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

[Hairyloon 10]

How is it circular...

How can I explain that more clearly than I already did?

 

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

 

Then you have moved on from the topic we were discussion, which was technocracy and why you don't like it.

Is that because, as usual, you cannot address the actual point?

[Obelix 11]

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%.

 

That would depend on what everyone else is playing. If you have France at 75% then that means that people are more likely to tolerate 50% in the UK...

 

Lamont cut from 60% to 40% and increased revenue. Im unsure where the peak there was but in the UK at the moment I think you could happily say the peak is in the 40-50% bracket - Id be less happy with it being pinned under 45%

[Jacktari 10]

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?

 

I don't have a side, I am very open minded and egalitarian.

I loathe everyone equally, to paraphrase Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 10:01 ----------

 

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 ----------

 

 

.

 

As long as these people do not interfere with my life anymore than the already are doing, they are meaningless to me.

They may as well be on another planet for all the relationship we are likely to have.

 

How did this become part of this topic anyway?

[Hairyloon 10]

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.

 

Making money is not the same as creating wealth.

That is the fundamental problem with the global financial system: it is no more than smoke and mirrors yet the whole world is totally reliant on that illusion being maintained.

[Obelix 11]

I don't have a side, I am very open minded and egalitarian.

I loathe everyone equally, to paraphrase Gunnery Sergeant Hartmann.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 10:01 ----------

 

 

As long as these people do not interfere with my life anymore than the already are doing, they are meaningless to me.

They may as well be on another planet for all the relationship we are likely to have.

 

How did this become part of this topic anyway?

 

They are quite meaningful to you - if they were not there you would be paying income tax of 35% not 20% at the base rate....

 

It became part of this topic because you clearly have a problem with people more successful financially than yourself.

[Jacktari 10]

They are quite meaningful to you - if they were not there you would be paying income tax of 35% not 20% at the base rate....

 

It became part of this topic because you clearly have a problem with people more successful financially than yourself.

 

Do I? I must stop doing that. Paying income tax, that is.

 

Am I to take it that you admire people who are 'financially successful' then?

Because I don't, as you rightly say.

People who have earned their money are no problem at all to me, but thieves, cheats, liars, and mountebanks are beneath contempt. And that is where most of this 'wealth' originates.

[Hairyloon 10]

They are quite meaningful to you - if they were not there you would be paying income tax of 35% not 20% at the base rate...

 

Sorry, but what is the basis of that assertion?

[Obelix 11]

Theres your politics of envy again.... you want to watch for it it makes your hateful and bitter if you carry on like that....

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 11:06 ----------

 

Sorry, but what is the basis of that assertion?

 

Take away the top 1% that Jacktari loathes so much and the tax take from income tax falls by about a quarter. So to maintain that take take everyone elses tax rate rises. Assuming you keep the existing personal allowance a quick off the cuff calculation shoves the base rate up 15% assuming an equal pro rata lift to the upper rates.

[Jacktari 10]

Theres your politics of envy again.... you want to watch for it it makes your hateful and bitter if you carry on like that....

 

I can see I am wasting my time, you seem to a lost cause repeating hackneyed soundbites.

People cannot agree on everything I suppose.

Hero worship is not one of my strong points i am afraid.

[unbeliever 10]

Theres your politics of envy again.... you want to watch for it it makes your hateful and bitter if you carry on like that....

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 11:06 ----------

 

 

Take away the top 1% that Jacktari loathes so much and the tax take from income tax falls by about a quarter. So to maintain that take take everyone elses tax rate rises. Assuming you keep the existing personal allowance a quick off the cuff calculation shoves the base rate up 15% assuming an equal pro rata lift to the upper rates.

 

 

¿ Yes but at least the super-rich would suffer. I mean for a few weeks whilst they arranged to become residents of another country and pay taxes there. ¿

[Obelix 11]

I can see I am wasting my time, you seem to a lost cause repeating hackneyed soundbites.

People cannot agree on everything I suppose.

Hero worship is not one of my strong points i am afraid.

 

No you've made your point perfectly clear and highlighting your values has been most edifying. I notice you've dodge a few of the important points though...

 

Let me see - people have made more money than you and you were not able to so you feel bitter about it...

 

You want a slice of that goodness so youd ecide that you will have it through taxation. you know that's not especially fair so lets call them spivs and liars and cheats and crooks so you feel better when railing for their "loot" to be taken from them and damn them if they complain...

 

I started the son of a coal miner. Went to a crap school as well. Silver spoon? Yeah right - I got a tin one if I was lucky. But with a bit of perseverance I made it good, helped up by a Govt that actually cared about personal responsibility.

 

So I make good money now - and I pay a fair chuck of it in taxes. And you tell me you want more of that becaue you think it's unfair that you don't get any?

 

Go and work for it then. I did and I'm going to enjoy the fruit of my labour - and if you want it through taxes then think again sunshine - its gone. I know ways to hide it way beyond HM treasury - it's called capital flight and the EU makes it so easy

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 11:13 ----------

 

¿ Yes but at least the super-rich would suffer. I mean for a few weeks whilst they arranged to become residents of another country and pay taxes there. ¿

 

You mean like I did?

[Carlinate 10]

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....

 

Whilst taking an interest in politics I'm non affiliated, so not the best person to ask in-depth questions about individuals in any of the parties.

 

Having said which, most of the electorate could be described in a similar way, and as perception is nine tenths of the game maybe someone like me is exactly the person to ask!

 

In my uneducated view Kier Starmer and Hilary Benn stand out as believable Prime Ministers, which is another problem with poor old Jeremy, he doesn't fit the image.

 

Benn has an unfortunate first name for a Labour politician but other than that appears sound to me.

 

Maybe that's why Tristram Hunt jacked it in, not a name to be saddled with when urging the workers to revolt!

 

He was another that appeared OK, however as you are obviously more into the Labour party than me you may know of good reasons why any of them aren't in consideration.

 

If Labour was half as ruthless as the Tory party they have the opportunity to frighten the life out of the Conservatives over the next few days.

 

Get rid of Corbyn, appoint one of the above or persuade David Milliband to return, rally together and go for the oppositions less than impressive record in handling Brexit thus far.

 

That's what the Tory's would do, it's why they are called the nasty party and it's also why they win elections.