Taxing the successful has prevented growth in the UK. Labour introduced top up fees to prevent the poor escaping povetry as they fear the poor will not vote for them if they become rich. Pure evil.
@5786Dan Ed Balls? There was no growth under Labour in the 70's hence the reccession Thatcher inherited. Thatcher sold off certain industries this did not lose jobs it rose the cost of living, which was bad. Labour cost jobs with unions forcing businesses abroad.
The rich already do pay twice as much as the poor and the case for feeding yet more to the beast that is the state is still far from made.
The money would also not necessarily go to where Tony Benn suggests. As an example the chief executive of Wycombe District council (an unelected official) is on £250,000. Since when is that fair to the poor?
Education has never been free. Ever. Those that condemn student fees are basically arguing that the next generation of Accountants, Lawyers and Stockbrokers should have their education funded by todays binmen, shop workers and cleaners.
Graduates earn on average £100k more over their lifetime - there is nothing moral about demanding taxpayers - including the lowly paid - fund this.
@revelationmd that's one way of putting it, but it also includes all the highly paid, so considering that everyone's paying, it means that everyone has the freedom, financially, to get higher education. Education is THE most important thing in a developed society and economy, subsidising it is certainly not a burden on the taxpayer, it's an investment by the taxpayer for the whole of the society in which they live
@chcikenpencil People under the new system still have the freedom, financially, to get higher education. Nothing has changed in that respect.
Of course, as the country is in such massive debt and as any increase in expenditure would have to be financed through selling bonds, what you are really arguing for is for future generations to pay the University fees for todays graduates. That's immoral and no amount of dressing it up as investment changes that fact.
@revelationmd The binmen, shop worker and cleaners take more from welfare than they contribute thanks to educated average graduate, earning £100k more. Furthermore, a free education helps the average worker's family of our society most. Just as you can tell the quality of a society by how it takes care of its elderly just as surely you can tell the future of a society by how it takes care of its young.
@londonthistle You totally miss the point. It's irrelevant that the binmen takes more in welfare than he contributes. The fact is, he would pay even less in tax if he wasn't subsidising the next generation of lawyers. I don't begrudge lawyers their pay, quite the contrary, but I take the moral view that those that earn £100k over their working life more than their neighbours should not expect their neighbours to fund their training to enable that.
@revelationmd you seem to think that these lawyers started off life with the wealth needed to fund their education, it's an investment on behalf of the taxpayer. Say the graduate was on a bachelor's degree under the currently most used system, that means the government gives them a LOAN of £12500. For a £100k earner compared to the average binman wage (£30k), they'd be paying £35k tax a year compared to £7k. In one year their societal debt is paid off, and they still have a loan to pay.
@londonthistle You seem to think that only the government should be in the business of issuing loans. There are other means of getting a loan.
BTW, The government has no money. It's the taxpayer ie. the binman, who would issue the loan.
Also, we seem to have jumped from those earning £100k more over their working life to those earning 100k per year. To suggest that the low paid should fund the education of the £100k+ PER ANNUM worker is nothing short of morally bankrupt.
@revelationmd I am quite sure if you read my previous comment you wouldn't still be making the same reactionary points. Perhaps you did read it but failed to understand it in which case I'm sorry, I don't have the patience to spell it out any more.
thx to thacher we r heading for the "good old days" UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS so some of the best brains in the country will be excluded from education cause they are poor n some not so Bride rich kids will be included This is not the way for any country to prosper but good for the elite
Well that would be great in an honest world where we could trust the rich to pay their share. But we both know it isn’t. And your concept of ‘rich’, probably isn’t the same as ‘rich’ Benn is talking about. There’s a massive difference between a working a business up from the ground rich, and a no face corporations and banking sector Oxbridge graduate rich. Just like there’s a difference between taxing and not affecting those trying to work their way out of poverty or keeping people in poverty.
@lee18580 The problem is that you see taxes as a form of punishment for being successful.
The rich have become successful thanks to the labour of their workers, the money of the taxpayers and the purchasing power of the consumers - if they don't share their wealth with those who helped them accumulate it they themselves will suffer as a result of falling demand and increased tensions, and inevitably they'll lose everything as the not-haves take what is rightfully theirs by force.
