DA at it again

[Ronjay]

could it be a 'fault' to make a lot of money and through doing so do more to make the world a more efficient place to live in? are you anti-progress or something? is it bad to make a lot of money that you have set out every drip of sweat and decades of truly hard and risky work for? are you sanctifying thievery?

Where did I say any of that? All I'm saying is you can't draw blood from a stone. If someone earns a R1200 a month and the cost of survival is R1200 where must that someone now find say 10% to pay to taxes? On the other hand if someone has lots of disposable income and the country is needing to spend money to not only pay for social services but provide for roads etc that said man with lots of disposable income uses himself, what else can said government do.

Look I'm not an idiot. Obviously trying to rape the rich man by over taxing him is not on. But how does one tax a man that barely eats but works just as hard as that man that has desposable income but has no education or skills to get him a higher paying job.

 

[Ronjay]

Actually I am talking about human rights. You brought up the topic of human rights, not me (see your post quote up ahead). Human rights apply to everyone regardless of their employment status. Whether the person is sitting around doing nothing or whether or not the person is employed and earning a living is irrelevant. Receiving a house for free is NOT a human right regardless of how much you earn. Nobody is entitled to that despite the fact that you seem to regard it as a basic human right:




At the same time it is unfair to tax one group and not the other. It is also IMO inherently stupid to tax production. This just makes people less willing to produce more because they know the more they produce the larger the piece the government is going to take. I have actually met people who are on the edge of a particular tax bracket and don't take a small raise because it will push them into the next tax bracket and as a result they will take home less at the end of the day. The same principle applies to production in a factory. The factory will reduce production if overall it means that they will be bumped into the bottom end of the next tax bracket and overall lose profit. Cutting production like this is not good for the country. This sort of tax system can be destructive.

This is obviously a simplistic view of things and it is to be expected because I am not an economist, if I am viewing this topic incorrectly someone please tell me why. This is a genuine request and not some sort of challenging statement (I admit it does come across like that but merely because I am not expressing myself properly.)

I never once spoke about the unemployed. Obviously we are talking about taxing those that earn very little so how will you ever be able to tax the unemployed? Love to see you try. It's basic math bud. 10% of nothing = nothing. Also it is not a human right as stated by any organization but as a human I cannot stand to see the suffering of the homeless even though it is not my fault or that of the rich or any ones fault. It's called compassion.

 

[Mila]

Where did I say any of that? All I'm saying is you can't draw blood from a stone. If someone earns a R1200 a month and the cost of survival is R1200 where must that someone now find say 10% to pay to taxes? On the other hand if someone has lots of disposable income and the country is needing to spend money to not only pay for social services but provide for roads etc that said man with lots of disposable income uses himself, what else can said government do.

Look I'm not an idiot. Obviously trying to rape the rich man by over taxing him is not on. But how does one tax a man that barely eats but works just as hard as that man that has desposable income but has no education or skills to get him a higher paying job.

R120 is not much. ITs more than most people smoke or drink a month... Or what about that cell phone or the lotto?

 

[Mila]

Tik.
Dagga..

R120 is nothing compared to pay as you go.

 

[porchrat]

I never once spoke about the unemployed. Obviously we are talking about taxing those that earn very little so how will you ever be able to tax the unemployed? Love to see you try. It's basic math bud. 10% of nothing = nothing.

Did I talk about taxing the unemployed? I don't remember that. Could you point it out? I only remember discussing both the unemployed and the low income earners with regard to human rights (which you brought up and then got confused about when I responded to it ).

You seem to think that a roof over your head is a human right. You have the right to a roof over your head yes, but you better pay for it. If you get a roof over your head and it is free then don't complain because you've scored. However you aren't just entitled to a roof over your head for nothing but being human.

 

[eltherza]

Sometimes I wonder if dropping tax for people and just increasing VAT to like 20%. That way the wealth really is distributed more evenly (more you are able to spend, the more you contribute).

But I'm no economist so there's more than likely a disastrous reason why we can't do that.

 

[porchrat]

Where did I say any of that? All I'm saying is you can't draw blood from a stone. If someone earns a R1200 a month and the cost of survival is R1200 where must that someone now find say 10% to pay to taxes? On the other hand if someone has lots of disposable income and the country is needing to spend money to not only pay for social services but provide for roads etc that said man with lots of disposable income uses himself, what else can said government do.

Look I'm not an idiot. Obviously trying to rape the rich man by over taxing him is not on. But how does one tax a man that barely eats but works just as hard as that man that has desposable income but has no education or skills to get him a higher paying job.

If your tax is consumption based then basic living items (such as bread) can have a lower VAT percentage attached to them for this very reason. That way people still can survive but the minute they want to buy something that isn't required for basic survival it costs more. That seems like a far fairer system to me. Doesn't punish production and hard work but instead punishes excessive consumption.

That way whether or not you are rich or poor everyone is taxed equally for what they consume and not what they produce.

 

[Mila]

Sometimes I wonder if dropping tax for people and just increasing VAT to like 20%. That way the wealth really is distributed more evenly (more you are able to spend, the more you contribute).

But I'm no economist so there's more than likely a disastrous reason why we can't do that.

Sounds like a plan. But like you said it will probably line the wron pockets in the end... oh wait..

 

[Mila]

Had the argument the other day. People say that if we are not paying taxes we will not build HOP houses and help the poor. And I said that is the FReaking problem we want to help the poor not the Fat puppets and their masters.

