Dementia Tax

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Jun 17 12.25pm
Originally posted by pefwin You must deliberately not understand, nobody can be that thick. Where does it say anything you state above? Unlike your nanny state, I asking for individual choice and suggest removing legislation and potentially lowering the price of an individual transaction to increase tax yield. What would you do? Tax low IQ? What I understand is that you are putting the funding of a system designed to serve the people before the people themselves. Now that is as dumb as it gets.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Jun 17 12.25pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by pefwin

You must deliberately not understand, nobody can be that thick. Where does it say anything you state above?

Unlike your nanny state, I asking for individual choice and suggest removing legislation and potentially lowering the price of an individual transaction to increase tax yield.

What would you do? Tax low IQ?

What I understand is that you are putting the funding of a system designed to serve the people before the people themselves. Now that is as dumb as it gets.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 12.28pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 Which of course is your right and choice..based on the knowledge that everything you take is taxed accordingly. But I'm not be taxed accordingly, I'm being taxed disproportionately, because healthy people are a major long term cost. I don't mind paying tax on cigs, booze etc, because there are costs. My lifestyle choice includes costing based on illness and disease related to my choices, but not the discounts (pension, late life illness, care etc). Where as if I was maybe the kind of person who doesn't drink, smoke, eats a very balanced diet, exercises regularly etc I'm just as likely to incur additional health costs over the average person, but not get taxed accordingly. The problem is people living too long, and we solve that by taxing people who don't? That's the problem with the health mentality in our moralised democracy - we're lepper taxers. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jun 17 12.28pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

Which of course is your right and choice..based on the knowledge that everything you take is taxed accordingly.

But I'm not be taxed accordingly, I'm being taxed disproportionately, because healthy people are a major long term cost. I don't mind paying tax on cigs, booze etc, because there are costs. My lifestyle choice includes costing based on illness and disease related to my choices, but not the discounts (pension, late life illness, care etc).

Where as if I was maybe the kind of person who doesn't drink, smoke, eats a very balanced diet, exercises regularly etc I'm just as likely to incur additional health costs over the average person, but not get taxed accordingly.

The problem is people living too long, and we solve that by taxing people who don't? That's the problem with the health mentality in our moralised democracy - we're lepper taxers.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 12.31pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger You cannot be serious. Hold old are you Pefwin? There is serious taxation revenue waiting to be raised there, plus massive savings in law enforcement and NHS costs. I'm wary about legalising heroin and cocaine... "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jun 17 12.31pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

You cannot be serious.

Hold old are you Pefwin?

There is serious taxation revenue waiting to be raised there, plus massive savings in law enforcement and NHS costs. I'm wary about legalising heroin and cocaine...

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Jun 17 12.33pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 But I'm not be taxed accordingly, I'm being taxed disproportionately, because healthy people are a major long term cost. I don't mind paying tax on cigs, booze etc, because there are costs. My lifestyle choice includes costing based on illness and disease related to my choices, but not the discounts (pension, late life illness, care etc). Where as if I was maybe the kind of person who doesn't drink, smoke, eats a very balanced diet, exercises regularly etc I'm just as likely to incur additional health costs over the average person, but not get taxed accordingly. The problem is people living too long, and we solve that by taxing people who don't? That's the problem with the health mentality in our moralised democracy - we're lepper taxers. Ridiculous. You have a choice to drink, smoke, over eat etc. You can stop whenever you please. The government will tax these vices all the time people still indulge in them and as such behaviour reduces, taxation will be shifted elsewhere.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Jun 17 12.33pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The problem is people living too long, and we solve that by taxing people who don't? That's the problem with the health mentality in our moralised democracy - we're lepper taxers.

Ridiculous.
You have a choice to drink, smoke, over eat etc. You can stop whenever you please. The government will tax these vices all the time people still indulge in them and as such behaviour reduces, taxation will be shifted elsewhere.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Jun 17 12.42pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 There is serious taxation revenue waiting to be raised there, plus massive savings in law enforcement and NHS costs. I'm wary about legalising heroin and cocaine... Perfwin is advocating the reduction of attempts to educate people against a lifestyle that shortens life. That is bonkers. Drug revenue would be welcomed by the chancellor but at what price? The relaxation of rules on gambling was a nice little earner but do we have data on the effects of gambling on peoples lives? Has it been worth it? Vital services are still in crisis apparently. There is clearly a need for more revenue but how can we ever cater comfortably for a rapidly growing population? Does the tax advantage really outweigh the burden of 300k more every year? Where is the evidence?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Jun 17 12.42pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

There is serious taxation revenue waiting to be raised there, plus massive savings in law enforcement and NHS costs. I'm wary about legalising heroin and cocaine...

