Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"looks like some shit heading is way over 1100 plus mp giving him some sheet over pip" Mrs Reeves wants the pound in her sky rocket and will stop at nothing to get it. If you want to see a man not in control knock on the door at 10 downing St. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought there were 650 MP’s in total. " It is over 100 MPs who are rebelling. There isn’t any problem with cutting benefits, in fact it is absolutely necessary. The main problem with this policy is that it doesn’t go far enough and doesn’t address the travesty of in work benefits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again he's under the illusion that cutting pip will help the economy. When in fact pip payments are keeping the economy going. If you stop a person's benefit or reduce it he or she won't be able to buy a coffee, pay a bill, do a shop, pay for a taxi or a train journey, pay a utilities bill. Day to day spending that keeps coffee shops, supermarkets and utilities suppliers and transport active. However if someone is sending their benefit money abroad for whatever reason that should be stopped. Not means testing more means spending. The goverment is spending alot more on illegal immigrants and where are they sending some their money? Are Hamas and Hezbollah benefiting from false pip claims?" Starmer chest beating the £4.5bn Ukraine package announced yesterday. Lowest incomes in UK coughing up for this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"looks like some shit heading is way over 1100 plus mp giving him some sheet over pip" 403 Labour MP’s, 100 odd uprising is significant. Especially in the face of recent big spending plans. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Money needed for nuclear fighter jets Get the disabled to work " While illegal immigrants get everything for free and some are working cash in hand delivering food,what a time to be alive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again he's under the illusion that cutting pip will help the economy. When in fact pip payments are keeping the economy going. If you stop a person's benefit or reduce it he or she won't be able to buy a coffee, pay a bill, do a shop, pay for a taxi or a train journey, pay a utilities bill. Day to day spending that keeps coffee shops, supermarkets and utilities suppliers and transport active. However if someone is sending their benefit money abroad for whatever reason that should be stopped. Not means testing more means spending. The goverment is spending alot more on illegal immigrants and where are they sending some their money? Are Hamas and Hezbollah benefiting from false pip claims?" Sounds like the best way to get the economy booming would be to give everyone a few thousand a month and then we can all go out and spend it. Problem solved! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again he's under the illusion that cutting pip will help the economy. When in fact pip payments are keeping the economy going. If you stop a person's benefit or reduce it he or she won't be able to buy a coffee, pay a bill, do a shop, pay for a taxi or a train journey, pay a utilities bill. Day to day spending that keeps coffee shops, supermarkets and utilities suppliers and transport active. However if someone is sending their benefit money abroad for whatever reason that should be stopped. Not means testing more means spending. The goverment is spending alot more on illegal immigrants and where are they sending some their money? Are Hamas and Hezbollah benefiting from false pip claims? Sounds like the best way to get the economy booming would be to give everyone a few thousand a month and then we can all go out and spend it. Problem solved!" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again he's under the illusion that cutting pip will help the economy. When in fact pip payments are keeping the economy going. If you stop a person's benefit or reduce it he or she won't be able to buy a coffee, pay a bill, do a shop, pay for a taxi or a train journey, pay a utilities bill. Day to day spending that keeps coffee shops, supermarkets and utilities suppliers and transport active. However if someone is sending their benefit money abroad for whatever reason that should be stopped. Not means testing more means spending. The goverment is spending alot more on illegal immigrants and where are they sending some their money? Are Hamas and Hezbollah benefiting from false pip claims?" I know a lot of immigrants, and I don’t know any but send their money to Hamas! Send it back home to pay for school fees and healthcare for their families and they spend very little of it here other than the essential mortgage and utilities. They don’t waste money like the locals on nail salons , scratch cards bingo and vodka | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When in fact pip payments are keeping the economy going. If you stop a person's benefit or reduce it he or she won't be able to buy a coffee, pay a bill, do a shop, pay for a taxi or a train journey, pay a utilities bill. Day to day spending that keeps coffee shops, supermarkets and utilities suppliers and transport active. " Here's a thing, if I wasn't paying so much in taxes to pay benefits and pip then I could spend more on coffee, shops, supermarkets etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When in fact pip payments are keeping the economy going. If you stop a person's benefit or reduce it he or she won't be able to buy a coffee, pay a bill, do a shop, pay for a taxi or a train journey, pay a utilities bill. Day to day spending that keeps coffee shops, supermarkets and utilities suppliers and transport active. Here's a thing, if I wasn't paying so much in taxes to pay benefits and pip then I could spend more on coffee, shops, supermarkets etc. " Divide and conquer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They are not even going to be changing any of the points system and they aren't going to be forcing the disabled to work. " Yes they are. Currently someone getting PIP will need to score 8 or more points over several categories, or 12 points to get the enhanced rate. So, they could get 2 points in 4 categories to get a total of 8 to get the basic amount, or 6 categories to get enhanced. The proposed change would mean anyone would need at least 4 of those points in a single category, which means that a significant number of people will end up losing their claim. It could, for example, be the difference between someone needing a grab rail or seat to use an adapted wet room (2 points) and someone needing to actually wash them (4 points). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When in fact pip payments are keeping the economy going. If you stop a person's benefit or reduce it he or she won't be able to buy a coffee, pay a bill, do a shop, pay for a taxi or a train journey, pay a utilities bill. Day to day spending that keeps coffee shops, supermarkets and utilities suppliers and transport active. Here's a thing, if I wasn't paying so much in taxes to pay benefits and pip then I could spend more on coffee, shops, supermarkets etc. "   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The media coverage has sucked regarding this. They are not even going to be changing any of the points system and they aren't going to be forcing the disabled to work. Pip is being frozen so it doesn't go up with inflation. It was like that for years until recently and now it's going to be frozen again. They did the same with the civil service. Loads of jobs freeze wages for a few years. Minimum wage is often not inline with inflation. The Universal credit health element is being frozen until 2030, all this means is that it's even less financially viable for people to return to work pt time" Income tax thresholds frozen for those working too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They are not even going to be changing any of the points system and they aren't going to be forcing the disabled to work. Yes they are. Currently someone getting PIP will need to score 8 or more points over several categories, or 12 points to get the enhanced rate. So, they could get 2 points in 4 categories to get a total of 8 to get the basic amount, or 6 categories to get enhanced. The proposed change would mean anyone would need at least 4 of those points in a single category, which means that a significant number of people will end up losing their claim. It could, for example, be the difference between someone needing a grab rail or seat to use an adapted wet room (2 points) and someone needing to actually wash them (4 points)." So they actually have to be deserving then ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So they actually have to be deserving then ?" This has been a topic of debate since the welfare state was first envisioned. The tone of your post suggests that people who need help have to literally be on the floor before they're entitled to it. Is that what you believe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax." Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system." Starmer should probably impose an extra 20% tax on the rebels to pay for everything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are many people on the floor. Such as the homeless. An understanding govn needs to provide some amount of support. Of course money needs to come from somewhere. Also, it is right to ask people to try to work. Why not operate a wealth tax on companies with huge profits? Tax properly the banks and non dom millionaires. " Wealth tax on company's? Already got it. It's called corporation tax. Soak the banking sector? Great but be careful what you wish for. Financial services contribute around a quarter of the total tax take. Drive them out at your peril. Frankfurt would be delighted though. Hit the Non Doms? Do you actually know what a Non Dom is? Clue is in the name (Non Domiciled) They can up sticks at the drop of a hat. Besides it is already being (wrongly in my view) phased out. Once the transition period ends I fully expect an exodus to Monaco and the like. Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are many people on the floor. Such as the homeless. An understanding govn needs to provide some amount of support. Of course money needs to come from somewhere. Also, it is right to ask people to try to work. Why not operate a wealth tax on companies with huge profits? Tax properly the banks and non dom millionaires. " I have some experience of the homeless. The vast majority arises from substance abuse intertwined with mental health issues. The problem needs addressing, but it's dubious whether paying them more would help - in fact the opposite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system." Compare UK to many similar sized European nations and income tax levels are lower. People go on about paying tax, but then want the best public services and infrastructure; you have to pay for that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. " Where has that been proven? