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 |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Waste of a good bullet... where's me pitch fork!" . He's not kidding, he's the biggest Corbyn fan boy going. Somewhat tells you the truth closer than you might think | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people might think this is a ridiculous question, but Conservative Business Minister Nadhim Zahawi takes it quite seriously, and can’t be sure. Is making the rich pay a bit more tax really like starving and shooting millions of people? Are the Tories just having a bet with each other to see who can spout the most ridiculous nonsense?" When you're going for the big lie strategy, you have to stick to it repetitively "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State" Also from Joeseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister "The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." The conservative party using Nazi propaganda techniques to hammer home that JC is the equivalent of stalin. Even Andrew Neil finds it odious. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think the tories are trying to see if they can spout as much crap as Corbyn" Oh, what did he say? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Waste of a good bullet... where's me pitch fork!. He's not kidding, he's the biggest Corbyn fan boy going. Somewhat tells you the truth closer than you might think "So me thinking that comparing Corbyn to Stalin is utterly ludicrous makes me some sort of fan boy? Um, OJ.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people might think this is a ridiculous question, but Conservative Business Minister Nadhim Zahawi takes it quite seriously, and can’t be sure. Is making the rich pay a bit more tax really like starving and shooting millions of people? Are the Tories just having a bet with each other to see who can spout the most ridiculous nonsense? When you're going for the big lie strategy, you have to stick to it repetitively "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State" Also from Joeseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister "The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." The conservative party using Nazi propaganda techniques to hammer home that JC is the equivalent of stalin. Even Andrew Neil finds it odious." It's a public school thing. Not taught. Just by osmosis. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever people think ....The Labour Party would be far more appealing and popular without corbyn as its leader ......" True  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever people think ....The Labour Party would be far more appealing and popular without corbyn as its leader ......" It would, but it’s time to give the shambolic tories the proverbial boot in the plums and out of government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Waste of a good bullet... where's me pitch fork!. He's not kidding, he's the biggest Corbyn fan boy going. Somewhat tells you the truth closer than you might think
So me thinking that comparing Corbyn to Stalin is utterly ludicrous makes me some sort of fan boy?
Um, OJ. ". Jesus at least try and remember which account your using I replied to willwill not kentish    | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Waste of a good bullet... where's me pitch fork!. He's not kidding, he's the biggest Corbyn fan boy going. Somewhat tells you the truth closer than you might think
So me thinking that comparing Corbyn to Stalin is utterly ludicrous makes me some sort of fan boy?
Um, OJ. .
Jesus at least try and remember which account your using I replied to willwill not kentish "nice one who would have thought? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Waste of a good bullet... where's me pitch fork!. He's not kidding, he's the biggest Corbyn fan boy going. Somewhat tells you the truth closer than you might think
So me thinking that comparing Corbyn to Stalin is utterly ludicrous makes me some sort of fan boy?
Um, OJ. .
Jesus at least try and remember which account your using I replied to willwill not kentish "I know you replied to willwill, but who were you saying was the Corbyn fan boy when you said “he”?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Waste of a good bullet... where's me pitch fork!. He's not kidding, he's the biggest Corbyn fan boy going. Somewhat tells you the truth closer than you might think
So me thinking that comparing Corbyn to Stalin is utterly ludicrous makes me some sort of fan boy?
Um, OJ. .
Jesus at least try and remember which account your using I replied to willwill not kentish
I know you replied to willwill, but who were you saying was the Corbyn fan boy when you said “he”? ". Willwill obviously that's why I quoted him!! Your confusing me just stick with the one character | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Waste of a good bullet... where's me pitch fork!. He's not kidding, he's the biggest Corbyn fan boy going. Somewhat tells you the truth closer than you might think
So me thinking that comparing Corbyn to Stalin is utterly ludicrous makes me some sort of fan boy?
Um, OJ. .
Jesus at least try and remember which account your using I replied to willwill not kentish
I know you replied to willwill, but who were you saying was the Corbyn fan boy when you said “he”? .
Willwill obviously that's why I quoted him!!
Your confusing me just stick with the one character "Not that obvious.... if you replied to willwill, and you were referring to willwill, wouldn’t it have made more sense to say: “You’re not kidding, you’re the biggest Corbyn fan boy going.” rather than: “He's not kidding, he's the biggest Corbyn fan boy going.” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why would he shoot the rich when he is one himself. Just take, a look at the house he's got. A man for the, working class... Think again. A man for himself... Most definately " I don’t think he would, but the Conservative being interviewed about the comparison made between Corbyn and Stalin (who shot hundreds of thousands of rich people) couldn’t be sure that he wouldn’t. What about his house? Is it affy fancy? Probably worth a ton of money now, but probably wasn’t when he bought it. He hardly has that Etonian sense of entitlement that the likes of Boris and Rees-Mogg seem to have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Having worked previously in banking for many years i think if the government (who ever is in power) Over tax the richthe they will just move abroad as the banks have departments specifically to help do this .them just look at the likes of film stars f1 drivers and football players all have accounts and residences outside the uk . then the banks themselves will do the same with their head offices and we are the ones who will suffer with no local branches and be left with phone,internet or banking apps to access our accounts (it has already started). And end up with loads of ex bank employees out of work " The vast majority of banking will move online regardless of higher taxes, the high street banks will go the same way as the high street shops | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah, how sweet, you believe I run multiple accounts... Sounds to me like classical transference. By the way if you check you will find I have had this account for about 10 years and have been posting here for 6 or so years. How long have you been using your present account? And how many previous accounts have you had? If you feel aggrieved that I am asking these questions maybe you should not make thinly veiled accusations about me, because if you do I will point out what you have done and ask straight out if you are making those accusations because it is what you do." . I replied to you, some "guy" replied to me as if it was you, I'm not stupid,I see you all going on and off, I'm also not arsed, it just made me proper laugh that you forgot characters. PS I don't feel aggrieved,I don't give a shit, this place isn't my life and frankly most people who frequent this forum I've not interest in. There's one or two I'd love to bump into in real life, there people of interest to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah, how sweet, you believe I run multiple accounts... Sounds to me like classical transference. By the way if you check you will find I have had this account for about 10 years and have been posting here for 6 or so years. How long have you been using your present account? And how many previous accounts have you had? If you feel aggrieved that I am asking these questions maybe you should not make thinly veiled accusations about me, because if you do I will point out what you have done and ask straight out if you are making those accusations because it is what you do.. I replied to you, some "guy" replied to me as if it was you, I'm not stupid,I see you all going on and off, I'm also not arsed, it just made me proper laugh that you forgot characters." What are you even talking about? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Having worked previously in banking for many years i think if the government (who ever is in power) Over tax the richthe they will just move abroad as the banks have departments specifically to help do this .them just look at the likes of film stars f1 drivers and football players all have accounts and residences outside the uk . then the banks themselves will do the same with their head offices and we are the ones who will suffer with no local branches and be left with phone,internet or banking apps to access our accounts (it has already started). And end up with loads of ex bank employees out of work Thats fine... But lets put a 99% tax on all untaxed money being moved out of the country and a 100,000% fine on any bank caught moving untaxed money out of the country... At the same time lets place a PAYE style income tax on all profits generated in the UK and have a claimback system rather like the VAT claimback system... Now off you fuck you greedy rich twat and find some other country to be a parasite in..." You are aware the ‘greedy rich twats’ you refer to are likely to be the ultimate owners of the companies (or group/holding companies) that a good number of hard-working ‘normal’ people are employed by. Force them abroad and many will take that business with them. Businesses and workforces are globally mobile and globally available, and anything non-unionised and private can be moved pretty quickly in the grand scheme of things. So the cash that McDonnell is looking to hit will be long gone before he can pass anything like the legislation you’re talking about so the Treasury gap shit ball will roll downhill to the rest of us (who can’t afford it), hiking up financial pressure on U.K. businesses with increased Corp Tax will just make them uncompetitive as they will have to increase prices and that will likely finish many off as China and India will just do it cheaper (and cash is King in volume sales). “You can’t make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor”. I’m not suggesting the Tories have all the answers, because they don’t; no party in our country has because there are many opposing issues which are mutually exclusive in their resolution. Labour may have some well-meant ideas but in practice they would be an absolute clusterf*** and utterly ruinous given their associated implementation plans appears to hang on anti-wealth, which is not what drives an economy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Having worked previously in banking for many years i think if the government (who ever is in power) Over tax the richthe they will just move abroad as the banks have departments specifically to help do this .them just look at the likes of film stars f1 drivers and football players all have accounts and residences outside the uk . then the banks themselves will do the same with their head offices and we are the ones who will suffer with no local branches and be left with phone,internet or banking apps to access our accounts (it has already started). And end up with loads of ex bank employees out of work Thats fine... But lets put a 99% tax on all untaxed money being moved out of the country and a 100,000% fine on any bank caught moving untaxed money out of the country... At the same time lets place a PAYE style income tax on all profits generated in the UK and have a claimback system rather like the VAT claimback system... Now off you fuck you greedy rich twat and find some other country to be a parasite in... You are aware the ‘greedy rich twats’ you refer to are likely to be the ultimate owners of the companies (or group/holding companies) that a good number of hard-working ‘normal’ people are employed by. Force them abroad and many will take that business with them. Businesses and workforces are globally mobile and globally available, and anything non-unionised and private can be moved pretty quickly in the grand scheme of things. So the cash that McDonnell is looking to hit will be long gone before he can pass anything like the legislation you’re talking about so the Treasury gap shit ball will roll downhill to the rest of us (who can’t afford it), hiking up financial pressure on U.K. businesses with increased Corp Tax will just make them uncompetitive as they will have to increase prices and that will likely finish many off as China and India will just do it cheaper (and cash is King in volume sales). “You can’t make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor”. I’m not suggesting the Tories have all the answers, because they don’t; no party in our country has because there are many opposing issues which are mutually exclusive in their resolution. Labour may have some well-meant ideas but in practice they would be an absolute clusterf*** and utterly ruinous given their associated implementation plans appears to hang on anti-wealth, which is not what drives an economy. " I think you’re falling for the globalisation mantra there. You can either view it as most tories do that the UK is a broker/agent for international companies and that by retaining this business we will continue to prosper as a country which keeps things ticking along nicely until the shit hits the fan ie a global economic crisis brought about by dodgy investments of the bankers who would be king (rbs springs to mind). If you believe in a mixed and to a certain extent self sufficient economy then you have to question why business in this country is so geared up to short term rewards for shareholders and frankly incompetent businessmen who would rather fleece a company by loading it with debt than face up to losing their bonuses. Thomas cook and mothercare come to mind. The present direction of UK business strategy is to sell off any remaining assets to other countries while making London and various parts of the home counties and west country a billionaires playground. Personally I have concerns about Labours factionalism and ability as outsiders to run the economy but the current government are not looking to the long term benefit of the general population and Labours slightly radical proposals look more sensible than most. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Having worked previously in banking for many years i think if the government (who ever is in power) Over tax the richthe they will just move abroad as the banks have departments specifically to help do this .them just look at the likes of film stars f1 drivers and football players all have accounts and residences outside the uk . then the banks themselves will do the same with their head offices and we are the ones who will suffer with no local branches and be left with phone,internet or banking apps to access our accounts (it has already started). And end up with loads of ex bank employees out of work Thats fine... But lets put a 99% tax on all untaxed money being moved out of the country and a 100,000% fine on any bank caught moving untaxed money out of the country... At the same time lets place a PAYE style income tax on all profits generated in the UK and have a claimback system rather like the VAT claimback system... Now off you fuck you greedy rich twat and find some other country to be a parasite in... You are aware the ‘greedy rich twats’ you refer to are likely to be the ultimate owners of the companies (or group/holding companies) that a good number of hard-working ‘normal’ people are employed by. Force them abroad and many will take that business with them. Businesses and workforces are globally mobile and globally available, and anything non-unionised and private can be moved pretty quickly in the grand scheme of things. So the cash that McDonnell is looking to hit will be long gone before he can pass anything like the legislation you’re talking about so the Treasury gap shit ball will roll downhill to the rest of us (who can’t afford it), hiking up financial pressure on U.K. businesses with increased Corp Tax will just make them uncompetitive as they will have to increase prices and that will likely finish many off as China and India will just do it cheaper (and cash is King in volume sales). “You can’t make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor”. I’m not suggesting the Tories have all the answers, because they don’t; no party in our country has because there are many opposing issues which are mutually exclusive in their resolution. Labour may have some well-meant ideas but in practice they would be an absolute clusterf*** and utterly ruinous given their associated implementation plans appears to hang on anti-wealth, which is not what drives an economy. " Totally agree with you when you have a potential future chancellor who,s hobby is listed in who,s who as "fermenting the downfall of capitalism" what fucking chance does this country have?. Marxism doesn't work never has and never will but he is so wrapped up in his ideology he just cant see it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people have a real issue with the rich. It’s seems being rich equals bad automatically on here. I doubt this idea will ever happen. " What idea? How on earth do you get from thinking thinking that, if the treasury needs to raise more money to pay for publicly funded services, then the rich should maybe contribute more than the poor... ...to the idea that people have “some sort of problem with the rich”? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Having worked previously in banking for many years i think if the government (who ever is in power) Over tax the richthe they will just move abroad as the banks have departments specifically to help do this .them just look at the likes of film stars f1 drivers and football players all have accounts and residences outside the uk . then the banks themselves will do the same with their head offices and we are the ones who will suffer with no local branches and be left with phone,internet or banking apps to access our accounts (it has already started). And end up with loads of ex bank employees out of work Thats fine... But lets put a 99% tax on all untaxed money being moved out of the country and a 100,000% fine on any bank caught moving untaxed money out of the country... At the same time lets place a PAYE style income tax on all profits generated in the UK and have a claimback system rather like the VAT claimback system... Now off you fuck you greedy rich twat and find some other country to be a parasite in... You are aware the ‘greedy rich twats’ you refer to are likely to be the ultimate owners of the companies (or group/holding companies) that a good number of hard-working ‘normal’ people are employed by. Force them abroad and many will take that business with them. Businesses and workforces are globally mobile and globally available, and anything non-unionised and private can be moved pretty quickly in the grand scheme of things. So the cash that McDonnell is looking to hit will be long gone before he can pass anything like the legislation you’re talking about so the Treasury gap shit ball will roll downhill to the rest of us (who can’t afford it), hiking up financial pressure on U.K. businesses with increased Corp Tax will just make them uncompetitive as they will have to increase prices and that will likely finish many off as China and India will just do it cheaper (and cash is King in volume sales). “You can’t make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor”. I’m not suggesting the Tories have all the answers, because they don’t; no party in our country has because there are many opposing issues which are mutually exclusive in their resolution. Labour may have some well-meant ideas but in practice they would be an absolute clusterf*** and utterly ruinous given their associated implementation plans appears to hang on anti-wealth, which is not what drives an economy. " Do you believe that someone earning £100k a year having to pay £1k a year more in income tax would be sufficient motivation for them to move abroad? | |||
(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 |
"Yes, the front page of the Daily Express from just before the 1945 General Election is doing the rounds. "Gestapo in Britain if Labour wins" or something like that. Churchill telling voters Labour's plans would mean secret police. It is the tried - and failed - tactic of Tories repeatedly, to scare voters with the most outrageous headlines they can think of. Labour won a landslide. " Sometimes the lies wins. Sadly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sometimes the lies wins. Sadly." Indeed. In the GE campaign so far, how many of the headlines generated by the Conservative Party have been about their own agenda and how many have been about Labour's agenda? It's almost as if they would rather you did not look at their agenda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some people might think this is a ridiculous question, but Conservative Business Minister Nadhim Zahawi takes it quite seriously, and can’t be sure. Is making the rich pay a bit more tax really like starving and shooting millions of people? Are the Tories just having a bet with each other to see who can spout the most ridiculous nonsense? When you're going for the big lie strategy, you have to stick to it repetitively "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State" Also from Joeseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister "The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." " Ah! Now the whole "man made climate change" lie makes much more sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scare tactics. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Didn't work in 1945. We got the welfare state, council housing, state education, nationalised industry, the NHS and the atom bomb. The Atlee administration is the one from history Mr Corbyn admires the most. " There is much too like.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scare tactics. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Didn't work in 1945. We got the welfare state, council housing, state education, nationalised industry, the NHS and the atom bomb. The Atlee administration is the one from history Mr Corbyn admires the most. " . The NHS was proposed by Churchill but he got voted out before being able to implement it, it wasn't a labour idea | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scare tactics. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Didn't work in 1945. We got the welfare state, council housing, state education, nationalised industry, the NHS and the atom bomb. The Atlee administration is the one from history Mr Corbyn admires the most. . The NHS was proposed by Churchill but he got voted out before being able to implement it, it wasn't a labour idea "Churchill was telling troops on morale tours in WW2, about the proposed welfare state and nhs. Churchill could see great merit in the Beveridge report of 1942. People remember Bevan, as it was he that got to implement the NHS part of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scare tactics. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Didn't work in 1945. We got the welfare state, council housing, state education, nationalised industry, the NHS and the atom bomb. The Atlee administration is the one from history Mr Corbyn admires the most. . The NHS was proposed by Churchill but he got voted out before being able to implement it, it wasn't a labour idea
Churchill was telling troops on morale tours in WW2, about the proposed welfare state and nhs.
Churchill could see great merit in the Beveridge report of 1942. People remember Bevan, as it was he that got to implement the NHS part of it. ". Those dammed evil Tories implementing cheaper ways to do healthcare how dare they | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . The NHS was proposed by Churchill but he got voted out before being able to implement it, it wasn't a labour idea "Not quite. By 1942, the Cabinet was thinking ahead to life after war and realised they could not ask people to return to the dreadful living conditions of 1939. So Beveridge was commissioned to chair a committee to come up with a plan for a new Britain. Both Labour and the Conservatives endorsed the report, but Labour clearly was more enthusiastic about it than the Conservatives, who actually voted against some of the NHS legislation. So, no, it was not Churchill's idea - Labour gets the credit for implementing Beveridge's recommendations with zeal. (I believe Beveridge later stood as a Liberal candidate.) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scare tactics. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Didn't work in 1945. We got the welfare state, council housing, state education, nationalised industry, the NHS and the atom bomb. The Atlee administration is the one from history Mr Corbyn admires the most. . The NHS was proposed by Churchill but he got voted out before being able to implement it, it wasn't a labour idea
Churchill was telling troops on morale tours in WW2, about the proposed welfare state and nhs.
Churchill could see great merit in the Beveridge report of 1942. People remember Bevan, as it was he that got to implement the NHS part of it. .
Those dammed evil Tories implementing cheaper ways to do healthcare how dare they "They are pretty great sometimes. The new affordable houses that get pledged to build was a great idea. Shame they never bothered their arse to actually do it, but I guess we can’t have everything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . The NHS was proposed by Churchill but he got voted out before being able to implement it, it wasn't a labour idea
Not quite.
By 1942, the Cabinet was thinking ahead to life after war and realised they could not ask people to return to the dreadful living conditions of 1939.
So Beveridge was commissioned to chair a committee to come up with a plan for a new Britain.
Both Labour and the Conservatives endorsed the report, but Labour clearly was more enthusiastic about it than the Conservatives, who actually voted against some of the NHS legislation.
So, no, it was not Churchill's idea - Labour gets the credit for implementing Beveridge's recommendations with zeal.
(I believe Beveridge later stood as a Liberal candidate.)
". Oh dear, your spite runs deep, you just can't bear to give Tories credit for anything can you .
I prefer actual policy over colour of policy any day myself and have no qualms with decent labour policies like nationalisation of the railways or utilities, there badly run at huge profit and need doing better. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scare tactics. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Didn't work in 1945. We got the welfare state, council housing, state education, nationalised industry, the NHS and the atom bomb. The Atlee administration is the one from history Mr Corbyn admires the most. . The NHS was proposed by Churchill but he got voted out before being able to implement it, it wasn't a labour idea
Churchill was telling troops on morale tours in WW2, about the proposed welfare state and nhs.
Churchill could see great merit in the Beveridge report of 1942. People remember Bevan, as it was he that got to implement the NHS part of it. .
Those dammed evil Tories implementing cheaper ways to do healthcare how dare they
They are pretty great sometimes. The new affordable houses that get pledged to build was a great idea.
Shame they never bothered their arse to actually do it, but I guess we can’t have everything.". Not enough housing associations and certainly not enough of there developments getting planning, it's a local as well as national government problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . Oh dear, your spite runs deep, you just can't bear to give Tories credit for anything can you .
I prefer actual policy over colour of policy any day myself and have no qualms with decent labour policies like nationalisation of the railways or utilities, there badly run at huge profit and need doing better."No, I'm sticking to the facts. The wartime Cabinet was a coalition, not a Tory Government. The public well and truly kicked the arse of Churchill and his Tories when it was over. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . Oh dear, your spite runs deep, you just can't bear to give Tories credit for anything can you .
I prefer actual policy over colour of policy any day myself and have no qualms with decent labour policies like nationalisation of the railways or utilities, there badly run at huge profit and need doing better.
No, I'm sticking to the facts. The wartime Cabinet was a coalition, not a Tory Government.
The public well and truly kicked the arse of Churchill and his Tories when it was over.
". Yea he was so shit they voted him back in after seeing labour in action. Says everything | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scare tactics. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Didn't work in 1945. We got the welfare state, council housing, state education, nationalised industry, the NHS and the atom bomb. The Atlee administration is the one from history Mr Corbyn admires the most. . The NHS was proposed by Churchill but he got voted out before being able to implement it, it wasn't a labour idea
Churchill was telling troops on morale tours in WW2, about the proposed welfare state and nhs.
Churchill could see great merit in the Beveridge report of 1942. People remember Bevan, as it was he that got to implement the NHS part of it. .
Those dammed evil Tories implementing cheaper ways to do healthcare how dare they
They are pretty great sometimes. The new affordable houses that get pledged to build was a great idea.
Shame they never bothered their arse to actually do it, but I guess we can’t have everything..
Not enough housing associations and certainly not enough of there developments getting planning, it's a local as well as national government problem.
"So why make the pledge then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . Oh dear, your spite runs deep, you just can't bear to give Tories credit for anything can you .
I prefer actual policy over colour of policy any day myself and have no qualms with decent labour policies like nationalisation of the railways or utilities, there badly run at huge profit and need doing better.
No, I'm sticking to the facts. The wartime Cabinet was a coalition, not a Tory Government.
The public well and truly kicked the arse of Churchill and his Tories when it was over.
"Until 1951. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scare tactics. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Didn't work in 1945. We got the welfare state, council housing, state education, nationalised industry, the NHS and the atom bomb. The Atlee administration is the one from history Mr Corbyn admires the most. . The NHS was proposed by Churchill but he got voted out before being able to implement it, it wasn't a labour idea
Churchill was telling troops on morale tours in WW2, about the proposed welfare state and nhs.
Churchill could see great merit in the Beveridge report of 1942. People remember Bevan, as it was he that got to implement the NHS part of it. .
Those dammed evil Tories implementing cheaper ways to do healthcare how dare they
They are pretty great sometimes. The new affordable houses that get pledged to build was a great idea.
Shame they never bothered their arse to actually do it, but I guess we can’t have everything..
Not enough housing associations and certainly not enough of there developments getting planning, it's a local as well as national government problem.
So why make the pledge then?". Politicians and pledges hey!