Perfwin is advocating the reduction of attempts to educate people against a lifestyle that shortens life. That is bonkers.

Drug revenue would be welcomed by the chancellor but at what price?
The relaxation of rules on gambling was a nice little earner but do we have data on the effects of gambling on peoples lives? Has it been worth it? Vital services are still in crisis apparently.
There is clearly a need for more revenue but how can we ever cater comfortably for a rapidly growing population? Does the tax advantage really outweigh the burden of 300k more every year? Where is the evidence?

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 13 Jun 17 12.50pm
Originally posted by pefwin What would you do? Tax low IQ? Given the apparent current state of the gene pool, that could be a winner...... A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 13 Jun 17 12.50pm

Originally posted by pefwin

What would you do? Tax low IQ?

Given the apparent current state of the gene pool, that could be a winner......

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 13 Jun 17 12.55pm
Originally posted by becky Can we just dispel this myth please - if you worked in the Public sector or for a large company, you would have got a final-salary pension scheme (and let's remember that even these were contributory), if you worked for a medium sized company you MAY have got a non-final salary pension scheme........and then there is the rest of us (and all the self-employed)who had no pensions schemes at all, and who may (or may not have been able to afford it) have contributed fully to provide themselves with a small annuity (which would have been a comfortable annuity if Gordon Broon hadn't wrecked it!). As for NIC on pensions, don't forget that having already paid tax on the money that was contributed to my personal private pension scheme, I am now taxed on it again as it is lumped in with my State Retirement pension for taxation purposes, so how many more times must I pay tax on the same bloody hard earned money? You get tax relief on pension contributions even into private schemes as long as they are actual pension schemes, so no tax paid. So if you've paid tax on your contributions into your pension scheme you've made a (big) mistake. In terms of NIC you can avoid that if you pay into your pension via salary sacrifice, and your employer will save as well.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 13 Jun 17 12.55pm

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by becky

Can we just dispel this myth please - if you worked in the Public sector or for a large company, you would have got a final-salary pension scheme (and let's remember that even these were contributory), if you worked for a medium sized company you MAY have got a non-final salary pension scheme........and then there is the rest of us (and all the self-employed)who had no pensions schemes at all, and who may (or may not have been able to afford it) have contributed fully to provide themselves with a small annuity (which would have been a comfortable annuity if Gordon Broon hadn't wrecked it!).

As for NIC on pensions, don't forget that having already paid tax on the money that was contributed to my personal private pension scheme, I am now taxed on it again as it is lumped in with my State Retirement pension for taxation purposes, so how many more times must I pay tax on the same bloody hard earned money?

You get tax relief on pension contributions even into private schemes as long as they are actual pension schemes, so no tax paid. So if you've paid tax on your contributions into your pension scheme you've made a (big) mistake. In terms of NIC you can avoid that if you pay into your pension via salary sacrifice, and your employer will save as well.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 12.56pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Ridiculous. You have a choice to drink, smoke, over eat etc. You can stop whenever you please. The government will tax these vices all the time people still indulge in them and as such behaviour reduces, taxation will be shifted elsewhere. Not what I'm saying, I'm happy to pay my fair share of the excess costs of my lifestyle on the NHS - and do. Now what about those people who are healthy long lifers who's choices not to smoke, drink, eat healthy etc is cause additional costs - are they taxed accordingly are they f**k. Play football on the weekends - I don't, and you won't see me down the ER either having injuries treated, or days off work due to injuries sustained in my spare time. I should pay more, because I use more. But we live with this idea that healthy people don't cost more. They do, a lot, and its growing. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jun 17 12.56pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Not what I'm saying, I'm happy to pay my fair share of the excess costs of my lifestyle on the NHS - and do. Now what about those people who are healthy long lifers who's choices not to smoke, drink, eat healthy etc is cause additional costs - are they taxed accordingly are they f**k.

Play football on the weekends - I don't, and you won't see me down the ER either having injuries treated, or days off work due to injuries sustained in my spare time.

I should pay more, because I use more. But we live with this idea that healthy people don't cost more. They do, a lot, and its growing.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 12.58pm
Originally posted by becky Given the apparent current state of the gene pool, that could be a winner...... Secret, the only system that really will work is to raise revenue, proportional to the requirement, across the board, with a vanity tax on certain goods (like smokes, booze, sporting goods, running shoes etc so that the average person can feel like they're getting a fair deal). Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Jun 2017 12.58pm) "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jun 17 12.58pm

Originally posted by becky

Given the apparent current state of the gene pool, that could be a winner......