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system. Compare UK to many similar sized European nations and income tax levels are lower. People go on about paying tax, but then want the best public services and infrastructure; you have to pay for that." It's true e.g. Denmark, but then public services are far greater e.g. free higher education. However income tax is around 55%. I'm not sure the UK is accepting of that kind of socialist welfare system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven?" It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system. Compare UK to many similar sized European nations and income tax levels are lower. People go on about paying tax, but then want the best public services and infrastructure; you have to pay for that." After the vast wealth creation that should have come from the commonwealth, where has it all gone. £2.8trn in debt, add PFI is nearer £3.2trn and that’s after austerity cuts and under funding of public services. We are left with huge debts and dimished industry and farming, no rainbow with more tax rises on the cards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system. Compare UK to many similar sized European nations and income tax levels are lower. People go on about paying tax, but then want the best public services and infrastructure; you have to pay for that. It's true e.g. Denmark, but then public services are far greater e.g. free higher education. However income tax is around 55%. I'm not sure the UK is accepting of that kind of socialist welfare system." Hence why I said; people want US income tax rates but also want European levels of state services. The two things just don't go together. Brexit has exposed this the most imo. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity." Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system. Compare UK to many similar sized European nations and income tax levels are lower. People go on about paying tax, but then want the best public services and infrastructure; you have to pay for that." That's true, but there are some nuances to it. Scandinavian countries have high tax not just for the rich, but even for the lowest earners. They also have a welfare system that aggressively enforces against misuse. Someone on an unemployment benefit has to do a lot of reporting to prove that they are genuinely searching for a job. After a year, the unemployment benefits are completely stopped. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system. Compare UK to many similar sized European nations and income tax levels are lower. People go on about paying tax, but then want the best public services and infrastructure; you have to pay for that. That's true, but there are some nuances to it. Scandinavian countries have high tax not just for the rich, but even for the lowest earners. They also have a welfare system that aggressively enforces against misuse. Someone on an unemployment benefit has to do a lot of reporting to prove that they are genuinely searching for a job. After a year, the unemployment benefits are completely stopped. " How is that nuanced? I said there's higher income tax levels across the channel. That's one of the reasons why the loss of freedom of movement has f**ked the UK imo. I never mentioned anything about the rich. Wealth taxes are completely different to income taxes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system." Surely the rebels have done a good thing and this is what should happen when things are considered to be unconscionable to the 'ordinary' MPs. Looking after their constituents should be a priority and if this happened more often then surely government would be more democratic but also accountable. Well done Labour rebels, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system.Surely the rebels have done a good thing and this is what should happen when things are considered to be unconscionable to the 'ordinary' MPs. Looking after their constituents should be a priority and if this happened more often then surely government would be more democratic but also accountable. Well done Labour rebels, Mrs x" How can forcing people to pay higher taxes be looking after them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system.Surely the rebels have done a good thing and this is what should happen when things are considered to be unconscionable to the 'ordinary' MPs. Looking after their constituents should be a priority and if this happened more often then surely government would be more democratic but also accountable. Well done Labour rebels, Mrs x" How is it a good thing to perpetuate a benefits system that is unaffordable and pretty random in it's fairness? The stark truth is that as a nation we are living beyond our means. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me." Then why ask the question? The curve is generally accepted as correct, only the tipping point is debatable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system.Surely the rebels have done a good thing and this is what should happen when things are considered to be unconscionable to the 'ordinary' MPs. Looking after their constituents should be a priority and if this happened more often then surely government would be more democratic but also accountable. Well done Labour rebels, Mrs x" Completely agree. This is how democracy should work, we're just not used to seeing it happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system.Surely the rebels have done a good thing and this is what should happen when things are considered to be unconscionable to the 'ordinary' MPs. Looking after their constituents should be a priority and if this happened more often then surely government would be more democratic but also accountable. Well done Labour rebels, Mrs x Completely agree. This is how democracy should work, we're just not used to seeing it happen." How is a minority of MPs changing government policy democracy then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system.Surely the rebels have done a good thing and this is what should happen when things are considered to be unconscionable to the 'ordinary' MPs. Looking after their constituents should be a priority and if this happened more often then surely government would be more democratic but also accountable. Well done Labour rebels, Mrs x Completely agree. This is how democracy should work, we're just not used to seeing it happen. How is a minority of MPs changing government policy democracy then?" Because the rebels have a chance to vote with their conscience and not on party lines. And if it was a minority of MPs it wouldn't change the policy, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on a minute, this is the header on the labour party website. At this election we can change Britain. We can stop the chaos, turn the page, and start to rebuild our country. I put it they are doing the 180° opposite. The only thing the labour party have will changed is the time on the office wall clock twice a year." Exactly, the same old Labour magic money tree meaning an inevitable death spiral of higher taxes, falling economic activity, higher unemployment and shrinking economy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me. Then why ask the question? The curve is generally accepted as correct, only the tipping point is debatable." I asked for tangible examples as someone thinks it's been "proven time and again". That doesn't mean mathematical models that take generalised datums. If it does then that's really stretching. What's written in the economics books aren't directly relatable to real markets and social structures, another reason they fail so hard in Whitehall; applying mathematical models to real life, knobs😂. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on a minute, this is the header on the labour party website. At this election we can change Britain. We can stop the chaos, turn the page, and start to rebuild our country. I put it they are doing the 180° opposite. The only thing the labour party have will changed is the time on the office wall clock twice a year. Exactly, the same old Labour magic money tree meaning an inevitable death spiral of higher taxes, falling economic activity, higher unemployment and shrinking economy. " I'm not a massive fan of this labour government, but that rhetoric is the exact type of bolox I'd expect written in the sun, daily fail or the torygraph. Do you share that similar "money tree" sentiment on the government between 2010-2024? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"we all get hammered with more tax." What do you think disabled people do with their money? Luxury cars, televisions and a life of riley - or food, transport and essentials and tools they need to manage their disability? Whatever you believe, purchasing any of those will put money into the economy - it doesn't take from it. For many disabled people, the PIP award helps them to go to work, rather than sitting indoors unable to function - it pays for transport, for medication and aids unavailable on the NHS and more. For those who cannot work at all; one day it could be you or someone you love. we are a trillion pound economy - don't let the government pull the wool over your eyes with what they can afford. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me. Then why ask the question? The curve is generally accepted as correct, only the tipping point is debatable. I asked for tangible examples as someone thinks it's been "proven time and again". That doesn't mean mathematical models that take generalised datums. If it does then that's really stretching. What's written in the economics books aren't directly relatable to real markets and social structures, another reason they fail so hard in Whitehall; applying mathematical models to real life, knobs😂." Margaret Thatcher reduced taxes and as I remember the total tax take went up. François Hollande increased the top rate in France to 75%. The exodus of money (and tax) forced him to scrap it rather sharpish. The irony was that London became France's 6th largest city based on population of French nationals. The smart money follows low tax jurisdictions and is doing so as we write. High tax is for dummies. But I'd never expect a socialist to understand that. The force of the politics of envy and class war is far too strong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me. Then why ask the question? The curve is generally accepted as correct, only the tipping point is debatable. I asked for tangible examples as someone thinks it's been "proven time and again". That doesn't mean mathematical models that take generalised datums. If it does then that's really stretching. What's written in the economics books aren't directly relatable to real markets and social structures, another reason they fail so hard in Whitehall; applying mathematical models to real life, knobs😂. Margaret Thatcher reduced taxes and as I remember the total tax take went up. François Hollande increased the top rate in France to 75%. The exodus of money (and tax) forced him to scrap it rather sharpish. The irony was that London became France's 6th largest city based on population of French nationals. The smart money follows low tax jurisdictions and is doing so as we write. High tax is for dummies. But I'd never expect a socialist to understand that. The force of the politics of envy and class war is far too strong. " Yes those clever socialists ignore the knobs in Whitehall, that's why they have such a splendid track record in economic management. Like when they had to go cap in hand to the IMF to bail-out a bankrupt UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax." "Where has that been proven?" Look up "Laffer Curve", and you'll find plenty of examples. