Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems he is going to be Andy’s main economic advisor- What’s your opinion? " The guy is an economic shill, I can't believe this is the case and if it is I dread to think of the damage that could come our way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems he is going to be Andy’s main economic advisor- What’s your opinion? " I think it will be Jim O’ Neil who maybe Burnham’s Chief Economic Adviser. He normally speaks a lot sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless something changes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When one man becomes a trillionaire with an overall wealth greater than a small country, something is wrong. His money buys people and changes government policies. No one person should have this wealth or power We need change in the UK and perhaps Burnham can make a start. " How do you think he will go about making a start? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless something changes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When one man becomes a trillionaire with an overall wealth greater than a small country, something is wrong. His money buys people and changes government policies. No one person should have this wealth or power We need change in the UK and perhaps Burnham can make a start. How do you think he will go about making a start? " I have noticed that you are very good at asking questions without making many contributions! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless something changes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When one man becomes a trillionaire with an overall wealth greater than a small country, something is wrong. His money buys people and changes government policies. No one person should have this wealth or power We need change in the UK and perhaps Burnham can make a start. " It would be nice if we had an economy and the technical capability that meant someone was even remotely capable of getting to this level of wealth. There is absolutely no chance any of the businesses that are currently making trillionaires could be started in this country. That is the biggest problem we have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems he is going to be Andy’s main economic advisor- What’s your opinion? " Labour are obviously taking notice that if they don't make drastic changes now, they will get smashed in the 2029 GE, and burnham will be known as the man who put the final nail in labours coffin. I'll believe these proposals when I see them actually implemented though. I don't particularly trust any political party to do what they promise anymore, and I don't think I'm in the minority on that. What I'm confused about is why you chose "wealth destroyer" as the title OP? What specifically makes you think his proposals will do that🤔 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The fundamental problem this country has is a lack of productivity growth. ... If Burnham (or any other PM) focuses on actually trying to move productivity growth then that is a good thing." Exactly this.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless something changes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When one man becomes a trillionaire with an overall wealth greater than a small country, something is wrong. His money buys people and changes government policies. No one person should have this wealth or power We need change in the UK and perhaps Burnham can make a start. It would be nice if we had an economy and the technical capability that meant someone was even remotely capable of getting to this level of wealth. There is absolutely no chance any of the businesses that are currently making trillionaires could be started in this country. That is the biggest problem we have. " Exactly, why would any business of global scale want to setup here when other countries are offering so much more to attract the talent and investment they bring with them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless something changes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When one man becomes a trillionaire with an overall wealth greater than a small country, something is wrong. His money buys people and changes government policies. No one person should have this wealth or power We need change in the UK and perhaps Burnham can make a start. It would be nice if we had an economy and the technical capability that meant someone was even remotely capable of getting to this level of wealth. There is absolutely no chance any of the businesses that are currently making trillionaires could be started in this country. That is the biggest problem we have. " You’d say that’s a bigger problem than the massive inequality we have between the rich and poor? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless something changes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When one man becomes a trillionaire with an overall wealth greater than a small country, something is wrong. His money buys people and changes government policies. No one person should have this wealth or power We need change in the UK and perhaps Burnham can make a start. It would be nice if we had an economy and the technical capability that meant someone was even remotely capable of getting to this level of wealth. There is absolutely no chance any of the businesses that are currently making trillionaires could be started in this country. That is the biggest problem we have. You’d say that’s a bigger problem than the massive inequality we have between the rich and poor?" Inequality in itself isn't a problem if the poorest have a decent standard of living. Would you rather have a society where everyone is equally poor and starving or one where some people are trillionaires but poor people have their basic needs met? People create wealth by producing things which are valuable to the society. If you start penalising that, the society will become less productive and everyone will be poor. But hey, at least there will be "equality". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless something changes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When one man becomes a trillionaire with an overall wealth greater than a small country, something is wrong. His money buys people and changes government policies. No one person should have this wealth or power We need change in the UK and perhaps Burnham can make a start. It would be nice if we had an economy and the technical capability that meant someone was even remotely capable of getting to this level of wealth. There is absolutely no chance any of the businesses that are currently making trillionaires could be started in this country. That is the biggest problem we have. You’d say that’s a bigger problem than the massive inequality we have between the rich and poor?" I am saying the problem is that we don’t have a vibrant economy. The reason the poor are poor is that they can’t make proper money to make themselves richer. We don’t have the widespread access to capital or the culture of risk taking that the places making money do. The country has stagnated, productivity wise, since the financial crash and we are all poorer for it. You make the poor richer by improving their chances of making something for themselves and not by being a zero hours wage s*lave. You don’t make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. We need to improve economic opportunity not tax things wherever we can simply because we don’t feel it is fair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"l You’d say that’s a bigger problem than the massive inequality we have between the rich and poor?" Would you rather share 100 loaves of bread between 100 families