[Closed] A modern day Robin Hood!

Daily Express

spongebrain in link to right wing rant rag shocker <<yawn>>

First off why the **** are you reading the Express?. Diana's dead, get over it.

Secondly, what's the fuss? It's not a policy I agree with, but at least it's offering a choice rather than the bland meally mouthed lies we get from people trying to get the centre beige vote.

Fairly easy to get round - get an interest only mortgage for your house, then put the difference in a bank account. They can't touch your 'savings' as you'll still have the mortage debt.

It's a choice I suppose the punters will decide upon come polling day, but maybe as Burnhams not going to be elected leader he's just trying to 'prove' his Labour credentials....

The document proposed a “solidarity wealth tax” where the total value of an individual’s assets, less any debts, would be subject to an annual tax.

So, they want to tax you when you earn money (Income Tax), tax you when you spend money (VAT) and in addition to this they will not only tax you on money that you've already earned (and paid tax on) but haven't yet spent (and paid tax on) but also tax you on the value of the goods you've bought (and paid tax on) with the money you've earned (and paid tax on) 😯

On the other hand - Good lad Andy, I really, really hope you win the party leadership contest and get to impose your new policies - it will make Labour unelectable for the next thirty years 😈

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member

spongebrain in link to right wing rant rag shocker <<yawn>>

Typical lefty response! Has no argument and so resorts to abuse! Thicko!

Fairly easy to get round - get an interest only mortgage for your house, then put the difference in a bank account. They can't touch your 'savings' as you'll still have the mortage debt.

What, 100% mortgage? They don't exist anymore!

What if the bank won't lend you money because you have insufficient income?

What about all the assets you have which aren't property?

This is a wealth tax which will raid your savings as well as levy tax on significant assets.

First off why the **** are you reading the Express?. Diana's dead, get over it.

Good lad Andy, I really, really hope you win the party leadership contest and get to impose your new policies - it will make Labour unelectable for the next thirty years

Labour and it's politics of envy!

Don't be ridiculous!

So, they want to tax you when you earn money (Income Tax), tax you when you spend money (VAT) and in addition to this they will not only tax you on money that you've already earned (and paid tax on) but haven't yet spent (and paid tax on) but also tax you on the value of the goods you've bought (and paid tax on) with the money you've earned (and paid tax on)

We pay tax - get over it. Listing all the various types of tax is worthless save for making it SOUND bad to try and get support for your point of view.

Lame.

Fantastic!

Labour's choices:

Milliband brothers: Utter policy wonk geeks and charisma vacuums. Inextricably linked to Blair - Unelectable.
Ed Balls: One of the most hated New Labour bigwigs. Closely linked to Brown - Unelectable.
Diane Abbott: Nauseating windbag, uber-hypocrite and borderline racist - Unelectable.
Andy Burnham: Gobby, chip on both shoulders Scouse gobshite and working class as lifestyle statement in spite of the fact that he's a well paid Oxbridge educated politician. All the drawbacks of Cherie Blair then, but at least she's actually had a real job. That tit has just bounced from political advisor post to public sector non-job. Football Taskforce, anyone? - Laughably Unelectable.

I wonder why you bother posting stuff like that BH9 on a political thread. Just guff.

Which parts do you disagree with?

First off why the **** are you reading the Express?. Diana's dead, get over it.

I proper lolled. 😆

I am not wealthy, not do I own any property, therefore I would be unaffected by such a policy. Bring it on! 😀

I think what we need to start looking at, not just as a nation but Globally, is how do rich people get rich? Through exploiting others, that's how. And the system is very much skewed towards only certain people being able to get rich; class system, private education, old shool tie network etc. Level the playing fields a bit and give people a fair run.

No-one needs huge amounts of land or material wealth. The fact that someone has that, means that someone else won't have what they need and deserve as Human Beings. Things are carefully engineered by the very wealthy, to ensure things stay that way. This is what needs to be changed.

Funny how the right wingers stamp their feet and cry 'it's not [b]fair[/b]' every time someone suggests doing something to even society up a bit more...

Typical lefty response! Has no argument and so resorts to abuse! Thicko!

