Brexit - Part 3? British elections 2017

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Brexit - Part 3? British elections 2017

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

Awrrr
15589 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1798647 12-Jun-2017 17:01

Geektastic:

I agree. As long as people think they are free to have as many children as they want, the population will increase ad infinitum until it eventually corrects itself either through war, famine or disease.

The wisdom of one who does not like any number of children.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Norton Secure VPN

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Norton Secure VPN helps secure private information using bank-grade encryption when using public Wi-Fi on your PC, Mac, or mobile device.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1798650 12-Jun-2017 17:04

Geektastic:

I agree. As long as people think they are free to have as many children as they want, the population will increase ad infinitum until it eventually corrects itself either through war, famine or disease.

I agree with you - but it seems to be one of those "big problems" that defy rational agreed fair solutions.

Of course we know that in "the West" that those most able to support large broods (that's "us") on average don't, fertility rate is below population replacement.

Fertility rate is inversely proportionate to wealth globally. The solution to the problem is staring everyone in the face.

MikeB4

17136 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1798651 12-Jun-2017 17:05

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

It's not actually fair that you should pay more just because you happen to have more. That does not fit with any definition of fairness I would accept.

That would depend on how you got more. If you happened to be born into a family that lives in the right neighbourhood where you grow up with the right accent and they can afford the right university for you where you make the right contacts that lubricate you through a privileged, highly-paid career, then I would say it is eminently fair.

Tax rates should be fair, the fairest tax rate is a flat rate say 30% for all or consumption taxation as opposed to earnings/asset based.

frankv

5110 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1798652 12-Jun-2017 17:07

Geektastic:

frankv:

Yeah... it does depend on other countries also forcing the rich to pay their share. Make it a residence requirement; you must pay tax to the UK pro rata to the number of days you live there. I doubt that the rich would be willing to spend most of their time in Panama or Lesotho or Cayman Islands or whatever tax haven they're hiding their money in.

It's not actually fair that you should pay more just because you happen to have more. That does not fit with any definition of fairness I would accept.

I think there's a correlation between having more and getting more benefit from society. For example, the money spent by Police on catching burglars shouldn't have to be paid by a poor homeless person (yeah, I know, he probably doesn't pay any tax, but it's the principle of the thing). A rich person such as you or I gets a lot more benefit out of the money spent on international air transport regulation than a poor person. All the money spent on governance and elections is wasted from the point of view of a person who doesn't have a voice in our democracy. Yes, poor people do benefit from money spent on infrastructure, but I believe that rich people benefit far more. So it *is* fair that they pay more.

I don't mind paying *my* share of tax at all, but I do object to paying their share as well. And I particularly object to people with vastly more wealth and income than me gaming the system to avoid tax; haven't they got *any* altruism/conscience/ethics?

frankv

5110 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1798654 12-Jun-2017 17:15

Geektastic:

As long as people think they are free to have as many children as they want, the population will increase ad infinitum until it eventually corrects itself either through war, famine or disease.

That's clearly untrue. If anywhere, European/American people should think they are free to have as many children as they want. But they don't, and their population isn't increasing. The countries with the highest standard of living are the ones with the lowest birth rate.

Within two or three generations of the introduction of adequate sanitation, health care, and water and food supplies, birth rates drop. In my view, it is the certainty that children will reach adulthood (i.e. lack of war, famine or disease) that causes birth rates to fall.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
15589 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1798747 12-Jun-2017 18:01

MikeB4:

Tax rates should be fair, the fairest tax rate is a flat rate say 30% for all or consumption taxation as opposed to earnings/asset based.

I also think taxes on earnings is an outmoded concept that should be abandoned, except for the big corporations mentioned above. Big companies that sell here but then export their earnings without buying anything locally need different treatment. Maybe there could be some kind of 'sales' tax in which the manufacturer had to pay so much for each item sold. But personal income tax should be abandoned in favour of consumption tax, with big exceptions for essentials like food, non-luxury clothing, and necessary appliances. Yes, people will start quibbling about the exceptions and looking for ways around them but this can be managed.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

shk292

2390 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1798772 12-Jun-2017 18:37

Fred99:

Fertility rate is inversely proportionate to wealth globally. The solution to the problem is staring everyone in the face.

Granted, but every time someone mentions that sort of solution, people go all Godwin's and start saying how bad eugenics really is.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
15589 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1798774 12-Jun-2017 18:42

I think he meant that if we help poor people get less poor, their birth rate will decline. Of course you weren't being intentionally obtuse, were you?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

SJB

2167 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1798809 12-Jun-2017 19:23

There are some exceptions to the 'better off - less babies' rule.

Israel for example has the highest birth rate in the developed world. There are a few societies where there are factors other than money at play.

shk292

2390 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1798850 12-Jun-2017 19:34

Rikkitic:

I think he meant that if we help poor people get less poor, their birth rate will decline. Of course you weren't being intentionally obtuse, were you?

