Anything Political

[Brew 5,421]

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

By the way....  Nobody in the UK pays 45% tax on their income..

 

 

 

Just sayin'...

 

 

I'm not getting into details about tax. Living with the manager of a multi-million pound payroll I hear about it far too often. We all know we don't pay tax on all our salary, but 'being in the 45% bracket' is an excepted term to mean pays a high rate of tax.

Once you earn over £100,000, you start losing your tax-free Personal Allowance – one pound of allowance per every two pounds over this £100,000 threshold. If you do the maths, this is an income tax rate of exactly 60% for the income between £100,000 and £125,140. 'Aint statistics wonderful.

 

There are around three quarters of a million in the 45% bracket. so if your going to tax the rich, what are the limits? Even taxed to the hilt less than a million payers are not going make that much for HMG.

Other than their airy fairy indeterminate wittering of the rich paying more tax, has Labour actually said who qualifies?

 

From the LSE:

Our recent research shows there’s a lot of variation in the taxes paid by the rich. Most of the revenue from the top one per cent comes from a cohort of high-earning employees, who pay the often-quoted top rate of 45 per cent income tax plus two per cent national insurance contributions, with minimal deductions or reliefs

 

High taxes though brings to mind the wonderful days when hammering the rich was government policy, let me think, Oh yes it was Labour led by the dubious Harold Wilson who raised the top tier to 95%.

It didn't work then, it won't work now. They also devalued the pound while they were at it...

 

I could really over-egg this and point out it was also Labour who raised tax on savings interest to 98%!! 

[DJ360 6,730]

On 1/28/2024 at 11:58 PM, Brew said:

Not using the actual words is by definition insinuation.

 

Only if insinuation is demonstrated by analysis of the actual words used. We disagree on that point.

 

On 1/28/2024 at 11:58 PM, Brew said:

I wonder what your definition is?

 

Much the same as yours I imagine.  Such as "to suggest, without being direct, that something unpleasant is true:" (Cambridge Dictionary). The Oxford has the same definition online and so do others.

 

 

On 1/28/2024 at 11:58 PM, Brew said:

With your penchant for nuances why you can't you see that drawing  comparisons between rich and poor in this piece and in this manner has  only negative connotations, if not why make them all? and we have to ask ourselves quite what was the point

 

 

Why can't you see the Oxfam article for what it is? It's a summary of a much bigger, 50+ page report. It's a clear statement of fact surrounding the rapid increase of inequality globally in the last 3 years. The rich have got massively richer, while the poor have largely got poorer. Facts.. not innuendo.  It uses 'the 5' as an example, in a commonly employed 'journalistic' style, as I explained previously. It does not villify the 5, nor does it imply any of this is their direct fault or objective. It also uses numerous other examples and figures. It goes on to state that the rapid increase in inequality, is the result of decisions made by Govts. It can hardly be anything else, unless you think it is either somehow inevitable, or it is the result of forces other than Govts, in which case we should be even more concerned.

 

Quote

I do remember asking if it was amount  or the time taken. It seem s doubling our money in twenty years is OK, doing the same in three is not,,, curious really.

 

How is that curious? It's only curious because you ignore the other half of the argument..that the poor have got poorer in the same 3 year period.

 

Also, you speak about £22 billion spent globally.  The Oxfam reference to £22 billion was referring to the projected yield of increased taxation of the wealthy in the UK.  I'm pretty sure that 22 billion would go a fair way to improving the lives of some of the UK's poorest. You seem to be arguing that it's OK for £22 billion to stay where it is, in the hands of the rich.. yet simultaneously it's of no use to the poor.  You really can't have it both ways.

 

Finally, you also seem to be missing the point that Oxfam is mostly calling for WEALTH, not INCOME, to be taxed.

In other words , all of that 'offshored' and otherwise 'hidden' cash which has created the inequality we are discussing.

 

Even our UK INCOME tax system contains numerous devices which provide tax relief for pension contributions, certain investments etc.. all of which add up in simple terms to methods by which the higher paid can convert INCOME, into WEALTH, by avoiding taxation. The very fact that so many have enough 'surplus' cash..way above what's needed to live comfortably, to enable them to take advantage of such 'wheezes', while we have people literally starving to death in the UK*, is objectionable in itself.

 

* This, from that bastion of 'Lefty Tropes'. The Times..

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/times-health-commission-thousands-of-people-admitted-to-hospital-suffering-from-malnutrition-n23hqgzjr

 

[DJ360 6,730]

On 1/29/2024 at 12:13 AM, Brew said:

We all know we don't pay tax on all our salary, but 'being in the 45% bracket' is an excepted term to mean pays a high rate of tax.

 

It was you who raised the 'spectre' of 'paying 45% tax' somewhere 'upthread'. You and I and most others probably, know that the 45% rate only applies from £125K upwards or whatever, and yet you used it it to support your argument around human greed.  I clearly stated I'd be very happy to be subject to that rate, as no doubt would many others.

 

On 1/29/2024 at 12:13 AM, Brew said:

Once you earn over £100,000, you start losing your tax-free Personal Allowance – one pound of allowance per every two pounds over this £100,000 threshold. If you do the maths, this is an income tax rate of exactly 60% for the income between £100,000 and £125,140. 'Aint statistics wonderful.

 

I can't be bothered to do the maths and I'll take your word that the notional tax on £25k of the total income is 60%, but as you clearly hint.. that's just a statistical artefact and %ge paid on the total income is still way below 45%.

 

On 1/29/2024 at 12:13 AM, Brew said:

There are around three quarters of a million in the 45% bracket. so if your going to tax the rich, what are the limits? Even taxed to the hilt less than a million payers are not going make that much for HMG.

Other than their airy fairy indeterminate wittering of the rich paying more tax, has Labour actually said who qualifies?

 

Again.. it's WEALTH, and maybe the means of converting income into wealth, which is the real problem.  It follows that whilst there might be some wriggle room on actual tax rates, it would be more fruitful to go after investments and tax reliefs which are only affordable by those whose income massively exceeds anything resembling the 'average' and obscenely exceeds that of the poorest.

 

On 1/29/2024 at 12:13 AM, Brew said:

From the LSE:

Our recent research shows there’s a lot of variation in the taxes paid by the rich. Most of the revenue from the top one per cent comes from a cohort of high-earning employees, who pay the often-quoted top rate of 45 per cent income tax plus two per cent national insurance contributions, with minimal deductions or reliefs

 

Sounds like they're missing a trick or two... This from PFM.

Quote

 

gez said:

What on earth makes you think that all people earning £200k are in some elite position where they submit their own tax returns and have an accountant etc that can squirell away large amounts of money to avoid paying tax. The vast majority of people earning that much are on PAYE, they're employees. They just happen to be senior exects, CEOs's etc. PAYE would mean they'd be paying £70k in tax a year.

