FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > You gov poll says 75% support wealth tax

You gov poll says 75% support wealth tax

By *hirley OP Man 1 week ago

London

A poll from July 8th says a 2% tax on individuals worth more than £10m, has been backed by the vast majority of voters.

This result indicates a strong public appetite for measures aimed at addressing wealth inequality by taxing the ultra-wealthy. It reflects growing concern among the electorate that the current system favors those with significant assets, even as many struggle with stagnant wages and rising living costs.

In this context, policies such as a progressive wealth tax are seen as a way to rebalance the system ensuring that those who have benefited most contribute more towards public services and social investments.

Lord Neil kinnock has also been in news backing it with statements to sky news.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hirley OP Man 1 week ago

London

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2025/07/08/3086a/1?utm_content=stories&utm_medium=email&utm_source=yougov_daily_uk&utm_campaign=tuesday-08-07-2025

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 1 week ago

Border of London

75% of people support a tax on the other 25%? Shocker!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uffolkcouple-bi onlyCouple 1 week ago

West Suffolk

"75% of people support a tax on the other 25%? Shocker!

Exactly! Do you wanna pay more tax or do you want other people to pay more?

The way a question is worded can lead to very ambiguous extrapolations from the answers.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hirley OP Man 1 week ago

London

"75% of people support a tax on the other 25%? Shocker!

How did you interpret that from the data sorry?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 1 week ago

Border of London

"75% of people support a tax on the other 25%? Shocker!

How did you interpret that from the data sorry?"

Don't take it too literally

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 1 week ago

London

Countries that have tried wealth tax have already given up as they have seen the negative effects of it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ove2pleaseseukMan 1 week ago

Hastings

To meany would pack up and move. It's no difernt really to some one shoping round for a better price. If the Tax is to high, its worth the time to work round it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ovelifelovefuntimesMan 1 week ago

Where ever I lay my hat

We've already lost about £10bn a year from the amount of people and capital that has fled the country since Labour took over, a wealth tax would make the number look like a drop in the ocean.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 1 week ago

Cardiff

Wealth tax above 10 million

So you keep that 10 million

So let's say you're wealth is 12 million

Are you going to miss an extra 40,000?

When your asset worth increases by 960,000 per year?

So instead of having an extra 960,000 at year end you'll have 940,000

If you actually are effected by this DMs open

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 1 week ago

Cardiff

"Wealth tax above 10 million

So you keep that 10 million

So let's say you're wealth is 12 million

Are you going to miss an extra 40,000?

When your asset worth increases by 960,000 per year?

So instead of having an extra 960,000 at year end you'll have 940,000

If you actually are effected by this DMs open "

920,000 sorry

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ineapple_turnoverCouple 1 week ago

London

I'm not sure why we're bothered about people living here that are happy to move away at the very thought of a very centre labour party coming to power. Sounds like they don't really love Britain after all.

Brexit is estimated to cost us £80-100bn a year.

Switzerland and Norway are happy to have wealth taxes and doing ok. Maybe it's because they're nice places to live.

Or we could do what the US does and tax worldwide income on all citizens regardless of their residency.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 1 week ago

Cardiff

Exactly, as if they are the only people who can provide that, service or business or whatever in a country of 70 million.

Bye, mother fuckers, let other people create a fortune

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"We've already lost about £10bn a year from the amount of people and capital that has fled the country since Labour took over, a wealth tax would make the number look like a drop in the ocean. "

That isn't true, the data can't be that linear.

The people you talk of are highly mobile globally anyway.

They go where it's best for their selfish interests.

It isn't correct to say they left because of "a certain thing"

It is correct to say, that they move because their selfish interests are best served elsewhere.

So another country might reduce taxation, rather than UK putting it up.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

It isn't higher or lower than any other year

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *idnight RamblerMan 7 days ago

Pershore

This vague notion of taxing the 'ultra wealthy' is pipe dream akin to a 'magic money tree. Who and where are these ultra rich? In the UK even? What is 'ultra' rich? Are they paying taxes already? Take footballers. Are they 'ultra rich'? If so, why pay them obscene wages in the first place? Who's doing that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"This vague notion of taxing the 'ultra wealthy' is pipe dream akin to a 'magic money tree. Who and where are these ultra rich? In the UK even? What is 'ultra' rich? Are they paying taxes already? Take footballers. Are they 'ultra rich'? If so, why pay them obscene wages in the first place? Who's doing that? "

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *regoniansCouple 7 days ago

Oundle

Switzerland and Norway are happy to have wealth taxes and doing ok. Maybe it's because they're nice places to live.

That is a ridiculous and false comparison. In Switzerland VAT is just 8% (and 2% on basic essentials), income tax just 11%, NIC 8% and wealth tax at 0.3-0.5% is not a federal tax but levied by the cantons amd therefore can be avoided altogether if resident in certain cantons.

I know which tax regime I'd prefer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Switzerland and Norway are happy to have wealth taxes and doing ok. Maybe it's because they're nice places to live.

I know which tax regime I'd prefer."

Where did you get that? You know these things are on that t'internet thing?

Your talking nonsense

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *idnight RamblerMan 7 days ago

Pershore

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all. "

But wealth might well a good thing left untaxed. 'Money never sleeps'!! Wealth might be used in investment classes such as stocks, bonds and gilts, all of which drive the economy. Would the government taking a larger slice utilise the money more wisely. I doubt it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *regoniansCouple 7 days ago

Oundle

Switzerland and Norway are happy to have wealth taxes and doing ok. Maybe it's because they're nice places to live.

I know which tax regime I'd prefer.

Where did you get that? You know these things are on that t'internet thing?

Your talking nonsense "

The PwC tax guides. I take it you've never heard of them.they come in very handy if you're offered a job overseas. A bit like Wales as it happens.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uffelskloofMan 7 days ago

Porthmadog

The wealth tax is just another distraction. It’s fiddling around at the edges and will make little difference if any to the government’s finances. It may well make the situation worse.

It’s just another sign of a weak government with no plan, no idea about markets and business, and no principles being buffeted around by this morning’s headlines or some stuff they’ve seen on Twitter.

The fundamental problem is that government expenditure has been out of control for decades, and as the OBR has pointed out, the situation is going to get worse and isn’t sustainable.

Fiddling around with a few extra taxes here and there isn’t going to make any difference to the underlying issue.

I’m also not really clear why the Labour government needs to consider new taxes, given that we have had a load of new taxes over the last the past six months and we were told that this was a one off event.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Yes, they'd spend it on roads, health care the stuff every day people use.

Once your over a certain threshold you can't spend anymore, so your not helping the economy, your just watching numbers go up.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uffelskloofMan 7 days ago

Porthmadog

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Yes, they'd spend it on roads, health care the stuff every day people use.

Once your over a certain threshold you can't spend anymore, so your not helping the economy, your just watching numbers go up."

Somewhere do these rich people keep their money? Under the bed?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Switzerland and Norway are happy to have wealth taxes and doing ok. Maybe it's because they're nice places to live.

I know which tax regime I'd prefer.

Where did you get that? You know these things are on that t'internet thing?

Your talking nonsense

The PwC tax guides. I take it you've never heard of them.they come in very handy if you're offered a job overseas. A bit like Wales as it happens. "

A bit like Wales how?

Wales has the same tax rates as England. It doesn't have tax and spend ability in the same way as Scotland does.

And the higher rate of income tax is higher in Switzerland

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Yes, they'd spend it on roads, health care the stuff every day people use.

Once your over a certain threshold you can't spend anymore, so your not helping the economy, your just watching numbers go up.

Somewhere do these rich people keep their money? Under the bed?"

No in stocks and shares and property.

They'd have to sell something, making room for people to buy stuff.

Cry me a river

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

But yeah they'll probably 2% worth liquid

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *idnight RamblerMan 7 days ago

Pershore

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Yes, they'd spend it on roads, health care the stuff every day people use.

Once your over a certain threshold you can't spend anymore, so your not helping the economy, your just watching numbers go up."

Nah, they'd squander it on welfare 'black holes' or vanity projects. Wealth is best utilised by those smart enough to accumulate it in the first place, not a bunch of half-wit politicians

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uffelskloofMan 7 days ago

Porthmadog

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Yes, they'd spend it on roads, health care the stuff every day people use.

Once your over a certain threshold you can't spend anymore, so your not helping the economy, your just watching numbers go up.

Somewhere do these rich people keep their money? Under the bed?

No in stocks and shares and property.

They'd have to sell something, making room for people to buy stuff.

Cry me a river "

So on the one hand they aren’t investing in the economy with all this money, and on the other they are investing in companies and property.

Are you sure you have thought this through?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Yes, they'd spend it on roads, health care the stuff every day people use.

Once your over a certain threshold you can't spend anymore, so your not helping the economy, your just watching numbers go up.

Somewhere do these rich people keep their money? Under the bed?

No in stocks and shares and property.

They'd have to sell something, making room for people to buy stuff.

Cry me a river

So on the one hand they aren’t investing in the economy with all this money, and on the other they are investing in companies and property.

Are you sure you have thought this through?"

They don't invest at the same rate.

They can literally sit back and sleep and warn passive income of 7 - 8%

They can do without 2

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Yes, they'd spend it on roads, health care the stuff every day people use.

Once your over a certain threshold you can't spend anymore, so your not helping the economy, your just watching numbers go up.

Nah, they'd squander it on welfare 'black holes' or vanity projects. Wealth is best utilised by those smart enough to accumulate it in the first place, not a bunch of half-wit politicians"

Someone definitely swallowed the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate theory

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *idnight RamblerMan 7 days ago

Pershore

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Yes, they'd spend it on roads, health care the stuff every day people use.

Once your over a certain threshold you can't spend anymore, so your not helping the economy, your just watching numbers go up.

Nah, they'd squander it on welfare 'black holes' or vanity projects. Wealth is best utilised by those smart enough to accumulate it in the first place, not a bunch of half-wit politicians

Someone definitely swallowed the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate theory

.....or swallowed the feckless lazy rich fallacy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 days ago

Terra Firma

The push for a wealth tax reflects a profound misunderstanding of both economics and implementation. The government has no clear roadmap for how to assess, collect, or enforce such a tax efficiently. The administrative cost alone would be enormous, likely outweighing the revenue it generates, essentially creating yet another national debt.