or let them compete in the market for 1000? There's an argument for sharing and competition but, ultimately, most people would be objectively better off with 2 loaves each even though a couple at the top will get 100 or 500. Even though they might be less happy because of the inequality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless something changes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When one man becomes a trillionaire with an overall wealth greater than a small country, something is wrong. His money buys people and changes government policies. No one person should have this wealth or power We need change in the UK and perhaps Burnham can make a start. It would be nice if we had an economy and the technical capability that meant someone was even remotely capable of getting to this level of wealth. There is absolutely no chance any of the businesses that are currently making trillionaires could be started in this country. That is the biggest problem we have. You’d say that’s a bigger problem than the massive inequality we have between the rich and poor? Inequality in itself isn't a problem if the poorest have a decent standard of living. Would you rather have a society where everyone is equally poor and starving or one where some people are trillionaires but poor people have their basic needs met? People create wealth by producing things which are valuable to the society. If you start penalising that, the society will become less productive and everyone will be poor. But hey, at least there will be "equality"." You talk like it’s an either or situation. Do we need inequality to allow some people to become trillionaires? Surely if they are that good at business they will be able to create a thriving company without having to se exploitative practices? I’m at a loss to understand where this belief that having an economy that creates massively wealthy people, will in turn lead to those massively wealthy people making life better for the poor. Look at the US, where financial inequality is at near record highs. All those billionaires but still so much inequality, and poverty. The top 1% in the US own over 30% of the wealth, and the bottom 50% less than 2.5%. The rich keep getting richer but bar a couple of minor fluctuations the percentage of people living in poverty remains around the historical level of 11%. Denmark has the lowest rate for c poverty in the developed world at around 5%, half that of the US. There are only 9 billionaires in Denmark, accounting for approximately 0.0000015% of the population. The US has around 1000 billionaires, accounting for 0.0000029 of the population. Denmark is ranked the second happiest country in the world, whereas the US is down in 23rd (only a few places above the UK in 29th.) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You talk like it’s an either or situation. " In a practical sense, it is an either or situation. If you take away the incentive to innovate and be more productive, the economy dies. That's how you end up starving people to death like in USSR and Maoist China " Do we need inequality to allow some people to become trillionaires? " There is no "need" but there isn't anything wrong if that happens. And the trillionaire you have been talking about is not even a trillionaire right now. That's how flimsy his wealth is. It's not like he can sell all his stocks and have a trllion in cash tomorrow. " Surely if they are that good at business they will be able to create a thriving company without having to se exploitative practices? " And how exactly is that related to some people becoming trillionaire? " I’m at a loss to understand where this belief that having an economy that creates massively wealthy people, will in turn lead to those massively wealthy people making life better for the poor. " Because you don't understand two things: 1) Wealth isn't zero sum 2) These people didn't get wealth out of magic. They provided a service to the society that the society found valuable, there by making the lives of the people better. " Look at the US, where financial inequality is at near record highs. All those billionaires but still so much inequality, and poverty. The top 1% in the US own over 30% of the wealth, and the bottom 50% less than 2.5%. The rich keep getting richer but bar a couple of minor fluctuations the percentage of people living in poverty remains around the historical level of 11%. " This is such a lame argument that the left keeps bringing up. 1) The top 1% and the bottom 50% aren't always the same people. Most people who were in either of the categories two decades back won't be in the same position today. Most people start at the bottom 50% after their teens and go on to make wealth. 2) Poverty rate in the US is at historical low. " Denmark has the lowest rate for c poverty in the developed world at around 5%, half that of the US. There are only 9 billionaires in Denmark, accounting for approximately 0.0000015% of the population. The US has around 1000 billionaires, accounting for 0.0000029 of the population. " Denmark has high taxes even for the lowest earners. You pay 8% labour market contribution no matter how low you earn. You start paying additional taxes even if you earn an equivalent of £6500. They don't have a "tax those rich people" model. They have a "tax everyone because everyone benefits from the infrastructure" model. Are you happy with that or would you rather prefer a model where you personally wouldn't have to pay more taxes? Not to mention the fact that Denmark has avoided immigration from poor countries for many decades now. Will you be supportive if the US and UK did the same? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless something changes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When one man becomes a trillionaire with an overall wealth greater than a small country, something is wrong. His money buys people and changes government policies. No one person should have this wealth or power We need change in the UK and perhaps Burnham can make a start. It would be nice if we had an economy and the technical capability that meant someone was even remotely capable of getting to this level of wealth. There is absolutely no chance any of the businesses that are currently making trillionaires could be started in this country. That is the biggest problem we have. Exactly, why would any business of global scale want to setup here when other countries are offering so much more to attract the talent and investment they bring with them." As long as those countries offer the same social benefits, health care, environmental regulations that is a fair comparison. But i agree, the incentive is not there. What is a wealth tax? You earn £100k+ a year so we charge 70% tax on that? No wonder doctors are on short hours. It isn't worth it. Example, when Queen were wealth taxed 98% they simply moved to Switzerland and the country didn't get a penny. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless something changes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When one man becomes a trillionaire with an overall wealth greater than a small country, something is wrong. His money buys people and changes government policies. No one person should have this wealth or power We need change in the UK and perhaps Burnham can make a start. It would be nice if we had an economy and the technical capability that meant someone was even remotely capable of getting to this level of wealth. There is absolutely no chance any of the businesses that are currently making trillionaires could be started in this country. That is the biggest problem we have. Exactly, why would any business of global scale want to setup here when other countries are offering so much more to attract the talent and investment they bring with them. As long as those countries offer the same social benefits, health care, environmental regulations that is a fair comparison. But i agree, the incentive is not there. What is a wealth tax? You earn £100k+ a year so we charge 70% tax on that? No wonder doctors are on short hours. It isn't worth it. Example, when Queen were wealth taxed 98% they simply moved to Switzerland and the country didn't get a penny." I think you misunderstand what a wealth tax is. It is NOT a tax on your earnings, the most prominent proposal is a tax of 2% on an individual’s net assets over £10 million. It would only affect 0.04% of the population. People earning £100k wouldn’t be touched, unless they own assets of over £10 million. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you misunderstand what a wealth tax is. It is NOT a tax on your earnings, the most prominent proposal is a tax of 2% on an individual’s net assets over £10 million. It would only affect 0.04% of the population. People earning £100k wouldn’t be touched, unless they own assets of over £10 million." I am pretty sure you chose the £10 million number conveniently so that you don't have to pay money out of your pocket. But keeping that aside, your ridiculous tax logic means that in 50 years they would have paid the entire asset's worth already. Btw neither Denmark nor Sweden the countries you seem to look up to, have wealth taxes. In fact, both the countries used to have wealth taxes. But they abolished them in 1997 and 2007 respectively because they realised that wealth taxes don't work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you misunderstand what a wealth tax is. It is NOT a tax on your earnings, the most prominent proposal is a tax of 2% on an individual’s net assets over £10 million. It would only affect 0.04% of the population. People earning £100k wouldn’t be touched, unless they own assets of over £10 million. I am pretty sure you chose the £10 million number conveniently so that you don't have to pay money out of your pocket. But keeping that aside, your ridiculous tax logic means that in 50 years they would have paid the entire asset's worth already. Btw neither Denmark nor Sweden the countries you seem to look up to, have wealth taxes. In fact, both the countries used to have wealth taxes. But they abolished them in 1997 and 2007 respectively because they realised that wealth taxes don't work. " No, I picked £10 million because that is the proposal that has received support of cross party MPs, charities etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you misunderstand what a wealth tax is. It is NOT a tax on your earnings, the most prominent proposal is a tax of 2% on an individual’s net assets over £10 million. It would only affect 0.04% of the population. People earning £100k wouldn’t be touched, unless they own assets of over £10 million. I am pretty sure you chose the £10 million number conveniently so that you don't have to pay money out of your pocket. But keeping that aside, your ridiculous tax logic means that in 50 years they would have paid the entire asset's worth already. Btw neither Denmark nor Sweden the countries you seem to look up to, have wealth taxes. In fact, both the countries used to have wealth taxes. But they abolished them in 1997 and 2007 respectively because they realised that wealth taxes don't work. No, I picked £10 million because that is the proposal that has received support of cross party MPs, charities etc." Still, why do you want to go for a wealth tax when every country that implemented it has realised that the model doesn't work and dropped it? This is the problem with the leftists in this country. None of you really give a fuck about the poor people. Most of you are driven by envy/hatred towards people who are rich. Though you all praise the "Scandinavian model", no one is willing to adopt their tax model because that would mean paying money out of your own pocket. Instead, you will go for solutions like wealth tax that is known to be a failed idea because that way you are just going after other people's money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you misunderstand what a wealth tax is. It is NOT a tax on your earnings, the most prominent proposal is a tax of 2% on an individual’s net assets over £10 million. It would only affect 0.04% of the population. People earning £100k wouldn’t be touched, unless they own assets of over £10 million. I am pretty sure you chose the £10 million number conveniently so that you don't have to pay money out of your pocket. But keeping that aside, your ridiculous tax logic means that in 50 years they would have paid the entire asset's worth already. Btw neither Denmark nor Sweden the countries you seem to look up to, have wealth taxes. In fact, both the countries used to have wealth taxes. But they abolished them in 1997 and 2007 respectively because they realised that wealth taxes don't work. No, I picked £10 million because that is the proposal that has received support of cross party MPs, charities etc. Still, why do you want to go for a wealth tax when every country that implemented it has realised that the model doesn't work and dropped it? This is the problem with the leftists in this country. None of you really give a fuck about the poor people. Most of you are driven by envy/hatred towards people who are rich. Though you all praise the "Scandinavian model", no one is willing to adopt their tax model because that would mean paying money out of your own pocket. Instead, you will go for solutions like wealth tax that is known to be a failed idea because that way you are just going after other people's money." Do you know at what level the Swedish wealth tax was implemented, and on what? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I am pretty sure you chose the £10 million number conveniently so that you don't have to pay money out of your pocket. But keeping that aside, your ridiculous tax logic means that in 50 years they would have paid the entire asset's worth already. Btw neither Denmark nor Sweden the countries you seem to look up to, have wealth taxes. In fact, both the countries used to have wealth taxes. But they abolished them in 1997 and 2007 respectively because they realised that wealth taxes don't work. No, I picked £10 million because that is the proposal that has received support of cross party MPs, charities etc. Still, why do you want to go for a wealth tax when every country that implemented it has realised that the model doesn't work and dropped it? This is the problem with the leftists in this country. None of you really give a fuck about the poor people. Most of you are driven by envy/hatred towards people who are rich. Though you all praise the "Scandinavian model", no one is willing to adopt their tax model because that would mean paying money out of your own pocket. Instead, you will go for solutions like wealth tax that is known to be a failed idea because that way you are just going after other people's money. Do you know at what level the Swedish wealth tax was implemented, and on what?" What the internet says - 1.5% at a high level. Could fluctuate between 0.5% and 1% based on exemptions. Applied on assets of people whose net assets exceeded 1.5 million SEK. The reason why many European countries dropped wealth tax in the 1990s and 2000s? That was when globalisation kicked off and it became insanely easy for rich people to move to a different country. Sweden lost the IKEA founder because of wealth tax and they realised that they are actually losing more in tax than what they were collecting as wealth tax. But this time it will work in the UK, right? Any lame idea except you having to open your wallet to pay more taxes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you know how much 1.5 million SEK is in sterling?" I know. What difference does that make? They will still leave the country. So the overall tax you collect is less than what you used to collect because now you lost their income and capital gains tax too. What next? Go on a witch hunt after people with over £5 million assets? Where should it stop? Just above any threshold that would result in you paying your own money?