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 |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would genuinely like to hear from supporters of a wealth tax. What exactly counts as wealth? How would it be taxed in practice? What would be the expected returns? How will it benefit the economy? " Wealth includes property not liquid assets so people who might have inherited a large property and who are on a modest income would have to pay more tax on money they don't have. It doesn't matter what is taxed, it'll be drained by the benefits system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would genuinely like to hear from supporters of a wealth tax. What exactly counts as wealth? How would it be taxed in practice? What would be the expected returns? How will it benefit the economy? Wealth includes property not liquid assets so people who might have inherited a large property and who are on a modest income would have to pay more tax on money they don't have. It doesn't matter what is taxed, it'll be drained by the benefits system." And the excessive public service | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People with assets, put their assets to work to generate more money. For example, if you invest in shares in a company, you will want higher dividends. The company will want to increase profits, but raising prices as much as possible, hurting the consumers." That's not how it works. A company that just raises their prices, will soon find all of their customers going to someone else that's cheaper. To run a profitable business you either have to be more efficient and thus cheaper than your competitors, or make a better product to justify the extra price. To make lots of profit and pay the shareholders what they want, you actually have to be good at running a business. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think wealth tax is just the means and not the goal. The goal is to discourage hoarding of wealth and assets which generate even more wealth at an alarming rate. People with assets, put their assets to work to generate more money. For example, if you invest in shares in a company, you will want higher dividends. The company will want to increase profits, but raising prices as much as possible, hurting the consumers. Property is the classic example. We essentially now have landlord class and non-landlord class. The non-landlord class by far and in large, are priced out of ever owning property and will for the rest of their life be left to surrender a significant portion of the wage to build the wealth of the landlord class even more." Property in isolation, Reeves is rumoured to be looking at a rent levy in the budget. There’s already an annual envelope tax on properties over £500k held by companies. 5% addional stamp duty premium on second home/buy to let/holiday home. Capital gains tax rates could well increase again. Property is a cash cow for the treasury. The ons says uk property values total £9trn. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"to me a wealth tax is just common sense. take money from people with plenty rather than taking money from the old the sick & the disabled? " Where should the wealth tax threshold be set ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would genuinely like to hear from supporters of a wealth tax. What exactly counts as wealth? How would it be taxed in practice? What would be the expected returns? How will it benefit the economy? " Wealth is subjective. Rifling through bank accounts. The first quarter would be the only bumper returns. It wouldn’t, only the treasury would benefit.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All unearned wealth should be up for consideration for increased taxation imho. Country is £3 trillion in the red. We’ve tried the austerity route, it didn’t work really did it?" Unearned income is already taxed along with capital gains. What it a fair rate of tax on unearned income. Rental income is taxed at marginal rate Investment dividend income is taxed with rates of 8.75%, 33.75%, and 39.35%, depending on income tax band. Capital gains tax allowances have been reduced from £13,300 pa to £3,000 pa. Capital gains tax rates were increased in the last budget. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All unearned wealth should be up for consideration for increased taxation imho. Country is £3 trillion in the red. We’ve tried the austerity route, it didn’t work really did it? Unearned income is already taxed along with capital gains. What it a fair rate of tax on unearned income. Rental income is taxed at marginal rate Investment dividend income is taxed with rates of 8.75%, 33.75%, and 39.35%, depending on income tax band. Capital gains tax allowances have been reduced from £13,300 pa to £3,000 pa. Capital gains tax rates were increased in the last budget. " I’d be looking at IHT thresholds, loopholes & percentages personally. Lot of people out there with a lot of grossly inflated equity in bricks & mortar. Not saying it would be a vote winner, but that’s what I’d be looking at. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All unearned wealth should be up for consideration for increased taxation imho. Country is £3 trillion in the red. We’ve tried the austerity route, it didn’t work really did it? Unearned income is already taxed along with capital gains. What it a fair rate of tax on unearned income. Rental income is taxed at marginal rate Investment dividend income is taxed with rates of 8.75%, 33.75%, and 39.35%, depending on income tax band. Capital gains tax allowances have been reduced from £13,300 pa to £3,000 pa. Capital gains tax rates were increased in the last budget. I’d be looking at IHT thresholds, loopholes & percentages personally. Lot of people out there with a lot of grossly inflated equity in bricks & mortar. Not saying it would be a vote winner, but that’s what I’d be looking at." On the iht, currently £325k allowance and up to £175k residence exemption. (Total £1M for a couple) 40% iht rate there on. If people have saved instead of spent there estate pays up more tax. Already inherited wealth pays in perpetuity. I’m wondering how much is enough. 40% seems a good bung to the treasury. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"to me a wealth tax is just common sense. take money from people with plenty rather than taking money from the old the sick & the disabled? Where should the wealth tax threshold be set ? " that is the $64,000 question I would say somewhere in the £200,000- £500,000 range but it would need adjustment for inflation etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"to me a wealth tax is just common sense. take money from people with plenty rather than taking money from the old the sick & the disabled? Where should the wealth tax threshold be set ? that is the $64,000 question I would say somewhere in the £200,000- £500,000 range but it would need adjustment for inflation etc " What would be the cost per year to people in that sort of wealth level. If it includes the value of your house I suspect a great deal of people will fall into it. If they can't pay, are they forced to sell their property? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are we talking about an actual wealth tax, or what every country has which is a progressive tax system? If a cleaner as a percentage of their wage are paying more than a CEO because of tax loopholes , we have a huge problem! " And yes we do have this problem. The same as a teacher paying more than an hairdresser, or taxi driver both don't declare cash in come and I now some how do very well out of it. Have you never asked a builder how much for cash? No OK just me then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"to me a wealth tax is just common sense. take money from people with plenty rather than taking money from the old the sick & the disabled? Where should the wealth tax threshold be set ? that is the $64,000 question I would say somewhere in the £200,000- £500,000 range but it would need adjustment for inflation etc " Would this also be adjusted for regen London wage and property is alot more than the north of UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"to me a wealth tax is just common sense. take money from people with plenty rather than taking money from the old the sick & the disabled? " But lots of wealthy people don't have any money. Someone living on the state pension in a house in London would be considered wealthy because their house is worth a lot, whilst also being unable to pay to heat it because they have nothing left after they've paid for food. Is that who you want to take money from? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would genuinely like to hear from supporters of a wealth tax. What exactly counts as wealth? " Wealth means ownership of stuff, some would say assets. Assets are like property, stocks, pensions/large sums of money, commodities, land etc etc. Wealth ≠ income. " How would it be taxed in practice? " Like how council tax works but progressive instead of regressive. Like a land value tax; as the total UK wealth is estimated £13t and £9t of that is residential property, so I'd start there. The rich already track their assets for tax avoidance and potentially for evasion too... so I don't think you're changing much. " What would be the expected returns? " Even a small 'progressive' tax of say 1–2% on net assets over a high amounts like £10m could raise tens of billions annually (not just one time). As for those affected? they would still be rich, just not as excessively. " How will it benefit the economy? " As I've said, tens of billions into the treasury annually = endless possibilities. *It could be reinvested into public services, infrastructure; boosting long-term growth (if you want to do a china) *use it to lower regressive taxes like VAT or council tax; giving more people capital to spend *use it to pay back national debt. And here’s the wild card: If you really wanted to fight inflation? Tax the wealth and burn the money. Sounds mad, but it would reduce demand by taking money out of circulation. Might’ve helped when inflation hit double digits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would genuinely like to hear from supporters of a wealth tax. What exactly counts as wealth? How would it be taxed in practice? What would be the expected returns? How will it benefit the economy? " Just to answer the specific questions: 1. Assets, most commonly property, savings and stocks 2. Through a tax return, the same as income tax for many 3. Completely depends on the rates, but it's commonly progressive so zero up to a limit, less than 1% from that limit to the next etc etc. it's usually under 2% and overall probably less than 1% on all wealth. 4. Again depends what you want to do. It could be used to offset tax on low earners or all, or it could build infrastructure which everyone benefits from. It would stop people hoarding assets. It would level the playing field for young people. It could be used for tax breaks or free education again. It could support the NHS and police. It could encourage work over asset buying. It could encourage spending and boost the economy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How would it be taxed in practice?" "Through a tax return, the same as income tax for many" How would that work? Would I be expected to pay for a surveyor each year to independently assess my house, so that I can fill in the form accurately? How would I assess share holdings. Those might go up as well as down tomorrow. How do I work out what their value is, without running the risk of HMRC disagreeing with me? Imagine I have an enormous garden which I use to grow vegetables. Do I assess that land as agricultural and therefore not worth much, or do I assess it as a potential building plot which is worth considerably more? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. " Well this is just incorrect. You should Google Patriotic Millionaires. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. Well this is just incorrect. You should Google Patriotic Millionaires. " If millionaires or billionaires want to contribute more to the public coffers nobody is stopping them. They don’t need to set up a campaign group about it or force others to do so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. Well this is just incorrect. You should Google Patriotic Millionaires. If millionaires or billionaires want to contribute more to the public coffers nobody is stopping them. They don’t need to set up a campaign group about it or force others to do so." I disagree. By their behaviour they are actively challenging the thinking of ‘all the rich people will leave the country if we put up their taxes’ …which may then encourage more people to vote for a party that will introduce tax increases for the rich. What next, if the Daily Mail believes ‘if we tax the rich they will leave the country’ then it should keep its opinions to itself? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. Well this is just incorrect. You should Google Patriotic Millionaires. If millionaires or billionaires want to contribute more to the public coffers nobody is stopping them. They don’t need to set up a campaign group about it or force others to do so." I dont think a voluntary tax system would work, whilst most people are prepared to pay what they have to & some are generous, many people resent paying any tax & will go to elaborate schemes to avoid tax. some verry rich people can be very mean with money | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. Well this is just incorrect. You should Google Patriotic Millionaires. If millionaires or billionaires want to contribute more to the public coffers nobody is stopping them. They don’t need to set up a campaign group about it or force others to do so. I disagree. By their behaviour they are actively challenging the thinking of ‘all the rich people will leave the country if we put up their taxes’ …which may then encourage more people to vote for a party that will introduce tax increases for the rich. What next, if the Daily Mail believes ‘if we tax the rich they will leave the country’ then it should keep its opinions to itself?" But again, you still want other people to pay more tax. Pay more yourself. There may be some “generous” people who are “filthy rich” (love that term, like having money makes you dirty) but I doubt they pay voluntary contributions to HMRC. Could you provide a link or point me in the right direction for any that do. I personally think a voluntary fund is the perfect idea. I suggested this in the fabguys forum a couple of years ago. I even provided the bank account details for a HMRC collection account that sole traders use to pay their income tax and invited people to send me screen shots of their voluntary contributions. Guess what?…… 🤣 If there are supposedly millions of socialists “who will happily pay more tax”, how come you never do? That’s rhetorical by the way, we all know the answer. We’ve seen it posted in this thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. Well this is just incorrect. You should Google Patriotic Millionaires. If millionaires or billionaires want to contribute more to the public coffers nobody is stopping them. They don’t need to set up a campaign group about it or force others to do so. I disagree. By their behaviour they are actively challenging the thinking of ‘all the rich people will leave the country if we put up their taxes’ …which may then encourage more people to vote for a party that will introduce tax increases for the rich. What next, if the Daily Mail believes ‘if we tax the rich they will leave the country’ then it should keep its opinions to itself? But again, you still want other people to pay more tax. Pay more yourself. There may be some “generous” people who are “filthy rich” (love that term, like having money makes you dirty) but I doubt they pay voluntary contributions to HMRC. Could you provide a link or point me in the right direction for any that do. I personally think a voluntary fund is the perfect idea. I suggested this in the fabguys forum a couple of years ago. I even provided the bank account details for a HMRC collection account that sole traders use to pay their income tax and invited people to send me screen shots of their voluntary contributions. Guess what?