Driven more by the politics of envy than sound economics, this approach appeals to resentment rather than reason. Those circling with anticipation, ideologues and opportunists ignore the longterm consequences, capital flight, disincentivised investment, and an erosion of trust in the state’s financial competence.

Tax avoidance loophole anyone? And they will moan that loopholes need to be closed as they develop another tax.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Yes, they'd spend it on roads, health care the stuff every day people use.

Once your over a certain threshold you can't spend anymore, so your not helping the economy, your just watching numbers go up.

Nah, they'd squander it on welfare 'black holes' or vanity projects. Wealth is best utilised by those smart enough to accumulate it in the first place, not a bunch of half-wit politicians

Someone definitely swallowed the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate theory

.....or swallowed the feckless lazy rich fallacy"

No, they've extracted their wealth from the people of this country.

The least they can do is help a little to make the country liveable

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *idnight RamblerMan 7 days ago

Pershore

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Yes, they'd spend it on roads, health care the stuff every day people use.

Once your over a certain threshold you can't spend anymore, so your not helping the economy, your just watching numbers go up.

Nah, they'd squander it on welfare 'black holes' or vanity projects. Wealth is best utilised by those smart enough to accumulate it in the first place, not a bunch of half-wit politicians

Someone definitely swallowed the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate theory

.....or swallowed the feckless lazy rich fallacy

No, they've extracted their wealth from the people of this country.

The least they can do is help a little to make the country liveable "

You have a Marxist mindset - a failed ideology. When the architect of modern China, Deng Xiao Ping came to power, he realised that a thriving modern economy needed wealthy people, and he allowed it do happen. Wealth creation drives a strong economy through which social services are provided. THAT@S how the wealthy benefit a nation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *1shadesoffunMan 7 days ago

nearby

Current tax gap is reported to be £40bn a year, and for over a decade.

£45bn a year spent by nhs treating self inflicted obesity, drug, smoking and alcohol diseases.

£100bn a year Brexit loss to the economy with associated tax loss .

£10bn foreign aid.

£2/3bn on non doms. 10,000 long term empty MOD homes costing the taxpayer £25M a year to maintain while we spend £8M a day housing migrants and £2bn a year housing homeless in hotels because we sold off and have not rebuilt social housing.

Address these issues and recover that £140bn a year

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

It's not earnings that people are concerned about. Earnings is already taxed pretty progressives.

Wealth isn't taxed the same.

In fact wealth is already taxed at half the rate

So people who are worth let's say 10 million aren't usually that rich from wages.

Most of them have inherited it so they haven't worked for it all.

Yes, they'd spend it on roads, health care the stuff every day people use.

Once your over a certain threshold you can't spend anymore, so your not helping the economy, your just watching numbers go up.

Nah, they'd squander it on welfare 'black holes' or vanity projects. Wealth is best utilised by those smart enough to accumulate it in the first place, not a bunch of half-wit politicians

Someone definitely swallowed the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate theory

.....or swallowed the feckless lazy rich fallacy

No, they've extracted their wealth from the people of this country.

The least they can do is help a little to make the country liveable

No I don't.

Capitalism is the best form wealth creation humanity has come up with.

However, when the country is in dire straights it is only fair to ask the wealthiest to chip in more.

When the economy is moving again it would also be correct to remove those taxes.

PS. They'd still be wealthy @ 10 million

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

Not sure a Wealth Tax would work.

CGT, Land Value Taxes & IHT would definitely be worth considering though.

‘But the rich will leave the country!’

Fine, let them.

If they want to leave, Impose exit taxes on them and on any enterprises they hope to operate in the UK when they relocate.

They can leave absolutely all ties they have to the UK behind.

If they don't want to make a fair contribution then they shouldn't be allowed to profit from the UK.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 days ago

Terra Firma

"Current tax gap is reported to be £40bn a year, and for over a decade.

£45bn a year spent by nhs treating self inflicted obesity, drug, smoking and alcohol diseases.

£100bn a year Brexit loss to the economy with associated tax loss .

£10bn foreign aid.

Address these issues and recover that £140bn a year "

The headroom Reeves had has been swallowed up by bad decisions causing u-turns that cost billions, and increased borrowing costs due to poor economic understanding.

No growth projects are underway, that money will need to be dripped back into the column marked "Reeves needs it back".

How she is still in role reflects the leadership of the labour party perfectly, not a clue...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 days ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 10/07/25 09:33:44]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *1shadesoffunMan 7 days ago

nearby

"Not sure a Wealth Tax would work.

CGT, Land Value Taxes & IHT would definitely be worth considering though.

‘But the rich will leave the country!’

Fine, let them.

If they want to leave, Impose exit taxes on them and on any enterprises they hope to operate in the UK when they relocate.

They can leave absolutely all ties they have to the UK behind.

If they don't want to make a fair contribution then they shouldn't be allowed to profit from the UK."

Cgt is 24% for higher rate, iht is 40%, farmers iht 20%. Envelope tax on higher value properties. Corporation tax has been increased from

19% to 25% (a 32% increase).

As starmer said yesterday we can’t tax our way out of growth. Many of those entrepreneurs have built businesses that employ thousands of people - the governments job is to set attractive conditions that encourage investment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 days ago

Border of London

No, they've extracted their wealth from the people of this country. "

Some people might have. The truly wealthy extract it globally.

Think of all the multinational companies that basically print money and create jobs, such as Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Netflix, oil companies, investment banks, hedge funds, commodity traders, car manufacturers... The founders and executives of these companies bring the wealth of the world to their countries (yes, often via corporate tax havens) and are highly mobile. We need to make it attractive for these companies to start up in, or move to, the UK. It's not about the paper wealth of the founder, but the salaries of the 5000 people they surround themselves with when they do business, all of whom want to live in low tax, high quality of life, locations. So far this year, UAE has seen the highest increase in millionaires and the UK has seen the highest decrease.

The notion that wealthy people and wealth creators are replaceable is kind of primary-school level thinking. When wealth and wealth creation leaves a country, some other country benefits from the global wealth extraction that they bring.

As stated previously, practically the only wealth that cannot be moved is land, infrastructure, bricks and mortar.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

"Not sure a Wealth Tax would work.

CGT, Land Value Taxes & IHT would definitely be worth considering though.

‘But the rich will leave the country!’

Fine, let them.

If they want to leave, Impose exit taxes on them and on any enterprises they hope to operate in the UK when they relocate.

They can leave absolutely all ties they have to the UK behind.

If they don't want to make a fair contribution then they shouldn't be allowed to profit from the UK."

How exactly would those "exit taxes" work?

The whole thing reminds me of how everyone was suggesting how non-dom taxes would solve many of the problems. Guess what? It didn't. In fact, they fear that it's doing the opposite.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 days ago

Border of London

If they want to leave, Impose exit taxes on them and on any enterprises they hope to operate in the UK when they relocate."

They can leave absolutely all ties they have to the UK behind. "

If they don't want to make a fair contribution then they shouldn't be allowed to profit from the UK."

You really want to attract investment into the UK with those statements? You've basically described a cross between Soviet Russia/USSR and South Africa.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 days ago

Terra Firma

No, they've extracted their wealth from the people of this country.

Some people might have. The truly wealthy extract it globally.

As stated previously, practically the only wealth that cannot be moved is land, infrastructure, bricks and mortar."

Agreed and if we look at prime property and land in London it is sliding negatively, I wonder why...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 days ago

Border of London

This thread makes a great case for restricting voting rights...

(Only half joking)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *1shadesoffunMan 7 days ago

nearby

Finger pointing at the wealthy when your out of ideas to stimulate a prosperous economy.

Politics of envy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uffolkcouple-bi onlyCouple 7 days ago

West Suffolk

Why do we need more taxation?

If you’re a supporter of this, what exactly is it you want to spend more money on? Migrants? Foreign aid? Benefits? Public sector pay? Please don’t say the NHS as they just threw an extra £20billion at it was it, which has just vanished with nothing to show for it to speak of. And not the docs want a 29% pay rise. And they’ll want the same next year probably.

As I said in another thread, £10m inheritance has already had 40% tax taken from it. If it came from income it’s already had 40% or more taken from it. Money in the bank has already been taxed unless it’s a lottery win or from illegal means. How many bites out of others peoples money do you want to take?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Finger pointing at the wealthy when your out of ideas to stimulate a prosperous economy.

Politics of envy.

It's not the politics of envy.

What your essentially arguing for is that "working people" get ever poorer whilst the already wealthy get to extract our money from us and when the country has stopped working they get to jolly off to another state.

Meanwhile the country has stopped working and everyone left is poor and arguing amongst each other how to create wealth.

Oh! Wait

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uffolkcouple-bi onlyCouple 7 days ago

West Suffolk

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Why do we need more taxation?

All these PAYEs making their way to 10 million

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want? "

Yes, when times are hard people look around for people to blame and "the other" always gets it.

Currently it's Muslims and trans people.

It's why Fagash is making in roads.

It's a bit simplistic but that is the thrust of it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want? "

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 days ago

Border of London

"Finger pointing at the wealthy when your out of ideas to stimulate a prosperous economy.

Politics of envy.

It's not the politics of envy.

What your essentially arguing for is that "working people" get ever poorer whilst the already wealthy get to extract our money from us..."

Who is extracting money from you?

If you work for Amazon, Starbucks, Texaco, Google or UBS, then someone in another country is already extracting your money (work) to that country. If you buy products from China, then you are sending your money abroad.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

How did austerity work out?

It's a major contribution to the hole we're in.

If something cost £100 in 2010 and we stopped paying for it that £100 is now £1000 to get that service back to 2010 standards let alone fit for 2025.

You save more in the long run by investing early

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 days ago

Terra Firma

"Why do we need more taxation?

Great question, do we actually need more tax? I’d argue no, not until we sort out the vast inefficiencies in how the public sector is structured, paid, and contracted.

As I posted yesterday, just a 1% saving across the public sector would free up around £12 billion. That’s without raising a single tax or inventing a new one. But instead of tackling inefficiencies, we are being asked to keep funding failure.

Right now, it’s like a worker asking their boss for a pay rise because they gamble all their wages on a horse that loses every week, and then blaming the boss when the money runs out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Why do we need more taxation?

