Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2022 23:23:37 GMT
In a decent society, or a fair society, the people who "HAVE" should always help those "WITHOUT"
Some people clean hospitals and get paid the National Minimum Wage, some of these people need a little bit of help from the rest of society to get by in life.
Some people are high earners, or possess great wealth through whatever means - such people in a decent society should contribute more towards helping those at the bottom in society.
This is not "class warfare" its called "progressive politics"
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Nov 30, 2022 23:28:19 GMT
COMPREHENSIVE including or dealing with all elements or aspects of something:Education is free and available to every person in the UK between the ages of 5 and 18, therefore WHY should tax payers give tax breaks to private funded schools masquerading as charities. ? The comprehensive education system is designed to educate all students of every ability, from remedial to those who are particularly bright, talented and outstanding. The Conservatives believe in elitism, where schools can select their pupils, its a form of snobbery, and in the end this kind of Tory policy always results in "superior" education establishments, and the remainder are for the "dross" of society - how so typically Conservative. If you really want to play this game, then why should taxpayers give tax breaks to working men's clubs? lol. You are just playing fast and loose with that a charity actually is. All it has to do is display a "public benefit". Are you seriously going to argue that providing first class education is not a public benefit?  lol. Pray tell, what would you "morally" allow to be a charity? Conservatism is about personal responsibility and getting on, and a small state (well is used to be). People that claim to be ideological opposed to the Tories would drop their so-called morals like a stone if they had a big lottery win. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Nov 30, 2022 23:32:43 GMT
In a decent society, or a fair society, the people who "HAVE" should always help those "WITHOUT" Some people clean hospitals and get paid the National Minimum Wage, some of these people need a little bit of help from the rest of society to get by in life. Some people are high earners, or possess great wealth through whatever means - such people in a decent society should contribute more towards helping those at the bottom in society. This is not "class warfare" its called "progressive politics" I agree with different levels of taxation, but people are bizarrely claiming that people who pay way more tax are having their children's education "subsidised" lol. Yes it is class warefare, because he hasn't gone after other targets that are using charity status like faith schools and working mens clubs. Why isn't he being "progressive" on them too? lololol. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Dec 1, 2022 0:28:50 GMT
I think there are far more appealing targets to get money from than targeting the education system. Like people have pointed out, putting private schooled kids into public schools will only add more drain to the system which is already overwhelmed. That actually is an unproven and I think unlikely contention because it actually depends upon the numbers. If as I suspect very few private school pupils will drop out because their parents will in most case just pay more, then the money raised to go to the state sector will dwarf the added cost of a handful of extra pupils. That they will all leave the private sector on masse is another of those old canards the right like to trot out like the rich will all leave the country if asked to pay slightly more tax. It won't happen of course and is just the standard bullshit that convinces few people not already beholden to the Daily Mail. Its something right wingers find convenient to believe but is in fact mostly nonsense. Rich people? sure, they'll just pay more. But then there are the private schoolers who come from middle class families, what do they do? Similarly, you are just guessing. While anecdotal, there are many such people where I work and they do complain at rising costs but want to keep their kids at private school (because local schools are bad), and they are struggling. A sudden sharp increase to offset increased taxation would very likely mean many families throughout the country can no longer afford. Besides, there are absolutely no guarantee that this increased tax revenue would 100% go back into education, in fact, it's entirely unlikely that will happen and alot of money will just disappear into a black hole of middle mis-management. Personally, I think while we have things like churches, museums, housing associations and universities registered as charities, the thought of impinging on educational establishments of an age group who is state mandated to goto school, doesn't sit right with me. Education is an investment in the future of this country and as such should not come with a huge $tax sign over it's head. So long as the state enforces a person to goto school, it should be entirely exempt from tax. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 1, 2022 6:31:58 GMT
As with TTL3, I smell envy. I suspect you don't know any rich people. I've known many, probably more than you. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 1, 2022 6:33:49 GMT
