Forum menu
That 22bn
 

That 22bn

Posts: 31079
Full Member
 

And also to make sure that government spending doesn't just end up making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

But if we don't need "their taxes"... then we don't need "my taxes"... why am I paying?


 
Posted : 27/09/2024 10:30 am
Posts: 35035
Full Member
 

 why am I paying?

The very short answer to that is - Do you want to take your wages home in a wheelbarrow?


 
Posted : 27/09/2024 10:33 am
Posts: 7512
Free Member
 

Hands up those who think that the country would be significantly improved if a handful of uber-rich tax-avoiders ****ed off to Monaco or wherever else they wish to live out their vacuous lives.

Some might think it's great that oil sheiks and russian kleptocrats have bought up huge tracts of london to keep as their private wealth stores and fiefdoms. I disagree with that perspective.


 
Posted : 27/09/2024 10:33 am
davros, oldnpastit, leffeboy and 3 people reacted
Posts: 35035
Full Member
 

I've long held that past a certain threshold you should be banned from voting. That if your assets or income insulate you from the day to day worry of paying the bills, putting food on the table, paying the mortgage etc etc then you shouldn't get a say in how the rest of us organise things.

I'd make a great PM, vote for me...


 
Posted : 27/09/2024 10:42 am
johnnystorm, oldnpastit, leffeboy and 3 people reacted
Posts: 163
Free Member
 

^^the slight risk there would be if the wealthy then started trying to influence the policy makers directly.. a few gifts here and there, expensive holidays, jollies to events etc

I know it's unlikely but even politicians can lose track of their morals at times.


 
Posted : 27/09/2024 11:04 am
leffeboy and leffeboy reacted
Posts: 1001
Free Member
 

I thought we could just wish the £22bn away in any case? Don't we just chant "Em-Em-Teeeee" over and over again whilst waving a sprig of Heather over it?

In response to the disqualification to vote with assets over £x - I have advocated in the past an age-weighting on the vote. The longer a voter of 18+ has (according to the death tables) to live with the consequences of a vote, the greater the weighting. Parents of children under 18 also favourably weighted to take into consideration the impact on 1st generation offspring.

It would be a much better place if it was run with the 30+ years impact on the lives of the young to the forefront. Rather than the 5-10 years that people with huge assets and pensions have left.


 
Posted : 27/09/2024 12:02 pm
Posts: 15692
Free Member
 

I’d make a great PM, vote for me…

Let's see you in a suit.


 
Posted : 27/09/2024 12:11 pm
Posts: 7124
Full Member
 

Hands up those who think that the country would be significantly improved if a handful of uber-rich tax-avoiders **** off to Monaco or wherever else they wish to live out their vacuous lives.

*raises hand*


 
Posted : 27/09/2024 12:14 pm
Posts: 1001
Free Member
 

Let’s see you in a suit.

Who's paying?


 
Posted : 27/09/2024 12:34 pm
Posts: 13349
Free Member
 

Let’s see you in a suit.

What type?


 
Posted : 27/09/2024 10:21 pm
Posts: 1754
Full Member
 

They should get Lord Ali to pay off the debt as he seems to pay for everything for them already


 
Posted : 27/09/2024 11:27 pm
Posts: 12664
Free Member
 

While I agree with an upper age limit and a wealth limit on voting (I would also add a political awareness test) it is not democracy is it as each of us narrows down who can or cannot vote.


 
Posted : 28/09/2024 7:48 am
Page 5 / 5