Monaco avoid 75% super tax

[scaramanga]

(Setting aside just how much I dislike the use of the word "war" for something like this, not because I'm so ****ing PC, but because as a descriptive word it's poor, bordering on useless)

Arguably it's a war the poor have always lost in the end.

Historically it's not always been a war the rich have always won though, at least in my opinion. In addition to making sure that there's enough financial stability to keep making money and to stay rich (avoiding a major depression) there are two ways to keep winning this war for the rich, seems to be either:

A. Keep the floor of the society high enough to where the poor won't rebel. This seems to be the sustainable model,

B. Have a police state/militaristic control over the population. This doesn't really seem sustainable.

Ignoring concerns about human compassion completely I think it should be in the interest of the rich class to both keep the financial situation relatively stable and to keep the poorer classes relatively happy.

Isn't that what we do with cigarettes/alcohol/x - factor etc?

As for the rich losing, recessions are temporary and whilst a few may lose their heads in a revolution, the effects are always temporary. Go to Paris and eat at the Grand Vefour and stay a night at the Plaza Athenee - it's like the revolution never happened.

 

[scaramanga]

I agree with DZA.

If at any point I manage to give less of a **** about what other people think of me, I'll be sure to let you both know.

In the meantime, let's get these tax problems sorted.

 

[elltrev]

On education; my wife works in deprived schools - she always has. Aside from the very, very few excellent teachers in these schools, many of the kids are getting little or no education anyway.

That hasn't to this point affected my life other than making it a little more difficult to employ people who can read/write for our factories - immigration has solved that problem.

Health care is a massive problem in this country. The NHS is one of the world's top 10 or 12 employers - which in a country of less than 65M people is just scandalous.

I believe that for any system to be working properly some basic principles of fairness need to be involved - "you get what you pay for" being one of them. I pay much more towards the NHS than most people. If that meant I got a private room, faster treatment, the best doctors, etc. then I'd ditch my private health care and happily pay the tax towards the NHS.

I pay more road tax and fuel duty than most. Again, if that meant that people couldn't chug along at 80mph in my way in the outside lane in their banged-up, old Vauxhalls then I'd happily pay it.

My issue is that I pay more and get (at best) the same as anyone else, usually less.

So, genuine question - do you resent some of your income going towards the education and healthcare of people on lower incomes than you? (That seems like the unavoidable logical inference of your bolded comments above).

Also, can I ask what job you do and what your salary is? (Obviously I understand if you don't want to say!)

 

[Neymar]

So, genuine question - do you resent some of your income going towards the education and healthcare of people on lower incomes than you? (That seems like the unavoidable logical inference of your bolded comments above).

Maybe he just wants a level of health care/ education that reflects his level of contribution. Surely that's fair enough

 

[elltrev]

Maybe he just wants a level of health care/ education that reflects his level of contribution. Surely that's fair enough

Indeed it is, in and of itself. But as I said, the unavoidable logical inference of that is that he doesn't want his money going towards others' healthcare / education (given that that is the reason why his healthcare / education doesn't reflect his own contribution).

 

[Neymar]

elltrev, do you want your income spent on other's education/healthcare?

if so, why don't you contribute more, and let other's contribute to "projects" that they are more happy to support?

I just don't like the idea that other's can dictate where my money can go, as i think it partially impedes on freedom and liberty

 

[elltrev]

elltrev, do you want your income spent on other's education/healthcare?

if so, why don't you contribute more, and let other's contribute to "projects" that they are more happy to support?

I just don't like the idea that other's can dictate where my money can go, as i think it partially impedes on freedom and liberty

Yes - I have no problem with some of my income contributing to the education and healthcare of people on lower incomes than me.

But you're moving onto a new point - not the amount of taxation, but what it gets spent on. I am more in agreement with you on this point - I'd like to see a system in which after all the essentials are covered, individuals get to choose what charitable cause(s) / organisations they want the rest of their taxes to be spent on.

However, in practice I think this kind of system would be incredibly difficult to administrate.

In theory I'd also have no problem with a system where taxes were lower but charitable donations went up proportionally, but in practice I'm not sure that they would.

 

[scaramanga]

So, genuine question - do you resent some of your income going towards the education and healthcare of people on lower incomes than you? (That seems like the unavoidable logical inference of your bolded comments above).

Also, can I ask what job you do and what your salary is? (Obviously I understand if you don't want to say!)

Resent? No, not at all.

There's two parts that make up my belief that I shouldn't be paying - the aforementioned value for money, and a firmly held belief that in almost every case the government is the wrong organisation to get something done.

I believe the consumer/customer is king and it's inherently wrong to have him pay for something from which he doesn't receive value.

I work as a Management Accountant (soon to be FD) for a UK/European SME. My salary isn't all that much, but my family won't have to worry about state schooling/healthcare. We'll always have to work though.

I also realise that under my system there are those who will pay and deserve more than me and I'm fine with that.

 

[elltrev]

Resent? No, not at all.

There's two parts that make up my belief that I shouldn't be paying - the aforementioned value for money, and a firmly held belief that in almost every case the government is the wrong organisation to get something done.

I believe the consumer/customer is king and it's inherently wrong to have him pay for something from which he doesn't receive value.

I work as a Management Accountant (soon to be FD) for a UK/European SME. My salary isn't all that much, but my family won't have to worry about state schooling/healthcare. We'll always have to work though.

I also realise that under my system there are those who will pay and deserve more than me and I'm fine with that.

So let me rephrase the question - in your ideal system, would any of your money go towards the education/healthcare of people on lower incomes than you?

 

[scaramanga]

So let me rephrase the question - in your ideal system, would any of your money go towards the education/healthcare of people on lower incomes than you?

Yes, because in an ideal world our education system would be good enough for me to send my son to a state school. The schools would be separated along the old grammar school lines so that he would be educated with like minded, academic students. In such an ideal world though, those that won't gain anything from education would go to a trade school.

And in an ideal world the healthcare system would be good enough for me to trust my family's lives to it - we wouldn't have to share rooms or wait for treatment.

Obviously both of these would be privately run but publicly funded - that way I could pay the same proportion but pay far less overall.

 

[elltrev]

Yes, because in an ideal world our education system would be good enough for me to send my son to a state school. The schools would be separated along the old grammar school lines so that he would be educated with like minded, academic students. In such an ideal world though, those that won't gain anything from education would go to a trade school.

And in an ideal world the healthcare system would be good enough for me to trust my family's lives to it - we wouldn't have to share rooms or wait for treatment.

Obviously both of these would be privately run but publicly funded - that way I could pay the same proportion but pay far less overall.

What about your ideal system in the real world?

 

[scaramanga]

What about your ideal system in the real world?

In the real world we can at least attempt to make the system fair.

My kids won't go to a state school in the real world, but the government can discount my schooling costs from my tax bill - after all, I'm saving them the cost of educating a student.

I'm pretty sure letting the private sector run healthcare would save enough money to provide a system where I wouldn't have to wait for a surgeon or share a room.

Roads are fixable too. Just change the road tax to some kind of toll system and ban those who don't work during rush hour. Keep the outside lane(s) for those who pay the most. The problem with this scenario is that it would require some kind of camera network. So the speed limit would need increasing massively - say 100mph for the more capable cars. I don't think I'd trust the government not to have some kind of project creep on the data usage though - I wouldn't trust either of the electable parties in that way.