AndrewJB wrote:- I'm afraid austerity was real.
- I don't understand why you'd want to tie a governments hands by saying no more than forty percent of a person's income should be taxed away (is this in the Bible or something?). Already we do that, so people paying back student loans could be paying sixty percent out of their salaries - or are you going to lump that in with mortgage and credit card payments? It's like that 19th Century argument that property is sacrosanct. The argument has to be considered holistically. If I'm being taxed at 90% on my income over £1 Million, I might feel disappointed, but it's not going to kill me. At the other end of the spectrum, people do actually die as a result of public services being underfunded. Seven hundred deaths of homeless people in the last year, for example. From a moral standpoint - especially when you get into the stratosphere of wealth - there is no argument for people hanging on to more of what they've earned, when other people in the same country have a lot less. You can argue that these people don't care about anyone else, and are mobile - and I say there's nothing wrong with the country taking punitive measures against such people - deny them access to our markets (once we have our sovereignty back we can do this), tax their passports and foreign earnings, and I'm sure there are people with more able imaginations than I have that could come up with other incentives to get people to pay in.
- with multinational corporations the best way to prevent them avoiding tax is for countries to work together. I hope that even though we're leaving the EU, Britain works with the rest of the EU to accomplish this.
Andrew, Andrew, please, let's try and get away from your idea that a few people with high incomes are the cause of other people going hungry and worse, that you argue. Who says that it's the responsibility of people with high incomes to fund public services at any greater rate than anyone else? There are only a few people with "high incomes." There are lots and lots more with more moderate incomes and more still lower down the income scale - and yes, some with very little. You might as well argue that the people who are earning £1 million should be paying taxes of £10 million - which, of course, is nonsense. So, why not put a ceiling on taxes that is equal, as a percentage, for everyone the same; I pay 40% and you pay 40%, why not? Funding public services is not about a few wealthy people, it's about all of us.
You mention deaths of homeless people. I wish no one was living on the streets. How many of these are doing this because "public services are underfunded?" How many are doing it because they've got a drug issue or some other personal/social choice? How many are offered assistance, but decline to take the opportunities offered? Yes, I know some, maybe many, have mental health issues - and, maybe the health service let's them down. But, how many of these are a result of not taxing some people at 90%? Where do we go when we are taxing people as you propose, but people are still dying, homeless on the streets?
I do worry about your "socialism" that wants the UK to only look after people in the UK - except to work with other wealthy European nations to do this. Don't the people with real poverty in Africa, South America and Asia matter to people who "proclaim socialism?"