Great question, do we actually need more tax? I’d argue no, not until we sort out the vast inefficiencies in how the public sector is structured, paid, and contracted.

Right now, it’s like a worker asking their boss for a pay rise because they gamble all their wages on a horse that loses every week, and then blaming the boss when the money runs out."

They've been cut to the bone. Theirs no flab left!! The economy has been on ozempic since 2010

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

This thread is an example of how the socialist downward spiral into failure works.

They see a problem in the society. Their solution? Impose a new tax. That tax doesn't work and actually makes the situation worse. They won't even acknowledge that it failed and move on to proposing a new type of tax, which also fails and makes the situation even worse. They come up with new socialist solutions for problems created by socialism until the society is completely destroyed, like what happened in Argentina. Only then, they will be content.

Let's impose that non-dom tax. That will solve our problems.

Oh that doesn't work and made things worse? Let's impose inheritance tax.

Oh that also doesn't work and made things even worse? Let's impose wealth tax.

That has historically failed in so many countries? That's fine. Let's do it and also impose more capital gains tax.

Trust me bro! It will work this time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

More food banks than ever, but sure, trickle down is working out great

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 days ago

Border of London

We need to produce more. Whatever we need to do to produce and retain wealth is what we need to be doing, only then can we talk about how it is distributed. If something threatens production, we need to avoid it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

"More food banks than ever, but sure, trickle down is working out great

Exactly. How long do they need? 45 years of Neolib economics and we are where we are.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *1shadesoffunMan 7 days ago

nearby

"This thread is an example of how the socialist downward spiral into failure works.

Let's impose that non-dom tax. That will solve our problems.

Oh that doesn't work and made things worse? Let's impose inheritance tax.

Oh that also doesn't work and made things even worse? Let's impose wealth tax.

That has historically failed in so many countries? That's fine. Let's do it and also impose more capital gains tax.

Trust me bro! It will work this time."

They are out of ideas how to set conditions for a prosperous economy.

A chancellor with zero business experience and a faux CV heading up the treasury. Tories were no better either.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *1shadesoffunMan 7 days ago

nearby

"We need to produce more. Whatever we need to do to produce and retain wealth is what we need to be doing, only then can we talk about how it is distributed. If something threatens production, we need to avoid it."

Manufacturing has declined since the 70’s, jobs globalised for cheaper wages

Call centre jobs globalised

Farms closing, imported food produced where wages are cheaper

1 in 10 new cars in Uk made in China

Higher tax’s and more quangos on businesses.

Unfair to lay all this at labours door as most of the decline has been under the tories.

Vote for us on Thursday and we will hit the ground running on Friday. A year on and not much sign of improvement on Main Street

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 days ago

Terra Firma

Here is an idea that is super fair...

The government pledges to reduce public sector inefficiencies by 1% and in return they will raise income tax by 1% across the board.

The following year if they can prove without doubt 1% was saved, they will pledge 2% and raise income tax by a further 1%.

On the 3rd year they drop income tax by 2%.

The revenue raised by this at the end of year 2 would be approx £75billion.

We would also have a more efficient public sector.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Sounds sensible......if the world was an infinite resource

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Here is an idea that is super fair...

The government pledges to reduce public sector inefficiencies by 1% and in return they will raise income tax by 1% across the board.

The following year if they can prove without doubt 1% was saved, they will pledge 2% and raise income tax by a further 1%.

On the 3rd year they drop income tax by 2%.

The revenue raised by this at the end of year 2 would be approx £75billion.

We would also have a more efficient public sector. "

I see your going after income almost like you hate working people

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By * wheel drive tractorMan 7 days ago

North Lonsdon

"A poll from July 8th says a 2% tax on individuals worth more than £10m, has been backed by the vast majority of voters.

Lord Neil kinnock has also been in news backing it with statements to sky news. "
. Those supporting such actions need to think through the consequences of their actions. Driving those who pay the most tax and consequently collecting less in the UK hardly seems a sensible plan of action to me . Why make everyone worse off

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan 7 days ago

borehamwood

"I'm not sure why we're bothered about people living here that are happy to move away at the very thought of a very centre labour party coming to power. Sounds like they don't really love Britain after all.

Brexit is estimated to cost us £80-100bn a year.

Switzerland and Norway are happy to have wealth taxes and doing ok. Maybe it's because they're nice places to live.

Or we could do what the US does and tax worldwide income on all citizens regardless of their residency.

"
probably also works in those country's because the population is a lot smaller than here

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan 7 days ago

borehamwood

"Exactly, as if they are the only people who can provide that, service or business or whatever in a country of 70 million.

Bye, mother fuckers, let other people create a fortune "
and once they have created a fortune they would be off aswell,rich people ain't tied to one particular country they can shop around

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

"Here is an idea that is super fair...

The government pledges to reduce public sector inefficiencies by 1% and in return they will raise income tax by 1% across the board.

The following year if they can prove without doubt 1% was saved, they will pledge 2% and raise income tax by a further 1%.

On the 3rd year they drop income tax by 2%.

The revenue raised by this at the end of year 2 would be approx £75billion.

We would also have a more efficient public sector. "

By reducing inefficiencies, do you mean the total amount of public spending?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

"More food banks than ever, but sure, trickle down is working out great

Exactly. How long do they need? 45 years of Neolib economics and we are where we are."

When did UK ever have neolib economics?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uffolkcouple-bi onlyCouple 7 days ago

West Suffolk

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?"

We cant know how much worse things would have been had “Austerity” not been implemented.

But if the majority of people want better public services than we apparently have now they should pay for it. I believe 1% on the basic rate of tax generates about £40b tax revenue.

Do that and cut all foreign aid and sort the economic migrants situation and you have an extra £50 billion. If increasing public spending is genuinely the cure for all are woes, that should sort it. If not, we’ll know to cut back on the increased spending and cut the tax back to previous levels

But deep down, most people know no matter how much we increase public spending, it never cures our woes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"A poll from July 8th says a 2% tax on individuals worth more than £10m, has been backed by the vast majority of voters.

Lord Neil kinnock has also been in news backing it with statements to sky news. . Those supporting such actions need to think through the consequences of their actions. Driving those who pay the most tax and consequently collecting less in the UK hardly seems a sensible plan of action to me . Why make everyone worse off "

2% of wealth OVER 10 million? Doesn't sound like anyone in that equation is poor.

The patriotic millionaires even support it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan 7 days ago

borehamwood

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

"
that's always been how it works the general public always shoulder it,if you think goverment of any colour is gona rock the boat you haven't been paying attention

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

"A poll from July 8th says a 2% tax on individuals worth more than £10m, has been backed by the vast majority of voters.

2% of wealth OVER 10 million? Doesn't sound like anyone in that equation is poor.

The patriotic millionaires even support it.

Any reason why the "Patriotic Millionaires" haven't paid their share yet? Let me guess, the wealth tax they support has thresholds that are higher than their own wealth?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?

We cant know how much worse things would have been had “Austerity” not been implemented.

But if the majority of people want better public services than we apparently have now they should pay for it. I believe 1% on the basic rate of tax generates about £40b tax revenue.

But deep down, most people know no matter how much we increase public spending, it never cures our woes. "

The austerity was working fine. The debt to GDP ratio was going down. Then COVID happened and the government spent so much money that reversed all the gains from austerity and made things even worse.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?

We cant know how much worse things would have been had “Austerity” not been implemented.

But if the majority of people want better public services than we apparently have now they should pay for it. I believe 1% on the basic rate of tax generates about £40b tax revenue.

But deep down, most people know no matter how much we increase public spending, it never cures our woes. "

I see so the working people have to pay more always.

If you decrease foreign aid (should have guessed) you decrease soft power and influence abroad. You then have to increase hard power, the spending just moves it doesn't stop.

Our role in the world currently and historically and as a compassionate, human society means we treat people fairly no matter how they got here what language they speak, what god they pray to or what colour skin they have!! Be proud of that not, punching down is never a good look.

No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"A poll from July 8th says a 2% tax on individuals worth more than £10m, has been backed by the vast majority of voters.

2% of wealth OVER 10 million? Doesn't sound like anyone in that equation is poor.

The patriotic millionaires even support it.

Any reason why the "Patriotic Millionaires" haven't paid their share yet? Let me guess, the wealth tax they support has thresholds that are higher than their own wealth?"

Like they said they can write cheques to the treasury or charities of their own choosing no problem and they do.

Having a state imposed wealth tax means everyone above that imposed line is treated equally and the whole of society benefits. Draw the line where you want. 10 million sounds fair no one is going hungry if you tax wealth above 10 million

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?

We cant know how much worse things would have been had “Austerity” not been implemented.

But if the majority of people want better public services than we apparently have now they should pay for it. I believe 1% on the basic rate of tax generates about £40b tax revenue.

But deep down, most people know no matter how much we increase public spending, it never cures our woes.

The austerity was working fine. The debt to GDP ratio was going down. Then COVID happened and the government spent so much money that reversed all the gains from austerity and made things even worse."

What did it do for growth & the state of public services?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

that's always been how it works the general public always shoulder it,if you think goverment of any colour is gona rock the boat you haven't been paying attention"

I think we should be like the French. A revolution is needed to break this cap doff mentality

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

I see so the working people have to pay more always.

If you decrease foreign aid (should have guessed) you decrease soft power and influence abroad. You then have to increase hard power, the spending just moves it doesn't stop.

No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

If you are so charitable, you could start by paying your own money to help those lovely people, maybe host some asylum seekers in your own house. Asking someone else to help or taking money out of someone else's pocket to help others doesn't make you humane or morally superior to the rest of us. Anyone with internet can go around and say other people have to pay more tax to help these poor people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?

We cant know how much worse things would have been had “Austerity” not been implemented.

But if the majority of people want better public services than we apparently have now they should pay for it. I believe 1% on the basic rate of tax generates about £40b tax revenue.

But deep down, most people know no matter how much we increase public spending, it never cures our woes.

Brought to you by the daily mail, you forgot Brexit is going fine or it hasn't been implemented correctly, you know like communism.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"A poll from July 8th says a 2% tax on individuals worth more than £10m, has been backed by the vast majority of voters.

It's like saying don't bother to try and get a better job and improving your "lot"! It's human need/creed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Yes they will leave and you will be left with a population that has mostly been less productive, have hardly run a successful business and would mostly prefer to sit on their arse if someone else could pay for them. But only this time, no one is there to pay for them Good luck living in that mess

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?

