Forum menu
Can you cite a source of this?Nearly 60% of all households now make no net contribution to the running of the state
Sounds like bollocks to me.
He means net financial contribution, not actually how people contribute to our society.
It's a very narrow definition which helpfully tells us much about the people who use it.
I understood that - I still don't believe it though.
It might be true if you [i]only[/i] look at income tax.
Nearly 60% of all households now make no net contribution to the running of the state
Excludes doctors, nurses, teachers etc.
I remembered reading something like that a few years ago
[url= http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html ]Link[/url] but that is a few years out of date so no idea if the same analysis done now would be the same
That's a Daily Mail link with info provided by the Centre for Policy Studies, the Conservatives 'own' political think tank.
The Tory/CPS link used to be mentioned as a matter of fact on the BBC.
They don't mention it any more.
I know - but it is the only link I could find to the claim, which in itself is rather telling.
Anyone seen this [url= https://www.tactical2017.com/ ]Tactical voting[/url] ??
The reason many people raise the net financial contribution point is to make it cleqf where the tax burden really falls and to counter the nonsense that the "rich" don't oay their "fair share"
The reason many people raise the net financial contribution point is to make it cleqf where the tax burden really falls and to counter the nonsense that the "rich" don't oay their "fair share"
The rich take more than their fair share too so all balances out doesn't it. Well it would if a bit more tax was taken off them.
The old vote tory and the old vote brexit.
So basically a load of old people deciding what the future will be like for the younger people based on their dated ideals which contradict the ideals of the young.
The "old" those of wisdom who have helped create the wealthy and free country we all now live in. The "old" who soent most of their lives without credit cards, car loans or easy mortgage finance. The "old" who understand living withing their means. The "old" who saw their friends, borthets and sisters give their lives in order that Britain remained a free country.
^^ 😆
The "old" those of wisdom who have helped create the wealthy and free country we all now live in. The "old" who soent most of their lives without credit cards, car loans or easy mortgage finance. The "old" who understand living withing their means. The "old" who saw their friends, borthets and sisters give their lives in order that Britain remained a free country
Yep, those old. They used to be pretty good when young but unfortunately age has turned them into selfish tory brexiters.
I thought his Brexit speech was good, but then I'm not one of the ex-UKIPers it was meant to attract.
The old that were guaranteed a job, a pension and being able to buy a house in their home town.
Very few old people who fought in the war are still alive.
And why shouldn't the tax burden fall on the rich?
The society on which they rely to generate their wealth should demand appropriate redistribution for the benefit of society as a whole.
And why shouldn't the tax burden fall on the rich?
This explains it...
The "old" who understand living withing their means.
That's quite easy when your means are greater than everyone else's.
Oh FFS will everyone please stop berating labour, a self-confessed Marxist chancellor is precisely what the UK economy needs. And to think labour are branded 'loonies'.. where the hell did that stem from, gawd almighty. Stay strong comrades, we shall overcome.
borthets
is that a British Covfefe?
[quote=jambalaya ]The reason many people raise the net financial contribution point is to make it cleqf where the tax burden really falls and to counter the nonsense that the "rich" don't oay their "fair share"
I suppose if it actually proved anything regarding that it might be useful - it doesn't in fact even show which part of society is paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes! Of course the big issue here is the definition of "fair" regarding the amount of tax paid by those who are doing very well out of a society which is supported by taxes.
BTW can I just check - have I turned into a socialist whilst I wasn't looking?
edit: actually I've realised the one thing it does show is that far too many people have far too low an income
enfht - Go on - mention the IRA - you know you want to!
The "old"
The "old" who had final salary pensions, secure jobs, early retirement, council houses, free education, affordable starter homes
Don't forget [img] 
[/img]
Secure jobs and free education I don't think so. Huge unemployment through the 60's, 70's & 80's. As for free education only for the 'lucky' 10%.
If you take the rose tinted glasses off, you'll realise the oldies didn't have it all great.
The society on which they rely to generate their wealth should demand appropriate redistribution for the benefit of society as a whole.
So lets discuss Mark Zuckerberg, how should his wealth be redistributed and to which society given Facebook's global nature ? How has Zuckerberg relied on society to genertae his wealth, Facebook is free to use ?
