2015 post UK election discussion

[marty mcfly]

I've been on the dole, claimed housing, touch wood not since the late 90's, but I know how it feels, and that's shaped my attitude in life, 95% who need state help don't want it, it's a necessity, that's something the Tories fail to see or have empathy with.

I don't know if that's the case. I'm sure there are some but it's a bit like a man and a woman.

Give a woman control of the houses finances she will spend it on the kids however a man stops her and says no, we can't afford it. It's not that he doesn't want his kids to have those things. Just that he knows the consequences of not reigning in spending without first making more.

Cameron and Clegg made a good couple.

 

[bring the ghost on]

However the poor barely pay any tax at all and are infact normally large net benificaries.

This is nonsense.

The poorest 10% of households pay eight percentage points more of their income than the richest 10%.

You're not taking into account taxes like VAT which aren't progressive. The poorest have to spend most of their income to survive, hence they get taxed as source and them taxed once spent. The higher earners can save more money in interest free ISAs etc.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I've been on the dole, claimed housing, touch wood not since the late 90's, but I know how it feels, and that's shaped my attitude in life, 95% who need state help don't want it, it's a necessity, that's something the Tories fail to see or have empathy with.

You're in a better place now mate

 

[Deggo]

Jesus Christ, this sentence depressed me.

Not for political reasons, it just depressed me.

Depressed Groucho? That's how I've felt all day mate and still do

 

[Tubey]

Oh, there's a lot of truth in the fact that the trickle down effect isn't very effective so, in that respect, we agree.

But when you say something like you dilute your argument because it's poorly worded, or, in old money, just wrong. What you mean is "They don't invest it in things which I think are worthwhile and beneficial to society", which I'd agree with.

To all extents and purposes, the money is taken by the super rich and retained by the super rich. It is, in effect, hoarded. It disappears down the cracks and is owned exclusively by the super rich, unused and untaxed, away from state scrutiny. I can't think of a definition better for hoarding money - an unused and untaxed stash. Whether they invested it in public services or bought a 500ft solid gold statue of themselves is none of my business and I don't care, so whether I think it's "worthwhile" or "beneficial" is totally irrelevant; the fact is they do neither as they are not taxed on that capital at all.

Here are the stats:

The extent of tax avoidance by Britain's super-rich has been revealed with the release of Treasury figures showing that almost a thousand UK taxpayers earning more than £1m a year have a tax rate of less than 30% of their income.

In an effort to get back on the political front foot over the budget, including its plans to impose a cap on tax reliefs, the Treasury also revealed that of the 200 taxpayers earning more than £10m a year, 12 are paying less than 10% in tax.


Conversely, the poorest 10% pay 43% of their income in tax on average.

Here's another one:

Assuming that super-rich investors earn a relatively modest 3% a year on their $21tn, taxing that vast wall of money at 30% would generate a very useful $189bn a year – more than rich economies spend on aid to the rest of the world.

The only difference I can see from your sentence to mine is that you seem to go for the "Father Ted" defence that the cash was just "resting in their account before being moved on." That's not the case with offshore tax havens. It is a haven; it goes there and stays there, never to see the light of day again until gradually bequeathed a la Rothschild. It is hidden money.

------------------

Now let me ask this - instead of destroying millions of lives by taking a crucial £12bn away from welfare that is needed to live in many instances, wouldn't it be a better idea to focus on the rich that pay up to 33% less tax in relation to their income?

Is it really communist level socialism to just suggest that?

 

[bring the ghost on]

Give a woman control of the houses finances she will spend it on the kids however a man stops her and says no, we can't afford it.

Are you for real?

 

[daylightrobber]

I'll copy and paste this again.

1. Everything is paid for by having a good economy.

Certainly things where better under Labour but that money came from debt. Eventually the debt was at a point where no more would be available, certainly not without paying huge interest rates. You could either print more which devalues the currency and acts as a regressive tax on everyone or cut spending.

Labour argued they could grow the economy however they weren't looking to spend the money in areas that would show any return on the investment so that's a lie.

There's no hope of growing the economy with their polices. So the only answer would be higher taxes which would have to hit the middle classes because the rich are untouchable. If you hit the middle classes then the economy would go into melt down. No economy. No money. No public services.

It's not rocket science.