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" For many disabled people, the PIP award helps them to go to work, rather than sitting indoors unable to function - it pays for transport, for medication and aids unavailable on the NHS and more. For those who cannot work at all; one day it could be you or someone you love. " Maybe but there are far too many skivers that shouldn't be getting any benefits never mind disability | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybe but there are far too many skivers that shouldn't be getting any benefits never mind disability " Do you have a credible source to back up this claim? 🤔 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And yet another massive U turn. No savings now so we all get hammered with more tax. Yup, the Labour 'rebels' have condemned us all to tax hikes now - probably to the highest level ever to sustain an out-of-control welfare and benefits system. Compare UK to many similar sized European nations and income tax levels are lower. People go on about paying tax, but then want the best public services and infrastructure; you have to pay for that. That's true, but there are some nuances to it. Scandinavian countries have high tax not just for the rich, but even for the lowest earners. They also have a welfare system that aggressively enforces against misuse. Someone on an unemployment benefit has to do a lot of reporting to prove that they are genuinely searching for a job. After a year, the unemployment benefits are completely stopped. How is that nuanced? I said there's higher income tax levels across the channel. That's one of the reasons why the loss of freedom of movement has f**ked the UK imo. I never mentioned anything about the rich. Wealth taxes are completely different to income taxes." The problem is in the UK is that the politicians who want to increase taxes typically ask for higher taxes only for the high earners. Neither Denmark nor Sweden have wealth taxes either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on a minute, this is the header on the labour party website. At this election we can change Britain. We can stop the chaos, turn the page, and start to rebuild our country. I put it they are doing the 180° opposite. The only thing the labour party have will changed is the time on the office wall clock twice a year. Exactly, the same old Labour magic money tree meaning an inevitable death spiral of higher taxes, falling economic activity, higher unemployment and shrinking economy. I'm not a massive fan of this labour government, but that rhetoric is the exact type of bolox I'd expect written in the sun, daily fail or the torygraph. Do you share that similar "money tree" sentiment on the government between 2010-2024? " It's not rhetoric it's an inevitability. In the UK we have +9 mil. people on some kind of state benefits excluding pensions. Moreover, +9 mil. people economically inactive. That situation is both unsustainable and unaffordable and will eventually bankrupt the country. Then what? Financial chaos. That benefits nobody. A head-in-the sand attitude brings nothing. We elect MPs to govern not to take obstructive positions on necessary reform. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on a minute, this is the header on the labour party website. At this election we can change Britain. We can stop the chaos, turn the page, and start to rebuild our country. I put it they are doing the 180° opposite. The only thing the labour party have will changed is the time on the office wall clock twice a year. Exactly, the same old Labour magic money tree meaning an inevitable death spiral of higher taxes, falling economic activity, higher unemployment and shrinking economy. I'm not a massive fan of this labour government, but that rhetoric is the exact type of bolox I'd expect written in the sun, daily fail or the torygraph. Do you share that similar "money tree" sentiment on the government between 2010-2024? It's not rhetoric it's an inevitability. In the UK we have +9 mil. people on some kind of state benefits excluding pensions. Moreover, +9 mil. people economically inactive. That situation is both unsustainable and unaffordable and will eventually bankrupt the country. Then what? Financial chaos. That benefits nobody. A head-in-the sand attitude brings nothing. We elect MPs to govern not to take obstructive positions on necessary reform. " And at the top end more Labour MP’s than any party jailed for expenses fraud. Tories handed out lucrative government contracts (has baronesss Mones £203M been recovered from offshore trusts). The monarchy paying off disgraced Andy’s out of court nonce settlement claim and millions of improvements to Prince Andrew’s home, and ginger whining about having to pay for his own security while he wants nothing to do with uk. It seems everyone in the middle ground paying for all of this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybe but there are far too many skivers that shouldn't be getting any benefits never mind disability Do you have a credible source to back up this claim? 🤔" Absolutely I could give you several but my neighbours, both retired from good jobs with final salary pensions, they have two top of the range cars and one of them is courtesy of disability benefit. God knows how much money he's getting but they just bought a second holiday home. A relative and her family has lived on benefits all their lives, latest addition is two DLA cars for each of their two sons who admittedly have ADHD and got the brand new cars at 16. This is why the system is broken and unfortunately as usual the needy will suffer when the cu*ts ripping off the system will win | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybe but there are far too many skivers that shouldn't be getting any benefits never mind disability Do you have a credible source to back up this claim? 🤔 Absolutely I could give you several but my neighbours, both retired from good jobs with final salary pensions, they have two top of the range cars and one of them is courtesy of disability benefit. God knows how much money he's getting but they just bought a second holiday home. A relative and her family has lived on benefits all their lives, latest addition is two DLA cars for each of their two sons who admittedly have ADHD and got the brand new cars at 16. This is why the system is broken and unfortunately as usual the needy will suffer when the cu*ts ripping off the system will win " It always amazes me why anyone can get a brand-new car if they qualify for PIP when most working people can’t afford brand-new cars, I know people from the estate where Iluged as a teen, they’ve been in a petty crime most of their lives now it’s easier to have ADHD and other made up things that get the brand-new cars for free they don’t even work or need a car, they just sit around on PlayStation smoking w e e d most of their lives | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It always amazes me why anyone can get a brand-new car if they qualify for PIP when most working people can’t afford brand-new cars, I know people from the estate where Iluged as a teen, they’ve been in a petty crime most of their lives now it’s easier to have ADHD and other made up things that get the brand-new cars for free they don’t even work or need a car, they just sit around on PlayStation smoking w e e d most of their lives" ADHD is the new "bad back" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It always amazes me why anyone can get a brand-new car if they qualify for PIP when most working people can’t afford brand-new cars, I know people from the estate where Iluged as a teen, they’ve been in a petty crime most of their lives now it’s easier to have ADHD and other made up things that get the brand-new cars for free they don’t even work or need a car, they just sit around on PlayStation smoking w e e d most of their lives ADHD is the new "bad back"" I know someone who paid three grand recently for a private sector assessment because there is a three-year waiting list on the Nhs of the record they told them it was a guaranteed pass | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybe but there are far too many skivers that shouldn't be getting any benefits never mind disability Do you have a credible source to back up this claim? 🤔 Absolutely I could give you several but my neighbours, both retired from good jobs with final salary pensions, they have two top of the range cars and one of them is courtesy of disability benefit. God knows how much money he's getting but they just bought a second holiday home. A relative and her family has lived on benefits all their lives, latest addition is two DLA cars for each of their two sons who admittedly have ADHD and got the brand new cars at 16. This is why the system is broken and unfortunately as usual the needy will suffer when the cu*ts ripping off the system will win " I think most (if not all) of us could relate a similar story(s). It's nothing new though. Over 20 years ago when I lived in the UK the best friend of a G/F at the time knew every trick in the book. The whole family lived on benefits. Husband had a glass back but I would regularly see him on the driveway (rent free council house of course) repairing cars. Needless to say their own car was brand new on Motability. She knew more about medicine than most doctors and had a little sideline going in prescription dru*s. She got them for free and would flog them at half prescription charge. The doctor would just give her what she wanted, anything for a quiet life and all that. None of the kids worked and the 2 girls both deliberately had kids in their mid teens. The golden key to the benefit system. To cap it off the whole family would bugger off to Tenerife for 3 weeks at least once a year. They were probably the most extreme example but I knew many others taking the piss on a smaller scale. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a £10k reward for shop a neighbour, employing private detectives would be cheaper than paying the benefits. Lengthy custodial sentences might reduce claims" I'm not sure a society where everyone reports on one's neighbours is going to be a pleasant one. . But a 100K reward for reporting on a company deliberately evading tax would be more beneficial. Or perhaps a % of what they evade paying. Eg, company evade 20 million to HMRC and you have cast iron proof ? Report them and you get 10%. HMRC don't have the personnel to watch companies like hawks. Far better to empower the employees of said companies to regulate their own companies with lucrative rewards. I guarantee HMRC tax intake returns would sky-rocket. Go after the big sharks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a £10k reward for shop a neighbour, employing private detectives would be cheaper than paying the benefits. Lengthy custodial sentences might reduce claims I'm not sure a society where everyone reports on one's neighbours is going to be a pleasant one. . But a 100K reward for reporting on a company deliberately evading tax would be more beneficial. Or perhaps a % of what they evade paying. Eg, company evade 20 million to HMRC and you have cast iron proof ? Report them and you get 10%. HMRC don't have the personnel to watch companies like hawks. Far better to empower the employees of said companies to regulate their own companies with lucrative rewards. I guarantee HMRC tax intake returns would sky-rocket. Go after the big sharks." It's a bit of a myth that that large company's illegally evade tax. Avoid maybe, but that's legal. The accounts of large company's, especially PLC's, have to be meticulously kept. I very much doubt that any company's evade £20 million or anywhere close to that. That would mean a company losing around £100 million in profits. Hardly raiding the petty cash tin. Most tax evasion tends to be from the self employed and small company's. A few grand here a few grand there. Of course HMRC could crack down on it but the amount raised compared to the cost/effort of raising it wouldn't really amount to much. If it would make a difference they would have done it by now. Legal tax avoidance (very different to evasion) is very difficult for any tax jurisdiction to crack down on. We live in a globalised world. Just ask Jeff Bezos. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"it’s easier to have ADHD and other made up things that get the brand-new cars for free they don’t even work or need a car, they just sit around on PlayStation smoking w e e d most of their lives" You're very unlikely to get the PIP higher rate of mobility for ADHD - and that is what you need to get a car. You literally have to be unable to walk for more than 50 metres. or be so incapacitated that you barely leave the house. The estimate is that 80% of adults with ADHD are undiagnosed, having fallen through the cracks before it was properly understood. My guess is that you're just using your imagination to fill in the gaps - because you somehow think everyone else is getting something for nothing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see lots of seriously disabled people making significant efforts to become sportsman and representing town/county/nation. If some others employed a similar enthusiasm/determination in finding work that they are capable of/can reasonably do then maybe, just maybe, the welfare bill would be more sustainable. Contributing to UK.Gov seems no longer to be a factor in mindsets. " The vast majority of able-bodied people aren't sportsmen either - you seem to be tokenising a tiny minority to justify your resentment towards a majority. You could spend your whole life searching for treasure, but if the treasure isn't there, it won't magically manifest itself. It's the same with the jobs market - you can keep on looking for appropriate work, but if it isn't there, it won't magically appear from space. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know someone who paid three grand recently for a private sector assessment because there is a three-year waiting list on the Nhs of the record they told them it was a guaranteed pass" It always amazes me how many people claim to "know somebody who...". I doubt very much this is the case, because if they had a brain they wouldn't tell anyone anything. And yet, if you read forums, you'd think that everyone with mental health issues were continually boasting about how they play football at the weekend and drive a BMW. So, I call bullshit. Most people with ADHD work, but they need medical support to sustain that - and it is absolutely not a guarantee of PIP - especially as a standalone condition. It is assessed based on needs and not diagnosis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be a £10k reward for shop a neighbour, employing private detectives would be cheaper than paying the benefits. Lengthy custodial sentences might reduce claims I'm not sure a society where everyone reports on one's neighbours is going to be a pleasant one. . But a 100K reward for reporting on a company deliberately evading tax would be more beneficial. Or perhaps a % of what they evade paying. Eg, company evade 20 million to HMRC and you have cast iron proof ? Report them and you get 10%. HMRC don't have the personnel to watch companies like hawks. Far better to empower the employees of said companies to regulate their own companies with lucrative rewards. I guarantee HMRC tax intake returns would sky-rocket. Go after the big sharks." How is it possible for big companies to avoid tax.? Their accounts are fully audited and transactions are transparent . They will have sufficient funding to ensure that their tax affairs are managed in a manner which is both fully transparent and legal. Tax evasion is undertaken by the self employed or very small businnesses | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybe but there are far too many skivers that shouldn't be getting any benefits never mind disability Do you have a credible source to back up this claim? 🤔 Absolutely I could give you several but my neighbours, both retired from good jobs with final salary pensions, they have two top of the range cars and one of them is courtesy of disability benefit. God knows how much money he's getting but they just bought a second holiday home. A relative and her family has lived on benefits all their lives, latest addition is two DLA cars for each of their two sons who admittedly have ADHD and got the brand new cars at 16. This is why the system is broken and unfortunately as usual the needy will suffer when the cu*ts ripping off the system will win " That's not a source - I meant something published to back up your claim, not just hearsay. If they are 'retired from good jobs', then they are retired - clearly not skivers. PIP isn't means tested, but it certainly isn't enough to buy a holiday home - also, you cannot claim PIP after 65, unless the claim was already in place. After retirement age you get Attendance Allowance. So, again, without a published credible source outside your own resentment, I suggest you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybe but there are far too many skivers that shouldn't be getting any benefits never mind disability Do you have a credible source to back up this claim? 🤔 Absolutely I could give you several but my neighbours, both retired from good jobs with final salary pensions, they have two top of the range cars and one of them is courtesy of disability benefit. God knows how much money he's getting but they just bought a second holiday home. A relative and her family has lived on benefits all their lives, latest addition is two DLA cars for each of their two sons who admittedly have ADHD and got the brand new cars at 16. This is why the system is broken and unfortunately as usual the needy will suffer when the cu*ts ripping off the system will win That's not a source - I meant something published to back up your claim, not just hearsay. If they are 'retired from good jobs', then they are retired - clearly not skivers. PIP isn't means tested, but it certainly isn't enough to buy a holiday home - also, you cannot claim PIP after 65, unless the claim was already in place. After retirement age you get Attendance Allowance. So, again, without a published credible source outside your own resentment, I suggest you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. " The post is hardly heresay. At least 53,000 people claim PIP for ADHD. I know of three cases where people are either claiming PIP or misusing it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The post is hardly heresay. At least 53,000 people claim PIP for ADHD. I know of three cases where people are either claiming PIP or misusing it. " The claim was that people on PIP are largely skivers - ADHD is a real condition, medically recognised in the major psychiatric diagnostic manuals including the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases. Unless you're medically trained, nobody has any authority to claim it as a made-up condition or that people don't qualify for diagnosis. The Daily Mail comment section is not a university. If someone is getting PIP they have to jump through hoops to get it; I failed and I am diagnosed - and it's incredibly unlikely anyone faking it will be able to qualify unless they're truly struggling. There's a bigger chance they'll be faking how healthy they are - so on the outside they'll look completely healthy. Hidden disabilities are just that, hidden. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The post is hardly heresay. At least 53,000 people claim PIP for ADHD. I know of three cases where people are either claiming PIP or misusing it. The claim was that people on PIP are largely skivers - ADHD is a real condition, medically recognised in the major psychiatric diagnostic manuals including the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases. Unless you're medically trained, nobody has any authority to claim it as a made-up condition or that people don't qualify for diagnosis. The Daily Mail comment section is not a university. If someone is getting PIP they have to jump through hoops to get it; I failed and I am diagnosed - and it's incredibly unlikely anyone faking it will be able to qualify unless they're truly struggling. There's a bigger chance they'll be faking how healthy they are - so on the outside they'll look completely healthy. Hidden disabilities are just that, hidden." . The Daily Mail comments column probably provides a representative example of what a cross section of society think. It is difficult to see why you would need to be medically trained to assess someone for PIP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me. Then why ask the question? The curve is generally accepted as correct, only the tipping point is debatable. I asked for tangible examples as someone thinks it's been "proven time and again". That doesn't mean mathematical models that take generalised datums. If it does then that's really stretching. What's written in the economics books aren't directly relatable to real markets and social structures, another reason they fail so hard in Whitehall; applying mathematical models to real life, knobs😂. Margaret Thatcher reduced taxes and as I remember the total tax take went up. François Hollande increased the top rate in France to 75%. The exodus of money (and tax) forced him to scrap it rather sharpish. The irony was that London became France's 6th largest city based on population of French nationals. The smart money follows low tax jurisdictions and is doing so as we write. High tax is for dummies. But I'd never expect a socialist to understand that. The force of the politics of envy and class war is far too strong. " That's a textbook neoliberalist response. Not sure why I care to dismantle it because you're not likely to listen but you deserve a response as you gave me your view. Firstly though; I'm no so(!@[!st 
I support a liberal, functioning market economy. But let’s deal in facts shall we.