Secret, the only system that really will work is to raise revenue, proportional to the requirement, across the board, with a vanity tax on certain goods (like smokes, booze, sporting goods, running shoes etc so that the average person can feel like they're getting a fair deal).

Edited by jamiemartin721 (13 Jun 2017 12.58pm)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 13 Jun 17 1.03pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 But I'm not be taxed accordingly, I'm being taxed disproportionately, because healthy people are a major long term cost. I don't mind paying tax on cigs, booze etc, because there are costs. My lifestyle choice includes costing based on illness and disease related to my choices, but not the discounts (pension, late life illness, care etc). Where as if I was maybe the kind of person who doesn't drink, smoke, eats a very balanced diet, exercises regularly etc I'm just as likely to incur additional health costs over the average person, but not get taxed accordingly. The problem is people living too long, and we solve that by taxing people who don't? That's the problem with the health mentality in our moralised democracy - we're lepper taxers. Yeah, apart from the bit i've highlighted (which I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's correct despite the fact that if they lived longer, they'd be likely to pay a similar amount of tax before they died) I think we're going round in circles on this one...you think it's unfair and i dont..so lets move on. Edited by Lyons550 (13 Jun 2017 1.04pm) The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 13 Jun 17 1.03pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Where as if I was maybe the kind of person who doesn't drink, smoke, eats a very balanced diet, exercises regularly etc I'm just as likely to incur additional health costs over the average person, but not get taxed accordingly.

The problem is people living too long, and we solve that by taxing people who don't? That's the problem with the health mentality in our moralised democracy - we're lepper taxers.

Yeah, apart from the bit i've highlighted (which I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's correct despite the fact that if they lived longer, they'd be likely to pay a similar amount of tax before they died) I think we're going round in circles on this one...you think it's unfair and i dont..so lets move on.

Edited by Lyons550 (13 Jun 2017 1.04pm)

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 1.05pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Perfwin is advocating the reduction of attempts to educate people against a lifestyle that shortens life. That is bonkers. Drug revenue would be welcomed by the chancellor but at what price? The relaxation of rules on gambling was a nice little earner but do we have data on the effects of gambling on peoples lives? Has it been worth it? Vital services are still in crisis apparently. There is clearly a need for more revenue but how can we ever cater comfortably for a rapidly growing population? Does the tax advantage really outweigh the burden of 300k more every year? Where is the evidence? Depends, on whether you think that prohibition is working, and the best way to deal with what is a social health problem. Round our way, you can phone a number, and within 30-40 minutes, someone will drop round your weed order, no need to know the dealers. Within a few years or so, it'll all be done online, through the dark net - something that's already starting to happen. That's the problem with Vice laws, you're trying to stop people doing something they enjoy. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jun 17 1.05pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Perfwin is advocating the reduction of attempts to educate people against a lifestyle that shortens life. That is bonkers.

Depends, on whether you think that prohibition is working, and the best way to deal with what is a social health problem.

Round our way, you can phone a number, and within 30-40 minutes, someone will drop round your weed order, no need to know the dealers. Within a few years or so, it'll all be done online, through the dark net - something that's already starting to happen.

That's the problem with Vice laws, you're trying to stop people doing something they enjoy.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 1.07pm
Originally posted by Lyons550 Yeah, apart from the bit i've highlighted (which I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's correct despite the fact that if they lived longer, they'd be likely to pay a similar amount of tax before they died) I think we're going round in circles on this one...you think it's unfair and i dont..so lets move on. Edited by Lyons550 (13 Jun 2017 1.04pm) I doubt it. I don't think its unfair, I think its unfair that we only target the easy group that's deviating from the norm (and then demonise them in society). I don't mind paying tax on booze and cigs. I object that other forms of life style don't get the same treatment. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Jun 17 1.07pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

Yeah, apart from the bit i've highlighted (which I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's correct despite the fact that if they lived longer, they'd be likely to pay a similar amount of tax before they died) I think we're going round in circles on this one...you think it's unfair and i dont..so lets move on.

Edited by Lyons550 (13 Jun 2017 1.04pm)

I doubt it. I don't think its unfair, I think its unfair that we only target the easy group that's deviating from the norm (and then demonise them in society).

I don't mind paying tax on booze and cigs. I object that other forms of life style don't get the same treatment.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Dementia Tax

Site Map

Sponsors