Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tonymaillman

Classless society

Recommended Posts

Obviously something that will NEVER happen (I personally hate the class system and labelling of people)......... question is, will the divide between the 'so called' 3 classes (upper, middle, lower/working) ever narrow ? or do you think it will continue as it is now by widening even more ? back to Victorian values ? or is it back there already ?

I might add that the current trend of the 3 tier class system has been around since the 1400's, the 'new middle men traders' acting as a go between in the trading of goods (buying from the workers who produced them and selling at markets etc to those who could afford to buy them, which in the case of a lot of goods would be the gentry and nobility). Profiteering for doing very little or no work, hence we have the phrase nowadays of trying to 'cut out the middle man'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is Tony, there are far too many people today that just have no class at all and end up with kids called Christiano!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will always be a class system.

And it doesn't really matter.

By the way, there are 4 classes. You forgot the millionaire sports lot.

 

It is a bit different to yesteryear as there is a lot of "New money".

But the environment, education and intellect of people, means that some are cleverer than others, better educated, and better paid.

 

At the end of the day, even in the poor areas you have a class system, where some are better than others in that they are brighter, get better jobs, and so have more money, a car, a house and holidays abroad.

 

Just think Tony, if it wasn't for the rich, we would all be a lot poorer due to the extra tax we would have to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an assumption in your post Peter, that "the rich" are paying sufficient to save the Plebs paying more tax: the rich have never had it so good, with the wealth gap wider now than ever since the 30s. :roll: As for "class"; that's based on two factors - money and breeding; many don't have both! :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by observer:

There's an assumption in your post Peter, that "the rich" are paying sufficient to save the Plebs paying more tax: the rich have never had it so good, with the wealth gap wider now than ever since the 30s. :roll: As for "class"; that's based on two factors - money and breeding; many don't have both! :confused:

Yes, maybe. But if we had a classless society, everyone would have the same income regardless of job, so there would be a need for higher taxation.

It could be said, that those with all the millions do pay more tax than a lot of us do, unless they have good accountants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by observer:

They can afford "GOOD accountants" who ensure they pay minimal tax. :roll:

Trouble is Obs... if we were paying 80% tax at the current threshold, there would be a lot of "ordinary" people paying it and a lot of rich accountants helping their rich clients pay nothing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairly simple Baz: Put all our Tax Inspectors on a percentage; which would mean they chase the big fish rather than the tadpoles. :wink:

 

[ 08.02.2008, 00:23: Message edited by: observer ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you want to take people out of tax altogether? Surely thats what gives everyone of us who pay tax the right to moan and complain about it?

 

And as for supertax, that was probably gotten rid of to stop the mass migration of all the business types and to help the Tory rich boys.

 

As has been said, most people earning daft amounts of money pay little tax because of loopholes which allow them to do so. Close one loophole and you will no doubt open a dozen more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raising tax thresholds would mean that the poorly paid (and OAPs) wouldn't have to pay any tax, and the overbureaucratic tax credit system could be scrapped. The downside of this is that NuLabour would lose their image of being generous to the poor by giving them some of their money back instead of simply not taking the money off them in the first place. Fiscal drag over the last 10 years has ensured that more and more people are being drageed into both lower and higher tax brackets. You don't have to be a rich city type to be in the upper tax bracket these days. Ansd as has been pointed out the super rich avoid a lot of their tax liabilities in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while the rich do pay more tax, it unfortunately does not reflect the quality of life sacrifice that the poorer workers pay.

 

if for example joe blog earned 2k a month

after income tax and NI (which after all is a tax to a named service) he probably brings home ?1500

add a monthy council tax payment, of ?100, fuel tax for a medium comute ?75 a month, road tax, ?15 he is left with ?1310, if then everything he bougght with his remeining money was taxed at VAT rate (something the average wealthier person would offset to a business expense and not have to pay) @17.5%

means he actualy feels the benefit of ?1105 give or take a odd few pence, nearly half his income.

 

now do rich people sacrifice half their income....not even close.