I really believe many people on here have no clue about the work force in this country (UK). There are business owners (the ones who really are in the position to "cook the books" and not pay their due in taxes) who only earn sub £100k (some are barely making £50k), and there are people who are company employees being paid twice/three times that much. It's a complete falacy to believe that tax avoidance potential is direclty proportional to income.

The vast majority (80%+) of businesses in this country employ less than 50 people. Those business owners (about 5.5 Million of them) are all in a postion to manipulate revenue, stock keeping etc etc etc to reduce the amount of tax they pay (most of which can be done legally of course). Yet EVERY employee on PAYE in this country has no mechanism at all to reduce how much they pay the HMRC on their salary. No matter how much they get paid.

Don't get me wrong there are clearly very rich people in the UK doing all manner of tax avoidance, but just because that's true doesn't mean ALL people earning over whatever arbitary income you personally perceive as "a lot" are fiddling the tax man. The majority aren't.

 

 

Another replied..

 

Quote

 

The assertion made that someone paid £200k pays £83k in taxes, i said they won’t.

From the link I gave earlier:

"With corporate tax rates decreasing while tax rates for individuals remain high, and with the income of the UK's highest earners continuing to soar, it's hardly surprising that the debate around tax avoidance has shifted from companies to individuals," says George Bull, a tax expert from accountant Baker Tilly.

The spotlight is on individuals, be they entertainers, footballers or business people. The publicity over Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance is part of a wider expansion of official tax investigations. The government has announced proposals for a General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) to enable HMRC to counteract schemes that work but are perceived as abusive.

Here are a few common methods used to cut the amount that ends up in the taxman's coffers on a £200,000 salary. All legal, and not morally dubious.
If you receive £200,000 in salary, you will pay just over £78,000 in income tax for 2012-13, meaning your net wage is £115,914.75 and your overall income tax rate is 39 per cent.
 

Wage summary%Yearly

Gross pay100%£200,000.00

Tax-free allowances0%£0.00

Total taxable100%£200,000.00

Tax paid39%£78,126.00

National insurance3%£5,959.25

Total deductions42%£84,085.25

Net wage58%£115,914.75

NI employer13%£26,602.95

Source: www.incometaxcalculator.org

Let's start with pensions, on which contributors receive income tax relief. Each tax year investors are allowed to contribute as much as they earn to pensions, up to the annual allowance of £50,000 (2011-12). Employer contributions and the value of benefits built up in final salary schemes count towards this limit. If our high earner makes a £50,000 maximum annual contribution into a pension, that wipes out £25,000 in income tax. But it leaves him with a tax bill of £53,000, an effective income tax rate of 26.5 per cent on the original £200,000 salary.

He then puts £50,000 into a Venture Capital Trust, getting income tax relief at 30 per cent, meaning he wipes out another £15,000 of income tax. He now has a tax bill of £38,000 and an effective income tax rate of 19 per cent.

He then puts £20,000 into Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme qualifying shares. The SEIS income tax relief available is £10,000 (£20,000 at 50 per cent). This leaves him with a total tax bill of £28,000 and an effective income tax rate of 14 per cent on the original salary. He still has take-home pay of £52,000.

The SEIS shares must be held for a period of three years from date of issue for relief to be retained. If they are disposed of within that three-year period, or if any of the qualifying conditions cease to be met during that period, relief will be withdrawn or reduced.

The SEIS scheme is very high risk investment in start-up companies with assets of less than £200,000. There haven't been many SEIS launches as it only started in tax year 2012-13. The ASCEND (Ascension Seedcapital for Creative Enterprise and Digital) Fund from Ascension Ventures is seeking £1.5m through a Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) structure. Alternatively, Oxford Technology has launched a Combined Seed EIS and EIS Fund.

For more information on SEIS: www.seis.co.uk

Alternatively, he may could put his £20,000 into a plain vanilla Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), where there is more choice and slightly lower risk but the income tax relief is 30 per cent.

He then gives £20,000 (10 per cent of his full £200,000) as a charitable donation. This wipes out £8,000 in income tax via Gift Aid. So his total tax bill is £20,000 - ie, an effective tax rate of 10 per cent. .

 

 

All of which boils down in simple terms to this..  Once you have earned enough to buy a decent, say 3-4 bed house, in a tolerable area, and have also enough to pay for a couple of half decent cars..a couple of family holidays per year, make provision for kids possible Uni/Education or to help them onto the housing ladder etc.. what you have left is a surplus. And it is a surplus which you can put into pensions and investments which both increase your wealth AND reduce your overall tax bill.  You basically convert both Tax and Income into Wealth.  Sadly, most of us can't do that because we don't have the surplus in the first place.

[Brew 5,421]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 I'm pretty sure that 22 billion would go a fair way to improving the lives of some of the UK's poorest. You seem to be arguing that it's OK for £22 billion to stay where it is, in the hands of the rich.. yet simultaneously it's of no use to the poor.

Nothing of the sort and where did you gain the impression it was intended to spend the money, or even part of it. in the UK? I did say it would make a big difference if it was, but it's not. Oxfam in fact do very little for the poor of the UK the vast majority of the money goes to Africa, Asia and South America. I don't doubt they are good at what they do, they just don't do it here.

 

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Why can't you see the Oxfam article for what it is? It's a summary of a much bigger, 50+ page report. It's a clear statement of fact surrounding the rapid increase of inequality globally in the last 3 years. The rich have got massively richer, while the poor have largely got poorer. Facts.. not innuendo. 

 

That's just it I do see it for what it is. A bald statement of fact... but why? Why do they feel the need to draw the comparison at all? They could have made their case by mentioning neither the rich nor the poor. No other charity i can think of does so.

What is the point of mentioning some have gained more whilst some became. poorer if not to infer there is some sort of injustice or it's ethically unacceptable?

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

it would be more fruitful to go after investments and tax reliefs which are only affordable by those whose income massively exceeds anything resembling the 'average' and obscenely exceeds that of the poorest.

 

 I related  earlier that interest on  investment and saving was taxed by The Wilson government at 98% and that it didn't work. All it did was give a massive boost to tax havens

A raid on wealth is money and assets.  The money in the bank will simply mean it's moved out of reach to  Switzerland or similar Assets are already taxed through cooperate and capital gains.

No doubt a wealth tax would have some support, but only among those not affected.

 

The second link makes interesting reading but fails to mention the point you made, you need money to make money

then it's dead easy. The enterprise schemes he mentioned are tax efficient but with quite a high risk of losing your investment.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

All of which boils down in simple terms to this..  Once you have earned enough to buy a decent, say 3-4 bed house, in a tolerable area, and have also enough to pay for a couple of half decent cars..a couple of family holidays per year, make provision for kids possible Uni/Education or to help them onto the housing ladder etc.. what you have left is a surplus

 

What you have left is equity. When you grow old and infirm how many are willing to spend it on help, how many fight tooth and nail to avoid inheritance tax? There are whole industries whose purpose is to help us avoid paying. The only difference between the rich and the average is scale, the intention to keep what we have is universal.