How has Zuckerberg relied on society to genertae his wealth
Good point, well made - obviously he invented his own internet for Facebook to run on.
How has Zuckerberg relied on society to genertae his wealth
Stop being so ridiculous Jamba. You know full what the state has done to enable Zuckerberg to get rich. Or are you now suggesting that part of your free-market utopia should be the destruction of intellectual property rights and the rule of law? Never had you down as an anarcho-capitalist.
Do.you really need that answering?
How about an allocation in proportion to the income generated in each country via income streams such as ad revenue or sales of games?
How does it benefit from Society? Let's say FB was created where there were zero users, would it make any money? Where do users come from? That's right.
Without the masses, wealth is not created.
May sticking to the original election lines, but it's amazing how the power of them has changed. i.e. "Choice is clear, me or Corbyn" just doesn't seem to be a good proposition any more.
Q: The latest poll gives you a lead of just three points. Why has the 24-point lead that you had evaporated?
May says there is only one poll that matters, the one next week. The choice people have is, how do they see the future. Do they want her or Corbyn?
Borrow to spend beyond means?
Or
Borrow to spend regardless?
Or
Borrow to spend to let future generations burden with debts?
Or
Borrow to spend without thinking of repayment?
Or
Borrow to spend on something without ability to repay?
Or
Borrow to spend to celebrate?
Or
Borrow to spend for partying?
Or
Borrow to spend within means?
Which one? 😆
Where is me money tree?
I want me money tree ... 
Tax the rich to cover increased spend and pay back huge debt exacerbated by Tory policies?
Baby boomers had it so tough.
[img] 
[/img]
dont forget the gilt edged pensions they failed to contribute enough to to cover ,as they were living much much longer than expected, and they passed the bill to others to get a worse pension than them for more input.
No generation has benefited as much as the baby boomers and i bet many are not only wealthier [ assets richer] than those working I bet they are cash/income richer as well.
They then gave us the gift of Brexit as the cherry on top
Gawd BLESS EM
So.. if McDonnell says he is a Marxist, does everyone think that he will roll out Marxist policies as soon as he is Chancellor?
Or do we maybe think that he realises that's not what everyone wants?
[quote=jambalaya ]The "old" who saw their friends, borthets and sisters give their lives in order that Britain remained a free country.
Not that many killed in the Falklands. Not that many over 90s voting.
Nearly 60% of all households now make no net contribution to the running of the state
In what time frame?
Twaddle.
(I can find one article relating to the US economy about that.)
Interesting read....
Tax evasion? Guardian?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/
And a non subscription link just in case,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#1799aa825969
CaptainFlashheart - Member
Tax evasion? Guardian?https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/ <
And a non subscription link just in case,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#1799aa825969
br />
So the guardian is actually loving their own tax arrangement ... ya ... grab them money lovely jubbly ... 😆
I am going to enjoy reading them articles ... 😆
Edit: In case the link does not work this is [url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/ ]the same link.[/url]
Quite apart from food banks, poverty and decline of public services which can in some respects can be attributed to large scale tax evasion, the thing that worries me about tax havens is the whole shady shell company money laundering for criminals, arms dealers and terrorists aspect...
Her Majesty's Government is surprisingly tolerant considering all the shady goings on...
@jet the problem is when campaigners talk about "The Rich" its .. Dyson, Branson, Duke of Westminster. When Labour have to target "The Rich" for taxes its £80k pa. Folk like Zuckerberg legally avoid billions in tax and they don't need tax havens to do it
How do you know jamby what is the proof of this assertion?
When "the rich" get discussed on here there is a large range of opinions on what it means and very little consensus. What facts did you base that conclusion on ?
@ Flashy what is your view on tax evasion by the super rich ?
For once could you actually express an opinion?
[quote=jambalaya ]@jet the problem is when campaigners talk about "The Rich" its .. Dyson, Branson, Duke of Westminster. When Labour have to target "The Rich" for taxes its £80k pa.
You write that as if it's unjust targetting all those poor folk on £80k+
So someone on this forum has been referencing the insufferable hypocritical (as described by Tim Worstall) guardian newspaper at every chance ... I wonder who that would be ... hmmmm ... 😆