Thatcher cut top rates for the rich, yes, but hiked up VAT and pol taxes which is a 'regressive tax' for everyone else, who wasn't in her ear (the ordinary man). So while the total tax take rose (due to inflation + population), it was the working class footing more of the bill, not a myth of growth. **many people do not understand the difference between regressive and progressive tax systems. I see it so often here, yet it's fundamental to grasp in arguments around tax**
It's the same as this laffer curve myth. People shouting it out yet have no examples other than "go and see".
As for Hollande’s 75%, I'd not heard that one. So I had a little look and found it applied to only salaries above €1M. France still collects far more tax as % of GDP than the UK and hasn’t collapsed, as I've stated already in this thread that the UK tax isn't the highest in Europe by any stretch. This ‘exodus’ was overstated, more PR than reality.
The idea that 'smart money follows low taxes' assumes capital has no social responsibility. That’s not smart, that’s sociopathic. It’s how we ended up with billionaires avoiding tax while schools crumble and growing food banks with health professionals using them to feed their families. Real show of example to how vulture capitalism has given us all agency ay 
Calling fair tax 'envy' is just an elitist code for protecting privilege. The real 'envy' is from those terrified of a system where everyone contributes and no one gets a free ride.
Wanting a fair contribution from those who benefit most from the broken system isn’t ‘envy’. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Daily Mail comments column probably provides a representative example of what a cross section of society think. It is difficult to see why you would need to be medically trained to assess someone for PIP. " Representative of a certain demographic of angry gammons perhaps 😂 You do not need to be medically trained in specific conditions to assess someone for PIP, but you do need to be medically trained to diagnose a person with a medical condition. However, one problem with PIP is that the lack of condition-specific training that leads to people being given the wrong award. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Daily Mail comments column probably provides a representative example of what a cross section of society think. It is difficult to see why you would need to be medically trained to assess someone for PIP. Representative of a certain demographic of angry gammons perhaps 😂 You do not need to be medically trained in specific conditions to assess someone for PIP, but you do need to be medically trained to diagnose a person with a medical condition. However, one problem with PIP is that the lack of condition-specific training that leads to people being given the wrong award. " . I do not think many angry gammons to use your terminology read the Daily Mail. Maybe you need to go a a newsagents and watch the type of people that buy it. They are a representative example of most sections of society. Most believe in responsibily and family values. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe you need to go a a newsagents and watch the type of people that buy it. They are a representative example of most sections of society. Most believe in responsibily and family values. " The DM has a print readership of fewer than a million. How is that representative? 🤔 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe you need to go a a newsagents and watch the type of people that buy it. They are a representative example of most sections of society. Most believe in responsibily and family values. The DM has a print readership of fewer than a million. How is that representative? 🤔" . If you wish to rank it against other newspapers it is one of the winners in a declining market. Their columnists have won many awards | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Daily Mail comments column probably provides a representative example of what a cross section of society think. It is difficult to see why you would need to be medically trained to assess someone for PIP. Representative of a certain demographic of angry gammons perhaps 😂 " I think you'll find that the vast majority of any online comments columns are written by Russian bots and internet trolls _ The key issue is that the benefits bill in this country is vastly too high and that so much has been over diagnosed and financially rewarded that being able bodied seems almost more of a rarity these days | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Daily Mail comments column probably provides a representative example of what a cross section of society think. It is difficult to see why you would need to be medically trained to assess someone for PIP. Representative of a certain demographic of angry gammons perhaps 😂 I think you'll find that the vast majority of any online comments columns are written by Russian bots and internet trolls _ The key issue is that the benefits bill in this country is vastly too high and that so much has been over diagnosed and financially rewarded that being able bodied seems almost more of a rarity these days" No problem, remember Labour has a magic money tree which their rebel MPs think can fund a black hole of benefits payouts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me. Then why ask the question? The curve is generally accepted as correct, only the tipping point is debatable. I asked for tangible examples as someone thinks it's been "proven time and again". That doesn't mean mathematical models that take generalised datums. If it does then that's really stretching. What's written in the economics books aren't directly relatable to real markets and social structures, another reason they fail so hard in Whitehall; applying mathematical models to real life, knobs😂. Margaret Thatcher reduced taxes and as I remember the total tax take went up. François Hollande increased the top rate in France to 75%. The exodus of money (and tax) forced him to scrap it rather sharpish. The irony was that London became France's 6th largest city based on population of French nationals. The smart money follows low tax jurisdictions and is doing so as we write. High tax is for dummies. But I'd never expect a socialist to understand that. The force of the politics of envy and class war is far too strong. That's a textbook neoliberalist response. Not sure why I care to dismantle it because you're not likely to listen but you deserve a response as you gave me your view. Firstly though; I'm no so(!@[!st
I support a liberal, functioning market economy. But let’s deal in facts shall we.
Thatcher cut top rates for the rich, yes, but hiked up VAT and pol taxes which is a 'regressive tax' for everyone else, who wasn't in her ear (the ordinary man). So while the total tax take rose (due to inflation + population), it was the working class footing more of the bill, not a myth of growth. **many people do not understand the difference between regressive and progressive tax systems. I see it so often here, yet it's fundamental to grasp in arguments around tax**
It's the same as this laffer curve myth. People shouting it out yet have no examples other than "go and see".
As for Hollande’s 75%, I'd not heard that one. So I had a little look and found it applied to only salaries above €1M. France still collects far more tax as % of GDP than the UK and hasn’t collapsed, as I've stated already in this thread that the UK tax isn't the highest in Europe by any stretch. This ‘exodus’ was overstated, more PR than reality.
The idea that 'smart money follows low taxes' assumes capital has no social responsibility. That’s not smart, that’s sociopathic. It’s how we ended up with billionaires avoiding tax while schools crumble and growing food banks with health professionals using them to feed their families. Real show of example to how vulture capitalism has given us all agency ay
Calling fair tax 'envy' is just an elitist code for protecting privilege. The real 'envy' is from those terrified of a system where everyone contributes and no one gets a free ride.
Wanting a fair contribution from those who benefit most from the broken system isn’t ‘envy’."I'm envious of those who can live comfortably on state benefits without the inconvenience of turning in a days work. That's privilege right there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me. Then why ask the question? The curve is generally accepted as correct, only the tipping point is debatable. I asked for tangible examples as someone thinks it's been "proven time and again". That doesn't mean mathematical models that take generalised datums. If it does then that's really stretching. What's written in the economics books aren't directly relatable to real markets and social structures, another reason they fail so hard in Whitehall; applying mathematical models to real life, knobs😂. Margaret Thatcher reduced taxes and as I remember the total tax take went up. François Hollande increased the top rate in France to 75%. The exodus of money (and tax) forced him to scrap it rather sharpish. The irony was that London became France's 6th largest city based on population of French nationals. The smart money follows low tax jurisdictions and is doing so as we write. High tax is for dummies. But I'd never expect a socialist to understand that. The force of the politics of envy and class war is far too strong. That's a textbook neoliberalist response. Not sure why I care to dismantle it because you're not likely to listen but you deserve a response as you gave me your view. Firstly though; I'm no so(!@[!st
I support a liberal, functioning market economy. But let’s deal in facts shall we.
