The Great Art Debate
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
I don't care much for what I know of her work, but Emin is growing on me all the time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/charl ... ate-france
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/charl ... ate-france
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 15355
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
- Location: Vagantes numquam erramus
Feck that, rinse her bank account first cheeky bitch. Goverment should be there to support artists and culture, erm yeah, that doesn't mean not taxing the rich ones love. You made your money, you pay your corn, that's how it works. If you were a struggling artist and the baillifs wanted to take your paintbrushes (or tents) fair enough. Now I know Mummy is being controversial, but what she actually says there is nonsensical.Lord Kangana wrote:Engines running if she wants a lift. The 50p tax is growing on me already.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 15355
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
- Location: Vagantes numquam erramus
The right wing love all the benefits of the a social democracy. They just think that they shouldn't have to pay for them. Emin's always been a prize bellend anyway. Whats laughable is that she's running to France!(France!) Think about it love, and tidy your room at the same time, its a f*ckin disgrace.
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 8454
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:43 pm
- Location: Trotter Shop
I really hope she goes very soon...mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:I don't care much for what I know of her work, but Emin is growing on me all the time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/charl ... ate-france
one less tory vote...
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
As far as I can tell, I don't think she's suggesting that she should pay no tax....Prufrock wrote:Feck that, rinse her bank account first cheeky bitch. Goverment should be there to support artists and culture, erm yeah, that doesn't mean not taxing the rich ones love. You made your money, you pay your corn, that's how it works. If you were a struggling artist and the baillifs wanted to take your paintbrushes (or tents) fair enough. Now I know Mummy is being controversial, but what she actually says there is nonsensical.Lord Kangana wrote:Engines running if she wants a lift. The 50p tax is growing on me already.
Why should she face an additional punishment for being successful though? After all, if we all pay x%, then her x% of a lot will mean she is paying a lot more than x% of an average income anyway!
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43307
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32637
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:As far as I can tell, I don't think she's suggesting that she should pay no tax....Prufrock wrote:Feck that, rinse her bank account first cheeky bitch. Goverment should be there to support artists and culture, erm yeah, that doesn't mean not taxing the rich ones love. You made your money, you pay your corn, that's how it works. If you were a struggling artist and the baillifs wanted to take your paintbrushes (or tents) fair enough. Now I know Mummy is being controversial, but what she actually says there is nonsensical.Lord Kangana wrote:Engines running if she wants a lift. The 50p tax is growing on me already.
Why should she face an additional punishment for being successful though? After all, if we all pay x%, then her x% of a lot will mean she is paying a lot more than x% of an average income anyway!
Our loss would indeed be France's gain.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
No, that would be a description of a flat rate.Worthy4England wrote: But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...
If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
True, whereas a higher rate would mean she is contributing according to what she can afford, which is fairer. A nuance, but an important one.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:No, that would be a description of a flat rate.Worthy4England wrote: But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...
If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
Depends what you mean by 'afford', of course.Prufrock wrote:True, whereas a higher rate would mean she is contributing according to what she can afford, which is fairer. A nuance, but an important one.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:No, that would be a description of a flat rate.Worthy4England wrote: But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...
If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
She doesn't need the money as much as poorer people do. You have argued poverty isn't relative, saying it doesn't matter if the top earners are earning more relatively if the bottom threshold is higher in real terms. That's all well and good in the good times, but what about now, when we are talking about massive spending cuts, when there's talk of pensions being cut, talk of massive cuts in fecking incapacity allowance, surely when that bottom threshold isn't going up, but in fact down, that is when poverty does become relative, when those who can afford it, and in many cases have caused that downturn at the bottom level should contribute more. People worked, being told their time was worth x amount of cash, whereas in fact, they weren't being paid for what they made, what they produced, but being paid the least the top brass could afford to pay them, while they creamed off the surplus. Now these people are expendable, the market isn't there for their time, and they are the ones taking the hits, taking the redundancies, cutting their spending, whilst spending in the top sector continues to go up, and then when someone has the audacity to suggest they should pay back a bit more to society, given that, hey they can afford it, they turn round and start whingeing how they are hard done to. Well boo fecking hoo Tracy.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Depends what you mean by 'afford', of course.Prufrock wrote:True, whereas a higher rate would mean she is contributing according to what she can afford, which is fairer. A nuance, but an important one.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:No, that would be a description of a flat rate.Worthy4England wrote: But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...
If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
You have done well to remember what I have said with regards to poverty being thought of in relative terms, but it's difficult to conclude from what you have just written that you fully understood it.Prufrock wrote:She doesn't need the money as much as poorer people do. You have argued poverty isn't relative, saying it doesn't matter if the top earners are earning more relatively if the bottom threshold is higher in real terms. That's all well and good in the good times, but what about now, when we are talking about massive spending cuts, when there's talk of pensions being cut, talk of massive cuts in fecking incapacity allowance, surely when that bottom threshold isn't going up, but in fact down, that is when poverty does become relative, when those who can afford it, and in many cases have caused that downturn at the bottom level should contribute more. People worked, being told their time was worth x amount of cash, whereas in fact, they weren't being paid for what they made, what they produced, but being paid the least the top brass could afford to pay them, while they creamed off the surplus. Now these people are expendable, the market isn't there for their time, and they are the ones taking the hits, taking the redundancies, cutting their spending, whilst spending in the top sector continues to go up, and then when someone has the audacity to suggest they should pay back a bit more to society, given that, hey they can afford it, they turn round and start whingeing how they are hard done to. Well boo fecking hoo Tracy.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote: Depends what you mean by 'afford', of course.