As with TTL3, I smell envy. If you smell envy whats your excuse for worshipping the rich . I don't and never have. Stop trolling. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Dec 1, 2022 6:55:19 GMT
If you smell envy whats your excuse for worshipping the rich . I don't and never have. Stop trolling. Dont lie Ive seen you bowing at the Golden Altar of wealth .lol  |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 1, 2022 7:04:53 GMT
I don't and never have. Stop trolling. Dont lie Ive seen you bowing at the Golden Altar of wealth .lol Who's doing the typing for you? |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Dec 1, 2022 7:08:21 GMT
Dont lie Ive seen you bowing at the Golden Altar of wealth .lol Who's doing the typing for you? What you Mean ? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 1, 2022 8:46:52 GMT
That actually is an unproven and I think unlikely contention because it actually depends upon the numbers. If as I suspect very few private school pupils will drop out because their parents will in most case just pay more, then the money raised to go to the state sector will dwarf the added cost of a handful of extra pupils. That they will all leave the private sector on masse is another of those old canards the right like to trot out like the rich will all leave the country if asked to pay slightly more tax. It won't happen of course and is just the standard bullshit that convinces few people not already beholden to the Daily Mail. Its something right wingers find convenient to believe but is in fact mostly nonsense. As with TTL3, I smell envy. I suspect it has more to do with irritation about the distribution of wealth in this country. Theresa May during her short period as PM suggested bringing in a controlled ratio between top CEO pay and the lower paid in the company in order to 'stop CEOs from helping themselves to excess profits made'. See Pie Chart below for wealth distribution in the UK www.bing.com/images/search?q=pie+chart+to+wealth+distribution+in+the+uk&id=84C469DE22D8C22942C6EA058E560316C22EB6BC&form=IQFRBA&first=1&disoverlay=1 |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 1, 2022 11:09:47 GMT
In Theresa Mays position I would have capped excessive payments not done comparison payments. Many executives are grossly overpaid but they are a small minority in the scheme of things and not really part of this conversation which has a far wider span. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 1, 2022 15:42:50 GMT
In Theresa Mays position I would have capped excessive payments not done comparison payments. Many executives are grossly overpaid but they are a small minority in the scheme of things and not really part of this conversation which has a far wider span. It's good that you would have taken some action, showing there is need of something to be done. I wonder how many CEOs are amongst the richest 10% of the population (about 6.7million of the population) that owns 45% of the wealth? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 1, 2022 15:55:40 GMT
In Theresa Mays position I would have capped excessive payments not done comparison payments. Many executives are grossly overpaid but they are a small minority in the scheme of things and not really part of this conversation which has a far wider span. It's good that you would have taken some action, showing there is need of something to be done. I wonder how many CEOs are amongst the richest 10% of the population (about 6.7million of the population) that owns 45% of the wealth? I would have thought all of them - they are not a very good CEO if they are not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2022 19:31:18 GMT
That actually is an unproven and I think unlikely contention because it actually depends upon the numbers. If as I suspect very few private school pupils will drop out because their parents will in most case just pay more, then the money raised to go to the state sector will dwarf the added cost of a handful of extra pupils. That they will all leave the private sector on masse is another of those old canards the right like to trot out like the rich will all leave the country if asked to pay slightly more tax. It won't happen of course and is just the standard bullshit that convinces few people not already beholden to the Daily Mail. Its something right wingers find convenient to believe but is in fact mostly nonsense. As with TTL3, I smell envy. Your sense of smell is obviously crap. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Dec 2, 2022 1:54:31 GMT
In Theresa Mays position I would have capped excessive payments not done comparison payments. Many executives are grossly overpaid but they are a small minority in the scheme of things and not really part of this conversation which has a far wider span. It's good that you would have taken some action, showing there is need of something to be done. I wonder how many CEOs are amongst the richest 10% of the population (about 6.7million of the population) that owns 45% of the wealth? The distribution of wealth is a red herring, because wealth isn't the same as income. A lot of high earners take shares as part of their salary, or they own shares in the company they formed / invested in. Those shares don't cost the company anything, so it doesn't affect the pot from which wages are paid. If you are a low earner, would you really want shares that you couldn't cash in for 2 years to increase your wealth, or would you want cold cash on salary? So, forget wealth, concentrate on income because that is where the fight is. |
|
lol.