Thatcher cut top rates for the rich, yes, but hiked up VAT and pol taxes which is a 'regressive tax' for everyone else, who wasn't in her ear (the ordinary man). So while the total tax take rose (due to inflation + population), it was the working class footing more of the bill, not a myth of growth. **many people do not understand the difference between regressive and progressive tax systems. I see it so often here, yet it's fundamental to grasp in arguments around tax**
It's the same as this laffer curve myth. People shouting it out yet have no examples other than "go and see".
As for Hollande’s 75%, I'd not heard that one. So I had a little look and found it applied to only salaries above €1M. France still collects far more tax as % of GDP than the UK and hasn’t collapsed, as I've stated already in this thread that the UK tax isn't the highest in Europe by any stretch. This ‘exodus’ was overstated, more PR than reality.
The idea that 'smart money follows low taxes' assumes capital has no social responsibility. That’s not smart, that’s sociopathic. It’s how we ended up with billionaires avoiding tax while schools crumble and growing food banks with health professionals using them to feed their families. Real show of example to how vulture capitalism has given us all agency ay
Calling fair tax 'envy' is just an elitist code for protecting privilege. The real 'envy' is from those terrified of a system where everyone contributes and no one gets a free ride.
Wanting a fair contribution from those who benefit most from the broken system isn’t ‘envy’."To be fair a very well written reply. Pity the content is the usual left wing drivel. The first little pippin that gets trotted out more than the entire field at Royal Ascot is that Thatcher only cut taxes for her rich friends. Wrong. The basic rate of income tax when she came to power was 33%. Over 11 years she cut that to 25% and raised thresholds by considerably more than inflation. Low and middle income family's were much better off. Yes to be fair she did cut higher rates. But bear in mind that in 1979 anything over £20k pa (good money in those days but not a fortune) was hit with an eye watering 83%. No wonder high earners were deserting the country in droves, we even had a name for it back then. "The Brain Drain". Hiked up VAT rates you say. Yes but you make one huge omission. VAT rules are/were set by the EU (currently 15% minimum). Also remember that she fought tooth and nail to keep children's clothing VAT free. Another thing worth noting is that during her time she actually paid off some of the national debt. All of that despite the knuckle dragging "working class heroes" trying to drag the country back into the 19th century. I often chuckle when I think of modern lefties wearing "Coal Not Dole" badges.
The laffer curve is only debunked by people who find it as an inconvenient truth. Most respected economists accept is as broadly correct.
Yes Hollande's 75% did only kick in at 1 million Euro's. But even with that high threshold it caused panic in the French treasury and was very quickly kicked into touch. For a while London did quite well out of it though.
Oh and "France hasn't collapsed" you missed the word YET! French government finances are in a perilous state, even worse than the UK and that is saying something.
Fair tax you say. I think that paying over 50% of your income to the government (tax & NI) is grossly unfair. But not in the way you would like.
From your other post where you mention the 1976 IMF bailout. You got that one wrong as well.
You single out Britain as reliant on oil as if that was the cause of the bailout.
Of course Britain needed oil but was nowhere near as reliant as many other countries.
Most electricity was generated by coal back then. North sea gas was heating homes and the first North Sea oil was coming on stream. Germany, France and many other country's that didn't have a whiff of gas or a drop of oil didn't need the IMF to bail them out.
Besides the Arab oil embargo had ended a full two years before and oil prices were falling by 1976.
Britain needed the bail out because of gross mismanagement by a Labour government that (apart from a brief interlude with Heath) had been in power for over a decade and punitive tax rates that had driven top earners to the 4 corners of the world (Laffer curve and Brain Drain again).
Oh and don't forget that Labour already had form for screwing up the country's finances. Barely 4 years after coming to power they had to devalue sterling or they would have needed a bail out much earlier.
Vote Labour? My arse.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me. Then why ask the question? The curve is generally accepted as correct, only the tipping point is debatable. I asked for tangible examples as someone thinks it's been "proven time and again". That doesn't mean mathematical models that take generalised datums. If it does then that's really stretching. What's written in the economics books aren't directly relatable to real markets and social structures, another reason they fail so hard in Whitehall; applying mathematical models to real life, knobs😂. Margaret Thatcher reduced taxes and as I remember the total tax take went up. François Hollande increased the top rate in France to 75%. The exodus of money (and tax) forced him to scrap it rather sharpish. The irony was that London became France's 6th largest city based on population of French nationals. The smart money follows low tax jurisdictions and is doing so as we write. High tax is for dummies. But I'd never expect a socialist to understand that. The force of the politics of envy and class war is far too strong. That's a textbook neoliberalist response. Not sure why I care to dismantle it because you're not likely to listen but you deserve a response as you gave me your view. Firstly though; I'm no so(!@[!st
I support a liberal, functioning market economy. But let’s deal in facts shall we.
Thatcher cut top rates for the rich, yes, but hiked up VAT and pol taxes which is a 'regressive tax' for everyone else, who wasn't in her ear (the ordinary man). So while the total tax take rose (due to inflation + population), it was the working class footing more of the bill, not a myth of growth. **many people do not understand the difference between regressive and progressive tax systems. I see it so often here, yet it's fundamental to grasp in arguments around tax**
It's the same as this laffer curve myth. People shouting it out yet have no examples other than "go and see".
As for Hollande’s 75%, I'd not heard that one. So I had a little look and found it applied to only salaries above €1M. France still collects far more tax as % of GDP than the UK and hasn’t collapsed, as I've stated already in this thread that the UK tax isn't the highest in Europe by any stretch. This ‘exodus’ was overstated, more PR than reality.
The idea that 'smart money follows low taxes' assumes capital has no social responsibility. That’s not smart, that’s sociopathic. It’s how we ended up with billionaires avoiding tax while schools crumble and growing food banks with health professionals using them to feed their families. Real show of example to how vulture capitalism has given us all agency ay
Calling fair tax 'envy' is just an elitist code for protecting privilege. The real 'envy' is from those terrified of a system where everyone contributes and no one gets a free ride.
Wanting a fair contribution from those who benefit most from the broken system isn’t ‘envy’.
To be fair a very well written reply.
Pity the content is the usual left wing drivel.
The first little pippin that gets trotted out more than the entire field at Royal Ascot is that Thatcher only cut taxes for her rich friends.
Wrong. The basic rate of income tax when she came to power was 33%. Over 11 years she cut that to 25% and raised thresholds by considerably more than inflation. Low and middle income family's were much better off. Yes to be fair she did cut higher rates. But bear in mind that in 1979 anything over £20k pa (good money in those days but not a fortune) was hit with an eye watering 83%. No wonder high earners were deserting the country in droves, we even had a name for it back then. "The Brain Drain".
Hiked up VAT rates you say. Yes but you make one huge omission. VAT rules are/were set by the EU (currently 15% minimum). Also remember that she fought tooth and nail to keep children's clothing VAT free.
Another thing worth noting is that during her time she actually paid off some of the national debt. All of that despite the knuckle dragging "working class heroes" trying to drag the country back into the 19th century. I often chuckle when I think of modern lefties wearing "Coal Not Dole" badges.
The laffer curve is only debunked by people who find it as an inconvenient truth. Most respected economists accept is as broadly correct.
Yes Hollande's 75% did only kick in at 1 million Euro's. But even with that high threshold it caused panic in the French treasury and was very quickly kicked into touch. For a while London did quite well out of it though.
Oh and "France hasn't collapsed" you missed the word YET! French government finances are in a perilous state, even worse than the UK and that is saying something.
Fair tax you say. I think that paying over 50% of your income to the government (tax & NI) is grossly unfair. But not in the way you would like.
From your other post where you mention the 1976 IMF bailout. You got that one wrong as well.
You single out Britain as reliant on oil as if that was the cause of the bailout.
Of course Britain needed oil but was nowhere near as reliant as many other countries.