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you know how much 1.5 million SEK is in sterling? I know. What difference does that make? They will still leave the country. So the overall tax you collect is less than what you used to collect because now you lost their income and capital gains tax too. What next? Go on a witch hunt after people with over £5 million assets? Where should it stop? Just above any threshold that would result in you paying your own money? "£10 million in assets is very different to £115k in assets. What assets other than property is a private individual going to have that is worth more than £10 million, do you think? Do you think people are going to divest themselves of their £10 million home and move abroad, so they can save £200k? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" £10 million in assets is very different to £115k in assets. " 200k in today's money. " What assets other than property is a private individual going to have that is worth more than £10 million, do you think? Do you think people are going to divest themselves of their £10 million home and move abroad, so they can save £200k? " From where will they get the liquidity on an annual basis? What if it slumps and they need to find liquidity in a hurry? ...and by going after the biggest fish, they're actually going after the most mobile in society - and the most calamitous financial impact should they leave. Consider Seattle Washington - they introduced new taxes (after enticing with low taxes) to target the richest corporations (which were set up/moved there specifically to avoid taxes). It was a short-term financial success that generated billions in new public revenue, but it has evolved into a long-term structural loss as they then faced a severe commercial real estate crisis and massive budget deficits. Employment, especially at the top and middle tiers, has plummeted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you know how much 1.5 million SEK is in sterling? I know. What difference does that make? They will still leave the country. So the overall tax you collect is less than what you used to collect because now you lost their income and capital gains tax too. What next? Go on a witch hunt after people with over £5 million assets? Where should it stop? Just above any threshold that would result in you paying your own money?
£10 million in assets is very different to £115k in assets.
"How does that make a difference in whether they move out of the country? How much assets do you think the IKEA owner had? " What assets other than property is a private individual going to have that is worth more than £10 million, do you think? " Most of the ultra rich individuals have only a small portion of their wealth in properties. Majority of their wealth is in stocks. " Do you think people are going to divest themselves of their £10 million home and move abroad, so they can save £200k? " The IKEA owner did. And as I mentioned above, their physical property is usually a very small portion of their assets. Moving to a different country is very easy for them. Also, this tax you are asking for isn't a one time payment, is it? It's an annual payment. Why would a rich guy live here and pay that much money over a property every year? Just because some edgy armchair socialists wanted them to? So the outcome of all this would be net reduction in taxes collected. If you really want to help the poor, be ready to pay more out of your own pockets. But from the conversation so far, it's clear that you don't want that, which is not surprising for leftists  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think people are going to divest themselves of their £10 million home and move abroad, so they can save £200k? " Property owner/ landlord specific For many this is on top of: • Section 24 • Capital gains allowances cut from 13k to 3K • 5% extra stamp duty • Holiday let’s finance no longer tax deductible • Reduced wear and tear allowance • Double council tax on commercially run holiday let’s (they are not 2nd homes) • Council tax replaced with property tax on landlords. • Reeves £2m mansion tax • 2% extra investment income tax from April • 0.96% pa potential land tax as rumoured And potentially an extra £200k pa wealth tax, yes they might. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" £10 million in assets is very different to £115k in assets. 200k in today's money. What assets other than property is a private individual going to have that is worth more than £10 million, do you think? Do you think people are going to divest themselves of their £10 million home and move abroad, so they can save £200k? From where will they get the liquidity on an annual basis? What if it slumps and they need to find liquidity in a hurry? ...and by going after the biggest fish, they're actually going after the most mobile in society - and the most calamitous financial impact should they leave. Consider Seattle Washington - they introduced new taxes (after enticing with low taxes) to target the richest corporations (which were set up/moved there specifically to avoid taxes). It was a short-term financial success that generated billions in new public revenue, but it has evolved into a long-term structural loss as they then faced a severe commercial real estate crisis and massive budget deficits. Employment, especially at the top and middle tiers, has plummeted." Who knows where they’ll get it? It’s a problem 99% f the country would be delighted to have. We keep being told, by the media owned by very rich people, that we can’t possibly do anything that very rich people don’t like or they will take their ball and run off abroad. Well, they’re still here… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think people are going to divest themselves of their £10 million home and move abroad, so they can save £200k? Property owner/ landlord specific For many this is on top of: • Section 24 • Capital gains allowances cut from 13k to 3K • 5% extra stamp duty • Holiday let’s finance no longer tax deductible • Reduced wear and tear allowance • Double council tax on commercially run holiday let’s (they are not 2nd homes) • Council tax replaced with property tax on landlords. • Reeves £2m mansion tax • 2% extra investment income tax from April • 0.96% pa potential land tax as rumoured And potentially an extra £200k pa wealth tax, yes they might. " Won’t somebody think of the poor landlords 🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"l Would you rather share 100 loaves of bread between 100 families or let them compete in the market for 1000?" Herein lies the problem. Exposing those families to the mercy of the market, will mean that the market will charge as high as they can for their product. In turn, those families with greater wealth will purchase the supply at a rate they can afford. The market doesn't care about the families that cannot afford the bread, only those that can afford it. If the market sells all 100 loaves, then they have accomplished their production target. This is not an equitable position for the poorer families. Factor in market dominance where there is reduced competition due to hostile takeovers or mergers, and constrained supply will push prices