We cant know how much worse things would have been had “Austerity” not been implemented.

But if the majority of people want better public services than we apparently have now they should pay for it. I believe 1% on the basic rate of tax generates about £40b tax revenue.

But deep down, most people know no matter how much we increase public spending, it never cures our woes.

The austerity was working fine. The debt to GDP ratio was going down. Then COVID happened and the government spent so much money that reversed all the gains from austerity and made things even worse.

Brought to you by the daily mail, you forgot Brexit is going fine or it hasn't been implemented correctly, you know like communism.

Did Brexit cause tens of millions of deaths, the way communism did? UK's economic position compared to other European countries is still the same.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

I see so the working people have to pay more always.

If you decrease foreign aid (should have guessed) you decrease soft power and influence abroad. You then have to increase hard power, the spending just moves it doesn't stop.

No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

I do I have direct debits to refugee charities, in this country and abroad so theirs that.

Taking money out of people's pockets??? 2% of wealth over 10 million. They really won't notice it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan 7 days ago

borehamwood

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

that's always been how it works the general public always shoulder it,if you think goverment of any colour is gona rock the boat you haven't been paying attention

I think we should be like the French. A revolution is needed to break this cap doff mentality "
crack on mate but when the riot police are unleashed don't moan you have a fractured skull,do you honestly belive if you tried to have a revolution the gov would stand idly by

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?

We cant know how much worse things would have been had “Austerity” not been implemented.

But if the majority of people want better public services than we apparently have now they should pay for it. I believe 1% on the basic rate of tax generates about £40b tax revenue.

But deep down, most people know no matter how much we increase public spending, it never cures our woes.

The austerity was working fine. The debt to GDP ratio was going down. Then COVID happened and the government spent so much money that reversed all the gains from austerity and made things even worse.

Brought to you by the daily mail, you forgot Brexit is going fine or it hasn't been implemented correctly, you know like communism.

Did Brexit cause tens of millions of deaths, the way communism did? UK's economic position compared to other European countries is still the same. "

Far less than if we'd have you free trade, less bureaucracy. All those things wealth creaters like

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Except, they had the guts to move across the globe, so they're risk takers.

They start, car washes, barber shops get on their bikes and deliver your takeaway. Norman tebitt would be proud! (Possibly niche, Google it)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

that's always been how it works the general public always shoulder it,if you think goverment of any colour is gona rock the boat you haven't been paying attention

I think we should be like the French. A revolution is needed to break this cap doff mentality crack on mate but when the riot police are unleashed don't moan you have a fractured skull,do you honestly belive if you tried to have a revolution the gov would stand idly by"

Absolutely not, Yvette is as efficient at clamping down on protest rights as she is at getting those asylum claims processed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

I see so the working people have to pay more always.

If you decrease foreign aid (should have guessed) you decrease soft power and influence abroad. You then have to increase hard power, the spending just moves it doesn't stop.

No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

I do I have direct debits to refugee charities, in this country and abroad so theirs that.

Taking money out of people's pockets??? 2% of wealth over 10 million. They really won't notice it."

Totally believe

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Except, they had the guts to move across the globe, so they're risk takers.

They start, car washes, barber shops get on their bikes and deliver your takeaway. Norman tebitt would be proud! (Possibly niche, Google it)"

The wealthy are the ones who move abroad. The ones who you believe will do the "French revolution" are the ones who want to consume stuff of the government. You are essentially sending out people who made successful businesses and paid taxes and keeping people who are incapable of doing that. French revolution my ass

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 days ago

Terra Firma

"Here is an idea that is super fair...

The government pledges to reduce public sector inefficiencies by 1% and in return they will raise income tax by 1% across the board.

The following year if they can prove without doubt 1% was saved, they will pledge 2% and raise income tax by a further 1%.

On the 3rd year they drop income tax by 2%.

The revenue raised by this at the end of year 2 would be approx £75billion.

We would also have a more efficient public sector.

By reducing inefficiencies, do you mean the total amount of public spending?"

Yes, the removal of quangos, departmental duplications, legacy contract variation exercise that stifles workforce flexibility, TOM across the whole of the public sector, headcount rationalisation, pension harmonisation, digital transformation and procurement efficiency.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

"Here is an idea that is super fair...

The government pledges to reduce public sector inefficiencies by 1% and in return they will raise income tax by 1% across the board.

The following year if they can prove without doubt 1% was saved, they will pledge 2% and raise income tax by a further 1%.

On the 3rd year they drop income tax by 2%.

The revenue raised by this at the end of year 2 would be approx £75billion.

We would also have a more efficient public sector.

By reducing inefficiencies, do you mean the total amount of public spending?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Except, they had the guts to move across the globe, so they're risk takers.

They start, car washes, barber shops get on their bikes and deliver your takeaway. Norman tebitt would be proud! (Possibly niche, Google it)

France seemed to survive after it got rid of those rich parasites did it not?

If the rich want to feck off, others will take their place. A bit like Western companies leaving Russia & local start ups filling the void.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

I see so the working people have to pay more always.

If you decrease foreign aid (should have guessed) you decrease soft power and influence abroad. You then have to increase hard power, the spending just moves it doesn't stop.

No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

I do I have direct debits to refugee charities, in this country and abroad so theirs that.

Taking money out of people's pockets??? 2% of wealth over 10 million. They really won't notice it.

Totally believe

Ok ok let's do an experiment say their wealth from all assets increased by 10% annually (on average it's 7 - 8%%, but for those at the back let's keep it simple).

That's an annual increase of 1 million.

The government then says we're going to tax that 1 million by 2% that's £20,000.

So instead of having an extra 1 million a year, they'll have 980,000.

They're still winning

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Except, they had the guts to move across the globe, so they're risk takers.

They start, car washes, barber shops get on their bikes and deliver your takeaway. Norman tebitt would be proud! (Possibly niche, Google it)

Theirs literally no data for this!

You've been conditioned to believe it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Here is an idea that is super fair...

The government pledges to reduce public sector inefficiencies by 1% and in return they will raise income tax by 1% across the board.

The following year if they can prove without doubt 1% was saved, they will pledge 2% and raise income tax by a further 1%.

On the 3rd year they drop income tax by 2%.

The revenue raised by this at the end of year 2 would be approx £75billion.

We would also have a more efficient public sector.

By reducing inefficiencies, do you mean the total amount of public spending?

I see so you want to make people redundant, they work in quangos no? What takes their place?

You sound like you want to live in America, the place with horrendous inequalities and one of the most unhappy countries on earth. Not dissimilar to us

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

‘The austerity was working fine. The debt to GDP ratio was going down. Then COVID happened and the government spent so much money that reversed all the gains from austerity and made things even worse’

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan 7 days ago

borehamwood

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Except, they had the guts to move across the globe, so they're risk takers.

They start, car washes, barber shops get on their bikes and deliver your takeaway. Norman tebitt would be proud! (Possibly niche, Google it)

France seemed to survive after it got rid of those rich parasites did it not?

If the rich want to feck off, others will take their place. A bit like Western companies leaving Russia & local start ups filling the void. "
you think France dosent have rich people just like we do? When they tried a wealth tax all those rich French re located to London until the French goverment dropped that tax,all I hear you saying is I hate rich people and we should take more money off them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Except, they had the guts to move across the globe, so they're risk takers.

They start, car washes, barber shops get on their bikes and deliver your takeaway. Norman tebitt would be proud! (Possibly niche, Google it)

France seemed to survive after it got rid of those rich parasites did it not?

If the rich want to feck off, others will take their place. A bit like Western companies leaving Russia & local start ups filling the void. you think France dosent have rich people just like we do? When they tried a wealth tax all those rich French re located to London until the French goverment dropped that tax,all I hear you saying is I hate rich people and we should take more money off them"

Listen closer.

I don't hate wealthy people, profit isn't a dirty word.

In times of desperate need and you have the most it is incumbent on you to build a longer table and provide the food.

Not pull up the draw bridges, erect walls or fuck off to Dubai.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

"‘The austerity was working fine. The debt to GDP ratio was going down. Then COVID happened and the government spent so much money that reversed all the gains from austerity and made things even worse’

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%. "

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Except, they had the guts to move across the globe, so they're risk takers.

They start, car washes, barber shops get on their bikes and deliver your takeaway. Norman tebitt would be proud! (Possibly niche, Google it)

France seemed to survive after it got rid of those rich parasites did it not?

If the rich want to feck off, others will take their place. A bit like Western companies leaving Russia & local start ups filling the void. "

Have you even read about the French revolution and what happened in the aftermath?

Let me get this straight. You feel the country doesn't collect enough tax. And your solution is to kick out the people who contribute the most taxes to the country? If you socialists can admit honestly that you are driven by envy towards the rich and not out of pity towards the poor, you wouldn't have to make these absurd and paradoxical arguments.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID."

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Ok ok let's do an experiment say their wealth from all assets increased by 10% annually (on average it's 7 - 8%%, but for those at the back let's keep it simple).

That's an annual increase of 1 million.

The government then says we're going to tax that 1 million by 2% that's £20,000.

So instead of having an extra 1 million a year, they'll have 980,000.

They're still winning "

It looks like you don't even know what wealth tax is. Wealth tax is usually levied on the total value of the assets. Not on its incremental value. Incremental value is treated as income/profit/capital gains depending on the type of the asset and that incremental value is already taxed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan 7 days ago

borehamwood

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Except, they had the guts to move across the globe, so they're risk takers.

They start, car washes, barber shops get on their bikes and deliver your takeaway. Norman tebitt would be proud! (Possibly niche, Google it)

France seemed to survive after it got rid of those rich parasites did it not?

Listen closer.

I don't hate wealthy people, profit isn't a dirty word.

In times of desperate need and you have the most it is incumbent on you to build a longer table and provide the food.

Not pull up the draw bridges, erect walls or fuck off to Dubai.

"
they have the money to do that though so good luck trying to get anymore cash out of them your 40 years old but still belive the world is fair amazing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 days ago

Border of London

I see so the working people have to pay more always.

If you decrease foreign aid (should have guessed) you decrease soft power and influence abroad. You then have to increase hard power, the spending just moves it doesn't stop.