The path to hell is paved with good intentions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Waste of a good bullet... where's me pitch fork!" Make em stand behind each other in a line | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Waste of a good bullet... where's me pitch fork! Make em stand behind each other in a line "Seemed to work well in Zimbabwe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . Yea he was so shit they voted him back in after seeing labour in action." Labour won the subsequent election in 1950. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . Yea he was so shit they voted him back in after seeing labour in action. Labour won the subsequent election in 1950. " . Oh yea, note to self, labour are so fucking amazing they never get voted out for like 13 years | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why would he shoot the rich when he is one himself. Just take, a look at the house he's got. A man for the, working class... Think again. A man for himself... Most definately " Maybe he would shoot himself I live in hope | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scare tactics. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Didn't work in 1945. We got the welfare state, council housing, state education, nationalised industry, the NHS and the atom bomb. The Atlee administration is the one from history Mr Corbyn admires the most. . The NHS was proposed by Churchill but he got voted out before being able to implement it, it wasn't a labour idea "The actual point is that Churchill predicted horror and the outcome was really rather positive. He used exactly the same reference as Boger is now. That's the point that I was making. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever people think ....The Labour Party would be far more appealing and popular without corbyn as its leader ......" No. A media and establishment backed leader would in turn make the LP far more appealing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few?" With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. " I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" " For what it's worth I absolutely think that raising the lowest band of income tax by a penny is a great idea. The harsh reality is that more of us are living longer and some collective responsibility is required. I’m only disagreeing with the ridiculous notion that the highest earners paying a bit more tax warrants a comparison between Corbyn and Stalin. Or that someone earning £100k having to pay an extra grand is sufficient incentive for them to move abroad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" For what it's worth I absolutely think that raising the lowest band of income tax by a penny is a great idea. The harsh reality is that more of us are living longer and some collective responsibility is required. I’m only disagreeing with the ridiculous notion that the highest earners paying a bit more tax warrants a comparison between Corbyn and Stalin. Or that someone earning £100k having to pay an extra grand is sufficient incentive for them to move abroad." I think the comparison between paying more tax and being shot is so ridiculous that it's clearly wasn't a genuine suggestion in the first place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" For what it's worth I absolutely think that raising the lowest band of income tax by a penny is a great idea. The harsh reality is that more of us are living longer and some collective responsibility is required. I’m only disagreeing with the ridiculous notion that the highest earners paying a bit more tax warrants a comparison between Corbyn and Stalin. Or that someone earning £100k having to pay an extra grand is sufficient incentive for them to move abroad. I think the comparison between paying more tax and being shot is so ridiculous that it's clearly wasn't a genuine suggestion in the first place. " A bit like saying BREXIT is like jumping of a cliff edge (a comparison I've used myself) when, however bad BREXIT may actually be, it's actually nothing like jumping of a cliff edge at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" " More pertinently, do you have the will back government taking in the corporation tax that is being dodged by all of the companies we use bit claim to despise... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" For what it's worth I absolutely think that raising the lowest band of income tax by a penny is a great idea. The harsh reality is that more of us are living longer and some collective responsibility is required. I’m only disagreeing with the ridiculous notion that the highest earners paying a bit more tax warrants a comparison between Corbyn and Stalin. Or that someone earning £100k having to pay an extra grand is sufficient incentive for them to move abroad. I think the comparison between paying more tax and being shot is so ridiculous that it's clearly wasn't a genuine suggestion in the first place. " So when the Conservatives put out statements comparing Corbyn to Stalin, it obviously isn't genuine? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. " Sshh... We've got to stay with the unfeasibly large bollocks, not think about reality here. As a trillionaire, with modest/large income, who wouldn't sell up and rush offshore, to save a grand  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" " . Were already a highly taxed country, it's not just our incomings that need adjusting it's our outgoings. For far to long the UK government of both colours have squandered far to much. Foreign wars, stupid battleships, nuclear weapons, NHS for everybody and anything, disastrous IT systems, research groups for Afghan hamsters. Most of us who are shall we say the working normality are paying way too much tax and getting shit all back. The rest aren't paying enough and get everything given to them, that includes the lazy, the feckless and the rich. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" . Were already a highly taxed country, it's not just our incomings that need adjusting it's our outgoings. For far to long the UK government of both colours have squandered far to much. Foreign wars, stupid battleships, nuclear weapons, NHS for everybody and anything, disastrous IT systems, research groups for Afghan hamsters. Most of us who are shall we say the working normality are paying way too much tax and getting shit all back. The rest aren't paying enough and get everything given to them, that includes the lazy, the feckless and the rich. " Was that a yes or a no? Given that EU migration creates more in taxation than is costs, will leaving the EU help with this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" . Were already a highly taxed country, it's not just our incomings that need adjusting it's our outgoings. For far to long the UK government of both colours have squandered far to much. Foreign wars, stupid battleships, nuclear weapons, NHS for everybody and anything, disastrous IT systems, research groups for Afghan hamsters. Most of us who are shall we say the working normality are paying way too much tax and getting shit all back. The rest aren't paying enough and get everything given to them, that includes the lazy, the feckless and the rich. Was that a yes or a no? Given that EU migration creates more in taxation than is costs, will leaving the EU help with this?" I would also venture to say that in my experience most EU workers are over qualified for the jobs they do, work much harder than their English counterparts and dont sponge off the nhs. The fact that they pay their taxes too should be lauded rather than subject to petty racism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" . Were already a highly taxed country, it's not just our incomings that need adjusting it's our outgoings. For far to long the UK government of both colours have squandered far to much. Foreign wars, stupid battleships, nuclear weapons, NHS for everybody and anything, disastrous IT systems, research groups for Afghan hamsters. Most of us who are shall we say the working normality are paying way too much tax and getting shit all back. The rest aren't paying enough and get everything given to them, that includes the lazy, the feckless and the rich. Was that a yes or a no? Given that EU migration creates more in taxation than is costs, will leaving the EU help with this? I would also venture to say that in my experience most EU workers are over qualified for the jobs they do, work much harder than their English counterparts and dont sponge off the nhs. The fact that they pay their taxes too should be lauded rather than subject to petty racism." The current trend is also for them to head home to resettle in retirement. So, rather like the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia (that's our model apparently), EU states pay for education and child health. Adults come here to work and pay tax which stays here. Older people's healthcare is met back in the EU. What are we leaving the EU for? We already are Singapore as we are the most deregulated market within the EU. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" . Were already a highly taxed country, it's not just our incomings that need adjusting it's our outgoings. For far to long the UK government of both colours have squandered far to much. Foreign wars, stupid battleships, nuclear weapons, NHS for everybody and anything, disastrous IT systems, research groups for Afghan hamsters. Most of us who are shall we say the working normality are paying way too much tax and getting shit all back. The rest aren't paying enough and get everything given to them, that includes the lazy, the feckless and the rich. Was that a yes or a no? Given that EU migration creates more in taxation than is costs, will leaving the EU help with this? I would also venture to say that in my experience most EU workers are over qualified for the jobs they do, work much harder than their English counterparts and dont sponge off the nhs. The fact that they pay their taxes too should be lauded rather than subject to petty racism." It always seems a bit lazy when people put a disproportionate amount of blame on EU migrants putting strain on the NHS. The bulk of the problem must surely be the massively increasing elderly indigenous population, compared to the relatively small EU migrant population, which is predominantly younger, fitter and healthier. I’m surprised that much isn’t blindingly obvious to anyone who stops to think about it for even five seconds. | |||
(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 |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. " They probably should to be honest. What I object to most though, are changes which result in the tax bill of the richest falling disproportionately more than the poorest, especially in times of austerity. I’m not really sure why that much even seems controversial. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" . Were already a highly taxed country, it's not just our incomings that need adjusting it's our outgoings. For far to long the UK government of both colours have squandered far to much. Foreign wars, stupid battleships, nuclear weapons, NHS for everybody and anything, disastrous IT systems, research groups for Afghan hamsters. Most of us who are shall we say the working normality are paying way too much tax and getting shit all back. The rest aren't paying enough and get everything given to them, that includes the lazy, the feckless and the rich. Was that a yes or a no? Given that EU migration creates more in taxation than is costs, will leaving the EU help with this?" . That's a maybe if it's spent wisely .
And your second part is misleading, it creates more GDP but lowers GDP per capita as was predicted 20 years ago by migration watch UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" . Were already a highly taxed country, it's not just our incomings that need adjusting it's our outgoings. For far to long the UK government of both colours have squandered far to much. Foreign wars, stupid battleships, nuclear weapons, NHS for everybody and anything, disastrous IT systems, research groups for Afghan hamsters. Most of us who are shall we say the working normality are paying way too much tax and getting shit all back. The rest aren't paying enough and get everything given to them, that includes the lazy, the feckless and the rich. Was that a yes or a no? Given that EU migration creates more in taxation than is costs, will leaving the EU help with this?. That's a maybe if it's spent wisely .
And your second part is misleading, it creates more GDP but lowers GDP per capita as was predicted 20 years ago by migration watch UK."So they contribute more in tax revenue than they cost the economy, but that's still not good enough? Can you expand on that at all. A quick google brings up the MW site which just said the impact on GDP per capita is minimal. And something about how they often send money back home. But the underlying point is the same - there isn't a net cost resulting from EU migration. And it has a positive contribution to tax revenue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s definitely a balancing act. But if the treasury needs more money, then increasing taxes has to be a serious option... ...and if you are going to see taxes increase, it surely makes most sense for those who can most afford it to pay a bit more. Labour are proposing a tax band of 45% between £80k and £123k instead of over £150k So someone earning £100k would pay an extra £1000 a year in It does hit Doesn’t seem that outrageous?" Definition of rich? Seems to mean “anyone with more assets than me” Note yesterday Jeremy wanted to better reward junior doctors, this policy is a hit on them.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. " What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare." It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance?" £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?" Rich is relative, poor is too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance?" Well in the good old days we had a thing called London Weighting where peoples wages were higher to account for the increased cost of living there. Unfortunately that has not kept pace with the cost of living in London and as your Tory chums want to bring in market rent for all social housing I guess thats going to make life so much better? A friend of mine is a senior cardiac nurse who lives in social housing about ten minutes walk from the big teaching hospital he works at in London. If he was to pay market rent he would be paying five times as much as he now is. To find a similar affordable rent he would have to move to the outskirts of london and travel 1 1/4 hours each way every day which of course works really well when you are working antisocial hours but even more so when there is an emergency where they need as many hands on as possible at the hospital (borough market attack was one he was called in for). So tell me how is the future looking for him do you think? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?" you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich." So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? A £160k earner is the top 1% They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich." With £100k you are in the top 1% of earners in the country. The average salary is £36k so you'd earn three times more than average. I thought it was the politicians who were out of touch and an MP only earns about £80k | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" . Were already a highly taxed country, it's not just our incomings that need adjusting it's our outgoings. For far to long the UK government of both colours have squandered far to much. Foreign wars, stupid battleships, nuclear weapons, NHS for everybody and anything, disastrous IT systems, research groups for Afghan hamsters. Most of us who are shall we say the working normality are paying way too much tax and getting shit all back. The rest aren't paying enough and get everything given to them, that includes the lazy, the feckless and the rich. Was that a yes or a no? Given that EU migration creates more in taxation than is costs, will leaving the EU help with this?. That's a maybe if it's spent wisely .
And your second part is misleading, it creates more GDP but lowers GDP per capita as was predicted 20 years ago by migration watch UK.
So they contribute more in tax revenue than they cost the economy, but that's still not good enough?
Can you expand on that at all. A quick google brings up the MW site which just said the impact on GDP per capita is minimal. And something about how they often send money back home.
