FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > GDP growth
GDP growth
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
What will the doomsters do, some positivity!!
Oh yes bang on about "our" women, only Trump's mates are allowed to grab them by the pussy and spent time in prison for beating up your Mrs. But hey it's the brown people in dinghies that are the problem |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"What will the doomsters do, some positivity!!
Oh yes bang on about "our" women, only Trump's mates are allowed to grab them by the pussy and spent time in prison for beating up your Mrs. But hey it's the brown people in dinghies that are the problem "
What's all that got to do with GDP? You seem a tad obsessed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"What will the doomsters do, some positivity!!
Oh yes bang on about "our" women, only Trump's mates are allowed to grab them by the pussy and spent time in prison for beating up your Mrs. But hey it's the brown people in dinghies that are the problem
What's all that got to do with GDP? You seem a tad obsessed."
I see, I'm obsessed!!
Not the man holding a press conference every Monday pointing the finger at desperate people in dinghies saying protect "our" women, whilst ushering in an actual convicted wife beater and best friends with a convicted pussy grabber |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"It is an awkward position, too many variables playing into this, but it is growth not contraction.
All eyes are on October and the last quarter. "
I bet your awkward. I remember you telling me I'm muted until the results are in.
And......cawblem....it's growth again!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn. "
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news"
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you "
Doesn't mean |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What is going on in this forum just lately? "
Dunno mate. Some seem to find it impossible to stay on topic and the personal attacks are definitely on the rise.
All billy big bollocks behind their keyboard |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you "
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money "
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way. "
That would be a worry if it goes that way in October. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way.
That would be a worry if it goes that way in October."
so you got over yourself and want to re-engage with my comments after your previous and very public demand not to communicate anymore. fair enough .... the measures are very unlikely to affect the very largest majority of people other than those with the largest amounts of unearned wealth in any meaningful way, so please explain exactly why that should be "a worry" for anyone other than the wealthiest? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way.
That would be a worry if it goes that way in October.
so you got over yourself and want to re-engage with my comments after your previous and very public demand not to communicate anymore. fair enough .... the measures are very unlikely to affect the very largest majority of people other than those with the largest amounts of unearned wealth in any meaningful way, so please explain exactly why that should be "a worry" for anyone other than the wealthiest?"
To be honest I had forgotten that! Probably because you appear more of a moderate, in comparison to the last few days on here. Going back to the question.
The projected shortfall in government finances highlighted last week is close to £50 billion. That gap will have to be closed through either higher taxes or more borrowing, both of which have longterm costs. Wealth tax sounds simple but in reality it will be highly complex to administer, avoidance will be a priority, and unlikely to return close to the revenue needed. That means the net will have to widen to include more people, or we will be borrowing heavily to fund public spending at rates that will stifle the economy. It is kissing growth goodbye |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way.
That would be a worry if it goes that way in October.
so you got over yourself and want to re-engage with my comments after your previous and very public demand not to communicate anymore. fair enough .... the measures are very unlikely to affect the very largest majority of people other than those with the largest amounts of unearned wealth in any meaningful way, so please explain exactly why that should be "a worry" for anyone other than the wealthiest?
To be honest I had forgotten that! Probably because you appear more of a moderate, in comparison to the last few days on here. Going back to the question.
The projected shortfall in government finances highlighted last week is close to £50 billion. That gap will have to be closed through either higher taxes or more borrowing, both of which have longterm costs. Wealth tax sounds simple but in reality it will be highly complex to administer, avoidance will be a priority, and unlikely to return close to the revenue needed. That means the net will have to widen to include more people, or we will be borrowing heavily to fund public spending at rates that will stifle the economy. It is kissing growth goodbye "
i disagree. the net will stay exactly the same size but mending the enormous holes that the wealthy get to enjoy skipping through unhindered will simplify the tax system and as a result reduce the cost of implementation. this will be coupled with a larger tax take so it's a win win for hmrc.
earned income will not be touched, excessive unearned wealth will be. this won't affect peoples hard work. when we say wealth, lets make it clear that this means personal wealth and all this disingenuous nonsense by the right to deliberately confuse the public by blurring the demarkation between persons and business is just that, disingenuous nonsense.
this is the change that people wanted at the last election and is the main reason for the way they voted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way.