@atosafi1 Very good interpretation of Marxist theory there. I like it. You're right too. The simplest way to ensure equality is the ensure that the richest of society pay more into the system as they will not notice that capital loss, as opposed to taxing the poorest of society. This CONservative notion that as the richest corporate elite get richer, it invokes the mythical "trickle down effect" is a deluded myth, a bedtime story they like to tell people to justify their policies.
@atosafi1 I'm currently a mature (30 yr old) BA (Hons) Politics student, and while i'm certainly not a communist, I do believe in equality. Taxation should be fair. I dont see how hammering the middle/working classes with heavy taxation and VAT rises while lining the pockets of the already uber rich elites equates to equality, and thats coming from me, an individual from a , to be fair, reasonably priveleged background. I hate the CONservatives and everything they stand for.
@LCStreetPhotographer Modern socialist parties believe in a strong welfare state and a society that builds upon liberty, equality & fraternity
They differ from communists in that they don't want to pit society against itself. They are strictly against the strong preying on the weak, but instead of class struggle they want to ally the interests of the workers, consumers, taxpayers, intelligentsia & management; to make them understand that they are ALL winners in a good society, as mentioned above
@LCStreetPhotographer The conservatives believe in high taxes also, which is unfair. If it was not for the top 5% of there would be no jobs as they create all the jobs.
@atosafi1 The "rich" are people who have created jobs, they should live tax free after creating so many jobs. The workers only have a job because the owner started a business, the owner should be thanked for starting a business.
@warriorprince1010 And the rich only have their wealth because of their workforce. Its a case of the proverbial "it works both ways". The issue isn't that people shoulder get wealthier. I'm all for those with an entrepreneurial spirit to get wealthier with riches beyond avarice, however, it should NOT be at the expense of their workforce.The workforce should benefit from the "trickle down effect", if that were to happen then Conservative policies would be great.
@warriorprince1010 However collabarative studies carried out by all British universities offering degrees in Politics, International Relations and/or Economics between 1994 and 2005 showed that, of what the study refers to as the big 400 companies used for the experiment, only 3..thats THREE, actually increased the wages or salaries of their middle and lower bracket workforce by an amount corresponding with their increased profits.
@warriorprince1010 I'll take just one key company from the study, though this is only a random sample. Chesapeake Corps Group, formerly Field Packaging, saw from 1995 to 1996 a profit increase from 1.2 Billion BPS to 1.9 Billion BPS, yet the workforce from middle tier to bottom (manual) saw a pay increase of just 2% wheras the owner/founder Jerry Kerrins pocketed 200 Million clear into his personal bank account and his upper staff had pay increases of 50% with bonuses of 30%.
@warriorprince1010 Basically put, its fine for the rich to get richer, but their workforce should ALWAYS benefit from the trickle down effect. It would be of no concern to the high roller high earnersl. DFS are a prime example, Lord Kirkham, owner/founder, increases the wages of his staff commesurate to the companies success...does he go without in doing so? NO, he positively coins it. However he has a sense of right and believes his success is dependant on his workforce.
@warriorprince1010 So, Conservative policies that allow huge tax avoidance and evasion (which while legal are certainly immoral) would be fine but they don't take into consideration one key element of human nature....?? and that is the Human Capacity for GREED. Hence a man like Dyson who, not satisfied that his own personal bank account would ONLY benefit by £162.3 million pounds in 201-12, failed to pay over £30 million in outstanding tax. Was £162.3 Million not enough then?
@warriorprince1010 Bear in mind that the figure of £162.3 million would have added to his already vast personal wealth. New Labour did nothing to rectify this system either. But as for the rich living tax free, that would be economic disaster and would spit in the face of equality. To do that would destroy Britains economy as they pay considerably more tax and so have a pivotal role in the UK economy. But they should still be held to account.
