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 |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sadly yes. I don’t see the situation improving unless there is some major fiscal or financial collapse and the UK is ordered by some external saviour to massively cut benefits and re-gear its economy to growth. Failing countries can be turned around. Look at El Salvador and Argentina. But you need some driven leadership and a public that has woken up to reality. " I agree. I think an external intervention is extremely likely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple "Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple
Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't "That one remaining billionaire is gonna have one hell of a bill ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple "What so the hole country can go on benifits would be nice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So dont close loopholes allowing those capable of paying accountants to avoid paying their share, huge corporations paying next to nothing but go after the pensioners, disabled and vulnerable to reduce spending? Yeah that seems dead fair, you can't make it up, Mrs x" I think the point being made is if 60% are receiving benifits, whether pension, child credit, universal credit, pip, mobility, carers allowance. How is going to vote against this type of system. If a party wants to get in and promised a 20% increase they would get voted in by the 60% the non receiving 40% would not have a choice in reality 🤔 | |||
(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 |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple
Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't
That one remaining billionaire is gonna have one hell of a bill !"Did you know if Elon Musk shared his wealth amongst every person on the planet, we would all receive £1400032. Heartbreaking working that out and coming up with that figure! However that is enough for everyone on the planet never needing to work again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Crap wages need state top ups." We are eating imported food benefitting from two dollar a day farming wages in the third world. Wearing Primark et all clothing whose factory workers earn $1.2 an hour. How do we increase wages to compete on the global stage ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But if everyone was rich the price's of things would also increase so you'd be no better off. My personal opinion as unpopular as it will be is (unless you have a justified reason for needing not to work ) then just work harder if you need more money, don't expect handouts just because. We are not flush by any means and like most people live week to week definitely struggled our entire lives have had to make the choices of skipping meals when son was younger so he could eat. Clothes from carboot sales or jumble sales, but I have always worked on many occasions having two job's. We stopped at two children because financially at our absolute limit at no point did we expect the government to pay for us. I appreciate that shit happens, fuck I have a knackered back and struggle daily but as our mortgage runs until we are both 69 I have to go to work even if it's on my hands and knees. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is Britain's Welfare system now too big to be reformed because too many people are dependent on it ? Most people sensibly vote in their self interest and its understandable that those on benefits wish to retain and increase them, as with the abolition of the two child benefit cap. But when net beneficiaries of State aid outnumber net contributors, how will it ever be possible to make changes that are necessary for economic growth ? Interesting that even Reform has committed to the Pension Triple Lock and supported the child benefit changes." Send them bloody kids up the chimneys and feed the oldies cyanide then OP | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is Britain's Welfare system now too big to be reformed because too many people are dependent on it ? Most people sensibly vote in their self interest and its understandable that those on benefits wish to retain and increase them, as with the abolition of the two child benefit cap. But when net beneficiaries of State aid outnumber net contributors, how will it ever be possible to make changes that are necessary for economic growth ? Interesting that even Reform has committed to the Pension Triple Lock and supported the child benefit changes. Send them bloody kids up the chimneys and feed the oldies cyanide then OP" Well Assisted Dying is a Labour policy, but Ed Milliband has shut all the chimneys  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me Oh no, no gimme no more pickni You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a son When you should be having fun with me We don't want, we don't want We don't want no more pickni Ain't he cute? No he ain't He's just another burden On the welfare state You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me No gimme, no gimme, No gimme no more pickni Call me immature Call me a poser I'd love to spread manure in your bed of roses Don't want to be rich Don't want to be famous But I'd really hate to have the same name as you (You silly moo) You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me Gi we de birth control, we no want no pickni You've done too much, Much too young Now you're chained to the cooker Making currant buns for tea Oh no, no gimme no more pickni Ain't you heard of the starving millions Ain't you heard of contraception Do you really a program of sterilization Take control of the population boom It's in your living room Keep a generation gap Try wearing a cap!" He's Special ^  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The country will take the trajectory of Argentina. People will think "just a little more tax" will solve their problems. At some point, the whole thing will break down. Hope we have someone like Milei, capable of radical changes. Argentina's poverty went down to the lowest in 7 years by the way. You know, by cutting government and welfare spending." £25bn a year housing benefit because the state sold off over half of low rent social housing stock at a discount. Now relying on expensive private rented sector rents as we fail to build enough homes keeping house prices and rents sky high 20% of the nhs budget spent on treating self harmers, alcoholism, drug abuse, smoking related illnesses and obesity. Add another nhs cost of £10bn on malnutrition while we import and fail to regulate the sale of ultra processed food | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple
Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't
That one remaining billionaire is gonna have one hell of a bill !
Did you know if Elon Musk shared his wealth amongst every person on the planet, we would all receive £1400032.
Heartbreaking working that out and coming up with that figure! However that is enough for everyone on the planet never needing to work again."Would we all get our own rocket too ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me Oh no, no gimme no more pickni You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a son When you should be having fun with me We don't want, we don't want We don't want no more pickni Ain't he cute? No he ain't He's just another burden On the welfare state You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me No gimme, no gimme, No gimme no more pickni Call me immature Call me a poser I'd love to spread manure in your bed of roses Don't want to be rich Don't want to be famous But I'd really hate to have the same name as you (You silly moo) You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me Gi we de birth control, we no want no pickni You've done too much, Much too young Now you're chained to the cooker Making currant buns for tea Oh no, no gimme no more pickni Ain't you heard of the starving millions Ain't you heard of contraception Do you really a program of sterilization Take control of the population boom It's in your living room Keep a generation gap Try wearing a cap!" Bad advice. Birth rate was already going down by that point, it’s gone down further since & boomers are living longer. We are fecked for the next 20 years or so until the boomers die off. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple
Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't
That one remaining billionaire is gonna have one hell of a bill !
Did you know if Elon Musk shared his wealth amongst every person on the planet, we would all receive £1400032.
Heartbreaking working that out and coming up with that figure! However that is enough for everyone on the planet never needing to work again.
Would we all get our own rocket too ?"If Elon could find a populated planet and the population of that planet didn't mind working, I can't see why not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me Oh no, no gimme no more pickni You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a son When you should be having fun with me We don't want, we don't want We don't want no more pickni Ain't he cute? No he ain't He's just another burden On the welfare state You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me No gimme, no gimme, No gimme no more pickni Call me immature Call me a poser I'd love to spread manure in your bed of roses Don't want to be rich Don't want to be famous But I'd really hate to have the same name as you (You silly moo) You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me Gi we de birth control, we no want no pickni You've done too much, Much too young Now you're chained to the cooker Making currant buns for tea Oh no, no gimme no more pickni Ain't you heard of the starving millions Ain't you heard of contraception Do you really a program of sterilization Take control of the population boom It's in your living room Keep a generation gap Try wearing a cap! Bad advice. Birth rate was already going down by that point, it’s gone down further since & boomers are living longer. We are fecked for the next 20 years or so until the boomers die off." Charming  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me Oh no, no gimme no more pickni You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a son When you should be having fun with me We don't want, we don't want We don't want no more pickni Ain't he cute? No he ain't He's just another burden On the welfare state You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me No gimme, no gimme, No gimme no more pickni Call me immature Call me a poser I'd love to spread manure in your bed of roses Don't want to be rich Don't want to be famous But I'd really hate to have the same name as you (You silly moo) You've done too much, Much too young Now you're married with a kid When you could be having fun with me Gi we de birth control, we no want no pickni You've done too much, Much too young Now you're chained to the cooker Making currant buns for tea Oh no, no gimme no more pickni Ain't you heard of the starving millions Ain't you heard of contraception Do you really a program of sterilization Take control of the population boom It's in your living room Keep a generation gap Try wearing a cap! Bad advice. Birth rate was already going down by that point, it’s gone down further since & boomers are living longer. We are fecked for the next 20 years or so until the boomers die off. Charming "Just telling it as it is chum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple
Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't
That one remaining billionaire is gonna have one hell of a bill !
Did you know if Elon Musk shared his wealth amongst every person on the planet, we would all receive £1400032.
Heartbreaking working that out and coming up with that figure! However that is enough for everyone on the planet never needing to work again."Its quite staggering, the amount of money that would make a real difference to some of the most poorest people living in conditions we in the west cant imagine from the wealthiest people on the planet is so insignificant to what they have they wouldn't even notice it.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple
Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't
That one remaining billionaire is gonna have one hell of a bill !
Did you know if Elon Musk shared his wealth amongst every person on the planet, we would all receive £1400032.
Heartbreaking working that out and coming up with that figure! However that is enough for everyone on the planet never needing to work again."I have also seen that forwarded message on some groups  Didn't know people were so poor they couldn't even get a phone with a calculator app. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple
Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't
That one remaining billionaire is gonna have one hell of a bill !
Did you know if Elon Musk shared his wealth amongst every person on the planet, we would all receive £1400032.
Heartbreaking working that out and coming up with that figure! However that is enough for everyone on the planet never needing to work again.
Its quite staggering, the amount of money that would make a real difference to some of the most poorest people living in conditions we in the west cant imagine from the wealthiest people on the planet is so insignificant to what they have they wouldn't even notice it.."🤭 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why does the plan always start with forcibly taking other people’s money? Why does the plan never start with “raise the basic rate of income tax”? Why are some people so entitled that they actually think they have a some kind of right to other people’s money? That tax payers are just cash machines to extract money from so you can give it away and get a warm fuzzy feeling inside because you “righted a wrong”. The equation is simple. The number of people claiming benefits is rising. The number of people working is falling. The amount paid out in benefits per claim is rising, so the amount paid in taxes per person also has to rise. Follow that to its logical conclusion and even a 9yo can figure out…. There’s not enough money. Or, crazy idea, we stop importing non workers and get more of those already here into work and paying tax. Then the government will be able to start paying off some of those £3 trillion debts " Yesss basic maths 👍👍 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple
Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't
That one remaining billionaire is gonna have one hell of a bill !
Did you know if Elon Musk shared his wealth amongst every person on the planet, we would all receive £1400032.
Heartbreaking working that out and coming up with that figure! However that is enough for everyone on the planet never needing to work again.