2. When I said "rinse the rich". It basically is a common phrase which means tax the rich however it's a lie trotted out by all socialist governments and is actually impossible to do. You can tax the middle and upper middle classes but not the super rich. If you do they simply move their money and maybe even themselves out of the country.

What do you do whilst waiting for this good economy?

What you don't seem to understand is that poverty is in the here and now for many people. The reality is that there are families who do not know where the next meal is coming from. It's far more tangible. Basic necessities that most of us take for granted are not attainable by some. At any time, that could be you, or me. And yet those people have to wait for the economy to be good. It's bull.

In regards to investing in growth, with all due respect you're talking twaddle. Not least because investment in education was significant. If you want to grow a country and sustain it, the best thing you can do is invest in the next generation of innovators, entrepreneurs and business people etc.

In regards to taxing the super rich.
The super rich often get rich off the back of the average Joe (refer to my posts in the other thread). We are needed to be workers and consumers etc. If the super rich are asked to pay extra to subsidise the poor and choose to leave the country instead, then quite simply society is better off without them. They are admitting that they were only here to exploit anyway.

Evaluate your life, why are you here? Is it not to be a part of society, to contribute your bit and to benefit from the actions and deeds of others? Are you comfortable with how that's panning out for you compared to others?

The true measure of a society is how it treats it's weakest members.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

I don't know if that's the case. I'm sure there are some but it's a bit like a man and a woman.

Give a woman control of the houses finances she will spend it on the kids however a man stops her and says no, we can't afford it. It's not that he doesn't want his kids to have those things. Just that he knows the consequences of not reigning in spending without first making more.

You ever spent 6 months on the dole lad, I have, because Of lack of work in the industry I was skilled in.

It's no fun living on the state, some don't know any different, but the vast majority have pride and it's the last place they want to be in.

 

[marty mcfly]

This is nonsense.

The poorest 10% of households pay eight percentage points more of their income than the richest 10%.

You're not taking into account taxes like VAT which aren't progressive. The poorest have to spend most of their income to survive, hence they get taxed as source and them taxed once spent. The higher earners can save more money in interest free ISAs etc.

By poor who do you mean? Working poor or benifits poor.

But again you are using % of income. I'm talking about overall.

The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income. - From Google. (US figures)

 

[Tubey]

What a stupid statement - it isn't greed to keep the money you've earned; it's greed to keep the money you haven't earned by evading tax that other people fairly pay.

 

[Woolly Blue]

I would agree completely with Tubey. You might not like the wording of it, but that's what the rich do - they hoard it. They do it through not paying tax by using offshore accounts. This is hoarding money, money which otherwise would be used to pay for services we rely on such as welfare.

That's not hoarding in my dictionary though.

I'm not just being pedantic here. There's a difference between investing your money abroad to avoid tax and hoarding. Hoarding suggests you're hiding or storing something away and doing nothing with it. To be fair, they're "hiding" the money and assets, but to suggest that it's being hoarded as opposed to being invested is misleading.

Should something be done to make sure that can be taxed ? Yes, it should, but don't try and suggest that rich people just have a stash of cash sat somewhere which they count for countings sake, because that just isn't the case.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I don't know if that's the case. I'm sure there are some but it's a bit like a man and a woman.

Give a woman control of the houses finances she will spend it on the kids however a man stops her and says no, we can't afford it. It's not that he doesn't want his kids to have those things. Just that he knows the consequences of not reigning in spending without first making more.

Cameron and Clegg made a good couple.

Fess up, you read that in todays Sun didn't you?

 

[The Mighty Quint]

You're in a better place now mate

Don't take the piss you sh!thouse, that's exactly what I would expect from you, we all have your number.

That reply is pathetic, truly pathetic.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Now let me ask this - instead of destroying millions of lives by taking a crucial £12bn away from welfare that is needed to live in many instances, wouldn't it be a better idea to focus on the rich that pay up to 33% less tax in relation to their income?

Of course it would, no arguments there, but stop trying to wriggle out of your misuse of the term hoarding.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

What a stupid statement - it isn't greed to keep the money you've earned; it's greed to keep the money you haven't earned by evading tax that other people fairly pay.

Hang on, you earn the money (say sum A), then tax is taken out of that (sum B). Reducing the amount in sum B doesn't mean you didn't earn all of sum A.