@atosafi1 Taxation is a disincentive. I'm not sure, how you concluded that non-taxation would damage consumers' purchasing power. How do you define 'not-have', or do you simply mean that any 'not-have' has the right to take from a 'have', unless there is a system of 'just' taxation in place? In my view, big business has benefited hugely from the shift to greater taxation and greater regulation. It is virtually impossible for a small business to be competitive nowadays.
@SkullOfYorick Because pooling our resources allows us to provide qualitative, cheap public services to citizens and domestic industries; services which, if left in private hands, would lead to dramatic cost increases as a result of being a natural monopoly.
Knowing that there's a robust, generous social safety net there for you incase of sickness, accident or unemployment will boost your consumer confidence and purchasing power, to the benefit of the nation, business, consumers and workers.
@SkullOfYorick As for small businesses; that's a given. The system in-and-of-itself is fundamentally flawed in that every market begins with a dozen companies fighting for the consumers, but, eventually, 3-5 immensely powerful, multi-national predators are left standing as they have more resources and better contacts
Strong & strict regulations, direct ownership through the public sector and economic democratization through banning of profit-motives & promotion of cooperatives is the solution
Taxing the successful has prevented growth in the UK. Labour introduced top up fees to prevent the poor escaping povetry as they fear the poor will not vote for them if they become rich. Pure evil.
warriorprince1010 2 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 That's balls. There had been growth under Labour, it was just large industries had been sold off in the years before that.
5786Dan 1 week ago
@5786Dan Ed Balls? There was no growth under Labour in the 70's hence the reccession Thatcher inherited. Thatcher sold off certain industries this did not lose jobs it rose the cost of living, which was bad. Labour cost jobs with unions forcing businesses abroad.
warriorprince1010 1 week ago
@warriorprince1010 Balls as in bollocks. So you are for the exploitation of the British workforce?
5786Dan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if sat in a room all day with this man you learn so much he has a great mind and I respect him so much you don't get any spin from him
homer151 1 month ago
The rich already do pay twice as much as the poor and the case for feeding yet more to the beast that is the state is still far from made.
The money would also not necessarily go to where Tony Benn suggests. As an example the chief executive of Wycombe District council (an unelected official) is on £250,000. Since when is that fair to the poor?
tdp1909 2 months ago
@atosafi1 why do the rich see taxes as a form of punishment? they need to change their way of thinking.
Pepper6464 2 months ago
Education has never been free. Ever. Those that condemn student fees are basically arguing that the next generation of Accountants, Lawyers and Stockbrokers should have their education funded by todays binmen, shop workers and cleaners.
Graduates earn on average £100k more over their lifetime - there is nothing moral about demanding taxpayers - including the lowly paid - fund this.
revelationmd 3 months ago
@revelationmd that's one way of putting it, but it also includes all the highly paid, so considering that everyone's paying, it means that everyone has the freedom, financially, to get higher education. Education is THE most important thing in a developed society and economy, subsidising it is certainly not a burden on the taxpayer, it's an investment by the taxpayer for the whole of the society in which they live
chcikenpencil 3 months ago
@chcikenpencil People under the new system still have the freedom, financially, to get higher education. Nothing has changed in that respect.
Of course, as the country is in such massive debt and as any increase in expenditure would have to be financed through selling bonds, what you are really arguing for is for future generations to pay the University fees for todays graduates. That's immoral and no amount of dressing it up as investment changes that fact.
revelationmd 3 months ago
@revelationmd The binmen, shop worker and cleaners take more from welfare than they contribute thanks to educated average graduate, earning £100k more. Furthermore, a free education helps the average worker's family of our society most. Just as you can tell the quality of a society by how it takes care of its elderly just as surely you can tell the future of a society by how it takes care of its young.
londonthistle 2 months ago
@londonthistle You totally miss the point. It's irrelevant that the binmen takes more in welfare than he contributes. The fact is, he would pay even less in tax if he wasn't subsidising the next generation of lawyers. I don't begrudge lawyers their pay, quite the contrary, but I take the moral view that those that earn £100k over their working life more than their neighbours should not expect their neighbours to fund their training to enable that.
revelationmd 1 month ago
@revelationmd you seem to think that these lawyers started off life with the wealth needed to fund their education, it's an investment on behalf of the taxpayer. Say the graduate was on a bachelor's degree under the currently most used system, that means the government gives them a LOAN of £12500. For a £100k earner compared to the average binman wage (£30k), they'd be paying £35k tax a year compared to £7k. In one year their societal debt is paid off, and they still have a loan to pay.
londonthistle 1 month ago
@londonthistle You seem to think that only the government should be in the business of issuing loans. There are other means of getting a loan.