higher. The poorer families will miss out even more, and even the next tier of families will struggle because the tier above them see the reduced supply and thus purchase more (at a higher rate too). The problem moves "upwards", excluding even more people. Not that much of this matters, as we are in the throes of end-game capitalism anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think people are going to divest themselves of their £10 million home and move abroad, so they can save £200k? Property owner/ landlord specific For many this is on top of: • Section 24 • Capital gains allowances cut from 13k to 3K • 5% extra stamp duty • Holiday let’s finance no longer tax deductible • Reduced wear and tear allowance • Double council tax on commercially run holiday let’s (they are not 2nd homes) • Council tax replaced with property tax on landlords. • Reeves £2m mansion tax • 2% extra investment income tax from April • 0.96% pa potential land tax as rumoured And potentially an extra £200k pa wealth tax, yes they might. Won’t somebody think of the poor landlords 🤣" The 290,000 PRS rentals that sold last year have presumably paid their cgt and got out early ahead of the extra tax rises. With the huge empty surplus of social housing there is no need for the state to house May’s 20,000 section 21’s in hotels at a cost to the tax payer. Labours 300k social housing not happened (is actually negative after RTB) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"l Would you rather share 100 loaves of bread between 100 families or let them compete in the market for 1000? Herein lies the problem. Exposing those families to the mercy of the market, will mean that the market will charge as high as they can for their product. In turn, those families with greater wealth will purchase the supply at a rate they can afford. The market doesn't care about the families that cannot afford the bread, only those that can afford it. If the market sells all 100 loaves, then they have accomplished their production target. This is not an equitable position for the poorer families. Factor in market dominance where there is reduced competition due to hostile takeovers or mergers, and constrained supply will push prices higher. The poorer families will miss out even more, and even the next tier of families will struggle because the tier above them see the reduced supply and thus purchase more (at a higher rate too). The problem moves "upwards", excluding even more people. Not that much of this matters, as we are in the throes of end-game capitalism anyway. " What is everyone going to do with so much mouldy bread? Why assume that markets would push prices up instead of down when supply greatly exceeds demand? You're assuming that people want to hoard uneatable levels of bread. You've made up a nonsensical narrative. The example was highlighting how market incentivised productivity can make things better. Sure it's biased, but it's illustrating a point. Your narrative isn't even highlighting anything real, other than a dystopia? Finally, there is, indeed, a role for government. It needs to ensure fair play. But not squash productivity - without productivity, there is nothing to share (tax). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Who knows where they’ll get it? It’s a problem 99% f the country would be delighted to have." ...and there it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"l Would you rather share 100 loaves of bread between 100 families or let them compete in the market for 1000? Herein lies the problem. Exposing those families to the mercy of the market, will mean that the market will charge as high as they can for their product. In turn, those families with greater wealth will purchase the supply at a rate they can afford. The market doesn't care about the families that cannot afford the bread, only those that can afford it. If the market sells all 100 loaves, then they have accomplished their production target. This is not an equitable position for the poorer families. Factor in market dominance where there is reduced competition due to hostile takeovers or mergers, and constrained supply will push prices higher. The poorer families will miss out even more, and even the next tier of families will struggle because the tier above them see the reduced supply and thus purchase more (at a higher rate too). The problem moves "upwards", excluding even more people. Not that much of this matters, as we are in the throes of end-game capitalism anyway. " Why does your world view have everyone as a victim? Don’t people have agency and shouldn’t we be encouraging them to make use of that agency rather than be told that they are victims and that they should be grateful for whatever handouts they are given from the state? What is stopping anyone from starting their own business and making more bread? Rather than taxing wealth we should be working out how to make more people richer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Herein lies the problem. Exposing those families to the mercy of the market, will mean that the market will charge as high as they can for their product. In turn, those families with greater wealth will purchase the supply at a rate they can afford. The market doesn't care about the families that cannot afford the bread, only those that can afford it. If the market sells all 100 loaves, then they have accomplished their production target. This is not an equitable position for the poorer families. " Caring about the families is not the ultimate driving factor for the market. The ultimate driving factor is survival and competition. In order to survive and compete with other businesses, they have to care about their customers. And that means reducing prices when they have to. " Factor in market dominance where there is reduced competition due to hostile takeovers or mergers, and constrained supply will push prices higher. " Monopolies happen because it becomes more expensive to start a business, something that's primarily caused by overregulation. Not to mention the fact that the state is the biggest monopoly. " Not that much of this matters, as we are in the throes of end-game capitalism anyway. " UK is more towards end-game socialism, like Argentina was a few years back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left?" Tax wealth not work | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work" You have not answered the question | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work" Does money you have in the bank accounts count as wealth? Or does it magically become wealth the moment someone invests it in stocks? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work" This! It’s like people don’t understand the concepts of inherited advantage and cultural capital. People with Norman surnames still statistically more likely to be wealthier, go to elite universities and public schools, and live longer. The LSE did some research that shows social mobility is surprisingly slow in the UK, with inherited privilege lasting for centuries. People have been fooled into believing that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough, the reality is completely different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work Does money you have in the bank accounts count as wealth? Or does it magically become wealth the moment someone invests it in stocks?" Money in a bank account is an asset. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work This! It’s like people don’t understand the concepts of inherited advantage and cultural capital. People with Norman surnames still statistically more likely to be wealthier, go to elite universities and public schools, and live longer. The LSE did some research that shows social mobility is surprisingly slow in the UK, with inherited privilege lasting for centuries. People have been fooled into believing that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough, the reality is completely different." People can become rich if they combine hard work with a bit of smartness | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work This! It’s like people don’t understand the concepts of inherited advantage and cultural capital. People with Norman surnames still statistically more likely to be wealthier, go to elite universities and public schools, and live longer. The LSE did some research that shows social mobility is surprisingly slow in the UK, with inherited privilege lasting for centuries. People have been fooled into believing that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough, the reality is completely different. People can become rich if they combine hard work with a bit of smartness " They can, yes, but it’s much, much easier if you have inherited wealth/advantage. Do you think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson would’ve become Prime Minister had he been born Barry Johnson, on a council estate in Newcastle? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work This! It’s like people don’t understand the concepts of inherited advantage and cultural capital. People with Norman surnames still statistically more likely to be wealthier, go to elite universities and public schools, and live longer. The LSE did some research that shows social mobility is surprisingly slow in the UK, with inherited privilege lasting for centuries. People have been fooled into believing that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough, the reality is completely different. People can become rich if they combine hard work with a bit of smartness They can, yes, but it’s much, much easier if you have inherited wealth/advantage. Do you think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson would’ve become Prime Minister had he been born Barry Johnson, on a council estate in Newcastle?" I agree. People like John Major were born with a golden spoon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work This! It’s like people don’t understand the concepts of inherited advantage and cultural capital. People with Norman surnames still statistically more likely to be wealthier, go to elite universities and public schools, and live longer. The LSE did some research that shows social mobility is surprisingly slow in the UK, with inherited privilege lasting for centuries. People have been fooled into believing that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough, the reality is completely different. People can become rich if they combine hard work with a bit of smartness They can, yes, but it’s much, much easier if you have inherited wealth/advantage. Do you think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson would’ve become Prime Minister had he been born Barry Johnson, on a council estate in Newcastle? I agree. People like John Major were born with a golden spoon." Of the 11 Conservative PMs since Churchill, John Major is the only one not to have attended Oxford. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work This! It’s like people don’t understand the concepts of inherited advantage and cultural capital. People with Norman surnames still statistically more likely to be wealthier, go to elite universities and public schools, and live longer. The LSE did some research that shows social mobility is surprisingly slow in the UK, with inherited privilege lasting for centuries. People have been fooled into believing that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough, the reality is completely different. People can become rich if they combine hard work with a bit of smartness They can, yes, but it’s much, much easier if you have inherited wealth/advantage. Do you think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson would’ve become Prime Minister had he been born Barry Johnson, on a council estate in Newcastle? I agree. People like John Major were born with a golden spoon. Of the 11 Conservative PMs since Churchill, John Major is the only one not to have attended Oxford." So just tax Oxford graduates. That solves your problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work This! It’s like people don’t understand the concepts of inherited advantage and cultural capital. People with Norman surnames still statistically more likely to be wealthier, go to elite universities and public schools, and live longer. The LSE did some research that shows social mobility is surprisingly slow in the UK, with inherited privilege lasting for centuries. People have been fooled into believing that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough, the reality is completely different. People can become rich if they combine hard work with a bit of smartness They can, yes, but it’s much, much easier if you have inherited wealth/advantage. Do you think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson would’ve become Prime Minister had he been born Barry Johnson, on a council estate in Newcastle? I agree. People like John Major were born with a golden spoon. Of the 11 Conservative PMs since Churchill, John Major is the only one not to have attended Oxford. So just tax Oxford graduates. That solves your problem." Is that the best you can come up with? 🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work This! It’s like people don’t understand the concepts of inherited advantage and cultural capital. People with Norman surnames still statistically more likely to be wealthier, go to elite universities and public schools, and live longer. The LSE did some research that shows social mobility is surprisingly slow in the UK, with inherited privilege lasting for centuries. People have been fooled into believing that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough, the reality is completely different. People can become rich if they combine hard work with a bit of smartness They can, yes, but it’s much, much easier if you have inherited wealth/advantage. Do you think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson would’ve become Prime Minister had he been born Barry Johnson, on a council estate in Newcastle?" Why are you mixing up politicians and wealth generation by running businesses? Don't you see the irony behind shitting on politicians and wanting people to pay more taxes to... the politicians? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work This! It’s like people don’t understand the concepts of inherited advantage and cultural capital. People with Norman surnames still statistically more likely to be wealthier, go to elite universities and public schools, and live longer. The LSE did some research that shows social mobility is surprisingly slow in the UK, with inherited privilege lasting for centuries. People have been fooled into believing that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough, the reality is completely different. People can become rich if they combine hard work with a bit of smartness They can, yes, but it’s much, much easier if you have inherited wealth/advantage. Do you think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson would’ve become Prime Minister had he been born Barry Johnson, on a council estate in Newcastle? Why are you mixing up politicians and wealth generation by running businesses? Don't you see the irony behind shitting on politicians and wanting people to pay more taxes to... the politicians?" I’m not mixing them up at all, I’m simply giving an example of how generational advantage makes things easier. More than half of the country’s 20 richest households inherited their wealth or business. Do you not thjnm that there’s something ab bit off that you are far more likely to go to an elite university, or be wealthy, if you have a Norman surname? I mean the Battle of Hastings was over a thousand years ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of the ten richest people in the world today, only two come from a wealthy/aristocratic family. The remaining 8 come from middle class families with their parents doing white collar jobs. It's easy to shit on people's success on the internet because of envy. It's hard to start a business and make it as successful as they have. Just ask the millions around the world who tried the same and failed." who are the top ten? And which two come from aristocratic families? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of the ten richest people in the world today, only two come from a wealthy/aristocratic family. The remaining 8 come from middle class families with their parents doing white collar jobs. It's easy to shit on people's success on the internet because of envy. It's hard to start a business and make it as successful as they have. Just ask the millions around the world who tried the same and failed.who are the top ten? And which two come from aristocratic families?" You can check the June 2026 Forbes billionaires list. The two who were born to wealthy parents were Elon Musk and Bernard Arnault. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’m not mixing them up at all, I’m simply giving an example of how generational advantage makes things easier. " It gives a minor advantage. There are numerous rags to riches and riches to rags stories which show that being born to wealth doesn't guarantee you anything. " Do you not thjnm that there’s something ab bit off that you are far more likely to go to an elite university, or be wealthy, if you have a Norman surname? I mean the Battle of Hastings was over a thousand years ago. " Interestingly these kind of things happen on the UK more than the US. Have you wondered why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I’m not mixing them up at all, I’m simply giving an example of how generational advantage makes things easier. It gives a minor advantage. There are numerous rags to riches and riches to rags stories which show that being born to wealth doesn't guarantee you anything. " Statistically the advantage is huge, rags to riches is far rarer than riches to even more riches. " Do you not thjnm that there’s something ab bit off that you are far more likely to go to an elite university, or be wealthy, if you have a Norman surname? I mean the Battle of Hastings was over a thousand years ago. Interestingly these kind of things happen on the UK more than the US. Have you wondered why?" Because the US is a society built on mass immigration, the richest people did not leave Europe to go there, so there is far less generational wealth. Interestingly, people with Norman surnames are still statistically advantaged more than four times longer than the US has even been a country. This is nothing to do with regulation, it is to do with inherited advantage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Statistically the advantage is huge, rags to riches is far rarer than riches to even more riches. " That's only true when you look at the world through your biased eyes. If you look at top ten richest in the UK, only three of them are from wealthy families. The remaining are from poor or middle class families. " Because the US is a society built on mass immigration, the richest people did not leave Europe to go there, so there is far less generational wealth. " That doesn't answer my question. The US still had numerous rich people in the past generations. And yet, when it comes to the world's richest people, many of them are from the US and came from middle class families. " Interestingly, people with Norman surnames are still statistically advantaged more than four times longer than the US has even been a country. This is nothing to do with regulation, it is to do with inherited advantage." It has everything to do with regulation. A normal salaried person can take the family to middle-class or upper middle-class levels. If someone wants to get richer than that, they have to run successful businesses. In the US, thanks to low regulatory cost and taxes, it's easy for someone to build start-ups and develop them into bigger businesses, not so in the UK or Europe in general. That's the reason why Europe in general fell behind in tech race and will do so in the AI race too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy... The simple question I have for those people who advocate taxing wealth, how do you create wealth and not divide it into nothing left? Tax wealth not work This! It’s like people don’t understand the concepts of inherited advantage and cultural capital. People with Norman surnames still statistically more likely to be wealthier, go to elite universities and public schools, and live longer. The LSE did some research that shows social mobility is surprisingly slow in the UK, with inherited privilege lasting for centuries. People have been fooled into believing that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough, the reality is completely different. People can become rich if they combine hard work with a bit of smartness They can, yes, but it’s much, much easier if you have inherited wealth/advantage. Do you think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson would’ve become Prime Minister had he been born Barry Johnson, on a council estate in Newcastle? I agree. People like John Major were born with a golden spoon. Of the 11 Conservative PMs since Churchill, John Major is the only one not to have attended Oxford. So just tax Oxford graduates. That solves your problem. Is that the best you can come up with? 🤣" The best I can come up with is at the start where I said we need to be focussing on increasing productivity by allowing the wider public to access capital but as you seem to consistently want to prioritise taxing people over meaningful change then I thought I would play along  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's easy to shit on people's success on the internet because of envy. It's hard to start a business and make it as successful as they have. Just ask the millions around the world who tried the same and failed." 👍 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Statistically the advantage is huge, rags to riches is far rarer than riches to even more riches. That's only true when you look at the world through your biased eyes. If you look at top ten richest in the UK, only three of them are from wealthy families. The remaining are from poor or middle class families. Because the US is a society built on mass immigration, the richest people did not leave Europe to go there, so there is far less generational wealth. That doesn't answer my question. The US still had numerous rich people in the past generations. And yet, when it comes to the world's richest people, many of them are from the US and came from middle class families. Interestingly, people with Norman surnames are still statistically advantaged more than four times longer than the US has even been a country. This is nothing to do with regulation, it is to do with inherited advantage. It has everything to do with regulation. A normal salaried person can take the family to middle-class or upper middle-class levels. If someone wants to get richer than that, they have to run successful businesses. In the US, thanks to low regulatory cost and taxes, it's easy for someone to build start-ups and develop them into bigger businesses, not so in the UK or Europe in general. That's the reason why Europe in general fell behind in tech race and will do so in the AI race too." It’s deeper than just taxes or regulation. Successful startup and scale ups need deep capital markets and investors willing to take risks. The US has immense VC markets. We have nothing in comparison and that is what is holding us back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In the US, thanks to low regulatory cost and taxes, it's easy for someone to build start-ups and develop them into bigger businesses, not so in the UK or Europe in general. That's the reason why Europe in general fell behind in tech race and will do so in the AI race too. It’s deeper than just taxes or regulation. Successful startup and scale ups need deep capital markets and investors willing to take risks. The US has immense VC markets. We have nothing in comparison and that is what is holding us back." Why do you think that is the case? Don't the VC markets in the US invest in other countries too if they find an idea worth investing in? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The US has immense VC markets. We have nothing in comparison and that is what is holding us back." Harder to get start up capital I’d agree but not impossible. Bank margins have increased, fees and security requirements are more onerous, most smaller developers I know are using second tier lenders at around 8.5/9%. The constant threat of tax changes and increases has pissed on people’s aspirations to start businesses which is why more are closing than opening. Winnalot Bailey running BoE is a doomster and not all all inspiring. Pity Carney left. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In the US, thanks to low regulatory cost and taxes, it's easy for someone to build start-ups and develop them into bigger businesses, not so in the UK or Europe in general. That's the reason why Europe in general fell behind in tech race and will do so in the AI race too. It’s deeper than just taxes or regulation. Successful startup and scale ups need deep capital markets and investors willing to take risks. The US has immense VC markets. We have nothing in comparison and that is what is holding us back. Why do you think that is the case? Don't the VC markets in the US invest in other countries too if they find an idea worth investing in?" Not to any meaningful extent. What you really need are local people who have local contacts and capabilities that you can leverage on a day to day basis. We have pockets in the UK, Cambridge for bio and some tech and London for fintech, but there is nothing that can take you to scale. America has a very deep angel investing scene. That is where most companies can access their first cash. We don’t have that in scale and most on the left want to kill off what we do have by these targeted wealth taxes. That is why they are fundamentally misguided. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In the US, thanks to low regulatory cost and taxes, it's easy for someone to build start-ups and develop them into bigger businesses, not so in the UK or Europe in general. That's the reason why Europe in general fell behind in tech race and will do so in the AI race too. It’s deeper than just taxes or regulation. Successful startup and scale ups need deep capital markets and investors willing to take risks. The US has immense VC markets. We have nothing in comparison and that is what is holding us back. Why do you think that is the case? Don't the VC markets in the US invest in other countries too if they find an idea worth investing in? Not to any meaningful extent. What you really need are local people who have local contacts and capabilities that you can leverage on a day to day basis. We have pockets in the UK, Cambridge for bio and some tech and London for fintech, but there is nothing that can take you to scale. America has a very deep angel investing scene. That is where most companies can access their first cash. We don’t have that in scale and most on the left want to kill off what we do have by these targeted wealth taxes. That is why they are fundamentally misguided." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In the US, thanks to low regulatory cost and taxes, it's easy for someone to build start-ups and develop them into bigger businesses, not so in the UK or Europe in general. That's the reason why Europe in general fell behind in tech race and will do so in the AI race too. It’s deeper than just taxes or regulation. Successful startup and scale ups need deep capital markets and investors willing to take risks. The US has immense VC markets. We have nothing in comparison and that is what is holding us back. Why do you think that is the case? Don't the VC markets in the US invest in other countries too if they find an idea worth investing in? Not to any meaningful extent. What you really need are local people who have local contacts and capabilities that you can leverage on a day to day basis. We have pockets in the UK, Cambridge for bio and some tech and London for fintech, but there is nothing that can take you to scale. America has a very deep angel investing scene. That is where most companies can access their first cash. We don’t have that in scale and most on the left want to kill off what we do have by these targeted wealth taxes. That is why they are fundamentally misguided. "The irony is that those who are most worried about class mobility should be focussing their attention on building the infrastructure to allow startups to thrive because startups are exactly the mechanism by which talented and hardworking but poor kids can break out of their chains. Most startups fail but successful founders know in the states that they can find people who will be willing to back them on their second, third or more journey. That’s what we need here. We should be giving tax breaks not taxing more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Tax wealth not work You have not answered the question " Yes I did, it is work that creates wealth. I just don't understand the point of your leading statement; "It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy..." What is the purpose of this stupid rhetoric? It's like playground tactics! An I have seen you interact without going there on many occasions previously. You don't need to stoop to that if you're looking to get people to engage properly with your post | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Tax wealth not work You have not answered the question Yes I did, it is work that creates wealth. I just don't understand the point of your leading statement; "It must be a exhausting trying to continually think of ways to tax more and who to tax through envy..." What is the purpose of this stupid rhetoric? It's like playground tactics! An I have seen you interact without going there on many occasions previously. You don't need to stoop to that if you're looking to get people to engage properly with your post " My comment is no more playground than the parroting of tax wealth. Ths thread offers up the opportunity for those that call for wealth taxes to explain what it is they are taxing and how, that wont happen because the ideologies they worship do not cover the what and how. I anticipate responses of tax everything over X 10% or 2% etc, but I guarantee the detail will not be known for the how, who and when. Are you are going to enlighten me with the methodology of your wealth tax ideas that are superior to all the wealth taxes that have failed around the globe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do not steal from the rich. " Eat them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do not steal from the rich. Eat them " I would definitely eat a part of you lol  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