No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

I do I have direct debits to refugee charities, in this country and abroad so theirs that.

Taking money out of people's pockets??? 2% of wealth over 10 million. They really won't notice it.

Totally believe

Ok ok let's do an experiment say their wealth from all assets increased by 10% annually (on average it's 7 - 8%%, but for those at the back let's keep it simple).

That's an annual increase of 1 million.

The government then says we're going to tax that 1 million by 2% that's £20,000.

So instead of having an extra 1 million a year, they'll have 980,000.

They're still winning "

Oh... You mean a yearly tax on wealth growth? That can wipe out a portfolio if timed poorly. You're suggesting a paid-yearly capital gains tax?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hrill CollinsMan 7 days ago

The Outer Rim

so the right wing wing nut jobs say that the wealthy shouldn't have to start paying tax because they might leave the country. aside from that not being true, why should people get to benefit from the way of life on offer while they expect everyone else to work hard to pay for it? if you don't want to pay then you don't deserve to benefit from what we have, it's quite simple.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Except, they had the guts to move across the globe, so they're risk takers.

They start, car washes, barber shops get on their bikes and deliver your takeaway. Norman tebitt would be proud! (Possibly niche, Google it)

France seemed to survive after it got rid of those rich parasites did it not?

If the rich want to feck off, others will take their place. A bit like Western companies leaving Russia & local start ups filling the void.

Have you even read about the French revolution and what happened in the aftermath?

Hi, I'm a what you'd call champagne socialist!

Very wealthy, not 10 million wealthy but I don't worry about money.

I'd happily pay more taxes! So no I'm not envious of rich people.

I do see the current woes, people not being able to afford houses. The rich (me) getting ever richer but no one does anything about the conditions of the poorest!

So what you going to call me? Establishment? No I'm not titled like Tony Benn.

Liberal elite??? Yes let's go with that, only I try and use it for good.

But I'm only one.

Imagine if we had a tax that clawed back pittence from me to help the many???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?"

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

It's easy to borrow and spend. It takes hard work to actually build something. You have seen Milei's policies have already started showing impact on Argentina's poverty after the socialist policy of "let's just find a new way to tax people" destroyed the country. How many more countries should socialist policies destroy before you admit that you can't tax your way out of problems?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *1shadesoffunMan 7 days ago

nearby

I see so the working people have to pay more always.

If you decrease foreign aid (should have guessed) you decrease soft power and influence abroad. You then have to increase hard power, the spending just moves it doesn't stop.

No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

I do I have direct debits to refugee charities, in this country and abroad so theirs that.

Taking money out of people's pockets??? 2% of wealth over 10 million. They really won't notice it.

Totally believe

Ok ok let's do an experiment say their wealth from all assets increased by 10% annually (on average it's 7 - 8%%, but for those at the back let's keep it simple).

That's an annual increase of 1 million.

The government then says we're going to tax that 1 million by 2% that's £20,000.

So instead of having an extra 1 million a year, they'll have 980,000.

They're still winning "

Where do you get the 10% annual return

Property in isolation yields around 6%, less tax at 25% if incorporated, less income/dividend to draw from ltd. Or income tax at marginal rate up to 45% if not incorporated.

Those returns are nearer 4%

Dividend higher tax is 39.75% last time I looked

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Hi, I'm a what you'd call champagne socialist!

Very wealthy, not 10 million wealthy but I don't worry about money.

I'd happily pay more taxes! So no I'm not envious of rich people.

I do see the current woes, people not being able to afford houses. The rich (me) getting ever richer but no one does anything about the conditions of the poorest!

So what you going to call me? Establishment? No I'm not titled like Tony Benn.

Liberal elite??? Yes let's go with that, only I try and use it for good.

But I'm only one.

Imagine if we had a tax that clawed back pittence from me to help the many???"

If you will happily pay more taxes, why didn't you use the voluntary tax payment channel to pay the extra tax you would really love to pay? ❤️

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

I see so the working people have to pay more always.

If you decrease foreign aid (should have guessed) you decrease soft power and influence abroad. You then have to increase hard power, the spending just moves it doesn't stop.

No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

I do I have direct debits to refugee charities, in this country and abroad so theirs that.

Taking money out of people's pockets??? 2% of wealth over 10 million. They really won't notice it.

Totally believe

Ok ok let's do an experiment say their wealth from all assets increased by 10% annually (on average it's 7 - 8%%, but for those at the back let's keep it simple).

That's an annual increase of 1 million.

The government then says we're going to tax that 1 million by 2% that's £20,000.

So instead of having an extra 1 million a year, they'll have 980,000.

They're still winning

Oh... You mean a yearly tax on wealth growth? That can wipe out a portfolio if timed poorly. You're suggesting a paid-yearly capital gains tax?"

To think someone worth 10 million can be wipped out by 20,000

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Except, they had the guts to move across the globe, so they're risk takers.

They start, car washes, barber shops get on their bikes and deliver your takeaway. Norman tebitt would be proud! (Possibly niche, Google it)

France seemed to survive after it got rid of those rich parasites did it not?

Listen closer.

I don't hate wealthy people, profit isn't a dirty word.

In times of desperate need and you have the most it is incumbent on you to build a longer table and provide the food.

Not pull up the draw bridges, erect walls or fuck off to Dubai.

they have the money to do that though so good luck trying to get anymore cash out of them your 40 years old but still belive the world is fair amazing"

I don't think the world is fair, I know it isn't.

I want to make it fairer

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

For every Argentina, there is a Denmark levying CGT at 42% that are very happy on the happy index by the way. And the jury is still VERY much out on Milei as it’s early days & Argentinian society is split right down the middle on him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Hi, I'm a what you'd call champagne socialist!

Very wealthy, not 10 million wealthy but I don't worry about money.

I'd happily pay more taxes! So no I'm not envious of rich people.

I do see the current woes, people not being able to afford houses. The rich (me) getting ever richer but no one does anything about the conditions of the poorest!

So what you going to call me? Establishment? No I'm not titled like Tony Benn.

Liberal elite??? Yes let's go with that, only I try and use it for good.

But I'm only one.

Imagine if we had a tax that clawed back pittence from me to help the many???

If you will happily pay more taxes, why didn't you use the voluntary tax payment channel to pay the extra tax you would really love to pay? ❤️"

Because, I pay towards my pet projects and what I donate back to the unwashed doesn't touch the sides.

If everyone worth a lot did the treasury would have multiple more money to get the country moving and life better for EVERYONE!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

I see so the working people have to pay more always.

If you decrease foreign aid (should have guessed) you decrease soft power and influence abroad. You then have to increase hard power, the spending just moves it doesn't stop.

No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

I do I have direct debits to refugee charities, in this country and abroad so theirs that.

Taking money out of people's pockets??? 2% of wealth over 10 million. They really won't notice it.

Totally believe

Ok ok let's do an experiment say their wealth from all assets increased by 10% annually (on average it's 7 - 8%%, but for those at the back let's keep it simple).

That's an annual increase of 1 million.

The government then says we're going to tax that 1 million by 2% that's £20,000.

So instead of having an extra 1 million a year, they'll have 980,000.

They're still winning

Where do you get the 10% annual return

Property in isolation yields around 6%, less tax at 25% if incorporated, less income/dividend to draw from ltd. Or income tax at marginal rate up to 45% if not incorporated.

Those returns are nearer 4%

Dividend higher tax is 39.75% last time I looked "

Were you sitting at the back?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Hi, I'm a what you'd call champagne socialist!

Very wealthy, not 10 million wealthy but I don't worry about money.

I'd happily pay more taxes! So no I'm not envious of rich people.

I do see the current woes, people not being able to afford houses. The rich (me) getting ever richer but no one does anything about the conditions of the poorest!

So what you going to call me? Establishment? No I'm not titled like Tony Benn.

Liberal elite??? Yes let's go with that, only I try and use it for good.

But I'm only one.

Imagine if we had a tax that clawed back pittence from me to help the many???

If you will happily pay more taxes, why didn't you use the voluntary tax payment channel to pay the extra tax you would really love to pay? ❤️

Because, I pay towards my pet projects and what I donate back to the unwashed doesn't touch the sides.

If everyone worth a lot did the treasury would have multiple more money to get the country moving and life better for EVERYONE!"

You seem to be a strong believer that paying tax money to the government is how you solve the problems. So why do you put the money in the pet projects instead of paying it to the treasury in form of voluntary tax?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Hi, I'm a what you'd call champagne socialist!

Very wealthy, not 10 million wealthy but I don't worry about money.

I'd happily pay more taxes! So no I'm not envious of rich people.

I do see the current woes, people not being able to afford houses. The rich (me) getting ever richer but no one does anything about the conditions of the poorest!

So what you going to call me? Establishment? No I'm not titled like Tony Benn.

Liberal elite??? Yes let's go with that, only I try and use it for good.

But I'm only one.

Imagine if we had a tax that clawed back pittence from me to help the many???

If you will happily pay more taxes, why didn't you use the voluntary tax payment channel to pay the extra tax you would really love to pay? ❤️

Because, I pay towards my pet projects and what I donate back to the unwashed doesn't touch the sides.

If everyone worth a lot did the treasury would have multiple more money to get the country moving and life better for EVERYONE!

Sorry, what, pardon?

You've gone from people with wealth should be allowed to choose where they spend their money.

To if you have wealth to spare it must all go back to the treasury!!

Wealthy people have interests too, it affords you choices not open to people who only earn money from income.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Both Denmark and Sweden do not have wealth tax. And they have high tax rates for the lowest earners. Their tax policies aren't anti-rich, the way you are talking about now. If you look at average surgery wait times, Hungary and Italy do even better than Denmark. Should we follow their policies on taxation?

As for Milei, you could pretend as much as you want like he isn't turning around Argentina for good. But all the metrics show that it's happening and investors are rushing to invest their money there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Hi, I'm a what you'd call champagne socialist!

Very wealthy, not 10 million wealthy but I don't worry about money.

I'd happily pay more taxes! So no I'm not envious of rich people.

I do see the current woes, people not being able to afford houses. The rich (me) getting ever richer but no one does anything about the conditions of the poorest!

So what you going to call me? Establishment? No I'm not titled like Tony Benn.

Liberal elite??? Yes let's go with that, only I try and use it for good.