PMSL @ someone who thinks a link to a rant rag is some kind of an "arguement" and uses that as a base to whine that people with more wealth should pay more than those with less. You should try thinking for yourself sometime, your brain won't explode if you do, and even if it does, you probably won't miss it.

shouldn't people with more pay more than those with less? or do you think it should be the other way round?

[i]WTF has Diana got to do with it?[/i]
Among the many things that the express is renowned for, apart from rabid right wing hysteria, is it's obsession with Diana death conspiracies.
For example last fortnight -
[url= http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/196672/Princess-Diana-tells-psychic-her-death-was-a-well-planned-accident- ]PRINCESS DIANA TELLS PSYCHIC HER DEATH WAS A 'WELL-PLANNED ACCIDENT'[/url]

[i] Can you advise me on what newspaper I should be reading? The Socialist Worker perhaps? [/i]

No, I don't think you'd get anything useful from that, Telegraph is quite reasonable though.

There are some strange things on internets:

[img] [/img]

The billboards feature Princess Diana’s likeness and the tagline ‘Feel The Romance Of British Royalty’

Like, WTF? 😯

😆

Like, WTF?

She was our Queen of Tarts.

how do rich people get rich? Through exploiting others, that's how

Now that's funnier than the Diana comment Elfin, especially as it is based on a provenly unworkable ideology.

BTW - the Lefties appear to be unable to make an argument in support of this one. Lots of insults but nothing of any real practical substance. Just admit it, the proposed policy and the proposer are nothing short of moronic.

Now that's funnier than the Diana comment Elfin, especially as it is based on a provenly unworkable ideology.

Is it? So tell me, enlighten us all; how do rich people become rich?

A land tax or a wealth tax is a good mechanism for removing some of the injustice in our country and a well known proposal.

its easy enough to use thresholds to keep the taxation aimed at the richest who hoard land and wealth.

One of its main outcomes would be to reduce land and property values back to a reasonable % of average salaries and to prevent house price inflation and thus property speculation - leading to houses becoming more affordable for the masses and leading to an end to property as a way of accumulating wealth.

I doubt the great UK public will go for it kespecially when its clear the forces of the right would be very much against it but its an idea worth discussing.

Its a typical piece of daily wail distortion.

how do rich people become rich?

It's that Dildo Al Fayed i felt sorry for

shouldn't people with more pay more than those with less? or do you think it should be the other way round?

I was under the impression that this was already the case what with income tax being a percentage of your earnings and that there is a higher rate for those earning more. I've no problem with paying my fair share, even when that share is more (in absolute terms) than most. I do however object to being treated like some sort of cash cow and my political opinions can in no way be described as right wing.

+1 docrobster.

16 yrs of Labour and their prudent economic policies, FFS do people never learn.

Docrobster 😉 I am with you.

As far as I can see, it's a tax on being anything but in debt. I don't see what relevance it has to the UK - it could be useful in Japan where the propensity to save is very high, and it's holding back their economic growth.

In the UK personal debt levels are still high. It would discourage any accumulation of assets, meaning that a lot more people would rely on credit as their "rainy day fund". Short term it could kick start the economy a little (every pound saved is a pound that's not being spent), but I think the events of the last two years have shown us that people would do well to save more, not less.

Ultimately, I suspect this means he's got little support in the Labour party as there's obviously nobody giving him economic advice.

Gonefishin i agree, i have been fortunate i have never been out of work, mind you i did 22 yrs in the Army but since then i have worked abroad, took some crap jobs such as working on sciesmic survey boats in Nigeria FFS,absolute toilet, my theory is you only get out of life what you put into it, dont overly object to taxation but definately disagree that i should support the dross that believe the Country owes them a living because i have more.

Is it? So tell me, enlighten us all; how do rich people become rich?

Lots of different ways, as you well know Elfin, although no matter what example I give, I feel sure you will manage to trace the roots and results back to an enslaved 6 year old in Outer Indo Magnolia who works for 120 hours a week and is force fed a diet of rice and speed.

So I'm not going to bother as I've got to go out. 😉

Oh and modern day Robin Hodd, he was a thief in my book as well, theft is theft. 😉

?Hard work
just a thought like

You mean; they exploited the hard work of others, in order to make themselves rich.