 

and then there is the hidden tax...which goes not to the government, but to private equity.

 

after all, joe blogs cannot buy things out right, he at some point in his life will need a loan or mortgage to buy land or property owned by ancient deed by the rich class, the intrest he pays on this loan is a private tax paid to the rich for the use of the land...

 

[ 08.02.2008, 09:45: Message edited by: legion ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently the national average earnings for 2006-2007 was ?35k makeing joe blogs actualy earning 2.9k per month

 

I wouldnt say that average around here either, I would say warrington average to be closer to 1.4k per month. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Legion, I don't know many folk who top more than about 1.4 - 1.5. Maybe one or two who teach which then puts them around 1.8, can never understand where they get this 'pathetic' national average wage from :roll::roll: ....... certainly isn't in the real world anyway. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of any "essential" workers becoming "tax exiles" - let them go and good ridence; but hit them with a tax take before they go. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

legion, you did not start your post talking about the average uk pay, you started with what the poorer workers would recieve.

 

does not reflect the quality of life sacrifice that the poorer workers pay.

if for example joe blog earned 2k a month

I would estimate that the average poor worker would be on a maximum of 1k a month and most on less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why does the government insist on taxing the poor? Oh yes it's so they can make themselves look generous by giving some of it back as tax credits. A con. Let people keep more of their earnings to spend as they wish. The government is still going to get a lot of it from indirect tax in any case. :roll::roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by observer:

I'm not aware of any "essential" workers becoming "tax exiles"

Me neither :roll: ....... in comparison, which 'essential' workers are grossly underpaid ? and which 'non essential' are grossly overpaid ? most pay scales leave a lot to be desired in this country :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted in the Council Housing Topic: they actually pay housing benefits out of money added to the rents of other Council Tenents - thus the poor paying for the poor. :o Meantime, their rich donors are swanning around untouched by taxation. :o:x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by legion:

apparently the national average earnings for 2006-2007 was ?35k makeing joe blogs actualy earning 2.9k per month

 

I wouldnt say that average around here either, I would say warrington average to be closer to 1.4k per month. :wink: :

 

The results of the 2007 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) show that median weekly pay for full-time employees in the UK grew by 2.9 per cent in the year to April 2007 to reach ?457. Median earnings of full-time male employees was ?498 per week in April 2007; for women the median was ?394.

 

The top 10 per cent of the earnings distribution earned more than ?906 per week, while the bottom 10 per cent earned less than ?252. Between April 2006 and 2007 the distribution of gross weekly pay narrowed, with a 3.5 per cent increase at the bottom decile, and a 2.8 per cent increase at the top decile.

 

Median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees were highest for 40 to 49-year-olds at ?516 for this age group. Male employees reached their highest earnings in this age group at ?575, whereas women reached their highest earnings for 30 to 39-year-olds at ?460. Earnings increased until employees reached these age groups and steadily decreased thereafter.

 

Median full-time weekly earnings in London were ?581, significantly higher than in other regions, where they ranged from ?402 in Northern Ireland to ?481 in the South East.

 

The occupations with the highest earnings in 2007 were 'Health professionals', (median pay of full-time employees of ?1,019 a week), followed by 'Corporate managers' (?702) and 'Science and technology professionals' (?670). The lowest paid of all full-time employees were 'Sales occupations', at ?264 a week.

 

The monetary difference between the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (?498 per week in April 2007) and the private sector (?439 per week) has widened over the year to April 2007, following annual increases of 3.0 per cent and 2.9 per cent respectively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE)

 

Notes:

Occupation data is taken from the sub-major group level of the Standard Occupational Classification 2000.

The median is the value below which 50 per cent of employees fall.

Pay refers to gross pay (before tax) of full-time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey week was unaffected by absence. Annual and weekly earnings include paid overtime.

The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings is based on a sample of employee jobs taken from HM Revenue & Customs PAYE records. The 2007 ASHE is based on approximately 142,000 returns and in 2007 information was collected for the pay period that included 18 April.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...