Taxation; Social burden or Social responsibility
In another post in R and S, Clanad refers (I think) to the assumption that people would want to avoid paying tax and uses the language of social burden. Now this is not a term I have heard before.
I wondered if this term is used because Clandad is from the US
Or
People do actually perceive taxation as a burden rather than part of the responsibility that goes with being part of society, therefore the choice of words reflects your political persuasion.
ruby27 Mon 11/08/08 16:25
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
People see it as a social burden when they believe that the coffers are being pilfered by questionable expense claims and autonomous pay rises by our magnanimous MPs or when the welfare state is seen as easy pickings for those who never appear to contribute to it in the first place.
On the flip side, most people are aware that without it we would lack any educational, health and welfare system as well as the civil service, general judicial and fiscal governance.
The choice of phrase usually depends on what you are talking about at the time. Whilst Council Tax is a social necessity (refuse, police, fire etc ), because of the way it was introduced and how annual increases are managed and generally viewed as squandered by the local council, it is more often seen as a social burden.
|
|
|
Like most people (I expect) I don't mind paying taxes, depending on what they are SPENT on. For myself, I do not see public spending on hospitals, schools or road maintenance as a burden at all, but resent paying for wars which do not concern us, or for needless causes.
It was an American, Benjamin Franklyn, who said: "The only two things certain in life are death and taxes".
|
|
|
Clanad is American and more accustomed to opposing the very idea of taxes than Europeans, who are used to a more social-democratic system of government (and way of life generally).
|
|
|
Agreeing with the posts above, I would like to add by way of emphasis, my abhorrence at the way taxes are squandered, but would gladly pay more for a better standard of living for student nurses, the military lower ranks, etc.
I would love to see an end to public money beiung spent on so called, "art," as per, "Superlambanana," in Liverpools' so called, "Year Of Culture." (Kulcher?)
The word, "vomit," springs to mind.
|
|
|
You'd probably then Theland have been one of the people who'd have opposed Glasgow council when they bought Salvador Dali's "St. John of the Cross"
http://dali.urvas.lt/forviewing/pic20.jpg
It cost them £8,200 in 1952 and they were widely criticised in the way you mention.
However they also bought the copyright and made more money through that than it cost over the years.
It's also now worth a small fortune and is a piece of world class art school trips go to see and thousands of other Glaswegians.
Good public art can transform a city and play a part in making it an enjoyable place to live
|
|
|
Yes, we shouldn't spend money on art or culture.
Then they could reduce taxes and we'd all have the money to buy a slightly better car in which to commute to and from work as we continue our joyless march to the grave...
|
|
Debt Consolidation | Daily Horoscopes | Bankruptcy | Credit Cards | Myspace proxy list
