on question time the other day, a tory mp stated that Britain was reaching the 38% threshold of the average national overall tax. This made me wonder; how is that 38% shared and distrubuted? When companies don’t pay the appropriate amount of tax, then everyone else are getting squeezed for that.
seems like its all in what you do to get that 38%; do you squeeze the masses of society for it, or do it more fairly? For example, should the tax graph be equivalent or moreso,… if you have 1% with av 47% of the wealth cake, then 70% who get 7% of that cake, the same tax curve would get you the 48% but more from the wealth masses, than the population masses who get much less out of it.
Now if you did that, and by all the gods everyone in the world agreed to be reasonable, you could charge a slightly higher rate of tax to the masses, and they would still be paying much less. Then you will have the money the NHS needs.
Room for improvement though, especially in a time of mass communication and where people are going to do the math and find out how you work! i.e. by squeezing the juice from the masses.
Yup, that seems to be the rudiments of it. Is it me or is the whole thing so silly, its even sillier that it’s what we then let them do? Lol …not sure how much choice we have in it, but if we keep calling them out, then at least the pretence will be gone.
its like child slaves in Africa producing cocoa for western chocolate manufacturers. we can’t really say it is against the law here, and we are the great moral ones, when we are still doing that shit but simply using slaves at a different x,y,z, location. They could give them 12 quid instead of 10 per sack, and they’d have a decent wage. The traders in derivatives get 800%-1000% on top of that amount, when they sell the sack on without even touching it. Would a few percent really hurt them, or is the whole thing designed to squeeze the juice from the bottom up!
It’s designed to squeeze from the bottom up the way it’s set up now. Which totally wont work. People with no money for food and housing can’t just get together and donate it to each other. I think the game is to see how close you can get people to revolting before throwing them a bone. Eventually, hungry people eat or they die and no one wants to die…at least not of starvation. So they’ll fight instead.
Indeed. Problem is that humans make, buy and sell stuff, so its all about deals. If we don’t brush the palms of companies then they wont come here and employ people. If there are no noticeably rich people buying luxury items, then that depresses the markets as if it were a collective subconscious. Its as if it’s thinking ‘I can’t make it to the top as there is no top’. - don’t know if any of that is really true in practice though? I mean mostly we just do the shit we need to get by, irrespective of there being some other guy who is rich and has lots of shit. Funny how when you say it through all is revealed.
Normally if you put taxes up that high on civ simulator games, the civilians get pissed off and riot.
20% is as high as it should go. The game makers knew.
so how do you then pay for stuff? Its all the same cake and it takes 38% to get ‘the amount’ it takes to run things [however poorly]. The only way to swing it is to change the percentages yielding that number.
game doesn’t have any tickling feathers [opium for the people stuffs], that’s why they rebel.
? is it possible to have a tax-less society? e.g. private companies in a collective get all the shit done [park benches and what have you] and not at government prices, then they get returns like import duty. …everyone pays for stuffs.
I think a crucial part is humanity living in close quarters in an overwhelming number worldwide. Cities are not cities anymore, they are factories. Small towns, small communities have less issues, they tend to work together. Humans that herd together in vast amounts deeply deeply cause the problems. The vast majority are followers and nothing but, consumer in the eyes of their leaders.