FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Income inequality
Income inequality
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it." Because the media has everyone focusing their ire on: Foreigners The "woke" The trans community Pride celebrations People speaking out about genocide Efforts to tackle climate change People who eat tofu Muslims Small boats Etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it." I am not sure how Mr corban stands on allowing illegal migrants to work for a lower wage than the minimum, I know the left push the narrative of wanting illegal migrants to work for low wages. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it. Because the media has everyone focusing their ire on: Foreigners The "woke" The trans community Pride celebrations People speaking out about genocide Efforts to tackle climate change People who eat tofu Muslims Small boats Etc " Wouldn't you agree that the list above is very selective... Specifically solely those views with which you disagree? Surely there are many other areas of "media focus" other than those above, with many of which you do agree? Or is the above list exhaustive for "the media" directing focus? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it. Because the media has everyone focusing their ire on: Foreigners The "woke" The trans community Pride celebrations People speaking out about genocide Efforts to tackle climate change People who eat tofu Muslims Small boats Etc Wouldn't you agree that the list above is very selective... Specifically solely those views with which you disagree? Surely there are many other areas of "media focus" other than those above, with many of which you do agree? Or is the above list exhaustive for "the media" directing focus?" Sure. There's lots they distract people with. Those are but some examples, feel free to add your own if you want to. But it doesn't change my point. The chap above has confirmed one of them already.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it. Because the media has everyone focusing their ire on: Foreigners The "woke" The trans community Pride celebrations People speaking out about genocide Efforts to tackle climate change People who eat tofu Muslims Small boats Etc Wouldn't you agree that the list above is very selective... Specifically solely those views with which you disagree? Surely there are many other areas of "media focus" other than those above, with many of which you do agree? Or is the above list exhaustive for "the media" directing focus? Sure. There's lots they distract people with. Those are but some examples, feel free to add your own if you want to. But it doesn't change my point. The chap above has confirmed one of them already. "Oh how nice to see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it. I am not sure how" Mr corbyn " stands on allowing illegal migrants to work for a lower wage than the minimum, I know the left push the narrative of wanting illegal migrants to work for low wages." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point is we are encouraged to be devisive. Because they know if we were united we would be unstoppable. There are 99% of the population who are not the super rich. Why the fuck are we not setting the agenda?" Because most of the 99% of the population are middle class who are happy with what they have and don't spend their time envying others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it." The problem with Corbyn is that it’s the right message… but the wrong messenger For example, if you looked at the New York mayoral election last week (I have been dying to talk about it and for someone to bring it up just to see if it made any impact here at all) The person who won, Zohran Mamdani, was laser focused on the issue… like a Bernie sanders or an AOC They say all politics is local, so focusing on the kitchen and table issues | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it." What inequality do you mean. Is it women getting different pay to men for the same job type scenario. Or do you mean managers etc getting more than shop floor workers type scenario? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it. The problem with Corbyn is that it’s the right message… but the wrong messenger For example, if you looked at the New York mayoral election last week (I have been dying to talk about it and for someone to bring it up just to see if it made any impact here at all) The person who won, Zohran Mamdani, was laser focused on the issue… like a Bernie sanders or an AOC They say all politics is local, so focusing on the kitchen and table issues " Definitely looking forward to seeing how those government run supermarkets work out in New York. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Gini coefficient for the UK in 2025 is forecast to be 0.35. This figure represents the level of income inequality, with 0.35 indicating a moderate level of inequality. No idea of the methodology or calculation to arrive at this result. Uk household personal savings and household expenditure I would have thought brought a different result. Hopefully someone can expand on this in the face of 3 million foodbank meals and rising rent arrears." The UK GINI has been fairly stable for the past 40 years. Inequality is not increasing. The problem is that the cost of living is increasing, so everyone is a bit worse off. Those at the lower end of the income scale are finding that they can't meet the bills and are falling into arrears, whilst those are the top of the scale are also affected, just not in a visible way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it." What exactly do you think we should be campaigning for? I think we'd all agree that a brain surgeon deserves to get paid more than a street cleaner. Both do important and useful jobs, but one needs more skill and ability than the other. What would equalising their pay achieve? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it. The problem with Corbyn is that it’s the right message… but the wrong messenger For example, if you looked at the New York mayoral election last week (I have been dying to talk about it and for someone to bring it up just to see if it made any impact here at all) The person who won, Zohran Mamdani, was laser focused on the issue… like a Bernie sanders or an AOC They say all politics is local, so focusing on the kitchen and table issues Definitely looking forward to seeing how those government run supermarkets work out in New York. " Well it’s only a pilot scheme to run 1 supermarket in each of the 5 boroughs… so a grand total of 5! Basically there is a pot of money that goes the major operators to incentivise them to put supermarkets in certain areas, so it’s that money that’s being used.. if it works, brilliant! If not.. it was only 5 stores | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At the moment the 1% are busy buying up our assets mainly housing, making more inequality and the more they buy will make class a non issue." I read today the monarch made £1.1bn profit from the crown estate’s £15.5bn portfolio and is building another 56,000 houses for rent. And we are paying £46M for his mums statue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point is we are encouraged to be devisive. Because they know if we were united we would be unstoppable. There are 99% of the population who are not the super rich. Why the fuck are we not setting the agenda?" That's hot politics works. The main political parties need to keep us fighting over made up nonsense while they work in the favour of whomever donated the most to their election campaigns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say wealth inequality is more serious, as I've stated numerous times on this section. Infact without tackling the massive hording of wealth you will never see economic equality and living standards rise in the UK. " What do you mean when you say “tackle it”? Are you advocating changing the law to make it legal to steal other people’s money? The day people stop being able to keep the money they make is the day everyone stops going to work. I really struggle to understand why some people seem think that taking things from others is morally right. It’s theft, plain and simple. Quick bit of maths… If 100 billion was taken off the super rich of this country and divided amongst the general population, it would be around £1,500 each. Once everyone has bought themselves the latest smartphone and a bigger flatscreen tv, all that wealth has now gone overseas. Inflation would skyrocket due to the extra spending and interest rates would double to try and encourage people to save that money. The crippling mortgage rates would harm the poorest of home owners the most and would instantly impact the private rental market. In simple terms, the poorest in our society would be hit the hardest. Investment banks would destabilise closely followed by the high street banks. That small savings pot you’ve been trying to build for a rainy day…. Well it’s now raining like it never has before and it’s likely the government would have to step in to bail out the banks again. Those rich folks who just missed the cut cos they only have £25 million in assets will leave the country and move their money offshore so it can’t be touched. Income tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax revenues tank creating a public services black hole. The government can’t borrow to fill the hole because there’s fewer people rich enough to buy government bonds/guilts. And where was some of the money those super rich had, yep, government bonds. Liquifying those assets would massively increase the cost of existing borrowing and gold reserves are sold to pay back debt. I am far from rich. I drive a 12yo car, live in a council house and got made redundant 3 months ago. I dont have personal wealth to protect. I think footballers are paid an obscene amount of money but I dont buy their shirts, go to games or pay for sky sports. Their pay is based on the value the club think they will bring. If you don’t agree with it, don’t subscribe to it. If you don’t agree with Jeff Bezos spending 70 million on a wedding, stop shopping at Amazon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's time all this shite was stopped, people should be paid what their employer thinks they're worth and if they don't like it then get another job. Pay more wages then prices go it's very simple and there are no winners " I don't think you need to worry. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor is ever growing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's time all this shite was stopped, people should be paid what their employer thinks they're worth and if they don't like it then get another job. Pay more wages then prices go it's very simple and there are no winners I don't think you need to worry. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor is ever growing." I'll fix that for you "The wealth gap between the hard working smart people and the rest is ever growing" Mostly down to government policy and the minimum wage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's time all this shite was stopped, people should be paid what their employer thinks they're worth and if they don't like it then get another job. Pay more wages then prices go it's very simple and there are no winners I don't think you need to worry. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor is ever growing. I'll fix that for you "The wealth gap between the hard working smart people and the rest is ever growing" Mostly down to government policy and the minimum wage" Can only laugh at such out of touch ridiculous rhetoric. Plenty of poor people are hard working and smart (by which I assume you mean intelligent), they simply don't have the same opportunities in life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's time all this shite was stopped, people should be paid what their employer thinks they're worth and if they don't like it then get another job. Pay more wages then prices go it's very simple and there are no winners I don't think you need to worry. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor is ever growing. I'll fix that for you "The wealth gap between the hard working smart people and the rest is ever growing" Mostly down to government policy and the minimum wage Can only laugh at such out of touch ridiculous rhetoric. Plenty of poor people are hard working and smart (by which I assume you mean intelligent), they simply don't have the same opportunities in life." Opportunities are made, not inherited and certainly not found down the local pub | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's time all this shite was stopped, people should be paid what their employer thinks they're worth and if they don't like it then get another job. Pay more wages then prices go it's very simple and there are no winners I don't think you need to worry. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor is ever growing. I'll fix that for you "The wealth gap between the hard working smart people and the rest is ever growing" Mostly down to government policy and the minimum wage Can only laugh at such out of touch ridiculous rhetoric. Plenty of poor people are hard working and smart (by which I assume you mean intelligent), they simply don't have the same opportunities in life." Not everyone gets the same opportunities that’s true, but where are opportunities found? One person said not down the pub and I get what they mean by that. But many an opportunity is found by thrashing out ideas amongst motivated people looking at a problem. Dragons Den is a great example of people with ideas who perhaps don’t have the money to jump start the business quickly. That doesn’t mean they can’t still grow a successful business. Equality of rights is something that should be fought for. But some things just can’t be equal, no matter how much you want them to be | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think we should be campaigning for? Do you feel that you deserve to be paid the same as Bill Gates or Richard Branson?" Like someone delivering pizzas gets paid the same as someone slogging their guts out all day long in a factory, or spending hours in a field picking fruit, or an apprentice floor sweeper, the beauty of minimum wage .. who actually asked for this shit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think we should be campaigning for? Do you feel that you deserve to be paid the same as Bill Gates or Richard Branson? Like someone delivering pizzas gets paid the same as someone slogging their guts out all day long in a factory, or spending hours in a field picking fruit, or an apprentice floor sweeper, the beauty of minimum wage .. who actually asked for this shit " No one asked for it. You're getting angry about something you imagined. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If every single working person in the world earned £22k, not a penny more or less, then what would happen? If every single working person in the UK earned £43k, not a penny more or less, then what would happen? " The people outside the UK earning £22k would all want to come to the UK, so they could do the same job for double the salary. The same thing would happen with people in the UK who were earning £150k and now only earn £43k. They’d go and live somewhere where they could earn £150k or more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point is we are encouraged to be devisive. Because they know if we were united we would be unstoppable. There are 99% of the population who are not the super rich. Why the fuck are we not setting the agenda?" Because if they were organised, willing to put the work in to set the agenda, motivated, they’d be the super rich. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If every single working person in the world earned £22k, not a penny more or less, then what would happen? If every single working person in the UK earned £43k, not a penny more or less, then what would happen? " When you say working person is that hours limited or dose everyone get the same regardless of doing 16hours or 40 hours or 80hours. As it is you work more you earn more. Train and up skill you earn more, take on responsibility earn more, people only do the for more it's human greed to have more. But £43k for an hour a week sweping the street I would do happily, can I then work cash in hand somewhere else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If every single working person in the world earned £22k, not a penny more or less, then what would happen? If every single working person in the UK earned £43k, not a penny more or less, then what would happen? " No one would be willing to take the most difficult jobs as they will be paid the same anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When I think of the increasing inequality, it's the changes CEO salaries compared to the lowest workers in the same companies. In the 1970s the average CEO's salary was 25 times the salary of the lowest paid worker in the company. Now it's much, much higher. " This example ties into my post above here, in the US CEO's make up approx 0.13% of the working population. If you took all the earnings off of CEO's in the US and distributed it amongst the work force they would gain around $1 a day. If you flip this around, and look at the role of the CEO which is to maintain and improve the business, then that $1 a day is a good investment when the average US worker earns approx $64k a year. The lens we look through is important. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...increasing and diversifying ownership and decision making within the economy." What does that mean practically, in simple terms? "That would bring unprecedented growth. Funnily enough, it would also reduce the tax burden on ordinary people and small business whilst also improving public services." How? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The greatest sustained period of growth in the capitalist systems of the western world was in a period of its highest ever taxation. ‘The golden age of Capitalism’. " Needs citation. Which country and which period? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The greatest sustained period of growth in the capitalist systems of the western world was in a period of its highest ever taxation. ‘The golden age of Capitalism’. " Even if true, correlation does not imply causation. If, for example, this refers to the post-war period, then taxes were high due to the war debt and rebuild cost, and growth was high due to post-war bounce back (rebuilding, filling vacancies , pent up consumer demand) and other factors, such as massive technological advances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When I think of the increasing inequality, it's the changes CEO salaries compared to the lowest workers in the same companies. In the 1970s the average CEO's salary was 25 times the salary of the lowest paid worker in the company. Now it's much, much higher. This example ties into my post above here, in the US CEO's make up approx 0.13% of the working population. If you took all the earnings off of CEO's in the US and distributed it amongst the work force they would gain around $1 a day. If you flip this around, and look at the role of the CEO which is to maintain and improve the business, then that $1 a day is a good investment when the average US worker earns approx $64k a year. The lens we look through is important." It Economics is not as simple as taking CEO wages and spreading it amongst the workers. What about the consequential cost of of workers having a smaller share of the pie. It leads to them being subsidised by others i.e the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...It leads to them being subsidised by others i.e the government. " This. It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live. The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The greatest sustained period of growth in the capitalist systems of the western world was in a period of its highest ever taxation. ‘The golden age of Capitalism’. Plenty of reasons why that was the case. One of the reasons being it incentivised profits being reinvested back into firms to improve productivity and wages rather than the money being taken out to line the pockets of a few. The most obvious way to bring about economic growth today is to reduce wealth inequality by increasing and diversifying ownership and decision making within the economy. That would bring unprecedented growth. Funnily enough, it would also reduce the tax burden on ordinary people and small business whilst also improving public services. " So let's say a company has 100 employees and they all become sheare holders = to the CEO so all pay goes up good for the employees. But when something goes wrong all would be at risk 🤔 how meany want that responsibility. Hence the CEO earners are huge and the liability is huge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The greatest sustained period of growth in the capitalist systems of the western world was in a period of its highest ever taxation. ‘The golden age of Capitalism’. Plenty of reasons why that was the case. One of the reasons being it incentivised profits being reinvested back into firms to improve productivity and wages rather than the money being taken out to line the pockets of a few. The most obvious way to bring about economic growth today is to reduce wealth inequality by increasing and diversifying ownership and decision making within the economy. That would bring unprecedented growth. Funnily enough, it would also reduce the tax burden on ordinary people and small business whilst also improving public services. So let's say a company has 100 employees and they all become sheare holders = to the CEO so all pay goes up good for the employees. But when something goes wrong all would be at risk 🤔 how meany want that responsibility. Hence the CEO earners are huge and the liability is huge. " There is shareholding and then there is stakeholding, the first a few are in control the later every one is in control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The greatest sustained period of growth in the capitalist systems of the western world was in a period of its highest ever taxation. ‘The golden age of Capitalism’. Plenty of reasons why that was the case. One of the reasons being it incentivised profits being reinvested back into firms to improve productivity and wages rather than the money being taken out to line the pockets of a few. The most obvious way to bring about economic growth today is to reduce wealth inequality by increasing and diversifying ownership and decision making within the economy. That would bring unprecedented growth. Funnily enough, it would also reduce the tax burden on ordinary people and small business whilst also improving public services. So let's say a company has 100 employees and they all become sheare holders = to the CEO so all pay goes up good for the employees. But when something goes wrong all would be at risk 🤔 how meany want that responsibility. Hence the CEO earners are huge and the liability is huge. There is shareholding and then there is stakeholding, the first a few are in control the later every one is in control." And when the bailifs are called in or the company needs a cash injection would all pay in the same to keep the company going. Or if someone was killed are all shear holders responsible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live." They don't. The minimum wage is quite livable for a single person in most parts of the country. The problem only comes if someone has several dependants and lives in a big city. "The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits." Nonsense. What the government is subsidising is some people's choice to have a family whilst on a wage that can't support them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live. They don't. The minimum wage is quite livable for a single person in most parts of the country. The problem only comes if someone has several dependants and lives in a big city. The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits. Nonsense. What the government is subsidising is some people's choice to have a family whilst on a wage that can't support them." We clearly live in very different areas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The greatest sustained period of growth in the capitalist systems of the western world was in a period of its highest ever taxation. ‘The golden age of Capitalism’. Plenty of reasons why that was the case. One of the reasons being it incentivised profits being reinvested back into firms to improve productivity and wages rather than the money being taken out to line the pockets of a few. The most obvious way to bring about economic growth today is to reduce wealth inequality by increasing and diversifying ownership and decision making within the economy. That would bring unprecedented growth. Funnily enough, it would also reduce the tax burden on ordinary people and small business whilst also improving public services. So let's say a company has 100 employees and they all become sheare holders = to the CEO so all pay goes up good for the employees. But when something goes wrong all would be at risk 🤔 how meany want that responsibility. Hence the CEO earners are huge and the liability is huge. There is shareholding and then there is stakeholding, the first a few are in control the later every one is in control. And when the bailifs are called in or the company needs a cash injection would all pay in the same to keep the company going. Or if someone was killed are all shear holders responsible." Are you asking about stakeholders or shareholders.?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When I think of the increasing inequality, it's the changes CEO salaries compared to the lowest workers in the same companies. In the 1970s the average CEO's salary was 25 times the salary of the lowest paid worker in the company. Now it's much, much higher. This example ties into my post above here, in the US CEO's make up approx 0.13% of the working population. If you took all the earnings off of CEO's in the US and distributed it amongst the work force they would gain around $1 a day. If you flip this around, and look at the role of the CEO which is to maintain and improve the business, then that $1 a day is a good investment when the average US worker earns approx $64k a year. The lens we look through is important. It Economics is not as simple as taking CEO wages and spreading it amongst the workers. What about the consequential cost of of workers having a smaller share of the pie. It leads to them being subsidised by others i.e the government. " You have moved goal posts from the top of the chain to the bottom... 
Moving with your goal posts, if the workers had a larger slice of the pie what would be the outcome? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live." "They don't. The minimum wage is quite livable for a single person in most parts of the country. The problem only comes if someone has several dependants and lives in a big city." "The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits." "Nonsense. What the government is subsidising is some people's choice to have a family whilst on a wage that can't support them." "We clearly live in very different areas." The fact that you live near London doesn't make your words more true. For most parts of the country, the minimum wage is livable for a single person. What's making life difficult for you and your neighbours isn't that your employers are stingy, it's that you live in a particularly expensive place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live. They don't. The minimum wage is quite livable for a single person in most parts of the country. The problem only comes if someone has several dependants and lives in a big city. The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits. Nonsense. What the government is subsidising is some people's choice to have a family whilst on a wage that can't support them. We clearly live in very different areas. The fact that you live near London doesn't make your words more true. For most parts of the country, the minimum wage is livable for a single person. What's making life difficult for you and your neighbours isn't that your employers are stingy, it's that you live in a particularly expensive place." Where are future workers coming from if minimum wage workers cannot afford to have kids? You may have already noticed falling birth rates over the last few decades since the baby booms, and that’s despite government topping up low wages. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live. They don't. The minimum wage is quite livable for a single person in most parts of the country. The problem only comes if someone has several dependants and lives in a big city. The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits. Nonsense. What the government is subsidising is some people's choice to have a family whilst on a wage that can't support them. We clearly live in very different areas. The fact that you live near London doesn't make your words more true. For most parts of the country, the minimum wage is livable for a single person. What's making life difficult for you and your neighbours isn't that your employers are stingy, it's that you live in a particularly expensive place." The fact of the matter is that millions are receiving in-work benefits, including those who work for companies that post significant profits. Which means that, ultimately, the government is subsidising company profits. The government should not be subsidising those in work (generally). The simple solution is for the government to pull all in work benefits, which would then force companies to pay more or for the cost of living to reduce. But this would also have two very undesirable consequences. Firstly, there would be an impossible cost of living squeeze while the market adjusted, secondly rebooking in-work benefits would make being unemployed much more attractive. So there needs to be another way forward... For example, the government could increase tax on profits of companies whose employees are heavily in receipt of in work benefits (based on reasonable factors, such as objectively low wages). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live. They don't. The minimum wage is quite livable for a single person in most parts of the country. The problem only comes if someone has several dependants and lives in a big city. The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits. Nonsense. What the government is subsidising is some people's choice to have a family whilst on a wage that can't support them. We clearly live in very different areas. The fact that you live near London doesn't make your words more true. For most parts of the country, the minimum wage is livable for a single person. What's making life difficult for you and your neighbours isn't that your employers are stingy, it's that you live in a particularly expensive place. The fact of the matter is that millions are receiving in-work benefits, including those who work for companies that post significant profits. Which means that, ultimately, the government is subsidising company profits. The government should not be subsidising those in work (generally). The simple solution is for the government to pull all in work benefits, which would then force companies to pay more or for the cost of living to reduce. But this would also have two very undesirable consequences. Firstly, there would be an impossible cost of living squeeze while the market adjusted, secondly rebooking in-work benefits would make being unemployed much more attractive. So there needs to be another way forward... For example, the government could increase tax on profits of companies whose employees are heavily in receipt of in work benefits (based on reasonable factors, such as objectively low wages)." Increase the minimum wage to £15 per hour. Increase the tax allowance to 40 hours a week at minimum wage equivalent. Tax allowance should be transferable between married couples. No national insurance. All income above the tax allowance taxed at 40%. No loopholes. Bank accounts monitored and cashless economy. No in work benefits. Very few other benefits. Unemployment benefits minimal for a few months then just vouchers for minimum rations to live. Much simpler, less costly to administer and less evasion. CEO salaries should be capped at (say) 5x lowest hourly rate. Most upper management don’t add value. Same should apply to all public sector workers. The likes of council “leaders” earning £500k is just obscene. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Increase the minimum wage to £15 per hour. Increase the tax allowance to 40 hours a week at minimum wage equivalent. Tax allowance should be transferable between married couples. No national insurance. All income above the tax allowance taxed at 40%. No loopholes. Bank accounts monitored and cashless economy. No in work benefits. Very few other benefits. Unemployment benefits minimal for a few months then just vouchers for minimum rations to live. Much simpler, less costly to administer and less evasion. CEO salaries should be capped at (say) 5x lowest hourly rate. Most upper management don’t add value. Same should apply to all public sector workers. The likes of council “leaders” earning £500k is just obscene." Good luck selling that to... anyone? The entire economy would collapse and there would be a very real exodus of almost all wealth generators. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Increase the minimum wage to £15 per hour. Increase the tax allowance to 40 hours a week at minimum wage equivalent. Tax allowance should be transferable between married couples. No national insurance. All income above the tax allowance taxed at 40%. No loopholes. Bank accounts monitored and cashless economy. No in work benefits. Very few other benefits. Unemployment benefits minimal for a few months then just vouchers for minimum rations to live. Much simpler, less costly to administer and less evasion. CEO salaries should be capped at (say) 5x lowest hourly rate. Most upper management don’t add value. Same should apply to all public sector workers. The likes of council “leaders” earning £500k is just obscene. Good luck selling that to... anyone? The entire economy would collapse and there would be a very real exodus of almost all wealth generators." Which bit don’t you like? CEO salaries cap or the minimum wage/ no benefits? Few if any upper management add value. Whoever thought that setting a low minimum wage, then taxing people on it, then giving people money back as benefits was a good idea is totally mad. Why would the economy collapse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Few if any upper management add value. " Um... That's a viewpoint, certainly. " Whoever thought that a low minimum wage, then taxing people on it, then giving people money back as benefits was a good idea is totally mad. " Agreed. Your points all make sense, but taken together in reality, it is just unworkable. " Why would the economy collapse?" Aside from any other reasons... Almost all financial companies would leave the UK and nobody would ever want to start a profitable business here. Tax revenues would plummet as companies flee. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Increase the minimum wage to £15 per hour. Increase the tax allowance to 40 hours a week at minimum wage equivalent. Tax allowance should be transferable between married couples. No national insurance. All income above the tax allowance taxed at 40%. No loopholes. Bank accounts monitored and cashless economy. No in work benefits. Very few other benefits. Unemployment benefits minimal for a few months then just vouchers for minimum rations to live. Much simpler, less costly to administer and less evasion. CEO salaries should be capped at (say) 5x lowest hourly rate. Most upper management don’t add value. Same should apply to all public sector workers. The likes of council “leaders” earning £500k is just obscene. Good luck selling that to... anyone? The entire economy would collapse and there would be a very real exodus of almost all wealth generators. Which bit don’t you like? CEO salaries cap or the minimum wage/ no benefits? Few if any upper management add value. Whoever thought that setting a low minimum wage, then taxing people on it, then giving people money back as benefits was a good idea is totally mad. Why would the economy collapse?" Economies have been globalised for lower wages Bananas in the supermarket picked for 10p a day by children. Primark £3.50 T shirts made in factories on long shifts by workers with little health and safety. Call centre jobs for all our banks, energy and media companies found in Singapore and India etc where wages are lower. Triumph motorcycles uk factory closed and three built in Thailand. We are in a situation reliant on imports from countries with lower labour costs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live. They don't. The minimum wage is quite livable for a single person in most parts of the country. The problem only comes if someone has several dependants and lives in a big city. The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits. Nonsense. What the government is subsidising is some people's choice to have a family whilst on a wage that can't support them. We clearly live in very different areas. The fact that you live near London doesn't make your words more true. For most parts of the country, the minimum wage is livable for a single person. What's making life difficult for you and your neighbours isn't that your employers are stingy, it's that you live in a particularly expensive place. The fact of the matter is that millions are receiving in-work benefits, including those who work for companies that post significant profits. Which means that, ultimately, the government is subsidising company profits. The government should not be subsidising those in work (generally). The simple solution is for the government to pull all in work benefits, which would then force companies to pay more or for the cost of living to reduce. But this would also have two very undesirable consequences. Firstly, there would be an impossible cost of living squeeze while the market adjusted, secondly rebooking in-work benefits would make being unemployed much more attractive. So there needs to be another way forward... For example, the government could increase tax on profits of companies whose employees are heavily in receipt of in work benefits (based on reasonable factors, such as objectively low wages). Increase the minimum wage to £15 per hour. Increase the tax allowance to 40 hours a week at minimum wage equivalent. Tax allowance should be transferable between married couples. No national insurance. All income above the tax allowance taxed at 40%. No loopholes. Bank accounts monitored and cashless economy. No in work benefits. Very few other benefits. Unemployment benefits minimal for a few months then just vouchers for minimum rations to live. Much simpler, less costly to administer and less evasion. CEO salaries should be capped at (say) 5x lowest hourly rate. Most upper management don’t add value. Same should apply to all public sector workers. The likes of council “leaders” earning £500k is just obscene." Move to China, you'll get pretty much everything you want but no minimum wage. And learn to live within your means | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" CEO salaries should be capped at (say) 5x lowest hourly rate. Most upper management don’t add value. " If they don't add value, why is the board paying them so much? Are they all stupid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" CEO salaries should be capped at (say) 5x lowest hourly rate. Most upper management don’t add value. If they don't add value, why is the board paying them so much? Are they all stupid?" Only in the public sector | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So there needs to be another way forward... For example, the government could increase tax on profits of companies whose employees are heavily in receipt of in work benefits (based on reasonable factors, such as objectively low wages)." Thus giving companies a huge incentive to get rid of employees that have a family and are claiming benefits, and replace them with single people that aren't claiming. Is that the way you want to go? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So there needs to be another way forward... For example, the government could increase tax on profits of companies whose employees are heavily in receipt of in work benefits (based on reasonable factors, such as objectively low wages). Thus giving companies a huge incentive to get rid of employees that have a family and are claiming benefits, and replace them with single people that aren't claiming. Is that the way you want to go?" That's a very narrow reading of a general concept. Which is why reasonable factors need to be considered, to avoid exactly this. There are already mechanisms to look at reasonable compensation, such as minimum salaries for work visas. Similar approaches might work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live. They don't. The minimum wage is quite livable for a single person in most parts of the country. The problem only comes if someone has several dependants and lives in a big city. The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits. Nonsense. What the government is subsidising is some people's choice to have a family whilst on a wage that can't support them. We clearly live in very different areas. The fact that you live near London doesn't make your words more true. For most parts of the country, the minimum wage is livable for a single person. What's making life difficult for you and your neighbours isn't that your employers are stingy, it's that you live in a particularly expensive place. The fact of the matter is that millions are receiving in-work benefits, including those who work for companies that post significant profits. Which means that, ultimately, the government is subsidising company profits. The government should not be subsidising those in work (generally). The simple solution is for the government to pull all in work benefits, which would then force companies to pay more or for the cost of living to reduce. But this would also have two very undesirable consequences. Firstly, there would be an impossible cost of living squeeze while the market adjusted, secondly rebooking in-work benefits would make being unemployed much more attractive. So there needs to be another way forward... For example, the government could increase tax on profits of companies whose employees are heavily in receipt of in work benefits (based on reasonable factors, such as objectively low wages)." If taxes were introduced on companies whose employees were in receipt of benefits, 3 things would be likely to happen. Firstly, headcount reductions. Secondly, the company would look to relocate the business to a less expensive area for housing and other periphery services that push up the cost of living. Lastly, price increases would occur on what we could assume are low cost production items and low % returns. If this was not accepted by the consumer there would be no point continuing to trade. There are many factors that can be attributed to people requiring benefits, if the bottom rises artificially the middle and top will rise too. Instead of focusing on taking from / punishing business why not refocus on rewarding them if they increase their pay ladder structure to a point that it is costing less in benefits to supplement? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If taxes were introduced on companies whose employees were in receipt of benefits, 3 things would be likely to happen. Firstly, headcount reductions. " Ultimately a good thing. " Secondly, the company would look to relocate the business to a less expensive area for housing and other periphery services that push up the cost of living. " Ultimately a very good thing. " Lastly, price increases would occur on what we could assume are low cost production items and low % returns. If this was not accepted by the consumer there would be no point continuing to trade. " Getting closer to a Swiss model, which isn't terrible. " There are many factors that can be attributed to people requiring benefits, if the bottom rises artificially the middle and top will rise too. Instead of focusing on taking from / punishing business why not refocus on rewarding them if they increase their pay ladder structure to a point that it is costing less in benefits to supplement? " Absolutely perfect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If taxes were introduced on companies whose employees were in receipt of benefits, 3 things would be likely to happen. Firstly, headcount reductions. Ultimately a good thing. Secondly, the company would look to relocate the business to a less expensive area for housing and other periphery services that push up the cost of living. Ultimately a very good thing. Lastly, price increases would occur on what we could assume are low cost production items and low % returns. If this was not accepted by the consumer there would be no point continuing to trade. Getting closer to a Swiss model, which isn't terrible. There are many factors that can be attributed to people requiring benefits, if the bottom rises artificially the middle and top will rise too. Instead of focusing on taking from / punishing business why not refocus on rewarding them if they increase their pay ladder structure to a point that it is costing less in benefits to supplement? Absolutely perfect." I'm glad we have settled that. Lets now talk about what we are going to deliver in October's budget, someone needs get on with it.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it. Because the media has everyone focusing their ire on: Foreigners The "woke" The trans community Pride celebrations People speaking out about genocide Efforts to tackle climate change People who eat tofu Muslims Small boats Etc " Accurate the current zeitgeist is Farage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? " Maybe income inequality just isn't that popular. But if you want to make a case for it, feel free to go ahead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it. What exactly do you think we should be campaigning for? I think we'd all agree that a brain surgeon deserves to get paid more than a street cleaner. Both do important and useful jobs, but one needs more skill and ability than the other. What would equalising their pay achieve?" Fair pay for a fair days work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Income equality? Utter nonsense and that's why no-one takes it seriously other than than the lefties... expect it to feature in Corbyns new party while it lasts. " Wow, so why do we now have more food banks and more people in work using them than McDonald's? The rich get ever richer and extract money from the poorest. Time they gave back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live. They don't. The minimum wage is quite livable for a single person in most parts of the country. The problem only comes if someone has several dependants and lives in a big city. The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits. Nonsense. What the government is subsidising is some people's choice to have a family whilst on a wage that can't support them. We clearly live in very different areas. The fact that you live near London doesn't make your words more true. For most parts of the country, the minimum wage is livable for a single person. What's making life difficult for you and your neighbours isn't that your employers are stingy, it's that you live in a particularly expensive place. The fact of the matter is that millions are receiving in-work benefits, including those who work for companies that post significant profits. Which means that, ultimately, the government is subsidising company profits. The government should not be subsidising those in work (generally). The simple solution is for the government to pull all in work benefits, which would then force companies to pay more or for the cost of living to reduce. But this would also have two very undesirable consequences. Firstly, there would be an impossible cost of living squeeze while the market adjusted, secondly rebooking in-work benefits would make being unemployed much more attractive. So there needs to be another way forward... For example, the government could increase tax on profits of companies whose employees are heavily in receipt of in work benefits (based on reasonable factors, such as objectively low wages). If taxes were introduced on companies whose employees were in receipt of benefits, 3 things would be likely to happen. Firstly, headcount reductions. Secondly, the company would look to relocate the business to a less expensive area for housing and other periphery services that push up the cost of living. Lastly, price increases would occur on what we could assume are low cost production items and low % returns. If this was not accepted by the consumer there would be no point continuing to trade. There are many factors that can be attributed to people requiring benefits, if the bottom rises artificially the middle and top will rise too. Instead of focusing on taking from / punishing business why not refocus on rewarding them if they increase their pay ladder structure to a point that it is costing less in benefits to supplement? " You really do have it baaaad!!! Give more money to the all ready rich!! How about saying pay you people more or we'll tax you more. Let them go, as if other people couldn't create those businesses if the selfish fucked off? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live. They don't. The minimum wage is quite livable for a single person in most parts of the country. The problem only comes if someone has several dependants and lives in a big city. The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits. Nonsense. What the government is subsidising is some people's choice to have a family whilst on a wage that can't support them. We clearly live in very different areas. The fact that you live near London doesn't make your words more true. For most parts of the country, the minimum wage is livable for a single person. What's making life difficult for you and your neighbours isn't that your employers are stingy, it's that you live in a particularly expensive place. The fact of the matter is that millions are receiving in-work benefits, including those who work for companies that post significant profits. Which means that, ultimately, the government is subsidising company profits. The government should not be subsidising those in work (generally). The simple solution is for the government to pull all in work benefits, which would then force companies to pay more or for the cost of living to reduce. But this would also have two very undesirable consequences. Firstly, there would be an impossible cost of living squeeze while the market adjusted, secondly rebooking in-work benefits would make being unemployed much more attractive. So there needs to be another way forward... For example, the government could increase tax on profits of companies whose employees are heavily in receipt of in work benefits (based on reasonable factors, such as objectively low wages). If taxes were introduced on companies whose employees were in receipt of benefits, 3 things would be likely to happen. Firstly, headcount reductions. Secondly, the company would look to relocate the business to a less expensive area for housing and other periphery services that push up the cost of living. Lastly, price increases would occur on what we could assume are low cost production items and low % returns. If this was not accepted by the consumer there would be no point continuing to trade. There are many factors that can be attributed to people requiring benefits, if the bottom rises artificially the middle and top will rise too. Instead of focusing on taking from / punishing business why not refocus on rewarding them if they increase their pay ladder structure to a point that it is costing less in benefits to supplement? You really do have it baaaad!!! Give more money to the all ready rich!! How about saying pay you people more or we'll tax you more. Let them go, as if other people couldn't create those businesses if the selfish fucked off?" You seem really angry today  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous how full-time workers need government support to live. They don't. The minimum wage is quite livable for a single person in most parts of the country. The problem only comes if someone has several dependants and lives in a big city. The government effectively subsidises zombie companies and profits. Nonsense. What the government is subsidising is some people's choice to have a family whilst on a wage that can't support them. We clearly live in very different areas. The fact that you live near London doesn't make your words more true. For most parts of the country, the minimum wage is livable for a single person. What's making life difficult for you and your neighbours isn't that your employers are stingy, it's that you live in a particularly expensive place. The fact of the matter is that millions are receiving in-work benefits, including those who work for companies that post significant profits. Which means that, ultimately, the government is subsidising company profits. The government should not be subsidising those in work (generally). The simple solution is for the government to pull all in work benefits, which would then force companies to pay more or for the cost of living to reduce. But this would also have two very undesirable consequences. Firstly, there would be an impossible cost of living squeeze while the market adjusted, secondly rebooking in-work benefits would make being unemployed much more attractive. So there needs to be another way forward... For example, the government could increase tax on profits of companies whose employees are heavily in receipt of in work benefits (based on reasonable factors, such as objectively low wages). If taxes were introduced on companies whose employees were in receipt of benefits, 3 things would be likely to happen. Firstly, headcount reductions. Secondly, the company would look to relocate the business to a less expensive area for housing and other periphery services that push up the cost of living. Lastly, price increases would occur on what we could assume are low cost production items and low % returns. If this was not accepted by the consumer there would be no point continuing to trade. There are many factors that can be attributed to people requiring benefits, if the bottom rises artificially the middle and top will rise too. Instead of focusing on taking from / punishing business why not refocus on rewarding them if they increase their pay ladder structure to a point that it is costing less in benefits to supplement? You really do have it baaaad!!! Give more money to the all ready rich!! How about saying pay you people more or we'll tax you more. Let them go, as if other people couldn't create those businesses if the selfish fucked off? You seem really angry today "Lol, no anger, just speaking truth as I see it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why aren't the 99% of us not campaigning hard for this? It seems to have dropped off the radar of all political parties. I think Corbyn was the last politician to highlight it. The problem with Corbyn is that it’s the right message… but the wrong messenger For example, if you looked at the New York mayoral election last week (I have been dying to talk about it and for someone to bring it up just to see if it made any impact here at all) The person who won, Zohran Mamdani, was laser focused on the issue… like a Bernie sanders or an AOC They say all politics is local, so focusing on the kitchen and table issues Definitely looking forward to seeing how those government run supermarkets work out in New York. " Has he said that? I seem to see free childcare and buses sounds like Manchester not Cuba | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Late to this. Going to take a different view to most of the thread. As someone who has run a company or two I can tell you there are people who are really economically valuable to the company. And there are people who are not. Realistically, there are relatively few people in the first category. Once you find them then you don’t want to lose them. Under any circumstances. Most people don’t really add that much extra value. Sure they are doing something that is useful but they are not remotely close to moving the dial. I don’t think most people appreciate how much different a top performer is. It is orders of magnitude. Income equality would seriously damage that first group and they are the ones who really make things work. " So we just let the second group starve? Because in your eyes they contribute little? Are we talking eugenics level of uni want here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Late to this. Going to take a different view to most of the thread. As someone who has run a company or two I can tell you there are people who are really economically valuable to the company. And there are people who are not. Realistically, there are relatively few people in the first category. Once you find them then you don’t want to lose them. Under any circumstances. Most people don’t really add that much extra value. Sure they are doing something that is useful but they are not remotely close to moving the dial. I don’t think most people appreciate how much different a top performer is. It is orders of magnitude. Income equality would seriously damage that first group and they are the ones who really make things work. " Agreed. Pay and reward often seem unfair to those who don’t see how their role contributes to the overall return on investment. High performers drive results far beyond their salary and that’s where the value lies. Equality in pay sounds good on paper but would seriously undermine those who actually create the returns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don’t think most people appreciate how much different a top performer is. It is orders of magnitude. Income equality would seriously damage that first group and they are the ones who really make things work. Agreed. Pay and reward often seem unfair to those who don’t see how their role contributes to the overall return on investment. High performers drive results far beyond their salary and that’s where the value lies. Equality in pay sounds good on paper but would seriously undermine those who actually create the returns. " This, 100%. Had the unfortunate job of letting someone go recently, whose last working day was this Friday. Until the end, he honestly believed that he was the top performer in the team (this was part of the problem). He had previously ranted about "management", but didn't understand what true value or productivity means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Late to this. Going to take a different view to most of the thread. As someone who has run a company or two I can tell you there are people who are really economically valuable to the company. And there are people who are not. Realistically, there are relatively few people in the first category. Once you find them then you don’t want to lose them. Under any circumstances. Most people don’t really add that much extra value. Sure they are doing something that is useful but they are not remotely close to moving the dial. I don’t think most people appreciate how much different a top performer is. It is orders of magnitude. Income equality would seriously damage that first group and they are the ones who really make things work. So we just let the second group starve? Because in your eyes they contribute little? Are we talking eugenics level of uni want here?" Sounds about perfect | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Late to this. Going to take a different view to most of the thread. As someone who has run a company or two I can tell you there are people who are really economically valuable to the company. And there are people who are not. Realistically, there are relatively few people in the first category. Once you find them then you don’t want to lose them. Under any circumstances. Most people don’t really add that much extra value. Sure they are doing something that is useful but they are not remotely close to moving the dial. I don’t think most people appreciate how much different a top performer is. It is orders of magnitude. Income equality would seriously damage that first group and they are the ones who really make things work. So we just let the second group starve? Because in your eyes they contribute little? Are we talking eugenics level of uni want here? Sounds about perfect "Just confirming to everybody there that your views cannot be taken seriously. Yeah, ‘let them starve’. Let’s think that through just for a nanosecond. It’s not like it would lead to societal breakdown & mass civil disorder is it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The happiest people on earth live in high tax countries!!" Those countries have high tax for everyone, not just the rich. Even the lowest income earner pays around 30% tax in Sweden, for example. That's how you create a high trust society. Are you willing to pay more out of your own pocket? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Late to this. Going to take a different view to most of the thread. As someone who has run a company or two I can tell you there are people who are really economically valuable to the company. And there are people who are not. Realistically, there are relatively few people in the first category. Once you find them then you don’t want to lose them. Under any circumstances. Most people don’t really add that much extra value. Sure they are doing something that is useful but they are not remotely close to moving the dial. I don’t think most people appreciate how much different a top performer is. It is orders of magnitude. Income equality would seriously damage that first group and they are the ones who really make things work. So we just let the second group starve? Because in your eyes they contribute little? Are we talking eugenics level of uni want here? Sounds about perfect