…… 🤣 If there are supposedly millions of socialists “who will happily pay more tax”, how come you never do? That’s rhetorical by the way, we all know the answer. We’ve seen it posted in this thread. " A voluntary fund wouldn’t work because most people in a position to do so would need the nudge & the legislation to pay that tax. A lot of Humans are generally not unlike squirrels hoarding too many nuts for themselves, even when they can see the detrimental effects this can have on wider society. The gap between rich and poor has increased during the era of neoliberal economics over the last 45 years. What happened to ‘trickle down economics’ ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. Well this is just incorrect. You should Google Patriotic Millionaires. If millionaires or billionaires want to contribute more to the public coffers nobody is stopping them. They don’t need to set up a campaign group about it or force others to do so. I disagree. By their behaviour they are actively challenging the thinking of ‘all the rich people will leave the country if we put up their taxes’ …which may then encourage more people to vote for a party that will introduce tax increases for the rich. What next, if the Daily Mail believes ‘if we tax the rich they will leave the country’ then it should keep its opinions to itself? But again, you still want other people to pay more tax. Pay more yourself. There may be some “generous” people who are “filthy rich” (love that term, like having money makes you dirty) but I doubt they pay voluntary contributions to HMRC. Could you provide a link or point me in the right direction for any that do. I personally think a voluntary fund is the perfect idea. I suggested this in the fabguys forum a couple of years ago. I even provided the bank account details for a HMRC collection account that sole traders use to pay their income tax and invited people to send me screen shots of their voluntary contributions. Guess what?…… 🤣 If there are supposedly millions of socialists “who will happily pay more tax”, how come you never do? That’s rhetorical by the way, we all know the answer. We’ve seen it posted in this thread. A voluntary fund wouldn’t work because most people in a position to do so would need the nudge & the legislation to pay that tax. A lot of Humans are generally not unlike squirrels hoarding too many nuts for themselves, even when they can see the detrimental effects this can have on wider society. The gap between rich and poor has increased during the era of neoliberal economics over the last 45 years. What happened to ‘trickle down economics’ ? " Question: How poor were the poor 45 years ago, compared to 2025? What do the poor have today that they could have only dreamed about 45 years ago? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"to me a wealth tax is just common sense. take money from people with plenty rather than taking money from the old the sick & the disabled? " Or better still take and spend less money. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"to me a wealth tax is just common sense. take money from people with plenty rather than taking money from the old the sick & the disabled? Or better still take and spend less money. " Many old, sick and disabled people are considered wealthy because they live in a big house. Should they sell the big house to feed the benefits scroungers and greedy train drivers ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tech is the big change in 45 years, there were no mobile phones & computers were very expensive, food accommodation fuel & heating have become a lot more expensive . higher education was free 45 years ago " You can say cheaper, better tech is one of the ‘benefits’ of neoliberalism, the fact that developed countries companies take advantage of much cheaper global south manufacturing, making what would be once expensive goods more affordable. An iPhone made in the US would clearly be out of reach for a whole lot more people living there. The ‘downside’ of that is wages can be driven down at home, especially for lower skilled workers, domestic manufacturing can be hollowed out, whilst those in control of capital make ever more capital, with a shift in power dynamics between capital & labour, thus increasing the wealth gap. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. Well this is just incorrect. You should Google Patriotic Millionaires. If millionaires or billionaires want to contribute more to the public coffers nobody is stopping them. They don’t need to set up a campaign group about it or force others to do so. I disagree. By their behaviour they are actively challenging the thinking of ‘all the rich people will leave the country if we put up their taxes’ …which may then encourage more people to vote for a party that will introduce tax increases for the rich. What next, if the Daily Mail believes ‘if we tax the rich they will leave the country’ then it should keep its opinions to itself?" It doesn't matter what the Daily Mail believes. There is historical precedent. In the 60's and 70's when top tax rates were in the 80/90% region high earners and the wealthy were leaving the country in droves. It was known as "The Brain Drain". As I pointed out on another thread. In tax year 1978/79 earnings above £20k pa (good money in those days but not a fortune) were taxed at 83%. Of course not every high earner left the country as would be the case today. But it doesn't need "every" just "enough" to blow a major hole in the governments finances. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. Well this is just incorrect. You should Google Patriotic Millionaires. If millionaires or billionaires want to contribute more to the public coffers nobody is stopping them. They don’t need to set up a campaign group about it or force others to do so. I disagree. By their behaviour they are actively challenging the thinking of ‘all the rich people will leave the country if we put up their taxes’ …which may then encourage more people to vote for a party that will introduce tax increases for the rich. What next, if the Daily Mail believes ‘if we tax the rich they will leave the country’ then it should keep its opinions to itself? It doesn't matter what the Daily Mail believes. There is historical precedent. In the 60's and 70's when top tax rates were in the 80/90% region high earners and the wealthy were leaving the country in droves. It was known as "The Brain Drain". As I pointed out on another thread. In tax year 1978/79 earnings above £20k pa (good money in those days but not a fortune) were taxed at 83%. Of course not every high earner left the country as would be the case today. But it doesn't need "every" just "enough" to blow a major hole in the governments finances. " Everybody always brings up the 70s & I don’t pretend they were halcyon days. What people tend not to mention though is inspite of its bad reputation, we had better economic growth then than we do now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People with assets, put their assets to work to generate more money. For example, if you invest in shares in a company, you will want higher dividends. The company will want to increase profits, but raising prices as much as possible, hurting the consumers. That's not how it works. A company that just raises their prices, will soon find all of their customers going to someone else that's cheaper. To run a profitable business you either have to be more efficient and thus cheaper than your competitors, or make a better product to justify the extra price. To make lots of profit and pay the shareholders what they want, you actually have to be good at running a business." that is cloud cuckoo nonsense right there .... as a nation we decreased out demand for electricity by 30% over 3 decades with more efficient system, appliences etc. .... according to the 'market forces' fantasy that you buy into, the cost of electricity should have fallen accordingly by 30% .... but no, the suppliers adjusted the cost of their product upwards in order to maintain the same total figure of profit. again, when the 5% (£150) green levy was removed from customers bills amid a huge hoohar from the tories about how they were putting money back in peoples pockets by reducing bills, all that happed was that the energy providers snaffled up that £150 and trousered it. so no, what you wrote is total garbage again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. If there are supposedly millions of socialists “who will happily pay more tax”, how come you never do? That’s rhetorical by the way, we all know the answer. We’ve seen it posted in this thread. A voluntary fund wouldn’t work because most people in a position to do so would need the nudge & the legislation to pay that tax. " That is true. But it would also never work because the people who call for tax rises are calling for taxes that don’t apply to them to rise. They don’t want to pay more tax they want other people to pay more tax. The “I’d happily pay more tax if….” brigade, always suffix their statement with something that will never happen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How would it be taxed in practice? Through a tax return, the same as income tax for many How would that work? Would I be expected to pay for a surveyor each year to independently assess my house, so that I can fill in the form accurately? How would I assess share holdings. Those might go up as well as down tomorrow. How do I work out what their value is, without running the risk of HMRC disagreeing with me? Imagine I have an enormous garden which I use to grow vegetables. Do I assess that land as agricultural and therefore not worth much, or do I assess it as a potential building plot which is worth considerably more?" Your house is already valued as part of council tax bandings. An update to that has been proposed for years and can easily be done automatically. There are multiple house price indexes in use today. I don't understand your argument about the garden, if you put the house on the market today it has a value. If you have a process in place to challenge for special circumstances you could go and get a valuation. Unlikely you'd need to every year, mortgages require valuations and come up every 2/3/5/10 years anyway. Stocks and shares can be valued as of the 5th April, as can savings. Or any date of choice. It's not subjective. Yes it can go down, but it can also go up. But at the close of trading on a specific day it has a price. I'll just repeat that this is done in other countries, none of this is impossible. I'm fine with the argument around whether people should be taxed on income or wealth, that's a choice and some prefer one thing over the other, but to suggest it can't be done is just a bit silly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. Well this is just incorrect. You should Google Patriotic Millionaires. If millionaires or billionaires want to contribute more to the public coffers nobody is stopping them. They don’t need to set up a campaign group about it or force others to do so. I disagree. By their behaviour they are actively challenging the thinking of ‘all the rich people will leave the country if we put up their taxes’ …which may then encourage more people to vote for a party that will introduce tax increases for the rich. What next, if the Daily Mail believes ‘if we tax the rich they will leave the country’ then it should keep its opinions to itself? It doesn't matter what the Daily Mail believes. There is historical precedent. In the 60's and 70's when top tax rates were in the 80/90% region high earners and the wealthy were leaving the country in droves. It was known as "The Brain Drain". As I pointed out on another thread. In tax year 1978/79 earnings above £20k pa (good money in those days but not a fortune) were taxed at 83%. Of course not every high earner left the country as would be the case today. But it doesn't need "every" just "enough" to blow a major hole in the governments finances. Everybody always brings up the 70s & I don’t pretend they were halcyon days. What people tend not to mention though is inspite of its bad reputation, we had better economic growth then than we do now." Well I certainly don't remember much growth then. I don't think the 3 day week, power cuts and almost constant industrial unrest would have contributed much. With all that growth we wouldn't have needed the 1976 IMF bailout. The music was better though.
If that better than now growth was true then the UK will be needing the IMF again sooner than you think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who exactly is buying all the houses that have to be sold? First time buyers and young families are not buying £500,000 homes on the whole. And with so many of those types of homes going on the market at the same time, prices will plummet while prices for “cheaper” homes will increase. And what if they can’t sell? Jail for non payment of taxes? Is a drop in house prices going to be allowed to take people out of a wealth tax? And not everyone can get a mortgage. Even if there’s massive equity you still have to be able to afford the payments. But this is basically taking out a loan to pay tax. So a one of swoop for the government that homeowners spend 10 years paying off? " Like I said I'd be very surprised that many people would have to sell their house to pay the equivalent of a hundred pounds a month in tax. Council tax is way higher than that for most today. House prices today are considerably higher than they were 5 years ago, demand is high but people can't afford them. Secondly I've already said that there would be a tax free amount, so if your wealth is over £500k you'd pay x% on the amount above that. If you have a £500k house you wouldnt pay any tax so no problem. If you had a £1m house and £500k mortgage you still wouldn't pay anything because the mortgage is taken off. If you have a £1.5m house and a £500k mortgage you can afford a £1250 a year tax charge. I'm sorry but you can. If you really can't get that cash then yes sell but those cases are not going to crash the property market. A wealth tax isn't a one off. It's annual. You can adjust and prepare to pay what you need to. Selling your £1m house and buying a £850k house would probably cover your taxes for the rest of your life. A wealth tax targets the wealthy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who exactly is buying all the houses that have to be sold? First time buyers and young families are not buying £500,000 homes on the whole. And with so many of those types of homes going on the market at the same time, prices will plummet while prices for “cheaper” homes will increase. And what if they can’t sell? Jail for non payment of taxes? Is a drop in house prices going to be allowed to take people out of a wealth tax? And not everyone can get a mortgage. Even if there’s massive equity you still have to be able to afford the payments. But this is basically taking out a loan to pay tax. So a one of swoop for the government that homeowners spend 10 years paying off? Like I said I'd be very surprised that many people would have to sell their house to pay the equivalent of a hundred pounds a month in tax. Council tax is way higher than that for most today. House prices today are considerably higher than they were 5 years ago, demand is high but people can't afford them. Secondly I've already said that there would be a tax free amount, so if your wealth is over £500k you'd pay x% on the amount above that. If you have a £500k house you wouldnt pay any tax so no problem. If you had a £1m house and £500k mortgage you still wouldn't pay anything because the mortgage is taken off. If you have a £1.5m house and a £500k mortgage you can afford a £1250 a year tax charge. I'm sorry but you can. If you really can't get that cash then yes sell but those cases are not going to crash the property market. A wealth tax isn't a one off. It's annual. You can adjust and prepare to pay what you need to. Selling your £1m house and buying a £850k house would probably cover your taxes for the rest of your life. A wealth tax targets the wealthy. " Sell your house to pay tax on it, are you fucking serious? If you want communism as someone else said, go live in China or North Korea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who exactly is buying all the houses that have to be sold? First time buyers and young families are not buying £500,000 homes on the whole. And with so many of those types of homes going on the market at the same time, prices will plummet while prices for “cheaper” homes will increase. And what if they can’t sell? Jail for non payment of taxes? Is a drop in house prices going to be allowed to take people out of a wealth tax? And not everyone can get a mortgage. Even if there’s massive equity you still have to be able to afford the payments. But this is basically taking out a loan to pay tax. So a one of swoop for the government that homeowners spend 10 years paying off? Like I said I'd be very surprised that many people would have to sell their house to pay the equivalent of a hundred pounds a month in tax. Council tax is way higher than that for most today. House prices today are considerably higher than they were 5 years ago, demand is high but people can't afford them. Secondly I've already said that there would be a tax free amount, so if your wealth is over £500k you'd pay x% on the amount above that. If you have a £500k house you wouldnt pay any tax so no problem. If you had a £1m house and £500k mortgage you still wouldn't pay anything because the mortgage is taken off. If you have a £1.5m house and a £500k mortgage you can afford a £1250 a year tax charge. I'm sorry but you can. If you really can't get that cash then yes sell but those cases are not going to crash the property market. A wealth tax isn't a one off. It's annual. You can adjust and prepare to pay what you need to. Selling your £1m house and buying a £850k house would probably cover your taxes for the rest of your life. A wealth tax targets the wealthy. “”Sell your house to pay tax on it, are you fucking serious?”” If you want communism as someone else said, go live in China or North Korea. " Farmers will have to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Just have an exception for family run farms?