Harold Wilson again. Restricted holiday makers going aboard to £50 and only £15 in cash, something universally ignored.

The point is if they start with some sort of draconian tax system it will be counterproductive. whether rich or poor people will do their damndest to hang on to keep it. 

Tax in principle has to be fair and equitable or eventually fail. Hammering the rich simply simply they are so is neither. 

[DJ360 6,730]

20 minutes ago, Brew said:

What is the point of mentioning some have gained more whilst some became. poorer if not to infer there is some sort of injustice or it's ethically unacceptable?

 

That IS the point!!!

 

I would venture that most people regard the massive shift in wealth and incomes in the last three years as both unjust, AND ethically unacceptable., especially when all the indicators point to this situation continuing to worsen. I'm at a loss to understand exactly what you find so objectionable about this being pointed out?

 

Let's try another tack..

 

1. Do you accept the Oxfam figures? ( Forget about blame.. implied or otherwise.) Do you also accept the UK 'ONS' figures which confirm the effect in the UK. I.e., that UK rich have got massively wealthier c.f. UK poor in a similar time period.

If you don't believe the evidence, there's no point continuing this discussion. 

 

2 If you DO accept the figures, which prove what most suspect, i.e., an increasing 'wealth gap' in the UK, do you think anything should be done, or are you content to let the trend continue?

If you are content, there's no point continuing.

 

3. If you think something should be done, then what, and by whom? 

 

It seems to me that to alter the current situation and trend, then we either limit expanding wealth for the rich, or improve incomes for the poor, or a combination of the two. Yet, what we have is continuing political pressure for reduction of taxes on the rich, plus continuing political pressure to limit both wage growth for whole sectors of the lowest paid , including many in the NHS, Adult Social Care etc.. etc..etc., etc.., PLUS pressure to limit Benefits even further.

 

I'm pretty sure that Economic Growth and other factors also play a part, but ultimately only Govt.s can do anything about it. Yet their constant droning on about either the myth of 'trickle down', or their constant claim that they are trying to achieve a 'high wage high skill' economy, are patent bull****.

[Brew 5,421]

 

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

I would venture that most people regard the massive shift in wealth and incomes in the last three years as both unjust, AND ethically unacceptable., especially when all the indicators point to this situation continuing to worsen. I'm at a loss to understand exactly what you find so objectionable about this being pointed out?

 

Which support my view that it's implying it's wrong and not fair or that somehow the rich have a responsibility. Something that is unjust or unacceptable means someone or something is to blame, bringing  the wealthy into the argument is inferring they are somehow not only the solution, part of the problem

It's not fair they have all this money - why is it?

 

I'm sure the ONS is reliable and use them myself, but I cannot see the justice of singling out and punishing a small sector of society to make amends for the failure of society in general. 

 

The wealth gap and inequality have been with us for eons, there's nothing new about it, bleating about government (a,k,a Tory), failure as though they are he ones responsible is nonsense. Sure they have had a hand in it but then so has every government since the Romans marched up Watling Street. 

The whole of the left ideology  seems to desire dragging everyone down to a common level.

 

The present incumbent Hunt has in my view no idea. How will the stupid reduction of NI contributions benefit anyone? A 2% reduction is hardly noticeable to individual companies but will leave a big hole in the treasury coffers.

We need a big increase in defence, NHS, council bailouts, social care..... will the rich pull us out of the hole not of their making, why should they? they pay their dues like everyone else, why should you pay over the odds just because you're paid more than your neighbour? And if we limit their growth as you propose who do we turn to then?

Perhaps we should say there is a ;limit on how much we can e have, everything over a million or so is 100% tax 

It's  never going to happen.

 

Raise the poor - how? There was a campaign way back to 'buy British', that too was universally ignored in the relentless pursuit for the low prices that gave China's economy a meteoric rise and added zilch to a struggling UK.

The problem is not the rich getting richer, it not the government, it's us the ordinary people. The same ones looking over the shoulder and saying "don't blame me".

We're the ones making demands and complaining, yet we voted for low taxes, Brexit and all the other claptrap we never really believed in the first place. It's amazing now how many claim they never voted for Brexit...

 

We stood by and watched councils pursue pie in the sky policies that ended in bankruptcies. It's us who keep crapping on the doorstep and expecting somebody else to clear it up. But in many circles it's not permitted to say that, we must wave the flag and stick to the script.  The problem is no one really takes any interest or cares about anything beyond their front door. We can cause havoc over oil, jump up and down with Greta and harangue people about eating meat. But the poor, the homeless? might be worth a tut-tut and maybe even " it's a shame" but we don't get that warm squidgy feeling like we do when saving the planet. 

 

Altruism is very short supply and if we go to the well too often it will run dry.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 1/30/2024 at 8:52 PM, Brew said:

Which support my view that it's implying it's wrong and not fair or that somehow the rich have a responsibility.

 

No. It's just evidence of inequality.. and yes, Oxfam take a political stance on it, but whether they do or don't, the evidence stands.

It is you who is getting all fired up about 'implied blame' etc. I've said repeatedly that I don't blame 'the rich' in general, however you define them, so long as their wealth is honestly and legally gained. That does not mean that the current status quo should be maintained.

 

  What if we turn it on its head?  There are plenty in our society, and I'd argue mostly on the broad political right.. who like to blame the poor for their own condition. It's not so long since our current 'Foreign Secretary' was leading a campaign against what might be summed up as the 'undeserving poor' more popularly known as 'Dole Scroungers' etc.

 

He was part of a fine tradition of blame shifting which started in the distant past but found pseudo scientific expression in Malthusian theory, which was enthusiastically mocked by Dickens but also an implicit base for much of Victorian social stratification.

In the writings of the likes of Dickens, Gaskell, the Brontes et al., little, if any attention is paid to why and how the wealthy become so other than references to 'trade, or to inheritance, including the marriage laws of the time. It's true that Dickens in particular, but also Austen and the Bronte's 'play with' that reality, but they don't seriously challenge it.  Their morality tales exist within an established socio economic order which all but ignores the bulk of the population.  Even Dickens barely challenges it. In general, the wealthy simply are wealthy. How they became so and the morality/fairness of the result is barely examined. Wealth alone confers social class and position upon them. Little has changed and the likes of Thatcher, Tebbit, Rees-Mogg and Cameron essentially echo the view that poverty is a choice.

 

On 1/30/2024 at 8:52 PM, Brew said:

I'm sure the ONS is reliable and use them myself, but I cannot see the justice of singling out and punishing a small sector of society to make amends for the failure of society in general.

 

I think you are still focussing too closely on the Oxfam calls to 'tax the rich', and not considering the rest of their report. I've pointed out above that pretty much the opposite was the call from Cameron et.al only a few years ago as they tried to pin the blame for their economic failure to properly manage Public Spending..the Benefits Bill etc. Remember that dependency on long term disability/sickness benefits etc.  were a Thatcherite device to manipulate the unemployment figures.