Would I do that?

Seriously though, that sounds like a very high risk strategy - there must be a high chance that for a few generations at least, you'd just get even higher population growth in the poor areas due to better nutrition, health etc. And if the climate change "alarmists" are to be believed, we can't afford that sort of growth.

Tricky one. Call me a right wing idealogue, but massive wealth distribution doesn't have a great track record in fixing problems.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1798924 12-Jun-2017 20:16

shk292:

Rikkitic:

I think he meant that if we help poor people get less poor, their birth rate will decline. Of course you weren't being intentionally obtuse, were you?

Would I do that?

Seriously though, that sounds like a very high risk strategy - there must be a high chance that for a few generations at least, you'd just get even higher population growth in the poor areas due to better nutrition, health etc. And if the climate change "alarmists" are to be believed, we can't afford that sort of growth.

Tricky one. Call me a right wing idealogue, but massive wealth distribution doesn't have a great track record in fixing problems.

Oh please - you have to be kidding.

You've constructed an argument to say that you shouldn't bother to help lift those in poverty out of poverty, because it's not good for them or for the planet?

ROFL.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1798926 12-Jun-2017 20:21

SJB:

There are some exceptions to the 'better off - less babies' rule.

Israel for example has the highest birth rate in the developed world. There are a few societies where there are factors other than money at play.

Survival instinct.

It does get down to some primitive instinct. It wasn't coincidence that the "baby boom" was after the worst war in human history, and that some people get horny at funerals and horror movies.

shk292

2390 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1798943 12-Jun-2017 20:43

Fred99:

Oh please - you have to be kidding.

You've constructed an argument to say that you shouldn't bother to help lift those in poverty out of poverty, because it's not good for them or for the planet?

ROFL.

I never said it wouldn't be good for the poor people. But, we keep getting told that modern industrial society is bad for the planet, and the rich nations such as USA, and developing nations such as China and India, cause most damage. So is it really such a long stretch of the bow to reason that lifting a populous, poor subsistence agricultural nation into the status of say India or China would cause environmental problems?

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1798946 12-Jun-2017 20:46

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

It's not actually fair that you should pay more just because you happen to have more. That does not fit with any definition of fairness I would accept.

That would depend on how you got more. If you happened to be born into a family that lives in the right neighbourhood where you grow up with the right accent and they can afford the right university for you where you make the right contacts that lubricate you through a privileged, highly-paid career, then I would say it is eminently fair.

I used to hear that pitiful argument on the council estate I was brought up on. So much so that I pulled my finger out of my arse and decided enough is enough, it was time to get on with my life and not see myself as one of the "under privileged", i.e. the forerunners of today's "the world owes me" generation.

Geektastic

16796 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1799014 13-Jun-2017 00:57

frankv:

Geektastic:

frankv:

Yeah... it does depend on other countries also forcing the rich to pay their share. Make it a residence requirement; you must pay tax to the UK pro rata to the number of days you live there. I doubt that the rich would be willing to spend most of their time in Panama or Lesotho or Cayman Islands or whatever tax haven they're hiding their money in.

It's not actually fair that you should pay more just because you happen to have more. That does not fit with any definition of fairness I would accept.

I think there's a correlation between having more and getting more benefit from society. For example, the money spent by Police on catching burglars shouldn't have to be paid by a poor homeless person (yeah, I know, he probably doesn't pay any tax, but it's the principle of the thing). A rich person such as you or I gets a lot more benefit out of the money spent on international air transport regulation than a poor person. All the money spent on governance and elections is wasted from the point of view of a person who doesn't have a voice in our democracy. Yes, poor people do benefit from money spent on infrastructure, but I believe that rich people benefit far more. So it *is* fair that they pay more.

I don't mind paying *my* share of tax at all, but I do object to paying their share as well. And I particularly object to people with vastly more wealth and income than me gaming the system to avoid tax; haven't they got *any* altruism/conscience/ethics?

You see, I would say that the better off actually benefit less from government expenditure on the whole. For example, they alleviate burden on the health service by affording private care. They alleviate burden on the school system by educating children in private fee paying schools whilst at the same time paying the cost of educating their children in a state system. They employ more people (everyone from lawyers and accountants down to the pool guy). Generally they are law abiding so make very little use of the police. Obviously they make very little use of benefits and other state support mechanisms.

Yes, they benefit from roads and general infrastructure etc the same as anyone else but they also, for example, pay more in local taxes due to the asinine idea that what you should pay for running local government is somehow related to the current value of your house.

Flat rate taxes are better and where they are used, seem to evoke less desire to avoid them and result in a higher tax take.

People who earn more money are not a form of cow to be milked. We do not extend the principle of "you have more so we can take more" to other things like, say, cars, farms or houses. Why extend it to money?

On principle I have not the slightest objection to people who use their intelligence to pay the minimum lawful tax: anyone who pays more tax than they have to is either an idiot or well off to the point that they do not need the money they are earning.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10