| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 08:13 - Sep 9 with 2670 views | Churchman |
Interesting. I’ve always been in favour of getting utilities back into public ownership. I thought it was a crazy idea in the 80s, along with flogging off council houses for nothing. The big questions are how, by when, what cost and who runs them.
With regard to wealth tax, it’d be nice if the richest in society paid their share (along with some self employed) and for that you need rule tightening, full digital tax implementation and tax inspectors.
To impose a ‘wealth tax’, it surely needs to be defined who the ‘wealthy’ are? The £100k a year brigade? Assets over £2m? It also needs to be understood at what point diminishing returns sets in. It’s no good feeling happy about fairness if your tax take actually diminishes - as I believe has happened in the past.
It’s about getting the balance right, I guess. |  | |  |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 08:26 - Sep 9 with 2635 views | NthQldITFC |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 08:13 - Sep 9 by Churchman |
Interesting. I’ve always been in favour of getting utilities back into public ownership. I thought it was a crazy idea in the 80s, along with flogging off council houses for nothing. The big questions are how, by when, what cost and who runs them.
With regard to wealth tax, it’d be nice if the richest in society paid their share (along with some self employed) and for that you need rule tightening, full digital tax implementation and tax inspectors.
To impose a ‘wealth tax’, it surely needs to be defined who the ‘wealthy’ are? The £100k a year brigade? Assets over £2m? It also needs to be understood at what point diminishing returns sets in. It’s no good feeling happy about fairness if your tax take actually diminishes - as I believe has happened in the past.
It’s about getting the balance right, I guess. |
Anyone who is against a wealth tax on the richest in society (especially in today's ever more skewed society) in times of strife is fundamentally something close to insane as far as I'm concerned.
Practicalities.
The sorts of taxes proposed would make no material difference to those upon whom they would be levied. None. Absolutely zero material impact whatsoever.
The resistance is entirely about a simultaneously flabby and competitive ego, like a spoilt child with a hundred toffee apples piled up next to him, and ten more arriving every hour. He can barely nibble his way through one in an hour, but he has a massive tantrum if someone wants to take away a couple to give to the hungry baby who lives in the council house around the corner.
It's a disgusting antisocial attitude, and it is getting worse. We need to stop worshipping piles of wealth and put our energies in into social and environmental justice as symbols of success, or everybody will pay the price. |  |
| |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:16 - Sep 9 with 2601 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 08:13 - Sep 9 by Churchman |
Interesting. I’ve always been in favour of getting utilities back into public ownership. I thought it was a crazy idea in the 80s, along with flogging off council houses for nothing. The big questions are how, by when, what cost and who runs them.
With regard to wealth tax, it’d be nice if the richest in society paid their share (along with some self employed) and for that you need rule tightening, full digital tax implementation and tax inspectors.
To impose a ‘wealth tax’, it surely needs to be defined who the ‘wealthy’ are? The £100k a year brigade? Assets over £2m? It also needs to be understood at what point diminishing returns sets in. It’s no good feeling happy about fairness if your tax take actually diminishes - as I believe has happened in the past.
It’s about getting the balance right, I guess. |
It’s about taxing those with actual wealth, not the well-paid. Anyone on 100k is likely contributing significantly through PAYE. It is however a tiny number of people, and even adding a further 10pc would make not practical difference to the UK’s accounts.
The genuinely wealthy will pay themselves in shares or dividends at a much lower rate (eg Sunak) than those on PAYE. The multimillionaires and billionaires are not earning a salary, this is what needs to be looked at. As I said before it’s insane people like Sunak pay a lower % than a healthcare worker or care worker. There’s also a lot of inherited land and wealth in this country, with people living off the returns and not actually adding to the economy. We even give tax breaks and subsidies to the largest landowning billionaires, and clap them past in gold-plated carriages. Madness. [Post edited 9 Sep 2024 9:29]
|  | | |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:32 - Sep 9 with 2562 views | J2BLUE |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 08:26 - Sep 9 by NthQldITFC |
Anyone who is against a wealth tax on the richest in society (especially in today's ever more skewed society) in times of strife is fundamentally something close to insane as far as I'm concerned.