Just confirming to everybody there that your views cannot be taken seriously.
Yeah, ‘let them starve’. Let’s think that through just for a nanosecond. It’s not like it would lead to societal breakdown & mass civil disorder is it."Don't be daft, of course they won't starve, the wealthy will be taxed to give them plenty of benefits | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The happiest people on earth live in high tax countries!! Those countries have high tax for everyone, not just the rich. Even the lowest income earner pays around 30% tax in Sweden, for example. That's how you create a high trust society. Are you willing to pay more out of your own pocket?" I would be, without a moments hesitation. Sacrifice the cost of a night out here & there to create better public services & infrastructure is a no brainer imo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Late to this. Going to take a different view to most of the thread. As someone who has run a company or two I can tell you there are people who are really economically valuable to the company. And there are people who are not. Realistically, there are relatively few people in the first category. Once you find them then you don’t want to lose them. Under any circumstances. Most people don’t really add that much extra value. Sure they are doing something that is useful but they are not remotely close to moving the dial. I don’t think most people appreciate how much different a top performer is. It is orders of magnitude. Income equality would seriously damage that first group and they are the ones who really make things work. So we just let the second group starve? Because in your eyes they contribute little? Are we talking eugenics level of uni want here? Sounds about perfect
Just confirming to everybody there that your views cannot be taken seriously.
Yeah, ‘let them starve’. Let’s think that through just for a nanosecond. It’s not like it would lead to societal breakdown & mass civil disorder is it."The "sounds about right" was directed at your response rather than the let them starve Why on earth would they starve, people that don't contribute have no place in the workforce, they will either learn to contribute or move to something more suitable. Starving or not is completely in the hands of the employee not the responsibility of the employer. Pay scales are the way the real world use to promote and nurture those who contribute most to the profits of a company. To suggest someone packing boxes shoud earn as much as someone who manages to get contracts to see the stuff in the boxes is frankly ridiculous and not even worth discussing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Late to this. Going to take a different view to most of the thread. As someone who has run a company or two I can tell you there are people who are really economically valuable to the company. And there are people who are not. Realistically, there are relatively few people in the first category. Once you find them then you don’t want to lose them. Under any circumstances. Most people don’t really add that much extra value. Sure they are doing something that is useful but they are not remotely close to moving the dial. I don’t think most people appreciate how much different a top performer is. It is orders of magnitude. Income equality would seriously damage that first group and they are the ones who really make things work. So we just let the second group starve? Because in your eyes they contribute little? Are we talking eugenics level of uni want here? Sounds about perfect
Just confirming to everybody there that your views cannot be taken seriously.
Yeah, ‘let them starve’. Let’s think that through just for a nanosecond. It’s not like it would lead to societal breakdown & mass civil disorder is it.
The "sounds about right" was directed at your response rather than the let them starve
Why on earth would they starve, people that don't contribute have no place in the workforce, they will either learn to contribute or move to something more suitable. Starving or not is completely in the hands of the employee not the responsibility of the employer.
Pay scales are the way the real world use to promote and nurture those who contribute most to the profits of a company. To suggest someone packing boxes shoud earn as much as someone who manages to get contracts to see the stuff in the boxes is frankly ridiculous and not even worth discussing.
"Sure, and I didn’t suggest that. I think you are confusing who you are replying to. I was merely pointing out that ‘letting people starve’ is not an option. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The happiest people on earth live in high tax countries!! Those countries have high tax for everyone, not just the rich. Even the lowest income earner pays around 30% tax in Sweden, for example. That's how you create a high trust society. Are you willing to pay more out of your own pocket? I would be, without a moments hesitation. Sacrifice the cost of a night out here & there to create better public services & infrastructure is a no brainer imo " So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Late to this. Going to take a different view to most of the thread. As someone who has run a company or two I can tell you there are people who are really economically valuable to the company. And there are people who are not. Realistically, there are relatively few people in the first category. Once you find them then you don’t want to lose them. Under any circumstances. Most people don’t really add that much extra value. Sure they are doing something that is useful but they are not remotely close to moving the dial. I don’t think most people appreciate how much different a top performer is. It is orders of magnitude. Income equality would seriously damage that first group and they are the ones who really make things work. So we just let the second group starve? Because in your eyes they contribute little? Are we talking eugenics level of uni want here? Sounds about perfect
Just confirming to everybody there that your views cannot be taken seriously.
Yeah, ‘let them starve’. Let’s think that through just for a nanosecond. It’s not like it would lead to societal breakdown & mass civil disorder is it.
The "sounds about right" was directed at your response rather than the let them starve
Why on earth would they starve, people that don't contribute have no place in the workforce, they will either learn to contribute or move to something more suitable. Starving or not is completely in the hands of the employee not the responsibility of the employer.
Pay scales are the way the real world use to promote and nurture those who contribute most to the profits of a company. To suggest someone packing boxes shoud earn as much as someone who manages to get contracts to see the stuff in the boxes is frankly ridiculous and not even worth discussing.
Sure, and I didn’t suggest that. I think you are confusing who you are replying to.
I was merely pointing out that ‘letting people starve’ is not an option."I know you didn't, letting them starve was just a stupid comment by someone with no intelligent response I think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The happiest people on earth live in high tax countries!! Those countries have high tax for everyone, not just the rich. Even the lowest income earner pays around 30% tax in Sweden, for example. That's how you create a high trust society. Are you willing to pay more out of your own pocket? I would be, without a moments hesitation. Sacrifice the cost of a night out here & there to create better public services & infrastructure is a no brainer imo So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that?" Why should I alone pay more tax, funding the same level of public services that you would also have access to, whilst opting to pay less tax? The directive has to come from government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The happiest people on earth live in high tax countries!! Those countries have high tax for everyone, not just the rich. Even the lowest income earner pays around 30% tax in Sweden, for example. That's how you create a high trust society. Are you willing to pay more out of your own pocket? I would be, without a moments hesitation. Sacrifice the cost of a night out here & there to create better public services & infrastructure is a no brainer imo So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? Why should I alone pay more tax, funding the same level of public services that you would also have access to, whilst opting to pay less tax? The directive has to come from government. " But you just said that it's a no-brainer for you. If you really care about the issue so much, why don't you take the initiative and pay more tax? This is a moral issue. If you personally feel that it's the moral duty of the government to take care of the poor, you could start by paying the government to do so. Why wait for others also to pay the same? Time and again I have noticed that the leftists pretend like they care about the poor people but when it comes to opening their own wallets, they always come up with some excuses like these. There is a reason why right wingers tend to make more charitable donations than left wingers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that?" This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The happiest people on earth live in high tax countries!! Those countries have high tax for everyone, not just the rich. Even the lowest income earner pays around 30% tax in Sweden, for example. That's how you create a high trust society. Are you willing to pay more out of your own pocket? I would be, without a moments hesitation. Sacrifice the cost of a night out here & there to create better public services & infrastructure is a no brainer imo So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? Why should I alone pay more tax, funding the same level of public services that you would also have access to, whilst opting to pay less tax? The directive has to come from government. But you just said that it's a no-brainer for you. If you really care about the issue so much, why don't you take the initiative and pay more tax? This is a moral issue. If you personally feel that it's the moral duty of the government to take care of the poor, you could start by paying the government to do so. Why wait for others also to pay the same? Time and again I have noticed that the leftists pretend like they care about the poor people but when it comes to opening their own wallets, they always come up with some excuses like these. There is a reason why right wingers tend to make more charitable donations than left wingers." With all due respect, that is a whole basketful of assumptions you are making about me right there. Suffice to say it is possible to make targeted donations & also give up free time to benefit some of those less fortunate. As regards paying tax generally so tightwads like you can also benefit from better roads, schools, hospitals. Not sure I see the appeal of that really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem." Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor" Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor" I am not making any assumptions. I am just going off what you said here. You said high tax is a good thing and you would happily pay it. And yet you wouldn't pay it yourself even though no one is stopping you from paying it voluntarily. If you are really interested in paying more tax to the government, you could start paying it now AND try to get a left wing politician in power so that they can tax everyone. But until the politicians impose such high tax on everyone, why should you hold the money back? Why don't you pay it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why should I alone pay more tax, funding the same level of public services that you would also have access to, whilst opting to pay less tax? The directive has to come from government. " If you had left out the government, you would have cracked it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why should I alone pay more tax, funding the same level of public services that you would also have access to, whilst opting to pay less tax? The directive has to come from government. If you had left out the government, you would have cracked it." So you think a completely voluntary tax based system would work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. " How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth." Yeah, and look at the state of the USA at the moment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why should I alone pay more tax, funding the same level of public services that you would also have access to, whilst opting to pay less tax? The directive has to come from government. If you had left out the government, you would have cracked it. So you think a completely voluntary tax based system would work?" Read your post again, you are asking why "you" should pay more. The ask is why people think the wealthy or others should pay more. It is always others money people want to use  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth." You can find the information at Awareness Act. I did, the other day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why should I alone pay more tax, funding the same level of public services that you would also have access to, whilst opting to pay less tax? The directive has to come from government. If you had left out the government, you would have cracked it. So you think a completely voluntary tax based system would work?" Taxing everyone for infrastructure works. But taxing everyone for moral causes, not so much. There are numerous issues in every society. Different people care about different issues, some care about healthcare, some about the environment, some about orphaned kids, some about disability, some about minorities, etc. The government taking a monopoly on deciding how much money each of these issues isn't right. Let people decide where their money should go, based on issues they personally care about. Not to mention the fact that governments are wasteful and inefficient in solving these issues too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. You can find the information at Awareness Act. I did, the other day. " I couldn't find anything of that name | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why should I alone pay more tax, funding the same level of public services that you would also have access to, whilst opting to pay less tax? The directive has to come from government. If you had left out the government, you would have cracked it. So you think a completely voluntary tax based system would work? Read your post again, you are asking why "you" should pay more. The ask is why people think the wealthy or others should pay more. It is always others money people want to use "I won’t pay more if those of similar fiscal means (no mention of ‘the wealthy’ on this particular point by the way) don’t do the same. The non payers can put up with the same road potholes that I have to. I’m not paying to only fill half the pothole getting less benefit overall than I should reasonably expect. So again, taking things to the extreme, would a completely voluntary tax system work? Isn’t that the utopian dream for right wingers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. Yeah, and look at the state of the USA at the moment." That's because the democrats who pretend like they care about the poor never opened their wallets to actually do so. At least the republican supporters are doing their bit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. You can find the information at Awareness Act. I did, the other day. I couldn't find anything of that name" University of Chicago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. You can find the information at Awareness Act. I did, the other day. I couldn't find anything of that name University of Chicago. " As I said, it's basically a study based on asking people to fill a questionnaire. The left wingers never thought twice before *saying* they would help others. It's only when it comes to action that they fair poorly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I won’t pay more if those of similar fiscal means (no mention of ‘the wealthy’ on this particular point by the way) don’t do the same. " Why not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. You can find the information at Awareness Act. I did, the other day. I couldn't find anything of that name University of Chicago. As I said, it's basically a study based on asking people to fill a questionnaire. The left wingers never thought twice before *saying* they would help others. It's only when it comes to action that they fair poorly." Oh, so you managed to find it?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. You can find the information at Awareness Act. I did, the other day. I couldn't find anything of that name University of Chicago. As I said, it's basically a study based on asking people to fill a questionnaire. The left wingers never thought twice before *saying* they would help others. It's only when it comes to action that they fair poorly. Oh, so you managed to find it?