If you have £1m in assets and can't find another way to pay a grand in tax bloody hell, sure go ahead and sell it!
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people shouting for tax increases should be the ones to pay more tax, regardless of how wealthy they may be. It’s always people shouting for other people to pay more tax, never themselves. Well this is just incorrect. You should Google Patriotic Millionaires. If millionaires or billionaires want to contribute more to the public coffers nobody is stopping them. They don’t need to set up a campaign group about it or force others to do so. I disagree. By their behaviour they are actively challenging the thinking of ‘all the rich people will leave the country if we put up their taxes’ …which may then encourage more people to vote for a party that will introduce tax increases for the rich. What next, if the Daily Mail believes ‘if we tax the rich they will leave the country’ then it should keep its opinions to itself? It doesn't matter what the Daily Mail believes. There is historical precedent. In the 60's and 70's when top tax rates were in the 80/90% region high earners and the wealthy were leaving the country in droves. It was known as "The Brain Drain". As I pointed out on another thread. In tax year 1978/79 earnings above £20k pa (good money in those days but not a fortune) were taxed at 83%. Of course not every high earner left the country as would be the case today. But it doesn't need "every" just "enough" to blow a major hole in the governments finances. Everybody always brings up the 70s & I don’t pretend they were halcyon days. What people tend not to mention though is inspite of its bad reputation, we had better economic growth then than we do now. Well I certainly don't remember much growth then. I don't think the 3 day week, power cuts and almost constant industrial unrest would have contributed much. With all that growth we wouldn't have needed the 1976 IMF bailout. The music was better though.
If that better than now growth was true then the UK will be needing the IMF again sooner than you think. "“Following a brief economic boom, inflation and unemployment reached post-war highs and the economy entered a prolonged recession, before slowly recovering towards the end of the decade. Despite this volatility, real household incomes grew significantly over the course of the decade” “The UK economy in the 1970s experienced significant volatility with an average GDP growth of 2.7%.” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You lot are mental
Just have an exception for family run farms?
If you have £1m in assets and can't find another way to pay a grand in tax bloody hell, sure go ahead and sell it!
"Oh yes I would sell it. But the money (along with me) would be gone in a flash. If you think I (and many more like me) would hang around to give my hard earned to keep the great unwashed in wacky baccy and Stella then think again. Funny how the people who advocate all these new taxes are never the ones who will have to pay them. Put VAT up and double excise duty on booze. That would make a few splutter into their White Lightning. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You lot are mental
Just have an exception for family run farms?
If you have £1m in assets and can't find another way to pay a grand in tax bloody hell, sure go ahead and sell it!
"To subside over paid train drivers and lazy dole scroungers.. nah | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You lot are mental
Just have an exception for family run farms?
If you have £1m in assets and can't find another way to pay a grand in tax bloody hell, sure go ahead and sell it!
Oh yes I would sell it.
But the money (along with me) would be gone in a flash.
If you think I (and many more like me) would hang around to give my hard earned to keep the great unwashed in wacky baccy and Stella then think again.
Funny how the people who advocate all these new taxes are never the ones who will have to pay them.
Put VAT up and double excise duty on booze. That would make a few splutter into their White Lightning. "You're in Spain?! Spain with the actual wealth tax? Just also for clarity I would have to pay it, I just prefer to have a country where the poorest can afford to eat and anyone who gets cancer gets treated properly. I'm bowing out now before I get called a Stalinist again...  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tech is the big change in 45 years, there were no mobile phones & computers were very expensive, food accommodation fuel & heating have become a lot more expensive . higher education was free 45 years ago You can say cheaper, better tech is one of the ‘benefits’ of neoliberalism, the fact that developed countries companies take advantage of much cheaper global south manufacturing, making what would be once expensive goods more affordable. An iPhone made in the US would clearly be out of reach for a whole lot more people living there. The ‘downside’ of that is wages can be driven down at home, especially for lower skilled workers, domestic manufacturing can be hollowed out, whilst those in control of capital make ever more capital, with a shift in power dynamics between capital & labour, thus increasing the wealth gap. " You are wrong in what you are saying. 45 years ago there was no minimum wage, in fact wages were extremely low in retail, hospitality etc. Housing was poor, with lots not having central heating, child benefits were lower, state support for housing was lower, food was more expensive, car ownership was lower, travel was more expensive. The tagline I see repeated about neoliberal policies is a red rag being waved to promote the politics of envy, the standard of living and affordability is far better today than the time before it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tech is the big change in 45 years, there were no mobile phones & computers were very expensive, food accommodation fuel & heating have become a lot more expensive . higher education was free 45 years ago You can say cheaper, better tech is one of the ‘benefits’ of neoliberalism, the fact that developed countries companies take advantage of much cheaper global south manufacturing, making what would be once expensive goods more affordable. An iPhone made in the US would clearly be out of reach for a whole lot more people living there. The ‘downside’ of that is wages can be driven down at home, especially for lower skilled workers, domestic manufacturing can be hollowed out, whilst those in control of capital make ever more capital, with a shift in power dynamics between capital & labour, thus increasing the wealth gap. You are wrong in what you are saying. 45 years ago there was no minimum wage, in fact wages were extremely low in retail, hospitality etc. Housing was poor, with lots not having central heating, child benefits were lower, state support for housing was lower, food was more expensive, car ownership was lower, travel was more expensive. The tagline I see repeated about neoliberal policies is a red rag being waved to promote the politics of envy, the standard of living and affordability is far better today than the time before it. " A quick google of ‘negative effects of neoliberalism’ gives me: Stagnant Wage Growth: Neoliberal policies, such as deregulation and privatization, have been linked to slower wage growth, particularly for lower and middle-income workers. Increased Income Inequality: Neoliberalism has contributed to a widening gap between the rich and the poor, with wages for top earners increasing while those for many others stagnate or decline. Weakening of Labor Unions: Neoliberal policies have often weakened labor unions, reducing their ability to bargain for better wages and working conditions. Precarity of Work: There's been a rise in precarious, temporary, and part-time work, often with lower wages and fewer benefits, as companies seek to reduce labor costs in a more competitive market. Decline in Labor Market Mobility: Neoliberalism can make it harder for workers to move between jobs and industries, as job security and worker protections are reduced. ….but apart from all that, yeah, we’ve never had it so good. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tech is the big change in 45 years, there were no mobile phones & computers were very expensive, food accommodation fuel & heating have become a lot more expensive . higher education was free 45 years ago You can say cheaper, better tech is one of the ‘benefits’ of neoliberalism, the fact that developed countries companies take advantage of much cheaper global south manufacturing, making what would be once expensive goods more affordable. An iPhone made in the US would clearly be out of reach for a whole lot more people living there. The ‘downside’ of that is wages can be driven down at home, especially for lower skilled workers, domestic manufacturing can be hollowed out, whilst those in control of capital make ever more capital, with a shift in power dynamics between capital & labour, thus increasing the wealth gap. You are wrong in what you are saying. 45 years ago there was no minimum wage, in fact wages were extremely low in retail, hospitality etc. Housing was poor, with lots not having central heating, child benefits were lower, state support for housing was lower, food was more expensive, car ownership was lower, travel was more expensive. The tagline I see repeated about neoliberal policies is a red rag being waved to promote the politics of envy, the standard of living and affordability is far better today than the time before it. A quick google of ‘negative effects of neoliberalism’ gives me: Stagnant Wage Growth: Neoliberal policies, such as deregulation and privatization, have been linked to slower wage growth, particularly for lower and middle-income workers. Increased Income Inequality: Neoliberalism has contributed to a widening gap between the rich and the poor, with wages for top earners increasing while those for many others stagnate or decline. Weakening of Labor Unions: Neoliberal policies have often weakened labor unions, reducing their ability to bargain for better wages and working conditions. Precarity of Work: There's been a rise in precarious, temporary, and part-time work, often with lower wages and fewer benefits, as companies seek to reduce labor costs in a more competitive market. Decline in Labor Market Mobility: Neoliberalism can make it harder for workers to move between jobs and industries, as job security and worker protections are reduced. ….but apart from all that, yeah, we’ve never had it so good." you are simply sending me party political blurb. You are taking lower wages from google, but lower to what? Wages today are higher than they were 45 years ago and the cost of living is lower too. The fact is we are all richer now. It is true the top 1% are getting richer but so are the bottom 1%. A widening gap means nothing, think about it, unless of course your political view is that everyone should have the same no matter what. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tech is the big change in 45 years, there were no mobile phones & computers were very expensive, food accommodation fuel & heating have become a lot more expensive . higher education was free 45 years ago You can say cheaper, better tech is one of the ‘benefits’ of neoliberalism, the fact that developed countries companies take advantage of much cheaper global south manufacturing, making what would be once expensive goods more affordable. An iPhone made in the US would clearly be out of reach for a whole lot more people living there. The ‘downside’ of that is wages can be driven down at home, especially for lower skilled workers, domestic manufacturing can be hollowed out, whilst those in control of capital make ever more capital, with a shift in power dynamics between capital & labour, thus increasing the wealth gap. You are wrong in what you are saying. 45 years ago there was no minimum wage, in fact wages were extremely low in retail, hospitality etc. Housing was poor, with lots not having central heating, child benefits were lower, state support for housing was lower, food was more expensive, car ownership was lower, travel was more expensive. The tagline I see repeated about neoliberal policies is a red rag being waved to promote the politics of envy, the standard of living and affordability is far better today than the time before it. A quick google of ‘negative effects of neoliberalism’ gives me: Stagnant Wage Growth: Neoliberal policies, such as deregulation and privatization, have been linked to slower wage growth, particularly for lower and middle-income workers. Increased Income Inequality: Neoliberalism has contributed to a widening gap between the rich and the poor, with wages for top earners increasing while those for many others stagnate or decline. Weakening of Labor Unions: Neoliberal policies have often weakened labor unions, reducing their ability to bargain for better wages and working conditions. Precarity of Work: There's been a rise in precarious, temporary, and part-time work, often with lower wages and fewer benefits, as companies seek to reduce labor costs in a more competitive market. Decline in Labor Market Mobility: Neoliberalism can make it harder for workers to move between jobs and industries, as job security and worker protections are reduced. ….but apart from all that, yeah, we’ve never had it so good. you are simply sending me party political blurb. You are taking lower wages from google, but lower to what? Wages today are higher than they were 45 years ago and the cost of living is lower too. The fact is we are all richer now. It is true the top 1% are getting richer but so are the bottom 1%. A widening gap means nothing, think about it, unless of course your political view is that everyone should have the same no matter what." Wages all too frequently are not keeping pace with the increasing cost of living. That is fact. If neoliberalism is so great, why did the taxpayer have to bail it out in 2008, aka ‘Socialism for the rich’ ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"to me a wealth tax is just common sense. take money from people with plenty rather than taking money from the old the sick & the disabled? " Absolutely right. At present the UK populace pay a higher rate of tax on earned income (i.e. wages, the result of actual work) than on unearned income (i.e. investment returns, only available to those who already have spare money) How can this possibly be morally right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"to me a wealth tax is just common sense. take money from people with plenty rather than taking money from the old the sick & the disabled? Absolutely right. At present the UK populace pay a higher rate of tax on earned income (i.e. wages, the result of actual work) than on unearned income (i.e. investment returns, only available to those who already have spare money) How can this possibly be morally right?" If the money was earned and taxes paid in the first place, you want even more tax to be taken? How much more, and how would that be actioned on assets that go up and down in value? Will a person get some tax back if the asset becomes worthless? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tech is the big change in 45 years, there were no mobile phones & computers were very expensive, food accommodation fuel & heating have become a lot more expensive . higher education was free 45 years ago You can say cheaper, better tech is one of the ‘benefits’ of neoliberalism, the fact that developed countries companies take advantage of much cheaper global south manufacturing, making what would be once expensive goods more affordable. An iPhone made in the US would clearly be out of reach for a whole lot more people living there. The ‘downside’ of that is wages can be driven down at home, especially for lower skilled workers, domestic manufacturing can be hollowed out, whilst those in control of capital make ever more capital, with a shift in power dynamics between capital & labour, thus increasing the wealth gap. You are wrong in what you are saying. 45 years ago there was no minimum wage, in fact wages were extremely low in retail, hospitality etc. Housing was poor, with lots not having central heating, child benefits were lower, state support for housing was lower, food was more expensive, car ownership was lower, travel was more expensive. The tagline I see repeated about neoliberal policies is a red rag being waved to promote the politics of envy, the standard of living and affordability is far better today than the time before it. A quick google of ‘negative effects of neoliberalism’ gives me: Stagnant Wage Growth: Neoliberal policies, such as deregulation and privatization, have been linked to slower wage growth, particularly for lower and middle-income workers. Increased Income Inequality: Neoliberalism has contributed to a widening gap between the rich and the poor, with wages for top earners increasing while those for many others stagnate or decline. Weakening of Labor Unions: Neoliberal policies have often weakened labor unions, reducing their ability to bargain for better wages and working conditions. Precarity of Work: There's been a rise in precarious, temporary, and part-time work, often with lower wages and fewer benefits, as companies seek to reduce labor costs in a more competitive market. Decline in Labor Market Mobility: Neoliberalism can make it harder for workers to move between jobs and industries, as job security and worker protections are reduced. ….but apart from all that, yeah, we’ve never had it so good. you are simply sending me party political blurb. You are taking lower wages from google, but lower to what? Wages today are higher than they were 45 years ago and the cost of living is lower too. The fact is we are all richer now. It is true the top 1% are getting richer but so are the bottom 1%. A widening gap means nothing, think about it, unless of course your political view is that everyone should have the same no matter what. Wages all too frequently are not keeping pace with the increasing cost of living. That is fact. If neoliberalism is so great, why did the taxpayer have to bail it out in 2008, aka ‘Socialism for the rich’ ?" Increase in what cost of living? That is a blanket statement, what does it mean? Do you acknowledge that wages are higher now than they were 50 years ago, that standard of living is higher now and choice is also greater now? In short poor people today are richer than their poor equivalent of 50 years ago? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You lot are mental
Just have an exception for family run farms?
