Forum menu
"I know, I should have added the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags..."
Soz!
This. Id be interested in what cunning mechanism Molgrips had in mind to take *more* than everything these guys earn.
Gordon Bennet.
I'm not saying take more than 100%. I'm saying take money by other means than income tax. Was my post that hard to understand or are you just dense?
So what does it mean then, the point I was making was even if you redistribute 100% of rich peoples income (by what ever means) it's not going to give everyone a sustainable lifestyle they've come to expect.
I don't understand this.
What does 'give everyone a sustainable lifestyle' mean? I don't want to pay everyone's wages from taxing rich people's wages...?
I'm not saying take more than 100%.
You did.
Someone said that even taxing at 100pc wouldn't generate enough revenue and you responded with "But remember, 'tax the rich' doesn't necessarily mean whack personal income tax up. There are lots of ways to raise taxes.".
I can't see how you can read that any other way than people on this thread seem to have read it.
Seems you didn't mean it, but you *did* write it.
I can't see how you can read that any other way than people on this thread seem to have read it.
Seriously?
If I meant it that way I'd have said 'there are [b]additional[/b] ways to tax..'
I meant that there are lots of ways to tax that we already use, besides income tax - so you can increase taxation without having to raise income tax to punitive levels.
I'd have thought it obvious that 100% income tax would be highly damaging and suicidal for a government, so I took it for granted that this would be recognised as a ridiculous and reductio ad absurdum.
I meant that there are lots of ways to tax that we already use, besides income tax - so you can increase taxation without having to raise income tax to punitive levels.
Yes, but not beyond 100pc.
And the point you were responding to was that even if you could raise tax on the rich to 100pc it wouldn't be enough.
So even if you use additional ways to tax the risk, you still can't take more than 100pc. Whatever mechanism you use, it still won't be enough.
Your original point was that it doesn't matter than 100pc wouldn't be enough because you can just tax the rich in different ways. Then you said that couldn't possibly have been your point. Then you just repeated the same point in response to the same point in different words.
OOB your missing the point I think (or at least trying to)
Taxation is a complex tool you can tax income, spending, spending on luxury items - how about a 25% VAT on cars over 100k? Increase stanp duty over £1m, increase Employer NI for people on over 100k, limit ta exemptions on pensions over a threshold or remove allowances or limit tax deductions.
And the point you were responding to was that even if you could raise tax on the rich to 100pc it wouldn't be enough.
FFS.
So even if you use additional ways to tax the risk, you still can't take more than 100pc.
You can raise more money by taxing other things than you could by taxing the rich 100%.
[img] 
[/img]
EDIT thanks mike for helping out!
Taxation is a complex tool you can tax income, spending, spending on luxury items - how about a 25% VAT on cars over 100k?
If someone has cash to pay for a car and the tax on a car they aren't (weren't) being taxed at 100pc!
You can raise more money by taxing other things than you could by taxing the rich 100%.
Yes you can raise money by taxing people who aren't rich. But the point you were disputing was that if you tax only the rich it still wouldn't be enough.
If someone has cash to pay for a car and the tax on a car they aren't (weren't) being taxed at 100pc!
Taxation on luxury goods INSTEAD OF 100% INCOME TAX! Good grief. No-one suggested 100% income tax, no-one's advocating it, no-one thinks you can tax people at 100%, this is obviously absolutely ridiculous. Are you on a windup or something?
Whatever I said, I'm sorry, I was wrong, can we stop this now and talk about taxation strategies?
[img] 
[/img]
😐
Yes, tax on goods is the way to go. No way to avoid it and only hits those who clearly have enough money to buy the goods.
If we don't have enough money to fully fund NHS/elderly care/education etc,. then so be it but we should at least be trying to get to that point.
how about a 25% VAT on cars over 100k? Increase stanp duty over £1m, increase Employer NI for people on over 100k, limit ta exemptions on pensions over a threshold or remove allowances or limit tax deductions.
Yes you can but people will change behaviour and there are always unintended consequences. So for instance people might buy less expensive cars, or the car dealer might sell you a car at £99k, then offer certain upgrades if you take it back a week later and pay separately, bingo a £115k car, but no extra tax. predicting the extra tax take is very hard.
Earlier..."We're not the party of a cosy elite"
Now...."My son is being parachuted in to a safe seat"
No-one suggested 100% income tax, no-one's advocating it, no-one thinks you can tax people at 100%,
Income tax has nothing to do with stumpyjon's point. He didn't mention the mechanism by which you would achieve this 100pc tax - in fact he specifically said by 'whatever means'. The 100pc could be achieved by a wealthy person daylight tax - it makes no odds to his point which everyone else in the thread understood.
Ok fair enough, you got me.
I didn't think it was even worthy of discussion that the government might take everything a person owns and every bit of money they might make. Bit of a bizarre thing to be arguing about isn't it?
Point remains though that wealth redistribution does happen by a variety of means, some of which can be targeted to rich people; and that the amount of money taken can be increased or decreased. More tax revenue means more wealth can be redistributed.
I didn't think it was even worthy of discussion that the government might take everything a person owns and every bit of money they might make.
It sets the upper limit.
If that upper limit isn't enough, the policy can't work.
stumpyjon's was a simple point, everyone else understood it.
It sets the upper limit.If that upper limit isn't enough, the policy can't work.
A whole page of pedantry. Well done!
Back to the election, what do we think the chances are of labour proposing something truly radical like the Universal Basic Income?
