nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.

Tax the super rich more instead of picking on the most vulnerable in society

Ross1975

This petition, https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/promoted/tax-the-super-rich-to-stop-cuts-to-public-services-1?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=blast99084 , made me wonder why the government doesn't just make the super rich pay higher taxes instead of picking on the most vulnerable.

The super rich have more money than they can spend, they're not going to miss the money that they pay on higher taxes, it wont make any difference to their lives. Whereas picking on the most vulnerable will have devastating consequences, they find it very hard to be able to afford to live as it is. How is this fair?

I asked ChatGPT and it said this:

'It mostly comes down to political priorities, economic ideology, and the influence of wealth in policymaking.

Political Interests & Donors – Many of the wealthiest individuals and corporations have close ties to politicians, directly or indirectly influencing policy through donations, lobbying, and media ownership. Governments that favor low taxes on the rich often argue that high taxes would drive wealth and investment out of the country.
Trickle-Down Economics – Conservative and right-leaning governments often subscribe to the belief that lower taxes on the rich encourage investment, job creation, and economic growth. This theory has been widely debunked, but it remains a core justification for not raising taxes on the wealthy.
Austerity & Cost-Cutting – Rather than raising taxes on the rich, the government often opts for spending cuts, which disproportionately affect those who rely on public services and benefits. This is usually framed as "reducing welfare dependency" or "ensuring fairness for taxpayers," despite the fact that many tax-avoiding corporations and the ultra-wealthy contribute far less proportionally than regular workers.
Public Perception & Media Influence – Much of the UK media is owned by billionaires who push narratives against wealth taxes and in favor of cutting benefits, painting claimants as "scroungers" or "workshy." This shifts public anger away from economic inequality and toward the most vulnerable, making benefit cuts politically easier to justify.
The Complexity of Taxing the Super-Rich – While the government could introduce higher taxes on the super-rich, these individuals often have the resources to exploit loopholes, offshore tax havens, and financial structures that make it difficult to tax them effectively. Governments unwilling to take on tax avoidance at its root end up letting the richest off the hook.

Ultimately, it's not about what’s fair or logical—it’s about power, priorities, and who benefits from government decisions.'

I'm not sure how right it is, what do you guys think?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

wendy1

Hi,

According to the government their not doing anything wrong

IrishManc

I agree, as an Irish Catholic patriot in the U.K. myself, but the globalist deep state, the Rothschilds, the WEF, along with many others, have no moral compass as they pursue their diabolical agendas, which include things like the depopulation agenda, Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030 for example - moreover, they have teamed up with leftists to carry out their bidding in this weird hybrid - taxing the super-rich is the common sense approach, but this is never going to happen - people like Archbishop Vigano and Cardinal Burke, along with many others have spoken out against this many times during Covid and frankly, this is a spiritual battle - we also need to look at the role that senior civil servants have played a role in the destruction of our nations via corruption for decades and via the woke agenda

onebigvoice

I also agree, but firstly, I like the bit…..

It mostly comes down to political priorities, economic ideology, and the influence of wealth in policymaking.

Comming from them, why do they use the terms "Mostly comes down from" and just say in comes from Money talks. If you can't support your own party you have to some times get in bed with the devil.

NO YOU DON'T. You gather like minded people and you join forces and use the Law for what it is.

If the law says you must pay tax, then you pay tax. If there is a "loop hole" in the system then don't you think by now the government would have PLUGGED IT? They don't want to. So when you write to your MP and say I don't want my NHS payments to pay for **** CONTRACTORS TOASSESS ME, without the profits made by them being given back to the NHS, minus some profit, as I incourage investment, but when the **** Contractor is suddenly holding all the cards which go against the laws of Wages Taxation and "Quango's" that don't allow free trade, and not with other forign investors like China, America, India, French, German, and all the others competing for contracts here, in favour of HOME GROWN INVESTMENT, then there is some thing wrong.

At least supporting the home industries the wages are compatable, the taxes are paid, and the rents on ground are paid HERE.

frozenpelvis

Alas the rich have very smart accountants and they no longer reside in this country long enough to be taxed and make a difference to the system. The rich will always be protected by the systems in place. It’s the poor that always suffer the consequences of any cuts, the only difference now is that previous Labour Governments have tried to make things better for the poor and vulnerable, sadly this Government has not.
Taking no responsibility for its decisions but blaming the last Government for the decisions it has had to make, which is ludicrous and shameful. The Conservatives have not told them to cut the winter Fuel or the benefits, Labour made that decision.

