich short term, and in the wake of that you'll get more criminals, fewer educated people in jobs paying taxes, fewer parents capable of taking care of their families and more human suffering. And long term that will of course lead to more social issues that will continue to spread.

It's an opinion I really struggle to understand. It's an opinion that historically you haven't been alone in holding though, so you've got that going for you...

The point i was trying to make but probably not very well is that i imagine the poor to take far more from the country then the rich, in my view the rich are good for the country. I do not think i am rich i started up a new business this year for pleasure which is not doing very well at all and is actually costing me money, but i do not have a mortgage.

I do not include myself in the rich group but i think the rich offer far more and do not deserve to be vilified quite how they seem to be, seems to be based on envy because when you do the maths they contribute far more then they take out.

We would not want to go back to the 70's and have a brain drain or rich flight scenario again because it would cost us more in the long run.

It seems to me the french football league is acting with envy as well because Monaco are spending money and the others are worried about it so they try and find a way to stop it. I do not like football clubs that spend money they do not generate but i also do not like people unfairly taxing people so much.

The reason we have so many french moving over here is because of this 75% tax rule, i guess it could be a good thing for Tottenham if we sign some French players.

 

[Neymar]

You don't believe in social mobility as a good? I'm starting to regret joining in this discussion. Out of curiosity, is this a view shared by anyone arguing for "that side" of the argument?

You don't think rich business owners benefit from having a pool of educated workers available to fill various jobs in their companies? Are you serious?

I believe "social mobility" is definitely good. I also do agree that some business owners do benefit from having an educated work force.
Thats not to say that it is morally right to coerce all high income earners into paying for these things.

Obviously it is next to impossible to analyse where funding for individual services such as education come from. Therefore, i think it would be more appropriate and just if those who directly used it, as well as those who actively wanted to contribute to it were to pay for it. Doesn't that seem more fair, than making those who do not use it, nor want it, have to contribute to it?

And why are you regretting posting? I've genuinely liked your posts (and assume others have too) and have found the discussion interesting.

 

[Neymar]

Can you see the dissonance between thinking that those who can help fund it if it's right will and thinking that everyone's in it for themselves?

Yes i can. But that's the point of my argument. It's not "moral" that the rich should be taxed more (pay for other's services/goods).

Taxing the rich more is simply a result of:
People being "in it for themselves" + There being more "lower-income earners" in most societies.

 

[braineclipse]

The point i was trying to make but probably not very well is that i imagine the poor to take far more from the country then the rich, in my view the rich are good for the country. I do not think i am rich i started up a new business this year for pleasure which is not doing very well at all and is actually costing me money, but i do not have a mortgage.

I do not include myself in the rich group but i think the rich offer far more and do not deserve to be vilified quite how they seem to be, seems to be based on envy because when you do the maths they contribute far more then they take out.

We would not want to go back to the 70's and have a brain drain or rich flight scenario again because it would cost us more in the long run.

It seems to me the french football league is acting with envy as well because Monaco are spending money and the others are worried about it so they try and find a way to stop it. I do not like football clubs that spend money they do not generate but i also do not like people unfairly taxing people so much.

The reason we have so many french moving over here is because of this 75% tax rule, i guess it could be a good thing for Tottenham if we sign some French players.

I don't disagree with any of what you say in your first couple of paragraphs, and really nothing about your post at all.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that the poor take more from a country than the rich, but I don't see a problem with that. Part of being in a society seems to me that people contribute based on their means and capabilities.

 

[braineclipse]

I believe "social mobility" is definitely good. I also do agree that some business owners do benefit from having an educated work force.
Thats not to say that it is morally right to coerce all high income earners into paying for these things.

Obviously it is next to impossible to analyse where funding for individual services such as education come from. Therefore, i think it would be more appropriate and just if those who directly used it, as well as those who actively wanted to contribute to it were to pay for it. Doesn't that seem more fair, than making those who do not use it, nor want it, have to contribute to it?

And why are you regretting posting? I've genuinely liked your posts (and assume others have too) and have found the discussion interesting.

I was regretting it because if I had to spend my time explaining why social mobility is a good then I would rather do something else with my time. That might sound arrogant, condescending and other things I seem to get called quite regularly on here, but I honestly don't think there's much point discussing much of anything at that point.