But I'm only one.

Imagine if we had a tax that clawed back pittence from me to help the many???

If you will happily pay more taxes, why didn't you use the voluntary tax payment channel to pay the extra tax you would really love to pay? ❤️

Because, I pay towards my pet projects and what I donate back to the unwashed doesn't touch the sides.

If everyone worth a lot did the treasury would have multiple more money to get the country moving and life better for EVERYONE!

Sorry, what, pardon?

You've gone from people with wealth should be allowed to choose where they spend their money.

To if you have wealth to spare it must all go back to the treasury!!

Wealthy people have interests too, it affords you choices not open to people who only earn money from income.

I am not the one who switched the goal post, you did

You said you are a champagne socialist and pretended like you would happily pay high tax. And yet, you would rather put your money in pet projects instead of paying it as voluntary tax. Why?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Hi, I'm a what you'd call champagne socialist!

Very wealthy, not 10 million wealthy but I don't worry about money.

I'd happily pay more taxes! So no I'm not envious of rich people.

I do see the current woes, people not being able to afford houses. The rich (me) getting ever richer but no one does anything about the conditions of the poorest!

So what you going to call me? Establishment? No I'm not titled like Tony Benn.

Liberal elite??? Yes let's go with that, only I try and use it for good.

But I'm only one.

Imagine if we had a tax that clawed back pittence from me to help the many???

If you will happily pay more taxes, why didn't you use the voluntary tax payment channel to pay the extra tax you would really love to pay? ❤️

Because, I pay towards my pet projects and what I donate back to the unwashed doesn't touch the sides.

If everyone worth a lot did the treasury would have multiple more money to get the country moving and life better for EVERYONE!

Sorry, what, pardon?

You've gone from people with wealth should be allowed to choose where they spend their money.

To if you have wealth to spare it must all go back to the treasury!!

Wealthy people have interests too, it affords you choices not open to people who only earn money from income.

I am not the one who switched the goal post, you did

You said you are a champagne socialist and pretended like you would happily pay high tax. And yet, you would rather put your money in pet projects instead of paying it as voluntary tax. Why?"

2% is not high!!

I do both!

Because, I have interests, people are allowed to have interests, hobbies and spend your money there, they are the industries desperate for growth.

Maybe if people had more money you'd be able to afford hobbies, and help grow the economy and see how happy they can make people.

I want that for everyone, I don't believe that having some extra cash to live a happy fulfilling life as wrong, or that it should ALL go back to the treasury.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is "

As of two weeks back, Argentina's poverty rates are at a 6 years low. Even if you look at things you measure, the country has improved a lot. A country that was destroyed by the policies which you support.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

You've gone from people with wealth should be allowed to choose where they spend their money.

To if you have wealth to spare it must all go back to the treasury!!

Wealthy people have interests too, it affords you choices not open to people who only earn money from income.

I am not the one who switched the goal post, you did

You said you are a champagne socialist and pretended like you would happily pay high tax. And yet, you would rather put your money in pet projects instead of paying it as voluntary tax. Why?

2% is not high!!

I do both!

Because, I have interests, people are allowed to have interests, hobbies and spend your money there, they are the industries desperate for growth.

Maybe if people had more money you'd be able to afford hobbies, and help grow the economy and see how happy they can make people.

I want that for everyone, I don't believe that having some extra cash to live a happy fulfilling life as wrong, or that it should ALL go back to the treasury.

If 2% is not high, why didn't you pay it already. The government publishes how much money they received through the voluntary tax payment scheme and it was next to nothing the last time I checked. So you clearly did not pay that extra tax you would love to pay.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Ok let’s Google a concise conclusion on Austerity then:

Conclusion:

“While austerity may offer short-term benefits in terms of fiscal stability, the evidence suggests that it can have significant negative consequences for the economy and society. The long-term effects of austerity on employment, inequality, and public health raise serious questions about its effectiveness as a policy tool”.

Each to their own, but personally speaking, no thanks. People are worse off or barely any better off than they were in 2008 in many cases.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

You've gone from people with wealth should be allowed to choose where they spend their money.

To if you have wealth to spare it must all go back to the treasury!!

Wealthy people have interests too, it affords you choices not open to people who only earn money from income.

I am not the one who switched the goal post, you did

You said you are a champagne socialist and pretended like you would happily pay high tax. And yet, you would rather put your money in pet projects instead of paying it as voluntary tax. Why?

2% is not high!!

I do both!

Because, I have interests, people are allowed to have interests, hobbies and spend your money there, they are the industries desperate for growth.

Maybe if people had more money you'd be able to afford hobbies, and help grow the economy and see how happy they can make people.

I want that for everyone, I don't believe that having some extra cash to live a happy fulfilling life as wrong, or that it should ALL go back to the treasury.

You have no idea what I'm worth or what 2% of that would be annually.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Ok let’s Google a concise conclusion on Austerity then:

Conclusion:

Each to their own, but personally speaking, no thanks. People are worse off or barely any better off than they were in 2008 in many cases.

LMAO

Seriously? Your argument is some text you extracted out of Google search? Nice

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

You've gone from people with wealth should be allowed to choose where they spend their money.

To if you have wealth to spare it must all go back to the treasury!!

Wealthy people have interests too, it affords you choices not open to people who only earn money from income.

I am not the one who switched the goal post, you did

You said you are a champagne socialist and pretended like you would happily pay high tax. And yet, you would rather put your money in pet projects instead of paying it as voluntary tax. Why?

2% is not high!!

I do both!

Because, I have interests, people are allowed to have interests, hobbies and spend your money there, they are the industries desperate for growth.

Maybe if people had more money you'd be able to afford hobbies, and help grow the economy and see how happy they can make people.

I want that for everyone, I don't believe that having some extra cash to live a happy fulfilling life as wrong, or that it should ALL go back to the treasury.

You have no idea what I'm worth or what 2% of that would be annually.

But I know for sure that you never volunteered to pay your own money as extra tax.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 days ago

Border of London

[Removed by poster at 10/07/25 14:09:34]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *resesse_MelioremCouple 7 days ago

Border of London

To think someone worth 10 million can be wipped out by 20,000"

When a bubble in a volatile instrument is followed by a crash, where the value is taken at the peak and the payment is needed after the trough, you end up with significant liquidity issues. This also leads to ultimately paying taxes on losing investments, in some cases. It's very difficult to tax wealth in this manner, especially the valuation. Can they claim back tax if it subsequently makes a loss?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

You seem to be confused as to what I'm arguing for.

I'm arguing for the wealth that exists in this country to be taxed at a slightly higher rate for a set period of time for the government to have a lot more cash to undo the last 14 years.

Inject cash into, house building, transport, building dams, education, health care, probably missed something, everything that the state should be in charge of.

People work on projects, if they have money in their pockets they'll spend it in the high street and on leisure activities. Getting the wider economy moving.

Once you get it moving, you then reduce direct taxation because indirect taxation from people spending will cover government spending and reduce deficit.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Ok let’s Google a concise conclusion on Austerity then:

Conclusion:

Each to their own, but personally speaking, no thanks. People are worse off or barely any better off than they were in 2008 in many cases.

LMAO

Seriously? Your argument is some text you extracted out of Google search? Nice

I took a very simple Google search so it couldn’t be seen in any way as a biased source.

I don’t think it’s funny. Neither do many millions of others who have suffered - and continue to suffer - the effects of the experiment with it. But you do you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

To think someone worth 10 million can be wipped out by 20,000

Anyone who has that amount of wealth knows that you don't put all your eggs in one basket.

You have a stocks portfolio

Property portfolio

And enough cash as "a rainy day fund" whatever that is for them

You can borrow money against your properties

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

You seem to be confused as to what I'm arguing for.

I'm arguing for the wealth that exists in this country to be taxed at a slightly higher rate for a set period of time for the government to have a lot more cash to undo the last 14 years.

Inject cash into, house building, transport, building dams, education, health care, probably missed something, everything that the state should be in charge of.

People work on projects, if they have money in their pockets they'll spend it in the high street and on leisure activities. Getting the wider economy moving.

Once you get it moving, you then reduce direct taxation because indirect taxation from people spending will cover government spending and reduce deficit.

I don't know why you are jumping across topics with every message. First you were talking about Argentina and now out of nowhere, you are explaining how wealth tax works.

The problems with the amazing ideas you suggested:

1) It won't take long for people to move their wealth that "exists in this country". There are numerous ways to do that without being taxed

2) The ones who couldn't would move to a different country. These are people who have already been contributing the largest amount of tax. So you eventually end up receiving much less tax than you did previously

3) You say it's just for once. When was the last time the country ever reduced the tax? Taking inflation into account, our taxes have been increasing every year

4) "Inject cash into, house building, transport, building dams, education, health care, probably missed something, everything that the state should be in charge of." - None of that could be funded for by the tax you are proposing

Your glorious idea is just another lame socialist idea that will make the country worse and leave the poor in an even worse state, just like it did in Argentina

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Ok let’s Google a concise conclusion on Austerity then:

Conclusion:

Each to their own, but personally speaking, no thanks. People are worse off or barely any better off than they were in 2008 in many cases.

LMAO

Seriously? Your argument is some text you extracted out of Google search? Nice

I took a very simple Google search so it couldn’t be seen in any way as a biased source.

I don’t think it’s funny. Neither do many millions of others who have suffered - and continue to suffer - the effects of the experiment with it. But you do you.

I could Google search using different key words and find the opposite argument for it.

As for the millions suffering, that's exactly what you are asking with your socialist policies, policies which have been repeatedly shown to make countries worse. And yet, socialist keep asking for it pretending like they care about the poor.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”"

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

You seem to be confused as to what I'm arguing for.

I'm arguing for the wealth that exists in this country to be taxed at a slightly higher rate for a set period of time for the government to have a lot more cash to undo the last 14 years.

Inject cash into, house building, transport, building dams, education, health care, probably missed something, everything that the state should be in charge of.

People work on projects, if they have money in their pockets they'll spend it in the high street and on leisure activities. Getting the wider economy moving.

Once you get it moving, you then reduce direct taxation because indirect taxation from people spending will cover government spending and reduce deficit.

I don't know why you are jumping across topics with every message. First you were talking about Argentina and now out of nowhere, you are explaining how wealth tax works.