Have a bit of a read up of history and economics before you make such foolish statements. So you're saying that the vast majority of people in the UK and elsewhere don't work very hard?

Obviously lazy sods like nurses, factory workers, miners etc are poor because they simply don't put in the effort.

Oh, right, of course!

And these people are rich because they've worked much much harder than anyone else and deserve every penny they get:

[img] [/img]

Just in case anyone thinks I read the express from my comments above I would like to state that I wouldn't use it to wipe my arse and I'd rather cut off my own leg than vote tory!
As usual with poilitics those that shout loudest tend to have the most extreme views. Common sense is somewhere inbetween the two.

Jeezus christ elfin I'm probably on your side. I work in barnsley FFS!
Comments like yours give labour voters a bad name.

Elfinsafety or whatever you go as these days, you obviously dont like the Country you reside in, tell you what move away and tell me where it is fairer, i have had a good look around in the last 28 yrs, Afghan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi,Central and Southern America even Eastern Europe a bit of the Far East and now here in Lybia, tell you what try and come here and see how fair it is and this is the Peoples Republic mate all good Left Wing stuff, tell you what open a businesss here see how well you can do, make some money getting up early and working late and then when the Government thinks you are doing too well they shut you down and put one of the Leaders friends in charge of it. Mate get out and stop moaning what you have is okay, lifes not fair it never has been get over and The Royals well it is what it is, a figure head for the Country and without doubt a business generating tool. Would you step down if you were in their shoes, no dont think i would either.

I went to school with Andy. If he's what passes for a socialist revolutionary, then we're all doomed. As was pointed out, he went from school to Oxbridge, straight into "spin Doctor School under Malcolm Tuckers wing, then parachuted into the second safest labour seat in the country.Then fast-tracked into the cabinet

His recent return to socialism is all the more surprising given that he was given the Guardians Top Toady award for never ever having voted against a government EVER! Yet he refutes all this as the work of satan now.

So the obvious question: why the **** didn't you trumpet these beliefs when you were in the cabinet?

DocR

I think Elfin might be a tad to the left of [b]old[/b] labour, or should that be old Lenin?

Comments like yours give labour voters a bad name.

In what way? And what do my comments have to do with Labour?

Very, very few rich people become so purely through hard work and their own endeavour. The vast majority of top earners in this country come from affluent families who were able to give them the best educational opportunities, as well as a leg up into decent paid professions. Wealth, if you really analyse it, has very little to do with 'hard work'. It has far more to do with class, background and the availability of opportunities. The fact is that many of these opportunities aren't available to poorer people, meaning that the status quo really doesn't change that much. Well maybe it's time it did. Too much of the wealth generated goes into too few pockets.

Elfin, I think most people agree with you that improving social mobility is a good thing. I just don't think many agree with how you think it can and should come about.

Tax those who've worked and have not bought their lifestyle on the never never. OK, perhaps those who have worked and view this as an unfair tax much as the poll tax was seen as unfair can all gather on the day it is made law in Trafalgar Square and have a dam good riot to piss on Mr Burnhams chips? Ah, I forgot, he won't get the leadership will he.

?Hard work
just a thought like

..and not a very good one at that

Sunday Times Rich List 2010, top 5
1.Lakshmi Mittal - inherited steel works in India
2.Roman Abramovich
3.Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster
4.Ernesto and Kirsty Bertarelli - inherited Swiss pharmaceutical company
5.David and Simon Reuben - very secretive, can't say for sure where initial wealth came from

which of these were the ones you were thinking of as exemplars of hard work, honesty and making it by the seat of their own brows?

Taxation is theft.

Elfin, I think most people agree with you that improving social mobility is a good thing. I just don't think many agree with how you think it can and should come about.

Well how does anyone else propose it comes about then, without some pretty drastic measures? The miinute anyone starts talking about taxing those who can afford to lose a fair bit anyway, people get all outraged, but mention that badly needed public services have to be cut to save money, and it's all 'oh well it's the only option'. If it doesn't directly affect you, then you needn't care. If it hits you in the pocket, then you're up in arms. What a selfish society we live in.

