“Subscribe

Whatever happened to ….

AFCDorset

Season Ticket Holder
Would you not agree then, with everyone have access to the same social care?
Given our current system, more or less, then I think social care paid for by the taxpayer should be available to all.

I object to the implementation, not the concept.

That said you know what I think of the Welfare State, I do not like it one bit but it is what we have.
Easily.

You want flat tax which disproportionately affects those on lower income.
Read the post again, 'flat percentage'.

You pay say 25% of your taxable earned income in income tax. no allowances, no exceptions.

But as I said, you get a 'personal allowance' that is tax free, that helps the lower paid. Christ this is not difficult!
 

SardiniaFox

Season Ticket Holder
Given our current system, more or less, then I think social care paid for by the taxpayer should be available to all.

I object to the implementation, not the concept.

That said you know what I think of the Welfare State, I do not like it one bit but it is what we have.

Read the post again, 'flat percentage'.

You pay say 25% of your taxable earned income in income tax. no allowances, no exceptions.

But as I said, you get a 'personal allowance' that is tax free, that helps the lower paid. Christ this is not difficult!
Tax cuts for the wealthy under Thatcher squandered North Sea Oil and created this problem.

You say you are a radical thinker. Try thinking.
 

AFCDorset

Season Ticket Holder
Tax cuts for the wealthy under Thatcher squandered North Sea Oil and created this problem.

You say you are a radical thinker. Try thinking.
We need an equivalent to Godwins Law for Margaret Thatcher.

With socialists it always comes back to Fatcha.

Living in the past but it will work this time comrades.
 

Running Fox

Season Ticket Holder
The people with real money do not pay Tax, Its the old what is called middle class that ends up paying for everyone.
 

AFCDorset

Season Ticket Holder
That tar brush of yours is huge.
It certainly is, I do not like people taking the piss, especially when it costs me my hard earned tax paid capital.

You are welcome to give away as much of your capital as you wish, entirely up to you.
Believe what you will. You reap what you sow.
I only wish that was so. It would be nice to have a real influence on the future of this country.

Sadly it does not have a future as the leftards are in control.
 

AFCDorset

Season Ticket Holder
The people with real money do not pay Tax, Its the old what is called middle class that ends up paying for everyone.
Yeah but according to AFCD that's OK, because they worked harder then the low waged and scroungers. They deserve it because they have been more productive.
It is socialism Rf, reduced to the absolute basics.

Those who can and do are expected to pay for those who can't and won't.

It is as simple as that and a better recipe for failure, at every level, has yet to be devised.
 

sixthswan

Don't Welch
What do you think should happen to people who can't pay? They aren't all lazy. The severely disabled?

What do you think should happen to people who won't pay? The tax dodgers who are wealthy? Your average person isn't able to avoid paying tax.

Should they be denied social care?
 

sixthswan

Don't Welch
Given our current system, more or less, then I think social care paid for by the taxpayer should be available to all.

I object to the implementation, not the concept.

That said you know what I think of the Welfare State, I do not like it one bit but it is what we have.

I'm glad you agree with the concept of "free" social care, provided by the government.

You wouldn't like the Welfare State, because you're a small government libertarian.

Which is why I'm surprised that you agree with the concept of the government providing social care.

It's a difficult one for you. You don't agree with the idea that a family member has to shell out hard-earned for social care, yet for that not to happen - you would need a fairer implementation of government social care. Which requires you to forgo your anti government sentiments; because a level of bureaucracy is required to implement it. The only alternative would be that everyone has to pay a fortune for social care. The government you voted for, now wants to take more National Insurance to pay for social care. Which is an increase in tax burden for all. If you support that because it helps to protect family assets, then you are swallowing more pride, as it is counter to small government.
 

SteveYork

Season Ticket Holder
No. Perhaps they should contribute on a sliding scale depending on how much they spend.

Why should I have to spend money that I have saved for my future on people who have pissed away their own future?

More classic socialism, levelling down and reinforcing failure.

Progressive income tax is pernicious and always has been.

Personal allowance, flat percentage rate, everyone pays, that simple.
No personal allowance
 

AFCDorset

Season Ticket Holder
Morning sixthswan, nice and bright down here, hope things are well with you, you are up early enough... ;)

You first post is pure whataboutery I'm afraid. People in genuine need should be able to get help, I have never said otherwise. It is just that socialism/welfare state is just about the worst way possible for delivering such care.

The Tax system is in dire need of reform but it favours those in power so unlikely to happen. Making 'tax dodging' more difficult and socially unacceptable is the answer but as I say...


Your second post is a straw man, sadly typical. I did not say that 'I agree with the concept of free social care', I clearly said 'given our current system' which is entirely different.

Given that we have to pay ridiculous levels of tax and that the government chooses to use some of that money to fund social care, I can see no justification in making the help available to some but not all.

As for the rest, more misrepresentation I am afraid. I never said that I disagree with family members funding social care for their family, I think that is entirely right and proper. What I disagree with is that some people are required to do that and others are not, that is what I disagree with.

As for the rest, that is just piss poor implementation of socialist policies by more socialists.