How is it fair that these "some business owners" that benefit from having an educated work force do not end up paying for that benefit if they chose not to?

Like I've said I think a model where the needs of the society are outlined (amongst these most certainly should be public education) and that the most fair way to pay for this is that people pay depending on their income. Accepting that life isn't fair and that I don't think all people find themselves in the situation "they deserve" based on their efforts, ability, intelligence etc this seems much closer to fair than the alternative you propose.

Yes i can. But that's the point of my argument. It's not "moral" that the rich should be taxed more (pay for other's services/goods).

Taxing the rich more is simply a result of:
People being "in it for themselves" + There being more "lower-income earners" in most societies.

I disagree. With the danger of repeating myself I think it's fair that people are asked (or coerced if your prefer) to contribute based on ability.

The point about there being more lower income earners is at this point diminishing in importance, at least in some countries. The US is the most obvious example where the influence of money on politics seems to be outreaching the influence of the relative population of the different classes quite easily.

Historically, with some exceptions, the rich and powerful have in general managed to stay rich and powerful. So I'm not quite sure the power of the masses at election time to "just take from the rich" is quite as strong as you're claiming.

 

[Neymar]

How is it fair that these "some business owners" that benefit from having an educated work force do not end up paying for that benefit if they chose not to?

Like I've said I think a model where the needs of the society are outlined (amongst these most certainly should be public education) and that the most fair way to pay for this is that people pay depending on their income. Accepting that life isn't fair and that I don't think all people find themselves in the situation "they deserve" based on their efforts, ability, intelligence etc this seems much closer to fair than the alternative you propose.

I think that it would be far more efficient and clearer if the direct recipients of education were to pay for it ie. those students who "consumed" the education. And later they can "sell" their (educated) services to the business owners, and thus be compensated for their education costs. This way, those who do not require as much (or any) of the services provided by education can be exempt from contributing to it if they do not want to. This seems most fair to me.

also if,
"deserve" = efforts, ability, intelligence, +luck (location, environment etc),
then perhaps, people do get what they "deserve"

for me, what is sure however is that people do not "deserve" the fortunes of others.

I disagree. With the danger of repeating myself I think it's fair that people are asked (or coerced if your prefer) to contribute based on ability.

The point about there being more lower income earners is at this point diminishing in importance, at least in some countries. The US is the most obvious example where the influence of money on politics seems to be outreaching the influence of the relative population of the different classes quite easily.

Historically, with some exceptions, the rich and powerful have in general managed to stay rich and powerful. So I'm not quite sure the power of the masses at election time to "just take from the rich" is quite as strong as you're claiming.

I would say in most countries, including the USA, the "lower income earners" still dictate the presidential race and policy making. At the end of the day, the electorate only has one vote per citizen (regardless of how rich or poor you are), and as there are more "lower income earners", they naturally have the greatest influence.

 

[Neymar]

Brain, can i ask you this question,

Is it ok to steal an expensive medicine from the pharmacy if your child needs it (and you cannot afford it)?

The question is obviously different from the debate we are having, but it would help me gauge your outlook and mindset regarding taxation.

fwiw, i do not think it is morally acceptable. however, that is not to say i wouldn't do it.

 

[braineclipse]

I think that it would be far more efficient and clearer if the direct recipients of education were to pay for it ie. those students who "consumed" the education. And later they can "sell" their (educated) services to the business owners, and thus be compensated for their education costs. This way, those who do not require as much (or any) of the services provided by education can be exempt from contributing to it if they do not want to. This seems most fair to me.

also if,
"deserve" = efforts, ability, intelligence, +luck (location, environment etc),
then, people do get what they "deserve"

I would say in most countries, including the USA, the "lower income earners" still dictate the presidential race and policy making. At the end of the day, the electorate only has one vote per citizen (regardless of how rich or poor you are), and as there are more "lower income earners", they naturally have the greatest influence.

You're expecting a 7 or 10 year old to get a bank loan to pay for their education based on them getting a job 10 years from now to start paying that back? This to you seems efficient and clear? How about children with learning disabilities? Should they have to get an extra loan to help them get the extra help they need?

How big is the luck portion of your equation? For a child how much of the final answer to that is simply down to how much money their parents have? You obviously want to make that difference bigger, I would like to see it smaller.

You seem to be arguing some kind of Ayn Rand-esque selfishness is the only truth kind of basis. Do you really think a society where children do not have a right to an education is better than a society where children do have that right?