Its quite staggering, the amount of money that would make a real difference to some of the most poorest people living in conditions we in the west cant imagine from the wealthiest people on the planet is so insignificant to what they have they wouldn't even notice it.."Send them some more of your own money then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why does the plan always start with forcibly taking other people’s money? Why does the plan never start with “raise the basic rate of income tax”? Why are some people so entitled that they actually think they have a some kind of right to other people’s money? That tax payers are just cash machines to extract money from so you can give it away and get a warm fuzzy feeling inside because you “righted a wrong”. The equation is simple. The number of people claiming benefits is rising. The number of people working is falling. The amount paid out in benefits per claim is rising, so the amount paid in taxes per person also has to rise. Follow that to its logical conclusion and even a 9yo can figure out…. There’s not enough money. Or, crazy idea, we stop importing non workers and get more of those already here into work and paying tax. Then the government will be able to start paying off some of those £3 trillion debts Yesss basic maths 👍👍" "Forcibly taking other people's money" is not basic maths, it's moral framing. Am I forcibly made to pay for the Fire Brigade when they arrive to put out your fire? Go pay for the Fire Brigade yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Forcibly taking other people's money" is not basic maths, it's moral framing. Am I forcibly made to pay for the Fire Brigade when they arrive to put out your fire? Go pay for the Fire Brigade yourself. " There is a big difference between taxes being used for worthwhile causes (police, fire brigade, roads, defence, education and parts of the NHS) and the current situation where welfare and NHS waste takes up such large amounts of money that everything else is neglected. Most people have some issues in life but the attitude used to be “just get on with it”. People had to stand on their own feet and earn money to live. The state was there as an emergency safety net and there was a shame in asking for help. Now that ethos has been eroded away and getting state support is so normalised that people don’t even care any more. There are huge opportunities to cut the benefits system and waste in other areas such as the NHS and the public sector but as the OP said it is politically suicidal due to the number of people who receive benefits and the vast number of public sector workers. Both these groups usually vote for their own interests and they outnumber the real workers in the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Forcibly taking other people's money" is not basic maths, it's moral framing. Am I forcibly made to pay for the Fire Brigade when they arrive to put out your fire? Go pay for the Fire Brigade yourself. There is a big difference between taxes being used for worthwhile causes (police, fire brigade, roads, defence, education and parts of the NHS) and the current situation where welfare and NHS waste takes up such large amounts of money that everything else is neglected. Most people have some issues in life but the attitude used to be “just get on with it”. People had to stand on their own feet and earn money to live. The state was there as an emergency safety net and there was a shame in asking for help. Now that ethos has been eroded away and getting state support is so normalised that people don’t even care any more. There are huge opportunities to cut the benefits system and waste in other areas such as the NHS and the public sector but as the OP said it is politically suicidal due to the number of people who receive benefits and the vast number of public sector workers. Both these groups usually vote for their own interests and they outnumber the real workers in the country." Who gets to determine what is "worthwhile" and what isn't? The dear departed OP assumes that recipients of welfare are in the same voting bloc. But someone temporarily out of work and recieving unemployment benefit does not automatically vote the same way as someone who is retired and taking a pension. All of us move from contributor to beneficiary thoroughout our lives and what we perceive as "worthwhile" changes. Assuming that welfare reform is necessary for growth is a political stance, not an economic certainty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course the benefits bill is going up. We have an ageing population coupled with a shrinking workforce, a shrinking workforce because of low birth rates in recent decades, which is why you have Farage not opposing changes to child benefit to try & boost births. More older people means more people living with disabilities. More frail people using the NHS for longer & more frequently. People claiming state pensions for 20 years because they are living longer than they used to, but still retiring relatively early in relation to that. People probably aren’t having kids either because it’s too expensive. Housing is certainly an expensive consideration at the moment. You can slash welfare, but as an indicator of the consequences of that, child poverty went up during Margaret Thatcher's reign from roughly 13% in 1979 to 22% in 1990. More people in poverty highly likely means a larger law & order budget will be needed (recorded crime rose significantly in the UK during Margaret Thatcher’s premiership with recorded crimes rising from roughly 2.5 million to 4.5 million by 1990) & increases in health spending on these people further on in their impoverished lives. Consequences everywhere you turn really. " This ⬆️. We tried austerity for over six years and it didn't produce the expected results. Why would it be different this time around? The only way out of this mess is to achieve significant economic growth and for all their snappy one liners, Farage and Polanski have no more idea of how to achieve that than Starmer does | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course the benefits bill is going up. We have an ageing population coupled with a shrinking workforce, a shrinking workforce because of low birth rates in recent decades, which is why you have Farage not opposing changes to child benefit to try & boost births. More older people means more people living with disabilities. More frail people using the NHS for longer & more frequently. People claiming state pensions for 20 years because they are living longer than they used to, but still retiring relatively early in relation to that. People probably aren’t having kids either because it’s too expensive. Housing is certainly an expensive consideration at the moment. You can slash welfare, but as an indicator of the consequences of that, child poverty went up during Margaret Thatcher's reign from roughly 13% in 1979 to 22% in 1990. More people in poverty highly likely means a larger law & order budget will be needed (recorded crime rose significantly in the UK during Margaret Thatcher’s premiership with recorded crimes rising from roughly 2.5 million to 4.5 million by 1990) & increases in health spending on these people further on in their impoverished lives. Consequences everywhere you turn really. " Some of those things are certainly factors but the workforce isn’t only shrinking because of low birth rates. Millions of working age people aren’t working due to “ill health” and particularly “mental health” issues amongst young people. Do we really believe that these people cannot be encouraged or cajoled back into the workplace? Why is the number suddenly so high? Is it too easy for them to be signed off as long term sick with no pressure to return to work? At the older end people are just dropping out of the workforce. Covid lockdowns were a complete disaster in that respect as people who would probably have worked a bit longer decided they liked not working and were happy to live on slightly less pension than they originally planned. What can be done to encourage early retired people back to work? The “gap” has been filled by importing millions of low grade immigrants many of whom become a burden themselves. GDP growth is being driven by the mass importation of bodies, which has the effect of increasing overall GDP but at the same time GDP per capita has been shrinking/stagnating meaning we are all getting poorer. Have we got our immigration policy right? Another reason the workforce is shrinking is simply because of economic mismanagement. 330,000 more people out of work under Labour as they have piled on the costs and regulations. 330,000 people not contributing and added to the benefits bill. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We tried austerity for over six years and it didn't produce the expected results." We didn't try austerity. Government spending kept increasing. Yes, government spending was cut from some areas and allocated to others, but the overall spend kept going up. That's not austerity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We tried austerity for over six years and it didn't produce the expected results. We didn't try austerity. Government spending kept increasing. Yes, government spending was cut from some areas and allocated to others, but the overall spend kept going up. That's not austerity." Spending in cash terms yes (inflation is a bitch) but spending relative to the economy definitely went down -from 45% of GDP to 39% of GDP. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We tried austerity for over six years and it didn't produce the expected results." "We didn't try austerity. Government spending kept increasing. Yes, government spending was cut from some areas and allocated to others, but the overall spend kept going up. That's not austerity." "Spending in cash terms yes (inflation is a bitch) but spending relative to the economy definitely went down -from 45% of GDP to 39% of GDP." Spending went up by more than inflation. There was no reduction, and therefore no austerity. I've not checked the GDP figures, but they don't matter. If your argument had been that the government could have spent more, GDP levels would be a relevant metric. But your argument was that the government spent less, and that isn't true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple
Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't
That one remaining billionaire is gonna have one hell of a bill !"The current system should last quite a lot longer,then... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Spending went up by more than inflation. There was no reduction, and therefore no austerity. I've not checked the GDP figures, but they don't matter. If your argument had been that the government could have spent more, GDP levels would be a relevant metric. But your argument was that the government spent less, and that isn't true. " Nope. Spending went up by less than inflation - 8.6% total in five years compared to inflation of 15% over the same period. Spending as a percentage of GDP went down by 6% and as a result the deficit reduced from 10% of GDP to 2% of GDP. We saved money by cutting services but it didn't translate into anything meaningful for the UK economy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Millions of working age people aren’t working due to “ill health” and particularly “mental health” issues amongst young people. Do we really believe that these people cannot be encouraged or cajoled back into the workplace? Why is the number suddenly so high? Is it too easy for them to be signed off as long term sick with no pressure to return to work? At the older end people are just dropping out of the workforce. Covid lockdowns were a complete disaster in that respect as people who would probably have worked a bit longer decided they liked not working and were happy to live on slightly less pension than they originally planned. What can be done to encourage early retired people back to work? " You can have more old people back in work, or you can have more young people in work. You can’t have both. People working many years past traditional retirement age has an impact on a youth employment figures. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple "To some that is the "simple" answer. The bit they don't get is that if you confiscated the entire wealth of every UK billionaire it would cover government spending for around 6 months. Then what? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Millions of working age people aren’t working due to “ill health” and particularly “mental health” issues amongst young people. Do we really believe that these people cannot be encouraged or cajoled back into the workplace? Why is the number suddenly so high? Is it too easy for them to be signed off as long term sick with no pressure to return to work? At the older end people are just dropping out of the workforce. Covid lockdowns were a complete disaster in that respect as people who would probably have worked a bit longer decided they liked not working and were happy to live on slightly less pension than they originally planned. What can be done to encourage early retired people back to work? You can have more old people back in work, or you can have more young people in work. You can’t have both. People working many years past traditional retirement age has an impact on a youth employment figures. " I’m not talking about “people working past traditional retirement age”. I’m talking about people stopping work before their official retirement age. The premise of the post I responded to was that there “aren’t enough workers” with the assumption being that this is caused by low birth rate. Which is just one contributing factor. You are right in a sense in that unemployment is on the rise under Labour which suggests that a growing number of people want a job but can’t get one. Equally people who are not working due to “ill health” may have gone down that route simply because they can’t find a job long term and that’s their way out of the problem. Old people and young people aren’t interchangeable anyway necessarily, it depends on specific job attributes and the skills required. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Millions of working age people aren’t working due to “ill health” and particularly “mental health” issues amongst young people. Do we really believe that these people cannot be encouraged or cajoled back into the workplace? Why is the number suddenly so high? Is it too easy for them to be signed off as long term sick with no pressure to return to work? At the older end people are just dropping out of the workforce. Covid lockdowns were a complete disaster in that respect as people who would probably have worked a bit longer decided they liked not working and were happy to live on slightly less pension than they originally planned. What can be done to encourage early retired people back to work? You can have more old people back in work, or you can have more young people in work. You can’t have both. People working many years past traditional retirement age has an impact on a youth employment figures. I’m not talking about “people working past traditional retirement age”. I’m talking about people stopping work before their official retirement age. The premise of the post I responded to was that there “aren’t enough workers” with the assumption being that this is caused by low birth rate. Which is just one contributing factor. You are right in a sense in that unemployment is on the rise under Labour which suggests that a growing number of people want a job but can’t get one. Equally people who are not working due to “ill health” may have gone down that route simply because they can’t find a job long term and that’s their way out of the problem. Old people and young people aren’t interchangeable anyway necessarily, it depends on specific job attributes and the skills required." Ageing population is a problem, but so is the fact that increasing number of people in working age aren't working anymore.