But the underlying point is the same - there isn't a net cost resulting from EU migration. And it has a positive contribution to tax revenue. ". GDP and GDP per capita are two entirely different things, even the ONS shows that mass immigration lowers GDP per capita, ie less money per person, if you don't think that's a negative thing then what is?. Secondly the ONS figures which rightly show a tax gain do not take into account the added infrastructure costs that extra people require, it's simply a short term tax in tax out equation for them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s definitely a balancing act. But if the treasury needs more money, then increasing taxes has to be a serious option... ...and if you are going to see taxes increase, it surely makes most sense for those who can most afford it to pay a bit more. Labour are proposing a tax band of 45% between £80k and £123k instead of over £150k So someone earning £100k would pay an extra £1000 a year in It does hit Doesn’t seem that outrageous? Definition of rich? Seems to mean “anyone with more assets than me” Note yesterday Jeremy wanted to better reward junior doctors, this policy is a hit on them. "No, it’s not “anyone with more assets than me”. I think it’s reasonable to say that people in the lowest x% of earners are relatively poor, and those in the highest y% earners are relatively wealthy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? "The top 1% starts at £160k | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" . Were already a highly taxed country, it's not just our incomings that need adjusting it's our outgoings. For far to long the UK government of both colours have squandered far to much. Foreign wars, stupid battleships, nuclear weapons, NHS for everybody and anything, disastrous IT systems, research groups for Afghan hamsters. Most of us who are shall we say the working normality are paying way too much tax and getting shit all back. The rest aren't paying enough and get everything given to them, that includes the lazy, the feckless and the rich. Was that a yes or a no? Given that EU migration creates more in taxation than is costs, will leaving the EU help with this?. That's a maybe if it's spent wisely .
And your second part is misleading, it creates more GDP but lowers GDP per capita as was predicted 20 years ago by migration watch UK.
So they contribute more in tax revenue than they cost the economy, but that's still not good enough?
Can you expand on that at all. A quick google brings up the MW site which just said the impact on GDP per capita is minimal. And something about how they often send money back home.
But the underlying point is the same - there isn't a net cost resulting from EU migration. And it has a positive contribution to tax revenue. .
GDP and GDP per capita are two entirely different things, even the ONS shows that mass immigration lowers GDP per capita, ie less money per person, if you don't think that's a negative thing then what is?.
Secondly the ONS figures which rightly show a tax gain do not take into account the added infrastructure costs that extra people require, it's simply a short term tax in tax out equation for them."I’m are they are different things. You mentioned migration watch earlier. Even their site states: ”The impact of immigration into the UK on GDP per head – a key measure of prosperity - is essentially negligible.” With regards infrastructure I think there are economies of scale at work. Do you have a source detailing that these additional costs outweigh the taxes collected? I will stand corrected but I thought the figures for the economic contribution of EU migrants did take factors like that into account? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". With £100k you are in the top 1% of earners in the country. " Wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k"Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated. £120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers. £100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?"£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?"On £100k you're rich compared to some, poor as fook compared to others | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members."Objectively they are though. That's as much as the directors of most medium sized companies. Your accent and clothes make no difference. Can they or can they not afford a few hundred pounds more a year to cover those who are far worse off? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members.
Objectively they are though.
That's as much as the directors of most medium sized companies.
Your accent and clothes make no difference.
Can they or can they not afford a few hundred pounds more a year to cover those who are far worse off?"well that question i cannot answer as do not know all of their personal circumstances but you could use the same argument on someone who is on £25k could they afford another £100 a year or someone on £15k another £50. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members.
Objectively they are though.
That's as much as the directors of most medium sized companies.
Your accent and clothes make no difference.
Can they or can they not afford a few hundred pounds more a year to cover those who are far worse off?well that question i cannot answer as do not know all of their personal circumstances but you could use the same argument on someone who is on £25k could they afford another £100 a year or someone on £15k another £50. "That's a cop out isn't it? £70k+ earners are objectively the richest people in the country regardless of job title, earning at least twice as much as the average. £100 is far more valuable to someone on a lower income. I think you know that. There is a difference between money being required for expenses and being used or discretionary spending. What view of the UK or any society do you have where those who benefit the most do not contribute the most? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members.
Objectively they are though.
That's as much as the directors of most medium sized companies.
Your accent and clothes make no difference.
Can they or can they not afford a few hundred pounds more a year to cover those who are far worse off?well that question i cannot answer as do not know all of their personal circumstances but you could use the same argument on someone who is on £25k could they afford another £100 a year or someone on £15k another £50.
That's a cop out isn't it?
£70k+ earners are objectively the richest people in the country regardless of job title, earning at least twice as much as the average.
£100 is far more valuable to someone on a lower income. I think you know that.
There is a difference between money being required for expenses and being used or discretionary spending.
What view of the UK or any society do you have where those who benefit the most do not contribute the most?"Not a cop out at all generally people who earn more have invested more of their lives getting to the position to do that.I know you believe its luck as you have stated that before but i dont see it that way.If any of these top earners have a wife like my ex they def cant afford more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members.
Objectively they are though.
That's as much as the directors of most medium sized companies.
Your accent and clothes make no difference.
Can they or can they not afford a few hundred pounds more a year to cover those who are far worse off?well that question i cannot answer as do not know all of their personal circumstances but you could use the same argument on someone who is on £25k could they afford another £100 a year or someone on £15k another £50.
That's a cop out isn't it?
£70k+ earners are objectively the richest people in the country regardless of job title, earning at least twice as much as the average.
£100 is far more valuable to someone on a lower income. I think you know that.
There is a difference between money being required for expenses and being used or discretionary spending.
Not a cop out at all generally people who earn more have invested more of their lives getting to the position to do that.I know you believe its luck as you have stated that before but i dont see it that way.If any of these top earners have a wife like my ex they def cant afford more. ""Generally"? Generally those who earn more are the children of those who earn more. They go to better schools, have higher expectations, are better connected and have someone to fall back on both emotionally and financially. I never said all luck. But much of anyone's sucess is completely outside your control starting from where and to whom you were born. You live in penury because of your ex? Sure. Your one data point defines everything? You still haven't answered the fundamental question. What view of the UK or any society do you have where those who benefit the most do not contribute the most? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members.
Objectively they are though.
That's as much as the directors of most medium sized companies.
Your accent and clothes make no difference.
Can they or can they not afford a few hundred pounds more a year to cover those who are far worse off?well that question i cannot answer as do not know all of their personal circumstances but you could use the same argument on someone who is on £25k could they afford another £100 a year or someone on £15k another £50.
That's a cop out isn't it?
£70k+ earners are objectively the richest people in the country regardless of job title, earning at least twice as much as the average.
£100 is far more valuable to someone on a lower income. I think you know that.
There is a difference between money being required for expenses and being used or discretionary spending.
Not a cop out at all generally people who earn more have invested more of their lives getting to the position to do that.I know you believe its luck as you have stated that before but i dont see it that way.If any of these top earners have a wife like my ex they def cant afford more.
"Generally"? Generally those who earn more are the children of those who earn more.
They go to better schools, have higher expectations, are better connected and have someone to fall back on both emotionally and financially.
I never said all luck. But much of anyone's sucess is completely outside your control starting from where and to whom you were born.
You live in penury because of your ex? Sure.
Your one data point defines everything?
You still haven't answered the fundamental question.
What view of the UK or any society do you have where those who benefit the most do not contribute the most?"Im sure you are familiar with the uk tax system? when you keep saying a bit more you really mean even more (but it makes it sound good.)Over 50k you then go into the 40% tax band which as you well know is double those under it.People who earn more tend to have bigger houses so pay MORE in council tax too for exactly the same benefits.When these people with more die they then have to pay another 40% tax on what they leave so yes i think they pay enough.As for your comment how do people who earn more benefit the most they dont they have worked for it the people who benefit the most are those who havnt contributed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". With £100k you are in the top 1% of earners in the country. Wrong "OK, that was an estimate. I remember from a few years ago the top 5% was above around £45k, so those on over £100 must be around 2-3% then? Either way, I think the point remains the same. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members."The top 5% has jumped from £45k to £70k in a few years? During a time of pretty flat salary growth? What's the source for that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members.
The top 5% has jumped from £45k to £70k in a few years? During a time of pretty flat salary growth? What's the source for that?"There is a difference in income paying income tax i.e. as a salary, and income from other means as well. It kind of makes sense without digging too deeply. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members.
Objectively they are though.
That's as much as the directors of most medium sized companies.
Your accent and clothes make no difference.
Can they or can they not afford a few hundred pounds more a year to cover those who are far worse off?well that question i cannot answer as do not know all of their personal circumstances but you could use the same argument on someone who is on £25k could they afford another £100 a year or someone on £15k another £50.
That's a cop out isn't it?
£70k+ earners are objectively the richest people in the country regardless of job title, earning at least twice as much as the average.
£100 is far more valuable to someone on a lower income. I think you know that.
There is a difference between money being required for expenses and being used or discretionary spending.
Not a cop out at all generally people who earn more have invested more of their lives getting to the position to do that.I know you believe its luck as you have stated that before but i dont see it that way.If any of these top earners have a wife like my ex they def cant afford more.
"Generally"? Generally those who earn more are the children of those who earn more.
They go to better schools, have higher expectations, are better connected and have someone to fall back on both emotionally and financially.
I never said all luck. But much of anyone's sucess is completely outside your control starting from where and to whom you were born.
You live in penury because of your ex? Sure.
Your one data point defines everything?
You still haven't answered the fundamental question.
What view of the UK or any society do you have where those who benefit the most do not contribute the most?Im sure you are familiar with the uk tax system? when you keep saying a bit more you really mean even more (but it makes it sound good.)Over 50k you then go into the 40% tax band which as you well know is double those under it.People who earn more tend to have bigger houses so pay MORE in council tax too for exactly the same benefits.When these people with more die they then have to pay another 40% tax on what they leave so yes i think they pay enough.As for your comment how do people who earn more benefit the most they dont they have worked for it the people who benefit the most are those who havnt contributed. "Once you are in the higher band then a marginal increase really doesn't make that much difference does it? If you earn £51k a 1% tax increase in the higher rate is £100. That does not lead to financial disaster. You could add an intermediate tax rate above £100k Are they rich enough? People who inherit money have not worked for it. Does someone who was a banker worked harder for their money than a cleaner? How about a care worker? Who's "contributed" more? You're starting to sound like an elitist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members.
Objectively they are though.
That's as much as the directors of most medium sized companies.
Your accent and clothes make no difference.
Can they or can they not afford a few hundred pounds more a year to cover those who are far worse off?well that question i cannot answer as do not know all of their personal circumstances but you could use the same argument on someone who is on £25k could they afford another £100 a year or someone on £15k another £50.
That's a cop out isn't it?
£70k+ earners are objectively the richest people in the country regardless of job title, earning at least twice as much as the average.
£100 is far more valuable to someone on a lower income. I think you know that.
There is a difference between money being required for expenses and being used or discretionary spending.
Not a cop out at all generally people who earn more have invested more of their lives getting to the position to do that.I know you believe its luck as you have stated that before but i dont see it that way.If any of these top earners have a wife like my ex they def cant afford more.
"Generally"? Generally those who earn more are the children of those who earn more.
They go to better schools, have higher expectations, are better connected and have someone to fall back on both emotionally and financially.
I never said all luck. But much of anyone's sucess is completely outside your control starting from where and to whom you were born.
You live in penury because of your ex? Sure.
Your one data point defines everything?
You still haven't answered the fundamental question.
What view of the UK or any society do you have where those who benefit the most do not contribute the most?Im sure you are familiar with the uk tax system? when you keep saying a bit more you really mean even more (but it makes it sound good.)Over 50k you then go into the 40% tax band which as you well know is double those under it.People who earn more tend to have bigger houses so pay MORE in council tax too for exactly the same benefits.When these people with more die they then have to pay another 40% tax on what they leave so yes i think they pay enough.As for your comment how do people who earn more benefit the most they dont they have worked for it the people who benefit the most are those who havnt contributed. "”A bit more” v ”Even more”? How pedantic do you want to be? People on £50k don't pay double everyone else. They only pay the higher rate on earnings over £50k. Council tax isn't necessarily the same benefits. If its a bigger house, there is likely greater use of council services. Not do they pay 40% on what they leave. They pay 40% on anything over £325k that they leave. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members.