Sorry to rant, I am attempting to help Mrs AFC with the housework but I am quite slow and weak today, still it means I can shitppost whilst taking a rest... ;)
 

sixthswan

Don't Welch
Morning sixthswan, nice and bright down here, hope things are well with you, you are up early enough... ;)

You first post is pure whataboutery I'm afraid. People in genuine need should be able to get help, I have never said otherwise. It is just that socialism/welfare state is just about the worst way possible for delivering such care.

The Tax system is in dire need of reform but it favours those in power so unlikely to happen. Making 'tax dodging' more difficult and socially unacceptable is the answer but as I say...


Your second post is a straw man, sadly typical. I did not say that 'I agree with the concept of free social care', I clearly said 'given our current system' which is entirely different.

Given that we have to pay ridiculous levels of tax and that the government chooses to use some of that money to fund social care, I can see no justification in making the help available to some but not all.

As for the rest, more misrepresentation I am afraid. I never said that I disagree with family members funding social care for their family, I think that is entirely right and proper. What I disagree with is that some people are required to do that and others are not, that is what I disagree with.

As for the rest, that is just piss poor implementation of socialist policies by more socialists.

Sorry to rant, I am attempting to help Mrs AFC with the housework but I am quite slow and weak today, still it means I can shitppost whilst taking a rest... ;)

So you are OK with people spending the inheritance they wanted to pass onto family, being spent instead on care in old age and making capitalists rich. As long as we all do it.
 

AFCDorset

Season Ticket Holder
So you are OK with people spending the inheritance they wanted to pass onto family, being spent instead on care in old age and making capitalists rich. As long as we all do it.
Once again, not actually something that I said. All that I am saying is that if the government makes us all pay tax, and chooses to provide social care, then care should be available for all. Everyone pays, everyone gets care, simple as that.

I also believe that looking after your family (and friends) is incumbent on everyone, paying to put a relative (say) into care is a family choice and should be paid for by the family, caring for them yourselves is also an option.

The complication is once the authorities get involved, they take your capital, capital that you might choose to spend looking after your family and then deny you the care that you have paid for. That is just plain wrong.
 

sixthswan

Don't Welch
"I never said that I disagree with family members funding social care for their family, I think that is entirely right and proper. What I disagree with is that some people are required to do that and others are not, that is what I disagree with."

You are saying it is OK for family to spend loads of dosh on social care. You said it a few posts ago. So what is wrong with what I said in Post 49?
 

AFCDorset

Season Ticket Holder
"I never said that I disagree with family members funding social care for their family, I think that is entirely right and proper. What I disagree with is that some people are required to do that and others are not, that is what I disagree with."

You are saying it is OK for family to spend loads of dosh on social care. You said it a few posts ago. So what is wrong with what I said in Post 49?
It is fine for anyone to spend their money as the wish. That is what 'their money' is and why it is theirs.

Post 49 implies that spending money on care for the elderly implies making 'capitalists rich'. There is no logic in that whatsoever.
 

Foxgolfer

Season Ticket Holder
Liar
 

Attachments

  • 1B814CAD-EAEC-4669-AAEB-72A56BAE973E.jpeg
    1B814CAD-EAEC-4669-AAEB-72A56BAE973E.jpeg
    191.1 KB · Views: 6
  • 8AFB3941-244A-4A43-83DA-990A71F890AE.jpeg
    8AFB3941-244A-4A43-83DA-990A71F890AE.jpeg
    160.7 KB · Views: 6

SteveYork

Season Ticket Holder
I have thought about that but considered that a simple personal allowance for all might actually help those starting out or in low paid jobs.

Care to put the alternative case?
If everyone pays at least a little then it plants the idea in everyone that nothing is provided free, it's simply a matter of how it is paid for and by whom.
It means that you can dispose of the argument that only those who contribute should be entitled to stuff (including voting).
Simplifies the admin and processing.
Means governments can't fiddle around disguising tax changes by lifting the PA.
Works for flat or progressive depending on your view and what you are trying to achieve through taxation policy. So if you want it lower for those starting out or on low incomes you can do it.
 

AFCDorset

Season Ticket Holder
If everyone pays at least a little then it plants the idea in everyone that nothing is provided free, it's simply a matter of how it is paid for and by whom.
It means that you can dispose of the argument that only those who contribute should be entitled to stuff (including voting).
Simplifies the admin and processing.
Means governments can't fiddle around disguising tax changes by lifting the PA.
Works for flat or progressive depending on your view and what you are trying to achieve through taxation policy. So if you want it lower for those starting out or on low incomes you can do it.
I the concept of getting everyone to contribute is sound, I have an inbuilt aversion to any aspect of the 'something for nothing' culture.

That said, I quite like the idea of making things a little easier for the low paid and those starting out. An interesting discussion to be had there, my initial thoughts that it is too simple a concept to allow much in the way of fraud or government 'fiddling', but I could be convinced. The important part is a fair and equable system, I am happy to adjust the details to get that.

Also, I am not sure how lowering the rate for those on low incomes would work, a lower rate for modest incomes is pretty much the same as a PA, unless you are going to means test. More complications that we don't need, I want to do away with differential tax rates.
 

hackneyfox

Season Ticket Holder
Tax rates are currently set at 20, 40 & 45%.
What would you like the tax rate to be?
How varied would you PAs be?
 
“Subscribe
“Subscribe
Top