That would be a worry if it goes that way in October.
so you got over yourself and want to re-engage with my comments after your previous and very public demand not to communicate anymore. fair enough .... the measures are very unlikely to affect the very largest majority of people other than those with the largest amounts of unearned wealth in any meaningful way, so please explain exactly why that should be "a worry" for anyone other than the wealthiest?
To be honest I had forgotten that! Probably because you appear more of a moderate, in comparison to the last few days on here. Going back to the question.
The projected shortfall in government finances highlighted last week is close to £50 billion. That gap will have to be closed through either higher taxes or more borrowing, both of which have longterm costs. Wealth tax sounds simple but in reality it will be highly complex to administer, avoidance will be a priority, and unlikely to return close to the revenue needed. That means the net will have to widen to include more people, or we will be borrowing heavily to fund public spending at rates that will stifle the economy. It is kissing growth goodbye
i disagree. the net will stay exactly the same size but mending the enormous holes that the wealthy get to enjoy skipping through unhindered will simplify the tax system and as a result reduce the cost of implementation. this will be coupled with a larger tax take so it's a win win for hmrc.
earned income will not be touched, excessive unearned wealth will be. this won't affect peoples hard work. when we say wealth, lets make it clear that this means personal wealth and all this disingenuous nonsense by the right to deliberately confuse the public by blurring the demarkation between persons and business is just that, disingenuous nonsense.
this is the change that people wanted at the last election and is the main reason for the way they voted."
We will see how this unfolds in October, and you will know I'm not for raising income tax but if Reeves comes up short and doesn't raise income tax across the board we will be at the mercy of the markets to bail us out and that will cost us more than a rise in income tax.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way.
That would be a worry if it goes that way in October.
so you got over yourself and want to re-engage with my comments after your previous and very public demand not to communicate anymore. fair enough .... the measures are very unlikely to affect the very largest majority of people other than those with the largest amounts of unearned wealth in any meaningful way, so please explain exactly why that should be "a worry" for anyone other than the wealthiest?
To be honest I had forgotten that! Probably because you appear more of a moderate, in comparison to the last few days on here. Going back to the question.
The projected shortfall in government finances highlighted last week is close to £50 billion. That gap will have to be closed through either higher taxes or more borrowing, both of which have longterm costs. Wealth tax sounds simple but in reality it will be highly complex to administer, avoidance will be a priority, and unlikely to return close to the revenue needed. That means the net will have to widen to include more people, or we will be borrowing heavily to fund public spending at rates that will stifle the economy. It is kissing growth goodbye
i disagree. the net will stay exactly the same size but mending the enormous holes that the wealthy get to enjoy skipping through unhindered will simplify the tax system and as a result reduce the cost of implementation. this will be coupled with a larger tax take so it's a win win for hmrc.
earned income will not be touched, excessive unearned wealth will be. this won't affect peoples hard work. when we say wealth, lets make it clear that this means personal wealth and all this disingenuous nonsense by the right to deliberately confuse the public by blurring the demarkation between persons and business is just that, disingenuous nonsense.
this is the change that people wanted at the last election and is the main reason for the way they voted.
We will see how this unfolds in October, and you will know I'm not for raising income tax but if Reeves comes up short and doesn't raise income tax across the board we will be at the mercy of the markets to bail us out and that will cost us more than a rise in income tax.
"
ah yes, the tory affliction .... leaving the country to the mercy of "the markets |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"earned income will not be touched, excessive unearned wealth will be. this won't affect peoples hard work. when we say wealth, lets make it clear that this means personal wealth and all this disingenuous nonsense by the right to deliberately confuse the public by blurring the demarkation between persons and business is just that, disingenuous nonsense."
