No man is an island. We are all part of a society comprising hundreds of millions of people. In order for that many people to coexist there has to be structure and compromise. That means taxes.
There is a balance between complete freedom and existing as part of this society.
I’m in the UK. I reckon we’ve got it about right. I have freedom to say what I like, believe what I like, vote for who I like, go where I like. I have fair laws and a good standard of living. I might rail against many things that I don’t like – the inequality for example – but it is still pretty good.
No man can be completely free when he lives in among other people.
Without laws there is chaos and everyone suffers.
Without taxes we do not have the things society requires in order to prosper.
Without compassion we have selfishness and greed.
How is it “greed” for someone who works hard to want to keep more of what that person earns and yet it is not “greed” to want to take that money by force to give it to somebody else? I don’t understand that logic.
Ragnar – three people own as much wealth as the bottom half of American society. This gross inequality is not about the honest work of individuals; it is about a system that is crooked. They did not amass huge fortunes by hard graft. There is a system that is unfair. Millions living in poverty are working their arses off but cannot make headway. There are tax loopholes which are exploited by the rich so that they do not pay tax. It is optional for many!!.
A society requires infrastructure, good education, good health, defence and facilities that come from taxation. A caring society looks after its weakest through welfare.
A fair, graduated taxation system reduces this gross inequality, provides excellent services and infrastructure for all, and creates a better environment for all.
The present rabid capitalism is based on pure greed. A society should be there for all its citizens – not just the rich few.
I believe in fairness. The superrich do not get their wealth from hard work – they get it from a loaded system. They should contribute a lot more. That is fairness.
There is nothing fair about a graduated taxation system. Saying otherwise is absurd. People on the Left should stop bitching about the rich not paying their fair share in taxes.
There is nothing fair about a system that gives privilege to those at the top so that they earn ridiculous sums and pay very little tax on it. Inequality has become obscene. These people run the system. They pay for the politicians in order to gain the laws they want. They pay lawyers to avoid justice. They use their money to create a system that runs for them and nobody else. It was set up by them to deliver for them – and it does.
The USA is extremely prosperous but the wealth is all increasingly siphoned off by the wealthy.
Do you think this is fair and just?
Do you think it is right that just three people own as much wealth as the bottom 50%? I certainly don’t.
Do you think these people have accumulated this vast wealth by fair means? Or have they been exploiting people? Avoiding taxes? Using criminal means? Flouting rules and regulations? Causing immense environmental damage?
Do you think they run things for themselves? I do.
There’s nothing fair about it.
The political parties are funded by the wealthy for the wealthy. It’s a billionaires country.
The bankers, through greed, caused the economy to crash. How many went to jail? The ones who caused it are still getting their ridiculous pay and obscene bonuses (and still avoiding paying taxes). The people who picked up the bill the ordinary, hardworking people. They pensions were hit, their pay went down and they struggled.
Block the tax loopholes and bring in a graduated tax to create a fairer more caring society!
I believe most of society ills come about from this gross inequality – gang crime being the worst.
Opher, you make valid points. However, I still think you are wrong.
Rag – that’s fine. We don’t have to agree on everything. In my experience things are never black and white. It seems that people are getting pushed into extremes when in reality it is probably somewhere in the middle.
Whatever, dialogue is always good and argument is fine too.
Opher, “fairness” would require that we all contribute something. Your idea of what is “fair” is incompatible with the Dictionary’s definition. You omit the fact that these people also save and invest money, which results in them having more money in the long run.
I do not mind a degree of inequality. People need fair reward for their effort, ability and risk (investment).
But we are all part of a society and, in my opinion, all members of the society need caring for. The question is how much is fair?
I think the privilege, rewards and benefits are out of proportion. The bankers, executives and celebrities are being ‘rewarded’ at a level that is obscene. We have created a tiered system where the top tier makes the rules and loads the dice. The country is run for the benefit of those at the top and at the expense of everybody else.
There is nothing fair about it.
Yes I agree that it would be fair for all people to contribute – or at least those that can. I believe that those on welfare should not receive handouts but should be doing something constructive – unless they are so severely disabled that they cannot contribute (then they should be cared for). But I also believe that most people do not skive – they contribute.
The country (The US or UK) is extremely prosperous. The unfairness is that all this wealth is presently accumulated in a very small number of people. They are corrupt. They avoid taxes, they bribe and buy off politicians and create the laws that favour them.
Opher, does the UK have a tax structure that is similar to the U.S.A.?
Yes it does – with similar loopholes. As one banker said – tax is optional for the wealthy.
Opher, in defense of the flat tax, it does de-clutter tax structures and remove much of the complexity.
Yes it does. But it means that the ones who are being paid exorbitantly get to keep huge amounts of money and not contribute proportionately.
As AI progresses and there is no need for ‘workers’ I can see the wealth accumulating in fewer and fewer pockets. Unless there is a way of spreading it around more evenly we will end up with even more inequality where the bulk of the population live in abject poverty and the elite are living on grotesque levels of income. It is already happening. It will get worse.