The problems with the amazing ideas you suggested:

1) It won't take long for people to move their wealth that "exists in this country". There are numerous ways to do that without being taxed

3) You say it's just for once. When was the last time the country ever reduced the tax? Taking inflation into account, our taxes have been increasing every year

Your glorious idea is just another lame socialist idea that will make the country worse and leave the poor in an even worse state, just like it did in Argentina "

Theirs no data to support you on this mythical people who transport houses, businesses, elderly parents children and friends from one country to the next.

The people who your actually talking about the billionaires, they are highly mobile. But they are anyway, they move as and when the tax regimes change in their favour from country to country. They are a tiny percentage.

Jeremy Hunt gave an income tax cut in 2024

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced? "

Because consumption ordinarily would be expected to fuel economic growth?

You’re saying ‘poverty is reduced’ - yeah, over a very short term time scale. Very much a situation in flux isn’t it, with no long term conclusions to be drawn yet.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced? "

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *1shadesoffunMan 7 days ago

nearby

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

You seem to be confused as to what I'm arguing for.

I'm arguing for the wealth that exists in this country to be taxed at a slightly higher rate for a set period of time for the government to have a lot more cash to undo the last 14 years.

Inject cash into, house building, transport, building dams, education, health care, probably missed something, everything that the state should be in charge of.

People work on projects, if they have money in their pockets they'll spend it in the high street and on leisure activities. Getting the wider economy moving.

Once you get it moving, you then reduce direct taxation because indirect taxation from people spending will cover government spending and reduce deficit.

£9trn of the UK’s £13.3trn wealth is property. Double the combined value of savings, pension funds and all the stock market indices.

You do you annually tax houses people are living in, or houses owned by someone that a tenant is living in to generate these vast sums needed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much "

If poverty is reduced, it means the consumption reduction isn't a problem. Socialist societies are known to be wasteful. It's not surprising that consumption went down after Milei took down numerous government agencies

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

…this is a lie by the way. Austerity was ‘not working fine’. It bearly dented the debt/GDP levels as they went up after 2010, topping out at around 80%.

You are the one who is lying here. After austerity, the debt to GDP ratio stabilised at same levels for awhile before actually dropping a bit in 2019. Then it shot-up again during COVID.

Ok, seeing as you want to squabble over minute percentage details, which is clearly what we are talking about here, how long until austerity achieve the desired effect at that those rates? Decades?

The stabilisation of debt-gdp ratio happened within a year. It took around 8 years for the ratio to drop lower. That's how economics work.

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

You seem to be confused as to what I'm arguing for.

I'm arguing for the wealth that exists in this country to be taxed at a slightly higher rate for a set period of time for the government to have a lot more cash to undo the last 14 years.

Inject cash into, house building, transport, building dams, education, health care, probably missed something, everything that the state should be in charge of.

People work on projects, if they have money in their pockets they'll spend it in the high street and on leisure activities. Getting the wider economy moving.

Once you get it moving, you then reduce direct taxation because indirect taxation from people spending will cover government spending and reduce deficit.

£9trn of the UK’s £13.3trn wealth is property. Double the combined value of savings, pension funds and all the stock market indices.

You do you annually tax houses people are living in, or houses owned by someone that a tenant is living in to generate these vast sums needed. "

Pardon? I'm not clear what the question is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 days ago

Terra Firma

Suggesting people could borrow money on assets that have unrealised gains is mind blowing, really mind blowing.

Are the left aware that taxes are paid on such assets already?

If a person say Starmer, purchased a house for £1 million. He rents that house out at the market rate for 10 years, the house price in that time rises to £2 million pounds. How much tax would Mr Starmer have paid when he eventually sold his house?

** Assuming it hasn't burnt down, and not taking into account renting it to family members at peppercorn rates as tax avoidance **

Now let's take the same scenario but this time Mr Sunak is going to put the property through his limited company. What would be the tax paid?

Approximations more than welcome.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Because consumption ordinarily would be expected to fuel economic growth?

You’re saying ‘poverty is reduced’ - yeah, over a very short term time scale. Very much a situation in flux isn’t it, with no long term conclusions to be drawn yet."

Consumption doesn't always mean a good thing. If a rich person decides to buy a lot of gold and throw it into a volcano, it's wasteful consumption. If a socialist government builds a lot of bureaucracy that forces people to pay lawyers or someone else to get through the bureaucy.

Poverty going down from over 50 to 32% isn't a simple thing. Inflation also reduced. Remember that poverty was going consistently up when the left wing government was pushing their socialist policies.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid."

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Suggesting people could borrow money on assets that have unrealised gains is mind blowing, really mind blowing.

Are the left aware that taxes are paid on such assets already?

** Assuming it hasn't burnt down, and not taking into account renting it to family members at peppercorn rates as tax avoidance **

Now let's take the same scenario but this time Mr Sunak is going to put the property through his limited company. What would be the tax paid?

Approximations more than welcome. "

Roughly, but there are other things to consider

Starmer - 760k

Sunak - 750k

What's your point?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful."

The UK is socialist???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful."

Liz Truss is your ultimate wet dream

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful."

The UK isn’t Socialist. Not by any stretch.

….and just because I acknowledge the government wasted some money during Covid, doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have intervened at all.

In your low tax utopia, I suppose it should have all been just left to the individual members of society & there should have been NO government intervention whatsoever eh?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uffolkcouple-bi onlyCouple 7 days ago

West Suffolk

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?

We cant know how much worse things would have been had “Austerity” not been implemented.

But if the majority of people want better public services than we apparently have now they should pay for it. I believe 1% on the basic rate of tax generates about £40b tax revenue.

But deep down, most people know no matter how much we increase public spending, it never cures our woes.

I see so the working people have to pay more always.

If you decrease foreign aid (should have guessed) you decrease soft power and influence abroad. You then have to increase hard power, the spending just moves it doesn't stop.

No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

No one ask working people pay for the services they want, just take money off someone else.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 days ago

Terra Firma

"Suggesting people could borrow money on assets that have unrealised gains is mind blowing, really mind blowing.

Are the left aware that taxes are paid on such assets already?

** Assuming it hasn't burnt down, and not taking into account renting it to family members at peppercorn rates as tax avoidance **

Now let's take the same scenario but this time Mr Sunak is going to put the property through his limited company. What would be the tax paid?

Approximations more than welcome.

Roughly, but there are other things to consider

Starmer - 760k

Sunak - 750k

What's your point?"

Excellent, let's go with that. So Mr Starmer and Mr Sunak both pay large sums of money as tax when they realise the £1 million gains in their assets and have already paid in large sums of money when they originally purchased the assets? Regardless of personal or company methods.

Now lets say they invest the £1million in shares and they double in value when they decide to sell.

Mr Starmer conducts his business as a single person and Mr Sunak buys the shares through his limited company again, taking the profit as a dividend.

What tax would Mr Starmer and Mr Sunak pay?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By * wheel drive tractorMan 7 days ago

North Lonsdon

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?

We cant know how much worse things would have been had “Austerity” not been implemented.

But if the majority of people want better public services than we apparently have now they should pay for it. I believe 1% on the basic rate of tax generates about £40b tax revenue.

But deep down, most people know no matter how much we increase public spending, it never cures our woes.

The austerity was working fine. The debt to GDP ratio was going down. Then COVID happened and the government spent so much money that reversed all the gains from austerity and made things even worse.

Brought to you by the daily mail, you forgot Brexit is going fine or it hasn't been implemented correctly, you know like communism.

"
. I think you will find that the Daily Mail is a very successfull newspaper and employs many award winning journalists. Brexit was the result of referendum and all indications to date indicate that it will be a success in the long term.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?

We cant know how much worse things would have been had “Austerity” not been implemented.

But if the majority of people want better public services than we apparently have now they should pay for it. I believe 1% on the basic rate of tax generates about £40b tax revenue.

But deep down, most people know no matter how much we increase public spending, it never cures our woes.

I see so the working people have to pay more always.

If you decrease foreign aid (should have guessed) you decrease soft power and influence abroad. You then have to increase hard power, the spending just moves it doesn't stop.

No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

No one ask working people pay for the services they want, just take money off someone else. "

They're already paying the highest since WW2 and have naff all to show for it!!

Meanwhile, the wealth keeps multiplying annually and no one can touch it!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

The UK isn’t Socialist. Not by any stretch.

….and just because I acknowledge the government wasted some money during Covid, doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have intervened at all.

In your low tax utopia, I suppose it should have all been just left to the individual members of society & there should have been NO government intervention whatsoever eh?"

Being socialist isn't a binary thing. The government policy in the way we handled was socialist. NHS itself is socialist. So yes, the COVID wastefulness was down to a socialist policy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

Liz Truss is your ultimate wet dream

Of course, if someone is against socialism, he must be supportive of Liz Truss. That's such an intelligent inference to make.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

The UK is socialist???"

Partly socialist and partly capitalist like pretty much every country is. It's a spectrum.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"Let’s consider the future if we don’t:

There always looks to be a loophole for the wealthy to discover so they can avoid paying tax.

Leaving the country being the ultimate one.

So if we don’t do anything, looks like we have to continue with this system, and to balance the books, the majority will have to shoulder the cuts that are in store.

…and when the riots begin, the wealthy will be leaving anyway?

Just checking. Are you saying the majority will riot because of cuts or basic rate tax increases?

So the rich are expected to just hand over their money but the majority will riot if asked to pay for the services they want?

Cuts, obviously.

I’m really not sure ‘savings & efficiency’ as the panacea to all the UK’s problems as espoused by right wingers cuts it.

We had NINE YEARS of austerity before Johnson ripped it up to appease Red Wall voters.

What did Austerity achieve?

We cant know how much worse things would have been had “Austerity” not been implemented.

But if the majority of people want better public services than we apparently have now they should pay for it. I believe 1% on the basic rate of tax generates about £40b tax revenue.

But deep down, most people know no matter how much we increase public spending, it never cures our woes.

The austerity was working fine. The debt to GDP ratio was going down. Then COVID happened and the government spent so much money that reversed all the gains from austerity and made things even worse.

Brought to you by the daily mail, you forgot Brexit is going fine or it hasn't been implemented correctly, you know like communism.