When I read you words saying "lets make it clear that this means personal wealth", I thought you were finally being pragmatic and acknowledging the division between personal and corporate property. But then I read the next line, and realised that you actually meant the opposite. I'd caution you to be more careful with your wording if you don't want to be misunderstood.
If your prediction is correct, I look forward to the details on how wealth is to be valued, and who gets to make the decisions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Boo!! Hoo!!
It's no longer a right wing echo chamber
It’s always been an ultra left echo chamber
Everything looks like communism to those who think they deserve everything they have."
Thinking that people don't deserve everything they have must tie you up in knots every time you leave your shared accommodation comrade. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Boo!! Hoo!!
It's no longer a right wing echo chamber
It’s always been an ultra left echo chamber
Everything looks like communism to those who think they deserve everything they have.
Thinking that people don't deserve everything they have must tie you up in knots every time you leave your shared accommodation comrade. "
Didn't you flounce out? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Boo!! Hoo!!
It's no longer a right wing echo chamber
It’s always been an ultra left echo chamber
Everything looks like communism to those who think they deserve everything they have.
Thinking that people don't deserve everything they have must tie you up in knots every time you leave your shared accommodation comrade.
Didn't you flounce out?"
I suggested we stopped interacting on one particular thread due to your overly aggressive tone. Knowing when to call time on something and not let it get out of hand helps you as well as me... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Boo!! Hoo!!
It's no longer a right wing echo chamber
It’s always been an ultra left echo chamber
Everything looks like communism to those who think they deserve everything they have.
Thinking that people don't deserve everything they have must tie you up in knots every time you leave your shared accommodation comrade.
Didn't you flounce out?
I suggested we stopped interacting on one particular thread due to your overly aggressive tone. Knowing when to call time on something and not let it get out of hand helps you as well as me... "
"Aggressive"?
Diddums. Did the bad man tell you your ideas were silly? Did you get scared and have to run away from the argument you were losing?
Feel free to flounce at any time. Please don't wait for me to get "aggressive", whatever that's supposed to mean. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Boo!! Hoo!!
It's no longer a right wing echo chamber
It’s always been an ultra left echo chamber
Everything looks like communism to those who think they deserve everything they have.
Thinking that people don't deserve everything they have must tie you up in knots every time you leave your shared accommodation comrade.
Didn't you flounce out?
I suggested we stopped interacting on one particular thread due to your overly aggressive tone. Knowing when to call time on something and not let it get out of hand helps you as well as me...
"Aggressive"?
Diddums. Did the bad man tell you your ideas were silly? Did you get scared and have to run away from the argument you were losing?
Feel free to flounce at any time. Please don't wait for me to get "aggressive", whatever that's supposed to mean."
Try sticking to the topic it isn't that hard to do, if you put your mind to it. Did you have an actual reply, or are you sticking to ad hominem? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Boo!! Hoo!!
It's no longer a right wing echo chamber
It’s always been an ultra left echo chamber
Everything looks like communism to those who think they deserve everything they have.
Thinking that people don't deserve everything they have must tie you up in knots every time you leave your shared accommodation comrade.
Didn't you flounce out?
I suggested we stopped interacting on one particular thread due to your overly aggressive tone. Knowing when to call time on something and not let it get out of hand helps you as well as me...
"Aggressive"?
Diddums. Did the bad man tell you your ideas were silly? Did you get scared and have to run away from the argument you were losing?
Feel free to flounce at any time. Please don't wait for me to get "aggressive", whatever that's supposed to mean.
Try sticking to the topic it isn't that hard to do, if you put your mind to it. Did you have an actual reply, or are you sticking to ad hominem?"
What are you, a waiter?
"Will sir be enjoying a bit of playful banter first, or will he be diving right into pointing out the basic fallacies that underpin right-wing arguments this evening?"
Maybe you'll find out, if the "aggression" doesn't get too much for you. It's always okay to log off and go for a little walk instead if you're beginning to feel like your core beliefs are getting a little shaky. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Boo!! Hoo!!