"It was a behavioral study, not a questionnaire. Did you miss that part? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why should I alone pay more tax, funding the same level of public services that you would also have access to, whilst opting to pay less tax? The directive has to come from government. If you had left out the government, you would have cracked it. So you think a completely voluntary tax based system would work? Read your post again, you are asking why "you" should pay more. The ask is why people think the wealthy or others should pay more. It is always others money people want to use
I won’t pay more if those of similar fiscal means (no mention of ‘the wealthy’ on this particular point by the way) don’t do the same.
"The current tax rates are based on % So people who are earning higher than you are already paying more than you. Should they also say that they will pay exactly the amount you are paying? " The non payers can put up with the same road potholes that I have to. I’m not paying to only fill half the pothole getting less benefit overall than I should reasonably expect. " So why should someone who earns money pay for people who don't work, don't pay taxes and just consumes the tax and leaves on benefits? " So again, taking things to the extreme, would a completely voluntary tax system work? " A government tax system for infrastructure and a voluntary tax or charity based support for taking care of suffering people would work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. You can find the information at Awareness Act. I did, the other day. I couldn't find anything of that name University of Chicago. As I said, it's basically a study based on asking people to fill a questionnaire. The left wingers never thought twice before *saying* they would help others. It's only when it comes to action that they fair poorly. Oh, so you managed to find it?
It was a behavioral study, not a questionnaire. Did you miss that part? "Lol. Funny that I did a Google search again and found that they actually retracted that paper 
This is what the retraction says:
An error in this article, our incorrect inclusion of country of origin as a covariate in many analyses, was pointed out in a correspondence from Shariff, Willard, Muthukrishna, Kramer, and Henrich. When we reanalyzed these data to correct this error, we found that country of origin, rather than religious affiliation, is the primary predictor of several of the outcomes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. You can find the information at Awareness Act. I did, the other day. I couldn't find anything of that name University of Chicago. As I said, it's basically a study based on asking people to fill a questionnaire. The left wingers never thought twice before *saying* they would help others. It's only when it comes to action that they fair poorly. Oh, so you managed to find it?
It was a behavioral study, not a questionnaire. Did you miss that part?
Lol. Funny that I did a Google search again and found that they actually retracted that paper
This is what the retraction says:
An error in this article, our incorrect inclusion of country of origin as a covariate in many analyses, was pointed out in a correspondence from Shariff, Willard, Muthukrishna, Kramer, and Henrich. When we reanalyzed these data to correct this error, we found that country of origin, rather than religious affiliation, is the primary predictor of several of the outcomes."While our title finding that increased household religiousness predicts less sharing in children remains significant, we feel it necessary to explicitly correct the scientific record, and we are therefore retracting the article. _______ Try quoting the full text, and not the part that suits your narrative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. You can find the information at Awareness Act. I did, the other day. I couldn't find anything of that name University of Chicago. As I said, it's basically a study based on asking people to fill a questionnaire. The left wingers never thought twice before *saying* they would help others. It's only when it comes to action that they fair poorly. Oh, so you managed to find it?
It was a behavioral study, not a questionnaire. Did you miss that part?
Lol. Funny that I did a Google search again and found that they actually retracted that paper
This is what the retraction says:
An error in this article, our incorrect inclusion of country of origin as a covariate in many analyses, was pointed out in a correspondence from Shariff, Willard, Muthukrishna, Kramer, and Henrich. When we reanalyzed these data to correct this error, we found that country of origin, rather than religious affiliation, is the primary predictor of several of the outcomes.
While our title finding that increased household religiousness predicts less sharing in children remains significant, we feel it necessary to explicitly correct the scientific record, and we are therefore retracting the article.
_______
Try quoting the full text, and not the part that suits your narrative. "They redacted the entire study anyway. So what's the point of this? Also, a study based on children's games doesn't say anything about what they do as adults with money they earned. We have real study of how much real money that adults donate to charity and that shows a completely different picture. Anyone can pretend to be altruistic in games | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I won’t pay more if those of similar fiscal means (no mention of ‘the wealthy’ on this particular point by the way) don’t do the same. Why not?" I’ve already said. Why are you deliberately being tedious? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. You can find the information at Awareness Act. I did, the other day. I couldn't find anything of that name University of Chicago. As I said, it's basically a study based on asking people to fill a questionnaire. The left wingers never thought twice before *saying* they would help others. It's only when it comes to action that they fair poorly. Oh, so you managed to find it?
It was a behavioral study, not a questionnaire. Did you miss that part?
Lol. Funny that I did a Google search again and found that they actually retracted that paper
This is what the retraction says:
An error in this article, our incorrect inclusion of country of origin as a covariate in many analyses, was pointed out in a correspondence from Shariff, Willard, Muthukrishna, Kramer, and Henrich. When we reanalyzed these data to correct this error, we found that country of origin, rather than religious affiliation, is the primary predictor of several of the outcomes.
While our title finding that increased household religiousness predicts less sharing in children remains significant, we feel it necessary to explicitly correct the scientific record, and we are therefore retracting the article.
_______
Try quoting the full text, and not the part that suits your narrative.
They redacted the entire study anyway. So what's the point of this?
Also, a study based on children's games doesn't say anything about what they do as adults with money they earned. We have real study of how much real money that adults donate to charity and that shows a completely different picture. Anyone can pretend to be altruistic in games "If you are unable or unwilling to extrapolate the relevance....... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why aren't you doing that already? The government allows you to voluntarily pay more tax. If all the armchair leftists on the internet just voluntarily pay more tax, we would have lot on the coffer. But the government pretty much receives nothing through the voluntary tax channel. Why is that? This is an extremely important point. Why are there armies of activists trying to get others to fund causes (in general) that those others don't believe in? We have this wonderful thing called charities. Put-together communities of like-minded individuals band together and thrive when this happens. Churches and parishes used to do this. Many successful ideological groups have managed to do this. This cannot, of course, obviate the need for government support for many social issues, but it appears that so many causes get kicked up to the government to solve (financially). Nothing stops citizens getting together and solving issues... Except inertia and a sense that someone else, with someone else's money (or time), needs to solve the problem. Exactly! Assume a group of people see a homeless person suffering in the streets. - A left winger typically says "why doesn't the government take care of these people by collecting more tax from the rich?" - A right wing capitalist typically says "why doesn't he just find a job?" The only ones who would actually help the person giving them some money are usually the religious ones and the apolitical ones who are instinctive rather than thinking rationally about everything they do. Religious people because their God told them to look after the others. The apolitical ones because they don't think too much about the problem and do whatever makes them happy at the moment. The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. Yeah, and look at the state of the USA at the moment. That's because the democrats who pretend like they care about the poor never opened their wallets to actually do so. At least the republican supporters are doing their bit." Ah, but if your low tax system worked so well, surely there would be no need for these voluntary rotations to the poor? Or is this an admission that if you don’t look after the poor well enough you run the risk of revolt? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was a behavioral study, not a questionnaire. Did you miss that part? Lol. Funny that I did a Google search again and found that they actually retracted that paper
This is what the retraction says:
An error in this article, our incorrect inclusion of country of origin as a covariate in many analyses, was pointed out in a correspondence from Shariff, Willard, Muthukrishna, Kramer, and Henrich. When we reanalyzed these data to correct this error, we found that country of origin, rather than religious affiliation, is the primary predictor of several of the outcomes.
While our title finding that increased household religiousness predicts less sharing in children remains significant, we feel it necessary to explicitly correct the scientific record, and we are therefore retracting the article.
_______
Try quoting the full text, and not the part that suits your narrative.
They redacted the entire study anyway. So what's the point of this?
Also, a study based on children's games doesn't say anything about what they do as adults with money they earned. We have real study of how much real money that adults donate to charity and that shows a completely different picture. Anyone can pretend to be altruistic in games
If you are unable or unwilling to extrapolate the relevance....... "You basically have a study that the author themselves have retracted. And the study is based on behaviour of children while playing a game. And you want me to "extrapolate" that to adults behaviour with real money. I can also be super charitable when I play monopoly. I have seen very charitable people being competitive when it comes to games. And for some reason, you would completely ignore studies around actual donations made by adults for charitable causes? Make that make sense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The left wingers who pretend like they care about the poor would probably have done only a fraction of what the religious people have done for the poor Actually, a study has suggested that it's children in non religious households who are kinder than those in religious households. How do they find out of the children are kinder? They did a survey of the kids? Sure any kid can say they care about others. Wait till they become adults and are asked to pay money to care about others. In the US, the republican supporters generally have contributed more to charity than democrat supporters, even after adjusting for the wealth. Yeah, and look at the state of the USA at the moment. That's because the democrats who pretend like they care about the poor never opened their wallets to actually do so. At least the republican supporters are doing their bit. Ah, but if your low tax system worked so well, surely there would be no need for these voluntary rotations to the poor? Or is this an admission that if you don’t look after the poor well enough you run the risk of revolt?" Who said the US has low tax system? If you want to see the effect of lowering taxes, check out Argentina and the impact of Javier Milei's economic reforms. Argentina will be a blue print for many European countries in the future. You can increase the public spending and taxes all you want until a point when shit breaks down and you can't do it anymore. You will want a reformer like Milei to tear things down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The current tax rates are based on % So people who are earning higher than you are already paying more than you. Should they also say that they will pay exactly the amount you are paying? So why should someone who earns money pay for people who don't work, don't pay taxes and just consumes the tax and leaves on benefits? A government tax system for infrastructure and a voluntary tax or charity based support for taking care of suffering people would work. " 1. Rich people pay less % of their income on tax than the poor do. 2. Yes, we can provide no benefits for those who are unemployed, disabled etc. I think you are risking societal implosion and indeed anarchy if they also lose the state subsidised houses over their heads. So, on your head if that happens, hope you’ve started digging your bunker. Oh and we don’t have enough prisons for these people, they are all full after years of right wing austerity. 3. You are effectively admitting that low tax won’t work because we still have to voluntarily subsidise the less fortunate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The current tax rates are based on % So people who are earning higher than you are already paying more than you. Should they also say that they will pay exactly the amount you are paying? So why should someone who earns money pay for people who don't work, don't pay taxes and just consumes the tax and leaves on benefits? A government tax system for infrastructure and a voluntary tax or charity based support for taking care of suffering people would work. 1. Rich people pay less % of their income on tax than the poor do. 2. Yes, we can provide no benefits for those who are unemployed, disabled etc. I think you are risking societal implosion and indeed anarchy if they also lose the state subsidised houses over their heads. So, on your head if that happens, hope you’ve started digging your bunker. Oh and we don’t have enough prisons for these people, they are all full after years of right wing austerity. 3. You are effectively admitting that low tax won’t work because we still have to voluntarily subsidise the less fortunate. " How does 1 work ? Income tax as a percentage actually increases as earning rise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So why should someone who earns money pay for people who don't work, don't pay taxes and just consumes the tax and leaves on benefits? A government tax system for infrastructure and a voluntary tax or charity based support for taking care of suffering people would work. 1. Rich people pay less % of their income on tax than the poor do. " Another way to look at the stats. The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts. " 2. Yes, we can provide no benefits for those who are unemployed, disabled etc. I think you are risking societal implosion and indeed anarchy if they also lose the state subsidised houses over their heads. So, on your head if that happens, hope you’ve started digging your bunker. Oh and we don’t have enough prisons for these people, they are all full after years of right wing austerity. " There are many countries who don't give out free money for everyone. Disabled, yes. Unemployed? No. Even Sweden stops giving money to unemployed after a year. They literally hound you for that one year asking you to find a job are take a job they suggest whether the unemployed likes it or not. They don't mollycoddle the unemployed. " 3. You are effectively admitting that low tax won’t work because we still have to voluntarily subsidise the less fortunate. " Not really. High tax doesn't solve it either. At least when you have low tax, the society prospers and you get to donate for the causes you care about in a more effective way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's the productivity of your society that makes it prosperous not taxes and public welfare spending." This is something that nobody seems to understand. Money is borderline meaningless. It's all about resource distribution and allocation... But you need the resources first (productivity). Without productivity, some people will miss out. With high productivity, everyone has more than enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The current tax rates are based on % So people who are earning higher than you are already paying more than you. Should they also say that they will pay exactly the amount you are paying? So why should someone who earns money pay for people who don't work, don't pay taxes and just consumes the tax and leaves on benefits? A government tax system for infrastructure and a voluntary tax or charity based support for taking care of suffering people would work. 1. Rich people pay less % of their income on tax than the poor do. 2. Yes, we can provide no benefits for those who are unemployed, disabled etc. I think you are risking societal implosion and indeed anarchy if they also lose the state subsidised houses over their heads. So, on your head if that happens, hope you’ve started digging your bunker. Oh and we don’t have enough prisons for these people, they are all full after years of right wing austerity. 3. You are effectively admitting that low tax won’t work because we still have to voluntarily subsidise the less fortunate. " The top tax payers pay far more in than low rate tax payers. Following your very argument, why should they then be asked to pay more for you and others to benefit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's the productivity of your society that makes it prosperous not taxes and public welfare spending. This is something that nobody seems to understand. Money is borderline meaningless. It's all about resource distribution and allocation... But you need the resources first (productivity). Without productivity, some people will miss out. With high productivity, everyone has more than enough."