A whole page of pedantry
Pedantry? It completely refutes the whole idea.
Earlier..."We're not the party of a cosy elite"
Now...."My son is being parachuted in to a safe seat"
I never know how to view these things. Being the leader's son shouldn't get you a safe seat. ...but it shouldn't prevent you from getting a safe seat either. Given the likely poor standard of candidates I'm willing to believe JC's son could have got the gig on merit. Not sure others will see it that way though.
Back to the election, what do we think the chances are of labour proposing something truly radical like the Universal Basic Income?
Nil, I would think. And most people probably wouldn't grasp the idea anyway - not in 7 weeks.
"Nil, I would think."
Has a lot of advantages.
Back to the election, what do we think the chances are of labour proposing something truly radical like the Universal Basic Income?
I'm afraid Corbyn's list of 'ideas' has been in a state of arrested development since the late 70's
I'm afraid Corbyn's list of 'ideas' has been in a state of arrested development since the late 70's
Trump got in with pretty much the same ideas: "Spend, spend, spend.".
I hope Jeremy's brother has delivered his special election day weather forecast to Labour. Probably 'polar vortex snowpocalypse', so they'll have to work extra hard to get their vote out. 🙂
Pedantry? It completely refutes the whole idea.
Sorry, still not with you. What's the idea being refuted?
If that upper limit isn't enough, the policy can't work [b]on its own[/b].
FTFY
Theresa May on the today programme yesterday was painful, the standard few minutes of dodging questions and saying nothing of substance. Dawn Butler on PM just now was excruciating, for the same reasons. 7 weeks of this!
OOB you understood my point exactly, molgrips you clearly don't. What I said was taxing the rich more was sideshow and wouldn't give you the money required to create the sort of state team Corbyn seems to want. It's an easy election slogan, bash the rich, bash the bankers, bash anyone who isn't us. If we could only squeeze the other people enough it'll be alright for all of us.
There is only a finite amount of rich peoples money you can take away up to the extreme of taking all of it. Doesn't matter how you do it, taxing luxury goods would actually bring in less money than 100% income tax.
The irony of improving the lives of all is you'll never reach the utopia of every one being happy, as they get more they'll expect more, that was the point I was making about sustainability, you're shooting for a moving target you'll never get there and people on the whole will never be happy. That doesn't mean we give up and there are still inequalities to resolved but it's more about doing that within the constraints of the current income not constantly increasing the tax take.
We can't keep building a society where and an ever decreasing proportion of people are paying more and more to keep the state running, it's not sustainable.
If we could only squeeze the other people enough it'll be alright for all of us.
Mmm no. No squeezing. Just people paying their fair share.
stumpyjon - Member
It's an easy election slogan, bash the rich, bash the bankers, bash anyone who isn't us. If we could only squeeze the other people enough it'll be alright for all of us.
Well, it seems to be working for the Tories - except it's the poor they are encouraging everyone else to blame.
Actually , the Tories don't outwardly blame the poor.
What they do is only ever talk about the working population. If you listen to any of their speeches you'll rarely hear them talk about people who cannot work. They might talk about getting people into work but not about the people who cannot e.g. disabled.
They have no concern for people who cannot work (edit: they do in that they want to cut benefits of those who cannot work) - which is why imo i think they're a bunch of *****.
That's just talking to your target audience. They've probably calculated that the poor are never going to vote for them anyway, not worth chasing. The same reason Jc doesn't try and placate those earning over £70k!
Don't forget that if Corbyn was to get in as PM, it would be very unlikely he'd be able to get through many of his more "extreme" policies (even his own party would rebel against some, so I doubt he'd even try). Therefore, we'd get a watered down version of JC politics, which may actually suit many.
The Trump parallels continue!
Are you saying Corbyn is an overly aggressive, sexist, warmongering bigot?
his more "extreme" policies
But we're always being told he either doesn't have any policies or that if he does, they're not extreme.
It's all so confusing, isn't it?
Are you saying Corbyn is an overly aggressive, sexist, warmongering bigot?
Nope, I said there were parallels!
The election's first "car crash" interview. May is runnung a rigged election ... oopps but we voted in favour of that 🙂
The same reason JC doesn't try and placate those earning over £70k!
Labour MPs earn more than £70k and he certainly doesn't try and appeal to most of them.
Putting an avowed Marxist into the position of Shadow Chancellor is pretty extreme.
But we're always being told he either doesn't have any policies or that if he does, they're not extreme.It's all so confusing, isn't it?
It is a bit. I'm not saying he does have extreme policies, but it may come down to perception.
Nope, I said there were parallels!
Do tell.
many of his more "extreme" policies
Can you list out some of those extreme policies as I have not seen them?
the policy can't work on its own.
I guess Captain Flashheart forgot to mention that.
OOB you understood my point exactly, molgrips you clearly don't.
We're certainly a mixed ability group.
Putting an avowed Marxist into the position of Shadow Chancellor is pretty extreme.
Because...?
outofbreath - Member
OOB you understood my point exactly, molgrips you clearly don't.
We're certainly a mixed ability group.
Why do you feel it necessary to insult people?
Serious question, btw.
Why do you feel it necessary to insult people?
Because he's a troll.
JC doesn't have any extreme policies - opinion polls consistently show that most of the public (including Tory/UKIP voters) actually agree with most of his major policies. It's just that no-one knows what they are because the media never bothers to actually talk about them because they're too busy slating him over vacuous bollocks, and repeatedly calling him 'hard left' when he's nothing of the sort.