Is true socialism possible?

[David-G]

We need a fair tax system. people should pay their fair-share.

Right now;

the top 1% of earners only account for 27% of total income tax receipts.

the top 5% of earners only account for 47% of total income tax receipts.

That leaves 95% of earners accounting for a whopping big 53% of income tax receipts.

Top earners CAN and SHOULD pay more.

Before people accuse me of the old chestnut of the 'politics of envy ' or jealously regarding what other people have, I would say that we need to consider what is best for the WHOLE of society, not just the privileged few.

These figures would seem to imply that the "top earners" are contributing rather a lot to the tax receipts.

[Beef Oven]

These figures would seem to imply that the "top earners" are contributing rather a lot to the tax receipts.

And so they should, they can afford it!

[kleines c]

c

[scottycelt]

These figures would seem to imply that the "top earners" are contributing rather a lot to the tax receipts.

Yes, that was my impression! The top 5% contribute to nearly half the total tax receipts?

If accurate, that's a quite astonishing figure. Of course, it could also be argued it merely demonstrates the stratospheric salaries some of the very rich must actually earn.

Mind-boggling!

[Beef Oven]

Yes, that was my impression! The top 5% contribute to nearly half the total tax receipts?

If accurate, that's a quite astonishing figure. Of course, it could also be argued it merely demonstrates the stratospheric salaries some of the very rich must actually earn.

Mind-boggling!

Oh it's accurate but, broadshoulders. These are challenging times.

[Lateralthinking1]

These figures would seem to imply that the "top earners" are contributing rather a lot to the tax receipts.

It depends on priorities. We could have allowed the rich to keep more of their money between 1939 and 1945 - and lost the war.

[kleines c]

c

[ardcarp]

Thanks for the toast, kleines, (about 3 pages back...my God this thread moves apace) but sadly it fell butter side down with:

we need a variety of approaches to the complex challenges we face in the twenty-first century

It's the sort of committee phrase to which everyone nods sagely, BUT if you could write down ten complex challenges followed by ten varieties of approach you could work out the mathematical combinations and hence the probability of achieving anything at all.

Sorry if I sound grouchy. It's something to do with work tomorrow.

Cheers anyway.

[kleines c]

c

[gurnemanz]

I doubt the ability of human beings to put any ideology into practice without corrupting and perverting it. I suppose that makes me an anarchist. (Just mis-typed anarchist and Chrome browser spellcheck suggested "Antichrist"!) I believe Winston Churchill commented re East Germany that the Germans were so efficient that they could even make Socialism work. I spent some time there and saw on a daily basis that this is not the case, as history seems to have confirmed.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

It depends on priorities. We could have allowed the rich to keep more of their money between 1939 and 1945 - and lost the war.

or between 1945 et seq and failed to pay off the Americans who were bankrupting the UK in all but name in order to suppress completely any resurgence of Empire .... any one remember the Empire Loyalists [we might have one or two hereabouts]

[ardcarp]

In the words of a fellow Londoner, John Milton, ardcarp, I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world; we bring impurity much rather: that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary!

If you did all that without looking it up, kleines, here's another

[scottycelt]

Saying 'good riddance' to the super-rich is all very well but the only real question still remains, at least in a free society.

Do you tax the rich at lower rates and collect more money or tax them more and receive less because many leave the country? After all, moving abroad for these lucky super-rich people is a dawdle compared to the rest of us.

If we taxed the rich at normal rates and the state collected more money to assist the poorer in society would socialists be against the idea?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

socialism is not about tax is it?

[scottycelt]

socialism is not about tax is it?

So why are socialists particularly bothered about how much tax the rich pay, then ... ?