The government can print lot of money tomorrow and give it out to all the poor people instead of taxing everyone. But that doesn't solve the problem if the country doesn't produce anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Another way to look at the stats. The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts. There are many countries who don't give out free money for everyone. Disabled, yes. Unemployed? No. Even Sweden stops giving money to unemployed after a year. They literally hound you for that one year asking you to find a job are take a job they suggest whether the unemployed likes it or not. They don't mollycoddle the unemployed. Not really. High tax doesn't solve it either. At least when you have low tax, the society prospers and you get to donate for the causes you care about in a more effective way" Notice you are looking at INCOME TAX in isolation to make ‘the rich’ appear more benevolent than they are. That isn’t the full picture & you know it isn’t. I’m certainly not suggesting we ‘mollycoddle’ the unemployed indefinitely, I don’t think my views match yours though whereby we do things like throw them on the streets it appears & to hell with the consequences? Is moot. I’m saying higher tax receipts can contribute to the lessening of societal ills. If spent wisely of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rich people pay less % of their income on tax than the poor do." Erm…. NO 🤣 Someone on £13 per hour has a effective tax rate of 14.11% Someone on £26 per hour has an effective tax rate of 21.18% Someone on £52 per hour has an effective tax of 31.86% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rich people pay less % of their income on tax than the poor do. Erm…. NO 🤣 Someone on £13 per hour has a effective tax rate of 14.11% Someone on £26 per hour has an effective tax rate of 21.18% Someone on £52 per hour has an effective tax of 31.86% " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rich people pay less % of their income on tax than the poor do. Erm…. NO 🤣 Someone on £13 per hour has a effective tax rate of 14.11% Someone on £26 per hour has an effective tax rate of 21.18% Someone on £52 per hour has an effective tax of 31.86% " Hmm, ‘yes’ pal. Are you thinking about things like VAT? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Another way to look at the stats. The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts. There are many countries who don't give out free money for everyone. Disabled, yes. Unemployed? No. Even Sweden stops giving money to unemployed after a year. They literally hound you for that one year asking you to find a job are take a job they suggest whether the unemployed likes it or not. They don't mollycoddle the unemployed. Not really. High tax doesn't solve it either. At least when you have low tax, the society prospers and you get to donate for the causes you care about in a more effective way Notice you are looking at INCOME TAX in isolation to make ‘the rich’ appear more benevolent than they are. That isn’t the full picture & you know it isn’t. " The income you receive this year is your wealth the next year. Do you think we should all pay tax for the same money next year? " I’m certainly not suggesting we ‘mollycoddle’ the unemployed indefinitely, I don’t think my views match yours though whereby we do things like throw them on the streets it appears & to hell with the consequences? " No one said throw them in the streets. Also, you aren't morally superior to anyone here because you aren't willing to part with your own money. You just want others to pay for it. " Is moot. I’m saying higher tax receipts can contribute to the lessening of societal ills. If spent wisely of course." Argentina is an example that the opposite is true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rich people pay less % of their income on tax than the poor do. Erm…. NO 🤣 Someone on £13 per hour has a effective tax rate of 14.11% Someone on £26 per hour has an effective tax rate of 21.18% Someone on £52 per hour has an effective tax of 31.86% Hmm, ‘yes’ pal. Are you thinking about things like VAT?" The more money you make the more you spend. You can’t spend money you don’t have. The more you spend the more VAT you pay. And yesterday someone told me all rich people send their kids to private school so thats yet another tax that poor people don’t pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23. The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax”" A totally irrelevant number that is skewed by the fact that many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax. The important figure as the actual amount of money. If the bottom 5% of tax payers all stopped paying tax overnight the impact would be negligible. If the top 5% stopped paying tax the country would be bankrupt. One can quote different statistics to suit a different narrative, but the bottom line will always be that the more money you make the more tax you pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23. The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax”" It would be interesting to see how much of that 48% is taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, the major items that less well off would buy would be vat free .. food and rent for example | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23. The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax” A totally irrelevant number that is skewed by the fact that many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax. The important figure as the actual amount of money. If the bottom 5% of tax payers all stopped paying tax overnight the impact would be negligible. If the top 5% stopped paying tax the country would be bankrupt. One can quote different statistics to suit a different narrative, but the bottom line will always be that the more money you make the more tax you pay. " ‘Many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax’ All the more reason to tax a percentage of their wealth then, whilst the country is slowly turning to sh*t. Only my opinion, obviously not yours, so no need to reply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23. The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax” A totally irrelevant number that is skewed by the fact that many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax. The important figure as the actual amount of money. If the bottom 5% of tax payers all stopped paying tax overnight the impact would be negligible. If the top 5% stopped paying tax the country would be bankrupt. One can quote different statistics to suit a different narrative, but the bottom line will always be that the more money you make the more tax you pay. ‘Many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax’ All the more reason to tax a percentage of their wealth then, whilst the country is slowly turning to sh*t. Only my opinion, obviously not yours, so no need to reply." Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23. The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax” A totally irrelevant number that is skewed by the fact that many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax. The important figure as the actual amount of money. If the bottom 5% of tax payers all stopped paying tax overnight the impact would be negligible. If the top 5% stopped paying tax the country would be bankrupt. One can quote different statistics to suit a different narrative, but the bottom line will always be that the more money you make the more tax you pay. ‘Many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax’ All the more reason to tax a percentage of their wealth then, whilst the country is slowly turning to sh*t. Only my opinion, obviously not yours, so no need to reply. Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others?" Oh for god sake, I’ve already said I’d happily pay more tax (as long as everybody else is stick their shoulder to the wheel in similar fashion) What else do you want? Blood? Yeah, if I had millions in the bank, take a % of it by all means. I’ll be one of the Patriotic Millionaires. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others?" Are you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23. The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax” A totally irrelevant number that is skewed by the fact that many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax. The important figure as the actual amount of money. If the bottom 5% of tax payers all stopped paying tax overnight the impact would be negligible. If the top 5% stopped paying tax the country would be bankrupt. One can quote different statistics to suit a different narrative, but the bottom line will always be that the more money you make the more tax you pay. ‘Many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax’ All the more reason to tax a percentage of their wealth then, whilst the country is slowly turning to sh*t. Only my opinion, obviously not yours, so no need to reply." So they do pay tax on investment in one way or another as dividend tax, or capital gains. Not as much as income tax agreed but its still taxed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? " No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23. The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax” A totally irrelevant number that is skewed by the fact that many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax. The important figure as the actual amount of money. If the bottom 5% of tax payers all stopped paying tax overnight the impact would be negligible. If the top 5% stopped paying tax the country would be bankrupt. One can quote different statistics to suit a different narrative, but the bottom line will always be that the more money you make the more tax you pay. ‘Many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax’ All the more reason to tax a percentage of their wealth then, whilst the country is slowly turning to sh*t. Only my opinion, obviously not yours, so no need to reply. So they do pay tax on investment in one way or another as dividend tax, or capital gains. Not as much as income tax agreed but its still taxed. " Taxed unearned wealth the same as earned wealth is maybe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it." Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Oh for god sake, I’ve already said I’d happily pay more tax (as long as everybody else is stick their shoulder to the wheel in similar fashion) What else do you want? Blood? Yeah, if I had millions in the bank, take a % of it by all means. I’ll be one of the Patriotic Millionaires." I don't want blood. If you would like to pay more tax, you would have paid it already through voluntary tax payments. You care about the poor right? Why do you wait for the rich people to also pay more tax? Why not do what is necessary to help the poor right now? If you put the money where your mouth is, it will easily help some poor people. But you are inventing excuses for why you wouldn't open your own wallet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that?" Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Oh for god sake, I’ve already said I’d happily pay more tax (as long as everybody else is stick their shoulder to the wheel in similar fashion) What else do you want? Blood? Yeah, if I had millions in the bank, take a % of it by all means. I’ll be one of the Patriotic Millionaires. I don't want blood. If you would like to pay more tax, you would have paid it already through voluntary tax payments. You care about the poor right? Why do you wait for the rich people to also pay more tax? Why not do what is necessary to help the poor right now? If you put the money where your mouth is, it will easily help some poor people. But you are inventing excuses for why you wouldn't open your own wallet." Yeah ok mate, I really don’t see why I should go out on a limb whilst people like you don’t but still benefit, that’s all. Simple really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? " Falling tax revenues wouldn’t lead to societal problems? Ok, I’m done. Laterz. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? Falling tax revenues wouldn’t lead to societal problems? Ok, I’m done. Laterz." It's an assumption you are making without any evidence. Argentina is an example that the opposite is true. Reducing welfare spending and government expenses actually resulted in reducing poverty. How do you explain that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? Falling tax revenues wouldn’t lead to societal problems? Ok, I’m done. Laterz. It's an assumption you are making without any evidence. Argentina is an example that the opposite is true. Reducing welfare spending and government expenses actually resulted in reducing poverty. How do you explain that?" Where's the evidence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? Falling tax revenues wouldn’t lead to societal problems? Ok, I’m done. Laterz. It's an assumption you are making without any evidence. Argentina is an example that the opposite is true. Reducing welfare spending and government expenses actually resulted in reducing poverty. How do you explain that?" ‘Reducing poverty’ seems a bit of a stretch. The guy hasn’t been in power long enough. He’s had a 20bn loan from the IMF. He’s got -40 approval ratings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23. The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax” A totally irrelevant number that is skewed by the fact that many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax. The important figure as the actual amount of money. If the bottom 5% of tax payers all stopped paying tax overnight the impact would be negligible. If the top 5% stopped paying tax the country would be bankrupt. One can quote different statistics to suit a different narrative, but the bottom line will always be that the more money you make the more tax you pay. ‘Many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax’ All the more reason to tax a percentage of their wealth then, whilst the country is slowly turning to sh*t. Only my opinion, obviously not yours, so no need to reply. So they do pay tax on investment in one way or another as dividend tax, or capital gains. Not as much as income tax agreed but its still taxed. Taxed unearned wealth the same as earned wealth is maybe?" So your in your 50's so you want 25% per year on the increased value of your property, pension pots increase, and all savings and investment income. So macking older people pore when they retire posably meaning they will need more state support. Why not add VAT to social housing rent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? Falling tax revenues wouldn’t lead to societal problems? Ok, I’m done. Laterz. It's an assumption you are making without any evidence. Argentina is an example that the opposite is true. Reducing welfare spending and government expenses actually resulted in reducing poverty. How do you explain that? Where's the evidence? " Quoting from multiple websites: Poverty also declined sharply, from 52.9 percent in the first half of 2024 to 38.1 percent in the second, with UNICEF noting that 1.7 million children were lifted out of poverty since Milei took office. "Argentina Wholesale Inflation Cools to Lowest Since Pandemic In May, monthly consumer price increases also cooled to their slowest pace in five years to 1.5%. Milei's commitments to austerity and a stable peso have helped anchor inflation, which has historically been Argentines' biggest concern." This one is funny: "On November 8, 2023, days before the election, The Guardian published an article about a letter signed by over 100 economists, including Thomas Piketty, Jayati Ghosh, and Branko Milanovic. They warned that electing Milei would bring “devastation” to Argentina, urging support for the very leaders who had driven inflation above 200 percent." Basically don't trust the economic takes published by the guardian. Argentina was doing exactly what the left wingers wanted to do - Keep increasing the welfare spending. Eventually the whole system broke down due to inflation. Milei's reforms to shut down many government agencies and welfare spending drew a lot of criticism from the leftists. Guess what? He hasn't even been in power for two years and it's already working. And his popularity ratings among the people is still high | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? Falling tax revenues wouldn’t lead to societal problems? Ok, I’m done. Laterz. It's an assumption you are making without any evidence. Argentina is an example that the opposite is true. Reducing welfare spending and government expenses actually resulted in reducing poverty. How do you explain that? ‘Reducing poverty’ seems a bit of