Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:51 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:52 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable

Re: Social Care : Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:52 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

So you are advocating the poor funding the social care of the better off - seems perfectly reasonable