Bollocks to that; making the poor even poorer is a bad, bad idea and our society will only go backwards. Making the rich only slightly poorer is a much much better idea. 😀

anokdale; just because things are worse elsewhere, does not mean we should be complacent about the situation here.

To suggest that wealth is just down to 'hard work' is just nonsensical, naive and ignorant.

Taxation is theft.

So is Property... 😉

I'm fine with income taxes being linked to earnings. I'm fine with some luxuries being taxed to pay for vital services. But I'm not fine with the government double-taxing if you choose to save rather than spend, regardless of thresholds. Once you've earned it and paid your tax on it, you should not have to pay further taxes just because you choose not to spend it at this particular time. What if you're saving for something large? Why is your large purchase less worthy than joe bloggs down the street who chooses to spend his cash willy nilly on tat and drinks in the pub?

Personally, I'd see education pushed, properly pushed. And forcible intervention powers for Surestart.

Having been to an ex poly and a Russell group uni, I'm flabbergasted by how different the intake is. Lots of ex private and grammar school pupils when you compare it with the ex-poly. And education, including uni, pretty much dictates your social networks and life chances.

Raise the bottom up, don't drag the top down.

Elfin, comrade.
A lot of what you say is true.
Just not all of it.

It has more to do with the choices a person makes than the policies of the government of the day. Obviously some people have less choices, but they still have choices.

It is still possible, in this country, for someone to work hard at school, get good qualifications, get a good job and become rich. Not mega rich, but richer than if they hadn't worked hard.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Yes they will have had opportunities that others won't, like a stable family background, strong parenting, etc, but perhaps that just shows that their parents also tried the "work hard" ethic and it payed off for them.

I'm just going on my own experience, that's all.

Saying all rich people have exploited others is a statement that is so easily disproved that it makes it meaningless.

Elfin, comrade.
A lot of what you say is true.

Well of course it is. I would have thought any inteligent person would have worked that out by now. 🙄 😀

Coffeeking I think you make some good points and I agree that people shouldn't be taxed for being sensible with their earnings. Too often we are encouraged to spend, spend spend.

Personally, I'd see education pushed, properly pushed.

Raise the bottom up, don't drag the top down.

How do you propose the money to finance that will be raised?

Truth is, the 'Top' has climbed far too high on the backs of others. No-one needs £5 million mansions, several homes arounds the World etc. Not when some poor buggers are starving.

Here's a simplifiction of what I'm on about:

Company makes £X million a year, has £5 million wage budget.

1 boss, £1m py
employs 2 MD's/CEO's whatever, £500,000 ea py
10 managers, £100,000 each
100 workers. £20,000 each.

So the company consists of 113 people. The average wage is £44,248 each. So, if you paid each of the 100 workers £40,000 each, the managers £60,000 each and the two MD's £100,00 each leaving £200,000 for the boss. £200k is plenty for anyone to live on, no? But each worker would then have more economic power to buy their own house and stuff. And their value to the company is higher. It's a much fairer system, and people can still have decent lifestyles. What's wrong with that? Apart from the boss no longer being unnecessarily wealthy? But he/she won't have to moan about paying so much tax, because they'll be paying less. The workers will be paying a higher percentage. Win-win!

This [b]Elfinfesto[/b] has been brought to you by the Institute For Fair and Commonsense Economics.

😀

To go back to the property tax

You are all believing the Daily Wail line on this.

Its easy to graduate it or put a threshold on a property tax.

It would have the effect of making property speculation less profitable so would take out some of the effects that drive up property values meaning houses become more affordable for "ordinary" folk. How do "ordinary folk" get on the property ladder now?

Remove property speculation based on house price inflation and you get more affordable housing. Whats not to like?

raise enough from property taxes you could reduce other taxes.

Whats not to like?

The Old rates was a property tax. Some would consider council tax to be a property tax

How do you propose the money to finance that will be raised?

Why would you need huge sums to finance it? I reckon the biggest problem in state education is the paucity of ambition - most of the grammars and private schools work hard to get as many as possible into Oxbridge. My state school discouraged applying!

Remove property speculation based on house price inflation and you get more affordable housing.

Supply and demand. People tend not to have massive unoccupied property portfolios - they have tenants. House prices in the UK are driven by the fact that demand exceeds supply. Taxing expensive houses does nothing to alter that situation. Your reasoning is incorrect.