BTW, The government has no money. It's the taxpayer ie. the binman, who would issue the loan.
Also, we seem to have jumped from those earning £100k more over their working life to those earning 100k per year. To suggest that the low paid should fund the education of the £100k+ PER ANNUM worker is nothing short of morally bankrupt.
revelationmd 1 month ago
@revelationmd I am quite sure if you read my previous comment you wouldn't still be making the same reactionary points. Perhaps you did read it but failed to understand it in which case I'm sorry, I don't have the patience to spell it out any more.
londonthistle 1 month ago
thx to thacher we r heading for the "good old days" UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS so some of the best brains in the country will be excluded from education cause they are poor n some not so Bride rich kids will be included This is not the way for any country to prosper but good for the elite
polygamous1 3 months ago
So people who have become rich honestly without hurting or exploiting anybody deserve to be taxed more so than people who are perhaps less well off?
lee18580 4 months ago
Well that would be great in an honest world where we could trust the rich to pay their share. But we both know it isn’t. And your concept of ‘rich’, probably isn’t the same as ‘rich’ Benn is talking about. There’s a massive difference between a working a business up from the ground rich, and a no face corporations and banking sector Oxbridge graduate rich. Just like there’s a difference between taxing and not affecting those trying to work their way out of poverty or keeping people in poverty.
TYwokki 4 months ago
@lee18580
No. You tax them because they can afford it.
tyruk 3 months ago
@lee18580 The problem is that you see taxes as a form of punishment for being successful.
The rich have become successful thanks to the labour of their workers, the money of the taxpayers and the purchasing power of the consumers - if they don't share their wealth with those who helped them accumulate it they themselves will suffer as a result of falling demand and increased tensions, and inevitably they'll lose everything as the not-haves take what is rightfully theirs by force.
atosafi1 2 months ago 11
@atosafi1 Very good interpretation of Marxist theory there. I like it. You're right too. The simplest way to ensure equality is the ensure that the richest of society pay more into the system as they will not notice that capital loss, as opposed to taxing the poorest of society. This CONservative notion that as the richest corporate elite get richer, it invokes the mythical "trickle down effect" is a deluded myth, a bedtime story they like to tell people to justify their policies.
LCStreetPhotographer 1 month ago
@atosafi1 I'm currently a mature (30 yr old) BA (Hons) Politics student, and while i'm certainly not a communist, I do believe in equality. Taxation should be fair. I dont see how hammering the middle/working classes with heavy taxation and VAT rises while lining the pockets of the already uber rich elites equates to equality, and thats coming from me, an individual from a , to be fair, reasonably priveleged background. I hate the CONservatives and everything they stand for.
LCStreetPhotographer 1 month ago
@LCStreetPhotographer Modern socialist parties believe in a strong welfare state and a society that builds upon liberty, equality & fraternity
They differ from communists in that they don't want to pit society against itself. They are strictly against the strong preying on the weak, but instead of class struggle they want to ally the interests of the workers, consumers, taxpayers, intelligentsia & management; to make them understand that they are ALL winners in a good society, as mentioned above
atosafi1 1 month ago
@LCStreetPhotographer The conservatives believe in high taxes also, which is unfair. If it was not for the top 5% of there would be no jobs as they create all the jobs.
warriorprince1010 3 weeks ago
@atosafi1 The "rich" are people who have created jobs, they should live tax free after creating so many jobs. The workers only have a job because the owner started a business, the owner should be thanked for starting a business.
warriorprince1010 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 And the rich only have their wealth because of their workforce. Its a case of the proverbial "it works both ways". The issue isn't that people shoulder get wealthier. I'm all for those with an entrepreneurial spirit to get wealthier with riches beyond avarice, however, it should NOT be at the expense of their workforce.The workforce should benefit from the "trickle down effect", if that were to happen then Conservative policies would be great.