 

On 1/30/2024 at 8:52 PM, Brew said:

The wealth gap and inequality have been with us for eons, there's nothing new about it, bleating about government (a,k,a Tory), failure as though they are he ones responsible is nonsense.

 

Again.. missing the point. Of course inequality has always existed and always will, but the Oxfam Report is highlighting the HUGE INCREASE in inequality in just 3 YEARS.

 

On 1/30/2024 at 8:52 PM, Brew said:

The whole of the left ideology  seems to desire dragging everyone down to a common level.

 

It actually doesn't.  Even Marx never advocated that. 

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism/Marxian-communism

 

From which:

Quote

Thus, the bourgeois owners of the means of production amass enormous wealth, while the proletariat falls further into poverty. This wealth also enables the bourgeoisie to control the government or state, which does the bidding of the wealthy and the powerful to the detriment of the poor and the powerless.

The exploitation of one class by another remains hidden, however, by a set of ideas that Marx called ideology. “The ruling ideas of every epoch,” he wrote in The German Ideology, “are the ideas of the ruling class.” By this Marx meant that the conventional or mainstream ideas taught in classrooms, preached from pulpits, and communicated through the mass media are ideas that serve the interests of the dominant class. In slave societies, for example, slavery was depicted as normal, natural, and just. In capitalist societies the free market is portrayed as operating efficiently, fairly, and for the benefit of all, while alternative economic arrangements such as socialism are derided or dismissed as false or fanciful. These ideas serve to justify or legitimize the unequal distribution of economic and political power. Even exploited workers may fail to understand their true interests and accept the dominant ideology—a condition that later Marxists called “false consciousness.” One particularly pernicious source of ideological obfuscation is religion, which Marx called “the opium of the people” because it purportedly dulls the critical faculties and leads workers to accept their wretched condition as part of God’s plan.

Besides inequality, poverty, and false consciousness, capitalism also produces “alienation.” By this Marx meant that workers are separated or estranged from (1) the product of their labour, which they do not own, (2) the process of production, which under factory conditions makes them “an appendage of the machine,” (3) the sense of satisfaction that they would derive from using their human capacities in unique and creative ways, and (4) other human beings, whom they see as rivals competing for jobs and wages.

 

However, Marx's analysis of Capitalism and the way in which it progressively forces workers into dependence on the owners of capital, was pretty much spot on.  After a bit of a pause brought about by the political fall out of WW2.. (even here) that process continues.  Have you noticed how we now see increasing 'leasing' of cars and other items?  How we are no longer encouraged to own music or video, but to simply pay a rental charge for access to it?  How Microsoft/Apple etc. increasingly seek to control our use of and access to IT?  'Cloud Storage' v personal local storage? And finally, the way in which even home ownership is again becoming the preserve of the wealthy?  Accident? Or design?

 

Yes, you can argue with some justification that we are ALL much better off than we were, but that does not negate the INCREASING 'wealth gap'.

 

On 1/30/2024 at 8:52 PM, Brew said:

The present incumbent Hunt has in my view no idea.

 

He doesn't need any idea.  He's just another propagandist, working to try to buy votes.

 

On 1/30/2024 at 8:52 PM, Brew said:

We need a big increase in defence, NHS, council bailouts, social care.....

 

Agreed.  What's more, none of which is even remotely difficult to do, given the Political Will, which is non existent. Govts consistently prove that, within reason, they can finance anything they wish to finance.  It's not for this discussion, but we have all been indoctrinated into seeing the UK economy as the same as a 'household' economy.  It isn't.  The myth that public spending depends upon taxation is just that.. a myth. Govt. issues money, then taxes it... not the reverse.

 

On 1/30/2024 at 8:52 PM, Brew said:

will the rich pull us out of the hole not of their making, why should they? they pay their dues like everyone else, why should you pay over the odds just because you're paid more than your neighbour?

 

No, the rich won't.

I've already said I place no blame on the rich for being rich.  Neither does Oxfam.  I repeat, that Oxfam blame the wealth gap on decisions made by Govt. That said it's undeniable that Govt's are unduly and undemocratically influenced/controlled by, elements of 'the rich'.

 

I blame government for deliberately exacerbating the wealth gap.

In the example of the £200000 salary I gave above.. please explain how on anybody's planet, it is justifiable that someone who earns that much can not only invest tens of thousands per annum on 'investments'  which is fair enough.. it's their money.. but also get 30% tax relief on the cash they have invested and still end up with TAKE HOME pay which is at least double what an 'average' earner will be left with after stoppages? Can you not see that 'the game's bent'?

 

They have also done so by attacking public services, including huge numbers of decently paid and highly qualified jobs in the public sector which contributed to the economy. The present Conservative Right are up to their ears in Neo Con economic 'thinking', which endlessly repeats the same simplistic bull**** that Capitalism must not be constrained, taxes, public spending AND market regulation must be kept low.  Their 'argument' is that this will increase total wealth and by the magic of 'trickle down', we'll all be better off. It's fascinating how the bit of that theory which actually works..  the bit where capitalism and capitalists, get to stuff more of the profits into their offshore accounts.. just happens to suit those arguing for that system, whereas the 'trickle down' is always re-defined as 'jam tomorrow'. We've seen Thatcher's destruction of UK manufacturing and primary production.. Osborne's 'Austerity' and now Hunt/Sunak's 'stick to the plan' (the implication being that as never... it will all be ok 'one day'.)

 

On 1/30/2024 at 8:52 PM, Brew said:

Perhaps we should say there is a ;limit on how much we can e have, everything over a million or so is 100% tax 

It's  never going to happen.

 

No, we shouldn't and nobody I know is arguing for that.  But equally, why should those already in the priveleged position of 'earning' multiples of the average income, then get tax breaks which allow them to effectively stash their surplus AND reduce their tax bill?

 

On 1/30/2024 at 8:52 PM, Brew said:

Raise the poor - how? There was a campaign way back to 'buy British', that too was universally ignored in the relentless pursuit for the low prices that gave China's economy a meteoric rise and added zilch to a struggling UK.

 

I don't think it was that simple..  I recall the brief 'I'm Backing Britain' campaign of 1968 which flopped after a few months, and assorted 'Buy British' campaigns in the 70s and 80s which were rejected by both Tories and Labour.  But mostly I don't think that any of them were deliberately designed to 'raise the poor', beyond some vague hope that a successful campaign might secure UK  companies and by default, employment.  There is no fixed relationship between employment rates and salaries. Even now, with labour shortages being rife, our Govt. prefers to allow increased Legal migration, over increases in salaries, training and education opportunites to address the issue.

 

On 1/30/2024 at 8:52 PM, Brew said:

 

The problem is not the rich getting richer, it not the government, it's us the ordinary people. The same ones looking over the shoulder and saying "don't blame me".

