thplinth Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 I guess there could be a lot of cases just as a result of statutory rape. Also it must be any child from a rape does not use up the two kid limit not the third or fourth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Nobby said: All right i'll bite on the Poll tax. Why was it abhorrent that everyone over the age of 18 pays towards their community. Presumably they use the same street lights, refuse collection etc as everyone else ? why should a house owner /tenant be responsible for everyone that lives there ? Probably one of the fairest taxes there was ! Are you being serious? The Poll Tax was completely regressive. It was a flat fee for every member of society which took no account of anyone's income or ability to pay. If someone earned £1million, they would pay the same as someone earning £10k. It had the end result of driving a lot of people off the electoral register and thus disenfranchising them - that may well have been one of the policies objectives. The council tax is far from ideal but at least there is a link between the value of a property and the ability to pay and its also a very easy tax to collect and also difficult to avoid. A whole root and branch review - including funding - of Local government in Scotland needs to be undertaken. The current system pre-dates devolution and needs to be reformed. Unfortunately, I don't see how that can happen until the constitutional question is settled one way or another as that will have a big impact on what local government needs to look like. As for the point regarding who pays for services and who uses them. The reality is that over our lifetimes, we all pay for services and we all use them. There are certain services that we use throughout our lives such as the Police and Fire Services. There are other services which we will use at different parts of our lives, such as education when we are children or adult social care in our old age. There are points when we pay absolutely nothing or very little for our services, such as when we are children or retired. By a quirk of fate, these are the times when we will make most use of public services but contribute very little to them. By contrast, if we're lucky, during our working lives, we'll make much larger contributions to services than we actually utilise. This is the very foundation of the Welfare State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgowmancity Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 6 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said: Well surely not if as someone above claimed that these numbers are so small (that have been raped/abused)? There would need to be some sort of data protection waiver on the application, then it would be down to how specific the information request has to be - ie are dates, locations etc required, if so we're back at the re-living the incident scenario that we are in just now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Glasgowmancity said: So in your opinion, is the problem the 2 child limit, or the workaround? They are both the problem. The two child limit is the fundamental problem with the policy. The rape clause is only there because Alison Thewliss went 'Hold on a minute, this means that...", so there was a big problem and hole in their policy that they hadn't considered. Rather than scrap the fundamentally flawed policy, they've come up with some sort of "work-around" that is frankly Victorian in its implementation. How many women that have been raped that have to go through this is irrelevant, one is too many. Victorian is a good description of the whole policy of limiting child tax credits to two children as it is based on a fundamentally flawed position based on ideologically unsound grounds which is "Poor people shouldn't have children". Even putting aside the dodgy ideaology, it's economically illiterate as well. Faced with an ageing population, a falling birth rate, caps on immigration and a looming pensions crisis, they actually want to discourage people from having children. Madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, Glasgowmancity said: There would need to be some sort of data protection waiver on the application, then it would be down to how specific the information request has to be - ie are dates, locations etc required, if so we're back at the re-living the incident scenario that we are in just now Should it really be so thorough though? Another option is create another list - we have a list for sex offenders so surely authorities could correlate a list for women raped or sexually abused. Then as soon as that woman puts in a claim for the tax credit it shows up immediately as a recognized name on their list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapofGlencoe Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Nobby said: Whats wealth got to do with it thats income tax. this is about paying for local services etc. Why should a retired couple pay extra because they bought their house 50 years ago and its now worth a few quid ? Presumably now the democratic deficit has gone the SNP given their socialist leaning will introduce something similar to the poll tax ? Everyone over 18 in gainful employment pays their fair share, seems fair enough to me. Exactly. Old people who rode the wave of the property bubble to a wealth far exceeding their effort in life in comparison to young people who can't even get on the property ladder. It's the system on the round. I wouldn't agree with property as a measurement in isolation. It's how you find the balance. My point what someone pays towards the public purse towards services should depend on your wealth. Which is not simply all about income. Re the SNP. Possibly - don't know. The point you made was about the Poll tax which was when there was a clear democratic deficit and totally out of order to have us on it first. Bizarre stuff really when you think back about it. Edited April 21, 2017 by PapofGlencoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 I find peoples attitude to folk who have some money very interesting... Wealth at some point was income and as such it will have been taxed when it was earned. To go back and tax it again is double taxation. A house if it is sold at a profit would be subject to capital gains tax. Your primary residence is exempt from it for good reason. You always need somewhere to live and if you sell your own home you typically have to buy another one and house prices tend to go up or down in unison. If they clobber you for tax on your home you'd struggle to buy a comparable home to the one you just sold. It is just this constant let's shaft rich people attitude come across loud and clear. And it does seem to be SNP supporters in particular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapofGlencoe Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, thplinth said: Wealth at some point was income and as such it will have been taxed when it was earned. To go back and tax it again is double taxation. hmmmm. i'm sure David Cameron's great great great fuedal lord ancestor probably paid a tax at some point. Very true. Edited April 21, 2017 by PapofGlencoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said: hmmmm. i'm sure David Cameron's great great great fuedal lord ancestor probably paid a tax at some point. Very true. Has inheritance tax been scrapped then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapofGlencoe Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, thplinth said: Has inheritance tax been scrapped then? As earned income? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Regenmann said: Apologies mispost Edited April 21, 2017 by Nobby Mid post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 1 hour ago, thplinth said: I find peoples attitude to folk who have some money very interesting... Wealth at some point was income and as such it will have been taxed when it was earned. To go back and tax it again is double taxation. A house if it is sold at a profit would be subject to capital gains tax. Your primary residence is exempt from it for good reason. You always need somewhere to live and if you sell your own home you typically have to buy another one and house prices tend to go up or down in unison. If they clobber you for tax on your home you'd struggle to buy a comparable home to the one you just sold. It is just this constant let's shaft rich people attitude come across loud and clear. And it does seem to be SNP supporters in particular. This. Some people have more money than you. Life isn't fair never has been never will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said: hmmmm. i'm sure David Cameron's great great great fuedal lord ancestor probably paid a tax at some point. Very true. Currently the top 1% of earners pay just over 25% of the total income tax take in this country. Now I'll agree that wages are piss poor in loads of jobs but that's a whole other debate. Just clobbering the people that earn the most isn't the answer Either . Imho ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Jim Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 2 hours ago, thplinth said: It is just this constant let's shaft rich people attitude come across loud and clear. And it does seem to be SNP supporters in particular. I don't think anyone wants to "shaft" anyone. The point is that the society that we live in is shafting the poorest. Mainly due to the fact that all our laws and systems have been created by and presided over by the elites for decades. Doing so for their own benefit. I find it sad that you view folk attempting to redress the imbalances in our society as "shafting" the rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapofGlencoe Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 Just now, Parklife said: I don't think anyone wants to "shaft" anyone. The point is that the society that we live in is shafting the poorest. Mainly due to the fact that all our laws and systems have been created by and presided over by the elites for decades. Doing so for their own benefit. I find it sad that you view folk attempting to redress the imbalances in our society as "shafting" the rich. Exactly. They all sit on each others remuneration committees. All above board, of course. Literally noone has said it's disgusting to be rich. Total straw man argument from plinthy there. Imagine applying the 'life's no fair attitude' to everything. What a grim world that must be. We'd still be doffin' caps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Craig Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 Another nauseating thing about MP's? They lavish perverse pay rises up around 10% to themselves plus claim thousands on food expenses etc then turn around and cap nurses pay rise at 1%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 You've brought in David Cameron and claimed "they" all sit on each other's remuneration committees. You have this weird attitude that no rich person deserves their success and has paid their fair share many many times over... you sound a little jealous of them and I think you think fairness is not something they deserve because they are rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 18 minutes ago, Parklife said: I don't think anyone wants to "shaft" anyone. The point is that the society that we live in is shafting the poorest. Mainly due to the fact that all our laws and systems have been created by and presided over by the elites for decades. Doing so for their own benefit. I find it sad that you view folk attempting to redress the imbalances in our society as "shafting" the rich. Well if that is your way to 'redress these imbalances' then that is what it is. Be honest about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapofGlencoe Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, thplinth said: You've brought in David Cameron and claimed "they" all sit on each other's remuneration committees. You have this weird attitude that no rich person deserves their success and has paid their fair share many many times over... you sound a little jealous of them and I think you think fairness is not something they deserve because they are rich. They do. You denying that? Is that morally right? I don't hold this view you ascribe to me at all...I've no problem with people being rich. They simply should pay their dues and deserve what they have earned. Nae probs from me there. There is obscene wealth though. I mean surely you agree there is a limit? And unearned wealth, however accumulated, should be part of the tax system. That was all my point was about. Making sure people contribute the correct amount. A basket of taxes is the best way. Income doesn't always take that into account. Edited April 21, 2017 by PapofGlencoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 Give me an example of this unearned wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 11 minutes ago, thplinth said: Well if that is your way to 'redress these imbalances' then that is what it is. Be honest about it. It is. I want to create a fairer, more equal society. I don't want to "shaft" anyone. I myself feel that I should pay more tax and my salary is meager compared to the most well off in society. We live in a society where we have a minimum wage but no maximum, where young people cannot afford to own a home as house prices and rents have ballooned due to people owning multiple houses, where we have millions of people living right on the poverty line, working in low-paid jobs for massive companies who avoid tax (and are allowed to by a complicit establishment) AND... AND where people are being made to prove they've been the victim of rape in order to get £7/wk that they need to feed their kids! The whole thing is fecked. The folk who want progressive policies that redistribute wealth aren't the enemies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Parklife said: It is. I want to create a fairer, more equal society. I don't want to "shaft" anyone. I myself feel that I should pay more tax and my salary is meager compared to the most well off in society. We live in a society where we have a minimum wage but no maximum, where young people cannot afford to own a home as house prices and rents have ballooned due to people owning multiple houses, where we have millions of people living right on the poverty line, working in low-paid jobs for massive companies who avoid tax (and are allowed to by a complicit establishment) AND... AND where people are being made to prove they've been the victim of rape in order to get £7/wk that they need to feed their kids! The whole thing is fecked. The folk who want progressive policies that redistribute wealth aren't the enemies Can I just ask you what you would consider fair for a rich person from the tax system? Someone earning 100k is paying a huge amount of their salary beyond the state provided benefits they derive. So at what point do you say they have paid their fair share? Or are they just the people who pay for everyone else's enjoyment of 'fairness'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 Just now, thplinth said: Can I just ask you what you would consider fair for a rich person from the tax system? Someone earning 100k is paying a huge amount of their salary beyond the state provided benefits they derive. So at what point do you say they have paid their fair share? Or are they just the people who pay for everyone else's enjoyment of 'fairness'? You're asking a Construction professional for a detailed taxation model on an internet message board? In terms of solely income tax, i'd look at something like (all made up in 5 mins...): - £0-£20k - 0% - £20k-£30k - 15% - £30k-£40k - 30% -£40k-£70k- 40% - £70k-100k - 50% - £100k+ - 55-60% I'm sure this is horrible though and the super rich, who make their money due to the graft of the common man btw, won't be able to heat their mansions or fill their sports cars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 What is 'fair'about that? And your last paragraph pretty much proves my point here no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.