Most electricity was generated by coal back then. North sea gas was heating homes and the first North Sea oil was coming on stream. Germany, France and many other country's that didn't have a whiff of gas or a drop of oil didn't need the IMF to bail them out.
Besides the Arab oil embargo had ended a full two years before and oil prices were falling by 1976.
Britain needed the bail out because of gross mismanagement by a Labour government that (apart from a brief interlude with Heath) had been in power for over a decade and punitive tax rates that had driven top earners to the 4 corners of the world (Laffer curve and Brain Drain again).
Oh and don't forget that Labour already had form for screwing up the country's finances. Barely 4 years after coming to power they had to devalue sterling or they would have needed a bail out much earlier.
Vote Labour? My arse.
"The great British public believe in fairy tales Vote brexit .. ok Vote labour .. ok Next thing they'll vote for reform then it's really last one out turn off them lights | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me. Then why ask the question? The curve is generally accepted as correct, only the tipping point is debatable. I asked for tangible examples as someone thinks it's been "proven time and again". That doesn't mean mathematical models that take generalised datums. If it does then that's really stretching. What's written in the economics books aren't directly relatable to real markets and social structures, another reason they fail so hard in Whitehall; applying mathematical models to real life, knobs😂. Margaret Thatcher reduced taxes and as I remember the total tax take went up. François Hollande increased the top rate in France to 75%. The exodus of money (and tax) forced him to scrap it rather sharpish. The irony was that London became France's 6th largest city based on population of French nationals. The smart money follows low tax jurisdictions and is doing so as we write. High tax is for dummies. But I'd never expect a socialist to understand that. The force of the politics of envy and class war is far too strong. That's a textbook neoliberalist response. Not sure why I care to dismantle it because you're not likely to listen but you deserve a response as you gave me your view. Firstly though; I'm no so(!@[!st
I support a liberal, functioning market economy. But let’s deal in facts shall we.
Thatcher cut top rates for the rich, yes, but hiked up VAT and pol taxes which is a 'regressive tax' for everyone else, who wasn't in her ear (the ordinary man). So while the total tax take rose (due to inflation + population), it was the working class footing more of the bill, not a myth of growth. **many people do not understand the difference between regressive and progressive tax systems. I see it so often here, yet it's fundamental to grasp in arguments around tax**
It's the same as this laffer curve myth. People shouting it out yet have no examples other than "go and see".
As for Hollande’s 75%, I'd not heard that one. So I had a little look and found it applied to only salaries above €1M. France still collects far more tax as % of GDP than the UK and hasn’t collapsed, as I've stated already in this thread that the UK tax isn't the highest in Europe by any stretch. This ‘exodus’ was overstated, more PR than reality.
The idea that 'smart money follows low taxes' assumes capital has no social responsibility. That’s not smart, that’s sociopathic. It’s how we ended up with billionaires avoiding tax while schools crumble and growing food banks with health professionals using them to feed their families. Real show of example to how vulture capitalism has given us all agency ay
Calling fair tax 'envy' is just an elitist code for protecting privilege. The real 'envy' is from those terrified of a system where everyone contributes and no one gets a free ride.
Wanting a fair contribution from those who benefit most from the broken system isn’t ‘envy’.
To be fair a very well written reply.
Pity the content is the usual left wing drivel.
The first little pippin that gets trotted out more than the entire field at Royal Ascot is that Thatcher only cut taxes for her rich friends.
Wrong. The basic rate of income tax when she came to power was 33%. Over 11 years she cut that to 25% and raised thresholds by considerably more than inflation. Low and middle income family's were much better off. Yes to be fair she did cut higher rates. But bear in mind that in 1979 anything over £20k pa (good money in those days but not a fortune) was hit with an eye watering 83%. No wonder high earners were deserting the country in droves, we even had a name for it back then. "The Brain Drain".
Hiked up VAT rates you say. Yes but you make one huge omission. VAT rules are/were set by the EU (currently 15% minimum). Also remember that she fought tooth and nail to keep children's clothing VAT free.
Another thing worth noting is that during her time she actually paid off some of the national debt. All of that despite the knuckle dragging "working class heroes" trying to drag the country back into the 19th century. I often chuckle when I think of modern lefties wearing "Coal Not Dole" badges.
The laffer curve is only debunked by people who find it as an inconvenient truth. Most respected economists accept is as broadly correct.
Yes Hollande's 75% did only kick in at 1 million Euro's. But even with that high threshold it caused panic in the French treasury and was very quickly kicked into touch. For a while London did quite well out of it though.
Oh and "France hasn't collapsed" you missed the word YET! French government finances are in a perilous state, even worse than the UK and that is saying something.
Fair tax you say. I think that paying over 50% of your income to the government (tax & NI) is grossly unfair. But not in the way you would like.
From your other post where you mention the 1976 IMF bailout. You got that one wrong as well.
You single out Britain as reliant on oil as if that was the cause of the bailout.
Of course Britain needed oil but was nowhere near as reliant as many other countries.
Most electricity was generated by coal back then. North sea gas was heating homes and the first North Sea oil was coming on stream. Germany, France and many other country's that didn't have a whiff of gas or a drop of oil didn't need the IMF to bail them out.
Besides the Arab oil embargo had ended a full two years before and oil prices were falling by 1976.
Britain needed the bail out because of gross mismanagement by a Labour government that (apart from a brief interlude with Heath) had been in power for over a decade and punitive tax rates that had driven top earners to the 4 corners of the world (Laffer curve and Brain Drain again).
Oh and don't forget that Labour already had form for screwing up the country's finances. Barely 4 years after coming to power they had to devalue sterling or they would have needed a bail out much earlier.
Vote Labour? My arse.
The great British public believe in fairy tales
Vote brexit .. ok
Vote labour .. ok
Next thing they'll vote for reform then it's really last one out turn off them lights "At this rate the lights will go out long before the next election. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me. Then why ask the question? The curve is generally accepted as correct, only the tipping point is debatable. I asked for tangible examples as someone thinks it's been "proven time and again". That doesn't mean mathematical models that take generalised datums. If it does then that's really stretching. What's written in the economics books aren't directly relatable to real markets and social structures, another reason they fail so hard in Whitehall; applying mathematical models to real life, knobs😂. Margaret Thatcher reduced taxes and as I remember the total tax take went up. François Hollande increased the top rate in France to 75%. The exodus of money (and tax) forced him to scrap it rather sharpish. The irony was that London became France's 6th largest city based on population of French nationals. The smart money follows low tax jurisdictions and is doing so as we write. High tax is for dummies. But I'd never expect a socialist to understand that. The force of the politics of envy and class war is far too strong. That's a textbook neoliberalist response. Not sure why I care to dismantle it because you're not likely to listen but you deserve a response as you gave me your view. Firstly though; I'm no so(!@[!st
I support a liberal, functioning market economy. But let’s deal in facts shall we.
Thatcher cut top rates for the rich, yes, but hiked up VAT and pol taxes which is a 'regressive tax' for everyone else, who wasn't in her ear (the ordinary man). So while the total tax take rose (due to inflation + population), it was the working class footing more of the bill, not a myth of growth. **many people do not understand the difference between regressive and progressive tax systems. I see it so often here, yet it's fundamental to grasp in arguments around tax**
It's the same as this laffer curve myth. People shouting it out yet have no examples other than "go and see".
As for Hollande’s 75%, I'd not heard that one. So I had a little look and found it applied to only salaries above €1M. France still collects far more tax as % of GDP than the UK and hasn’t collapsed, as I've stated already in this thread that the UK tax isn't the highest in Europe by any stretch. This ‘exodus’ was overstated, more PR than reality.
The idea that 'smart money follows low taxes' assumes capital has no social responsibility. That’s not smart, that’s sociopathic. It’s how we ended up with billionaires avoiding tax while schools crumble and growing food banks with health professionals using them to feed their families. Real show of example to how vulture capitalism has given us all agency ay
Calling fair tax 'envy' is just an elitist code for protecting privilege. The real 'envy' is from those terrified of a system where everyone contributes and no one gets a free ride.