We're the ones making demands and complaining, yet we voted for low taxes, Brexit and all the other claptrap we never really believed in the first place. It's amazing now how many claim they never voted for Brexit...

 

We stood by and watched councils pursue pie in the sky policies that ended in bankruptcies. It's us who keep crapping on the doorstep and expecting somebody else to clear it up. But in many circles it's not permitted to say that, we must wave the flag and stick to the script.  The problem is no one really takes any interest or cares about anything beyond their front door. We can cause havoc over oil, jump up and down with Greta and harangue people about eating meat. But the poor, the homeless? might be worth a tut-tut and maybe even " it's a shame" but we don't get that warm squidgy feeling like we do when saving the planet. 

 

Overall that is an exceptionally jaundiced, and in my view, inaccurate characterisation of the UK population as a whole.

'We' didn't vote for what you claim 'we' did...

 

There are around 48 million voters in the UK, of whom slightly over 17 million voted for Brexit.  Hardly a ringing endorsement., though it does seem true that many of those 17 million seem to have since gone AWOL....

 

Voting for low taxes?  I suppose that means voting Tory, which at the last election meant 43% of the vote, on a turnout of 67%.  By my rough working that means that 28% of the electorate have subjected us to the total ****show we have endured since 2019.. probably even fewer since 2010. 

I'd argue that says more about the problems with our electoral system and our democracy, than it does about the population, though I would agree that in broad terms we have a very politically illiterate population.

 

It's simply not true to say that 'nobody takes an interest' in the sense that you seem to mean. Thousands contribute to charity, even if, like me, they are conflicted by the knowledge that it shouldn't be necessary in a half decent society. Many work tirelessly for community groups, food banks, youth support groups, support for the Elderly, and in myriad other areas of life, because they have concluded that Govt. has ABDICATED RESPONSIBILITY for harm to individuals and wider society and that if Govt. won't act, someone must.

 

The bottom line.  Inequality is increasing rapidly.  It is up to Govt to do something about it. That's not an attack on 'the rich', but on those who not only will not do anything to address the problem, but are largely responsible for it by their pursuit of policies which repeatedly fail the poorest but protect the richest.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 1/30/2024 at 8:52 PM, Brew said:

Altruism is very short supply and if we go to the well too often it will run dry.

 

 

I assume you mean Altruism emanating from what you say is a small group of society.. AKA 'The rich'.  It's not Altruism which determines their tax bills.. it's Govt.  And it's in the present Govt. where Altruism is severely lacking.

 

There's no shortage of Altruism in wider society.

[Brew 5,421]

On 1/30/2024 at 1:00 PM, DJ360 said:

I clearly stated I'd be very happy to be subject to that rate, as no doubt would many others.

 

Then you are truly exceptional, most I know in the tax bracket are to say the least resentful and would seize every opportunity to pay less if there were legal means to do so. They are happy to be in that income bracket, less so about the high level of tax.

 

It's the Bank of England that issues money not HMG and though owned by HMG it is largely independent since Gordon Brown made it responsible for UK monetary policy.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I recall the brief 'I'm Backing Britain' campaign of 1968 which flopped after a few months, and assorted 'Buy British' campaigns in the 70s and 80s which were rejected by both Tories and Labour.  But mostly I don't think that any of them were deliberately designed to 'raise the poor', beyond some vague hope that a successful campaign might secure UK  companies and by default, employment

 

As I remember it was never mooted as saving the poor it was a miserable attempt to raised 'Britishness' and aid the economy.

 

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

No. It's just evidence of inequality.. and yes, Oxfam take a political stance on it, but whether they do or don't, the evidence stands.

I don't deny the evidence, unsubstantiated  and biased as it is.

Interesting you accept authors of fiction to bolster your argument yet reject out of hand Dickens simplistic yet accurate economic observations.

 

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

No, we shouldn't and nobody I know is arguing for that.  But equally, why should those already in the priveleged position of 'earning' multiples of the average income, then get tax breaks which allow them to effectively stash their surplus AND reduce their tax bill?

 Actually, that's exactly what they want if what you say is true and a limit or a tax on wealth is needed. One of the proposed wealth levels starts as low as 300,000. given that's near to the average house price in the UK a lot of people are going to be very close.

 

The 'privileged' earn multiples of average earnings, true enough, but they are also given the privilege of paying more than their fair share through  multiples of the average tax bill.

I'm unsure what tax breaks you keep  talking about, other than the quantum leap up when earnings go over the limit.

 

From parliament.uk:

'Income tax payments are concentrated amongst those with the largest incomes. The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts.'

The top 1% contributing 30%!

I struggle to see which bit is unethical, unjust or morally wrong. Add the charity donations and I'm inclined to think they do more than most.

 

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

'We' didn't vote for what you claim 'we' did...

 

 

'We' actually did and quoting figures is irrelevant. 'WE' cast our votes and the paucity in numbers merely proved Maistre was right. Our version of democracy is somewhat skewed, but it is what it is and until it changes, we have to live with it. 

 

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

 

I assume you mean Altruism emanating from what you say is a small group of society.. AKA 'The rich'.  It's not Altruism which determines their tax bills.. it's Govt.  And it's in the present Govt. where Altruism is severely lacking.

 

There's no shortage of Altruism in wider society.

 

No shortage? How much altruism would be evident if we do as they do in Germany and Spain? 

In Germany all registered as members of organised religion pay (Kirchensteuer). a 'church tax' = 9% of their income tax. Much like Father McGuiness did in Clifton when he introduced a 10% tithe on Catholics.

Those who are registered Jews or Christians have to pay it and it is mandatory. Interestingly Muslims are not under any obligation to do so. 

I'm fairly sure that should such a scheme be introduced here the faithful would be somewhat reluctant to agree despite it being in accord with their declared values. Widows mite, but most won't.

 

Here's another thought, the Catholics sit on 73 billion, CofE 12 billion, perhaps we should look to them for the proposed 1.7 to 3% wealth tax, I doubt the idea would go very far.

 

Instead of pursuing a small section of society why do we not recognised it's everybody's responsibility not just crying the government should do something and when they do, cry nanny state,

 

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It's simply not true to say that 'nobody takes an interest' in the sense that you seem to mean. Thousands contribute to charity, even if, like me, they are conflicted by the knowledge that it shouldn't be necessary in a half decent society.

OK, fair point, change no one to 'most' and yes there are many, many volunteers myself and my daughter being two, and not because we blame any gov lack, no gov can meet the needs of all the people all the time no matter how much they try. We see a need, simple as that and !5% approx. who volunteer means 85% don't.

Those who don't see a problem are even less prepared to do anything about it when they do. We are rapidly becoming more and more self-centred.

 

You say it's up to Govt; to do something about it, but don't say what whilst i maintain we are part of the problem. How can we blame any government when we not prepared to do anything but moan?

Should we wish to abrogate responsibility then let's not cry foul when the results are not to our liking.

 

Altruism is not as widespread as you may think.