If you have £1m in assets and can't find another way to pay a grand in tax bloody hell, sure go ahead and sell it!
Oh yes I would sell it.
But the money (along with me) would be gone in a flash.
If you think I (and many more like me) would hang around to give my hard earned to keep the great unwashed in wacky baccy and Stella then think again.
Funny how the people who advocate all these new taxes are never the ones who will have to pay them.
Put VAT up and double excise duty on booze. That would make a few splutter into their White Lightning.
You're in Spain?! Spain with the actual wealth tax?
Just also for clarity I would have to pay it, I just prefer to have a country where the poorest can afford to eat and anyone who gets cancer gets treated properly.
I'm bowing out now before I get called a Stalinist again...
"I spend a lot of time in Spain but I'm actually resident in Germany (Mrs is German) Germany doesn't have a wealth tax. I suppose I'd have to qualify that with "yet". With the current German government shit show anything is possible. You think the UK government is bad? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Increase in what cost of living? That is a blanket statement, what does it mean? Do you acknowledge that wages are higher now than they were 50 years ago, that standard of living is higher now and choice is also greater now? In short poor people today are richer than their poor equivalent of 50 years ago? " The cost of living? ‘The cost of living squeeze’ ring any bells? Wages might be higher in monetary terms. I’m not sure they are higher on a like for like basis when you take absolutely everything else into account. 50 years ago, there were a lot of one worker households by the way, which in itself is an indicator that ‘one wage was enough’ back then. The standard of living might be ‘higher’ in a sense but as a previous poster said, that for my money is down to general technological advancement (the 1970s had a higher standard of living than the 1920s did they not?) cheaper, foreign made tech (ironically largely made by a country that relies on state interventionism to achieve state goals) Getting to the ‘more recent’ past, the International Labour Organisation proclaimed in October last year that workers in Britain were ‘worse off’ than they were in 2008. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"50years ago many households ran a house & brought up a family on one wage , wages have gone up but prices have often gone up more. house costs have defiantly gone up faster than wages " This! Back then house prices were calibrated to a single breadwinner. But society progressed and we has more women enter the workforce instead of being housewives, the housing market recalibrated to the double income standard. Now it is very hard for a single person to afford a house. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You lot are mental
Just have an exception for family run farms?
If you have £1m in assets and can't find another way to pay a grand in tax bloody hell, sure go ahead and sell it!
"Farmers may have land worth £5 million and only make 1-2% net profit. So £50-100k which they then pay income tax on. And you want them to then pay £50 - £100k in wealth tax? Jesus you commies really hate farmers don’t you  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"50years ago many households ran a house & brought up a family on one wage , wages have gone up but prices have often gone up more. house costs have defiantly gone up faster than wages " In isolation, house prices 3X average income in 1980 5.6X in 2000 8.5X today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You lot are mental
Just have an exception for family run farms?
If you have £1m in assets and can't find another way to pay a grand in tax bloody hell, sure go ahead and sell it!
Farmers may have land worth £5 million and only make 1-2% net profit. So £50-100k which they then pay income tax on. And you want them to then pay £50 - £100k in wealth tax? Jesus you commies really hate farmers don’t you "In addition to 20% of land value on death | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It all started in 1979 with the 1 million pound Trevor Francis transfer fee. "I think 1979 saw a much bigger disaster in terms of equality of opportunity in this country  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Increase in what cost of living? That is a blanket statement, what does it mean? Do you acknowledge that wages are higher now than they were 50 years ago, that standard of living is higher now and choice is also greater now? In short poor people today are richer than their poor equivalent of 50 years ago? The cost of living? ‘The cost of living squeeze’ ring any bells? Wages might be higher in monetary terms. I’m not sure they are higher on a like for like basis when you take absolutely everything else into account. 50 years ago, there were a lot of one worker households by the way, which in itself is an indicator that ‘one wage was enough’ back then. The standard of living might be ‘higher’ in a sense but as a previous poster said, that for my money is down to general technological advancement (the 1970s had a higher standard of living than the 1920s did they not?) cheaper, foreign made tech (ironically largely made by a country that relies on state interventionism to achieve state goals) Getting to the ‘more recent’ past, the International Labour Organisation proclaimed in October last year that workers in Britain were ‘worse off’ than they were in 2008. " Energy prices today are causing an issue, house prices are too for the cost of living. However those elements should be looked at as issues that need addressing, not a reason to consider taxing people more to put a plaster over a problem. Have you ever heard of the window tax? the avoidance of that wealth tax can still be seen in many houses in London today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"50years ago many households ran a house & brought up a family on one wage , wages have gone up but prices have often gone up more. house costs have defiantly gone up faster than wages This! Back then house prices were calibrated to a single breadwinner. But society progressed and we has more women enter the workforce instead of being housewives, the housing market recalibrated to the double income standard. Now it is very hard for a single person to afford a house." When you say recalibrated, are you saying demand for housing increased because of higher family incomes and therefore supply and demand came into play? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Vince Cable interviewed yesterday says Starmer should go to country and put forward 25% VAT rate. Not wealth tax, everyone pays No other options available to cover labours pledges/spending commitments " No other options? Is that your opinion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tech is the big change in 45 years, there were no mobile phones & computers were very expensive, food accommodation fuel & heating have become a lot more expensive . higher education was free 45 years ago You can say cheaper, better tech is one of the ‘benefits’ of neoliberalism, the fact that developed countries companies take advantage of much cheaper global south manufacturing, making what would be once expensive goods more affordable. An iPhone made in the US would clearly be out of reach for a whole lot more people living there. The ‘downside’ of that is wages can be driven down at home, especially for lower skilled workers, domestic manufacturing can be hollowed out, whilst those in control of capital make ever more capital, with a shift in power dynamics between capital & labour, thus increasing the wealth gap. You are wrong in what you are saying. 45 years ago there was no minimum wage, in fact wages were extremely low in retail, hospitality etc. Housing was poor, with lots not having central heating, child benefits were lower, state support for housing was lower, food was more expensive, car ownership was lower, travel was more expensive. The tagline I see repeated about neoliberal policies is a red rag being waved to promote the politics of envy, the standard of living and affordability is far better today than the time before it. A quick google of ‘negative effects of neoliberalism’ gives me: Stagnant Wage Growth: Neoliberal policies, such as deregulation and privatization, have been linked to slower wage growth, particularly for lower and middle-income workers. Increased Income Inequality: Neoliberalism has contributed to a widening gap between the rich and the poor, with wages for top earners increasing while those for many others stagnate or decline. Weakening of Labor Unions: Neoliberal policies have often weakened labor unions, reducing their ability to bargain for better wages and working conditions. Precarity of Work: There's been a rise in precarious, temporary, and part-time work, often with lower wages and fewer benefits, as companies seek to reduce labor costs in a more competitive market. Decline in Labor Market Mobility: Neoliberalism can make it harder for workers to move between jobs and industries, as job security and worker protections." Those are all good things lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Increase in what cost of living? That is a blanket statement, what does it mean? Do you acknowledge that wages are higher now than they were 50 years ago, that standard of living is higher now and choice is also greater now? In short poor people today are richer than their poor equivalent of 50 years ago? The cost of living? ‘The cost of living squeeze’ ring any bells? Wages might be higher in monetary terms. I’m not sure they are higher on a like for like basis when you take absolutely everything else into account. 50 years ago, there were a lot of one worker households by the way, which in itself is an indicator that ‘one wage was enough’ back then. The standard of living might be ‘higher’ in a sense but as a previous poster said, that for my money is down to general technological advancement (the 1970s had a higher standard of living than the 1920s did they not?) cheaper, foreign made tech (ironically largely made by a country that relies on state interventionism to achieve state goals) Getting to the ‘more recent’ past, the International Labour Organisation proclaimed in October last year that workers in Britain were ‘worse off’ than they were in 2008. Energy prices today are causing an issue, house prices are too for the cost of living. However those elements should be looked at as issues that need addressing, not a reason to consider taxing people more to put a plaster over a problem. Have you ever heard of the window tax? the avoidance of that wealth tax can still be seen in many houses in London today. " Why not do it all? Address the areas primarily stoking the flames regarding the current cost of living issues & tax those who can afford to pay a little more? A ‘Wealth Tax’ isn’t the only thing we should be looking at though, although Tax Justice reckon a 2% levy could raise £24 billion a year. We should also be looking at tax avoidance & tax evasion. We should be laying the law down in respect of the British Overseas Territories. Only this week several of them have missed another deadline to ‘fall in line’. The overall ‘tax gap’ was estimated to be 4.8% of total theoretical tax liabilities, or £39.8 billion in absolute terms, in the 2022 to 2023 tax year. …all those small businesses, all those cash in hand jobs… I read the other week that 40% of all corporation tax owed by small businesses isn't paid. Unbelievable if true as it equates to a not too shabby £15bn per year. I know people myself who I have my suspicions they are highly likely screwing the system, several holidays per year etc & it ain’t right. But strangely even with many of those left of centre, there seems to be something akin to aversion to nailing ‘the little guy’ in favour of always putting the rich & the multinationals front & centre. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Vince Cable interviewed yesterday says Starmer should go to country and put forward 25% VAT rate. Not wealth tax, everyone pays No other options available to cover labours pledges/spending commitments No other options? Is that your opinion? " Then they'll increase benefits and public sector pay to cover the extra vat and boom the extra vat is gone | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Vince Cable interviewed yesterday says Starmer should go to country and put forward 25% VAT rate. Not wealth tax, everyone pays No other options available to cover labours pledges/spending commitments No other options? Is that your opinion? Then they'll increase benefits and public sector pay to cover the extra vat and boom the extra vat is gone "What are you day-dreaming about?😅 It's already bewildering that there's someone who thinks VAT is the only way, almost like it's fair. When VAT and council tax are the opposite of fair | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Vince Cable interviewed yesterday says Starmer should go to country and put forward 25% VAT rate. Not wealth tax, everyone pays No other options available to cover labours pledges/spending commitments No other options? Is that your opinion? Then they'll increase benefits and public sector pay to cover the extra vat and boom the extra vat is gone
What are you day-dreaming about?😅
It's already bewildering that there's someone who thinks VAT is the only way, almost like it's fair. When VAT and council tax are the opposite of fair"Of course it's not fair, maybe the comment went over your head ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pretty much the only way to tax people's wealth without them running off and leaving the country is... Land tax. Every piece of land in the UK that is privately owned attracts tax. It cannot be moved like income, companies and profits can." All land, including farms..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Vince Cable interviewed yesterday says Starmer should go to country and put forward 25% VAT rate. Not wealth tax, everyone pays No other options available to cover labours pledges/spending commitments No other options? Is that your opinion? Then they'll increase benefits and public sector pay to cover the extra vat and boom the extra vat is gone
What are you day-dreaming about?😅
It's already bewildering that there's someone who thinks VAT is the only way, almost like it's fair. When VAT and council tax are the opposite of fair
Of course it's not fair, maybe the comment went over your head ?"Nope | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pretty much the only way to tax people's wealth without them running off and leaving the country is... Land tax. Every piece of land in the UK that is privately owned attracts tax. It cannot be moved like income, companies and profits can." I'd argue companies and profits can't be moved either. Amazon pays next to nothing tax, yet extracts billions. Where do they get their profits? From the consumer, they can't move the consumer. They can set businesses up in tax havens (which the UK own many ironically), but their profits come from UK. Successive governments let that happen. But that's digressing from the point which is wealth tax, focused on taxing individuals with high net wealth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pretty much the only way to tax people's wealth without them running off and leaving the country is... Land tax. Every piece of land in the UK that is privately owned attracts tax. It cannot be moved like income, companies and profits can. All land, including farms..?" Especially those | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. " I could say the same about your comments. 🤷♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. I could say the same about your comments. 🤷♂️" Being against theft is a bad thing? Since when? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wealth. 1. Ownership of property or shares or capital assets or bank balance of over£200 k and0 receiving bank interest above £2 thou a month. Property valued more accurately - lets say valued at above £350 k, or £450 in London and south east. Salary above £200 k including bonuses. Reasonable estimate of being wealthy?" I'm not sure which bank you think I can put £200k into and get £2k per month interest. Property above £350k will include a vast number of houses owned by struggling people. That's not a big number if you live in a city. Income is not wealth. If you're proposing a wealth tax, you can't mix it with income. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wealth. 1. Ownership of property or shares or capital assets or bank balance of over£200 k and0 receiving bank interest above £2 thou a month. Property valued more accurately - lets say valued at above £350 k, or £450 in London and south east. Salary above £200 k including bonuses. Reasonable estimate of being wealthy?" Average house prices in the Uk are £270k, in England £290k. I’m not sure having a house valued at £350k makes you wealthy. It just means you have a house valued slightly above average. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. " Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness." Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones." Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society." Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does." The Marketing “exec” has been paying “a bit more tax” every year for years. Many Marketing people are in my experience fairly young women on very average salaries. Every year we get “oh it’s just a small increase” and then the year after that off we go again. The problem is that it is having the effect of stagnating the economy, and the workforce is collapsing as employers stop employing new staff because of the cost. Plus the additional issue of so many working age people being on benefits. All this has a real impact on peoples standards of living. Over 80% of the workforce is employed in the private sector. The difficulty in the UK and across the EU is that we have had decades of soft socialism and the population has become lazy and entitled as to what it expects “the government” to do for it. It’s become impossible to rein back those entitlements and yet the state can’t afford to provide them. As I expected Starmer and Reeves are now stuck in a mess of their own making: on the one side they have the markets who don’t believe they have control of public spending, and on the other their own clueless extremist MP’s forever demanding more spending. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. The Marketing “exec” has been paying “a bit more tax” every year for years. Many Marketing people are in my experience fairly young women on very average salaries. Every year we get “oh it’s just a small increase” and then the year after that off we go again. The problem is that it is having the effect of stagnating the economy, and the workforce is collapsing as employers stop employing new staff because of the cost. Plus the additional issue of so many working age people being on benefits. All this has a real impact on peoples standards of living. Over 80% of the workforce is employed in the private sector. The difficulty in the UK and across the EU is that we have had decades of soft socialism and the population has become lazy and entitled as to what it expects “the government” to do for it. It’s become impossible to rein back those entitlements and yet the state can’t afford to provide them. As I expected Starmer and Reeves are now stuck in a mess of their own making: on the one side they have the markets who don’t believe they have control of public spending, and on the other their own clueless extremist MP’s forever demanding more spending. " The sources of additional revenue are out there. Yes, we could tax ‘the rich’ a bit more than we do. And we should do imho. Yes, we could get more working age people off benefits and into work (…primarily into low paid jobs that still require Universal Credit top ups!) Instead of a wealth tax, we could tax unearned income the same way earned income is. We could tighten up on the Black economy which costs more to the tax man than anything else. Companies like Uber eats, delivery drivers, Avon and many other jobs where people are allegedly "self employed" yet there's no record of them working at all, costs the taxpayer billions a year in tax. There are people who for years made tens of thousands selling on ebay and never paying any tax. I believe they've now clamped down on that but I would imagine traders selling at car boot sales and markets are not paying tax on stuff they sell which again deprives the tax man of a lot of money. All these self employed ar$eholes working frequently cash in hand & having the audacity to complain about the state of public services lol As I said in another thread, I used to be a sceptic of a cashless society but there would be considerable upsides. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading through this a couple of times it seems the ask is to take money from people who have done well for themselves, but it’s still unclear why. What’s the money actually for? Who gets it, and on what basis? There is no consistent definition of what counts as “wealth”, views are further apart than I thought they would be. There is also no clear explanation of how wealth would be taxed, especially when asset values rise and fall. And as for how much a wealth tax would raise, we have had some vague estimates with no evidence behind them. To be honest, wealth tax is sounding more like a political slogan to grab the attention of people who don't celebrate individual success, rather than a serious policy. I asked a question further up about why there is an idea someone should pay more tax on assets they have purchased with money that has already been taxed, it wasn’t answered. I will ask the question in 2 parts: why should people who earn more, pay more tax than someone who earns less? If that person who earns more obtains wealth, although we are unclear on that definition. But lets say they have a £1million house, paid of being paid for for with money that has already been taxed, why do they need to pay further tax simply because they have an asset. What does this serve to do?" Nothing. It’s just the Entitlement Society we live in. If I feel badly off there are two options: 1. Change jobs, get another job, do some training to get a better job, start a business, accept that I have a duty to society and stop taking those benefits. 2. Blame everyone else and expect the person down the road with more money than me to hand some over. 2. is by far the easiest option. It’s the same with politicians. They can either: 1. Tell everyone that there is no money and there have to be cuts and face some aggro 2. Keep increasing spending, taxes and borrowing and hope things don’t collapse on their watch. 2. is by far the easiest option. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading through this a couple of times it seems the ask is to take money from people who have done well for themselves, but it’s still unclear why. What’s the money actually for? Who gets it, and on what basis? There is no consistent definition of what counts as “wealth”, views are further apart than I thought they would be. There is also no clear explanation of how wealth would be taxed, especially when asset values rise and fall. And as for how much a wealth tax would raise, we have had some vague estimates with no evidence behind them. To be honest, wealth tax is sounding more like a political slogan to grab the attention of people who don't celebrate individual success, rather than a serious policy. I asked a question further up about why there is an idea someone should pay more tax on assets they have purchased with money that has already been taxed, it wasn’t answered. I will ask the question in 2 parts: why should people who earn more, pay more tax than someone who earns less? If that person who earns more obtains wealth, although we are unclear on that definition. But lets say they have a £1million house, paid of being paid for for with money that has already been taxed, why do they need to pay further tax simply because they have an asset. What does this serve to do? Nothing. It’s just the Entitlement Society we live in. If I feel badly off there are two options: 1. Change jobs, get another job, do some training to get a better job, start a business, accept that I have a duty to society and stop taking those benefits. 2. Blame everyone else and expect the person down the road with more money than me to hand some over. 2. is by far the easiest option. It’s the same with politicians. They can either: 1. Tell everyone that there is no money and there have to be cuts and face some aggro 2. Keep increasing spending, taxes and borrowing and hope things don’t collapse on their watch. 2. is by far the easiest option." Ah ... Someone else has seen the light ... It's like a breath of fresh air in here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading through this a couple of times it seems the ask is to take money from people who have done well for themselves, but it’s still unclear why. What’s the money actually for? Who gets it, and on what basis? There is no consistent definition of what counts as “wealth”, views are further apart than I thought they would be. There is also no clear explanation of how wealth would be taxed, especially when asset values rise and fall. And as for how much a wealth tax would raise, we have had some vague estimates with no evidence behind them. To be honest, wealth tax is sounding more like a political slogan to grab the attention of people who don't celebrate individual success, rather than a serious policy. I asked a question further up about why there is an idea someone should pay more tax on assets they have purchased with money that has already been taxed, it wasn’t answered. I will ask the question in 2 parts: why should people who earn more, pay more tax than someone who earns less? If that person who earns more obtains wealth, although we are unclear on that definition. But lets say they have a £1million house, paid of being paid for for with money that has already been taxed, why do they need to pay further tax simply because they have an asset. What does this serve to do? Nothing. It’s just the Entitlement Society we live in. If I feel badly off there are two options: 1. Change jobs, get another job, do some training to get a better job, start a business, accept that I have a duty to society and stop taking those benefits. 2. Blame everyone else and expect the person down the road with more money than me to hand some over. 2. is by far the easiest option. It’s the same with politicians. They can either: 1. Tell everyone that there is no money and there have to be cuts and face some aggro 2. Keep increasing spending, taxes and borrowing and hope things don’t collapse on their watch. 2. is by far the easiest option. Ah ... Someone else has seen the light ... It's like a breath of fresh air in here." Oh there are still a few of us around. Fair play, you come across as pretty sensible yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Patriotic millionaires are calling for a 2% wealth tax on all wealth over 10million. Seems fair" Why does it seem fair? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Patriotic millionaires are calling for a 2% wealth tax on all wealth over 10million. Seems fair Why does it seem fair?" They've extracted that wealth from the people of the UK. The UK is in need of cash, they can give some of it back to help the people who fill their pockets | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Patriotic millionaires are calling for a 2% wealth tax on all wealth over 10million. Seems fair Why does it seem fair? They've extracted that wealth from the people of the UK. The UK is in need of cash, they can give some of it back to help the people who fill their pockets " Extracted wealth? That makes it sound like they have committed some sort of crime. What exactly do you mean by that are you saying wealth earned through earnings, investment, business, or innovation is wrong? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country." You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country. You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? " Because if you've got 10 million your not going to miss £200,000. If you earn £23,000 and struggling bus fees to go to work for those millionaires your going to struggle without that £460. The cost of living is real. Our birth rates are dropping and people are angry at the levels of immigration. But hey let's not upset the actual people rinsing our country those millionaires | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country. You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? Because if you've got 10 million your not going to miss £200,000. If you earn £23,000 and struggling bus fees to go to work for those millionaires your going to struggle without that £460. The cost of living is real. Our birth rates are dropping and people are angry at the levels of immigration. But hey let's not upset the actual people rinsing our country those millionaires " Those using public services more than those that don't shouldn't contribute towards them and you attribute that to someone who "might be" struggling with bus fares? That is strange way to look at things, as is thinking anyone who has made money did it by rinsing the people or the country. I'm also not convinced that you have considered what wealth is, I say that because you said if someone had 10million they are not going to miss 200K. What do you consider wealth to be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country. You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? Because if you've got 10 million your not going to miss £200,000. If you earn £23,000 and struggling bus fees to go to work for those millionaires your going to struggle without that £460. The cost of living is real. Our birth rates are dropping and people are angry at the levels of immigration. But hey let's not upset the actual people rinsing our country those millionaires Those using public services more than those that don't shouldn't contribute towards them and you attribute that to someone who "might be" struggling with bus fares? That is strange way to look at things, as is thinking anyone who has made money did it by rinsing the people or the country. I'm also not convinced that you have considered what wealth is, I say that because you said if someone had 10million they are not going to miss 200K. What do you consider wealth to be?" Do the low paid pay a greater % of their income in tax? Yes or no. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country. You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? Because if you've got 10 million your not going to miss £200,000. If you earn £23,000 and struggling bus fees to go to work for those millionaires your going to struggle without that £460. The cost of living is real. Our birth rates are dropping and people are angry at the levels of immigration. But hey let's not upset the actual people rinsing our country those millionaires Those using public services more than those that don't shouldn't contribute towards them and you attribute that to someone who "might be" struggling with bus fares? That is strange way to look at things, as is thinking anyone who has made money did it by rinsing the people or the country. I'm also not convinced that you have considered what wealth is, I say that because you said if someone had 10million they are not going to miss 200K. What do you consider wealth to be?" Wealth is everything, earnings, savings, properties, businesses. I was using struggling bus fees as an example of what a person on 23k might be struggling to afford because their millionaire boss would rather see them struggle, go to food banks than actually pay them a living wage in today's world. No one is saying that millionaires haven't worked hard if they've made it on their own but they are more likely to have been born with privileges or wealth behind them. Everyone works hard they've just not been given the same opportunities. People with wealth should give back more in hard times, they can always reduce that tax when the economy improves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country. You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? Because if you've got 10 million your not going to miss £200,000. If you earn £23,000 and struggling bus fees to go to work for those millionaires your going to struggle without that £460. The cost of living is real. Our birth rates are dropping and people are angry at the levels of immigration. But hey let's not upset the actual people rinsing our country those millionaires " Don't forget many, or most millionaires employ people, pay wages, pay taxes and fund the fucking country.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country. You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? Because if you've got 10 million your not going to miss £200,000. If you earn £23,000 and struggling bus fees to go to work for those millionaires your going to struggle without that £460. The cost of living is real. Our birth rates are dropping and people are angry at the levels of immigration. But hey let's not upset the actual people rinsing our country those millionaires Don't forget many, or most millionaires employ people, pay wages, pay taxes and fund the fucking country.. " They also make a lot of profit for themselves after all that as well on the backs of other people. A lot of them stash these profits offshore. Why don’t you mention that as well? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country. You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? Because if you've got 10 million your not going to miss £200,000. If you earn £23,000 and struggling bus fees to go to work for those millionaires your going to struggle without that £460. The cost of living is real. Our birth rates are dropping and people are angry at the levels of immigration. But hey let's not upset the actual people rinsing our country those millionaires Don't forget many, or most millionaires employ people, pay wages, pay taxes and fund the fucking country.. " Then pay them a decent wage instead of letting them go to food banks. In work poverty is at an all time high and it's because people on the lower end aren't being payed fairly. So instead of extracting so much money from the poorest how about millionaires stop making so much money and pay people a decent wage | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country. You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? Because if you've got 10 million your not going to miss £200,000. If you earn £23,000 and struggling bus fees to go to work for those millionaires your going to struggle without that £460. The cost of living is real. Our birth rates are dropping and people are angry at the levels of immigration. But hey let's not upset the actual people rinsing our country those millionaires Don't forget many, or most millionaires employ people, pay wages, pay taxes and fund the fucking country.. Then pay them a decent wage instead of letting them go to food banks. In work poverty is at an all time high and it's because people on the lower end aren't being payed fairly. So instead of extracting so much money from the poorest how about millionaires stop making so much money and pay people a decent wage " You’re advocating taking money off people to deal with problems with house prices / rents and energy costs rather than considering tackling the actual problem. That’s a problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country. You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? Because if you've got 10 million your not going to miss £200,000. If you earn £23,000 and struggling bus fees to go to work for those millionaires your going to struggle without that £460. The cost of living is real. Our birth rates are dropping and people are angry at the levels of immigration. But hey let's not upset the actual people rinsing our country those millionaires Don't forget many, or most millionaires employ people, pay wages, pay taxes and fund the fucking country.. Then pay them a decent wage instead of letting them go to food banks. In work poverty is at an all time high and it's because people on the lower end aren't being payed fairly. So instead of extracting so much money from the poorest how about millionaires stop making so much money and pay people a decent wage " Minimum wage ? If people can't live on what they get them they need to adjust their lifestyle or get a better job. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give a millionaire an extra £20 and they stash it in their off shore account. Give a working person that same £20 and they spend it on the high street. Who helps the economy more?" Therin lies the problem, they will go straight down the high street and spend their £20 and come back looking for more. That's not a solution it's feeding the problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country. You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? Because if you've got 10 million your not going to miss £200,000. If you earn £23,000 and struggling bus fees to go to work for those millionaires your going to struggle without that £460. The cost of living is real. Our birth rates are dropping and people are angry at the levels of immigration. But hey let's not upset the actual people rinsing our country those millionaires Don't forget many, or most millionaires employ people, pay wages, pay taxes and fund the fucking country.. Then pay them a decent wage instead of letting them go to food banks. In work poverty is at an all time high and it's because people on the lower end aren't being payed fairly. So instead of extracting so much money from the poorest how about millionaires stop making so much money and pay people a decent wage You’re advocating taking money off people to deal with problems with house prices / rents and energy costs rather than considering tackling the actual problem. That’s a problem " Not sure what you've read but it certainly wasn't my post. I'm saying tackle poverty especially in work poverty. Equalise living standards | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give a millionaire an extra £20 and they stash it in their off shore account. Give a working person that same £20 and they spend it on the high street. Who helps the economy more?" There are somewhere between 2 million to 3 million millionaires in the UK, depending on how you calculate it. I’m very doubtful whether anything but a tiny percentage of that number have “offshore accounts”. The number of millionaires is also set to fall significantly over the next few years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm saying they've happily taken our money. Now the country needs money it seems fair that they pay a little bit more for the public services that the people they extract their wealth from have a better country. You say they took it happily, but that is a sweeping statement that doesn't say anything. If a person has earned their money why do they need to give it away to pay for public services? Why don't we all pay 2%? Because if you've got 10 million your not going to miss £200,000. If you earn £23,000 and struggling bus fees to go to work for those millionaires your going to struggle without that £460. The cost of living is real. Our birth rates are dropping and people are angry at the levels of immigration. But hey let's not upset the actual people rinsing our country those millionaires Don't forget many, or most millionaires employ people, pay wages, pay taxes and fund the fucking country.. Then pay them a decent wage instead of letting them go to food banks. In work poverty is at an all time high and it's because people on the lower end aren't being payed fairly. So instead of extracting so much money from the poorest how about millionaires stop making so much money and pay people a decent wage Minimum wage ? If people can't live on what they get them they need to adjust their lifestyle or get a better job. " Ah yes old Norm lives on with his bike. I certainly couldn't live on minimum wage and so my heart goes out to people with families on that pittence. Sometimes things are out of a person's control | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give a millionaire an extra £20 and they stash it in their off shore account. Give a working person that same £20 and they spend it on the high street. Who helps the economy more? Therin lies the problem, they will go straight down the high street and spend their £20 and come back looking for more. That's not a solution it's feeding the problem" Tell that to the florist, takeaway fish and chips owner, mechanic or any other local businesses now missing out on local money because you'd rather feed your millionaire mates | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give a millionaire an extra £20 and they stash it in their off shore account. Give a working person that same £20 and they spend it on the high street. Who helps the economy more? There are somewhere between 2 million to 3 million millionaires in the UK, depending on how you calculate it. I’m very doubtful whether anything but a tiny percentage of that number have “offshore accounts”. The number of millionaires is also set to fall significantly over the next few years." Dry your eyes mate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give a millionaire an extra £20 and they stash it in their off shore account. Give a working person that same £20 and they spend it on the high street. Who helps the economy more? There are somewhere between 2 million to 3 million millionaires in the UK, depending on how you calculate it. I’m very doubtful whether anything but a tiny percentage of that number have “offshore accounts”. The number of millionaires is also set to fall significantly over the next few years. Dry your eyes mate " Fewer millionaires means fewer people to pay taxes. You can’t say Labour wasn’t warned what would happen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do the low paid pay a greater % of their income in tax? Yes or no." Yes. They also pay a greater proportion of their income on beer, phones, bus fares, and everything else. By definition, £1 is a greater proportion of your earnings if you earn less than whoever you're comparing to. So whatever poor people spend their money on, they pay a greater proportion of it than richer people do. That's not an argument to change the tax rules. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The low tax, get more Thatcherite way of thinking is fast running out of road. She could facilitate it as she had nationalised industries & council houses to flog as well as being the prime beneficiary of North Sea Oil. Those aren’t options now, and public services are on their knees after right wing austerity + the aftermath of Covid + we now have an ageing population to support as well…" When you say “right wing austerity” have you got any figures to back that up in terms of government spending between say 1997 to 2025? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The low tax, get more Thatcherite way of thinking is fast running out of road. She could facilitate it as she had nationalised industries & council houses to flog as well as being the prime beneficiary of North Sea Oil. Those aren’t options now, and public services are on their knees after right wing austerity + the aftermath of Covid + we now have an ageing population to support as well… When you say “right wing austerity” have you got any figures to back that up in terms of government spending between say 1997 to 2025?" I’m talking about the period from 2010 until BoJo was elected. BoJo then decided austerity didn’t work but we were hit with Covid shortly afterwards. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give a millionaire an extra £20 and they stash it in their off shore account. Give a working person that same £20 and they spend it on the high street. Who helps the economy more? There are somewhere between 2 million to 3 million millionaires in the UK, depending on how you calculate it. I’m very doubtful whether anything but a tiny percentage of that number have “offshore accounts”. The number of millionaires is also set to fall significantly over the next few years. Dry your eyes mate Fewer millionaires means fewer people to pay taxes. You can’t say Labour wasn’t warned what would happen." What you seem to be getting at is this made up story by the right wing press that millionaires are fleeing the UK. It's not actually true. No more than usual have actually left. These people you speak of are highly mobile due to their wealth but also moving businesses isn't that easy and if they have parents and children it all makes it very difficult. Stop swallowing the what the millionaires want you to believe. When they are the ones holding this country to ransom | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does." But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The low tax, get more Thatcherite way of thinking is fast running out of road. She could facilitate it as she had nationalised industries & council houses to flog as well as being the prime beneficiary of North Sea Oil. Those aren’t options now, and public services are on their knees after right wing austerity + the aftermath of Covid + we now have an ageing population to support as well… When you say “right wing austerity” have you got any figures to back that up in terms of government spending between say 1997 to 2025? I’m talking about the period from 2010 until BoJo was elected. BoJo then decided austerity didn’t work but we were hit with Covid shortly afterwards." What he's trying to say is, despite austerity national debt increased during those years....... So where did our money go?? Who won? Theirs more millionaires and billionaires than ever so...... Who won? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do the low paid pay a greater % of their income in tax? Yes or no. Yes. They also pay a greater proportion of their income on beer, phones, bus fares, and everything else. By definition, £1 is a greater proportion of your earnings if you earn less than whoever you're comparing to. So whatever poor people spend their money on, they pay a greater proportion of it than richer people do. That's not an argument to change the tax rules." Why isn’t it an argument to change the tax rules? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job " It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give a millionaire an extra £20 and they stash it in their off shore account. Give a working person that same £20 and they spend it on the high street. Who helps the economy more? There are somewhere between 2 million to 3 million millionaires in the UK, depending on how you calculate it. I’m very doubtful whether anything but a tiny percentage of that number have “offshore accounts”. The number of millionaires is also set to fall significantly over the next few years. Dry your eyes mate Fewer millionaires means fewer people to pay taxes. You can’t say Labour wasn’t warned what would happen. What you seem to be getting at is this made up story by the right wing press that millionaires are fleeing the UK. It's not actually true. No more than usual have actually left. These people you speak of are highly mobile due to their wealth but also moving businesses isn't that easy and if they have parents and children it all makes it very difficult. Stop swallowing the what the millionaires want you to believe. When they are the ones holding this country to ransom " Quotes from Money Week: “The UK now tops the list of destinations where millionaires are moving out for the first time as tax reforms continue to drive record numbers away from the country. The latest Wealth Migration Report by advisory firm Henley & Partners forecasts that the UK will lose 16,500 millionaires this year as they flock to more tax-friendly environments. The figure is more than double the anticipated –7,800 net outflow from second place China. It is the first time a European country has topped the table which has been dominated by Chinese exits for the past decade. Juerg Steffen, chief executive of Henley & Partners, said: “2025 marks a pivotal moment. For the first time in a decade of tracking, a European country leads the world in millionaire outflows. This isn’t just about changes to the tax regime. It reflects a deepening perception among the wealthy that greater opportunity, freedom, and stability lie elsewhere. The long-term implications for Europe and the UK’s economic competitiveness and investment appeal are significant”. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back " It’s why Reform bang on about utter dross like woke wars. It’s all a smokescreen to deflect from money & power. They think the Working Class are easily fooled. To be fair, 30% in the polls would suggest at least some of them are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back It’s why Reform bang on about utter dross like woke wars. It’s all a smokescreen to deflect from money & power. They think the Working Class are easily fooled. To be fair, 30% in the polls would suggest at least some of them are." Do the working class vote Labour? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back It’s why Reform bang on about utter dross like woke wars. It’s all a smokescreen to deflect from money & power. They think the Working Class are easily fooled. To be fair, 30% in the polls would suggest at least some of them are. Do the working class vote Labour?" What kind of a question is that? Yes, plenty of Working Class who aren’t right wing still vote Labour. Have some usual Labour voters defected to Reform over immigration issues? Also Yes. Look what a proper Socialist manifesto did in 2017 before the Brexit debacle though. Got within a million votes of Theresa May despite all the guns of the right wing media taking aim at Corbyn. ‘Tax the rich’ still goes down very well with a lot of the Working Class. Farage isn’t offering that. He is effectively saying stopping immigration will solve all this country’s problems. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Give a millionaire an extra £20 and they stash it in their off shore account. Give a working person that same £20 and they spend it on the high street. Who helps the economy more? There are somewhere between 2 million to 3 million millionaires in the UK, depending on how you calculate it. I’m very doubtful whether anything but a tiny percentage of that number have “offshore accounts”. The number of millionaires is also set to fall significantly over the next few years. Dry your eyes mate Fewer millionaires means fewer people to pay taxes. You can’t say Labour wasn’t warned what would happen. What you seem to be getting at is this made up story by the right wing press that millionaires are fleeing the UK. It's not actually true. No more than usual have actually left. These people you speak of are highly mobile due to their wealth but also moving businesses isn't that easy and if they have parents and children it all makes it very difficult. Stop swallowing the what the millionaires want you to believe. When they are the ones holding this country to ransom Quotes from Money Week: “The UK now tops the list of destinations where millionaires are moving out for the first time as tax reforms continue to drive record numbers away from the country. The latest Wealth Migration Report by advisory firm Henley & Partners forecasts that the UK will lose 16,500 millionaires this year as they flock to more tax-friendly environments. The figure is more than double the anticipated –7,800 net outflow from second place China. It is the first time a European country has topped the table which has been dominated by Chinese exits for the past decade. Juerg Steffen, chief executive of Henley & Partners, said: “2025 marks a pivotal moment. For the first time in a decade of tracking, a European country leads the world in millionaire outflows. This isn’t just about changes to the tax regime. It reflects a deepening perception among the wealthy that greater opportunity, freedom, and stability lie elsewhere. The long-term implications for Europe and the UK’s economic competitiveness and investment appeal are significant”. " Who's money week?? Who owns them? What's their objectives? It's utter dross last accurate figure I saw the people leaving were up by 2% I could point you to the byline times report or the quiet riot podcast. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back It’s why Reform bang on about utter dross like woke wars. It’s all a smokescreen to deflect from money & power. They think the Working Class are easily fooled. To be fair, 30% in the polls would suggest at least some of them are. Do the working class vote Labour?" Seeing as 90% of the population work, who else votes for them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back It’s why Reform bang on about utter dross like woke wars. It’s all a smokescreen to deflect from money & power. They think the Working Class are easily fooled. To be fair, 30% in the polls would suggest at least some of them are. Do the working class vote Labour? What kind of a question is that? Yes, plenty of Working Class who aren’t right wing still vote Labour. Have some usual Labour voters defected to Reform over immigration issues? Also Yes. Look what a proper Socialist manifesto did in 2017 before the Brexit debacle though. Got within a million votes of Theresa May despite all the guns of the right wing media taking aim at Corbyn. ‘Tax the rich’ still goes down very well with a lot of the Working Class. Farage isn’t offering that. He is effectively saying stopping immigration will solve all this country’s problems." And when that doesn't work....deporting all black and browns, when that doesn't work it'll be Jews or gays it's the same playback and same hate over and over again. Just look at history | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The low tax, get more Thatcherite way of thinking is fast running out of road. She could facilitate it as she had nationalised industries & council houses to flog as well as being the prime beneficiary of North Sea Oil. Those aren’t options now, and public services are on their knees after right wing austerity + the aftermath of Covid + we now have an ageing population to support as well…" The "low tax get more" principal is no different now than it ever was. Proved time and time again. Thatcher had the benefit of North Sea Oil? To be fair there is a bit of truth in that. Starmer and the unhinged twerp Milliband could have the same if instead of virtue signalling they allowed the UK oil fields to be properly exploited. But no. They prefer to grandstand around the world while the Norwegians drain it from their side and laugh all the way to the bank and to add insult to injury they flog it to us. Just think of all the tax that shale gas would produce if they stopped poncing about and got on with the job. Britain is only in the shit because it chooses to be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do the low paid pay a greater % of their income in tax? Yes or no. Yes. They also pay a greater proportion of their income on beer, phones, bus fares, and everything else. By definition, £1 is a greater proportion of your earnings if you earn less than whoever you're comparing to. So whatever poor people spend their money on, they pay a greater proportion of it than richer people do. That's not an argument to change the tax rules." again, what garbage! ... it's an excellent argument to change tax rules when it's impossible to exist when ALL interactions are now accessed online forcing people to invest in tech and conectivity, coupled with private transport being out of reach of anyone on less than average income without huge sacrifices elsewhere. you really do live on another planet with absolutely no clue as to what is actually happening outside your front door do you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The low tax, get more Thatcherite way of thinking is fast running out of road. She could facilitate it as she had nationalised industries & council houses to flog as well as being the prime beneficiary of North Sea Oil. Those aren’t options now, and public services are on their knees after right wing austerity + the aftermath of Covid + we now have an ageing population to support as well… The "low tax get more" principal is no different now than it ever was. Proved time and time again. Thatcher had the benefit of North Sea Oil? To be fair there is a bit of truth in that. Starmer and the unhinged twerp Milliband could have the same if instead of virtue signalling they allowed the UK oil fields to be properly exploited. But no. They prefer to grandstand around the world while the Norwegians drain it from their side and laugh all the way to the bank and to add insult to injury they flog it to us. Just think of all the tax that shale gas would produce if they stopped poncing about and got on with the job. Britain is only in the shit because it chooses to be." Theirs enough oil in circulation to last humanity. The time to exploit oil has been and gone making a wealth fund of it in 80s great. Thatcher didn't she spent it Now we're in a transition to the green economy, making our own wealth fund from these new technologies is a good thing! Forward we travel not back | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back " If it’s “your money” then don’t give it to them in the first place. And life isn’t fair. It’s life. It’s not meant to be fair. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The low tax, get more Thatcherite way of thinking is fast running out of road. She could facilitate it as she had nationalised industries & council houses to flog as well as being the prime beneficiary of North Sea Oil. Those aren’t options now, and public services are on their knees after right wing austerity + the aftermath of Covid + we now have an ageing population to support as well… The "low tax get more" principal is no different now than it ever was. Proved time and time again. Thatcher had the benefit of North Sea Oil? To be fair there is a bit of truth in that. Starmer and the unhinged twerp Milliband could have the same if instead of virtue signalling they allowed the UK oil fields to be properly exploited. But no. They prefer to grandstand around the world while the Norwegians drain it from their side and laugh all the way to the bank and to add insult to injury they flog it to us. Just think of all the tax that shale gas would produce if they stopped poncing about and got on with the job. Britain is only in the shit because it chooses to be. Theirs enough oil in circulation to last humanity. The time to exploit oil has been and gone making a wealth fund of it in 80s great. Thatcher didn't she spent it Now we're in a transition to the green economy, making our own wealth fund from these new technologies is a good thing! Forward we travel not back " Sure the UK is the only country in the world with a wealth fund with no wealth in it. Every other country which has a wealth fund has it because of the contribution that oil and gas make to their economies. Labour are just delusional. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back If it’s “your money” then don’t give it to them in the first place. And life isn’t fair. It’s life. It’s not meant to be fair. " To live you have to spend!! These people are making money from commodities. And I'm sorry that you see the world that way. Someone wasn't loved. Capitalism will always produce winners and loosers, the role of the state is to try and reduce the gap | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The low tax, get more Thatcherite way of thinking is fast running out of road. She could facilitate it as she had nationalised industries & council houses to flog as well as being the prime beneficiary of North Sea Oil. Those aren’t options now, and public services are on their knees after right wing austerity + the aftermath of Covid + we now have an ageing population to support as well… The "low tax get more" principal is no different now than it ever was. Proved time and time again. Thatcher had the benefit of North Sea Oil? To be fair there is a bit of truth in that. Starmer and the unhinged twerp Milliband could have the same if instead of virtue signalling they allowed the UK oil fields to be properly exploited. But no. They prefer to grandstand around the world while the Norwegians drain it from their side and laugh all the way to the bank and to add insult to injury they flog it to us. Just think of all the tax that shale gas would produce if they stopped poncing about and got on with the job. Britain is only in the shit because it chooses to be. Theirs enough oil in circulation to last humanity. The time to exploit oil has been and gone making a wealth fund of it in 80s great. Thatcher didn't she spent it Now we're in a transition to the green economy, making our own wealth fund from these new technologies is a good thing! Forward we travel not back Sure the UK is the only country in the world with a wealth fund with no wealth in it. Every other country which has a wealth fund has it because of the contribution that oil and gas make to their economies. Labour are just delusional." Yeah 40 years ago!!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sure the UK is the only country in the world with a wealth fund with no wealth in it." hardly surprising when ALL the cash was dished out to greedy grasping boomers in tax breaks, free shares, free housing, free pension stuffing payments and massive private sector wages .... now it's payback time .... the movie | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sure the UK is the only country in the world with a wealth fund with no wealth in it. hardly surprising when ALL the cash was dished out to greedy grasping boomers in tax breaks, free shares, free housing, free pension stuffing payments and massive private sector wages .... now it's payback time .... the movie" Winter fuel allowance......worked all their lives benefited from free education, council homes, a growing economy and still want freebies!!! They accuse the young of being everything they are freeloaders | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sure the UK is the only country in the world with a wealth fund with no wealth in it. hardly surprising when ALL the cash was dished out to greedy grasping boomers in tax breaks, free shares, free housing, free pension stuffing payments and massive private sector wages .... now it's payback time .... the movie" Just imagining Doris & Bill sat there in their cheaply bought ex council house with their handful of British Gas shares (who am I kidding? the shares cashed in ages ago for a couple of weeks in Benidorm) Doris whining about long NHS waiting lists & all these ‘foriners’ coming into the country (to support them living into their 80s, because they didn’t have enough kids to replace themselves as workers & taxpayers) Tragic, really. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back It’s why Reform bang on about utter dross like woke wars. It’s all a smokescreen to deflect from money & power. They think the Working Class are easily fooled. To be fair, 30% in the polls would suggest at least some of them are. Do the working class vote Labour? Seeing as 90% of the population work, who else votes for them?" 90% of the population work? I think you need to take another look at that number. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is so much bitterness! Celebrating success is obviously not in everyones DNA, but how did that come about? What drives the politics of envy that some people have?" Lol, you reveal yourself. Politics of envy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back It’s why Reform bang on about utter dross like woke wars. It’s all a smokescreen to deflect from money & power. They think the Working Class are easily fooled. To be fair, 30% in the polls would suggest at least some of them are. Do the working class vote Labour? Seeing as 90% of the population work, who else votes for them? 90% of the population work? I think you need to take another look at that number." 75.1 to be exact, point still stands | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is so much bitterness! Celebrating success is obviously not in everyones DNA, but how did that come about? What drives the politics of envy that some people have? Lol, you reveal yourself. Politics of envy "Read back through the posts just above here, if you can't see it there is nothing more to say. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When I read this thread and the myriad similar ones over the years that relate to taxation. I've noticed a glaring omission almost like it's a taboo subject. Tax the bankers, hit the billionaires, squeeze the poor sucker who's house might be worth a few quid, and god forbid anyone who runs a business. All those among a good few others are firmly in the sights of the tax 'em to death mob on here. But one occupation seems to be some kind of sacred cow. Do you know what it is yet? Some of the sharper ones will have probably figured it out by now. Yep that's them. FOOTBALLERS! Are they left alone because no matter how much high earners seem to be hated on here, that silver cup that your team may win is more important? Offshore payments, image rights and god knows what else owned by their own offshore company's are pretty much ignored as long as "Carlos Kickaball" pops one in the back of the Wembley net on cup final day. Never hear any rants about wage equality when the "beautiful game" is involved. Just an observation. " Great observation. Footballers earn based on talent, performance, and the revenue they help generate. The system is meritocratic those with less ability fall down the leagues or out of the game entirely. The chance to earn more is open to anyone who can prove themselves on the pitch. It’s no different to the world in general. If you lack skills, ability or drive, you’re naturally going to sit at the lower end of the scale, competing with many others. The idea that success should be "punished" while failure is supported has crept into some modern thinking and it’s often dressed up as fairness. Celebrating success is hard if envy is the motivator. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is so much bitterness! Celebrating success is obviously not in everyones DNA, but how did that come about? What drives the politics of envy that some people have? Lol, you reveal yourself. Politics of envy
Read back through the posts just above here, if you can't see it there is nothing more to say."It's what any right winger says when they can't think of an actual argument against greater taxation. Tony Benn was a viscount and had the same out look use the same glib line about him? We've had trickle down economy for the past 40 years and all that's happened is the rich have got ever richer and the poor have got ever poorer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Politics of envy "aye, the usual garbage tropes tossed out by bitter boomers who've sponged, bludged and freeloaded off the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back If it’s “your money” then don’t give it to them in the first place. And life isn’t fair. It’s life. It’s not meant to be fair. To live you have to spend!! These people are making money from commodities. And I'm sorry that you see the world that way. Someone wasn't loved. Capitalism will always produce winners and loosers, the role of the state is to try and reduce the gap" And that shouldn't be by taking from the winners and giving to the losers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When I read this thread and the myriad similar ones over the years that relate to taxation. I've noticed a glaring omission almost like it's a taboo subject. Tax the bankers, hit the billionaires, squeeze the poor sucker who's house might be worth a few quid, and god forbid anyone who runs a business. All those among a good few others are firmly in the sights of the tax 'em to death mob on here. But one occupation seems to be some kind of sacred cow. Do you know what it is yet? Some of the sharper ones will have probably figured it out by now. Yep that's them. FOOTBALLERS! Are they left alone because no matter how much high earners seem to be hated on here, that silver cup that your team may win is more important? Offshore payments, image rights and god knows what else owned by their own offshore company's are pretty much ignored as long as "Carlos Kickaball" pops one in the back of the Wembley net on cup final day. Never hear any rants about wage equality when the "beautiful game" is involved. Just an observation. Great observation. Footballers earn based on talent, performance, and the revenue they help generate. The system is meritocratic those with less ability fall down the leagues or out of the game entirely. The chance to earn more is open to anyone who can prove themselves on the pitch. It’s no different to the world in general. If you lack skills, ability or drive, you’re naturally going to sit at the lower end of the scale, competing with many others. The idea that success should be "punished" while failure is supported has crept into some modern thinking and it’s often dressed up as fairness. Celebrating success is hard if envy is the motivator. " Your 59, the economy and that world view probably worked for you. It doesn't anymore. People leave uni saddled with debt. They earn a pittence and owning their own home is becoming ever less likely! The world isn't the same as it was in your halcyon days. It's time for a rethink | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back If it’s “your money” then don’t give it to them in the first place. And life isn’t fair. It’s life. It’s not meant to be fair. To live you have to spend!! These people are making money from commodities. And I'm sorry that you see the world that way. Someone wasn't loved. Capitalism will always produce winners and loosers, the role of the state is to try and reduce the gap And that shouldn't be by taking from the winners and giving to the losers "It's giving to society only 1% are winners your literally talking about 99% of society as loosers. Pleasent | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back If it’s “your money” then don’t give it to them in the first place. And life isn’t fair. It’s life. It’s not meant to be fair. To live you have to spend!! These people are making money from commodities. And I'm sorry that you see the world that way. Someone wasn't loved. Capitalism will always produce winners and loosers, the role of the state is to try and reduce the gap And that shouldn't be by taking from the winners and giving to the losers
It's giving to society only 1% are winners your literally talking about 99% of society as loosers.