In a situation like this, I would expect the companies to invest more in automation and robotics. And yet UK stands way below other countries in robot density in workforce. I wonder why. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Millions of working age people aren’t working due to “ill health” and particularly “mental health” issues amongst young people. Do we really believe that these people cannot be encouraged or cajoled back into the workplace? Why is the number suddenly so high? Is it too easy for them to be signed off as long term sick with no pressure to return to work? At the older end people are just dropping out of the workforce. Covid lockdowns were a complete disaster in that respect as people who would probably have worked a bit longer decided they liked not working and were happy to live on slightly less pension than they originally planned. What can be done to encourage early retired people back to work? You can have more old people back in work, or you can have more young people in work. You can’t have both. People working many years past traditional retirement age has an impact on a youth employment figures. I’m not talking about “people working past traditional retirement age”. I’m talking about people stopping work before their official retirement age. The premise of the post I responded to was that there “aren’t enough workers” with the assumption being that this is caused by low birth rate. Which is just one contributing factor. You are right in a sense in that unemployment is on the rise under Labour which suggests that a growing number of people want a job but can’t get one. Equally people who are not working due to “ill health” may have gone down that route simply because they can’t find a job long term and that’s their way out of the problem. Old people and young people aren’t interchangeable anyway necessarily, it depends on specific job attributes and the skills required. Ageing population is a problem, but so is the fact that increasing number of people in working age aren't working anymore.
In a situation like this, I would expect the companies to invest more in automation and robotics. And yet UK stands way below other countries in robot density in workforce. I wonder why."Ageing population has been a known for decades, it has become an unmanaged risk. The only way out of this is to increase productivity and remove reliance on the welfare state, this should be a non-negotiable stance for any government. First steps are going to be the most difficult but they need to be taken. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Millions of working age people aren’t working due to “ill health” and particularly “mental health” issues amongst young people. Do we really believe that these people cannot be encouraged or cajoled back into the workplace? Why is the number suddenly so high? Is it too easy for them to be signed off as long term sick with no pressure to return to work? At the older end people are just dropping out of the workforce. Covid lockdowns were a complete disaster in that respect as people who would probably have worked a bit longer decided they liked not working and were happy to live on slightly less pension than they originally planned. What can be done to encourage early retired people back to work? You can have more old people back in work, or you can have more young people in work. You can’t have both. People working many years past traditional retirement age has an impact on a youth employment figures. I’m not talking about “people working past traditional retirement age”. I’m talking about people stopping work before their official retirement age. The premise of the post I responded to was that there “aren’t enough workers” with the assumption being that this is caused by low birth rate. Which is just one contributing factor. You are right in a sense in that unemployment is on the rise under Labour which suggests that a growing number of people want a job but can’t get one. Equally people who are not working due to “ill health” may have gone down that route simply because they can’t find a job long term and that’s their way out of the problem. Old people and young people aren’t interchangeable anyway necessarily, it depends on specific job attributes and the skills required. Ageing population is a problem, but so is the fact that increasing number of people in working age aren't working anymore.
In a situation like this, I would expect the companies to invest more in automation and robotics. And yet UK stands way below other countries in robot density in workforce. I wonder why.
Ageing population has been a known for decades, it has become an unmanaged risk.
The only way out of this is to increase productivity and remove reliance on the welfare state, this should be a non-negotiable stance for any government.
First steps are going to be the most difficult but they need to be taken. "Think it’s the case ageing has plateaued but illness, unhealthiness is still increasing. 2.8 million unable to work due to ‘conditions’ UK's overall health is declining, reported rise in long-term illness, chronic conditions, and economic inactivity due to sickness. Nearly 46% of adults in England now report having at least one long-term health condition. Poor quality food supply at a high cost. 25% of nhs budget spent on obesity, drug and alcohol conditions, smoking diseases and malnutrition. And mental health. Expanding welfare and healthcare costs inevitable as we are seeing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple
Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't
That one remaining billionaire is gonna have one hell of a bill !
Did you know if Elon Musk shared his wealth amongst every person on the planet, we would all receive £1400032.
Heartbreaking working that out and coming up with that figure! However that is enough for everyone on the planet never needing to work again.
I have also seen that forwarded message on some groups Didn't know people were so poor they couldn't even get a phone with a calculator app."
Musk apparently worth $852 billion.(mostly in equity, not cash)
8 billion population.
Don’t really need a calculator. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"tax wealth, simple
Tax the rich, it solves all problems, until it doesn't
That one remaining billionaire is gonna have one hell of a bill !
Did you know if Elon Musk shared his wealth amongst every person on the planet, we would all receive £1400032.
Heartbreaking working that out and coming up with that figure! However that is enough for everyone on the planet never needing to work again.
I have also seen that forwarded message on some groups Didn't know people were so poor they couldn't even get a phone with a calculator app.
Musk apparently worth $852 billion.(mostly in equity, not cash)
8 billion population.
Don’t really need a calculator. "Ooooh now some people will assume that is enough for everyone to have a billion each and leave some change over. Others will see that it is $106.50 per person and simply move on
Tax the rich 🤑 🤣
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is Britain's Welfare system now too big to be reformed because too many people are dependent on it ? Most people sensibly vote in their self interest and its understandable that those on benefits wish to retain and increase them, as with the abolition of the two child benefit cap. But when net beneficiaries of State aid outnumber net contributors, how will it ever be possible to make changes that are necessary for economic growth ? Interesting that even Reform has committed to the Pension Triple Lock and supported the child benefit changes." Actually many don't vote for their self interest. Know loads who voted Cameron in 2010, who then cut their working child tax allowance. People vote in droves for whatever nonsense has been stirred up by the controlling few. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"
Musk apparently worth $852 billion.(mostly in equity, not cash)
8 billion population.
Don’t really need a calculator.
Ooooh now some people will assume that is enough for everyone to have a billion each and leave some change over.
Others will see that it is $106.50 per person and simply move on
Tax the rich 🤑 🤣
"Not even that much Fire sale to liquidise all that less tax’s, £30 a head at most | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"
Musk apparently worth $852 billion.(mostly in equity, not cash)
8 billion population.
Don’t really need a calculator.
Ooooh now some people will assume that is enough for everyone to have a billion each and leave some change over.
Others will see that it is $106.50 per person and simply move on
Tax the rich 🤑 🤣
Not even that much
Fire sale to liquidise all that less tax’s, £30 a head at most "I fear it is worse than that
The perceived wealth doesn't exist as a pile of cash sitting in a corner of a bank, it is a valuation but lets not let that get in the way of a good story.
Tax the rich 🤑 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Could businesses be taxed for automating their roles? If they are employing less people for their profits the state is having to pick up the slack so make the businesses pay." No. The states job is to create favourable conditions for people to start and invest in businesses. Corporation tax is 12.5% in Ireland. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Could businesses be taxed for automating their roles? If they are employing less people for their profits the state is having to pick up the slack so make the businesses pay." Oh my.. How does this work then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Could businesses be taxed for automating their roles? If they are employing less people for their profits the state is having to pick up the slack so make the businesses pay." People might be surprised hearing this coming from me - In the very long term, yes. That is, if AI fulfils its promises. I would prefer some type of UBI that replaces all government run services at that point. But we are very very far from reaching that level of automation. As things stand, we still need a lot of people to work and businesses should be given a more conducive environment to perform, not another tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Could businesses be taxed for automating their roles? If they are employing less people for their profits the state is having to pick up the slack so make the businesses pay." How would we compete with other countries? Businesses are taxed on profits. If their profits go up as a result, they either pay the government, or hire/retain people to work in other areas. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Could businesses be taxed for automating their roles? If they are employing less people for their profits the state is having to pick up the slack so make the businesses pay. How would we compete with other countries? Businesses are taxed on profits. If their profits go up as a result, they either pay the government, or hire/retain people to work in other areas." The UK service sector accounts for 83% of employment. I’m wondering how this will be affected by AI Millions of jobs have already been globalised for cheaper costs, like call centres, factories closed goods produced overseas. Hiring and training overseas is cheaper and less bureaucratic Triumph motorcycles reduced uk production and workforce down to 700, opened three factories in Thailand where wages and operating costs are lower. But the product at the dealers is no cheaper as a result. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Welfare economy omg what nonsense. Words from somebodies masters with billions in their pockets. Yes our welfare system is affordable, but it's got bigger due to stagnant growth in wages and government needing to help more. We could reduce it via fair wages that are livable for real. Or we could afford it by taxing those avoiding by taking loans to live on to avoid tax on their businesses. Yes the millionaires and billionaires who are bad for society. " Is it just about wages ? Our housing is expensive due to governments failures. Our electricity cost the highest on the globe Agriculture significantly reduced reliance on imports Dis investment everywhere you look making things more expensive | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is Britain's Welfare system now too big to be reformed because too many people are dependent on it ? Most people sensibly vote in their self interest and its understandable that those on benefits wish to retain and increase them, as with the abolition of the two child benefit cap. But when net beneficiaries of State aid outnumber net contributors, how will it ever be possible to make changes that are necessary for economic growth ? Interesting that even Reform has committed to the Pension Triple Lock and supported the child benefit changes." Most of the welfare bill is pensioners!! Are we calling to abolish the pension? The second most dependant are in work poverty. When are we going to start telling pensioners they should have saved better and companies to pay the staff better? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Study today finds that most young people see nothing to fight for if war came to Britain. This surely has to be directly linked with the country we've created for the young. Housing is 10 x wages People are leaving higher education with tens of thousands pounds of debt. Dentistry is expensive Infrastructure feels shit Waiting lists through the roof And more tax cuts they shout!!" And Labour has only been in power for two years. Imagine what it will be like after five! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Study today finds that most young people see nothing to fight for if war came to Britain. This surely has to be directly linked with the country we've created for the young. Housing is 10 x wages People are leaving higher education with tens of thousands pounds of debt. Dentistry is expensive Infrastructure feels shit Waiting lists through the roof And more tax cuts they shout!! And Labour has only been in power for two years. Imagine what it will be like after five!" Not sure 2 year olds could vote despite Britain's superior education | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Study today finds that most young people see nothing to fight for if war came to Britain. This surely has to be directly linked with the country we've created for the young. Housing is 10 x wages People are leaving higher education with tens of thousands pounds of debt. Dentistry is expensive Infrastructure feels shit Waiting lists through the roof And more tax cuts they shout!! And Labour has only been in power for two years. Imagine what it will be like after five! Not sure 2 year olds could vote despite Britain's superior education " Just needs someone else to pay more tax I guess to fund these things. Alongside “nurturing” already educated asylum seekers and paying out billions in reparations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Study today finds that most young people see nothing to fight for if war came to Britain. This surely has to be directly linked with the country we've created for the young. Housing is 10 x wages People are leaving higher education with tens of thousands pounds of debt. Dentistry is expensive Infrastructure feels shit Waiting lists through the roof And more tax cuts they shout!! And Labour has only been in power for two years. Imagine what it will be like after five! Not sure 2 year olds could vote despite Britain's superior education Just needs someone else to pay more tax I guess to fund these things. Alongside “nurturing” already educated asylum seekers and paying out billions in reparations. " Yup, taxes will change childhood development!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably." If the world only produces 50% of the world's healthcare needs, how does money from rich people help? The issue is on the supply side. If a country supports five million non-productive people and only produces 80% of its healthcare needs, then shifting money around isn't going to solve the issue. If a country were productive enough, money wouldn't be a problem. The question isn't how to disincentivise wealth creation, but how to incentive production. Yes, taxation forms part of the picture, but getting people producing is infinitely (fundamentally mathematically) more important. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably." There are 58 billionaires in the UK. The government spends about a trillion a year. What’s the plan when the billionaires’ money is gone after a few months? Why would the G20 cooperate in this scam? The G20 is quite a diverse range of countries many of whom aren’t in the same mess as the UK so what’s the incentive if they don’t have the same problems? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. If the world only produces 50% of the world's healthcare needs, how does money from rich people help? The issue is on the supply side. If a country supports five million non-productive people and only produces 80% of its healthcare needs, then shifting money around isn't going to solve the issue. If a country were productive enough, money wouldn't be a problem. The question isn't how to disincentivise wealth creation, but how to incentive production. Yes, taxation forms part of the picture, but getting people producing is infinitely (fundamentally mathematically) more important." Yes I agree, but as you acknowledge yourself, we can do both. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. There are 58 billionaires in the UK. The government spends about a trillion a year. What’s the plan when the billionaires’ money is gone after a few months? Why would the G20 cooperate in this scam? The G20 is quite a diverse range of countries many of whom aren’t in the same mess as the UK so what’s the incentive if they don’t have the same problems? " The billionaires money wouldn’t be gone, why would we kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Of course, it’d be interesting to see if the basis of a consensus on tax would be there or not. Half the globe signed up to minimum Corporation Tax levels, so may be worth asking the questions. Problem is of course, rich individuals in these countries buy the politicians off. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. There are 58 billionaires in the UK. The government spends about a trillion a year. What’s the plan when the billionaires’ money is gone after a few months? Why would the G20 cooperate in this scam? The G20 is quite a diverse range of countries many of whom aren’t in the same mess as the UK so what’s the incentive if they don’t have the same problems? The billionaires money wouldn’t be gone, why would we kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Of course, it’d be interesting to see if the basis of a consensus on tax would be there or not. Half the globe signed up to minimum Corporation Tax levels, so may be worth asking the questions. Problem is of course, rich individuals in these countries buy the politicians off. " So the UK goes to other countries in the G20 and says “we’ve made a terrible mess of things, our public finances and services are a mess and we are spending too much on welfare, we can’t afford to defend ourselves, so you all must raise taxes whether you need to or not”? I think my response would be “stop spending so much and refocus on what’s important. We are doing fine thanks”. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. There are 58 billionaires in the UK. The government spends about a trillion a year. What’s the plan when the billionaires’ money is gone after a few months? Why would the G20 cooperate in this scam? The G20 is quite a diverse range of countries many of whom aren’t in the same mess as the UK so what’s the incentive if they don’t have the same problems? The billionaires money wouldn’t be gone, why would we kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Of course, it’d be interesting to see if the basis of a consensus on tax would be there or not. Half the globe signed up to minimum Corporation Tax levels, so may be worth asking the questions. Problem is of course, rich individuals in these countries buy the politicians off. So the UK goes to other countries in the G20 and says “we’ve made a terrible mess of things, our public finances and services are a mess and we are spending too much on welfare, we can’t afford to defend ourselves, so you all must raise taxes whether you need to or not”? I think my response would be “stop spending so much and refocus on what’s important. We are doing fine thanks”." Lol. Look at this!!! In order for the wealth not to 'run' from one country to the next. You know how you daily mail flag shaggers always cry. You have to have a concerted effort across the globe to tax wealth and the redistribution of it to poorer nations first | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. If the world only produces 50% of the world's healthcare needs, how does money from rich people help? The issue is on the supply side. If a country supports five million non-productive people and only produces 80% of its healthcare needs, then shifting money around isn't going to solve the issue. If a country were productive enough, money wouldn't be a problem. The question isn't how to disincentivise wealth creation, but how to incentive production. Yes, taxation forms part of the picture, but getting people producing is infinitely (fundamentally mathematically) more important." That's the problem with left wing politics. They keep caught up with money and pretend like moving money to different hands would improve the material living when the problem is lack of productivity. People need to be inventiviced to be more productive. Increasing taxes does the entire opposite of that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. If the world only produces 50% of the world's healthcare needs, how does money from rich people help? The issue is on the supply side. If a country supports five million non-productive people and only produces 80% of its healthcare needs, then shifting money around isn't going to solve the issue. If a country were productive enough, money wouldn't be a problem. The question isn't how to disincentivise wealth creation, but how to incentive production. Yes, taxation forms part of the picture, but getting people producing is infinitely (fundamentally mathematically) more important. That's the problem with left wing politics. They keep caught up with money and pretend like moving money to different hands would improve the material living when the problem is lack of productivity. People need to be inventiviced to be more productive. Increasing taxes does the entire opposite of that." Productivity, fine, but a lot of billionaires wealth is unearned isn’t it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. If the world only produces 50% of the world's healthcare needs, how does money from rich people help? The issue is on the supply side. If a country supports five million non-productive people and only produces 80% of its healthcare needs, then shifting money around isn't going to solve the issue. If a country were productive enough, money wouldn't be a problem. The question isn't how to disincentivise wealth creation, but how to incentive production. Yes, taxation forms part of the picture, but getting people producing is infinitely (fundamentally mathematically) more important. That's the problem with left wing politics. They keep caught up with money and pretend like moving money to different hands would improve the material living when the problem is lack of productivity. People need to be inventiviced to be more productive. Increasing taxes does the entire opposite of that. Productivity, fine, but a lot of billionaires wealth is unearned isn’t it." It sounds like your real problem is envy towards other people's wealth and not about improving lives of poor people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Productivity, fine, but a lot of billionaires wealth is unearned isn’t it." Imagine that people in the UK had built Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon. How might our state finances be different if they were OUR billionaires who founded them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. If the world only produces 50% of the world's healthcare needs, how does money from rich people help? The issue is on the supply side. If a country supports five million non-productive people and only produces 80% of its healthcare needs, then shifting money around isn't going to solve the issue. If a country were productive enough, money wouldn't be a problem. The question isn't how to disincentivise wealth creation, but how to incentive production. Yes, taxation forms part of the picture, but getting people producing is infinitely (fundamentally mathematically) more important. That's the problem with left wing politics. They keep caught up with money and pretend like moving money to different hands would improve the material living when the problem is lack of productivity. People need to be inventiviced to be more productive. Increasing taxes does the entire opposite of that. Productivity, fine, but a lot of billionaires wealth is unearned isn’t it." How many people are employed as a result of the investments from the top 3 billionaires on the planet? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How many people are employed as a result of the investments from the top 3 billionaires on the planet? " Range boss directly employs 12,000. And he’s at the bottom of the billionaires list. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Productivity, fine, but a lot of billionaires wealth is unearned isn’t it." Productivity is the fundamental issue as to why the UK (and Europe’s) economies are stagnating. Productivity growth has stalled for almost 20 years in the UK. This fixation with billionaires is a red herring. If you look at the list of billionaires you have to go a long way down that list to find people who inherited money. Inherited money gets dissipated too quickly amongst lots of people and just vanishes. The only way to make proper money is to set up a company and grow it. The richest people in the world all did that. It’s the same in almost any group of people. The richest ones will be the ones who set up and run a company. We need more of these people not less as they are ones who grow productivity. Productivity growth is what pays for public services. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Productivity, fine, but a lot of billionaires wealth is unearned isn’t it." Do you mean unearned as from assets? As of mid-2025, approximately 67% to 70% of the world's 2,800+ billionaires are considered self-made. This equates to over 1,900 individuals who founded or co-founded their own companies rather than inheriting their wealth. The U.S. has a 73% self-made rate, while countries like China and Russia report up to 97% self-made rates. (Forbes) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. " Perhaps we can agree that Ireland is a parasitic pseudo-producer? Companies with no material ties base themselves there to benefit from stupidly low tax rates. This skews Ireland's GDP and wealth. Countries should impose a digital tax on consumption (advertisers are consumers, users are products), but the US will punish anyone who does that to their companies. Perhaps we should punish parasitic tax havens? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. Perhaps we can agree that Ireland is a parasitic pseudo-producer? Companies with no material ties base themselves there to benefit from stupidly low tax rates. This skews Ireland's GDP and wealth. Countries should impose a digital tax on consumption (advertisers are consumers, users are products), but the US will punish anyone who does that to their companies. Perhaps we should punish parasitic tax havens?" It's insane how many tech companies have "headquarters" in Ireland, which are nothing but some small offices with a few teams for namesakes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we should punish parasitic tax havens? It's insane how many tech companies have "headquarters" in Ireland, which are nothing but some small offices with a few teams for namesakes "Yeah. If you want to talk about "unearned wealth", Ireland should be our first target. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we should punish parasitic tax havens? It's insane how many tech companies have "headquarters" in Ireland, which are nothing but some small offices with a few teams for namesakes