a stretch. The guy hasn’t been in power long enough. He’s had a 20bn loan from the IMF. He’s got -40 approval ratings. " He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23. The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax” A totally irrelevant number that is skewed by the fact that many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax. The important figure as the actual amount of money. If the bottom 5% of tax payers all stopped paying tax overnight the impact would be negligible. If the top 5% stopped paying tax the country would be bankrupt. One can quote different statistics to suit a different narrative, but the bottom line will always be that the more money you make the more tax you pay. ‘Many people in the top 10% may not need to work so won’t pay income tax’ All the more reason to tax a percentage of their wealth then, whilst the country is slowly turning to sh*t. Only my opinion, obviously not yours, so no need to reply." Let’s just talk cash in the bank…. There’s only 4 main ways anyone can acquire wealth… 1. Win it gambling or lottery 2. A gift 3. An inheritance 4. It’s earned either as income from trading your time for money, from owning a business or from putting your money to work in the form of investments. Apart from the first, all the others are taxable, with the exception of smaller cash gifts. If the money is inherited or gifted to you it’s already been taxed. So an example of a wealthy person, a parent leaves a million to a child, the parent would have to have earned about £2 million ish to have a million left over, and then inheritance tax takes 40% of £675,000. So from the original £2million there’s about £750k left. Total tax £1.25 million ish roughly 62% A less wealthy parent dies leaving £25,000. They would have earned about £30k to leave that amount after tax which is free of inheritance tax. Total tax bill £5,000 ish roughly 16% Can’t calculate VAT, tobacco, booze etc there’s too many variables. But nobody has to buy alcohol, tobacco or drive a car so it’s their choice to pay that tax. So tell me again the poor are paying more tax than the wealthy. And don’t forget, the more money in the bank that’s left, the bigger to percentage of impact inheritance tax will have. At a quick guess, on £10 million the percentage would be close to 80% gone in tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? Falling tax revenues wouldn’t lead to societal problems? Ok, I’m done. Laterz. It's an assumption you are making without any evidence. Argentina is an example that the opposite is true. Reducing welfare spending and government expenses actually resulted in reducing poverty. How do you explain that? ‘Reducing poverty’ seems a bit of a stretch. The guy hasn’t been in power long enough. He’s had a 20bn loan from the IMF. He’s got -40 approval ratings. He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse " If Milei’s Thatcherite economics ‘work’, why are working people in the UK using food banks after 45 years of Thatcherite economics? Why are so many poorly paid jobs having to be subsidised by the state? Why is there more inequality now between those at the top & those at the bottom since 1979? Why have certain privatised industries clearly not delivered? Why do we have arch Thatcherite Farage wanting to nationalise British Steel? Why are people moaning about potholes & infrastructure? Why did we have to bail out the banks in 2008? Why have we had crap growth since 2008? Why has right to buy led to a dearth of Social Housing? Why can’t young people afford a home? “On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised” There is your problem. Four and a half decades of Thatcherite economics in this country have created a generational divide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? Falling tax revenues wouldn’t lead to societal problems? Ok, I’m done. Laterz. It's an assumption you are making without any evidence. Argentina is an example that the opposite is true. Reducing welfare spending and government expenses actually resulted in reducing poverty. How do you explain that? ‘Reducing poverty’ seems a bit of a stretch. The guy hasn’t been in power long enough. He’s had a 20bn loan from the IMF. He’s got -40 approval ratings. He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse If Milei’s Thatcherite economics ‘work’, why are working people in the UK using food banks after 45 years of Thatcherite economics? Why are so many poorly paid jobs having to be subsidised by the state? Why is there more inequality now between those at the top & those at the bottom since 1979? Why have certain privatised industries clearly not delivered? Why do we have arch Thatcherite Farage wanting to nationalise British Steel? Why are people moaning about potholes & infrastructure? Why did we have to bail out the banks in 2008? Why have we had crap growth since 2008? Why has right to buy led to a dearth of Social Housing? Why can’t young people afford a home? “On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised” There is your problem. Four and a half decades of Thatcherite economics in this country have created a generational divide. " But do you think if everyone hade the same income everyone would be "equal" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? Falling tax revenues wouldn’t lead to societal problems? Ok, I’m done. Laterz. It's an assumption you are making without any evidence. Argentina is an example that the opposite is true. Reducing welfare spending and government expenses actually resulted in reducing poverty. How do you explain that? ‘Reducing poverty’ seems a bit of a stretch. The guy hasn’t been in power long enough. He’s had a 20bn loan from the IMF. He’s got -40 approval ratings. He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse If Milei’s Thatcherite economics ‘work’, why are working people in the UK using food banks after 45 years of Thatcherite economics? Why are so many poorly paid jobs having to be subsidised by the state? Why is there more inequality now between those at the top & those at the bottom since 1979? Why have certain privatised industries clearly not delivered? Why do we have arch Thatcherite Farage wanting to nationalise British Steel? Why are people moaning about potholes & infrastructure? Why did we have to bail out the banks in 2008? Why have we had crap growth since 2008? Why has right to buy led to a dearth of Social Housing? Why can’t young people afford a home? “On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised” There is your problem. Four and a half decades of Thatcherite economics in this country have created a generational divide. Here we have the dark heart of socialism. Bitterness Anger Resentment Envy Everything is someone else’s fault Nobody has any agency Still droning on about “Thatcher” thirty years after she left power. Living in the past. Desperate to create division. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse If Milei’s Thatcherite economics ‘work’, why are working people in the UK using food banks after 45 years of Thatcherite economics? " Lol you are actually blaming Thatcher for for the current state of UK decades after she was a PM? Why was Thatcher elected the second time? Before she took on power, what was the state of UK? Did she leave the country in a situation worse than the winter of discontent? " Why are so many poorly paid jobs having to be subsidised by the state? " Because the state is subsidising them. If the state doesn't subsidise them, the businesses will be forced to pay based on market demands. " Why is there more inequality now between those at the top & those at the bottom since 1979? " Inequality is not a problem as long as the quality of life of the poorest has improved. They have improved vastly compared to then. " Why have certain privatised industries clearly not delivered? " Why has none of the public owned services delivered? I agree that private monopolies are bad though. But public owned services are also monopolies. " Why do we have arch Thatcherite Farage wanting to nationalise British Steel? " I don't follow Farage that much to answer that question " Why are people moaning about potholes & infrastructure? " Were people meditating and doing arts all the time before Thatcher came to power? " Why did we have to bail out the banks in 2008? " We shouldn't. A classic case of government interfering in private markets. " Why have we had crap growth since 2008? " Why do you think the US grew much faster than European countries after the recession? " Why has right to buy led to a dearth of Social Housing? " Because building houses has been made more difficult due to the planning processes " Why can’t young people afford a home? " Because the population grew and housing sector has been suffocated by regulations which created shortage " “On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised” " And this is evidence that the public welfare system is a terrible idea in general " There is your problem. Four and a half decades of Thatcherite economics in this country have created a generational divide. " There was no four and a half decades of Thatcher economics. You are just cooking stuff up at this point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But do you think if everyone hade the same income everyone would be "equal"" Yes but unfortunately some people will be more equal than the others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? Falling tax revenues wouldn’t lead to societal problems? Ok, I’m done. Laterz. It's an assumption you are making without any evidence. Argentina is an example that the opposite is true. Reducing welfare spending and government expenses actually resulted in reducing poverty. How do you explain that? ‘Reducing poverty’ seems a bit of a stretch. The guy hasn’t been in power long enough. He’s had a 20bn loan from the IMF. He’s got -40 approval ratings. He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse If Milei’s Thatcherite economics ‘work’, why are working people in the UK using food banks after 45 years of Thatcherite economics? Why are so many poorly paid jobs having to be subsidised by the state? Why is there more inequality now between those at the top & those at the bottom since 1979? Why have certain privatised industries clearly not delivered? Why do we have arch Thatcherite Farage wanting to nationalise British Steel? Why are people moaning about potholes & infrastructure? Why did we have to bail out the banks in 2008? Why have we had crap growth since 2008? Why has right to buy led to a dearth of Social Housing? Why can’t young people afford a home? “On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised” There is your problem. Four and a half decades of Thatcherite economics in this country have created a generational divide. Here we have the dark heart of socialism. Bitterness Anger Resentment Envy Everything is someone else’s fault Nobody has any agency Still droning on about “Thatcher” thirty years after she left power. Living in the past. Desperate to create division. " Utter nonsense, I’m Gen X & a homeowner. I’m fortunate as it was easier when I entered the world of work & I recognise it. I’m just not inherently selfish like you. Meanwhile I can see how it is for your average millennial these days. There is no amount of thrift and hard work that can help them buy a house when prices are rising much faster than their earnings are. All this garbage about self-improvement & self responsibility as it was ‘back then’ in Thatcher’s pomp doesn’t apply so much any more. Changing their sleep schedule, getting on their bike like Tebbit suggested or simply taking a positive attitude won’t stop their rent from increasing, help them pay their rocketing energy bills, or likely get them a big pay rise as wages & rises have generally been pitiful over the last couple of decades. Even when they do everything ‘right’, nothing works for them as it may have once done and then they hear from politicians and many older people is that it’s somehow their fault. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse If Milei’s Thatcherite economics ‘work’, why are working people in the UK using food banks after 45 years of Thatcherite economics? Lol you are actually blaming Thatcher for for the current state of UK decades after she was a PM? Why was Thatcher elected the second time? Before she took on power, what was the state of UK? Did she leave the country in a situation worse than the winter of discontent? Why are so many poorly paid jobs having to be subsidised by the state? Because the state is subsidising them. If the state doesn't subsidise them, the businesses will be forced to pay based on market demands. Why is there more inequality now between those at the top & those at the bottom since 1979? Inequality is not a problem as long as the quality of life of the poorest has improved. They have improved vastly compared to then. Why have certain privatised industries clearly not delivered? Why has none of the public owned services delivered? I agree that private monopolies are bad though. But public owned services are also monopolies. Why do we have arch Thatcherite Farage wanting to nationalise British Steel? I don't follow Farage that much to answer that question Why are people moaning about potholes & infrastructure? Were people meditating and doing arts all the time before Thatcher came to power? Why did we have to bail out the banks in 2008? We shouldn't. A classic case of government interfering in private markets. Why have we had crap growth since 2008? Why do you think the US grew much faster than European countries after the recession? Why has right to buy led to a dearth of Social Housing? Because building houses has been made more difficult due to the planning processes Why can’t young people afford a home? Because the population grew and housing sector has been suffocated by regulations which created shortage “On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised” And this is evidence that the public welfare system is a terrible idea in general There is your problem. Four and a half decades of Thatcherite economics in this country have created a generational divide. There was no four and a half decades of Thatcher economics. You are just cooking stuff up at this point "Yes, we have essentially had 45 years of Thatcherite economics. New Labour certainly weren’t ‘Socialist’, Thatcher herself said New Labour were her greatest creation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse If Milei’s Thatcherite economics ‘work’, why are working people in the UK using food banks after 45 years of Thatcherite economics? Lol you are actually blaming Thatcher for for the current state of UK decades after she was a PM? Why was Thatcher elected the second time? Before she took on power, what was the state of UK? Did she leave the country in a situation worse than the winter of discontent? Why are so many poorly paid jobs having to be subsidised by the state? Because the state is subsidising them. If the state doesn't subsidise them, the businesses will be forced to pay based on market demands. Why is there more inequality now between those at the top & those at the bottom since 1979? Inequality is not a problem as long as the quality of life of the poorest has improved. They have improved vastly compared to then. Why have certain privatised industries clearly not delivered? Why has none of the public owned services delivered? I agree that private monopolies are bad though. But public owned services are also monopolies. Why do we have arch Thatcherite Farage wanting to nationalise British Steel? I don't follow Farage that much to answer that question Why are people moaning about potholes & infrastructure? Were people meditating and doing arts all the time before Thatcher came to power? Why did we have to bail out the banks in 2008? We shouldn't. A classic case of government interfering in private markets. Why have we had crap growth since 2008? Why do you think the US grew much faster than European countries after the recession? Why has right to buy led to a dearth of Social Housing? Because building houses has been made more difficult due to the planning processes Why can’t young people afford a home? Because the population grew and housing sector has been suffocated by regulations which created shortage “On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised” And this is evidence that the public welfare system is a terrible idea in general There is your problem. Four and a half decades of Thatcherite economics in this country have created a generational divide. There was no four and a half decades of Thatcher economics. You are just cooking stuff up at this point
Yes, we have essentially had 45 years of Thatcherite economics.