I believe everyone benefits from a fairer society with a better, more even, distribution of wealth. Extreme poverty creates a plethora of problems from teenage pregnancy to gang crime and violence. It is a travesty to have such poor ghettos with homelessness, gangs and crime in the midst of so much wealth. There is more than enough to go around. And the distribution is not due to hard work, ability or risk – it is maintained by privilege and wealth.
Everyone benefits from the products of taxation – infrastructure, education, policing, defence, health and welfare. So many with ability are held back by lack of opportunity of lack of the means to access opportunity.
Opher, I am not necessarily advocating a flat tax, however, look at the prosperity levels of countries that have them. Then you can get back to me with your thoughts.
Will do!
Opher, the one problem with the progressive tax code concept is how much taxation is too much.
Ragnar – I believe in a fair progressive tax. What has happened with inequality is ridiculous. We have to create a system that addresses this without providing disincentive. I think we can use the tax system to encourage investment.
Opher, who can spend your money better-you or a government bureaucrat?
Ragnar – things are not as simple as that. Millions of people working together can be far more effective that people working alone.
As we know, privatised institutions work to provide dividends for the shareholders and not service for the people. They run things for profit and the profit goes to rich investors.
Governments can plough all profits back into the institution.
This is why the US healthcare is so much more expensive and inefficient than our NHS.
Our taxes can provide much more efficient institutions.
Opher, it actually is as simple as that.
Yes it is.
Opher, I asked you who can spend your money better-you or a government bureaucrat. In what areas can you spend your money better? What are areas in which the government can spend the money better in your opinion?
The government is far more effective at providing:
Education
Health
Infrastructure (roads, bridges)
Policing
Defence
Welfare
Social services
Power
Postal services
The services can be centralised. There is economy of scale. All profits can be ploughed back into the system without have to cream off a percentage for rich investors.
If these things are run privately they have to give a good amount of profit to wealthy shareholders which pus the price up. They are splintered into smaller units and so lose economy of scale and cost more.
Central control is efficient and can tailor provision to needs.
All that is required is sufficient funding and good modern management.
Opher, you still have not answered my curiosity as to the areas where you feel you can probably spend your money better. It is obviously none of my business what you spend your money on. Having said that, between you and a bureaucrat, who do you believe can manage your money better?
Well I told you where I think government performs best and why. The rest is for me to decide:
what goods I purchase
Where I travel
What services I purchase
Some things are best left to experts – the content of education.
Opher, even though it can be argued that progressive tax codes may be healthy for the economies of countries, that have them, it is also true (and proven many times throughout history) that governments also have a tendency to mismanage money. As to your point about education, there are some things that people with teacher certificates can teach children very well and some things that parents can teach their children even better. Just my thoughts.
Yes it is true that sometimes governments mismanage money – but the gross inequality present today is testament to the way private enterprise exploits people. Given the choice I go for the government.
While some parents may well be capable of teaching some things well to their children I believe that no household can come close to providing the full range, depth and social interaction of a good school education experience.
Opher, in your opinion, should politicians have the ultimate say in how the money of the people is spent? Should the people have more say-so in that regard?
We elect politicians and they should be accountable and responsible. That is representative democratic democracy. They should have the power to spend the money. That is their job. They alone have all the information. The public do not.
Most of the population are ignorant, ill-educated and stupid. That is the main problem with democracy (and I support democracy). The ignorant and stupid are gullible and easily taken in by populist politicians and their scheming rhetoric.
But if the electorate elect irresponsible, feckless or ideological politicians than that is their problem (seems to happen far too often). They should be booted out at the next election.
I would rather qualified people make judgements on spending money that unqualified people.
This is true.
Yes I know.
Opher, I was agreeing with you, hence my statement.
Thanks Ragnar. I appreciate that. I meant no disrespect.
Opher, I just wanted to clear up any potential misunderstanding that may have been there. I perceived no disrespect in your response, so pay it no further mind.
I was concerned that my rather curt reply might have been taken in a way not intended.
Opher, rest assured that I took no offense in how you had responded to me.
Thank you Ragnar.
Opher, no offense was taken at all. On a separate matter, what are your views on estate taxes?
Ragnar – I’m not sure. I haven’t really thought it through. What I would like to see is a pluralistic, more equal society. To that end I think that the wealthy need to contribute a lot more of their wealth to the state. I do not want a society that is completely equal but I do not want a society with the gross inequality that we see today (and in the past). I do not think that is healthy. Some form of estate taxation may be the answer.
Opher, I find the estate/death tax to be absurd. As has been proven throughout history, when government gets its sticky mitts in our wallets, it does not seem to manage our money very well.
Not always the case Ragnar – we have had examples of great use of money – like the setting up of the NHS.
Somehow we have to find a way of addressing the extreme inequality in our society.
Opher, it makes no sense to me how some people believe that any government in any country can manage the money of its citizens better than its citizens. I have no problem with paying what society says is my fair share of taxes. Personally, if the tax dollars I provide are spent responsibly, the tax rate is a non-issue in my view.
Ragnar – no citizen has the knowledge that a government has. They have a civil service with detailed advice and statistics. No citizen comes close to that understanding. Governments plan strategically. They work in billions. No citizen can decide how much needs spending on defence, schools, health, policing etc etc.