It's no longer a right wing echo chamber
It’s always been an ultra left echo chamber
Everything looks like communism to those who think they deserve everything they have.
Thinking that people don't deserve everything they have must tie you up in knots every time you leave your shared accommodation comrade.
Didn't you flounce out?
I suggested we stopped interacting on one particular thread due to your overly aggressive tone. Knowing when to call time on something and not let it get out of hand helps you as well as me...
"Aggressive"?
Diddums. Did the bad man tell you your ideas were silly? Did you get scared and have to run away from the argument you were losing?
Feel free to flounce at any time. Please don't wait for me to get "aggressive", whatever that's supposed to mean.
Try sticking to the topic it isn't that hard to do, if you put your mind to it. Did you have an actual reply, or are you sticking to ad hominem?
What are you, a waiter?
"Will sir be enjoying a bit of playful banter first, or will he be diving right into pointing out the basic fallacies that underpin right-wing arguments this evening?"
Maybe you'll find out, if the "aggression" doesn't get too much for you. It's always okay to log off and go for a little walk instead if you're beginning to feel like your core beliefs are getting a little shaky."
You chose ad hominem, like a little jack russell  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Boo!! Hoo!!
It's no longer a right wing echo chamber
It’s always been an ultra left echo chamber
Everything looks like communism to those who think they deserve everything they have.
Thinking that people don't deserve everything they have must tie you up in knots every time you leave your shared accommodation comrade.
Didn't you flounce out?
I suggested we stopped interacting on one particular thread due to your overly aggressive tone. Knowing when to call time on something and not let it get out of hand helps you as well as me...
"Aggressive"?
Diddums. Did the bad man tell you your ideas were silly? Did you get scared and have to run away from the argument you were losing?
Feel free to flounce at any time. Please don't wait for me to get "aggressive", whatever that's supposed to mean.
Try sticking to the topic it isn't that hard to do, if you put your mind to it. Did you have an actual reply, or are you sticking to ad hominem?
What are you, a waiter?
"Will sir be enjoying a bit of playful banter first, or will he be diving right into pointing out the basic fallacies that underpin right-wing arguments this evening?"
Maybe you'll find out, if the "aggression" doesn't get too much for you. It's always okay to log off and go for a little walk instead if you're beginning to feel like your core beliefs are getting a little shaky.
You chose ad hominem, like a little jack russell "
Are Jack Russells known for taking the piss out of bigots on discussion forums? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Boo!! Hoo!!
It's no longer a right wing echo chamber
It’s always been an ultra left echo chamber
Everything looks like communism to those who think they deserve everything they have.
Thinking that people don't deserve everything they have must tie you up in knots every time you leave your shared accommodation comrade.
Didn't you flounce out?
I suggested we stopped interacting on one particular thread due to your overly aggressive tone. Knowing when to call time on something and not let it get out of hand helps you as well as me...
"Aggressive"?
Diddums. Did the bad man tell you your ideas were silly? Did you get scared and have to run away from the argument you were losing?
Feel free to flounce at any time. Please don't wait for me to get "aggressive", whatever that's supposed to mean.
Try sticking to the topic it isn't that hard to do, if you put your mind to it. Did you have an actual reply, or are you sticking to ad hominem?
What are you, a waiter?
"Will sir be enjoying a bit of playful banter first, or will he be diving right into pointing out the basic fallacies that underpin right-wing arguments this evening?"
Maybe you'll find out, if the "aggression" doesn't get too much for you. It's always okay to log off and go for a little walk instead if you're beginning to feel like your core beliefs are getting a little shaky.
You chose ad hominem, like a little jack russell
Are Jack Russells known for taking the piss out of bigots on discussion forums?"
They are very well known for getting all worked up and being little angry animals that make a lot of noise for reasons only known to themselves.
Have a good evening, and maybe you could try and answer that question I asked a few posts up at some point...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
They are very well known for getting all worked up and being little angry animals that make a lot of noise for reasons only known to themselves.