Practicalities.
The sorts of taxes proposed would make no material difference to those upon whom they would be levied. None. Absolutely zero material impact whatsoever.
The resistance is entirely about a simultaneously flabby and competitive ego, like a spoilt child with a hundred toffee apples piled up next to him, and ten more arriving every hour. He can barely nibble his way through one in an hour, but he has a massive tantrum if someone wants to take away a couple to give to the hungry baby who lives in the council house around the corner.
It's a disgusting antisocial attitude, and it is getting worse. We need to stop worshipping piles of wealth and put our energies in into social and environmental justice as symbols of success, or everybody will pay the price. |
I saw something which said Musk is likely to become the first trillionaire by 2027.
That is insane. There should be no billionaires, let alone trillionaires.
Someone will come along in a minute to say it's not liquid wealth... |  |
| |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:39 - Sep 9 with 2533 views | Churchman |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:16 - Sep 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It’s about taxing those with actual wealth, not the well-paid. Anyone on 100k is likely contributing significantly through PAYE. It is however a tiny number of people, and even adding a further 10pc would make not practical difference to the UK’s accounts.
The genuinely wealthy will pay themselves in shares or dividends at a much lower rate (eg Sunak) than those on PAYE. The multimillionaires and billionaires are not earning a salary, this is what needs to be looked at. As I said before it’s insane people like Sunak pay a lower % than a healthcare worker or care worker. There’s also a lot of inherited land and wealth in this country, with people living off the returns and not actually adding to the economy. We even give tax breaks and subsidies to the largest landowning billionaires, and clap them past in gold-plated carriages. Madness. [Post edited 9 Sep 2024 9:29]
|
The £100k was just a figure pulled out of the air to make a point about the difficulties of defining wealth.
There could be though a conflict between morality and practicality. If you squeeze tax too hard, you reduce what you take in tax. Same as getting Vodaphone to pay their share was met with a threat to take Vodaphone jobs and investment out of the U.K. The government took a pragmatic decision in about 2007 to accommodate them, despite it being immoral.
I believe inheritance tax to be immoral. Stuff on which people have paid tax on all their lives is taken by the state rather than handed down to their dependents? It’s not as if those people won’t be taxed (CGT etc). Yet IHT is an easy target for Gov to go for and they of course will.
With regard to retirees the majority do contribute to the economy, despite implication by some to the contrary. They spend money and as we all know ‘one man’s spending is another man’s income’ (or woman’s). | | | |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:41 - Sep 9 with 2523 views | Benters |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:32 - Sep 9 by J2BLUE |
I saw something which said Musk is likely to become the first trillionaire by 2027.
That is insane. There should be no billionaires, let alone trillionaires.
Someone will come along in a minute to say it's not liquid wealth... |
It’s not liquid wealth ba. |  |
| |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:44 - Sep 9 with 2496 views | lowhouseblue |
if the green party shifts further to the left it will attract the usual band of far left activists from stop the war and the swp to whatever momentum calls itself now. they will bring all their usual baggage and unpleasantness and their policy obsessions and the greens will go down the same rabbit holes as corbyn. all the voters who vote green because they're concerned about the environment or see it as a safe protest vote will be repulsed. on the one hand it would be nice to have somewhere for the usual far left loons to go that isn't labour, on the other it would remove any effective independent environmental voice form uk politics. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:51 - Sep 9 with 2438 views | lowhouseblue |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:16 - Sep 9 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It’s about taxing those with actual wealth, not the well-paid. Anyone on 100k is likely contributing significantly through PAYE. It is however a tiny number of people, and even adding a further 10pc would make not practical difference to the UK’s accounts.