Objectively they are though.
That's as much as the directors of most medium sized companies.
Your accent and clothes make no difference.
Can they or can they not afford a few hundred pounds more a year to cover those who are far worse off?well that question i cannot answer as do not know all of their personal circumstances but you could use the same argument on someone who is on £25k could they afford another £100 a year or someone on £15k another £50.
That's a cop out isn't it?
£70k+ earners are objectively the richest people in the country regardless of job title, earning at least twice as much as the average.
£100 is far more valuable to someone on a lower income. I think you know that.
There is a difference between money being required for expenses and being used or discretionary spending.
Not a cop out at all generally people who earn more have invested more of their lives getting to the position to do that.I know you believe its luck as you have stated that before but i dont see it that way.If any of these top earners have a wife like my ex they def cant afford more.
"Generally"? Generally those who earn more are the children of those who earn more.
They go to better schools, have higher expectations, are better connected and have someone to fall back on both emotionally and financially.
I never said all luck. But much of anyone's sucess is completely outside your control starting from where and to whom you were born.
You live in penury because of your ex? Sure.
Your one data point defines everything?
You still haven't answered the fundamental question.
What view of the UK or any society do you have where those who benefit the most do not contribute the most?Im sure you are familiar with the uk tax system? when you keep saying a bit more you really mean even more (but it makes it sound good.)Over 50k you then go into the 40% tax band which as you well know is double those under it.People who earn more tend to have bigger houses so pay MORE in council tax too for exactly the same benefits.When these people with more die they then have to pay another 40% tax on what they leave so yes i think they pay enough.As for your comment how do people who earn more benefit the most they dont they have worked for it the people who benefit the most are those who havnt contributed.
Once you are in the higher band then a marginal increase really doesn't make that much difference does it?
If you earn £51k a 1% tax increase in the higher rate is £100. That does not lead to financial disaster.
You could add an intermediate tax rate above £100k
Are they rich enough?
People who inherit money have not worked for it.
Does someone who was a banker worked harder for their money than a cleaner?
How about a care worker?
Who's "contributed" more?
You're starting to sound like an elitist."No but their parents have to improve their childrens and granchildrens lives whats wrong with that.You are actually beginning to sound like a communist and to be honest it is not worth continuing this discussion as i know where you stand and you know where i do and we will never agree.Nothing you can say can convince me to change my mind and visa versa. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members.
Objectively they are though.
That's as much as the directors of most medium sized companies.
Your accent and clothes make no difference.
Can they or can they not afford a few hundred pounds more a year to cover those who are far worse off?well that question i cannot answer as do not know all of their personal circumstances but you could use the same argument on someone who is on £25k could they afford another £100 a year or someone on £15k another £50.
That's a cop out isn't it?
£70k+ earners are objectively the richest people in the country regardless of job title, earning at least twice as much as the average.
£100 is far more valuable to someone on a lower income. I think you know that.
There is a difference between money being required for expenses and being used or discretionary spending.
Not a cop out at all generally people who earn more have invested more of their lives getting to the position to do that.I know you believe its luck as you have stated that before but i dont see it that way.If any of these top earners have a wife like my ex they def cant afford more.
"Generally"? Generally those who earn more are the children of those who earn more.
They go to better schools, have higher expectations, are better connected and have someone to fall back on both emotionally and financially.
I never said all luck. But much of anyone's sucess is completely outside your control starting from where and to whom you were born.
You live in penury because of your ex? Sure.
Your one data point defines everything?
You still haven't answered the fundamental question.
What view of the UK or any society do you have where those who benefit the most do not contribute the most?Im sure you are familiar with the uk tax system? when you keep saying a bit more you really mean even more (but it makes it sound good.)Over 50k you then go into the 40% tax band which as you well know is double those under it.People who earn more tend to have bigger houses so pay MORE in council tax too for exactly the same benefits.When these people with more die they then have to pay another 40% tax on what they leave so yes i think they pay enough.As for your comment how do people who earn more benefit the most they dont they have worked for it the people who benefit the most are those who havnt contributed.
Once you are in the higher band then a marginal increase really doesn't make that much difference does it?
If you earn £51k a 1% tax increase in the higher rate is £100. That does not lead to financial disaster.
You could add an intermediate tax rate above £100k
Are they rich enough?
People who inherit money have not worked for it.
Does someone who was a banker worked harder for their money than a cleaner?
How about a care worker?
Who's "contributed" more?
You're starting to sound like an elitist.No but their parents have to improve their childrens and granchildrens lives whats wrong with that.You are actually beginning to sound like a communist and to be honest it is not worth continuing this discussion as i know where you stand and you know where i do and we will never agree.Nothing you can say can convince me to change my mind and visa versa."Suggesting that an extra 1% on higher tax brackets is more easily absorbed by higher earners than lower earners makes someone sound like a communist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Suggesting that an extra 1% on higher tax brackets is more easily absorbed by higher earners than lower earners makes someone sound like a communist? "If your outlook is self-centred, and you believe your raison d'être is to accumulate great wads of cash and to hell with everyone else, then yes it probably does sound very scary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" More pertinently, do you have the will back government taking in the corporation tax that is being dodged by all of the companies we use bit claim to despise..." Personally I think all this talk about taxing "the few" and "the corporations" is just away of telling people that they can have all these wonderful things and they won't have to pay anymore themselves because someone else is going to pay for it all. It's a good offer if you believe it but I don't. Taxing just the "few" a "little more" is just not going to be enough and increases in corporation tax don't always bring in more money. On the foreign owned companies not paying their "fair share"; this is a much more difficult nut to crack than it sounds. France recently tried this and the US is taking them to court. Also if all companies paid tax in the country where the trading has been done rather than in the country where the company is based, as Britain has many multi national companies based here we may not actually end up with more tax revenue and quite possibly less. There may be moral cases for doing all or some of these tax changes but will they actually bring in enough extra money or even any extra money is debatable. And if they don't it won't be just those earning £80,000+ who will end up paying more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" For what it's worth I absolutely think that raising the lowest band of income tax by a penny is a great idea. The harsh reality is that more of us are living longer and some collective responsibility is required. I’m only disagreeing with the ridiculous notion that the highest earners paying a bit more tax warrants a comparison between Corbyn and Stalin. Or that someone earning £100k having to pay an extra grand is sufficient incentive for them to move abroad. I think the comparison between paying more tax and being shot is so ridiculous that it's clearly wasn't a genuine suggestion in the first place. So when the Conservatives put out statements comparing Corbyn to Stalin, it obviously isn't genuine?" Well it's genuine but only in the same way that a penny is like a pound. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. " The LibDems are saying just that. 1p in the pound extra on income tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s definitely a balancing act. But if the treasury needs more money, then increasing taxes has to be a serious option... ...and if you are going to see taxes increase, it surely makes most sense for those who can most afford it to pay a bit more. Labour are proposing a tax band of 45% between £80k and £123k instead of over £150k So someone earning £100k would pay an extra £1000 a year in It does hit Doesn’t seem that outrageous? Definition of rich? Seems to mean “anyone with more assets than me” Note yesterday Jeremy wanted to better reward junior doctors, this policy is a hit on them. "As a rough guide, unless you think yourself poor or rich then if someone is earning twice as much or more than you then you will probably think they're rich and if they're earning half or less than you then you will probably think they're poor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" More pertinently, do you have the will back government taking in the corporation tax that is being dodged by all of the companies we use bit claim to despise... Personally I think all this talk about taxing "the few" and "the corporations" is just away of telling people that they can have all these wonderful things and they won't have to pay anymore themselves because someone else is going to pay for it all. It's a good offer if you believe it but I don't. Taxing just the "few" a "little more" is just not going to be enough and increases in corporation tax don't always bring in more money. On the foreign owned companies not paying their "fair share"; this is a much more difficult nut to crack than it sounds. France recently tried this and the US is taking them to court. Also if all companies paid tax in the country where the trading has been done rather than in the country where the company is based, as Britain has many multi national companies based here we may not actually end up with more tax revenue and quite possibly less. There may be moral cases for doing all or some of these tax changes but will they actually bring in enough extra money or even any extra money is debatable. And if they don't it won't be just those earning £80,000+ who will end up paying more." . Ah but we live in a morality world of justice!!!. Personally I couldn't give a rat's arse about somebody's morals,I leave that to individuals to sort out themselves, as long as they don't brake the laws we've all agreed upon do what the fuck you like. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? The top 1% starts at £160k
Actually you are correct that the figures have changed but the IFS calculator has not been updated.
£120k top 1% of earners and £160k top 1% of income tax payers.
£100k income tax payers are "only" top 2%
That statistic aside, £100k a year salary, three times the average, is not rich? You couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds a year in income tax?£70k is the top 5% this brings in some construction workers, train drivers doctors etc i dont see these people as the elite who they are made out to be and see why the trade unions have a problem with some labour policies as it affects their members.
Objectively they are though.
That's as much as the directors of most medium sized companies.
Your accent and clothes make no difference.
Can they or can they not afford a few hundred pounds more a year to cover those who are far worse off?well that question i cannot answer as do not know all of their personal circumstances but you could use the same argument on someone who is on £25k could they afford another £100 a year or someone on £15k another £50.
That's a cop out isn't it?
£70k+ earners are objectively the richest people in the country regardless of job title, earning at least twice as much as the average.
£100 is far more valuable to someone on a lower income. I think you know that.
There is a difference between money being required for expenses and being used or discretionary spending.
Not a cop out at all generally people who earn more have invested more of their lives getting to the position to do that.I know you believe its luck as you have stated that before but i dont see it that way.If any of these top earners have a wife like my ex they def cant afford more.
"Generally"? Generally those who earn more are the children of those who earn more.
They go to better schools, have higher expectations, are better connected and have someone to fall back on both emotionally and financially.
I never said all luck. But much of anyone's sucess is completely outside your control starting from where and to whom you were born.
You live in penury because of your ex? Sure.
Your one data point defines everything?
You still haven't answered the fundamental question.
What view of the UK or any society do you have where those who benefit the most do not contribute the most?Im sure you are familiar with the uk tax system? when you keep saying a bit more you really mean even more (but it makes it sound good.)Over 50k you then go into the 40% tax band which as you well know is double those under it.People who earn more tend to have bigger houses so pay MORE in council tax too for exactly the same benefits.When these people with more die they then have to pay another 40% tax on what they leave so yes i think they pay enough.As for your comment how do people who earn more benefit the most they dont they have worked for it the people who benefit the most are those who havnt contributed.
Once you are in the higher band then a marginal increase really doesn't make that much difference does it?
If you earn £51k a 1% tax increase in the higher rate is £100. That does not lead to financial disaster.
You could add an intermediate tax rate above £100k
Are they rich enough?
People who inherit money have not worked for it.
Does someone who was a banker worked harder for their money than a cleaner?
How about a care worker?
Who's "contributed" more?