Have a good evening, and maybe you could try and answer that question I asked a few posts up at some point... "
Mate, if you don't even understand why dogs bark, I don't think any answers I give you are gonna help. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way.
That would be a worry if it goes that way in October.
so you got over yourself and want to re-engage with my comments after your previous and very public demand not to communicate anymore. fair enough .... the measures are very unlikely to affect the very largest majority of people other than those with the largest amounts of unearned wealth in any meaningful way, so please explain exactly why that should be "a worry" for anyone other than the wealthiest?
To be honest I had forgotten that! Probably because you appear more of a moderate, in comparison to the last few days on here. Going back to the question.
The projected shortfall in government finances highlighted last week is close to £50 billion. That gap will have to be closed through either higher taxes or more borrowing, both of which have longterm costs. Wealth tax sounds simple but in reality it will be highly complex to administer, avoidance will be a priority, and unlikely to return close to the revenue needed. That means the net will have to widen to include more people, or we will be borrowing heavily to fund public spending at rates that will stifle the economy. It is kissing growth goodbye
i disagree. the net will stay exactly the same size but mending the enormous holes that the wealthy get to enjoy skipping through unhindered will simplify the tax system and as a result reduce the cost of implementation. this will be coupled with a larger tax take so it's a win win for hmrc.
earned income will not be touched, excessive unearned wealth will be. this won't affect peoples hard work. when we say wealth, lets make it clear that this means personal wealth and all this disingenuous nonsense by the right to deliberately confuse the public by blurring the demarkation between persons and business is just that, disingenuous nonsense.
this is the change that people wanted at the last election and is the main reason for the way they voted.
We will see how this unfolds in October, and you will know I'm not for raising income tax but if Reeves comes up short and doesn't raise income tax across the board we will be at the mercy of the markets to bail us out and that will cost us more than a rise in income tax.
"
Why is it always the working people that has to pay?
Tax the wealth!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way.
That would be a worry if it goes that way in October.
so you got over yourself and want to re-engage with my comments after your previous and very public demand not to communicate anymore. fair enough .... the measures are very unlikely to affect the very largest majority of people other than those with the largest amounts of unearned wealth in any meaningful way, so please explain exactly why that should be "a worry" for anyone other than the wealthiest?
To be honest I had forgotten that! Probably because you appear more of a moderate, in comparison to the last few days on here. Going back to the question.
The projected shortfall in government finances highlighted last week is close to £50 billion. That gap will have to be closed through either higher taxes or more borrowing, both of which have longterm costs. Wealth tax sounds simple but in reality it will be highly complex to administer, avoidance will be a priority, and unlikely to return close to the revenue needed. That means the net will have to widen to include more people, or we will be borrowing heavily to fund public spending at rates that will stifle the economy. It is kissing growth goodbye
i disagree. the net will stay exactly the same size but mending the enormous holes that the wealthy get to enjoy skipping through unhindered will simplify the tax system and as a result reduce the cost of implementation. this will be coupled with a larger tax take so it's a win win for hmrc.
earned income will not be touched, excessive unearned wealth will be. this won't affect peoples hard work. when we say wealth, lets make it clear that this means personal wealth and all this disingenuous nonsense by the right to deliberately confuse the public by blurring the demarkation between persons and business is just that, disingenuous nonsense.
this is the change that people wanted at the last election and is the main reason for the way they voted.
We will see how this unfolds in October, and you will know I'm not for raising income tax but if Reeves comes up short and doesn't raise income tax across the board we will be at the mercy of the markets to bail us out and that will cost us more than a rise in income tax.
Why is it always the working people that has to pay?
Tax the wealth!
"
Taxing wealth is not an easy thing to do and it nearly always leads to a shift of asset or some other avoidance route. Secondly working people use public services just as much if not more, why shouldn't they contribute? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way.