[Oztalgian 3,298]

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

There are around 48 million voters in the UK, of whom slightly over 17 million voted for Brexit.

Looking on from a distance just some questions for the political pundits on here.

Did the UK get the Brexit that it thought it was voting for?

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Voting for low taxes?  I suppose that means voting Tory, which at the last election meant 43% of the vote, on a turnout of 67%.  By my rough working that means that 28% of the electorate have subjected us to the total ****show we have endured since 2019.. probably even fewer since 2010. 

Is it time for the UK to bring in compulsory voting? It seems to work here.

 

1 hour ago, Brew said:

Here's another thought, the Catholics sit on 73 billion, CofE 12 billion, perhaps we should look to them for the proposed 1.7 to 3% wealth tax

It is estimated that churches in Australia have a revenue of $AU40 billion per year. On this basis then all levels of government miss out on $AU10 billion in taxes. Taxes foregone include corporate tax, but also income tax, GST, payroll tax, council rates, land tax, state government taxes and local council taxes. Sanitarium one of Australia's largest food companies is owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. It makes almost a billion dollars in profit a year, yet pays no taxes. The same is true of any other businesses owned by religious institutions or charities

Is there a case for all religious/charitable institutions to pay tax? I definitely think so.

[Brew 5,421]

14 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

Did the UK get the Brexit that it thought it was voting for?

The Brexit they thought they were voting for never actually existed and despite a fair amount of false starts and promises is proving to be something of a damp squib. The so called benefits is just pie in the sky and the negative aspects too numerous to mention.

 

14 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

s it time for the UK to bring in compulsory voting? It seems to work here.

Does it though? You're linking your question to Cols reference to the low voter turn out. Would mandatory voting make any difference to the outcome? Most of the world (80%), manage without it. Only South America, parts of central Africa and a few odds 'n' sods have it which is hardly a glowing recommendation. With mandatory voting the risk is getting a government you're given - not quite the same as the one you want. Will anything really change, will politicians suddenly have an epiphany and start telling the truth? Does mandatory voting make the voter better informed or more engaged?

The government and politicians  have a distinct lack of respect here, adding resentment at being forced does not seem like a great idea.

 

14 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

Is there a case for all religious/charitable institutions to pay tax? I definitely think so.

 

The discussion is about a wealth tax not income tax and whether a windfall tax on the rich is justified, It's a factor that has been tried several times in the past, the results are questionable at best.

Wealth tax includes cash, shares etc. land and premises. I wonder what the rates would be on St Pauls or the Abbey

 

Though voluntary the King has to pay tax though the details are a little different, and I can't see why the church should be exempt. Not too sure about charities...

[Oztalgian 3,298]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

Does it though? You're linking your question to Cols reference to the low voter turn out. Would mandatory voting make any difference to the outcome? Most of the world (80%), manage without it. Only South America, parts of central Africa and a few odds 'n' sods have it which is hardly a glowing recommendation. With mandatory voting the risk is getting a government you're given - not quite the same as the one you want. Will anything really change, will politicians suddenly have an epiphany and start telling the truth? Does mandatory voting make the voter better informed or more engaged?

The government and politicians  have a distinct lack of respect here, adding resentment at being forced does not seem like a great idea.

Nice to see that you classify Australia and NZ as "odds and sods". I don't understand the comment that the risk is getting the government you are given. You have complete freedom to vote as you wish, vote informally as a protest or actually not vote at all. What you must do is turn up at a polling station and get your name crossed of the register. We do not have a plurality "first past the post" system like the UK we have a Preferential Voting System which means the voter can indicate the order of preference of the candidates on the ballot paper. Preferential voting in Australia as used in Australia are majority systems where candidates must receive an absolute majority, more than 50% of the total formal votes cast, to be elected. If the absolute majority is not gained on the first count, then preferences are distributed until an absolute majority is obtained. The term "preferential voting" means voters can indicate an order of preferences for candidates on the ballot paper, i.e. who they want as their 1^st choice, 2^nd choice and so on. The voter turnout in the @019 UK election was 67.3%, almost one third of voters could not be arsed to turn out to vote. In Nottingham North only 53.1% bothered to turn out, the 6th worst in the entire country. The rest of Notts was in the 60-64% range. This only gets the government that those that could be bothered to turn out to vote. First past the post in no way reflects the views/wishes of the UK electorate. It also appears that around a third of UK voters voted tactically i.e. cast a vote that was designed to keep out a candidate or a party that was disliked. Is there a need to reform the voting system? Even with "compulsory voting" and discounting illegible/informal votes, voter turnout was around 90% (this includes the Donkey vote) for both houses of parliament, surely a better way of getting the government that the people want. 

[Brew 5,421]

Preferential voting has absolutely nothing to do with mandatory voting so whilst most of your post is interesting,  it's largely irrelevant. Our system is totally different.

 

New Zealand does not have a mandatory voting system.

 

It is a fact that in Australia, and Cyprus compulsory voting means there is a broader societal distribution in the turn out, yet invalid papers are far more common and evidence indicates compelled voters are less likely to cast ballots that accord with their preferences. (Singh: Oxford)

1 hour ago, Oztalgian said:

This only gets the government that those that could be bothered to turn out to vote. First past the post in no way reflects the views/wishes of the UK electorate

 

Under the UK system it would make no difference to the outcome. Mandatory voting does not change minds, it has no effect on what people believe or think about politics and in  research paper from the LSE, Cato and Oxford indicate it can have a negative effect.

It could also be argued that those who do actually can be 'arsed' are the ones who vote to express an informed and considered opinion or are he ones who vote habitually for the same party come what may. I would suggest the habitual voter outnumbers the 'floating' votes

Is the vote of a compelled voter who doesn't really give a damn of any value?

Suffice to say there is no such thing as a true democracy nor a perfect system anywhere in the world.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 2/5/2024 at 3:41 AM, Oztalgian said:

Did the UK get the Brexit that it thought it was voting for?

 

Oz, I'm broadly in agreement with Jim on this.  The bottom line for me is that the whole 'Leave' campaign, was based on lies, half truths and innuendo. In effect, that meant that by leaving the EU, people 'reclaimed', things which they had not lost in the first place.  The 'Leave' liars claimed three main things:

 

1. We no longer controlled our borders.  This is complete bull, based on a deliberate misreading of the EU 'Freedom of Movement' principle, under which any EU citizen could move freely between EU countries and work in any of them.  In other words it worked both ways and there was no mention by the Leave liars of the huge numbers of Brits working in the wider EU. We had the right to prevent anyone from entering our country who did not have a right to be here, but we also had a Govt. which had stripped our 'Border Force' (like all other Public bodies) to the bone..leaving our Immigration system open to abuse.

It's also blindingly obvious that leaving the EU has done nothing to reduce overrall migration into the UK. Illegal migration is ouit of control. Legal migration has been deliberately increased by UK Tory Govt. in attempts to meet Labour and Skills shortages largely caused by leaving the EU.