IrishManc

something radical and fundamental needs to change, but I don’t think it will come from any political party as the democratic process is now way too corrupted beyond repair - this current Labour government is utterly determined to trash the U.K. economy, privatise the NHS, kick sick and disabled people off benefits and into jobs that don’t exist and/or are unsuitable, forcing employers to take them on, while eventually scrapping the benefits system

onebigvoice

Sorry this is a bit long: But we can fix anything if we really want to.

THE OTHER DIFFERENCE, that labour are in power now, as well as well Wales, so lets get cracking and resolve issues caused, not cause more issues by changing laws to make the vunerable that they are supposed support have a decent life.

I don't know if anyone has noticed but most of the adverts comming through on Private Health Schemes are NOT BASED HERE? Wonder why? How can you "jump" the NHS queues with these offers of medical help quicker than the NHS, UNLESS THE NHS ARE ACTUALLY SUBCONTRACTING THEM TO REDUCE THE WAIT TIMES OR REFERAL TIMES? The British Medical Board should stop this, especially since they are asking Doctors and Nurses/Care Homes to take on more responsibility for there actions and then close down Jobs that they are trying to recruit people for? How many job losses are we having by closing down the teaching sections even in Cardiff University's?

We need to get people into training courses where there is a JOB AT THE END. If you train as a Doctor or Nurse then why when you are comming to the end of possibly 5 years are you not then placed at our Hospitals and Surgery's around the country for on the job training before being given a FULL TIME POSITION IN THE NHS OR SURGERY THAT HAS ASKED FOR "JUNIORS" TO ENHANCE THERE POSITION, NOT REDUCE THE STAFF AND INCREASE THE HOURS OF THE STAFF THAT ARE ALREADY THERE IN ORDER TO COPE WITH THE DEMANDS PLACED ON THEM BY GOVERNMENT.

We have the best teachers, the best work force, the best at every thing we put our minds to except to protect our own people, through Unions and Government getting around the table and laying down the ground rules for ALL, and that includes ****-contractors and Agency Workers.

I am not being hard just realistic, even **** Contractors have rights, and yet some are not able to even get a mortgage.

I worked for many companies that supply **** Contractors, and we supply the best because we were all trained by the best. When a contract was completed, word of mouth and doing what is on the box gets other contracts.

The system does need change, but not to rewrite the system, as you have to start some where. But to be able to look at what is going wrong, if any thing and adapt. Cutting staff is not an adaption, its a cost cutting excercise, where the system needs "tweaking" but no one knows how. That is why we have rules that we must abide by, if a rule becomes "OUTDATED" OR IS NO LONGER FIT FOR PURPOSE, then before it causes an issue you should be able to see and adapt to the situation.

Look at the pandemic: rules were changed to allow people to work from home, contracts were changed to allow greater powers to some, but that was 5 years ago, those problems then do no longer exist, yet we are still being made to abide by those rules?

Bring back what was under the NHS umbrella back under the NHS umbrella. Yes there may be a need to continue using **** Contractors to "fill the gaps" BUT THIS SHOULD ONLY BE A TEMPORY MEASURE, as the Candour Laws state that any contract given out that lasts more than 28 Weeks is not a Temporary contract and should be classed as a full time position. If the company cannot fill that position internally then a new contract is given to renew for another 28 weeks.

Before this is done a review of the performance of the way in which the contract has been run and whether either party needs to tweak the conbtract to take on or remove parts of the contract are done by negotiation, then once agreed the contract is renewed.

The other side is that a contract can only be renewed once, so that after a YEAR, this job becomes an internal issue of seeing whether members of staff wish to apply for the position and if further skills are required then plans are put into place months before that allow a transition to a better, more skilled work force, that has been trained by you for the skills matrix you require.

Charlie_Alumni

Hi all,

Just a quick reminder that while it’s great to share opinions, it’s important not to present them as fact or stray into making accusations or un-evidenced claims. Healthy discussions keep the community safe and welcoming for everyone, so if something is just your view, please try to make that clear.

worried33

Politics is just really broken, from the FPTP voting system, to the donation and gifting system.