'Labour's mess!' 'Not as bad as xxx!' 'Much bigger problems to deal with!' and best of all 'It's their own fault!'
Wow the tories are bloomin' [i]great[/i] aren't they? 😆
At least the leader reckons it's great that ordinary people won't let other people starve, even if he will. But don't you try and feed the homeless!
I wasn't aware it was a policy, care to point me at it?
You said it mate : [i]"Stripping people of their wealth doesn't work anymore". [/i] That sounds very much like a policy to me.
The gap between rich and poor has been increasing for over 30 years now, ie the wealthy have been getting wealthier and the poor relatively poorer. I think it's fair to say that this policy "doesn't work".
Yeah, I'll give you the growing disparity. I've never quite grasped how that's happened.
The average person is far wealthier now than 30 years ago in absolute terms though.
I thought you were alluding to quantitative easing. We're all having our wealth stripped from us with that.
We're all having our wealth stripped from us with that
Not all. We're not all in this together.
[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1075186/total-uk-wealth-tops-7trn-as-rich-get-richer ]Total UK Wealth Tops £7trn As Rich Get Richer[/url]
Not all. We're not all in this together.Total UK Wealth Tops £7trn As Rich Get Richer
It would be interesting to see how they measure 'household wealth' of the top 10%. I imagine it's largely the asset value of your house.
Not having a house and having a house would certainly drive disparity.
Stripping people of their wealth doesn't work anymore. The wealthy can just move.
No you're right, why works really well is where we let all the wealth accumulate in the hands of a tiny elite, let them get away with paying barely any tax, while we blame the poor for all society's ills, cut their benefits, and leave charities to mop up the mess. It's going great.
No you're right, why works really well is where we let all the wealth accumulate in the hands of a tiny elite, let them get away with paying barely any tax, while we blame the poor for all society's ills, cut their benefits, and leave charities to mop up the mess. It's going great.
You seem to be implying you can strip the wealthy of their wealth, like it's actually an option. It isn't and you can't. Not when other countries don't.
half a million relying on food handouts.. give it a break.. thats the same number of people tesco serve in thier 20 biggest stores in a week.. NO way is that amount of food being given away..
It doesn't have to be. It could be 1 person totaly dependant on the handouts and 499,999 needing a loaf of bred the day before payday (or the other way arround). Also, Please use less full stops.
The gap between rich and poor has been increasing for over 30 years now, ie the wealthy have been getting wealthier and the poor relatively poorer. I think it's fair to say that this policy "doesn't work".
You've spectacularly missed the point. "Poor Joe Blogs" doesn't care how wealthy "Rich John Smith" is. Joe just cares about how much money he has. You could tax John into exile to pay Joe, but then you're left with just Joe, and no more tax revanue, but the gap would be tiny as all that's left are Joe and his friends. Or you could keep the tax system vaguely ballanced and attract Johns friends here as well. The gap would still be large, but you'd get twice as much tax to make Joe's life better.
...assuming Richie Johnnie Rich pays what he actually owes!
You seem to be implying you can strip the wealthy of their wealth, like it's actually an option. It isn't and you can't. Not when other countries don't.
I'd imagine some of these wealthy people might find there are considerable advantages to living/doing business in the 7th richest country in the world.
You've spectacularly missed the point. "Poor Joe Blogs" doesn't care how wealthy "Rich John Smith" is. Joe just cares about how much money he has. You could tax John into exile to pay Joe, but then you're left with just Joe, and no more tax revanue, but the gap would be tiny as all that's left are Joe and his friends. Or you could keep the tax system vaguely ballanced and attract Johns friends here as well. The gap would still be large, but you'd get twice as much tax to make Joe's life better.
Incorrect. Healthy, happy societies have a lower disparity between rich and poor - whatever the actual levels of wealth may be. Quite a lot of statistics to back this up.
5thElefant - Member
...quantitative easing. We're all having our [s]wealth stripped from us[/s] mortgages effectively reduced with that.
fify.
More QE please!
Incorrect. Healthy, happy societies have a lower disparity between rich and poor - whatever the actual levels of wealth may be. Quite a lot of statistics to back this up.
Agreed, but how many of those were achieved through targeting of the rich? I'm thinking of the Eastern Block as a good case study here.
Rasing the quality of life of the poorsest is a good thing, but achieveing it through stripping the wealth of the richest isn't ever going to work. As Lifer says, beyond a point they'll just refuse to pay.
Taking some extream example, the recent influx of middle eastern and Asian money to London. Every time a Sheik buys a Ferrari in Kightsbridge he probably pays more in VAT than the average Brit pays in tax in a year (infact it's probably more like 3 years!). Even if he hides every other peny he has offshore, that still a massive ammount of tax relative to the average.
Given that rising income inequality is a global phenomenon, it's a little tricky to pin on one party - but worth noting that the most rapid increases in inequality (off lower bases) include countries such as the Scandis which are held up as apparent models to copy.