The genuinely wealthy will pay themselves in shares or dividends at a much lower rate (eg Sunak) than those on PAYE. The multimillionaires and billionaires are not earning a salary, this is what needs to be looked at. As I said before it’s insane people like Sunak pay a lower % than a healthcare worker or care worker. There’s also a lot of inherited land and wealth in this country, with people living off the returns and not actually adding to the economy. We even give tax breaks and subsidies to the largest landowning billionaires, and clap them past in gold-plated carriages. Madness. [Post edited 9 Sep 2024 9:29]
|
political and economically why do we care about wealth other than because of its ability to generate income? in which case why don't we just tax high incomes (or incomes other than from work) at a higher rate and more effectively? and if wealth isn't generating income isn't taxing wealth just the state expropriating private property and how does that sit with the human rights angle? | |
| 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 |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 11:49 - Sep 9 with 2314 views | baxterbasics |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:44 - Sep 9 by lowhouseblue |
if the green party shifts further to the left it will attract the usual band of far left activists from stop the war and the swp to whatever momentum calls itself now. they will bring all their usual baggage and unpleasantness and their policy obsessions and the greens will go down the same rabbit holes as corbyn. all the voters who vote green because they're concerned about the environment or see it as a safe protest vote will be repulsed. on the one hand it would be nice to have somewhere for the usual far left loons to go that isn't labour, on the other it would remove any effective independent environmental voice form uk politics. |
Yup and the Greens become more like a neo-communist party, fueling the impression that environmentalism is just a front for the lefty-bumfest revolution. |  |
| |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:00 - Sep 9 with 2291 views | NthQldITFC |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:44 - Sep 9 by lowhouseblue |
if the green party shifts further to the left it will attract the usual band of far left activists from stop the war and the swp to whatever momentum calls itself now. they will bring all their usual baggage and unpleasantness and their policy obsessions and the greens will go down the same rabbit holes as corbyn. all the voters who vote green because they're concerned about the environment or see it as a safe protest vote will be repulsed. on the one hand it would be nice to have somewhere for the usual far left loons to go that isn't labour, on the other it would remove any effective independent environmental voice form uk politics. |
Do the old simplistic left/right labels have any meaning other than to muddy the waters? Sure, a lot of people are tribal and might believe fundamentally in some of the policies of the tribe they've chosen whilst simply going along others that that tribe supports - even if they barely agree or even disagree with them.
In my opinion the Green Party should be fundamentally about environmental issues - we absolutely desperately need a strong voice on that or we're dead - and they should be very cautious about getting sidetracked into some of the things they've been sidetracked into in the past. That said, I fundamentally support them as they are the only party coming even close to challenging the consumer-growth planetary suicide status quo. | |
| |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:13 - Sep 9 with 2242 views | Leaky |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:32 - Sep 9 by J2BLUE |
I saw something which said Musk is likely to become the first trillionaire by 2027.
That is insane. There should be no billionaires, let alone trillionaires.
Someone will come along in a minute to say it's not liquid wealth... |
Strange you say that about billionaires, when most football fans want one as an owner of there club. |  | | |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:17 - Sep 9 with 2212 views | Leaky |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:51 - Sep 9 by lowhouseblue |
political and economically why do we care about wealth other than because of its ability to generate income? in which case why don't we just tax high incomes (or incomes other than from work) at a higher rate and more effectively? and if wealth isn't generating income isn't taxing wealth just the state expropriating private property and how does that sit with the human rights angle? |
Problem is ,its the wealthy that the working peoples wages | | | |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:18 - Sep 9 with 2208 views | DanTheMan |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 09:51 - Sep 9 by lowhouseblue |
political and economically why do we care about wealth other than because of its ability to generate income? in which case why don't we just tax high incomes (or incomes other than from work) at a higher rate and more effectively? and if wealth isn't generating income isn't taxing wealth just the state expropriating private property and how does that sit with the human rights angle? |
A good first step would be equalising capital gains with income, they really should be treated the same. It is not even a very left-wing position, I've seen conservatives advocating for this.