Edit: And for what it's worth, he appears to be suggesting a tax on all assets, not just bricks and mortar.

Why have a yearly property tax? Surely inheritance tax is fairer - to my mind there's a big difference between something I buy with my already taxed income and something I get given - one is earned, the other not.

Tron - the fact that you can gain money from property speculation drives up property prices. Remove this and prices will realign.

if buy to let was not so profitable ( in the past) then prices of suitable properties would not have been driven so high.

Supply and demand - reduce demand then prices drop.

Supply and demand - reduce demand then prices drop.

You don't get it. There is a total demand for housing - be it let or bought. Landlords don't buy houses to leave them empty, and people who are renting are very often saving to buy.

The only way to reduce demand for housing is to resort to real left wing politics - telling people what they want.

I laughed at this:

..resorts to abuse! [b]Thicko![/b]

real left wing politics - telling people what they want.

As opposed to real right wing politics?

[img] [/img]

How the hell can you save to buy if you are renting, unless you live in a hell pit????

Rents are so high to cover the landlords purchase price. After paying the rental agent and insurances / repairs / overheads the landlord is lucky if the buy to let mortgage is barely covered.

viscious circle

They look like a pair of strict disciplinarians. Chief Whip's office?

Tron - its you that miss the point.

When property becomes a commodity to trade in rather than just a place to live it pushes up prices. This is clear, acknowledged and obvious. its a part of the mechanism for property inflation. Waht is happening is people are being priced out of the market - so for every property speculator that enters the market a potential buyer is priced out of the market.

A property is worth more as a buy to let than as a buy to live - so the buy to let folk can afford to pay more than they buy to live - thus another property becomes a rental property rather than a buy to live.

This effect is clearly aknowledged.

How the hell can you save to buy if you are renting, unless you live in a hell pit????

Rents are so high to cover the landlords purchase price. After paying the rental agent and insurances / repairs / overheads the landlord is lucky if the buy to let mortgage is barely covered.

This is very true, if you live in a big city like London, Edinburgh or central Manchester. My LL 'earns' about £50 a [i]month[/i] from my flat. And considering maintenance costs him about that, after all costs, I'd be surprised if he's not making a monthly loss now. I'm expecting him to give me notice at any time, as he'll need to put the place on the market. Still, he shouldn't have been so naive and borrowed money to buy something he can't really afford. He lives with his parents FFS! Trying to play the 'I own property you know' bollocks game. He'll definitely be suffering from negative equity, and the local housing association who own the block are planning to demolish it within the next few years. So he can't sell it, and he'll have to accept a Compulsory Purchase Order/replacement of the same 'value'. Do I feel sorry for him? No. He made the decision to 'buy' it. Saw the pound signs and not the reality.

I'm not too sure that everyone who actually has savings or has worked hard to get a good job to buy a nice house has done it through the old boys network or standing on the backs of others, you can't really say the middleclass are like this either. I've worked hard to get to a position to buy a nice house for my family and the only debt I've ever had was a mortgage and I've not done it on daddy's purse. As a sensible person I deny myself things that I cannot afford, however if I just said "F*** it" and maxed out a few credit cards I could pay less tax and some how would deserve to.

This story is a load of bolloxs anyway as these policies would never happen, governments need middleclass housewifes and right wing grannies to get voted in.

How the hell can you save to buy if you are renting, unless you live in a hell pit????

Rent a 2 bed flat at approx £500-£600 a month round here, and don't spend much on beer. 😆

The landlord often isn't paying off a great deal of capital.

When property becomes a commodity to trade in rather than just a place to live it pushes up prices

Whilst speculation can cause bubbles, it's not the driving factor behind long term house price inflation. Orange juice is traded as commodity, but it's not heading for the moon is it? Restricted supply makes it appear to be a one way bet - hence the bubbles. Demand outstrips supply for housing in the UK, and it's very well documented.

I'm not too sure that everyone who actually has savings or has worked hard to get a good job to buy a nice house has done it through the old boys network or standing on the backs of others, you can't really say the middleclass are like this either.

No, but many of the top earners have.