So what is the Tories principle economic weapon? The blunt measure of QE - now coming to counties near you (Japan). And what is QE? It is a deliberate policy to take (steal?) money from creditors and transfer it to debtors. So the main policy weapon of the Tory government is actually a clearly progressive tool that penalises the prudent for the benefit of the less prudent. In the meantime, large areas of spending remain ring fenced as holy grains. And from this we arrive at the direct correlation between food banks and the Tories. Hmmm.......
You've spectacularly missed the point.
With respect it's you who has spectacularly missed the point.
We, and other countries such as the USA, are in a very serious economic mess [u]precisely[/u] because of economic inequality.
[url= http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-instability-of-inequality ]The Instability of Inequality[/url]
Alternatively we are all in mess because of unsustainable levels of borrowing?
And why are there unsustainable levels of borrowing ? Because of low wages.
And why are there unsustainable levels of borrowing ? Because of low wages.
No, because money was essentially free due to low interest rates.
Because of [s]low wages.[/s] [b]low intrest rates which made it cheep to borrow as asset inflation was greater than intrest repayments and rising wages made it affordable which lead to spiraling debt as there was 'free money' in the system. However the economic thoery of 'free money' is prefixed with 'there's no such thing as', so it lead to a crash.[/b]
🙂 CBA. Carry on and stay calm.
Personally I think it's a national disgrace, but until the next election, all we can do is try and alleviate the problem a bit.
If you want to do something about it: http://www.trusselltrust.org/donate
We are also asking our wedding guests to make a donation to them rather than buy us gifts.
The 500,000 people dependent on food banks statistics is tosh, as is using the rise in use of food banks over the last year as a sign that things have got worse.
350,000 (maybe 500,000 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22715451) people are using food banks, fair enough, can't argue with that. But how do we know that those people wouldn't have used a food bank years ago had they been available, or had they known about accessing them sooner? Or how many people use them because they can, not because they have to depend on them?
Using this as a barometer of things getting worse is wholly inaccurate. There are a lot more factors that come in to play with the increase in use of food banks than people being dependent or needing them.
As I said in my earlier post, we can take statistics and spin them any way you want.
As I said in my earlier post, we can take statistics and spin them any way you want.
You can if you like - but it requires some fairly severe logical gymnastics to try and claim that an increasing dependence on food banks isn't a sign of an increasing dependence on food banks.
Taking some extream example, the recent influx of middle eastern and Asian money to London. Every time a Sheik buys a Ferrari in Kightsbridge he probably pays more in VAT than the average Brit pays in tax in a year (infact it's probably more like 3 years!). Even if he hides every other peny he has offshore, that still a massive ammount of tax relative to the average.
Sounds like a good thing to base our economy on - well, that and high-stakes financial gambling and arms trading.
grum - Member
You can if you like - but it requires some fairly severe logical gymnastics to try and claim that an increasing dependence on food banks isn't a sign of an increasing dependence on food banks.
I gave him a 7.6.
grum - it really doesn't take any logical gymnastics.
I work with Home Improvement Agencies who provide free or reliable handyman/home improvement services to the elderly and disabled. They report an increase in use of their services year on year. They don't just put this down to an increase in a [b]need[/b] for their service, they also put this down to an [b]increase in awareness[/b] of their existence and services they offer.
A fair proportion of those who use Food Banks this year would not have known that they even exist until recently. These people may have wanted/needed something like this for years, where as others may have fallen on harder times recently. It's no single sign that things have got worse for anybody.
You could tax John into exile to pay Joe
This is the biggest spin. Making people believe that the rich will leave if they're taxed higher.
If they could leave they would have. But when your job requires you to be in an office 5 days a week, and that office is in London, you can't leave.
If they could leave they would have. But when your job requires you to be in an office 5 days a week, and that office is in London, you can't leave.
If that's the case you're not rich, and you're already paying lots of tax.
A fair proportion of those who use Food Banks this year would not have known that they even exist until recently. These people may have wanted/needed something like this for years, where as others may have fallen on harder times recently. It's no single sign that things have got worse for anybody.
I'm sure that's true to some extent, but it seems likely that this would be a much bigger factor, combined with recent benefit/tax credit cuts:
The cost of basic foodstuffs has leapt by 35 per cent and the cost of heating a home has jumped by 63 per cent in the past five years – a period in which many incomes have risen only marginally or not at all.
Also the direct testimony of people who say that is why they're using food banks:
I was at the Ministry of Defence for 20 years. I'm now unemployed but not old enough for a pension. When the council changed benefit payments on 1 April, I had no money for food. I complained to the council and they suggested a food bank. I have no family and don't want my friends to know about my situation, so had no where else to turn."
If that's the case you're not rich, and you're already paying lots of tax.
