Hey!! Who's pulling the Bandwagon????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richmondesi

I'm assuming you realize that I said distribution and not REdistribution. Words mean things, my friend ;)

---

My bad, Paul - I musta misread that. Still, the DISTRIBUTION (;)) of wealth will always be skewed in a free market system. The idea is to capitalize on resources - labor being one of them - by seeking the lowest costs, pushing revenue and stretching the net profit to the max. As it compounds, the disparity between the haves and have-nots will inevitably increase. Of course, we can't all be laborers and we can't all be CEOs. Some of us will just have to make less than others. Period.

The problem with NOT being a I-Me system, is the "have-nots" (really, have-lesses, even our poorest are better fed than many others in this world) are over-extending their spending habits and taking on enormous debt to emulate the "haves" and then cry poverty and ask for help because they won't accept the reality of their situation. Each person/family needs to take responsibility for themselves and plan their life accordingly. Worry about yourself, and I'll do the same - let the chips fall where they may.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commiecat

So it's okay for you to do more work to take the financial burden off of your family, but it's not okay for our government to do more work to take the financial burden off its citizens?

I hope you live out that dream and that everybody in your family lives happily ever after. I'm sure there are lazy bums waiting in line for their free handouts who, at one time, had the same dream as you.

---

To the first part - the government can do the work, but don't expect me to pay for it. At some level the government is an employee of the people, and I'm not in the habit of giving raises without a legitimate reason that benefits me, a stable budget in place so I can be assured my dollars are being spent wisely and a strict timeline for evaluating and adjusting that plan accordingly.

For the second part - I picked up the sarcasm, but I never meant to call all people with misfortune lazy. What's lazy is not taking responsibility for your current position and expecting someone else to fix it for you. I've been on the unemployment line - but I didn't sit around drinking beer leeching. I went out and looked for a job. The problem is not with having a cushion, it's about having people take naps on that cushion while the system says, "Shhh. They're tired." We're all tired. Drink coffee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majurey

This is a fallacy. The fact is, those tiered rates continue to apply to each tier within your basic salary. In other words, someone earning £110k pays zero tax on the first £6475, then 20% on the next £30k, then 40% on the next xxx etc. Even if you tick over into the next bracket by £1, you cannot be taxed more than you were on the salary you were on last year. The higher rate only applies to the monies above the respective rate. E.g. say there's a 10% increase in tier at £100k and I'm currently paid £99k, if I'm given a pay rise that takes me to £110k, I only pay the higher rate on the£10k above the 100k mark. Under that I still pay the lower rate. Sorry, I've not been very clear. But basically the tax tiers apply only to those brackets and not across your entire salary..

---

I agree, your income tax is tiered, but once you go over £100k you start losing that tax free allowance on the first £6475 from 2010/2011. Look at the income limit for personal allowances from HMRC here:

HM Revenue & Customs: Rates and Allowances - Income Tax

Thats what pushes the tax rate up for those over £100k and means the effective rate is pushed up. Its the loss of the tax allowance at the bottom rather than the additional tax at the top. And you also lose your tax allowances on your pension over £150k as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majurey

The bankers are not innocent parties here. And from what I can see of other financial centres around the world (US, Europe, Asia) they'll be hammered in one way or another. Where will they run to then? The threat of losing our best bankers is a hollow one.

---

I agree again. But not all the bankers are to blame either, just a small minority who got involved heavily with CDO's and the debt markets. So why should the majority of bankers, who've been holding their own in tough times, be hammered because of a few spivs?

I also think that shareholder pressure has played a large part. Companies report quarterly, and if shareholders dont see improved returns quarter on quarter they have the option (and have in the past) to sack the board. So the board put pressure on the guys below them to make the returns, come what may.

I do also wonder why these same shareholders werent asking any questions when the banks were returning record profits on their investments.

If the companies move, they'll go to the BRIC economies which are screaming out for foreign investment at the moment.

There are also places that charge lower income tax (China, Singapore, Australia and the US) than the UK. So if someone wants to protect their salary, they'll move to another country and the UK loses the tax revenue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majurey

It's not as simple a picture as that. Public sector workers pay taxes on their income, and indeed if it helps to reduce overall levels of unemployment it reduces cash lost to benefits. But more importantly in times of economic stress, public spending has played a vital role it its recovery throughout history. Whether it's a sound argument is of course hotly debated by academics on both sides of the political spectrum. But my point is that saying public spending doesn't create income is a little simplistic if you're looking at the situation we're in.

---

Again, I agree. Public sector workers do pay income tax, but they dont contribute to GDP. Repairing roads is not a profit making business as its paid for by the local authority and the work done by staff on their payroll, either directly or via a third party supplier. Skimming profit off the top anywhere would be a pretty big vote loser for a public body.

