What's May up to? General election 08/06/2017

[Jacktari 10]

Mcdonnell was talking today about how the lower and middle income lot are facing income taxes burdens and how its not fair on them and it's time to screw the rich again.

 

...

 

If people desire to be rich beyond the dreams of avarice, then they must be caned.

They must be taxed until the pips squeak.

Excessive wealth is not a right and must be paid for.

 

If we followed the mantra of 'from each according to his ability, to each according his needs', the world would be a better place

[Carlinate 10]

Maybe. But then Tony Blair had charisma by the bucketload, and what a snake in the grass he turned out to be. In fact post MP's expenses scandal, I wouldn't trust 90% of them. At least Corbyn is honest (he claimed £13 I believe.)

 

But you make an interesting point. To what extent do personalities have an affect on politics? Really it's the message / policies that should count, but we are all swayed by the messenger, which is why image is so important. If you are able to Destroy the image you also destroy the message.

 

Agree about Blair, I voted for him on the first occasion, but had him sussed out by the second time around.

 

You're right about the image thing. It shouldn't be a factor, in that someones intelligence, capability and honesty should be all that matters.

 

Unfortunately we're living in the age of 24 hour media, and whether we like it or not image counts.

 

It takes incredible talent to surmount that problem. In my opinion the most impressive politician in Europe is Angela Merkel, she has overcome the image problem plus the 'being a female' problem by virtue of the fact that she has intelligence combined with practicality.

 

Unfortunately, whilst Jeremy may be a lovely guy he doesn't inspire confidence and no matter how unfair it may be he's damaging the Labour party by clinging on.

 

May has only called this election because she believes that there is an opportunity to destroy the opposition and basically rule as a dictator.

 

She and her advisors have only come to that conclusion because of Corbyn's lack of credibility.

 

The advantage that the Torys have always had over Labour is that they are utterly ruthless when they need to be, and can sense weakness in the opposition like a shark can smell blood in the water.

 

Get rid of Corbyn or prepare to get decimated at the election.

[Anna B 1,414]

Agree about Blair, I voted for him on the first occasion, but had him sussed out by the second time around.

 

You're right about the image thing. It shouldn't be a factor, in that someones intelligence, capability and honesty should be all that matters.

 

Unfortunately we're living in the age of 24 hour media, and whether we like it or not image counts.

 

It takes incredible talent to surmount that problem. In my opinion the most impressive politician in Europe is Angela Merkel, she has overcome the image problem plus the 'being a female' problem by virtue of the fact that she has intelligence combined with practicality.

 

Unfortunately, whilst Jeremy may be a lovely guy he doesn't inspire confidence and no matter how unfair it may be he's damaging the Labour party by clinging on.

 

May has only called this election because she believes that there is an opportunity to destroy the opposition and basically rule as a dictator.

 

She and her advisors have only come to that conclusion because of Corbyn's lack of credibility.

 

The advantage that the Torys have always had over Labour is that they are utterly ruthless when they need to be, and can sense weakness in the opposition like a shark can smell blood in the water.

 

Get rid of Corbyn or prepare to get decimated at the election.

 

Fair comments.

 

However, who would you put in Corbyn's place? There are hardly any shining lights in there are there? Even at the last leadership election when they had plenty of time to find a candidate the best they could come up with is Owen Smith....

[Obelix 11]

If people desire to be rich beyond the dreams of avarice, then they must be caned.

They must be taxed until the pips squeak.

Excessive wealth is not a right and must be paid for.

 

If we followed the mantra of 'from each according to his ability, to each according his needs', the world would be a better place

 

Thats the politics of envy. He did better than me not fair so must take from him.

 

If you earn a lot you pay a lot of tax - the top ten percent of all taxpayers pay about 80% of tax. You think thats not enough and you want to screw more from them? Good luck with that - they simply wont pay and leave the country.

 

If you want to follow that mantra just remember that you will end up with an equal share of misery rather than a somewhat unequal share of wealth.

[Hairyloon 10]

You might not like me. I am the floating voter of which Carlinate spoke. I don't treat politics like a football team and blindly follow one party through thick and thin.

 

That's good.

 

Further to my post above, if Mogg was standing as my local MP I'd probably vote for him. And I was a remainer. At least I'd know I was getting someone intelligent. Makes much more sense that voting for someone like Diane Abbott who is absolutely hopeless in every single way.

 

He is extremely intelligent, but so wrong on so much. And he causes me to floccinoccinihilificate, and that is not a good habit.

It is an interesting conundrum though: are we better to have intelligent and wrong, or simply useless?

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 00:53 ----------

 

If people desire to be rich beyond the dreams of avarice, then they must be caned.

They must be taxed until the pips squeak.

Excessive wealth is not a right and must be paid for.

Thats the politics of envy. He did better than me not fair so must take from him.

I think you have misread the post and missed the qualifiers: I've highlighted them for you.

 

Good luck with that - they simply wont pay and leave the country.

 

Good riddance: they are what push up the cost of living. Trickle down

economics operates much more on costs than on incomes.

 

If we followed the mantra of 'from each according to his ability, to each according his needs', the world would be a better place

If you want to follow that mantra just remember that you will end up with an equal share of misery rather than a somewhat unequal share of wealth.

I think you have misread that as well: "from each according to his ability" does not mean "take everything you are able to".