Or you have clever tax accountants and a "business" in the Cayman Islands and pay no tax whatsoever.
how dare poor people watch tv or smoke fags!
Maybe if they then can't afford to feed themselves as a result...
Or you have clever tax accountants and a "business" in the Cayman Islands and pay no tax whatsoever.
Most of the contractors I know (i.e. people who do a normal office job but on a day rate paid via their company rather than PAYE) pay almost as much tax as the staff (by percentage) and probably a lot more in absolute terms.
Staff pay NI (inc employers NI which is about 3x higher than employee IIRC?) and 20 to 40% tax.
Contractors pay VAT on their 'rate' (20%), income tax and both lots of NI when they pay themselves (which may be the minimum wage, avoiding tax/NI), corperation tax on the profit (another 20%), then income tax on the dividend at the end of the month. They make their money by being paid 3x more than staff as they have no holliday, pension, or employment rights.
Or you have clever tax accountants and a "business" in the Cayman Islands and pay no tax whatsoever.
In which case, this wouldn't be you:
But when your job requires you to be in an office 5 days a week, and that office is in London, you can't leave.
In which case, this wouldn't be you
Ah, so all those amazing fantastic speculators in London don't actually work there....
Or that Cameron chap.
Some jobs require you to be in a place, regardless of wages.
To be honest though the shrill call of "But they'll LEAVE! Oh noes!" is piffle. There are many more lower-tax places on the planet and I don't see them all upping and leaving.
Just got back from Norway and the level of tax there is what rich people would call 'eye-watering'. Yet for some reason they haven't all fled. Why do you think that is?
The "they'll all leave" theory is based on the 1960's when the top rate of reached an eye watering 95% sort of level. (Mind you, you had to take a shed load of dosh before you got to that level.)
Personally, I have very mixed feelings about personal taxation. I do think we should all pay our fair share. The argument kicks in around about the point you try to define fair.
I've come from the very bottom of the pile, (i.e. just before I was born my parents lived in an old bus in a field with 3 children, and the arrival of a 3 bed council house was a huge leg up for them from there, for which I'm very grateful). I guess now I'm somewhere in the middle of the pile, a director of a small business in which I have 10% of the shares. I don't get to the 40% tax band, and I don't live in the lap of luxury, but I wouldn't say I go short.
The bottom line is that we all have to pay for what we receive one way or another. So personally, I'm very happy to pay for all the services, including those I might not use, but are there if I need them. However, I do also provide jobs for a number of people, pay very handsomely to my local authority for next to no services (when compared to a domestic rate payer). I also pay considerable tax on my companies profits, (which is not necessarily as simple as people think, in that there is not a huge pot of cash somewhere, generally our profits are measured in a value of stock or something which we have reinvested into the business). Plus I pay tax on my earnt income etc etc etc. So I can see why sometimes people appear to pay very little, but feel that they pay a lot, and perhaps in reality do.
So its a very difficult discussion and not at all straightforward, and that is all I'm saying about it.
Regarding the OP. I have been there and done that in my lifetime, and it does frighten me that once again it is necessary. I guess my whole attitude is encapsulated by the state of our roads. I understand the need to cut back, but by christ theres a massive time bomb developing thats going to cost us very dear in the future. Same applies to social costs of benefit bashing IMHO.
You seem to be implying you can strip the wealthy of their wealth, like it's actually an option. It isn't and you can't. Not when other countries don't.
It is and you can. But I think the point being missed here is the extraordinary amount of political clout this small group of wealthy people have and how them having this sort of clout has negatively impacted on our lives.
To be honest though the shrill call of "But they'll LEAVE! Oh noes!" is piffle. There are many more lower-tax places on the planet and I don't see them all upping and leaving.Just got back from Norway and the level of tax there is what rich people would call 'eye-watering'. Yet for some reason they haven't all fled. Why do you think that is?
Well I suppose they could hop off to the back of beyond somewhere that has a low tax rate...but what about quality of life?
Just got back from Norway and the level of tax there is what rich people would call 'eye-watering'. Yet for some reason they haven't all fled. Why do you think that is?
I wouldn't actually object to paying more tax if I felt it wasn't just disappearing into bottomless pit.
In fact, I might look for a job in Norway...
In fact, I might look for a job in Norway...
Living is good there. People are socially conservative but there are fairly strong unions. I stayed in Stavanger where foreign workers are currently at about 20% population now.
If you go for a job look for something in Statoil. Loads of money there. Watch out for mysost/yatost which is a sweet brown cheese.
BTW do the citizens of any country not think that their tax was disappearing into a bottomless pit? A lot of Norwegians want to release some of the oil money to pay for infrastructure but the government won't do it. Saving for a rainy day (please take note UK politicians of all hues!).
EDIT: also the differential between the richest and poorest is a lot smaller than in the UK due to the taxes, so I hear.