e.g. https://www.brightblue.org.uk/bright-blue-the-uk-needs-a-more-ambitious-tax-refo |  |
| |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:19 - Sep 9 with 2195 views | NthQldITFC |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:17 - Sep 9 by Leaky |
Problem is ,its the wealthy that the working peoples wages |
Yes, that is the twisted system. | |
| |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:19 - Sep 9 with 2196 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 11:49 - Sep 9 by baxterbasics |
Yup and the Greens become more like a neo-communist party, fueling the impression that environmentalism is just a front for the lefty-bumfest revolution. |
Which is daft because communism left egregious environmental and ecological damage in eastern and Central Europe (through unchecked industrial activity, communal harvesting, mining). Wildlife numbers have only recently recovered. The point being that left/right, private/public - humans are reckless and green policies will have to be enforced in law. The question is, who regulates the government if it’s the state destroying the planet. | | | |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:26 - Sep 9 with 2155 views | lowhouseblue |
indeed, if you realise capital gains, if you take income from capital / wealth, or if you receive income from work, politically and economically, what is the difference? tax them the same and tax them progressively. | |
| 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 |
| |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:36 - Sep 9 with 2112 views | Leaky |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:19 - Sep 9 by NthQldITFC |
Yes, that is the twisted system. |
So I assume you would prefer every one to work for State then | | | |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:37 - Sep 9 with 2103 views | Mookamoo |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:13 - Sep 9 by Leaky |
Strange you say that about billionaires, when most football fans want one as an owner of there club. |
Not sure people want billionaires as the club owners, its just football is broken and it's now the only way to gain some sort of success.
Football is prime example of how we've managed to sell off all the assets and wonder why nothing works anymore. |  | | |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:50 - Sep 9 with 2052 views | Leaky |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:37 - Sep 9 by Mookamoo |
Not sure people want billionaires as the club owners, its just football is broken and it's now the only way to gain some sort of success.
Football is prime example of how we've managed to sell off all the assets and wonder why nothing works anymore. |
Apart from a handful of clubs at the top of the pyramid, I would have thought owning football club is mote of a liability than an asset. Although I am in favour of the German system of 50%+1 . | | | |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:56 - Sep 9 with 1994 views | NthQldITFC |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:36 - Sep 9 by Leaky |
So I assume you would prefer every one to work for State then |
Christ! Is that the only alternative? | |
| |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 13:23 - Sep 9 with 1930 views | Leaky |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:56 - Sep 9 by NthQldITFC |
Christ! Is that the only alternative? |
Well you did state that working for the wealthy was twisted, is there an alternative | | | |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 13:30 - Sep 9 with 1896 views | Benters |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 12:13 - Sep 9 by Leaky |
Strange you say that about billionaires, when most football fans want one as an owner of there club. |
That is worth an uppie any day of the week 😃 | |
| |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 13:36 - Sep 9 with 1859 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 13:23 - Sep 9 by Leaky |
Well you did state that working for the wealthy was twisted, is there an alternative |
Working for yourself I guess is one alternative.
But even if you work for a small company, it’s probably owned (either publicly or privately) by people who aren’t super wealthy. If you work for a large corporation, most of the owners are either not wealthy, or are another institution. Musk’s ownership of companies is something of an outlier - I.e the control freak, all powerful billionaire (which is why he delisted Twitter, and hasn’t listed SpaceX). Listing them would dilute his influence. | | | |
| Something of interest (on the face of it) here for disillusioned Labour voters? on 14:35 - Sep 9 with 1800 views | DJR |
A friend of mine has long argued that a person's main residence should be subject to CGT too.
I think there is something in that not least because it might do something to put a bit of lid on house price rises, but it's never going to happen, and no doubt there might be implications I haven't thought of. [Post edited 9 Sep 2024 14:40]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