My argument is that poverty should be considered an absolute concept - that there should be a standard of living below which we call 'poverty'. I'm really not sure what you mean when you say "that is when poverty does become relative". It seems more likely that what you actually mean is that some of the cuts you list might result in more people falling into absolute poverty.
I'm going to have to press you again then - what do you mean by 'afford'?
I would agree that somebody could not afford to pay tax, if by doing so, they fell into poverty. What if I offered you a tax system in which nobody pays taxes if they are in poverty, or paying would make them so, and everyone else pays a flat rate and "contributes according to their means"...?
And what of the current discussion about capacity allowance do you disagree with? Aren't the proposals about getting those who are not, in fact, incapacitated, off the allowance, rather than reducing it for those who are. What is it about that you find objectionable?
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32637
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Not at all - are you suggesting she's taxed beyond her means?mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:No, that would be a description of a flat rate.Worthy4England wrote: But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...
If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
Well, a 50% tax rate would certainly see her taxed out of proportion with her means, but we're not really getting anywhere here.Worthy4England wrote:Not at all - are you suggesting she's taxed beyond her means?mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:No, that would be a description of a flat rate.Worthy4England wrote: But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...
If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.
But what if she were just allowed to keep £40k and everything else were to be handed over to the Treasury... would she be being taxed beyond her means then, in your formulation?
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2125
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:49 pm
- Location: Home. Home, again. I like to be here when I can.
Clearly she wouldn't be - she'd still have 40000GBP to live on - more than most people.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Well, a 50% tax rate would certainly see her taxed out of proportion with her means, but we're not really getting anywhere here.Worthy4England wrote:Not at all - are you suggesting she's taxed beyond her means?mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:No, that would be a description of a flat rate.Worthy4England wrote: But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...
If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.
But what if she were just allowed to keep £40k and everything else were to be handed over to the Treasury... would she be being taxed beyond her means then, in your formulation?
But no one's asking her to do that, anyway, so the point is a ridiculous one.
"People are crazy and times are strange
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed"
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed"
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
It's not a ridiculous point. I'm told that taxing her at a proportionally higher rate because she earns more is fair because paying that much tax is within her means.Puskas wrote: Clearly she wouldn't be - she'd still have 40000GBP to live on - more than most people.
But no one's asking her to do that, anyway, so the point is a ridiculous one.
But if that is the justification, and you have just said it holds good in the hypothetical situation I have described (which you have, helpfully, suggested is ridiculous), then what stops us taxing her and others in that way?
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32637
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
It's a marginal tax rate on earnings in excess of £150k per annum.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:Well, a 50% tax rate would certainly see her taxed out of proportion with her means, but we're not really getting anywhere here.Worthy4England wrote:Not at all - are you suggesting she's taxed beyond her means?mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:No, that would be a description of a flat rate.Worthy4England wrote: But surely it's not a punishment - it's each contributing according to their means...
If we all pay a flat rate, then we all, by definition, contribute according to our means.
But what if she were just allowed to keep £40k and everything else were to be handed over to the Treasury... would she be being taxed beyond her means then, in your formulation?
She gets taxed the same 20% as everyone else, for the first £37,400, the same 40% as everyone else, for the income between £37,400 and £150,000 and the same 50% as everyone else, for income over £150,000.
The marginal increase is 10% on everything over £150k. So you'd pay an additional £35k on half a million per annum earnings which works out at 7% or so. Hardly poverty line stuff is it?
Unless I'm reading something wrong in the original article.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2125
- Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 9:49 pm
- Location: Home. Home, again. I like to be here when I can.
The fact that you've set a maximum cap on her income - 40000GBP.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:It's not a ridiculous point. I'm told that taxing her at a proportionally higher rate because she earns more is fair because paying that much tax is within her means.Puskas wrote: Clearly she wouldn't be - she'd still have 40000GBP to live on - more than most people.
But no one's asking her to do that, anyway, so the point is a ridiculous one.
But if that is the justification, and you have just said it holds good in the hypothetical situation I have described (which you have, helpfully, suggested is ridiculous), then what stops us taxing her and others in that way?
This differentiates it from paying more, but with no maximum cap. She earns more, but pays more, and isn't limited to earning any amount.
It's not that difficult to understand.
"People are crazy and times are strange
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed"
I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
I used to care, but things have changed"
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
So what you're saying is that a maximum 'cap' would be unacceptable because it would put people off earning beyond that amount?Puskas wrote:The fact that you've set a maximum cap on her income - 40000GBP.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:It's not a ridiculous point. I'm told that taxing her at a proportionally higher rate because she earns more is fair because paying that much tax is within her means.Puskas wrote: Clearly she wouldn't be - she'd still have 40000GBP to live on - more than most people.
But no one's asking her to do that, anyway, so the point is a ridiculous one.
But if that is the justification, and you have just said it holds good in the hypothetical situation I have described (which you have, helpfully, suggested is ridiculous), then what stops us taxing her and others in that way?
This differentiates it from paying more, but with no maximum cap. She earns more, but pays more, and isn't limited to earning any amount.
It's not that difficult to understand.
Ok, you're right, it is an important distinction.
What stops us taxing progressively all the way up to, say, 90% then?
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Abdoulaye's Twin and 50 guests