That would be a worry if it goes that way in October.
so you got over yourself and want to re-engage with my comments after your previous and very public demand not to communicate anymore. fair enough .... the measures are very unlikely to affect the very largest majority of people other than those with the largest amounts of unearned wealth in any meaningful way, so please explain exactly why that should be "a worry" for anyone other than the wealthiest?
To be honest I had forgotten that! Probably because you appear more of a moderate, in comparison to the last few days on here. Going back to the question.
The projected shortfall in government finances highlighted last week is close to £50 billion. That gap will have to be closed through either higher taxes or more borrowing, both of which have longterm costs. Wealth tax sounds simple but in reality it will be highly complex to administer, avoidance will be a priority, and unlikely to return close to the revenue needed. That means the net will have to widen to include more people, or we will be borrowing heavily to fund public spending at rates that will stifle the economy. It is kissing growth goodbye
i disagree. the net will stay exactly the same size but mending the enormous holes that the wealthy get to enjoy skipping through unhindered will simplify the tax system and as a result reduce the cost of implementation. this will be coupled with a larger tax take so it's a win win for hmrc.
earned income will not be touched, excessive unearned wealth will be. this won't affect peoples hard work. when we say wealth, lets make it clear that this means personal wealth and all this disingenuous nonsense by the right to deliberately confuse the public by blurring the demarkation between persons and business is just that, disingenuous nonsense.
this is the change that people wanted at the last election and is the main reason for the way they voted.
We will see how this unfolds in October, and you will know I'm not for raising income tax but if Reeves comes up short and doesn't raise income tax across the board we will be at the mercy of the markets to bail us out and that will cost us more than a rise in income tax.
Why is it always the working people that has to pay?
Tax the wealth!
Taxing wealth is not an easy thing to do and it nearly always leads to a shift of asset or some other avoidance route. Secondly working people use public services just as much if not more, why shouldn't they contribute? "
Working people have been taxed too high for too long, they need more money to spend in the high street.
No it isn't, tax people with a wealth of over 10 million, tax dividends.
The wealthy can't prospect if the poor can't spend |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 38 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way.
That would be a worry if it goes that way in October.
so you got over yourself and want to re-engage with my comments after your previous and very public demand not to communicate anymore. fair enough .... the measures are very unlikely to affect the very largest majority of people other than those with the largest amounts of unearned wealth in any meaningful way, so please explain exactly why that should be "a worry" for anyone other than the wealthiest?
To be honest I had forgotten that! Probably because you appear more of a moderate, in comparison to the last few days on here. Going back to the question.
The projected shortfall in government finances highlighted last week is close to £50 billion. That gap will have to be closed through either higher taxes or more borrowing, both of which have longterm costs. Wealth tax sounds simple but in reality it will be highly complex to administer, avoidance will be a priority, and unlikely to return close to the revenue needed. That means the net will have to widen to include more people, or we will be borrowing heavily to fund public spending at rates that will stifle the economy. It is kissing growth goodbye
i disagree. the net will stay exactly the same size but mending the enormous holes that the wealthy get to enjoy skipping through unhindered will simplify the tax system and as a result reduce the cost of implementation. this will be coupled with a larger tax take so it's a win win for hmrc.
earned income will not be touched, excessive unearned wealth will be. this won't affect peoples hard work. when we say wealth, lets make it clear that this means personal wealth and all this disingenuous nonsense by the right to deliberately confuse the public by blurring the demarkation between persons and business is just that, disingenuous nonsense.
this is the change that people wanted at the last election and is the main reason for the way they voted.
We will see how this unfolds in October, and you will know I'm not for raising income tax but if Reeves comes up short and doesn't raise income tax across the board we will be at the mercy of the markets to bail us out and that will cost us more than a rise in income tax.
Why is it always the working people that has to pay?
Tax the wealth!
Taxing wealth is not an easy thing to do and it nearly always leads to a shift of asset or some other avoidance route. Secondly working people use public services just as much if not more, why shouldn't they contribute?
Working people have been taxed too high for too long, they need more money to spend in the high street.
No it isn't, tax people with a wealth of over 10 million, tax dividends.
