| Rachel Reeves 08:21 - Mar 21 with 2722 views | portmanking |
At risk of breaking her own borrowing rules within the space of six months.
Oh for a government with a semblance of financial acumen and honesty.
It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. |  | | |  |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:33 - Mar 21 with 578 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:43 - Mar 21 by Herbivore |
"Wealth creators" are only interested in creating wealth for themselves, and as a result are very adept at finding ways to minimise their tax burden. The idea that we should ramp up a broken and outdated model of capitalism is for the birds, it can't be the answer to the problems it's helped to create. |
If wealth creators paid fair wages we wouldnt need to tax them to pay the welfare bill... | | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:47 - Mar 21 with 535 views | portmanking |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:27 - Mar 21 by Swansea_Blue |
And bizarrely there is a group of the super rich who actively campaign for higher taxes on their wealth. I can’t remember the exact amount they say a 2% wealth tax would raise, but it’s in the many billions a year. You’d think it would be an open door policy option for the govt., rather than hitting vulnerable pensioners and disable people. But apparently not. |
Yep, I think it's a 2% wealth tax on anyone earning over £10m, isn't it?
I think it's said this would raise £24bn a year... ironically the same amount the the employer NICs hike will roughly raise in the five years of parliament. | | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:49 - Mar 21 with 531 views | lowhouseblue |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:12 - Mar 21 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s not a risk. It’s a requirement. She needs to break them if we’re going to get much in the way of recovery. |
*cough* ... liz truss. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:55 - Mar 21 with 506 views | J2BLUE |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:47 - Mar 21 by portmanking |
Yep, I think it's a 2% wealth tax on anyone earning over £10m, isn't it?
I think it's said this would raise £24bn a year... ironically the same amount the the employer NICs hike will roughly raise in the five years of parliament. |
I'd love to see public poll numbers for that idea.
In theory it should be 95%+ in favour. |  |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:58 - Mar 21 with 485 views | portmanking |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:55 - Mar 21 by J2BLUE |
I'd love to see public poll numbers for that idea.
In theory it should be 95%+ in favour. |
It's the kind of thing that should be put to a referendum.
I get it, it's a big deal in terms of potentially pushing big-earners overseas, but the majority of the super-rich in the UK would rather live here and have *better* living standards. If they can contribute without it barely touching the sides for them, it's got to happen, surely? | | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 12:10 - Mar 21 with 458 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:43 - Mar 21 by Herbivore |
"Wealth creators" are only interested in creating wealth for themselves, and as a result are very adept at finding ways to minimise their tax burden. The idea that we should ramp up a broken and outdated model of capitalism is for the birds, it can't be the answer to the problems it's helped to create. |
I also find the term 'wealth creators' misleading. They do not create wealth - they accumulate it. If someone invents a new product that people buy, those people will spend less money on something else; there is no new wealth created, it simply moves from one place to another.
It could be argued that someone creating a product or service that is cheaper helps free up money to be spent elsewhere, but using Dyson as an example, their products are generally more expensive. |  | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 12:51 - Mar 21 with 430 views | Herbivore |
| Rachel Reeves on 12:10 - Mar 21 by Clapham_Junction |
I also find the term 'wealth creators' misleading. They do not create wealth - they accumulate it. If someone invents a new product that people buy, those people will spend less money on something else; there is no new wealth created, it simply moves from one place to another.
It could be argued that someone creating a product or service that is cheaper helps free up money to be spent elsewhere, but using Dyson as an example, their products are generally more expensive. |
Agreed, that's why I put "wealth creators" in inverted commas, it's not a phrase that I see as being meaningful. As you say, it's the accumulation of wealth rather than creating it. They don't add money into the economy, they simply shift it and, as much as possible, they shift it into their own pockets. |  |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 14:08 - Mar 21 with 375 views | Ryorry |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:27 - Mar 21 by Swansea_Blue |
And bizarrely there is a group of the super rich who actively campaign for higher taxes on their wealth. I can’t remember the exact amount they say a 2% wealth tax would raise, but it’s in the many billions a year. You’d think it would be an open door policy option for the govt., rather than hitting vulnerable pensioners and disable people. But apparently not. |
Indeed, someone posted this on here only a few days ago (ta if it was you!). And I've said a few times that despite being a disabled pensioner, I'd rather pay another 1 or 2p on income tax ringfenced for the NHS/social care, as it'd be a lot more affordable than having to spend 10% of my annual income on essential dental work because there is no NHS dentist with space on their list within the range of 25 miles that I'm able to travel to.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60053919 |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Rachel Reeves on 14:19 - Mar 21 with 348 views | J2BLUE |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:58 - Mar 21 by portmanking |
It's the kind of thing that should be put to a referendum.
I get it, it's a big deal in terms of potentially pushing big-earners overseas, but the majority of the super-rich in the UK would rather live here and have *better* living standards. If they can contribute without it barely touching the sides for them, it's got to happen, surely? |
It should be legal to revoke the citizenship of anyone who doesn't pay their fair share of taxes.
It wouldn't leave them stateless as they can buy a golden visa in several different countries.
The mega rich who live in the UK most of the time but are registered abroad for tax purposes are traitors. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