 

[Ronjay]

Did I talk about taxing the unemployed? I don't remember that. Could you point it out? I only remember discussing both the unemployed and the low income earners with regard to human rights (which you brought up and then got confused about when I responded to it ).

You seem to think that a roof over your head is a human right. You have the right to a roof over your head yes, but you better pay for it. If you get a roof over your head and it is free then don't complain because you've scored. However you aren't just entitled to a roof over your head for nothing but being human.

Look we are getting all sidetracked here lets leave it alone as we all have different opinions and are entitled to them. I will however say one thing, I don't like the idea of the very poor being taxed, but I do believe that the tax system is wrong in the way it is set out. Maybe a better way would be to not tax anyone, instead, have a different vat system that is scaled something like this,

Food products = 0%
clothing = 10%
Luxury products (big screen tv's, luxury cars, cellphones etc) = 35%

That way you are only taxed heavily if you are buying luxuries. Maybe that would work.

 

[porchrat]

Had the argument the other day. People say that if we are not paying taxes we will not build HOP houses and help the poor. And I said that is the FReaking problem we want to help the poor not the Fat puppets and their masters.

I really think we should be using the people in the actual communities that will receive these houses as labour to construct the houses. After all they are getting the house for free they may as well contribute to it. That way all the government needs to do is provide materials and pay for the construction foremen to manage the construction. This way not only do people get houses but they get skills too.

 

[Ronjay]

If your tax is consumption based then basic living items (such as bread) can have a lower VAT percentage attached to them for this very reason. That way people still can survive but the minute they want to buy something that isn't required for basic survival it costs more. That seems like a far fairer system to me. Doesn't punish production and hard work but instead punishes excessive consumption.

That way whether or not you are rich or poor everyone is taxed equally for what they consume and not what they produce.

Yes, I agree with that. that would be a better plan then trying to tax everyone, even those that earn very little.

 

[Mila]

I really think we should be using the people in the actual communities that will receive these houses as labour to construct the houses. After all they are getting the house for free they may as well contribute to it. That way all the government needs to do is provide materials and pay for the construction foremen to manage the construction. This way not only do people get houses but they get skills too.

Sound like a great plan. You will also respect a house you built yourself more than a free one. Liek the habitat for humanity thing in the states. You learn a trade as well and can go do work on sites and empower yourself. Rather than sitting waiting for someone to do it for you.

I like this I do. But Cosato will say we are stealing jobs.

 

[Mila]

Look we are getting all sidetracked here lets leave it alone as we all have different opinions and are entitled to them. I will however say one thing, I don't like the idea of the very poor being taxed, but I do believe that the tax system is wrong in the way it is set out. Maybe a better way would be to not tax anyone, instead, have a different vat system that is scaled something like this,

Food products = 0%
clothing = 10%
Luxury products (big screen tv's, luxury cars, cellphones etc) = 35%

That way you are only taxed heavily if you are buying luxuries. Maybe that would work.

You will just fuel ilegal trade by discriminating against people with money.

IMO.

 

[Ronjay]

I really think we should be using the people in the actual communities that will receive these houses as labour to construct the houses. After all they are getting the house for free they may as well contribute to it. That way all the government needs to do is provide materials and pay for the construction foremen to manage the construction. This way not only do people get houses but they get skills too.

i have no problem with that either. They'll appreciate them more to as they'll know they built it, they better lok after it.

 

[porchrat]

Sound like a great plan. You will also respect a house you built yourself more than a free one. Liek the habitat for humanity thing in the states. You learn a trade as well and can go do work on sites and empower yourself. Rather than sitting waiting for someone to do it for you.

I like this I do. But Cosato will say we are stealing jobs.

Yes I like it also because it means that should someone want to extend their house later they can do the work themselves with minimal input from a building authority.

I see what you're saying with the stealing jobs thing I hadn't considered that. Damn COSATU and it's short-term vision. What they see as a lack of jobs now I see as an opportunity to create a far larger skilled workforce bustling with potential new members for COSATU in the future. Oh well.

 

[porchrat]

You will just fuel ilegal trade by discriminating against people with money.

IMO.

Yes that is the one problem with the approach. You would need to have strict control over how things are coming into the country to make sure that you catch it all and track it to ensure that VAT is paid. Hard to do.

 

[Ronjay]

You will just fuel ilegal trade by discriminating against people with money.

IMO.

Maybe. But what would be fairer? Only if you buy "legitimate" luxury products. If you buy non luxuries you will not be taxed. But as you say, it wont work, the authorities have a hard enough time with black market goods as it is.

 

[Mila]

Yes I like it also because it means that should someone want to extend their house later they can do the work themselves with minimal input from a building authority.

I see what you're saying with the stealing jobs thing I hadn't considered that. Damn COSATU and it's short-term vision. What they see as a lack of jobs now I see as an opportunity to create a far larger skilled workforce bustling with potential new members for COSATU in the future. Oh well.

+10

Yes that is the one problem with the approach. You would need to have strict control over how things are coming into the country to make sure that you catch it all and track it to ensure that VAT is paid. Hard to do.

And people will just take the money out of the country. If you can not spend it here you will go on holidays and buy homes in another country.

 

[Ronjay]

+10



And people will just take the money out of the country. If you can not spend it here you will go on holidays and buy homes in another country.

Yeah, ok, wont work. What else would work then?