The wealthy can't prospect if the poor can't spend "
Dividends are already taxed. The only way to lower taxes for working people is to improve GDP per capita to a rate of around 2–3% a year, and that is going to take some serious investment and time.. If we keep borrowing money to pay for public services we are never going to improve the position for working people.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"+ 0.3% for the second quarter.
Looks like Reeves has got out of jail having fixed the foundations.
Will it be enough to pave the way for more tax rises in the autumn.
Although small it is better than analysts were predicting so maybe enough to prevent tax rises which would be good news
Tax the rich!!!
And no it probably doesn'tean you
Probably doesn't hopefully. So far they have not gone down that route, instead focused on other groups and businesses. The main taxes have been ruled out leaving options limited so maybe they will give the wealth tax thing a try to get some money
there's plenty of options and it's more likely that it'll just be some of the larger loopholes in the tax system will be tightened up. there will be rabid scaremongering from the usual righties but the huge majority won't be affected in any real way.
That would be a worry if it goes that way in October.
so you got over yourself and want to re-engage with my comments after your previous and very public demand not to communicate anymore. fair enough .... the measures are very unlikely to affect the very largest majority of people other than those with the largest amounts of unearned wealth in any meaningful way, so please explain exactly why that should be "a worry" for anyone other than the wealthiest?
To be honest I had forgotten that! Probably because you appear more of a moderate, in comparison to the last few days on here. Going back to the question.
The projected shortfall in government finances highlighted last week is close to £50 billion. That gap will have to be closed through either higher taxes or more borrowing, both of which have longterm costs. Wealth tax sounds simple but in reality it will be highly complex to administer, avoidance will be a priority, and unlikely to return close to the revenue needed. That means the net will have to widen to include more people, or we will be borrowing heavily to fund public spending at rates that will stifle the economy. It is kissing growth goodbye
i disagree. the net will stay exactly the same size but mending the enormous holes that the wealthy get to enjoy skipping through unhindered will simplify the tax system and as a result reduce the cost of implementation. this will be coupled with a larger tax take so it's a win win for hmrc.
earned income will not be touched, excessive unearned wealth will be. this won't affect peoples hard work. when we say wealth, lets make it clear that this means personal wealth and all this disingenuous nonsense by the right to deliberately confuse the public by blurring the demarkation between persons and business is just that, disingenuous nonsense.
this is the change that people wanted at the last election and is the main reason for the way they voted.
We will see how this unfolds in October, and you will know I'm not for raising income tax but if Reeves comes up short and doesn't raise income tax across the board we will be at the mercy of the markets to bail us out and that will cost us more than a rise in income tax.
Why is it always the working people that has to pay?
Tax the wealth!
Taxing wealth is not an easy thing to do and it nearly always leads to a shift of asset or some other avoidance route. Secondly working people use public services just as much if not more, why shouldn't they contribute?
Working people have been taxed too high for too long, they need more money to spend in the high street.
No it isn't, tax people with a wealth of over 10 million, tax dividends.
The wealthy can't prospect if the poor can't spend
Dividends are already taxed. The only way to lower taxes for working people is to improve GDP per capita to a rate of around 2–3% a year, and that is going to take some serious investment and time.. If we keep borrowing money to pay for public services we are never going to improve the position for working people.
"
They are taxed but not at the same rate as income. Equalise it!
An exit tax could be introduced on the wealthy trying to leav.
Tax them untill they squeak!!
They've rob-bed the working class for the past 49 years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" An exit tax could be introduced on the wealthy trying to leav."
An immigration tax? Now that’s a brilliant idea that I would support fully. They should pay back every penny they have had spent on them by the taxpayer. It’s always good to give back don’t you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago
|
" An exit tax could be introduced on the wealthy trying to leav.
An immigration tax? Now that’s a brilliant idea that I would support fully. They should pay back every penny they have had spent on them by the taxpayer. It’s always good to give back don’t you think? "
Immigration all ready pay a hell of a lot on NHS and visas |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