Pleasent "Utter bollocks, most people are winners, you don't need to be a millionaire to be a winner, but you need to live within your means | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is so much bitterness! Celebrating success is obviously not in everyones DNA, but how did that come about? What drives the politics of envy that some people have? Lol, you reveal yourself. Politics of envy
Read back through the posts just above here, if you can't see it there is nothing more to say.
It's what any right winger says when they can't think of an actual argument against greater taxation.
Tony Benn was a viscount and had the same out look use the same glib line about him?
We've had trickle down economy for the past 40 years and all that's happened is the rich have got ever richer and the poor have got ever poorer."That's not correct we have a much better standard of living than 40 years ago. As I said further up, there are 2 things that are causing problems, housing and energy. If those problems are fixed the standard of living would become excellent. However, throwing other peoples money at the problem only exacerbates the situation further. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reading some of this thread is making me grimace. The way people are talking about taking other people’s money like they have a right to it. There’s almost hate from reading between the lines. Compared to other countries in which we've lived... There is an immense hatred in this country for anyone who has anything that someone else doesn't have. Less "I want to achieve that" and more "if I can't have it, nobody should". Probably something to do with historical class hierarchy and a feeling of powerlessness. Or alternatively, your average Joe recognises a Brain Surgeon should clearly be rewarded more than a public toilet cleaner to maintain incentive but both are pretty vital to a functioning society without the current differential in those rewards? What does somebody in Marketing bring to the table in terms of real value to society? Lots of ‘nothing’ jobs out there that are pretty well rewarded in comparison to vital ones. Marketing brings your company’s products to people’s attention so they buy them. This creates jobs through employees needed to sell and manufacture the products and through the whole supply chain. Having products to sell that nobody is aware of is pointless. It creates value for the buyer in that a product they need or want is made available to them. So yes, Marketing does have a point in the employment and wealth it creates across society. Marketing was the first example I plucked from the sky. There are a lot of nothing jobs out there though…witness the amount of Coffee Shops in the UK in comparison to the shortage of Care Workers currently? …and Mr Marketer still expects a clean public toilet when he visits one doesn’t he? A lot of people wouldn’t want to do that job as they see it as unpleasant don’t they? That, imo should mean it is better rewarded than it is. Mr Marketing exec can help that situation by paying a bit more tax for that public toilet cleaner’s wages than he currently does. But we already have a very fair way of deciding pay on the whole. Free market forces, supply and demand. A company will pay their cleaners just enough so they have more than enough people apply when they need a new one. If nobody is applying they up the wages. I applied for a job a couple of years ago where the employer told me they had 192 apply. He said he didn’t have time to read all the applications (was a very small company and he was doing 10 hours shifts without reading applications). So clearly the pay for this job was pretty good. You can argue how important any given job is with regard to how much it should pay, but the bottom line is how easy the role is to fill with people who can do the job It's not fair on those people going to food banks. In work poverty exists we have more food banks than McDonald's and it's because we want to bent the knee to rich people. Instead of telling them give our money back If it’s “your money” then don’t give it to them in the first place. And life isn’t fair. It’s life. It’s not meant to be fair. To live you have to spend!! These people are making money from commodities. And I'm sorry that you see the world that way. Someone wasn't loved. Capitalism will always produce winners and loosers, the role of the state is to try and reduce the gap And that shouldn't be by taking from the winners and giving to the losers
It's giving to society only 1% are winners your literally talking about 99% of society as loosers.
Pleasent
Utter bollocks, most people are winners, you don't need to be a millionaire to be a winner, but you need to live within your means
"This is about taxing wealth. In those terms the wealthiest who have over 10 million are 1% But if you now want to be a yoga loving tofu munching guardian reading woke then yes we all are winners if we wake and sing Kumbaya | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is so much bitterness! Celebrating success is obviously not in everyones DNA, but how did that come about? What drives the politics of envy that some people have? Lol, you reveal yourself. Politics of envy
Read back through the posts just above here, if you can't see it there is nothing more to say.
It's what any right winger says when they can't think of an actual argument against greater taxation.
Tony Benn was a viscount and had the same out look use the same glib line about him?
We've had trickle down economy for the past 40 years and all that's happened is the rich have got ever richer and the poor have got ever poorer.
That's not correct we have a much better standard of living than 40 years ago. As I said further up, there are 2 things that are causing problems, housing and energy. If those problems are fixed the standard of living would become excellent. However, throwing other peoples money at the problem only exacerbates the situation further.
"Childcare cost? Food inflation cost? Fuel? Illegal boat crossing. NHS waiting lists Perhaps in the world you reside it's housing and energy but in the real world society is practically dickensian | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And that shouldn't be by taking from the winners and giving to the losers "it's not about winners and losers though is it .... it's about how to fund a functioning society to collectively take care of the mundane shit that's needed so that people are freed up to earn money, live their lives happily & healthily, etc etc. instead we have tossers who've had a free ride for 40 years moaning because the society they've created can't get it's shit together to sort the most basic things like roads without potholes, not having a dentist within 90 miles from their house, and their children aren't going to get £800,000 in free cash when they've karked it etc. etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When I read this thread and the myriad similar ones over the years that relate to taxation. I've noticed a glaring omission almost like it's a taboo subject. Tax the bankers, hit the billionaires, squeeze the poor sucker who's house might be worth a few quid, and god forbid anyone who runs a business. All those among a good few others are firmly in the sights of the tax 'em to death mob on here. But one occupation seems to be some kind of sacred cow. Do you know what it is yet? Some of the sharper ones will have probably figured it out by now. Yep that's them. FOOTBALLERS! Are they left alone because no matter how much high earners seem to be hated on here, that silver cup that your team may win is more important? Offshore payments, image rights and god knows what else owned by their own offshore company's are pretty much ignored as long as "Carlos Kickaball" pops one in the back of the Wembley net on cup final day. Never hear any rants about wage equality when the "beautiful game" is involved. Just an observation. Great observation. Footballers earn based on talent, performance, and the revenue they help generate. The system is meritocratic those with less ability fall down the leagues or out of the game entirely. The chance to earn more is open to anyone who can prove themselves on the pitch. It’s no different to the world in general. If you lack skills, ability or drive, you’re naturally going to sit at the lower end of the scale, competing with many others. The idea that success should be "punished" while failure is supported has crept into some modern thinking and it’s often dressed up as fairness. Celebrating success is hard if envy is the motivator. Your 59, the economy and that world view probably worked for you. It doesn't anymore. People leave uni saddled with debt. They earn a pittence and owning their own home is becoming ever less likely! The world isn't the same as it was in your halcyon days. It's time for a rethink " You are diluting the effort and problems people have needed to make and face over those years, it is understandable as the need for someone to blame has been apparent in this thread. Coming out of the 70's with the country on its knees and opportunities very bleak. Wages in the gutter and changes to the traditional woking trades and skills coming along to derail the normal working routes delivered highest unemployment figures the country has ever seen. Housing was poor, many not having central heating, food was expensive and many people didn't have cars. Recessions have happened and been worked through. I like may others diversified, learnt skills, became educated and looked forward to what opportunities would / could flourish and worked hard to get those skills. Taking away that effort because people today have also got challenges that you rank personally higher is wrong. You said millionaires have rinsed the country and people of their money, you haven't applied credit to anyone who has been successful, that is not you alone it was a common theme of this thread. I started this thread asking what wealth was, how it can be taxed, implemented and benefits it would bring. I now believe more than I did before, the idea is a political ideology to keep socialists engaged and angry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When I read this thread and the myriad similar ones over the years that relate to taxation. I've noticed a glaring omission almost like it's a taboo subject. Tax the bankers, hit the billionaires, squeeze the poor sucker who's house might be worth a few quid, and god forbid anyone who runs a business. All those among a good few others are firmly in the sights of the tax 'em to death mob on here. But one occupation seems to be some kind of sacred cow. Do you know what it is yet? Some of the sharper ones will have probably figured it out by now. Yep that's them. FOOTBALLERS! Are they left alone because no matter how much high earners seem to be hated on here, that silver cup that your team may win is more important? Offshore payments, image rights and god knows what else owned by their own offshore company's are pretty much ignored as long as "Carlos Kickaball" pops one in the back of the Wembley net on cup final day. Never hear any rants about wage equality when the "beautiful game" is involved. Just an observation. Great observation. Footballers earn based on talent, performance, and the revenue they help generate. The system is meritocratic those with less ability fall down the leagues or out of the game entirely. The chance to earn more is open to anyone who can prove themselves on the pitch. It’s no different to the world in general. If you lack skills, ability or drive, you’re naturally going to sit at the lower end of the scale, competing with many others. The idea that success should be "punished" while failure is supported has crept into some modern thinking and it’s often dressed up as fairness. Celebrating success is hard if envy is the motivator. Your 59, the economy and that world view probably worked for you. It doesn't anymore. People leave uni saddled with debt. They earn a pittence and owning their own home is becoming ever less likely! The world isn't the same as it was in your halcyon days. It's time for a rethink " Yes a big rethink. Just think how they would be if they didn't go to Uni. Maybe they would have learned a trade and be earning good money today. But no. Blairs education education nonsense tricked a whole generation into Uni studying all sorts of Mickey Mouse degrees and wondering why a 3/3 in media studies only got them a job flipping burgers.
Jeez one Uni a few years ago was offering degree courses in watching Coronation St. FFS. And you expect the taxpayer to fund that. Dream on.
That 3 year jolly at Uni has its consequences and it's payback time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I started this thread asking what wealth was, how it can be taxed, implemented and benefits it would bring. I now believe more than I did before, the idea is a political ideology to keep socialists engaged and angry. " you don't half write some bitter boomer claptrap. you asked a question that you clearly had no clue about and when you found that you didn't like the facts that were presented to you with evidence you started to throw the usual debunked tory tropes again. you really need to deal with the reality that the freeloading, bludging and scrounging life that you boomers have enjoyed since 1979 has come to an abrupt end and he chaos that you've created is just that ... your creation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
