S
SardiniaFox
Guest
So basically the poor support the wealthy?
How on earth did you come to that conclusion from what I said, FFS get a grip.So basically the poor support the wealthy?
Like I said Ss, we can afford it, but that is not my issue. It is the current rationing system that I have the issue with.
Easily.How on earth did you come to that conclusion from what I said, FFS get a grip.
Given our current system, more or less, then I think social care paid for by the taxpayer should be available to all.Would you not agree then, with everyone have access to the same social care?
Read the post again, 'flat percentage'.Easily.
You want flat tax which disproportionately affects those on lower income.
Tax cuts for the wealthy under Thatcher squandered North Sea Oil and created this problem.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!
We need an equivalent to Godwins Law for Margaret Thatcher.Tax cuts for the wealthy under Thatcher squandered North Sea Oil and created this problem.
You say you are a radical thinker. Try thinking.
That tar brush of yours is huge.Why should I have to spend money that I have saved for my future on people who have pissed away their own future?
Believe what you will. You reap what you sow.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.
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.The people with real money do not pay Tax, Its the old what is called middle class that ends up paying for everyone.
It certainly is, I do not like people taking the piss, especially when it costs me my hard earned tax paid capital.That tar brush of yours is huge.
I only wish that was so. It would be nice to have a real influence on the future of this country.Believe what you will. You reap what you sow.
The people with real money do not pay Tax, Its the old what is called middle class that ends up paying for everyone.
It is socialism Rf, reduced to the absolute basics.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.
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.
No personal allowanceNo. 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.
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.No personal allowance
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...
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.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.
It is fine for anyone to spend their money as the wish. That is what 'their money' is and why it is theirs."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?
Paying for care does not automatically mean that you pay for a care home. There are other ways to do it.Who do you think gets the dosh?
Who would have thought it?Social care changes at-a-glance - BBC News
The government's promising to restrict costs for families - but what is changing and how will it be funded?www.bbc.com
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.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?
I the concept of getting everyone to contribute is sound, I have an inbuilt aversion to any aspect of the 'something for nothing' culture.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.