 

2. We could no longer make our own laws. More bull. Our Parliament, Government and Judiciary all remained independent of the EU, although then, as now, they accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which is not an EU institution and of which the UK has been a member since long before we joined..then left.. the EU. We also accepted  some 'laws'  and 'directives'enacted by the EU, but again, it was a two way street. We had a part in making such 'Laws' and 'Directives' (It gets more complex, but maybe that's not for here.)

 

3. We paid in more than we got out.  In bald figures, possibly true, but bald figures don't include the benefits of 'frictionless trade' and being a member of a major trading bloc. 'Yer average' voter was also completely unaware of, or indifferent to the multitude of EU programmes which funded Education, Training, Employment Initiatives, Economic Regeneration, Scientific Research, Environment, etc..etc.. etc..  When challenged on this, the Leave liars claimed that we would be able to pay for all that out of what we saved from not paying into the EU. We wouldnt, and we haven't.  Most notoriously, the complete fiction promoted on the famous Red Bus, that we would have £350 million per week extra for the NHS.  We didn't.

 

On top of the above we also had the wider xenophobia, confusion between EU workers and non EU migrants, lies about 'Bent Bananas' etc..  And finally, the fact that much of the Leave campaign was run by extremely wealthy people who wanted to get out of the EU before propsed EU legislation to prevent them from 'offshoring' their wealth.

 

On 2/5/2024 at 3:41 AM, Oztalgian said:

Is it time for the UK to bring in compulsory voting? It seems to work here.

 

Not sure about that.. but I'd favour a properly worked out form of Proportional Representation. Any system in which around 1/3 of the electorate generally determines who governs, cannot be healthy.

 

As for taxing Religious bodies.  I'm in favour. Why do they and their membership deserve benefits which Atheists and Agnostics, or even those of 'independent' faith do not enjoy?

I'd also remove the 'Charitable Status' of all independent (a.k.a. 'public') schools. The likes of Eton College alreadyc supply us with a disproportionately high number of (mostly Right Wing) Politicians etc.  Why should we subsidise them?

[philmayfield 6,145]

51.8% in favour to leave was hardly an overwhelming majority. In theory it could have been decided on by one vote. Too late now of course but at least a substantial majority should have been required.

[Brew 5,421]

Define substantial;  Leavers won by 1,269.501 votes, where do we set the limit, total numbers or as a percentage?

I remember a lot of arguing about the actual wording. how long it would have taken them to draw a line in the sand is anybody's guess

 

[Brew 5,421]

A mother of a 17yr old mass shooter in the US has just been found guilty on four counts of involuntary manslaughter.

She faces a potential 15 on each count, and the boys father ls to face trial on similar charges.

Is this justice or revenge? and is it opening a can of worms and accelerating the blame culture to new heights?

 

Just askin...

 

[Oztalgian 3,298]

23 hours ago, Brew said:

New Zealand does not have a mandatory voting system.

Yes , my bad.

Brexit - Thanks Brew and DJ360 for your insights and explanations

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'd favour a properly worked out form of Proportional Representation. Any system in which around 1/3 of the electorate generally determines who governs, cannot be healthy.

We have proportional representation in our upper house (Senate) and apart from a ballot paper that is close to being the size of a table runner seems to work well. It tries to ensure that the parties/individuals that get elected in each state are in proportion with the number of votes they receive.

 

Brexit - When we have a referendum, needed to change the constitution, (similar to Brexit). In order to pass it must get what is called a "double majority". 1 A national majority in the States and Territories and 2 A majority of voters in a majority of States (i.e. at least four out of the six states) The Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory votes only count towards the national figures. Could something similar have been applied to Brexit using the constituencies and something like a 60% rule to ensure a "reasonable" majority.

If the leave vote had won by only one vote would Brexit still have gone ahead?

 

Absolutely tax religions and charitable organisations

[mary1947 2,084]

22 hours ago, Brew said:

A mother of a 17yr old mass shooter in the US has just been found guilty on four counts of involuntary manslaughter.

She faces a potential 15 on each count, and the boys father ls to face trial on similar charges.

Is this justice or revenge? and is it opening a can of worms and accelerating the blame culture to new heights?

 

Just askin...

 

Hi Brew are we not talking of the good hold USA   say know more.

ps while on holiday many years ago , we were top of a castle and looking down on to the oranges groves. There was quite a lot of them, then a voice from behind said !!! quote You call them orange groves, they are not a  bit like an orange grove ? Where I lived i have billions of them, guess were this chap came from yes he was fro USA 

Having said that would you have brought your 13 year old child a real gun for a Christmas Pressie.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 2/5/2024 at 1:15 AM, Brew said:

Then you are truly exceptional, most I know in the tax bracket are to say the least resentful and would seize every opportunity to pay less if there were legal means to do so. They are happy to be in that income bracket, less so about the high level of tax.

 

It's the Bank of England that issues money not HMG and though owned by HMG it is largely independent since Gordon Brown made it responsible for UK monetary policy.

 

 

 

 

As I remember it was never mooted as saving the poor it was a miserable attempt to raised 'Britishness' and aid the economy.

 

I don't deny the evidence, unsubstantiated  and biased as it is.

Interesting you accept authors of fiction to bolster your argument yet reject out of hand Dickens simplistic yet accurate economic observations.

 

 Actually, that's exactly what they want if what you say is true and a limit or a tax on wealth is needed. One of the proposed wealth levels starts as low as 300,000. given that's near to the average house price in the UK a lot of people are going to be very close.

 

The 'privileged' earn multiples of average earnings, true enough, but they are also given the privilege of paying more than their fair share through  multiples of the average tax bill.

I'm unsure what tax breaks you keep  talking about, other than the quantum leap up when earnings go over the limit.

 

From parliament.uk:

'Income tax payments are concentrated amongst those with the largest incomes. The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts.'

The top 1% contributing 30%!

I struggle to see which bit is unethical, unjust or morally wrong. Add the charity donations and I'm inclined to think they do more than most.

 

 

'We' actually did and quoting figures is irrelevant. 'WE' cast our votes and the paucity in numbers merely proved Maistre was right. Our version of democracy is somewhat skewed, but it is what it is and until it changes, we have to live with it. 

 

 

No shortage? How much altruism would be evident if we do as they do in Germany and Spain? 

In Germany all registered as members of organised religion pay (Kirchensteuer). a 'church tax' = 9% of their income tax. Much like Father McGuiness did in Clifton when he introduced a 10% tithe on Catholics.

Those who are registered Jews or Christians have to pay it and it is mandatory. Interestingly Muslims are not under any obligation to do so. 

I'm fairly sure that should such a scheme be introduced here the faithful would be somewhat reluctant to agree despite it being in accord with their declared values. Widows mite, but most won't.

 

Here's another thought, the Catholics sit on 73 billion, CofE 12 billion, perhaps we should look to them for the proposed 1.7 to 3% wealth tax, I doubt the idea would go very far.