You're starting to sound like an elitist.No but their parents have to improve their childrens and granchildrens lives whats wrong with that.You are actually beginning to sound like a communist and to be honest it is not worth continuing this discussion as i know where you stand and you know where i do and we will never agree.Nothing you can say can convince me to change my mind and visa versa."There's nothing wrong with leaving money. The more that is passed on the bigger the wealth ( not pay) gap becomes. Family advantage. Allowing a house to be bought near a good school or investments to be made. If you inherit, any argument that you have worked for it is a nonsense. It's fixing the difference. Your position seems to be that someone earning £100k is not rich and couldn't afford another couple of hundred pounds. Your position is also that a banker has contributed and a care worker hasn't as income directly reflects worth. Still asking: "What view of the UK or any society do you have where those who benefit the most do not contribute the most?" ...but I forgot, someone on £100k is too financially stretched paying for their holiday flight upgrade. Who does pay for what the country spends then? Companies dodge their taxes so that they can pay the bonuses of their directors and the dividends of the people who invest their spare money in shares... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" More pertinently, do you have the will back government taking in the corporation tax that is being dodged by all of the companies we use bit claim to despise... Personally I think all this talk about taxing "the few" and "the corporations" is just away of telling people that they can have all these wonderful things and they won't have to pay anymore themselves because someone else is going to pay for it all. It's a good offer if you believe it but I don't. Taxing just the "few" a "little more" is just not going to be enough and increases in corporation tax don't always bring in more money. On the foreign owned companies not paying their "fair share"; this is a much more difficult nut to crack than it sounds. France recently tried this and the US is taking them to court. Also if all companies paid tax in the country where the trading has been done rather than in the country where the company is based, as Britain has many multi national companies based here we may not actually end up with more tax revenue and quite possibly less. There may be moral cases for doing all or some of these tax changes but will they actually bring in enough extra money or even any extra money is debatable. And if they don't it won't be just those earning £80,000+ who will end up paying more." You usually work with the facts. Do people have spare money? Can they buy property? Can they save? Invest? Is that because most of the population is lazy or feckless? Are you basically saying it's too hard to get companies to pay their tax so don't bother? They should be allowed to suck up money globally and buy competitors and increase barriers to entry. It's always been about a lack of government will and a marginal tax increase is not going to cause a mass exodus. That's always the dramatisation. The imposition of a sudden super-tax. Who has actually proposed that? Do you really think that rich people will move to The Isle of Man? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich? "It’s all relative. What western socialists fail to appreciate is someone earning a modest £20k in the UK is in the top 5% of earners in the world. They believe in wealth redistribution, but only down to their level of wealth... it’s suddenly far less attractive when global wealth redistribution is suggested. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s definitely a balancing act. But if the treasury needs more money, then increasing taxes has to be a serious option... ...and if you are going to see taxes increase, it surely makes most sense for those who can most afford it to pay a bit more. Labour are proposing a tax band of 45% between £80k and £123k instead of over £150k So someone earning £100k would pay an extra £1000 a year in It does hit Doesn’t seem that outrageous? Definition of rich? Seems to mean “anyone with more assets than me” Note yesterday Jeremy wanted to better reward junior doctors, this policy is a hit on them.
No, it’s not “anyone with more assets than me”.
I think it’s reasonable to say that people in the lowest x% of earners are relatively poor, and those in the highest y% earners are relatively wealthy."As in my previous post, even the lowest earners in the UK are extremely wealthy compared to the average person in the global population | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich?
It’s all relative. What western socialists fail to appreciate is someone earning a modest £20k in the UK is in the top 5% of earners in the world. They believe in wealth redistribution, but only down to their level of wealth... it’s suddenly far less attractive when global wealth redistribution is suggested."Nice point that mate never thought of that.Im now looking forward to some peoples posts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich?
It’s all relative. What western socialists fail to appreciate is someone earning a modest £20k in the UK is in the top 5% of earners in the world. They believe in wealth redistribution, but only down to their level of wealth... it’s suddenly far less attractive when global wealth redistribution is suggested.Nice point that mate never thought of that.Im now looking forward to some peoples posts. "Human envy only looks upwards . The average Brit would do well to visit some impoverished countries and lean to appreciate their good fortune in where they where born! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"It’s definitely a balancing act. But if the treasury needs more money, then increasing taxes has to be a serious option... ...and if you are going to see taxes increase, it surely makes most sense for those who can most afford it to pay a bit more. Labour are proposing a tax band of 45% between £80k and £123k instead of over £150k So someone earning £100k would pay an extra £1000 a year in It does hit Doesn’t seem that outrageous? Definition of rich? Seems to mean “anyone with more assets than me” Note yesterday Jeremy wanted to better reward junior doctors, this policy is a hit on them.
No, it’s not “anyone with more assets than me”.
I think it’s reasonable to say that people in the lowest x% of earners are relatively poor, and those in the highest y% earners are relatively wealthy.
As in my previous post, even the lowest earners in the UK are extremely wealthy compared to the average person in the global population "...and that's what foreign aid and investment is for. That's also what the EU does in its development funding. That's also what the Paris climate agreement tries to acknowledge. You will find that those not wanting tax increases also don't want spending on foreign aid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich?
It’s all relative. What western socialists fail to appreciate is someone earning a modest £20k in the UK is in the top 5% of earners in the world. They believe in wealth redistribution, but only down to their level of wealth... it’s suddenly far less attractive when global wealth redistribution is suggested."I appreciate it very well. Look up Hans Rosling's TED talks. Eating less meat, using less resource. I'm fine with that. It's necessary. Sorry to disappoint  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich?
It’s all relative. What western socialists fail to appreciate is someone earning a modest £20k in the UK is in the top 5% of earners in the world. They believe in wealth redistribution, but only down to their level of wealth... it’s suddenly far less attractive when global wealth redistribution is suggested.Nice point that mate never thought of that.Im now looking forward to some peoples posts.
Human envy only looks upwards . The average Brit would do well to visit some impoverished countries and lean to appreciate their good fortune in where they where born! "Just to confirm, because there is global inequality that justifies national inequality? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich?
It’s all relative. What western socialists fail to appreciate is someone earning a modest £20k in the UK is in the top 5% of earners in the world. They believe in wealth redistribution, but only down to their level of wealth... it’s suddenly far less attractive when global wealth redistribution is suggested.Nice point that mate never thought of that.Im now looking forward to some peoples posts.
Human envy only looks upwards . The average Brit would do well to visit some impoverished countries and lean to appreciate their good fortune in where they where born! "Well now if we want to explore first world problems and selfishness how about reminding you all that one of the big claims pre-referendum by the Brexiteers was “lets stop giving our foreign aid money away to all these foreign countries”....and that didn’t mean the EU btw. Brexit has brought out the ugliest traits of our society and made us look smaller and less influential in the world today but I guess if it all goes to shit here then at least the immigrants will stop coming here and taking all our jobs, money, services, women, benefits and anything else thats left to steal eh? Oh and for those who struggle a bit on here that was all said with a deep sense of irony. I like the world and most of the people who live in it and I would rather be paying 1p more in the pound to make life better for all than playing king of the castle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s definitely a balancing act. But if the treasury needs more money, then increasing taxes has to be a serious option... ...and if you are going to see taxes increase, it surely makes most sense for those who can most afford it to pay a bit more. Labour are proposing a tax band of 45% between £80k and £123k instead of over £150k So someone earning £100k would pay an extra £1000 a year in It does hit Doesn’t seem that outrageous? Definition of rich? Seems to mean “anyone with more assets than me” Note yesterday Jeremy wanted to better reward junior doctors, this policy is a hit on them.
No, it’s not “anyone with more assets than me”.
I think it’s reasonable to say that people in the lowest x% of earners are relatively poor, and those in the highest y% earners are relatively wealthy.
As in my previous post, even the lowest earners in the UK are extremely wealthy compared to the average person in the global population
...and that's what foreign aid and investment is for.
That's also what the EU does in its development funding.
That's also what the Paris climate agreement tries to acknowledge.
You will find that those not wanting tax increases also don't want spending on foreign aid."You are joking right? Go speak to a low wage, labour voter in Northern England who wants increased taxation, ask their views on foreign aid.. besides foreign aid is a token effort, it does very little in redistribution of western wealth to the rest of the world. We gift a fraction of our national GDP as foreign aid, usually with string attached that ultimately benefit our own GDP... meanwhile domestically we redistribute 45% of the earnings of those who pay top rate tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich?
It’s all relative. What western socialists fail to appreciate is someone earning a modest £20k in the UK is in the top 5% of earners in the world. They believe in wealth redistribution, but only down to their level of wealth... it’s suddenly far less attractive when global wealth redistribution is suggested.Nice point that mate never thought of that.Im now looking forward to some peoples posts.
Human envy only looks upwards . The average Brit would do well to visit some impoverished countries and lean to appreciate their good fortune in where they where born!
Well now if we want to explore first world problems and selfishness how about reminding you all that one of the big claims pre-referendum by the Brexiteers was “lets stop giving our foreign aid money away to all these foreign countries”....and that didn’t mean the EU btw. Brexit has brought out the ugliest traits of our society and made us look smaller and less influential in the world today but I guess if it all goes to shit here then at least the immigrants will stop coming here and taking all our jobs, money, services, women, benefits and anything else thats left to steal eh? Oh and for those who struggle a bit on here that was all said with a deep sense of irony. I like the world and most of the people who live in it and I would rather be paying 1p more in the pound to make life better for all than playing king of the castle."1p more this year, 1p more next year, 1p more the year after, where does it stop? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just to confirm, because there is global inequality that justifies national inequality?" I am not trying to justify national inequality, I am simply highlighting the hypocrisy of western socialism.
It is hypocrisy I am equally guilty of, I would be happy for those wealthier than me to pay more tax so I don’t have too.. but I appreciate if such policies are badly implemented it would be highly damaging to the economy
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just to confirm, because there is global inequality that justifies national inequality? I am not trying to justify national inequality, I am simply highlighting the hypocrisy of western socialism.
It is hypocrisy I am equally guilty of, I would be happy for those wealthier than me to pay more tax so I don’t have too.. but I appreciate if such policies are badly implemented it would be highly damaging to the economy
"I don’t think it’s that simple though, so I don’t think it’s hypocrisy at all. What do you propose people do to avoid being hypocrites? Give their money away? And what about the massive differences in the cost of living around the world? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"seems to me a lot of people on here would be happy to pay more tax so why not just put a penny on everyone the more you earn the more you pay.This is the sensible way to do it but no party would ever suggest it as the others would slaughter them even though they would like to do it themselves. What's wrong with the wealthiest paying tax that they don't notice rather than the poor paying tax which actually has an effect on their daily life? A poor person has to spend all of their money. Every penny is accounted for. A rich person has money to spare.It depends who you call wealthy would you class a london tube driver as wealthy for instance? £55k base with a few up to £100k? They are all rich. Top 5% I think they could afford to pay a bit more. Some more than others. What do you think?you see we have a different perspective of what is rich i wouldnt class someone on £100k rich comfortable yes but not rich. So you wouldn’t class people who are probably in the top 1% of earners as rich?
It’s all relative. What western socialists fail to appreciate is someone earning a modest £20k in the UK is in the top 5% of earners in the world. They believe in wealth redistribution, but only down to their level of wealth... it’s suddenly far less attractive when global wealth redistribution is suggested.Nice point that mate never thought of that.Im now looking forward to some peoples posts.
Human envy only looks upwards . The average Brit would do well to visit some impoverished countries and lean to appreciate their good fortune in where they where born!
Well now if we want to explore first world problems and selfishness how about reminding you all that one of the big claims pre-referendum by the Brexiteers was “lets stop giving our foreign aid money away to all these foreign countries”....and that didn’t mean the EU btw. Brexit has brought out the ugliest traits of our society and made us look smaller and less influential in the world today but I guess if it all goes to shit here then at least the immigrants will stop coming here and taking all our jobs, money, services, women, benefits and anything else thats left to steal eh? Oh and for those who struggle a bit on here that was all said with a deep sense of irony. I like the world and most of the people who live in it and I would rather be paying 1p more in the pound to make life better for all than playing king of the castle.