LCStreetPhotographer 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 However collabarative studies carried out by all British universities offering degrees in Politics, International Relations and/or Economics between 1994 and 2005 showed that, of what the study refers to as the big 400 companies used for the experiment, only 3..thats THREE, actually increased the wages or salaries of their middle and lower bracket workforce by an amount corresponding with their increased profits.
LCStreetPhotographer 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 I'll take just one key company from the study, though this is only a random sample. Chesapeake Corps Group, formerly Field Packaging, saw from 1995 to 1996 a profit increase from 1.2 Billion BPS to 1.9 Billion BPS, yet the workforce from middle tier to bottom (manual) saw a pay increase of just 2% wheras the owner/founder Jerry Kerrins pocketed 200 Million clear into his personal bank account and his upper staff had pay increases of 50% with bonuses of 30%.
LCStreetPhotographer 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 Basically put, its fine for the rich to get richer, but their workforce should ALWAYS benefit from the trickle down effect. It would be of no concern to the high roller high earnersl. DFS are a prime example, Lord Kirkham, owner/founder, increases the wages of his staff commesurate to the companies success...does he go without in doing so? NO, he positively coins it. However he has a sense of right and believes his success is dependant on his workforce.
LCStreetPhotographer 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 So, Conservative policies that allow huge tax avoidance and evasion (which while legal are certainly immoral) would be fine but they don't take into consideration one key element of human nature....?? and that is the Human Capacity for GREED. Hence a man like Dyson who, not satisfied that his own personal bank account would ONLY benefit by £162.3 million pounds in 201-12, failed to pay over £30 million in outstanding tax. Was £162.3 Million not enough then?
LCStreetPhotographer 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 Bear in mind that the figure of £162.3 million would have added to his already vast personal wealth. New Labour did nothing to rectify this system either. But as for the rich living tax free, that would be economic disaster and would spit in the face of equality. To do that would destroy Britains economy as they pay considerably more tax and so have a pivotal role in the UK economy. But they should still be held to account.
LCStreetPhotographer 3 weeks ago
@warriorprince1010 But you are right that Big businesses create jobs for the willing.
LCStreetPhotographer 3 weeks ago
@LCStreetPhotographer No small and medium businesses create jobs. Most big companies are owned by share holders.
warriorprince1010 3 weeks ago
@atosafi1 People become rich due to hard work. Unless you support Labour like the bankers and the BBC, in which case you steal money.
warriorprince1010 2 weeks ago
@atosafi1 Taxation is a disincentive. I'm not sure, how you concluded that non-taxation would damage consumers' purchasing power. How do you define 'not-have', or do you simply mean that any 'not-have' has the right to take from a 'have', unless there is a system of 'just' taxation in place? In my view, big business has benefited hugely from the shift to greater taxation and greater regulation. It is virtually impossible for a small business to be competitive nowadays.
SkullOfYorick 1 week ago
@SkullOfYorick Because pooling our resources allows us to provide qualitative, cheap public services to citizens and domestic industries; services which, if left in private hands, would lead to dramatic cost increases as a result of being a natural monopoly.
Knowing that there's a robust, generous social safety net there for you incase of sickness, accident or unemployment will boost your consumer confidence and purchasing power, to the benefit of the nation, business, consumers and workers.
atosafi1 1 week ago
@SkullOfYorick As for small businesses; that's a given. The system in-and-of-itself is fundamentally flawed in that every market begins with a dozen companies fighting for the consumers, but, eventually, 3-5 immensely powerful, multi-national predators are left standing as they have more resources and better contacts
Strong & strict regulations, direct ownership through the public sector and economic democratization through banning of profit-motives & promotion of cooperatives is the solution
atosafi1 1 week ago
wow! good point!!!
0ct0parr0t 5 months ago
lol nice taking this from sicko
zzzzJAGJEETzzzz 6 months ago
@zzzzJAGJEETzzzz I'm pretty sure Sicko took this from Benn.
atosafi1 2 months ago 6