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 01:00 ----------

 

However, who would you put in Corbyn's place? There are hardly any shining lights in there are there? Even at the last leadership election when they had plenty of time to find a candidate the best they could come up with is Owen Smith....

 

I am puzzled why Benn did not step up when Corbyn fumbled the Brexit ball. If he'd made the speech that Corbyn failed to make and challenged properly instead of his abortive chicken coup, then he might've been PM by now.

 

As it is, he's destroyed the party and shown himself to be an utter pillock.

[unbeliever 10]

 

You're making circular arguments now: you don;t like the EU because you see it as technocratic and you don't like technocracy because of the EU.

 

How is it circular.

I'm talking about the age-old debate of philosophy of government.

[Jacktari 10]

Thats the politics of envy. He did better than me not fair so must take from him.

 

 

Why would anyone be envious of the so called 'super rich'?

Looking at the list of the 25 richest people, they are all conmen, gangsters, capitalists, and landowners.

Practically none of them have come by their wealth through legitimate means.

A great proportion have made their ill-gotten fortunes from manipulation and trickery, but people like that appear to be admired in todays rotten set-up.

They are not a good representation to set your store by.

[unbeliever 10]

Why would anyone be envious of the so called 'super rich'?

Looking at the list of the 25 richest people, they are all conmen, gangsters, capitalists, and landowners.

Practically none of them have come by their wealth through legitimate means.

A great proportion have made their ill-gotten fortunes from manipulation and trickery, but people like that appear to be admired in todays rotten set-up.

They are not a good representation to set your store by.

 

If they've broken the law and you can prove it then that's one thing.

But you ignore the fact that in the process of acquiring that wealth for themselves they have unavoidably generated wealth for everybody else.

 

This is such an old debate, and your side only persists by rejecting key facts.

If you over-tax the wealthy (and yes you do intend to tax the rich and the upper-middle as well as the super-rich), then you deter them from making money.

If they don't make money then neither do the people they would have employed and you can't tax any of this money you've destroyed at all and the whole system falls apart.

This is so completely obvious, that I don't know why your side keeps pretending otherwise and with such persistence. Where's your shame?

Edited April 20, 2017 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3 10]

Thats the politics of envy. He did better than me not fair so must take from him.

 

If you earn a lot you pay a lot of tax - the top ten percent of all taxpayers pay about 80% of tax. You think thats not enough and you want to screw more from them? Good luck with that - they simply wont pay and leave the country.

 

If you want to follow that mantra just remember that you will end up with an equal share of misery rather than a somewhat unequal share of wealth.

 

To be accurate the top 10% or earners pay 80% of income tax.

 

Sounds dramatic doesn't it.

 

Until you look at what proportion of total HMRC revenue comes from income tax. Then it is not so dramatic.

 

That said, I'm also against punitive and vindictive taxes against high earners. The 50p band is as high as I'd be comfortable with and only if it yields additional income for HMRC. I don't like money grabs against rich or poor that are done for purely political reasons.

[unbeliever 10]

To be accurate the top 10% or earners pay 80% of income tax.

 

Sounds dramatic doesn't it.

 

Until you look at what proportion of total HMRC revenue comes from income tax. Then it is not so dramatic.

 

That said, I'm also against punitive and vindictive taxes against high earners. The 50p band is as high as I'd be comfortable with and only if it yields additional income for HMRC. I don't like money grabs against rich or poor that are done for purely political reasons.

 

Well that sounds much more reasonable.

Have a look at income tax receipts from the recent period when the top tax rate was raised from 40% to 50% and then lowered from 50% to 45%.

The laffer curve peak is very likely below 45%.

[El Cid 220]

Well that sounds much more reasonable.

Have a look at income tax receipts from the recent period when the top tax rate was raised from 40% to 50% and then lowered from 50% to 45%.

The laffer curve peak is very likely below 45%.

 

Before the change, HMRC forecast that £6.25bn of income would be moved from 2012/13 to 2013/14. A £6.25bn reduction, followed by a £6.25bn increase would give you a difference in expected tax receipts of 45 per cent - or £5.625bn in tax. That calculation makes the sensible assumption that only income benefiting from the cut – taxable at 45 per cent in the latter year, rather than 50 per cent in the former – is pushed forward).

 

It’s only that Osborne has been a little economical with the truth. It’s not only that, on all the available evidence, his tax cut actually cost money.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/george-osborne-claims-cutting-the-top-rate-of-tax-raised-8bn-it-cost-the-country-24bn-and-heres-how-a6905836.html

[Obelix 11]

Why would anyone be envious of the so called 'super rich'?

Looking at the list of the 25 richest people, they are all conmen, gangsters, capitalists, and landowners.

Practically none of them have come by their wealth through legitimate means.

A great proportion have made their ill-gotten fortunes from manipulation and trickery, but people like that appear to be admired in todays rotten set-up.

They are not a good representation to set your store by.

 

Tell me why you want to take even more of their money then? Is the enormous amount that you already have no longer sufficient for you? And is being a capitalist and a landowner so terrible as to be automatically included on the list for your venom?

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 09:48 ----------

 

To be accurate the top 10% or earners pay 80% of income tax.

 

Yes, I assumed from the context it would be agreed we are talking about income tax in that.