Wanting a fair contribution from those who benefit most from the broken system isn’t ‘envy’.
To be fair a very well written reply.
Pity the content is the usual left wing drivel.
The first little pippin that gets trotted out more than the entire field at Royal Ascot is that Thatcher only cut taxes for her rich friends.
Wrong. The basic rate of income tax when she came to power was 33%. Over 11 years she cut that to 25% and raised thresholds by considerably more than inflation. Low and middle income family's were much better off. Yes to be fair she did cut higher rates. But bear in mind that in 1979 anything over £20k pa (good money in those days but not a fortune) was hit with an eye watering 83%. No wonder high earners were deserting the country in droves, we even had a name for it back then. "The Brain Drain".
Hiked up VAT rates you say. Yes but you make one huge omission. VAT rules are/were set by the EU (currently 15% minimum). Also remember that she fought tooth and nail to keep children's clothing VAT free.
Another thing worth noting is that during her time she actually paid off some of the national debt. All of that despite the knuckle dragging "working class heroes" trying to drag the country back into the 19th century. I often chuckle when I think of modern lefties wearing "Coal Not Dole" badges.
The laffer curve is only debunked by people who find it as an inconvenient truth. Most respected economists accept is as broadly correct.
Yes Hollande's 75% did only kick in at 1 million Euro's. But even with that high threshold it caused panic in the French treasury and was very quickly kicked into touch. For a while London did quite well out of it though.
Oh and "France hasn't collapsed" you missed the word YET! French government finances are in a perilous state, even worse than the UK and that is saying something.
Fair tax you say. I think that paying over 50% of your income to the government (tax & NI) is grossly unfair. But not in the way you would like.
From your other post where you mention the 1976 IMF bailout. You got that one wrong as well.
You single out Britain as reliant on oil as if that was the cause of the bailout.
Of course Britain needed oil but was nowhere near as reliant as many other countries.
Most electricity was generated by coal back then. North sea gas was heating homes and the first North Sea oil was coming on stream. Germany, France and many other country's that didn't have a whiff of gas or a drop of oil didn't need the IMF to bail them out.
Besides the Arab oil embargo had ended a full two years before and oil prices were falling by 1976.
Britain needed the bail out because of gross mismanagement by a Labour government that (apart from a brief interlude with Heath) had been in power for over a decade and punitive tax rates that had driven top earners to the 4 corners of the world (Laffer curve and Brain Drain again).
Oh and don't forget that Labour already had form for screwing up the country's finances. Barely 4 years after coming to power they had to devalue sterling or they would have needed a bail out much earlier.
Vote Labour? My arse.
The great British public believe in fairy tales
Vote brexit .. ok
Vote labour .. ok
Next thing they'll vote for reform then it's really last one out turn off them lights
At this rate the lights will go out long before the next election."The people voted for them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Always remember it has been proved time and again that high tax doesn't mean more tax. Where has that been proven? It's called the Laffer curve. A theory of tax vs economic productivity. Pulling out the laffer curve to try and evade the question. I don't need you to explain macroeconomics to me. Then why ask the question? The curve is generally accepted as correct, only the tipping point is debatable. I asked for tangible examples as someone thinks it's been "proven time and again". That doesn't mean mathematical models that take generalised datums. If it does then that's really stretching. What's written in the economics books aren't directly relatable to real markets and social structures, another reason they fail so hard in Whitehall; applying mathematical models to real life, knobs😂. Margaret Thatcher reduced taxes and as I remember the total tax take went up. François Hollande increased the top rate in France to 75%. The exodus of money (and tax) forced him to scrap it rather sharpish. The irony was that London became France's 6th largest city based on population of French nationals. The smart money follows low tax jurisdictions and is doing so as we write. High tax is for dummies. But I'd never expect a socialist to understand that. The force of the politics of envy and class war is far too strong. That's a textbook neoliberalist response. Not sure why I care to dismantle it because you're not likely to listen but you deserve a response as you gave me your view. Firstly though; I'm no so(!@[!st
I support a liberal, functioning market economy. But let’s deal in facts shall we.
Thatcher cut top rates for the rich, yes, but hiked up VAT and pol taxes which is a 'regressive tax' for everyone else, who wasn't in her ear (the ordinary man). So while the total tax take rose (due to inflation + population), it was the working class footing more of the bill, not a myth of growth. **many people do not understand the difference between regressive and progressive tax systems. I see it so often here, yet it's fundamental to grasp in arguments around tax**
It's the same as this laffer curve myth. People shouting it out yet have no examples other than "go and see".
As for Hollande’s 75%, I'd not heard that one. So I had a little look and found it applied to only salaries above €1M. France still collects far more tax as % of GDP than the UK and hasn’t collapsed, as I've stated already in this thread that the UK tax isn't the highest in Europe by any stretch. This ‘exodus’ was overstated, more PR than reality.
The idea that 'smart money follows low taxes' assumes capital has no social responsibility. That’s not smart, that’s sociopathic. It’s how we ended up with billionaires avoiding tax while schools crumble and growing food banks with health professionals using them to feed their families. Real show of example to how vulture capitalism has given us all agency ay
Calling fair tax 'envy' is just an elitist code for protecting privilege. The real 'envy' is from those terrified of a system where everyone contributes and no one gets a free ride.
Wanting a fair contribution from those who benefit most from the broken system isn’t ‘envy’.
To be fair a very well written reply.
Pity the content is the usual left wing drivel.
The first little pippin that gets trotted out more than the entire field at Royal Ascot is that Thatcher only cut taxes for her rich friends.
Wrong. The basic rate of income tax when she came to power was 33%. Over 11 years she cut that to 25% and raised thresholds by considerably more than inflation. Low and middle income family's were much better off. Yes to be fair she did cut higher rates. But bear in mind that in 1979 anything over £20k pa (good money in those days but not a fortune) was hit with an eye watering 83%. No wonder high earners were deserting the country in droves, we even had a name for it back then. "The Brain Drain".
Hiked up VAT rates you say. Yes but you make one huge omission. VAT rules are/were set by the EU (currently 15% minimum). Also remember that she fought tooth and nail to keep children's clothing VAT free.
Another thing worth noting is that during her time she actually paid off some of the national debt. All of that despite the knuckle dragging "working class heroes" trying to drag the country back into the 19th century. I often chuckle when I think of modern lefties wearing "Coal Not Dole" badges.
The laffer curve is only debunked by people who find it as an inconvenient truth. Most respected economists accept is as broadly correct.
Yes Hollande's 75% did only kick in at 1 million Euro's. But even with that high threshold it caused panic in the French treasury and was very quickly kicked into touch. For a while London did quite well out of it though.
Oh and "France hasn't collapsed" you missed the word YET! French government finances are in a perilous state, even worse than the UK and that is saying something.
Fair tax you say. I think that paying over 50% of your income to the government (tax & NI) is grossly unfair. But not in the way you would like.
From your other post where you mention the 1976 IMF bailout. You got that one wrong as well.
You single out Britain as reliant on oil as if that was the cause of the bailout.
Of course Britain needed oil but was nowhere near as reliant as many other countries.
Most electricity was generated by coal back then. North sea gas was heating homes and the first North Sea oil was coming on stream. Germany, France and many other country's that didn't have a whiff of gas or a drop of oil didn't need the IMF to bail them out.
Besides the Arab oil embargo had ended a full two years before and oil prices were falling by 1976.
Britain needed the bail out because of gross mismanagement by a Labour government that (apart from a brief interlude with Heath) had been in power for over a decade and punitive tax rates that had driven top earners to the 4 corners of the world (Laffer curve and Brain Drain again).
Oh and don't forget that Labour already had form for screwing up the country's finances. Barely 4 years after coming to power they had to devalue sterling or they would have needed a bail out much earlier.
Vote Labour? My arse.
"In simple terms, when tax is high its worth the effort to avoid paying it if you can, When there is a ballance it's not worth the work or risk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