. I think you will find that the Daily Mail is a very successfull newspaper and employs many award winning journalists. Brexit was the result of referendum and all indications to date indicate that it will be a success in the long term. "

Absolutely ALL indications!!! Which, Sir?

The popularity of the Daily Mail says more about our education system than anything else.

They love the poorly educated, much easier to manipulate

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

The UK isn’t Socialist. Not by any stretch.

….and just because I acknowledge the government wasted some money during Covid, doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have intervened at all.

In your low tax utopia, I suppose it should have all been just left to the individual members of society & there should have been NO government intervention whatsoever eh?

Being socialist isn't a binary thing. The government policy in the way we handled was socialist. NHS itself is socialist. So yes, the COVID wastefulness was down to a socialist policy. "

Handing mates millions is socialist,m

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Brought to you by the daily mail, you forgot Brexit is going fine or it hasn't been implemented correctly, you know like communism.

Absolutely ALL indications!!! Which, Sir?

The popularity of the Daily Mail says more about our education system than anything else.

They love the poorly educated, much easier to manipulate

Socialism supporters calling out other people as poorly educated and easier to manipulate

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

Liz Truss is your ultimate wet dream

Of course, if someone is against socialism, he must be supportive of Liz Truss. That's such an intelligent inference to make."

Mate, you've been wanking over Milei all afternoon! She's of that ilk

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

The UK isn’t Socialist. Not by any stretch.

….and just because I acknowledge the government wasted some money during Covid, doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have intervened at all.

In your low tax utopia, I suppose it should have all been just left to the individual members of society & there should have been NO government intervention whatsoever eh?

Being socialist isn't a binary thing. The government policy in the way we handled was socialist. NHS itself is socialist. So yes, the COVID wastefulness was down to a socialist policy.

Handing mates millions is socialist,m"

Government promises they will solve a problem by giving you some services and indulges in corruption. That's basically the definition of socialism

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

The UK is socialist???

Partly socialist and partly capitalist like pretty much every country is. It's a spectrum. "

The best most sensible thing I've read from you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ecadentDeviantsCouple 7 days ago

Altrincham

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

The UK isn’t Socialist. Not by any stretch.

….and just because I acknowledge the government wasted some money during Covid, doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have intervened at all.

In your low tax utopia, I suppose it should have all been just left to the individual members of society & there should have been NO government intervention whatsoever eh?

Being socialist isn't a binary thing. The government policy in the way we handled was socialist. NHS itself is socialist. So yes, the COVID wastefulness was down to a socialist policy. "

So what was the alternative exactly, completely crash & burn the economy?

No lockdowns, NHS completely overrun, lots more deaths?

I’m interested to hear how your low tax, small government, non interventionist policies would work?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan 7 days ago

borehamwood

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

The UK isn’t Socialist. Not by any stretch.

….and just because I acknowledge the government wasted some money during Covid, doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have intervened at all.

In your low tax utopia, I suppose it should have all been just left to the individual members of society & there should have been NO government intervention whatsoever eh?"
look at it this way if it had been up to the individual during covid you could of got rid of a lot of those boomers you think have caused all the problems in the country

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Brought to you by the daily mail, you forgot Brexit is going fine or it hasn't been implemented correctly, you know like communism.

Absolutely ALL indications!!! Which, Sir?

The popularity of the Daily Mail says more about our education system than anything else.

They love the poorly educated, much easier to manipulate

Socialism supporters calling out other people as poorly educated and easier to manipulate

Because theirs hundreds of socialist headlines, making their way into TV studies and then mouthed into our houses

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

Liz Truss is your ultimate wet dream

Of course, if someone is against socialism, he must be supportive of Liz Truss. That's such an intelligent inference to make.

Mate, you've been wanking over Milei all afternoon! She's of that ilk "

Have you even read any of either of their policies? If you did, you wouldn't be making these lame comparisons. And you are here calling other people as poorly educated?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Ok, what happens to growth & services then in the meantime? Like I said, austerity was in place for 9 years, so hardly a flash in the pan phase, with crap growth.

Poverty rates increasing, economic inequality widening?

It depends on what you're measure is

Clearly Milei is your poster boy.

Why aren’t you telling us the bad stuff as well?

“Argentina’s economic contraction was reflected in consumption, which has now declined for 15 consecutive months”

Why is consumption declining a bad thing if poverty is reduced?

Depends what their not consuming doesn't it?

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

The UK isn’t Socialist. Not by any stretch.

….and just because I acknowledge the government wasted some money during Covid, doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have intervened at all.

In your low tax utopia, I suppose it should have all been just left to the individual members of society & there should have been NO government intervention whatsoever eh? look at it this way if it had been up to the individual during covid you could of got rid of a lot of those boomers you think have caused all the problems in the country"

Absolutely, gutted I have a caring bone in my body

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uffolkcouple-bi onlyCouple 7 days ago

West Suffolk

"No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

No one ask working people pay for the services they want, just take money off someone else.

They're already paying the highest since WW2 and have naff all to show for it!!"

Exactly!!!!

Finally the penny has dropped.

No matter how much tax is raised, there’s fuck all to show for it. If £1.2 trillion from everyone makes no difference, what difference in a couple of extra billion or two gonna make. Absolutely nothing.

The animal is too bloated

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

The UK isn’t Socialist. Not by any stretch.

….and just because I acknowledge the government wasted some money during Covid, doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have intervened at all.

Absolutely, gutted I have a caring bone in my body

Socialists pretending like they care when every action of them shows that they don't really care and are driven by hatred and envy on others. Where have I seen this before?

To answer the questions, there are numerous countries where private healthcare is a thing and works fine

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *m389Man 7 days ago

Magherafelt

The problem with wealth is how quickly it generates more wealth and its puts a huge strain on the economy.

If you had £1bn of cash and simply put it in the bank to earn the risk-free interest rate of around 4%, you would earn £40m in interest in one year. The following year, you reinvest that £40m, earning 4% interest on £1.04bn, and this results in £81.6m of interest.

How does the bank afford to pay this interest to you? Well it uses your money and lends to individuals and businesses that need cash, and at a higher rate (say 8%), so that it can pay 4% to the wealth individual and also take 4% for itself.

In essence, other individuals and businesses are generating more wealth for the wealthy person. This is why they say, money makes money.

I made around 450 quid a 1-year fixed term deposit of 10k. I made that 450 quid, because my bank lent out my money to people who needed it for whatever reason. I indirectly make a 450 quid profit from all this people. If those said people had spare cash and didn’t take the loan, they wouldn’t have to pay me (indirectly) anything and could have kept that cash for themselves.

Think about this on a very large scale, and you realise our who economy is structured to transfer wealth from people who work for a living to those who have assets. It allows those who have assets to “tap in” to the income of the working people, through the demand for cash.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

Liz Truss is your ultimate wet dream

Of course, if someone is against socialism, he must be supportive of Liz Truss. That's such an intelligent inference to make.

Mate, you've been wanking over Milei all afternoon! She's of that ilk

Have you even read any of either of their policies? If you did, you wouldn't be making these lame comparisons. And you are here calling other people as poorly educated?

Radical free market

Belief in supply and demand

Shock treatment

Anti establishment rhetoric

Really, lame comparisons?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igtool4uMan 7 days ago

Cardiff

"No one touch the sacred cow of wealth though. Those people are precious

No one ask working people pay for the services they want, just take money off someone else.

They're already paying the highest since WW2 and have naff all to show for it!!

Exactly!!!!

Finally the penny has dropped.

The animal is too bloated "

Too bloated after austerity, public infrastructure crumbling and you want more cuts

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostindreamsMan 7 days ago

London

Sofa's ok, food, not so much

‘Socialist societies are know to be wasteful’

Yes, unlike ours who didn’t waste a penny during Covid.

You just proved my point. Government expenses are wasteful. So yes, socialist societies are wasteful.

Liz Truss is your ultimate wet dream

Of course, if someone is against socialism, he must be supportive of Liz Truss. That's such an intelligent inference to make.

Mate, you've been wanking over Milei all afternoon! She's of that ilk

Have you even read any of either of their policies? If you did, you wouldn't be making these lame comparisons. And you are here calling other people as poorly educated?

Radical free market

Belief in supply and demand

Shock treatment

Anti establishment rhetoric

Really, lame comparisons?"

It's a lame comparison because you are obviously going off buzzwords thrown by the media without looking at the actual policies proposed.

Liz Truss reduced the taxes while increasing government spending by promising more support for energy bills, which is why the market reacted badly to her budget. If you want to reduce taxes, you have to prove that you need to reduce expenses. Liz Truss budget did the opposite and increased the spending.

Milei pushed for tax reforms a year after he got rid of all the government bureaucracy and proving that he has reduced the expenditure and even showing budget surplus.

If you cared to just give at least a high level read on what policy changes he proposed or did instead of throwing around buzz words, you would have seen how different their approaches are.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otMe66Man 7 days ago

Terra Firma

"Suggesting people could borrow money on assets that have unrealised gains is mind blowing, really mind blowing.

Are the left aware that taxes are paid on such assets already?

** Assuming it hasn't burnt down, and not taking into account renting it to family members at peppercorn rates as tax avoidance **

Now let's take the same scenario but this time Mr Sunak is going to put the property through his limited company. What would be the tax paid?

Approximations more than welcome.

Roughly, but there are other things to consider

Starmer - 760k

Sunak - 750k

What's your point?

Now lets say they invest the £1million in shares and they double in value when they decide to sell.

Mr Starmer conducts his business as a single person and Mr Sunak buys the shares through his limited company again, taking the profit as a dividend.

What tax would Mr Starmer and Mr Sunak pay?

I will finish this off....

The overall tax Mr Sunak would pay on his £1 million investment that generated £2 million in profit across two assets house and shares, is £924k in tax, nearly as much as the original outlay!

Mr Starmer would pay £709K not as much as going through limited companies and dividends but over 66% of the original outlay will be paid in taxes.

The reason I have highlighted this? There are huge amounts of money already being paid in taxes by the wealthy, they need to "invest their money" to attract the taxes. The risk is they lose that money, they are taking the risk and the treasury takes a huge reward if they are successful.

You can see the tax being almost as much as the original outlay! We should be celebrating success, as that success puts money into the economy with no risk to the government or the people that benefit form their success.

Remove or penalise the opportunities of success and the risk is not worth taking.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)