Am I right if I say that you think that if one person or some people pay more into the common societal pot than they get out of it then that's immoral?

 

[braineclipse]

Brain, can i ask you this question,

Is it ok to steal an expensive medicine from the pharmacy if your child needs it (and you cannot afford it)?

The question is obviously different from the debate we are having, but it would help me gauge your outlook and mindset regarding taxation.

fwiw, i do not think it is morally acceptable. however, that is not to say i wouldn't do it.

This is a fairly classic example isn't it? Who was it that used this to judge the moral development of children? Man, my memory is not what it used to be. Or perhaps it is and just can't remember...

I think it's a question with many answers and you would have to define what it "is it ok" and "morally acceptable" actually means for me to give a well thought out answer.

As a shorter answer, avoiding the definitional difficulties though: I would and I would expect others to do the same. If it's morally acceptable or not would depend a lot on the situation. I can think of situations where I would answer yes and I can think of situations where I would answer no.

 

[braineclipse]

At this point I would like to add that anything other than a Spurs win today would be morally unacceptable!

COYS!

 

[Neymar]

You're expecting a 7 or 10 year old to get a bank loan to pay for their education based on them getting a job 10 years from now to start paying that back? This to you seems efficient and clear? How about children with learning disabilities? Should they have to get an extra loan to help them get the extra help they need?

How big is the luck portion of your equation? For a child how much of the final answer to that is simply down to how much money their parents have? You obviously want to make that difference bigger, I would like to see it smaller.

Obviously children cannot be expected to pay for their education in most cases. That's where parents come in. They have a vested interest in their child's education, and will pay for it, if they so wish to do so. However, there are also many cases where the child will pay for his own education in parts of Africa and Asia. Similar to the way students in western societies, at least supplement their education fees by picking up part time jobs.

You seem to be arguing some kind of Ayn Rand-esque selfishness is the only truth kind of basis. Do you really think a society where children do not have a right to an education is better than a society where children do have that right?

Am I right if I say that you think that if one person or some people pay more into the common societal pot than they get out of it then that's immoral?

I can see why you think that i am arguing that, but i believe that my argument has a subtle difference.
My argument is that: It is not morally correct to coerce others into paying for things that you cannot otherwise afford and are envious of. And that opening up channels of donation and support for those who wish to help fund certain projects is the moral way forward.

 

[Neymar]

At this point I would like to add that anything other than a Spurs win today would be morally unacceptable!

COYS!

And i would like to add that it is morally justifiable that we tax chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project so that we too can afford some £30m squad players in the future. \o/:ross:

 

[elltrev]

This endless debate always frustrates me. Surely everyone can see/agree that there are two opposing types of fairness in play here?

Liberty - it's not fair to have your money taken away from you regardless of your consent
Equality / Minimum standard of living - it's not fair that some people get a worse education that others through no fault of their own / it's not fair that some people earn millions of pounds whilst others live a meagre existence despite working hard and doing jobs that are vital to the functioning of our country / society

I appreciate that people innately place more emphasis on one of these values / types of fairness, but I find it incredibly frustrating when they can't at least acknowledge the validity of the other or recognise that there is a tradeoff between them.

 

[elltrev]

Obviously children cannot be expected to pay for their education in most cases. That's where parents come in. They have a vested interest in their child's education, and will pay for it, if they so wish to do so. However, there are also many cases where the child will pay for his own education in parts of Africa and Asia. Similar to the way students in western societies, at least supplement their education fees by picking up part time jobs.



I can see why you think that i am arguing that, but i believe that my argument has a subtle difference.
My argument is that: It is not morally correct to coerce others into paying for things that you cannot otherwise afford and are envious of. And that opening up channels of donation and support for those who wish to help fund certain projects is the moral way forward.

What if the only reason that those people can afford those things is that they happened, through no effort or skill of their own, to be born into circumstances that made it much easier for them to be able to? e.g. they grew up in a loving family and went to an expensive private school, whilst someone else grew up with abusive parents on a council estate where 50% of people are unemployed and there are no decent jobs or schools in the area?