The government has an oversight that cannot be matched. How could citizens possibly decide?
Opher, between trusting the citizenry to do the right thing and leaving that to the government, the citizenry would be better.
No Ragnar. The average IQ is 100. 50% of the population are not very clever – many are positively stupid. The ones that are above average are usually none too clever either and all of us are incredibly ignorant of the facts and needs. People react emotionally not intelligently. A team of experts is always better.
Opher, we will just have to agree to disagree.
Fair enough. But I am interested in how you think such a system would work for the country – if people could decide themselves.
Opher, if I was told that I would be in a 50% tax bracket, however, I got to have more say as to where the money was spent, as well as what leaders I could vote for rather than the current status quo of career politicians, that would be a non-issue. Just my thoughts.
Well Ragnar – I would tend to agree with you about the quality of our present politicians. They are a sad bunch indeed. Certainly not of my choosing. The ones I vote for never get in.
I too would like a say in how money is spent – but I guess we do that when we elect them and they lay out their policies in their manifestos.
I think the saddest, most contentious issue is that of why the electorate continue to vote for such a bunch of careerist bastards and psychopaths. But then, you know my view on the majority of the population – they are none too bright, exceedingly ignorant and very gullible.
But that is just my opinion.
Opher, the most distasteful tax of all is the estate tax.
that may be true – but we do have to use tax to create a fairer society. I would support a fair graduated income tax.
Opher, I find it to be profoundly hypocritical when some people say that it is wrong for people to get free stuff due to an inheritance and yet these same people are demanding college-free tuition. If that is not hypocritical, I do not know what is.
All education should be free in my book Ragnar. Education is the key to equality.
I want a society that is much more equal. I think some people earn far too much – obscene levels – and many people not enough. It is time it was addressed.
Opher, “free” just means that other people are paying for it.
Free means that we all share the costs evenly so everyone gets their needs met.
Thank heavens for the NHS where everyone is treated for free – the whole country pays for it – we all benefit.
Who would want to be living in the States right now where people are going bankrupt, having to sell their house to afford treatment or else are left to die. Millions without medical care – a system that looks after the rich and to hell with those that can’t afford to insure! Callous, heartless, elitist and wrong.
Long Live the NHS!!!
Opher, you make a valid point.
Cheers Ragnar. In my mind collective responsibility and caring for all is better than competitive tender where the haves end up with excellent service and the have-nots go to the wall. Nothing is free but providing a national service works out much cheaper and better than firms competing.
Opher, if some people want to provide a service free of charge, that is the prerogative of the people doing it. Just demanding that a service be provided as a right is laughable and shows a disconnect in the minds of rational thinking people. Unless a billionaire or a multimillionaire says that he or she is not being taxed fairly, demanding by societal dictate that they be taxed more is absurd.
If a nation decides that everyone should contribute to provide a service for everyone so that everyone has peace of mind, there is good quality service at a very good rate, that is just sound economics and caring thinking. That is the NHS. A quality service at a cheap price.
The alternative is that companies compete with each other to provide a service for those who can pay. The result is a service that costs a great deal more and does not cover everyone. That is uncaring, selfish, inefficient, expensive and not sound economic sense.
UK – £2989 per person – all people covered.
USA – £7736 per person – only those who can afford it covered.
Which makes better economic sense?
Everybody in a civilised country should have a right to healthcare, education and social security. That is what makes a country civilised! The nation is there to care for its people. Rich people should not make money out of sick people. That is obscene.
A country should pay people in line with what they are worth to the community. There should not, in my view, be a huge discrepancy between income. Nobody works hard enough to earn a million a year. They get that money through exploiting others. Yes there should be rewards for risk taking but it should be in proportion. A society should work for all its members. There should be a tax system that operates to prevent gross inequality. Gross inequality is a symptom of a sick society.
Opher, the problem with the “right” to health care is that it is not adequately explained as to what it means. If by right some people are saying that they should be free to choose their own specialists, I could buy into the rights argument in that sense. Someone who claims that they have a right to the services of a medical care provider without adequate compensation is not right.
I do not think that anybody has the right to any specific specialist any more than they would have the right to choose which fire-engine came to put out a fire at their house. The government should, through inspection, ensure that an excellent service was provided for all patients – including the best care and well-trained specialists. I think the NHS does that. If the NHS messes up there is a compensation procedure the same as anywhere else.
At present the NHS has been underfunded. It needs more funding. But even so it is an excellent service that provides excellent care for everyone at a reasonable cost.
I would make the analogy to that fire service. One can see the stupidity of private services if you look at that. You would not want fire privatised. If your house is on fire you would want someone to put it out quickly – not messing about to see if you were covered with that particular company or not, not duplicating services (all paid for by the policy payers).
I know that if I go down with Covid-19 I will get excellent intensive care and it will not cost me a penny. We have all paid for the service and it is very cost-effective. That saves a lot of worry.
That is born out by looking at life expectancy. In the USA it is 79.11 – in the UK it is 81.77.