Yeah. If you want to talk about "unearned wealth", Ireland should be our first target."12.5% corporation tax 1% property stamp duty up to €1M 7.5% stamp duty on agricultural land Definitely skewed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. If the world only produces 50% of the world's healthcare needs, how does money from rich people help? The issue is on the supply side. If a country supports five million non-productive people and only produces 80% of its healthcare needs, then shifting money around isn't going to solve the issue. If a country were productive enough, money wouldn't be a problem. The question isn't how to disincentivise wealth creation, but how to incentive production. Yes, taxation forms part of the picture, but getting people producing is infinitely (fundamentally mathematically) more important. That's the problem with left wing politics. They keep caught up with money and pretend like moving money to different hands would improve the material living when the problem is lack of productivity. People need to be inventiviced to be more productive. Increasing taxes does the entire opposite of that." You can't pull up your boot straps if you've got no boots. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. If the world only produces 50% of the world's healthcare needs, how does money from rich people help? The issue is on the supply side. If a country supports five million non-productive people and only produces 80% of its healthcare needs, then shifting money around isn't going to solve the issue. If a country were productive enough, money wouldn't be a problem. The question isn't how to disincentivise wealth creation, but how to incentive production. Yes, taxation forms part of the picture, but getting people producing is infinitely (fundamentally mathematically) more important. That's the problem with left wing politics. They keep caught up with money and pretend like moving money to different hands would improve the material living when the problem is lack of productivity. People need to be inventiviced to be more productive. Increasing taxes does the entire opposite of that. You can't pull up your boot straps if you've got no boots." That's a nice sounding quote but completely unrelated to what we are discussing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. If the world only produces 50% of the world's healthcare needs, how does money from rich people help? The issue is on the supply side. If a country supports five million non-productive people and only produces 80% of its healthcare needs, then shifting money around isn't going to solve the issue. If a country were productive enough, money wouldn't be a problem. The question isn't how to disincentivise wealth creation, but how to incentive production. Yes, taxation forms part of the picture, but getting people producing is infinitely (fundamentally mathematically) more important. That's the problem with left wing politics. They keep caught up with money and pretend like moving money to different hands would improve the material living when the problem is lack of productivity. People need to be inventiviced to be more productive. Increasing taxes does the entire opposite of that. You can't pull up your boot straps if you've got no boots. That's a nice sounding quote but completely unrelated to what we are discussing." Everything to do with it!! You can't be a productive nation when you don't have social mobility. Because we keep prioritising the old instead of the young who actually have the ideas and have a lifetime of work in front of them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. Perhaps we can agree that Ireland is a parasitic pseudo-producer? Companies with no material ties base themselves there to benefit from stupidly low tax rates. This skews Ireland's GDP and wealth. Countries should impose a digital tax on consumption (advertisers are consumers, users are products), but the US will punish anyone who does that to their companies. Perhaps we should punish parasitic tax havens?" I might be mistaken but I thought a few years ago many countries agreed a minimum rate, I think of 15%. Did that ever get enacted and if so how is Ireland's still lower? Did they simply not sign up to the agreement or is there another reason | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can't be a productive nation when you don't have social mobility. Because we keep prioritising the old instead of the young who actually have the ideas and have a lifetime of work in front of them." So you're in favour of people being permitted to accumulate wealth? That's the only method of social mobility, to allow poorer people to get wealthy so that they move up the scale. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's a nice sounding quote but completely unrelated to what we are discussing. Everything to do with it!! You can't be a productive nation when you don't have social mobility. Because we keep prioritising the old instead of the young who actually have the ideas and have a lifetime of work in front of them." I do believe that we are over promising on pensions and it is unsustainable. But social mobility being a problem is bullshit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can't be a productive nation when you don't have social mobility. Because we keep prioritising the old instead of the young who actually have the ideas and have a lifetime of work in front of them. So you're in favour of people being permitted to accumulate wealth? That's the only method of social mobility, to allow poorer people to get wealthy so that they move up the scale." Absolutely, I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them." I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money." They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. There are 58 billionaires in the UK. The government spends about a trillion a year. What’s the plan when the billionaires’ money is gone after a few months? Why would the G20 cooperate in this scam? The G20 is quite a diverse range of countries many of whom aren’t in the same mess as the UK so what’s the incentive if they don’t have the same problems? The billionaires money wouldn’t be gone, why would we kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Of course, it’d be interesting to see if the basis of a consensus on tax would be there or not. Half the globe signed up to minimum Corporation Tax levels, so may be worth asking the questions. Problem is of course, rich individuals in these countries buy the politicians off. So the UK goes to other countries in the G20 and says “we’ve made a terrible mess of things, our public finances and services are a mess and we are spending too much on welfare, we can’t afford to defend ourselves, so you all must raise taxes whether you need to or not”? I think my response would be “stop spending so much and refocus on what’s important. We are doing fine thanks”. Lol. Look at this!!! In order for the wealth not to 'run' from one country to the next. You know how you daily mail flag shaggers always cry. You have to have a concerted effort across the globe to tax wealth and the redistribution of it to poorer nations first " Maybe the 20 countries richer than Britain will start sending us some cash. Sounds like a good wheeze. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. There are 58 billionaires in the UK. The government spends about a trillion a year. What’s the plan when the billionaires’ money is gone after a few months? Why would the G20 cooperate in this scam? The G20 is quite a diverse range of countries many of whom aren’t in the same mess as the UK so what’s the incentive if they don’t have the same problems? The billionaires money wouldn’t be gone, why would we kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Of course, it’d be interesting to see if the basis of a consensus on tax would be there or not. Half the globe signed up to minimum Corporation Tax levels, so may be worth asking the questions. Problem is of course, rich individuals in these countries buy the politicians off. So the UK goes to other countries in the G20 and says “we’ve made a terrible mess of things, our public finances and services are a mess and we are spending too much on welfare, we can’t afford to defend ourselves, so you all must raise taxes whether you need to or not”? I think my response would be “stop spending so much and refocus on what’s important. We are doing fine thanks”. Lol. Look at this!!! In order for the wealth not to 'run' from one country to the next. You know how you daily mail flag shaggers always cry. You have to have a concerted effort across the globe to tax wealth and the redistribution of it to poorer nations first Maybe the 20 countries richer than Britain will start sending us some cash. Sounds like a good wheeze." Why would they? Didn't we vote for sovereignty in 2016??? You aren't making sound arguments for your beliefs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. There are 58 billionaires in the UK. The government spends about a trillion a year. What’s the plan when the billionaires’ money is gone after a few months? Why would the G20 cooperate in this scam? The G20 is quite a diverse range of countries many of whom aren’t in the same mess as the UK so what’s the incentive if they don’t have the same problems? The billionaires money wouldn’t be gone, why would we kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Of course, it’d be interesting to see if the basis of a consensus on tax would be there or not. Half the globe signed up to minimum Corporation Tax levels, so may be worth asking the questions. Problem is of course, rich individuals in these countries buy the politicians off. So the UK goes to other countries in the G20 and says “we’ve made a terrible mess of things, our public finances and services are a mess and we are spending too much on welfare, we can’t afford to defend ourselves, so you all must raise taxes whether you need to or not”? I think my response would be “stop spending so much and refocus on what’s important. We are doing fine thanks”. Lol. Look at this!!! In order for the wealth not to 'run' from one country to the next. You know how you daily mail flag shaggers always cry. You have to have a concerted effort across the globe to tax wealth and the redistribution of it to poorer nations first Maybe the 20 countries richer than Britain will start sending us some cash. Sounds like a good wheeze. Why would they? Didn't we vote for sovereignty in 2016??? You aren't making sound arguments for your beliefs. " That sounds a good one too. Bye bye British colonies. It’s tough out there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument " So how much exactly should they give and when? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. There are 58 billionaires in the UK. The government spends about a trillion a year. What’s the plan when the billionaires’ money is gone after a few months? Why would the G20 cooperate in this scam? The G20 is quite a diverse range of countries many of whom aren’t in the same mess as the UK so what’s the incentive if they don’t have the same problems? The billionaires money wouldn’t be gone, why would we kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Of course, it’d be interesting to see if the basis of a consensus on tax would be there or not. Half the globe signed up to minimum Corporation Tax levels, so may be worth asking the questions. Problem is of course, rich individuals in these countries buy the politicians off. So the UK goes to other countries in the G20 and says “we’ve made a terrible mess of things, our public finances and services are a mess and we are spending too much on welfare, we can’t afford to defend ourselves, so you all must raise taxes whether you need to or not”? I think my response would be “stop spending so much and refocus on what’s important. We are doing fine thanks”. Lol. Look at this!!! In order for the wealth not to 'run' from one country to the next. You know how you daily mail flag shaggers always cry. You have to have a concerted effort across the globe to tax wealth and the redistribution of it to poorer nations first Maybe the 20 countries richer than Britain will start sending us some cash. Sounds like a good wheeze. Why would they? Didn't we vote for sovereignty in 2016??? You aren't making sound arguments for your beliefs. That sounds a good one too. Bye bye British colonies. It’s tough out there." What sounds a good one? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when?" When? Alive or dead? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. There are 58 billionaires in the UK. The government spends about a trillion a year. What’s the plan when the billionaires’ money is gone after a few months? Why would the G20 cooperate in this scam? The G20 is quite a diverse range of countries many of whom aren’t in the same mess as the UK so what’s the incentive if they don’t have the same problems? The billionaires money wouldn’t be gone, why would we kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Of course, it’d be interesting to see if the basis of a consensus on tax would be there or not. Half the globe signed up to minimum Corporation Tax levels, so may be worth asking the questions. Problem is of course, rich individuals in these countries buy the politicians off. So the UK goes to other countries in the G20 and says “we’ve made a terrible mess of things, our public finances and services are a mess and we are spending too much on welfare, we can’t afford to defend ourselves, so you all must raise taxes whether you need to or not”? I think my response would be “stop spending so much and refocus on what’s important. We are doing fine thanks”. Lol. Look at this!!! In order for the wealth not to 'run' from one country to the next. You know how you daily mail flag shaggers always cry. You have to have a concerted effort across the globe to tax wealth and the redistribution of it to poorer nations first Maybe the 20 countries richer than Britain will start sending us some cash. Sounds like a good wheeze. Why would they? Didn't we vote for sovereignty in 2016??? You aren't making sound arguments for your beliefs. That sounds a good one too. Bye bye British colonies. It’s tough out there. What sounds a good one?" I’m liking this idea. Liechtenstein gdp per capita $220,000 UK gdp per capita $60,000 Bastards! You’re not telling me they can’t afford to send me some of that. Wealth hoarders! I need a new lawn mower why should I work for it when they could buy me one without even noticing! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe something like a coordinated wealth tax across all G20 countries could be part of the answer and the rules of it should be powerful enough that the ultra wealthy see it as in their interests to cooperate. For instance the owners or top management and board of any of company operating in these G20 countries should be barred from setting foot in those 20 countries if they do not comply. Something like this would surely be a huge benefit to society. The alternative seems to be sitting on our hands whilst those at the top of the wealth pyramid disappear over the horizon. Seems insane to me when public services are in the current state they are. You could even stipulate that the proceeds from the wealth tax are only allowed to go directly into certain ring fenced areas like healthcare, education and other public services that people genuinely need. And the rich feckers would still be able to own 10 yachts and 15 luxury villas probably. There are 58 billionaires in the UK. The government spends about a trillion a year. What’s the plan when the billionaires’ money is gone after a few months? Why would the G20 cooperate in this scam? The G20 is quite a diverse range of countries many of whom aren’t in the same mess as the UK so what’s the incentive if they don’t have the same problems? The billionaires money wouldn’t be gone, why would we kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Of course, it’d be interesting to see if the basis of a consensus on tax would be there or not. Half the globe signed up to minimum Corporation Tax levels, so may be worth asking the questions. Problem is of course, rich individuals in these countries buy the politicians off. So the UK goes to other countries in the G20 and says “we’ve made a terrible mess of things, our public finances and services are a mess and we are spending too much on welfare, we can’t afford to defend ourselves, so you all must raise taxes whether you need to or not”? I think my response would be “stop spending so much and refocus on what’s important. We are doing fine thanks”. Lol. Look at this!!! In order for the wealth not to 'run' from one country to the next. You know how you daily mail flag shaggers always cry. You have to have a concerted effort across the globe to tax wealth and the redistribution of it to poorer nations first Maybe the 20 countries richer than Britain will start sending us some cash. Sounds like a good wheeze. Why would they? Didn't we vote for sovereignty in 2016??? You aren't making sound arguments for your beliefs. That sounds a good one too. Bye bye British colonies. It’s tough out there. What sounds a good one? I’m liking this idea. Liechtenstein gdp per capita $220,000 UK gdp per capita $60,000 Bastards! You’re not telling me they can’t afford to send me some of that. Wealth hoarders! I need a new lawn mower why should I work for it when they could buy me one without even noticing!" Blimey. Have the right lost their minds? Are you asking for handouts or going full Trump and going to invade them? Why would other people outside your sovereign borders be responsible for you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead?" Either case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would other people outside your sovereign borders be responsible for you?" Because they're parasites stealing our wealth as a tax haven. We should impose assert our human rights. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would other people outside your sovereign borders be responsible for you? Because they're parasites stealing our wealth as a tax haven. We should impose assert our human rights." On other sovereign countries? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case." So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case. So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world " How did that workout for Cuba | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case. So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world " If a guy owns a company, the state will take ownership and run it?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would other people outside your sovereign borders be responsible for you? Because they're parasites stealing our wealth as a tax haven. We should impose assert our human rights. On other sovereign countries? " Why not? Human rights. Wealth redistribution - why stop at our borders? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case. So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world How did that workout for Cuba "They pay all there workers the same dancers and doctors all payed the same. Madness. I'm not calling for that. We have capitalism, that remains, you are payed your "worth". If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case. So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world If a guy owns a company, the state will take ownership and run it? "No, they'll have most likely sold it or bequeathed it before death. If they haven't, the government sells it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would other people outside your sovereign borders be responsible for you? Because they're parasites stealing our wealth as a tax haven. We should impose assert our human rights. On other sovereign countries? Why not? Human rights. Wealth redistribution - why stop at our borders?" This is a truly bizarre post! You want to go around policing other nations? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. " You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow." Expand sorry? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would other people outside your sovereign borders be responsible for you? Because they're parasites stealing our wealth as a tax haven. We should impose assert our human rights. On other sovereign countries? Why not? Human rights. Wealth redistribution - why stop at our borders? This is a truly bizarre post! You want to go around policing other nations?" The other day, you wanted an Indian victim of colonialism to pay reparations to Africans because he'd stepped onto British soil and hung around for a couple of years. This is hardly bizarre - consider it an extension of your logic. Luxembourg is stealing our output by being a tax haven. They're richer than us. Perhaps some wealth distribution is due - they could pay our NHS bill and hardly feel it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case. So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world If a guy owns a company, the state will take ownership and run it?
No, they'll have most likely sold it or bequeathed it before death.
If they haven't, the government sells it."If they sold it and moved the cash to different country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow. Expand sorry?" You're advocating a system whereby there is no wealth after death. So people are incentivised to leave nothing. Either spending everything, or leaving the country. If the British are looking to eschew saving, then who will step in to buy and hold wealth generating assets, such as companies and real estate (since everyone will only want to hold liquid assets)? Well, China is doing exactly that around the world. Think through to the logical conclusion of your plan... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would other people outside your sovereign borders be responsible for you? Because they're parasites stealing our wealth as a tax haven. We should impose assert our human rights. On other sovereign countries? Why not? Human rights. Wealth redistribution - why stop at our borders? This is a truly bizarre post! You want to go around policing other nations? The other day, you wanted an Indian victim of colonialism to pay reparations to Africans because he'd stepped onto British soil and hung around for a couple of years. This is hardly bizarre - consider it an extension of your logic. Luxembourg is stealing our output by being a tax haven. They're richer than us. Perhaps some wealth distribution is due - they could pay our NHS bill and hardly feel it." Lol, I wasn't asking any individual to do anything. I was saying that people who pay tax in Britain should start thinking about paying reparations. Britain essentially invented freedom of movement. Every person from the British colonies had the right to come to Britain. Because they were considered British. Assuming a person of a different race as British isn't a bad thing. It's more inclusive than assuming everyone from a different race isn't British. Luxembourg has never been a British colony and neither have we been there's so..... No this premise doesn't work | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case. So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world If a guy owns a company, the state will take ownership and run it?
No, they'll have most likely sold it or bequeathed it before death.
If they haven't, the government sells it.
If they sold it and moved the cash to different country?"No, you'd have to invent new taxes you can't extract wealth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow. Expand sorry? You're advocating a system whereby there is no wealth after death. So people are incentivised to leave nothing. Either spending everything, or leaving the country. If the British are looking to eschew saving, then who will step in to buy and hold wealth generating assets, such as companies and real estate (since everyone will only want to hold liquid assets)? Well, China is doing exactly that around the world. Think through to the logical conclusion of your plan..." There is no wealth after death your dead. Instead of it being your children another person would buy that property. Assets is the problem. Hoarding wealth is the problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow. Expand sorry? You're advocating a system whereby there is no wealth after death. So people are incentivised to leave nothing. Either spending everything, or leaving the country. If the British are looking to eschew saving, then who will step in to buy and hold wealth generating assets, such as companies and real estate (since everyone will only want to hold liquid assets)? Well, China is doing exactly that around the world. Think through to the logical conclusion of your plan... There is no wealth after death your dead. Instead of it being your children another person would buy that property. Assets is the problem. Hoarding wealth is the problem " That's exactly how you kill long long term motivation for people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow. Expand sorry? You're advocating a system whereby there is no wealth after death. So people are incentivised to leave nothing. Either spending everything, or leaving the country. If the British are looking to eschew saving, then who will step in to buy and hold wealth generating assets, such as companies and real estate (since everyone will only want to hold liquid assets)? Well, China is doing exactly that around the world. Think through to the logical conclusion of your plan... There is no wealth after death your dead. Instead of it being your children another person would buy that property. Assets is the problem. Hoarding wealth is the problem That's exactly how you kill long long term motivation for people. " You go to work for your children? News to millions of childless workers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow. Expand sorry? You're advocating a system whereby there is no wealth after death. So people are incentivised to leave nothing. Either spending everything, or leaving the country. If the British are looking to eschew saving, then who will step in to buy and hold wealth generating assets, such as companies and real estate (since everyone will only want to hold liquid assets)? Well, China is doing exactly that around the world. Think through to the logical conclusion of your plan... There is no wealth after death your dead. Instead of it being your children another person would buy that property. Assets is the problem. Hoarding wealth is the problem That's exactly how you kill long long term motivation for people. You go to work for your children? News to millions of childless workers " Lots of people consider it important to leave some legacy for their children. Who gave you the authority to take away their right to do so? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's more Billionaires and millionaires now than ever before " Holla!!! There's also more people.....so | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow. Expand sorry? You're advocating a system whereby there is no wealth after death. So people are incentivised to leave nothing. Either spending everything, or leaving the country. If the British are looking to eschew saving, then who will step in to buy and hold wealth generating assets, such as companies and real estate (since everyone will only want to hold liquid assets)? Well, China is doing exactly that around the world. Think through to the logical conclusion of your plan... There is no wealth after death your dead. Instead of it being your children another person would buy that property. Assets is the problem. Hoarding wealth is the problem That's exactly how you kill long long term motivation for people. You go to work for your children? News to millions of childless workers Lots of people consider it important to leave some legacy for their children. Who gave you the authority to take away their right to do so? " I accept it takes a mind shift and will never happen, that's why it's my utopia and not the currency we deal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow. Expand sorry? You're advocating a system whereby there is no wealth after death. So people are incentivised to leave nothing. Either spending everything, or leaving the country. If the British are looking to eschew saving, then who will step in to buy and hold wealth generating assets, such as companies and real estate (since everyone will only want to hold liquid assets)? Well, China is doing exactly that around the world. Think through to the logical conclusion of your plan... There is no wealth after death your dead. Instead of it being your children another person would buy that property. Assets is the problem. Hoarding wealth is the problem That's exactly how you kill long long term motivation for people. You go to work for your children? News to millions of childless workers Lots of people consider it important to leave some legacy for their children. Who gave you the authority to take away their right to do so? I accept it takes a mind shift and will never happen, that's why it's my utopia and not the currency we deal." People care about their own families over strangers. If your political philosophy doesn't even take that into account, it's just a fantasy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow. Expand sorry? You're advocating a system whereby there is no wealth after death. So people are incentivised to leave nothing. Either spending everything, or leaving the country. If the British are looking to eschew saving, then who will step in to buy and hold wealth generating assets, such as companies and real estate (since everyone will only want to hold liquid assets)? Well, China is doing exactly that around the world. Think through to the logical conclusion of your plan... There is no wealth after death your dead. Instead of it being your children another person would buy that property. Assets is the problem. Hoarding wealth is the problem That's exactly how you kill long long term motivation for people. You go to work for your children? News to millions of childless workers Lots of people consider it important to leave some legacy for their children. Who gave you the authority to take away their right to do so? I accept it takes a mind shift and will never happen, that's why it's my utopia and not the currency we deal. People care about their own families over strangers. If your political philosophy doesn't even take that into account, it's just a fantasy." If they have no family? Again, you asked and I've stated my utopia. It's not real. And not a single party is fighting for it! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow. Expand sorry? You're advocating a system whereby there is no wealth after death. So people are incentivised to leave nothing. Either spending everything, or leaving the country. If the British are looking to eschew saving, then who will step in to buy and hold wealth generating assets, such as companies and real estate (since everyone will only want to hold liquid assets)? Well, China is doing exactly that around the world. Think through to the logical conclusion of your plan... There is no wealth after death your dead. Instead of it being your children another person would buy that property. Assets is the problem. Hoarding wealth is the problem That's exactly how you kill long long term motivation for people. You go to work for your children? News to millions of childless workers Lots of people consider it important to leave some legacy for their children. Who gave you the authority to take away their right to do so? I accept it takes a mind shift and will never happen, that's why it's my utopia and not the currency we deal. People care about their own families over strangers. If your political philosophy doesn't even take that into account, it's just a fantasy. If they have no family? Again, you asked and I've stated my utopia. It's not real. And not a single party is fighting for it!" If you scroll back a bit, you said that people's wealth must be confiscated at death when you were asked when and how much money must be taken from the wealthy. And now you are admitting that what you suggested was just a utopia that will never happen. So you don't have any practical solution? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance. You know... If everyone in the UK is living only for today, China will buy up tomorrow. Expand sorry? You're advocating a system whereby there is no wealth after death. So people are incentivised to leave nothing. Either spending everything, or leaving the country. If the British are looking to eschew saving, then who will step in to buy and hold wealth generating assets, such as companies and real estate (since everyone will only want to hold liquid assets)? Well, China is doing exactly that around the world. Think through to the logical conclusion of your plan... There is no wealth after death your dead. Instead of it being your children another person would buy that property. Assets is the problem. Hoarding wealth is the problem That's exactly how you kill long long term motivation for people. You go to work for your children? News to millions of childless workers Lots of people consider it important to leave some legacy for their children. Who gave you the authority to take away their right to do so? I accept it takes a mind shift and will never happen, that's why it's my utopia and not the currency we deal. People care about their own families over strangers. If your political philosophy doesn't even take that into account, it's just a fantasy. If they have no family? Again, you asked and I've stated my utopia. It's not real. And not a single party is fighting for it! If you scroll back a bit, you said that people's wealth must be confiscated at death when you were asked when and how much money must be taken from the wealthy. And now you are admitting that what you suggested was just a utopia that will never happen. So you don't have any practical solution?" No I didn't, you look back, I said in my utopia..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case. So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world How did that workout for Cuba
They pay all there workers the same dancers and doctors all payed the same. Madness.
I'm not calling for that.
We have capitalism, that remains, you are payed your "worth".
If you do well you can still buy your children privileges in special schools but eventually they will be found worthless if they aren't talented because they won't have inheritance.
"Equalising peoples pay sounds great until the realisation kicks in. It removes the incentive to work harder, to become a higher skill worker, which is exactly why Cuba stepped back from it. Tried, tested and failed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case. So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world " I want an apology | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case. So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world I want an apology " My criticism still stands. You don't have any practical solution. Anyone can come up with a fantasy solution for all the world's problems. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case. So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world I want an apology My criticism still stands. You don't have any practical solution. Anyone can come up with a fantasy solution for all the world's problems." Delulu - apologies!! I made clear from the start it was my utopia. It's not my fault you either don't read or act in bad faith | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not against wealth or the wealthy. Capitalism is the best form of wealth creation humans have found and it is the best way of raising living standards or at least it was until 2008. I just think that we don't need to be so deferential to them and ask them to pay a bit more towards the country that created them. I can't work out how you can think accumulating wealth is a good thing, and simultaneously think that the wealthy should be forced to hand over their money. They'd still be wealthy. I'm not asking for them to give everything, well not until they die. But that's another argument So how much exactly should they give and when? When? Alive or dead? Either case. So in my utopia no one alive would pay income tax. You keep everything you make it buys you all the privileges it can and you provide your children with the best you can earn while you're alive. Then the state takes everything. A truly egalitarian world I want an apology My criticism still stands. You don't have any practical solution. Anyone can come up with a fantasy solution for all the world's problems. Delulu - apologies!! I made clear from the start it was my utopia. It's not my fault you either don't read or act in bad faith " It's my fault looking for a practical solution from a left winger | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not holding out for that apology then" If anything, you have to apologise for wasting our time with a fantasy solution. If we wanted to read fiction, we would have bought some books written by good authors. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tax Justice reckon a 2% levy on individuals who own assets worth more than £10 million would affect 0.04% of the UK population & would raise £24 billion a year. Not a panacea to all the UK’s problems obviously, but one of many steps we could be taking to raise some revenue. You have to ask yourself why the UK itself through its dependencies & overseas territories continue to enable tax avoidance. It’s reckoned a quarter of global tax avoidance is facilitated by it. Is it because the rich like the system as it is thank you very much, a fight to the bottom, playing territories against each other? This is why the overriding solution needs to be international cooperation & ostracism for those who continue to hide & squirrel away wealth whilst not paying their rightful dues. " Blimey yesterday it was the billionaires and today it’s people “worth £10 million or more”. Give it a fortnight and we’ll be down to people with £5k in the bank and a suburban semi. £24 billion is about a week’s government expenditure. What’s the plan the week after that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tax Justice reckon a 2% levy on individuals who own assets worth more than £10 million would affect 0.04% of the UK population & would raise £24 billion a year. Not a panacea to all the UK’s problems obviously, but one of many steps we could be taking to raise some revenue. You have to ask yourself why the UK itself through its dependencies & overseas territories continue to enable tax avoidance. It’s reckoned a quarter of global tax avoidance is facilitated by it. Is it because the rich like the system as it is thank you very much, a fight to the bottom, playing territories against each other? This is why the overriding solution needs to be international cooperation & ostracism for those who continue to hide & squirrel away wealth whilst not paying their rightful dues. Blimey yesterday it was the billionaires and today it’s people “worth £10 million or more”. Give it a fortnight and we’ll be down to people with £5k in the bank and a suburban semi. £24 billion is about a week’s government expenditure. What’s the plan the week after that?" Nah the threshold will never reach the salary which the person who wants high taxes is earning. Their proposed thresholds will always be higher than what they earn. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tax Justice reckon a 2% levy on individuals who own assets worth more than £10 million would affect 0.04% of the UK population & would raise £24 billion a year. " How would they tax an illiquid asset? Sell it? In a down market, this would be punitive. Would this be in addition to capital gains tax? Over 20 years, the subject would lose 40% to tax, plus capital gains tax. Sounds more like theft, and we would lose anyone with any assets. Putting the word justice in doesn't make it right, any more than invading a country that has natural resources and calling it bringing democracy, in order to steal its wealth, isn't right. Or we could invade Ireland and steal the ill-gotten parasitic tax money they extract from acting as a tax haven? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tax Justice reckon a 2% levy on individuals who own assets worth more than £10 million would affect 0.04% of the UK population & would raise £24 billion a year. Not a panacea to all the UK’s problems obviously, but one of many steps we could be taking to raise some revenue. You have to ask yourself why the UK itself through its dependencies & overseas territories continue to enable tax avoidance. It’s reckoned a quarter of global tax avoidance is facilitated by it. Is it because the rich like the system as it is thank you very much, a fight to the bottom, playing territories against each other? This is why the overriding solution needs to be international cooperation & ostracism for those who continue to hide & squirrel away wealth whilst not paying their rightful dues. Blimey yesterday it was the billionaires and today it’s people “worth £10 million or more”. Give it a fortnight and we’ll be down to people with £5k in the bank and a suburban semi. £24 billion is about a week’s government expenditure. What’s the plan the week after that?" I wouldn’t be sniffing at another £24 billion. I suspect the exchequer wouldn’t either. The plan after that would be to work on other stuff such as improving productivity. Looking at welfare expenditure. The whole shebang. I’d also promote a cashless society personally & put a stop to all those self employed cash in hand merchants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I wouldn’t be sniffing at another £24 billion. I suspect the exchequer wouldn’t either. " You might get it from people who own UK land. Everyone else would get the hell out of here. Why would they stay? Me effect would be a reduced economy and less overall tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I wouldn’t be sniffing at another £24 billion. I suspect the exchequer wouldn’t either. You might get it from people who own UK land. Everyone else would get the hell out of here. Why would they stay? Me effect would be a reduced economy and less overall tax." Well tax justice do say ‘on those who own assets’. Why would they stay? Because they are ‘only’ being taxed 2% and their ties to the UK mean more to them than that maybe? Their choice to make innit? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The plan after that would be to work on other stuff such as improving productivity. Looking at welfare expenditure. The whole shebang. " How about this for a radical idea: we try and focus on improving productivity rather than avoiding the issue? The best way to improve productivity is to increase the number of company formations. Starting up more companies that succeed generally needs people with experience of having done it before and the ability to put money into those ventures. You need people with wealth. Rather than taxing them you should be encouraging them to start up new companies by reducing their tax rate. Social mobility comes through the ability to create wealth not through taxing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Social mobility comes through the ability to create wealth not through taxing it." Not true. Social mobility can be achieved with 100% tax. Wait... Did you have a particular direction in mind for that mobility? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The plan after that would be to work on other stuff such as improving productivity. Looking at welfare expenditure. The whole shebang. How about this for a radical idea: we try and focus on improving productivity rather than avoiding the issue? The best way to improve productivity is to increase the number of company formations. Starting up more companies that succeed generally needs people with experience of having done it before and the ability to put money into those ventures. You need people with wealth. Rather than taxing them you should be encouraging them to start up new companies by reducing their tax rate. Social mobility comes through the ability to create wealth not through taxing it." And that’s ultimately why this particular government has failed. Economic growth should 100% be the focus of the government and country. They made a few noises about “growth” before being elected but in power they’ve done absolutely nothing about it and indeed have pursued policies that are anti-growth. It’s not clear whether they just don’t understand it, or are just so ideologically driven that they can’t pursue any policies likely to create any growth. I suspect a mix. Ultimately it’s a public sector government focused on the interests of its public sector voters. Unfortunately they make up only 20% of the workforce so it’s not really much of a strategy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The plan after that would be to work on other stuff such as improving productivity. Looking at welfare expenditure. The whole shebang. How about this for a radical idea: we try and focus on improving productivity rather than avoiding the issue? The best way to improve productivity is to increase the number of company formations. Starting up more companies that succeed generally needs people with experience of having done it before and the ability to put money into those ventures. You need people with wealth. Rather than taxing them you should be encouraging them to start up new companies by reducing their tax rate. Social mobility comes through the ability to create wealth not through taxing it. And that’s ultimately why this particular government has failed. Economic growth should 100% be the focus of the government and country. They made a few noises about “growth” before being elected but in power they’ve done absolutely nothing about it and indeed have pursued policies that are anti-growth. It’s not clear whether they just don’t understand it, or are just so ideologically driven that they can’t pursue any policies likely to create any growth. I suspect a mix. Ultimately it’s a public sector government focused on the interests of its public sector voters. Unfortunately they make up only 20% of the workforce so it’s not really much of a strategy." How would you pursue growth ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How would you pursue growth ?" Education and incentives. And, conversely, disincentivising stagnation, at both the personal and corporate level. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How would you pursue growth ? Education and incentives. And, conversely, disincentivising stagnation, at both the personal and corporate level." How? Be specific. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How would you pursue growth ? Education and incentives. And, conversely, disincentivising stagnation, at both the personal and corporate level. How? Be specific." That is the question I had for the Labour party in 2024. Strangely I still have no idea how they are going to encourage growth, other than in debt and job losses. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How would you pursue growth ? Education and incentives. And, conversely, disincentivising stagnation, at both the personal and corporate level." That’s a very long haul Uk employers have globalised jobs for lower costs Uk relies on imported food and goods made in countries with lower operating costs ( inc health and safety, child labour) Uk is a net beneficiary of lower costs but at our cost of reducing industry and farming to name just two | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How would you pursue growth ? Education and incentives. And, conversely, disincentivising stagnation, at both the personal and corporate level. That’s a very long haul Uk employers have globalised jobs for lower costs Uk relies on imported food and goods made in countries with lower operating costs ( inc health and safety, child labour) Uk is a net beneficiary of lower costs but at our cost of reducing industry and farming to name just two " The U.K. hasn’t been self sufficient in food since the 19th century | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How would you pursue growth ? Education and incentives. And, conversely, disincentivising stagnation, at both the personal and corporate level. How? Be specific. That is the question I had for the Labour party in 2024. Strangely I still have no idea how they are going to encourage growth, other than in debt and job losses." Giving tax rebates for businesses would help. Unfortunately, no one seems to focus on the bigger problem that's affecting growth - mindset. As a society, we need to encourage entrepreneurship and career growth. Building successful companies must be seen as a cool thing and respected. If a person sees a problem, they should think about what technology they could use to solve the problem instead of complaining about why the government isn't solving the problem for them. I believe that comes from promoting such a mindset from the schools and that's a long game to play. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". I believe that comes from promoting such a mindset from the schools and that's a long game to play." And stop making it beneficial for employers to use zero hours contracts, encourage development and promotion from within, adult learning in-work, greater protection for employees, ask for input from staff at all levels, encourage ownership from employees and financial incentive for good business performance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". I believe that comes from promoting such a mindset from the schools and that's a long game to play. And stop making it beneficial for employers to use zero hours contracts, encourage development and promotion from within, adult learning in-work, greater protection for employees, ask for input from staff at all levels, encourage ownership from employees and financial incentive for good business performance." I was talking about promoting entrepreneurial mindset. None of what you said does that. If anything, you are just going back to looking at people who run businesses as bad people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". I believe that comes from promoting such a mindset from the schools and that's a long game to play. And stop making it beneficial for employers to use zero hours contracts, encourage development and promotion from within, adult learning in-work, greater protection for employees, ask for input from staff at all levels, encourage ownership from employees and financial incentive for good business performance. I was talking about promoting entrepreneurial mindset. None of what you said does that. If anything, you are just going back to looking at people who run businesses as bad people. " You need both. A world full of entrepreneurs is no use without those to do the work required. Your response is interesting though, in what way did I look at those who run businesses as ‘bad People’? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". I believe that comes from promoting such a mindset from the schools and that's a long game to play. And stop making it beneficial for employers to use zero hours contracts, encourage development and promotion from within, adult learning in-work, greater protection for employees, ask for input from staff at all levels, encourage ownership from employees and financial incentive for good business performance." Some of these things may or may not help businesses. It seems to me that zero hours contracts may suit some individuals who are happy to do some work for extra money now and again and don’t want the commitment of a long term job. I’m all in favour of business encouraging staff development and engagement though internal promotion really depends on business need and the talent pool available. “Greater protection for employees” is the road Labour is going down and adding regulatory burdens and costs to employing people just makes employers stop employing people, which is what is happening now. These things are a matter of balance but Labour certainly isn’t getting that right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". I believe that comes from promoting such a mindset from the schools and that's a long game to play. And stop making it beneficial for employers to use zero hours contracts, encourage development and promotion from within, adult learning in-work, greater protection for employees, ask for input from staff at all levels, encourage ownership from employees and financial incentive for good business performance. I was talking about promoting entrepreneurial mindset. None of what you said does that. If anything, you are just going back to looking at people who run businesses as bad people. You need both. A world full of entrepreneurs is no use without those to do the work required. Your response is interesting though, in what way did I look at those who run businesses as ‘bad People’? " When the country has lot of entrepreneurs, there will be enough competition for labour and everything you said will automatically come out. Lots of businesses today already do what you said, without having the government force them to do it because they have high demand but low supply for that kind of jobs. Some of the things you suggested are outright anti business. Take zero hour contracts for example. Take the case of a burger shop in a popular holiday destination which receives lot more tourists during long weekends. The business owner wants an extra hand only during these times. And there is a university nearby where someone wants to make use of the long weekend to get some experience doing actual work. Zero hour contracts works great both for the business and the student. What makes you think you must poke your nose into this matter and screw up both of their lives? The only positive that comes out of it is for some politicians and the left wingers who get a power trip out of it. Nothing positive comes out of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How would you pursue growth ? Education and incentives. And, conversely, disincentivising stagnation, at both the personal and corporate level. How? Be specific. That is the question I had for the Labour party in 2024. Strangely I still have no idea how they are going to encourage growth, other than in debt and job losses. Giving tax rebates for businesses would help. Unfortunately, no one seems to focus on the bigger problem that's affecting growth - mindset. As a society, we need to encourage entrepreneurship and career growth. Building successful companies must be seen as a cool thing and respected. If a person sees a problem, they should think about what technology they could use to solve the problem instead of complaining about why the government isn't solving the problem for them. I believe that comes from promoting such a mindset from the schools and that's a long game to play." I actually don’t think tax rebates are the killer issue. What is needed is a general social acceptance that starting companies is a good thing. Social acceptance that most companies will fail. Social acceptance that starting another is good. At the moment it is too hard to get funding and UK/European investors are too risk averse. We need a wider investor base willing to out their cash into startups. I don’t just mean VCs, it is the whole gamut - angels, bank lending etc. We need to make it easier for companies to do spin outs without the senior company/university wanting onerous IP terms. That is a mindset change. Startups do best when they are clustered so decent, cheap business accommodation on flexible leases needs to be encouraged. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". I believe that comes from promoting such a mindset from the schools and that's a long game to play. And stop making it beneficial for employers to use zero hours contracts, encourage development and promotion from within, adult learning in-work, greater protection for employees, ask for input from staff at all levels, encourage ownership from employees and financial incentive for good business performance. Some of these things may or may not help businesses. It seems to me that zero hours contracts may suit some individuals who are happy to do some work for extra money now and again and don’t want the commitment of a long term job. I’m all in favour of business encouraging staff development and engagement though internal promotion really depends on business need and the talent pool available. “Greater protection for employees” is the road Labour is going down and adding regulatory burdens and costs to employing people just makes employers stop employing people, which is what is happening now. These things are a matter of balance but Labour certainly isn’t getting that right." Workers rights in the U.K. were eroded post-2010 and fell behind other developed nations who continued to see growth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" How would you pursue growth ? Education and incentives. And, conversely, disincentivising stagnation, at both the personal and corporate level. How? Be specific. That is the question I had for the Labour party in 2024. Strangely I still have no idea how they are going to encourage growth, other than in debt and job losses. Giving tax rebates for businesses would help. Unfortunately, no one seems to focus on the bigger problem that's affecting growth - mindset. As a society, we need to encourage entrepreneurship and career growth. Building successful companies must be seen as a cool thing and respected. If a person sees a problem, they should think about what technology they could use to solve the problem instead of complaining about why the government isn't solving the problem for them. I believe that comes from promoting such a mindset from the schools and that's a long game to play. I actually don’t think tax rebates are the killer issue. What is needed is a general social acceptance that starting companies is a good thing. Social acceptance that most companies will fail. Social acceptance that starting another is good. At the moment it is too hard to get funding and UK/European investors are too risk averse. We need a wider investor base willing to out their cash into startups. I don’t just mean VCs, it is the whole gamut - angels, bank lending etc. We need to make it easier for companies to do spin outs without the senior company/university wanting onerous IP terms. That is a mindset change. Startups do best when they are clustered so decent, cheap business accommodation on flexible leases needs to be encouraged." Agreed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Some of the things you suggested are outright anti business. Take zero hour contracts for example. Take the case of a burger shop in a popular holiday destination which receives lot more tourists during long weekends. The business owner wants an extra hand only during these times. And there is a university nearby where someone wants to make use of the long weekend to get some experience doing actual work. " We used to have things called ‘weekend work’ - which was contracted, perhaps 8 or 16 hours. Ideal for that situation, no? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
