| Andy Burnham watch .... 08:55 - Sep 16 with 2758 views | Keno |
Andrew Gwyne is rumoured to be standing down as MP for Gorton & Denton (edge of Manchester), which he held with a 13,000 plus majority for Labour
Since been suspended and probably not on Starmers Christmas card list |  |
| |  |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 12:15 - Sep 16 with 288 views | jasondozzell |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:49 - Sep 16 by positivity |
if we didn't have such a weak opposition to brexit led by a brexiteer labour leader, we could've avoided this nightmare.
burnham is a far better communicator than corbyn and much more popular with people outside the islington bubble |
The EU is fundamentally a trading bloc.
People, like Corbyn, are entitled to their opinion. I think he was right about 7/10
He supported remain.
The vote happened. Blame Cameron for it happening if you like but not Corbyn.
The idea Brexit is the single driver of all this is farcical.
Burnham is not going to be the answer and everyone knows that. He's part of the old guard. |  | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 12:19 - Sep 16 with 260 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 12:13 - Sep 16 by NthQldITFC |
Well, he'd never been a good little capitalist... |
Interested enough in money to take it from the Iranian regime though. |  | | |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 12:21 - Sep 16 with 251 views | positivity |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 12:15 - Sep 16 by jasondozzell |
The EU is fundamentally a trading bloc.
People, like Corbyn, are entitled to their opinion. I think he was right about 7/10
He supported remain.
The vote happened. Blame Cameron for it happening if you like but not Corbyn.
The idea Brexit is the single driver of all this is farcical.
Burnham is not going to be the answer and everyone knows that. He's part of the old guard. |
"supported" in the same way that a vocal minority on here support ipswich town by criticising everything about them!
no brexit means boris never becomes pm, farage remains as a minor eurosceptic voice
corbyn is not the answer to anything (maybe "most likely to be the winner of the biggest marrow grower in the over 75s category of the islington allotment association") | |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 13:34 - Sep 16 with 112 views | lowhouseblue |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 11:16 - Sep 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Growth would be generated via the tax generated being reinvested in the economy. In the US and Canada infrastructure projects (including state funded civil engineering) have generated significant growth. Whereas we have crumbling infrastructure, schools hospitals, bridges, roads, ports, airports etc could all generate income and growth.
Taxing passive income from ownership of certain assets isn’t going to affect growth. If you think of the companies and individuals with residential property portfolios they are merely a drain on growth, squeezing people’s disposable income. They certainly aren’t generating profit overseas and reducing our deficit or growing UK PLC. |
but what you describe as 'passive assets' is where investment comes from. economics 101 is that if you introduce a new tax on previously untaxed activities you will cause a change in behaviour in order to manage that tax. those changes in behaviour have real (dead weight) costs. efficiency falls and things like investment suffer.
so to justify a wealth tax you need the benefits to outweigh those costs. to justify the effects of redeploying assets into a non-taxable form and avoiding activities that would create tax exposure you need to believe the tax revenue will contribute significantly to the government budget. in the current fiscal position it has to be tens of billions to make it significant. are there any examples world wide of wealth taxes raising tens of billions year after year? |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 13:37 - Sep 16 with 98 views | lowhouseblue |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 12:15 - Sep 16 by jasondozzell |
The EU is fundamentally a trading bloc.
People, like Corbyn, are entitled to their opinion. I think he was right about 7/10
He supported remain.
The vote happened. Blame Cameron for it happening if you like but not Corbyn.
The idea Brexit is the single driver of all this is farcical.
Burnham is not going to be the answer and everyone knows that. He's part of the old guard. |
he supported remain because his leadership wouldn't have survived him being openly hostile to it. he went on holiday in the middle of the referendum campaign. | |
| 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 |
| |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 14:09 - Sep 16 with 33 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Andy Burnham watch .... on 13:34 - Sep 16 by lowhouseblue |
but what you describe as 'passive assets' is where investment comes from. economics 101 is that if you introduce a new tax on previously untaxed activities you will cause a change in behaviour in order to manage that tax. those changes in behaviour have real (dead weight) costs. efficiency falls and things like investment suffer.
so to justify a wealth tax you need the benefits to outweigh those costs. to justify the effects of redeploying assets into a non-taxable form and avoiding activities that would create tax exposure you need to believe the tax revenue will contribute significantly to the government budget. in the current fiscal position it has to be tens of billions to make it significant. are there any examples world wide of wealth taxes raising tens of billions year after year? |
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes but I’m talking about passive income and wealth in relation to individuals (as opposed to corporations, our Corp tax is at G20 median so I don’t think we are an outlier there). It’s possible to have different capital gains rates for individuals and corporations, as is the case in many countries.
If you are a billionaire, or multimillionaire taking income from your equities, or a loan against the value of your equity then you are currently paying much lower rates than someone who’s a nurse, teacher, banker, whatever. That’s not capital that’s going to be deployed in the wider economy, it’s just their net worth. Switzerland has a wealth tax which makes up around 4pc of a much lower tax base. They more than punch above their weight in terms of attracting inward investment and quality of life. Whilst it’s not going to dent our debt to gdp ratio, perhaps it could be ringfenced to start building a national wealth fund which I think is one of the best ways to improve the fiscal situation long term. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