New Labour certainly weren’t ‘Socialist’, Thatcher herself said New Labour were her greatest creation. "Check the spending increases during Blair era before cooking up stuff like this. And I see that you have conveniently ignored everything else I mentioned. Capitalism isn't perfect. But socialism always makes things worse. It has been repeatedly shown in both the British history and the history of other countries. Argentina is the latest example that reversing socialist policies makes lives better. And yet we have the raging online socialists repeatedly asking for more socialism, pretending to care for the poor while doing mental gymnastics to justify why they wouldn't pay money out of their own pockets to help them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse If Milei’s Thatcherite economics ‘work’, why are working people in the UK using food banks after 45 years of Thatcherite economics? Lol you are actually blaming Thatcher for for the current state of UK decades after she was a PM? Why was Thatcher elected the second time? Before she took on power, what was the state of UK? Did she leave the country in a situation worse than the winter of discontent? Why are so many poorly paid jobs having to be subsidised by the state? Because the state is subsidising them. If the state doesn't subsidise them, the businesses will be forced to pay based on market demands. Why is there more inequality now between those at the top & those at the bottom since 1979? Inequality is not a problem as long as the quality of life of the poorest has improved. They have improved vastly compared to then. Why have certain privatised industries clearly not delivered? Why has none of the public owned services delivered? I agree that private monopolies are bad though. But public owned services are also monopolies. Why do we have arch Thatcherite Farage wanting to nationalise British Steel? I don't follow Farage that much to answer that question Why are people moaning about potholes & infrastructure? Were people meditating and doing arts all the time before Thatcher came to power? Why did we have to bail out the banks in 2008? We shouldn't. A classic case of government interfering in private markets. Why have we had crap growth since 2008? Why do you think the US grew much faster than European countries after the recession? Why has right to buy led to a dearth of Social Housing? Because building houses has been made more difficult due to the planning processes Why can’t young people afford a home? Because the population grew and housing sector has been suffocated by regulations which created shortage “On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised” And this is evidence that the public welfare system is a terrible idea in general There is your problem. Four and a half decades of Thatcherite economics in this country have created a generational divide. There was no four and a half decades of Thatcher economics. You are just cooking stuff up at this point
Yes, we have essentially had 45 years of Thatcherite economics.
New Labour certainly weren’t ‘Socialist’, Thatcher herself said New Labour were her greatest creation.
Check the spending increases during Blair era before cooking up stuff like this.
And I see that you have conveniently ignored everything else I mentioned. Capitalism isn't perfect. But socialism always makes things worse. It has been repeatedly shown in both the British history and the history of other countries. Argentina is the latest example that reversing socialist policies makes lives better.
And yet we have the raging online socialists repeatedly asking for more socialism, pretending to care for the poor while doing mental gymnastics to justify why they wouldn't pay money out of their own pockets to help them."The Nordic Social Democracies seem to be do ok. Constantly at the top of the happy polls. I’ve not conveniently ignored everything else you’ve posted btw. I just cannot be ar$ed, you aren’t going to change your views & neither am I. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse If Milei’s Thatcherite economics ‘work’, why are working people in the UK using food banks after 45 years of Thatcherite economics? Lol you are actually blaming Thatcher for for the current state of UK decades after she was a PM? Why was Thatcher elected the second time? Before she took on power, what was the state of UK? Did she leave the country in a situation worse than the winter of discontent? Why are so many poorly paid jobs having to be subsidised by the state? Because the state is subsidising them. If the state doesn't subsidise them, the businesses will be forced to pay based on market demands. Why is there more inequality now between those at the top & those at the bottom since 1979? Inequality is not a problem as long as the quality of life of the poorest has improved. They have improved vastly compared to then. Why have certain privatised industries clearly not delivered? Why has none of the public owned services delivered? I agree that private monopolies are bad though. But public owned services are also monopolies. Why do we have arch Thatcherite Farage wanting to nationalise British Steel? I don't follow Farage that much to answer that question Why are people moaning about potholes & infrastructure? Were people meditating and doing arts all the time before Thatcher came to power? Why did we have to bail out the banks in 2008? We shouldn't. A classic case of government interfering in private markets. Why have we had crap growth since 2008? Why do you think the US grew much faster than European countries after the recession? Why has right to buy led to a dearth of Social Housing? Because building houses has been made more difficult due to the planning processes Why can’t young people afford a home? Because the population grew and housing sector has been suffocated by regulations which created shortage “On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised” And this is evidence that the public welfare system is a terrible idea in general There is your problem. Four and a half decades of Thatcherite economics in this country have created a generational divide. There was no four and a half decades of Thatcher economics. You are just cooking stuff up at this point
Yes, we have essentially had 45 years of Thatcherite economics.
New Labour certainly weren’t ‘Socialist’, Thatcher herself said New Labour were her greatest creation.
Check the spending increases during Blair era before cooking up stuff like this.
And I see that you have conveniently ignored everything else I mentioned. Capitalism isn't perfect. But socialism always makes things worse. It has been repeatedly shown in both the British history and the history of other countries. Argentina is the latest example that reversing socialist policies makes lives better.
And yet we have the raging online socialists repeatedly asking for more socialism, pretending to care for the poor while doing mental gymnastics to justify why they wouldn't pay money out of their own pockets to help them.
The Nordic Social Democracies seem to be do ok. Constantly at the top of the happy polls.
I’ve not conveniently ignored everything else you’ve posted btw. I just cannot be ar$ed, you aren’t going to change your views & neither am I."Nordic countries where even the poorest pay 30% taxes. They don't have the tax the rich model. The socialists here only want "those rich people" to pay the taxes. None of those countries have wealth taxes, something you have been arguing in favour of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you willing to pay tax on your wealth? Including the money that's sitting in your bank accounts? Or as usual, is it just about taking money from the others? Are you? No I don't want to pay more tax. I am not the one going around saying that others should solve the social issues I care about. I personally donate for the causes I care about and that's about it. Ok, so if falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems, who pays for that? Why would falling tax revenues lead to increased societal problems? Falling tax revenues wouldn’t lead to societal problems? Ok, I’m done. Laterz. It's an assumption you are making without any evidence. Argentina is an example that the opposite is true. Reducing welfare spending and government expenses actually resulted in reducing poverty. How do you explain that? ‘Reducing poverty’ seems a bit of a stretch. The guy hasn’t been in power long enough. He’s had a 20bn loan from the IMF. He’s got -40 approval ratings. He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse If Milei’s Thatcherite economics ‘work’, why are working people in the UK using food banks after 45 years of Thatcherite economics? Why are so many poorly paid jobs having to be subsidised by the state? Why is there more inequality now between those at the top & those at the bottom since 1979? Why have certain privatised industries clearly not delivered? Why do we have arch Thatcherite Farage wanting to nationalise British Steel? Why are people moaning about potholes & infrastructure? Why did we have to bail out the banks in 2008? Why have we had crap growth since 2008? Why has right to buy led to a dearth of Social Housing? Why can’t young people afford a home? “On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised” There is your problem. Four and a half decades of Thatcherite economics in this country have created a generational divide. Here we have the dark heart of socialism. Bitterness Anger Resentment Envy Everything is someone else’s fault Nobody has any agency Still droning on about “Thatcher” thirty years after she left power. Living in the past. Desperate to create division. Utter nonsense, I’m Gen X & a homeowner. I’m fortunate as it was easier when I entered the world of work & I recognise it. I’m just not inherently selfish like you. Meanwhile I can see how it is for your average millennial these days. There is no amount of thrift and hard work that can help them buy a house when prices are rising much faster than their earnings are. All this garbage about self-improvement & self responsibility as it was ‘back then’ in Thatcher’s pomp doesn’t apply so much any more. Changing their sleep schedule, getting on their bike like Tebbit suggested or simply taking a positive attitude won’t stop their rent from increasing, help them pay their rocketing energy bills, or likely get them a big pay rise as wages & rises have generally been pitiful over the last couple of decades. Even when they do everything ‘right’, nothing works for them as it may have once done and then they hear from politicians and many older people is that it’s somehow their fault." Nobody has artificially tinkered with the housing market. It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. We haven’t built enough homes to keep up with demand. For whatever reason. I think when a council houses were sold the stock should have been replenished. Not necessarily at a rate of 1 for 1 as there wouldn’t be enough money to build a new home after one was sold at half price. But just moaning about what was done compared to what could behave been done is kinda futile. Saying what the differences between pay and house prices was 50 years ago and compare them to now is irrelevant. I’d love to hear your suggestions to help the situation. The government can’t balance the books now. That’s not a political statement bashing the government, I’m just saying there isn’t the money to throw at the problem and when that has been tried, it’s not worked. You can’t just increase everyone’s wages by 10% for the next 10 years, you’ll just get 10% inflation. You can’t just build overnight the 5 million homes that we need to put pressure on house prices to not rise. It takes time and by the time you’ve done it you need another 5 million. If you have an answer (other than take from the rich to give to the poor) I’d genuinely love to hear it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He reduced poverty rates and the numbers have been agreed by everyone. UNICEF says that he lifted 1.7 million children out of poverty. His approval ratings have remained stable throughout. Remember that when the left wing parties were trying their socialist bullshit, things were getting worse and worse If Milei’s Thatcherite economics ‘work’, why are working people in the UK using food banks after 45 years of Thatcherite economics? Lol you are actually blaming Thatcher for for the current state of UK decades after she was a PM? Why was Thatcher elected the second time? Before she took on power, what was the state of UK? Did she leave the country in a situation worse than the winter of discontent? Why are so many poorly paid jobs having to be subsidised by the state? Because the state is subsidising them. If the state doesn't subsidise them, the businesses will be forced to pay based on market demands. Why is there more inequality now between those at the top & those at the bottom since 1979? Inequality is not a problem as long as the quality of life of the poorest has improved. They have improved vastly compared to then. Why have certain privatised industries clearly not delivered? Why has none of the public owned services delivered? I agree that private monopolies are bad though. But public owned services are also monopolies. Why do we have arch Thatcherite Farage wanting to nationalise British Steel? I don't follow Farage that much to answer that question Why are people moaning about potholes & infrastructure? Were people meditating and doing arts all the time before Thatcher came to power? Why did we have to bail out the banks in 2008? We shouldn't. A classic case of government interfering in private markets. Why have we had crap growth since 2008? Why do you think the US grew much faster than European countries after the recession? Why has right to buy led to a dearth of Social Housing? Because building houses has been made more difficult due to the planning processes Why can’t young people afford a home? Because the population grew and housing sector has been suffocated by regulations which created shortage “On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised” And this is evidence that the public welfare system is a terrible idea in general There is your problem. Four and a half decades of Thatcherite economics in this country have created a generational divide. There was no four and a half decades of Thatcher economics. You are just cooking stuff up at this point
Yes, we have essentially had 45 years of Thatcherite economics.
New Labour certainly weren’t ‘Socialist’, Thatcher herself said New Labour were her greatest creation.
Check the spending increases during Blair era before cooking up stuff like this.
And I see that you have conveniently ignored everything else I mentioned. Capitalism isn't perfect. But socialism always makes things worse. It has been repeatedly shown in both the British history and the history of other countries. Argentina is the latest example that reversing socialist policies makes lives better.
And yet we have the raging online socialists repeatedly asking for more socialism, pretending to care for the poor while doing mental gymnastics to justify why they wouldn't pay money out of their own pockets to help them.
The Nordic Social Democracies seem to be do ok. Constantly at the top of the happy polls.
I’ve not conveniently ignored everything else you’ve posted btw. I just cannot be ar$ed, you aren’t going to change your views & neither am I.
Nordic countries where even the poorest pay 30% taxes. They don't have the tax the rich model. The socialists here only want "those rich people" to pay the taxes. None of those countries have wealth taxes, something you have been arguing in favour of."YouGov, June 2025: ‘Are taxes on the rich too low or high in Britain?’ 58% ‘too low’ 19% ‘about right’ 8% ‘too high’ 15% ‘don’t know’ ….that’s a awful lot of Socialists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