I also agree that it helps reduce unemployment. However, someone being paid £25k a year, plus pension, as a five a day nutrition coordinator costs the economy more than someone being handed unemployment benefits. And we cant keep creating jobs to keep unemployment down indefinately, theres already a massive break between tax revenue received and expenditure. At some point we need to cut spending back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majurey

Believe me, all three parties intend to make cuts to public spending. But NONE of them are giving us any detail as to what, how or when. That's because they're well aware that a general election has been called and none of them have the conviction to give us the bad news straight.

---

I reckon you're right there..! :D No bad news before May!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BingoBango

For the second part - I picked up the sarcasm, but I never meant to call all people with misfortune lazy. What's lazy is not taking responsibility for your current position and expecting someone else to fix it for you. I've been on the unemployment line - but I didn't sit around drinking beer leeching. I went out and looked for a job. The problem is not with having a cushion, it's about having people take naps on that cushion while the system says, "Shhh. They're tired." We're all tired. Drink coffee.

---

To clarify, the sarcasm was aimed at opposition in general and not anything you've said specifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matt321

When just 20% control 93% of the wealth well...there is a growing risk that the 80% will grab pitch forks and give those 20% folks a good butt forking.

---

Noooo, they will never grab pitch forks because a majority of those 80% have somehow come to believe that this situation is somehow ok. If you believe 20% are entitled to less than 93%, that's called socialism isn't it ???? I'm sure those 20% are laughing with their uncriticizing slaves.

Most developed countries have some sort of progressive income tax by the way. That doesn't make these countries socialist !!!

(about socialism: most americans don't even comprehend what socialism is in the real world - because there are no socialists in the US.... No there aren't)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commiecat

To clarify, the sarcasm was aimed at opposition in general and not anything you've said specifically.

---

It's cool dude. :beer1:

Let's ask more basic questions than how to take and distribute money by a government fairly.

How do you know it needs all of the money it is asking for?

Who in the government is accounting for its spending habits?

How do I know that what the government is charging for its services is a reasonable and the execution is efficient?

How come the politicians (all of them) get more wealthy than most business owners when they get to Capitol Hill?

Before we answer how to get the money and who is paying what percentage, I think we need to take a look at how much they say they need and where it is going.

Failed programs never go away, we just continue to feed them as though they function in the capacity they were intended. It is assumed that because someone says we need it, that makes it so. I am very skeptical that we have leaders that think like this.

Did you notice how I did not poke my finger in anyone's eye?:D

David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stubear

I agree, your income tax is tiered, but once you go over £100k you start losing that tax free allowance on the first £6475 from 2010/2011.

---

I see what you mean now. Yes, in that case you COULD in theory lose out. But I suspect any employer paying a staff over £100k will either ensure the uplift is enough to get over this issue, or if they don't you can bet the staff will pull them up on it! What's another 7k on 100k+?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stubear

I agree again. But not all the bankers are to blame either, just a small minority who got involved heavily with CDO's and the debt markets. So why should the majority of bankers, who've been holding their own in tough times, be hammered because of a few spivs?

---

That's just human nature. Same way we rag on all parking attendents, taxmen, estate agents, Arsenal supporters, etc. etc. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stubear

I reckon you're right there..! :D No bad news before May!

---

Yep. How the hell any of us are meant to navigate the hidden meanings and the great unsaid is beyond me!

Probably the bigest complaint since the beginning of society was how to deal with those who can't support themselves and how to deal with those who won't.

In the end a society is judged by how it deals with those who truly need help. No one has figured out a foolproof way of separating the crooks and cheats from those who truly need help. To do that would require the Govt growing by a huge margin and would we want that? Sure, eliminate welfare and social security and food stamps and SSI and unemployment and free medical care and set up work houses. Either you sink or swim by yourself. Those who truly can't do it on thir own because of circumstances beyond their control? Too bad. But that would take care of the cheats and crooks.

That's actually quite easy to answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alembic

How do you know it needs all of the money it is asking for?
That's a judgment call made by the Congress during budget voting and by the voters during elections. The opposing financial interests on both sides should provide for the correct political market answer.

Who in the government is accounting for its spending habits?
From what I understand there are parts of the governments that are supposed to do that, but for non-classified information everybody should be able to get access to it so corrections can be made in the next elections.

How do I know that what the government is charging for its services is a reasonable and the execution is efficient?
Same as above for non-classified information. For classified information you are screwed.

How come the politicians (all of them) get more wealthy than most business owners when they get to Capitol Hill?
Aren't their incomes supposed to be public? I think the rational answer is because the voters are happy with the work they do. Same as when the same voters keep buying Apple products Steve Jobs gets richer.

---

At least that how the representative democracy is meant to work and I think in US it's working quite well. If you don't like the results I think you need to reevaluate the fundamentals.

One other point about progressive taxation that I didn't see mentioned.
If you already have say $100 000 you will be taxed higher percentage on each additional dollar you get than if you have only $10 000.
However I think most people would agree that (in absence of taxes) it's also easier to make extra dollars if you already have $100 000 than if you have $10 000.