 

Instead of pursuing a small section of society why do we not recognised it's everybody's responsibility not just crying the government should do something and when they do, cry nanny state,

 

OK, fair point, change no one to 'most' and yes there are many, many volunteers myself and my daughter being two, and not because we blame any gov lack, no gov can meet the needs of all the people all the time no matter how much they try. We see a need, simple as that and !5% approx. who volunteer means 85% don't.

Those who don't see a problem are even less prepared to do anything about it when they do. We are rapidly becoming more and more self-centred.

 

You say it's up to Govt; to do something about it, but don't say what whilst i maintain we are part of the problem. How can we blame any government when we not prepared to do anything but moan?

Should we wish to abrogate responsibility then let's not cry foul when the results are not to our liking.

 

Altruism is not as widespread as you may think.

 

It's been a while since you posted that, the latest in our discussion of the rapid increase in both poverty and wealth inequality.

 

I'm not going to engage in a line by line rebuttal, but it does seem to me that in summary, you don't think that anything can be done apart from a bit of volunteering to help in some cases.

 

Clearly I'm not going to criticise the 'good works' which many from all socio economic strata engage in, but they really do amount to 'P****ng in the wind' when compared to the size of the problem. (Assuming you accept that there is a problem)

 

I'm also not going to express any sympathy for those who view our taxation system as 'unfair'. Those who earn sums which take them into the higher tax brackets are in my view not worth any more to society than someone on minuimum wage, so as far as I'm concerned, they can 'suck it up'.  We've already shown between us that someone on, say £200k p.a. and paying taxes on all of it....  I.E. not taking advantage of the many wheezes which allow them to convert surplus cash into wealth AND and get a tax break on top..end up with NET pay which is multiples of the GROSS pay on which many are forced to survive. I'm not advocating for higher taxes, I'm advocating for fewer 'breaks and loopholes', which allow the already wealthy to turn their surplus income into both wealth AND an overall reduction in taxation.

 

So, closing loopholes and stopping what amount to 'sops' to the already rich is one thing which can be done.

 

Proper management of Privatised Utilities, where we have ended up with a situation where the management of them is entirely for the benefit of Shareholders and 'Fat Cats', is essential.  What we have with Water is that various companies have not only failed to deliver, but are unable to fund their own improvement and so are demanding increased costs to customers for a substandard service while shareholders continue to 'rake it in'.  You know this is 'bent' and you know that with the political will it can be stopped. same applies to Public Transport and many other similar rip offs.

 

Health has also been almost completely farmed out to private enterprise, with no discernible improvement or increase in efficiency.

 

Public Services in general are on their knees.  None of this is accidental or inevitable, it is the direct result of Tory/NeoCon policies which are built around cutting public spending and tax, whilst holding down wages. It is neither fiscally or socially responsible to apply the wholesale theft and plunder which has resulted. You know this.

 

The worst example of all of course was the brief Trussonomics catastrophe for which we are all still paying.  Does anyone with any understanding of politics seriously believe that Truss thought that up herself? Of course she didn't..any more than her latest Far Right ramblings inside trhe Tory Party are hers.  She's clearly having her strings pulled by FAR Right lobbyists such as the so called 'Institute of Economic Affairs' (Lobbying organisation for Oil, Tobacco etc..and generally far right economics.), and dinosaurs like Lee Anderson, Rees-Mogg etc..

 

Trust me, there is plenty that could be done to 'level up' Britain both socially and geographically.. but it won't happen under the current administration. It is not their objective.. however much they might protest that it is.

[DJ360 6,730]

P.S.  Just heard the UK economy is now officially 'In Recession'.

 

Well done Rishi!!!

[catfan 14,793]

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

P.S.  Just heard the UK economy is now officially 'In Recession'.

 

Well done Rishi!!!

& Germany in rcessionI1 too. Well done the EU.

[Brew 5,421]

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

'm not going to engage in a line by line rebuttal, but it does seem to me that in summary, you don't think that anything can be done apart from a bit of volunteering to help in some cases.

 A somewhat dubious interpretation of what I actually said.

 

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

hose who earn sums which take them into the higher tax brackets are in my view not worth any more to society than someone on minuimum wage,

 

I don't think I ever said they were

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

nd up with NET pay which is multiples of the GROSS pay on which many are forced to survive. I'm not advocating for higher taxes, I'm advocating for fewer 'breaks and loopholes', which allow the already wealthy to turn their surplus income into both wealth AND an overall reduction in taxation.

Do you really believe that those measures will make a ha'porth of difference? The number of super-rich in the UK, even taxed until the pips squeak are too few to make a real difference to the economy. All it will do is stop them gaining more - why? what will it achieve, they'll still be rich, the poor will still be poor and the tax take will see only a minimal increase - if any.

 

The inequality you're so concerned about. Inequality as we understand it is not actually increasing exponentially, despite lurid Oxfam figures which in the main are not actually refereeing to the UK. 

 

Facts show the level of financial difference has remained fairly stable since at least the mid '90s

Screaming at the Tories and accusing them of theft is quite frankly something we long ago dismissed, they have stolen nothing!

 

Does Labour have a better record? Let's harvest a few comments from the internet:

 

"The 1983 general election marked a low point for the Labour Party. Under Michael Foot, it suffered a landslide defeat, taking just 27.6% of the vote and giving Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives a 144-seat Commons majority.

The party's manifesto, with its pledges of unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from the European Common Market, was memorably described as the "longest suicide note in history".

Memories of the last Labour government, which had ended in economic paralysis and the "winter of discontent", were strong"

 

Sound familiar? The Tory levelling up is making little progress and seems to be going the same way as Osbourne's Northern Powerhouse. Whether the resistance in the red wall or the recalcitrance of those in power there are to blame for the failure is moot, but logically I simply makes no sense to be a deliberate ploy. The usual left wing "theres planty we can do".... but it's a secret, it must be they never actually say what!

 

The is week, along with confirmation that we, along with Japan, slipped into recession it was confirmed that wages, since at least 2001, have actually risen more then inflation. Which partly supports the argument that wages rises influence inflation.

 

Public utilities are a disgrace. 

 

I was going to launch a rant against them, but I'll score an own goal here and make Cols day.

 

Centrica (British Gas), reported a ten fold increase in profits and thus a big bonus to share holders.

An ex MP bought thousands of shares before the announcement, any guesses which party? 

Clue, it wasn't Labour...

 

[Brew 5,421]

Just reread my piece above...I really should stop  posting when I'm tired but I'll just draw attention tp the  mentality of Nottingham councillor Mellen who, after admitting the council spending decisions contributed to the bankruptcy, said they're refusing the independent recommendations of budget cuts as it's against his conscience. i wonder if he's trying to spin it out until wish washy Starmer  gets in and bails him out.

[Brew 5,421]

14 hours ago, catfan said:

& Germany in rcessionI1 too. Well done the EU.

Close, but not quite...