 

[Neymar]

elltrev,

good point. and i guess i place more value on liberty. and although if it may not seem obvious, i genuinely do see the validity and benefits of braineclipse's argument that maintaining a certain standard of living for everyone is vitally important.

i guess i just do not like the thought of proactively taking from one to give to another. and feel that it is at least somewhat more moral to take a "bystander" approach, than to actively find a solution to certain "problems" and thus be the direct cause of injustice.

 

[Neymar]

What if the only reason that those people can afford those things is that they happened, through no effort or skill of their own, to be born into circumstances that made it much easier for them to be able to? e.g. they grew up in a loving family and went to an expensive private school, whilst someone else grew up with abusive parents on a council estate where 50% of people are unemployed and there are no decent jobs or schools in the area?

This is why i feel that the only "moral" solution would be to open up easy and efficient channels of donation. Where those that can see the suffering and needs of others can easily help out.

I also think that the desire for humans to help each other out to maintain basic human needs is much greater than a lot of people think. Just look at the recent aid efforts in the Philippines. We can see that nations with wealthier populations are able to contribute large amounts, whilst "poorer" nations are still willing to donate what they can.

 

[elltrev]

elltrev,

good point. and i guess i place more value on liberty. and although if it may not seem obvious, i genuinely do see the validity and benefits of braineclipse's argument that maintaining a certain standard of living for everyone is vitally important.

i guess i just do not like the thought of proactively taking from one to give to another. and feel that it is at least somewhat more moral to take a "bystander" approach, than to actively find a solution to certain "problems" and thus be the direct cause of injustice.

With all due respect, I think that moral logic is totally flawed. Whether the injustice is caused by action or inaction, you are still directly responsbile for it. I think your argument/feeling is based on a superficial and misguided technicality.

And in any case, for me the bigger issue is the level of injustice itself, regardless of how it is caused. And whilst it is injust, in and of itself, to forcibly take money from people (i.e. tax), the fact is that wealthy individuals will still be earning very large amounts of money - really the impact on their quality of life is fairly negligible. Whereas working for minimum wage or not being able to find work at all, and the associated social and pscyhological consequences of that, has a huge impact on quality of life. So to me that is a far bigger injustice.

 

[scaramanga]

I can see this point of view to some extent and at least in theory I think it can be defended, although I disagree with the application.

I really struggle to see how you can argue that this system will produce a better society than a system that also includes education and health care in the operating budget though. Particularly education by the way, I could see the American right style "no/little public health care" argument to some extent, but no public education?

On education; my wife works in deprived schools - she always has. Aside from the very, very few excellent teachers in these schools, many of the kids are getting little or no education anyway.

That hasn't to this point affected my life other than making it a little more difficult to employ people who can read/write for our factories - immigration has solved that problem.

Health care is a massive problem in this country. The NHS is one of the world's top 10 or 12 employers - which in a country of less than 65M people is just scandalous.

I believe that for any system to be working properly some basic principles of fairness need to be involved - "you get what you pay for" being one of them. I pay much more towards the NHS than most people. If that meant I got a private room, faster treatment, the best doctors, etc. then I'd ditch my private health care and happily pay the tax towards the NHS.

I pay more road tax and fuel duty than most. Again, if that meant that people couldn't chug along at 80mph in my way in the outside lane in their banged-up, old Vauxhalls then I'd happily pay it.

My issue is that I pay more and get (at best) the same as anyone else, usually less.

 

[the dza]

On education; my wife works in deprived schools - she always has. Aside from the very, very few excellent teachers in these schools, many of the kids are getting little or no education anyway.

That hasn't to this point affected my life other than making it a little more difficult to employ people who can read/write for our factories - immigration has solved that problem.

Health care is a massive problem in this country. The NHS is one of the world's top 10 or 12 employers - which in a country of less than 65M people is just scandalous.

I believe that for any system to be working properly some basic principles of fairness need to be involved - "you get what you pay for" being one of them. I pay much more towards the NHS than most people. If that meant I got a private room, faster treatment, the best doctors, etc. then I'd ditch my private health care and happily pay the tax towards the NHS.

I pay more road tax and fuel duty than most. Again, if that meant that people couldn't chug along at 80mph in my way in the outside lane in their banged-up, old Vauxhalls then I'd happily pay it.

My issue is that I pay more and get (at best) the same as anyone else, usually less.

I'll get banned for this, but who cares? You sound like a right c**t.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

I'll get banned for this, but who cares? You sound like a right c**t.

I agree with DZA.