1p more this year, 1p more next year, 1p more the year after, where does it stop?"Given how infrequently the rate of income tax changes, why do you say that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s definitely a balancing act. But if the treasury needs more money, then increasing taxes has to be a serious option... ...and if you are going to see taxes increase, it surely makes most sense for those who can most afford it to pay a bit more. Labour are proposing a tax band of 45% between £80k and £123k instead of over £150k So someone earning £100k would pay an extra £1000 a year in It does hit Doesn’t seem that outrageous? Definition of rich? Seems to mean “anyone with more assets than me” Note yesterday Jeremy wanted to better reward junior doctors, this policy is a hit on them.
No, it’s not “anyone with more assets than me”.
I think it’s reasonable to say that people in the lowest x% of earners are relatively poor, and those in the highest y% earners are relatively wealthy.
As in my previous post, even the lowest earners in the UK are extremely wealthy compared to the average person in the global population "Sure, but unless you factor in the cost of living and things like levels of government taxation, borrowing and spending on different countries it a moot point, and you’re comparing oranges with apples. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . Yea he was so shit they voted him back in after seeing labour in action. Labour won the subsequent election in 1950. " And lost the snap election the following year when Churchill became PM for his second term of office. He retired in 1955. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just to confirm, because there is global inequality that justifies national inequality? I am not trying to justify national inequality, I am simply highlighting the hypocrisy of western socialism.
It is hypocrisy I am equally guilty of, I would be happy for those wealthier than me to pay more tax so I don’t have too.. but I appreciate if such policies are badly implemented it would be highly damaging to the economy
I don’t think it’s that simple though, so I don’t think it’s hypocrisy at all. What do you propose people do to avoid being hypocrites? Give their money away? And what about the massive differences in the cost of living around the world?". The difference when you give it away is you get to choose who and what you give it too. When it's taken, they get to choose and sadly alot of things the government spend it on is not the priority the person it's taken from would choose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just to confirm, because there is global inequality that justifies national inequality? I am not trying to justify national inequality, I am simply highlighting the hypocrisy of western socialism.
It is hypocrisy I am equally guilty of, I would be happy for those wealthier than me to pay more tax so I don’t have too.. but I appreciate if such policies are badly implemented it would be highly damaging to the economy
I don’t think it’s that simple though, so I don’t think it’s hypocrisy at all. What do you propose people do to avoid being hypocrites? Give their money away? And what about the massive differences in the cost of living around the world?.
The difference when you give it away is you get to choose who and what you give it too.
When it's taken, they get to choose and sadly alot of things the government spend it on is not the priority the person it's taken from would choose."Sure, but it sounds like you’re going off on a tangent, whilst ignoring the original point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that nurses should not earn enough to afford a comfortable life and that schools don’t have enough money for glue sticks while the like of that apprentice wanker stock piles money like it’s crack is quite frankly abhorrent. BJ (I meant come on) is a posh boy with no integrity and has no concept of how people live with no silver spoon. Try working in food banks, or schools or living on universal credit and then tell me at 80k a year you can’t afford £1000 tax. JC all the way.... " Someone on £80k pays a heck of a lot more than £1000 in tax . It’s nearer £25k income tax + NI. For those with children there are further benefit claw backs too. A couple who both work and earn £40k each pay considerably less tax between them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that nurses should not earn enough to afford a comfortable life and that schools don’t have enough money for glue sticks while the like of that apprentice wanker stock piles money like it’s crack is quite frankly abhorrent. BJ (I meant come on) is a posh boy with no integrity and has no concept of how people live with no silver spoon. Try working in food banks, or schools or living on universal credit and then tell me at 80k a year you can’t afford £1000 tax. JC all the way.... Someone on £80k pays a heck of a lot more than £1000 in tax . It’s nearer £25k income tax + NI. For those with children there are further benefit claw backs too. A couple who both work and earn £40k each pay considerably less tax between them"I meant the £1000 more labour’s manifesto is proposing ....... serously? You’re comparing those wages to a nurse or teacher on £30k? Precisely my point ..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whichever way you look at it, it beggars belief that after years of austerity, which have had the biggest impact on those on lower incomes, any government should propose raising that threshold from £50k to £80k. How can they, with a straight face, talk austerity, whilst quite happily leaving around £10bn on the table annually just so that the highest earners can pay less tax? " . The 50k-80k bracket are the ones with the most debt as well. They'll probably use it to pay their debt down, the banking industry still isn't as safe as they claim it is, in fact in many ways it's worse now than in 08 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that nurses should not earn enough to afford a comfortable life and that schools don’t have enough money for glue sticks while the like of that apprentice wanker stock piles money like it’s crack is quite frankly abhorrent. BJ (I meant come on) is a posh boy with no integrity and has no concept of how people live with no silver spoon. Try working in food banks, or schools or living on universal credit and then tell me at 80k a year you can’t afford £1000 tax. JC all the way.... " . This kind of thinking is why communism is on the rise, it is of course mostly bollocks propagandised over the tinterweb. Communism has been tried in over 100 countries for 100 years, it lead to far worse problems than glue sticks and food banks. Nurses get paid what the market dictates not whether Boris is wealthy or a nitwit or both | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whichever way you look at it, it beggars belief that after years of austerity, which have had the biggest impact on those on lower incomes, any government should propose raising that threshold from £50k to £80k. How can they, with a straight face, talk austerity, whilst quite happily leaving around £10bn on the table annually just so that the highest earners can pay less tax? . The 50k-80k bracket are the ones with the most debt as well. They'll probably use it to pay their debt down, the banking industry still isn't as safe as they claim it is, in fact in many ways it's worse now than in 08 "Sure, but If they are earning £50-80k a year they should be as able to service their debt as anyone else. I don’t really see how that is any sort of argument for increasing that tax band by 60%. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that nurses should not earn enough to afford a comfortable life and that schools don’t have enough money for glue sticks while the like of that apprentice wanker stock piles money like it’s crack is quite frankly abhorrent. BJ (I meant come on) is a posh boy with no integrity and has no concept of how people live with no silver spoon. Try working in food banks, or schools or living on universal credit and then tell me at 80k a year you can’t afford £1000 tax. JC all the way.... . This kind of thinking is why communism is on the rise, it is of course mostly bollocks propagandised over the tinterweb. Communism has been tried in over 100 countries for 100 years, it lead to far worse problems than glue sticks and food banks. Nurses get paid what the market dictates not whether Boris is wealthy or a nitwit or both "What the hell is with this obsession with communism? Arguing against the need to raise that tax band, or modestly increasing the amount of tax the highest earners pay is hardly communism taking over. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" . Yea he was so shit they voted him back in after seeing labour in action. Labour won the subsequent election in 1950. And lost the snap election the following year when Churchill became PM for his second term of office. He retired in 1955." Yes, history shows repeatedly the public does not look kindly on parties that call snap elections. It pisses of the public. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that nurses should not earn enough to afford a comfortable life and that schools don’t have enough money for glue sticks while the like of that apprentice wanker stock piles money like it’s crack is quite frankly abhorrent. BJ (I meant come on) is a posh boy with no integrity and has no concept of how people live with no silver spoon. Try working in food banks, or schools or living on universal credit and then tell me at 80k a year you can’t afford £1000 tax. JC all the way.... . This kind of thinking is why communism is on the rise, it is of course mostly bollocks propagandised over the tinterweb. Communism has been tried in over 100 countries for 100 years, it lead to far worse problems than glue sticks and food banks. Nurses get paid what the market dictates not whether Boris is wealthy or a nitwit or both
What the hell is with this obsession with communism? Arguing against the need to raise that tax band, or modestly increasing the amount of tax the highest earners pay is hardly communism taking over. ". All communistic traits start with dividing the population between the haves and the have nots. I was simply pointing out that market forces and not Boris Johnson set nurses wages. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whichever way you look at it, it beggars belief that after years of austerity, which have had the biggest impact on those on lower incomes, any government should propose raising that threshold from £50k to £80k. How can they, with a straight face, talk austerity, whilst quite happily leaving around £10bn on the table annually just so that the highest earners can pay less tax? . The 50k-80k bracket are the ones with the most debt as well. They'll probably use it to pay their debt down, the banking industry still isn't as safe as they claim it is, in fact in many ways it's worse now than in 08
Sure, but If they are earning £50-80k a year they should be as able to service their debt as anyone else. I don’t really see how that is any sort of argument for increasing that tax band by 60%.". The middle class have taken the brunt of austerity for ten years, they've paid more into the system than everybody else put together hence why their debt ratio is higher. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone mentioned the fairytale/conspiracy known as “cultural Marxism” ..?? I thought I’d just throw it out there as it usually pops up... "Yes, the retreat of the snowflakes, usually. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The middle class have taken the brunt of austerity for ten years, they've paid more into the system than everybody else put together hence why their debt ratio is higher." Eh? How has someone on, say, £50k felt the burden of austerity more than anyone else? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How many millions of jobs did you predict would be lost when Labour announced plans for a minimum wage? I remember all the scare stories then. Same as now. Austerity has seen a decade of wealth redistribution - taking away spending from the many and giving it to the few in the form of tax cuts. Time to reverse the trend. " . The top 1% are paying a larger ratio of the income tax (27%) than under Tony Blair or Margret Thatcher or Harold Wilson | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nurses get paid what the market dictates not whether " The suicide rate among nurses is far higher than the national average. The issue isn't so much about pay, as it is about relieving the huge stress on an organisation and its staff. Demand for NHS support is relentless, but we keep asking the staff to do more with less. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nurses get paid what the market dictates not whether The suicide rate among nurses is far higher than the national average. The issue isn't so much about pay, as it is about relieving the huge stress on an organisation and its staff. Demand for NHS support is relentless, but we keep asking the staff to do more with less. " . Male or female suicide? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The rate is higher among female nurses. " . 300 nurses in 7 years out of 350,000 nurses in total. It's hardly an epidemic despite being bad. Thankfully it seems to be dropping off over the last two years | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How many millions of jobs did you predict would be lost when Labour announced plans for a minimum wage? I remember all the scare stories then. Same as now. Austerity has seen a decade of wealth redistribution - taking away spending from the many and giving it to the few in the form of tax cuts. Time to reverse the trend. . The top 1% are paying a larger ratio of the income tax (27%) than under Tony Blair or Margret Thatcher or Harold Wilson" Probably because the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest has grown. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look at HMRC they show that the top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of the income tax revenue where as the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax revenue. When Jeremy forces that 1% to leave and not pay the 27% of income tax (which they can do easily because there wealthy) the bottom 50% will have been well and truly fucked over by the very man they thought was Santa. Sad but this whole cycle is hundreds of years old and the same old same old is always touted by the same old douche bags and the outcome is always the same." How is he forcing them to leave? What are your actual calculations that have made you arrive at that conclusion? Someone on £1000k would pay an extra £1k a year. Is that really sufficient to force them to leave? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look at HMRC they show that the top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of the income tax revenue where as the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax revenue. When Jeremy forces that 1% to leave and not pay the 27% of income tax (which they can do easily because there wealthy) the bottom 50% will have been well and truly fucked over by the very man they thought was Santa. Sad but this whole cycle is hundreds of years old and the same old same old is always touted by the same old douche bags and the outcome is always the same. How is he forcing them to leave? What are your actual calculations that have made you arrive at that conclusion? Someone on £1000k would pay an extra £1k a year. Is that really sufficient to force them to leave?" Where did you get that figure? they havnt said how much yet someone on here used it as an example unless he has a copy of their budget. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" More pertinently, do you have the will back government taking in the corporation tax that is being dodged by all of the companies we use bit claim to despise... Personally I think all this talk about taxing "the few" and "the corporations" is just away of telling people that they can have all these wonderful things and they won't have to pay anymore themselves because someone else is going to pay for it all. It's a good offer if you believe it but I don't. Taxing just the "few" a "little more" is just not going to be enough and increases in corporation tax don't always bring in more money. On the foreign owned companies not paying their "fair share"; this is a much more difficult nut to crack than it sounds. France recently tried this and the US is taking them to court. Also if all companies paid tax in the country where the trading has been done rather than in the country where the company is based, as Britain has many multi national companies based here we may not actually end up with more tax revenue and quite possibly less. There may be moral cases for doing all or some of these tax changes but will they actually bring in enough extra money or even any extra money is debatable. And if they don't it won't be just those earning £80,000+ who will end up paying more. You usually work with the facts. " You're right I usually do but here I'm giving an opinion " Do people have spare money? " What is 'spare money' and who am I to decide if someone else has some or not? " Can they buy property? Can they save? Invest? " I don't know. Some can, some can't. I guess it depends what other commitments they've taken on. " Is that because most of the population is lazy or feckless? " No " Are you basically saying it's too hard to get companies to pay their tax so don't bother? They should be allowed to suck up money globally and buy competitors and increase barriers to entry. " No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that most companies pay their corporation tax in the country they are actually incorporated in and that for a country like the UK which has a large number of multinational companies incorporated here changing that so that companies pay more tax in the countries they are trading in rather than the country they are incorporated in, on balance, may not actually lead to more money being available to the UK government. " It's always been about a lack of government will and a marginal tax increase is not going to cause a mass exodus. That's always the dramatisation. The imposition of a sudden super-tax. [\quote] I never said a marginal increase in tax would lead to a mass exodus but I am questioning whether a marginal increase in taxes on the rich and corporations, and changes to the bases on which we tax companies, would actually bring in enough extra money or even any extra money at all [\quote] Who has actually proposed that? " Who has proposed what? " Do you really think that rich people will move to The Isle of Man?" No, do you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think before we decide whether we should shoot or tax the rich we need to know who people think the rich are. In my case a lot of people I work and associate with think I'm rich but quite a lot of the people I call my friends think I'm poor. Myself personally feel that, while nowhere near as rich as I once was, I'm certainly quite comfortable. So am I one of Corbyn's many or one of Corbyn's few? With income tax it's people earning more than £80k a year who would pay a but more. Seeing as anyone earning more than around £45-50k is in the top 5% of earners it's a pretty small percentage of people who would be affected. I asked earlier if anyone thought that someone earning £100k a year paying an extra £1,000 a year in income tax was that outrageous, or sufficient to make them want to move abroad. No-one really answered. It's as though people don't really get what the Labour proposals would entail, but just hear the headline about taxing the rich. I think it's more to do with people not really believing that the problems we face can be solved by only taxing a few people a little bit more. Is asking someone earnings £100,000 pounds to pay £1,000 more asking too much? Why not ask the question that actually needs to asked of everyone, which is "Are you willing to pay an extra penny in the pound in tax to solve our problems and do you think that will be enough?" More pertinently, do you have the will back government taking in the corporation tax that is being dodged by all of the companies we use bit claim to despise... Personally I think all this talk about taxing "the few" and "the corporations" is just away of telling people that they can have all these wonderful things and they won't have to pay anymore themselves because someone else is going to pay for it all. It's a good offer if you believe it but I don't. Taxing just the "few" a "little more" is just not going to be enough and increases in corporation tax don't always bring in more money. On the foreign owned companies not paying their "fair share"; this is a much more difficult nut to crack than it sounds. France recently tried this and the US is taking them to court. Also if all companies paid tax in the country where the trading has been done rather than in the country where the company is based, as Britain has many multi national companies based here we may not actually end up with more tax revenue and quite possibly less. There may be moral cases for doing all or some of these tax changes but will they actually bring in enough extra money or even any extra money is debatable. And if they don't it won't be just those earning £80,000+ who will end up paying more. You usually work with the facts. " You're right I usually do but here I'm giving an opinion " Do people have spare money? " What is 'spare money' and who am I to decide if someone else has some or not? " Can they buy property? Can they save? Invest? " I don't know. Some can, some can't. I guess it depends what other commitments they've taken on. " Is that because most of the population is lazy or feckless? " No " Are you basically saying it's too hard to get companies to pay their tax so don't bother? They should be allowed to suck up money globally and buy competitors and increase barriers to entry. " No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that most companies pay their corporation tax in the country they are actually incorporated in and that for a country like the UK which has a large number of multinational companies incorporated here changing that so that companies pay more tax in the countries they are trading in rather than the country they are incorporated in, on balance, may not actually lead to more money being available to the UK government. " It's always been about a lack of government will and a marginal tax increase is not going to cause a mass exodus. That's always the dramatisation. The imposition of a sudden super-tax. " I never said a marginal increase in tax would lead to a mass exodus but I am questioning whether a marginal increase in taxes on the rich and corporations, and changes to the bases on which we tax companies, would actually bring in enough extra money or even any extra money at all " Who has actually proposed that? " Who has proposed what? " Do you really think that rich people will move to The Isle of Man?" No, do you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look at HMRC they show that the top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of the income tax revenue where as the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax revenue. When Jeremy forces that 1% to leave and not pay the 27% of income tax (which they can do easily because there wealthy) the bottom 50% will have been well and truly fucked over by the very man they thought was Santa. Sad but this whole cycle is hundreds of years old and the same old same old is always touted by the same old douche bags and the outcome is always the same. How is he forcing them to leave? What are your actual calculations that have made you arrive at that conclusion? Someone on £1000k would pay an extra £1k a year. Is that really sufficient to force them to leave?Where did you get that figure? they havnt said how much yet someone on here used it as an example unless he has a copy of their budget. "I thought they were proposing a 45% band from £80k to, IIRC, £135k. So someone on £100k would pay 45% instead of 40% on £20k of that. So an additional 5%. 5% of £20k is £1,000. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look at HMRC they show that the top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of the income tax revenue where as the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax revenue. When Jeremy forces that 1% to leave and not pay the 27% of income tax (which they can do easily because there wealthy) the bottom 50% will have been well and truly fucked over by the very man they thought was Santa. Sad but this whole cycle is hundreds of years old and the same old same old is always touted by the same old douche bags and the outcome is always the same. How is he forcing them to leave? What are your actual calculations that have made you arrive at that conclusion? Someone on £1000k would pay an extra £1k a year. Is that really sufficient to force them to leave?Where did you get that figure? they havnt said how much yet someone on here used it as an example unless he has a copy of their budget.
I thought they were proposing a 45% band from £80k to, IIRC, £135k.
So someone on £100k would pay 45% instead of 40% on £20k of that. So an additional 5%. 5% of £20k is £1,000.
"I imagine thats a couple of weeks shopping to someone on £100k whereas its more like a couple of months shopping for someone on a more average wage so....on the whole....it seems like a pretty fair adjustment to me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look at HMRC they show that the top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of the income tax revenue where as the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax revenue. When Jeremy forces that 1% to leave and not pay the 27% of income tax (which they can do easily because there wealthy) the bottom 50% will have been well and truly fucked over by the very man they thought was Santa. Sad but this whole cycle is hundreds of years old and the same old same old is always touted by the same old douche bags and the outcome is always the same. How is he forcing them to leave? What are your actual calculations that have made you arrive at that conclusion? Someone on £1000k would pay an extra £1k a year. Is that really sufficient to force them to leave?Where did you get that figure? they havnt said how much yet someone on here used it as an example unless he has a copy of their budget.
I thought they were proposing a 45% band from £80k to, IIRC, £135k.
So someone on £100k would pay 45% instead of 40% on £20k of that. So an additional 5%. 5% of £20k is £1,000.
I imagine thats a couple of weeks shopping to someone on £100k whereas its more like a couple of months shopping for someone on a more average wage so....on the whole....it seems like a pretty fair adjustment to me "People on 100k are still mortgaged up to the hilt just like the rest of us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look at HMRC they show that the top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of the income tax revenue where as the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax revenue. When Jeremy forces that 1% to leave and not pay the 27% of income tax (which they can do easily because there wealthy) the bottom 50% will have been well and truly fucked over by the very man they thought was Santa. Sad but this whole cycle is hundreds of years old and the same old same old is always touted by the same old douche bags and the outcome is always the same. How is he forcing them to leave? What are your actual calculations that have made you arrive at that conclusion? Someone on £1000k would pay an extra £1k a year. Is that really sufficient to force them to leave?Where did you get that figure? they havnt said how much yet someone on here used it as an example unless he has a copy of their budget.
I thought they were proposing a 45% band from £80k to, IIRC, £135k.
So someone on £100k would pay 45% instead of 40% on £20k of that. So an additional 5%. 5% of £20k is £1,000.
I imagine thats a couple of weeks shopping to someone on £100k whereas its more like a couple of months shopping for someone on a more average wage so....on the whole....it seems like a pretty fair adjustment to me
People on 100k are still mortgaged up to the hilt just like the rest of us. "Ooh Clem I think you'll find their shopping trolleys are more likely to be delivered from waitrose or ocado than wheeled around asda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look at HMRC they show that the top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of the income tax revenue where as the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax revenue. When Jeremy forces that 1% to leave and not pay the 27% of income tax (which they can do easily because there wealthy) the bottom 50% will have been well and truly fucked over by the very man they thought was Santa. Sad but this whole cycle is hundreds of years old and the same old same old is always touted by the same old douche bags and the outcome is always the same. How is he forcing them to leave? What are your actual calculations that have made you arrive at that conclusion? Someone on £1000k would pay an extra £1k a year. Is that really sufficient to force them to leave?Where did you get that figure? they havnt said how much yet someone on here used it as an example unless he has a copy of their budget.
I thought they were proposing a 45% band from £80k to, IIRC, £135k.
So someone on £100k would pay 45% instead of 40% on £20k of that. So an additional 5%. 5% of £20k is £1,000.
I imagine thats a couple of weeks shopping to someone on £100k whereas its more like a couple of months shopping for someone on a more average wage so....on the whole....it seems like a pretty fair adjustment to me
People on 100k are still mortgaged up to the hilt just like the rest of us.
Ooh Clem I think you'll find their shopping trolleys are more likely to be delivered from waitrose or ocado than wheeled around asda"Probably while they're on an XR protest march.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look at HMRC they show that the top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of the income tax revenue where as the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax revenue. When Jeremy forces that 1% to leave and not pay the 27% of income tax (which they can do easily because there wealthy) the bottom 50% will have been well and truly fucked over by the very man they thought was Santa. Sad but this whole cycle is hundreds of years old and the same old same old is always touted by the same old douche bags and the outcome is always the same. How is he forcing them to leave? What are your actual calculations that have made you arrive at that conclusion? Someone on £1000k would pay an extra £1k a year. Is that really sufficient to force them to leave?Where did you get that figure? they havnt said how much yet someone on here used it as an example unless he has a copy of their budget.
I thought they were proposing a 45% band from £80k to, IIRC, £135k.
So someone on £100k would pay 45% instead of 40% on £20k of that. So an additional 5%. 5% of £20k is £1,000.
I imagine thats a couple of weeks shopping to someone on £100k whereas its more like a couple of months shopping for someone on a more average wage so....on the whole....it seems like a pretty fair adjustment to me
People on 100k are still mortgaged up to the hilt just like the rest of us.
Ooh Clem I think you'll find their shopping trolleys are more likely to be delivered from waitrose or ocado than wheeled around asda
Probably while they're on an XR protest march.. "Hmm that reminds me....the greens came to visit today....they were ever so nice....much nicer than the seventh day adventists who came round yesterday  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you look at HMRC they show that the top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of the income tax revenue where as the bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax revenue. When Jeremy forces that 1% to leave and not pay the 27% of income tax (which they can do easily because there wealthy) the bottom 50% will have been well and truly fucked over by the very man they thought was Santa. Sad but this whole cycle is hundreds of years old and the same old same old is always touted by the same old douche bags and the outcome is always the same. How is he forcing them to leave? What are your actual calculations that have made you arrive at that conclusion? Someone on £1000k would pay an extra £1k a year. Is that really sufficient to force them to leave?" For a highly stressed junior doctor with Australia calling, it might just be the final straw... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
