|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 22, 2023 11:46:11 GMT
You paid standing charges when they were Nationalised - are standing charges from private companies somehow worse than standing charges from nationalised ones? As for your other point, it's called competition. When you go to fill up your car you have a choice of filling stations from a range of different companies. They dont all have their own refineries and oil wells - they use the same resource and package it differently. Yes massively worse,and I’ll ask again do you know why? Pay for the investment. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 22, 2023 11:47:46 GMT
This is exactly what I mean - the gullible look at the Sunday Times Rich List and think that there is all this wealth waiting to be taxed. However if they had any sense they would realise that most of the people on that list are not UK citizens - therefore the odds on squeezing them until the pips squeak are somewhat limited..  "squeezing them until the pips squeak" language used in order for you to not face up to the reality, you are a political coward proven by your subservient language. Defending these people who can make fantastic increases in wealth while just about everyone and everything else is being squeezed until the pips squeak, proves your position is idiotic. The information I posted is just those at the very top, there are probably millions more who don't quite make the billionaire bracket. It's not my fault you are that gullible - it takes all sorts. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on May 22, 2023 12:04:19 GMT
Yes massively worse,and I’ll ask again do you know why? Pay for the investment. You are ill informed,it is to pay the failed companies that collapsed and took peoples money. So much for the benefits of privatisation and (non existent competition) that they buggered off with the cash and we have to cough up. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 22, 2023 15:22:56 GMT
You are ill informed,it is to pay the failed companies that collapsed and took peoples money. So much for the benefits of privatisation and (non existent competition) that they buggered off with the cash and we have to cough up. Investment of nearly £160 billion is not to be sneezed at. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on May 22, 2023 19:07:14 GMT
You are ill informed,it is to pay the failed companies that collapsed and took peoples money. So much for the benefits of privatisation and (non existent competition) that they buggered off with the cash and we have to cough up. Investment of nearly £160 billion is not to be sneezed at. You have a link that says the standing charge is for that amount of investment? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 22, 2023 20:21:49 GMT
"squeezing them until the pips squeak" language used in order for you to not face up to the reality, you are a political coward proven by your subservient language. Defending these people who can make fantastic increases in wealth while just about everyone and everything else is being squeezed until the pips squeak, proves your position is idiotic. The information I posted is just those at the very top, there are probably millions more who don't quite make the billionaire bracket. It's not my fault you are that gullible - it takes all sorts. Typical non-debate nonsense, just Rightist denigration ^^^ Your credibility is at zero. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on May 22, 2023 20:25:27 GMT
It's not my fault you are that gullible - it takes all sorts. Typical non-debate nonsense, just Rightist denigration ^^^ Your credibility is at zero. You are becoming very insulting c...2. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 22, 2023 21:22:06 GMT
Oh yes in fact I think that while we're being ridiculous we should make it 150% . What is ridiculous about it - you have just told me that the Laffer Curve does not exist and that people do not change behavour in response to tax levels (the Laffer Curve). OK - forget 100% as that is totally ridiculous. How about something that the Labour Party tried before, a 98% tax rate. have a guess why that was scrapped. I'll give you a hint - it was the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. Its absolutely ridiculous to compare the laffer curve to 100% tax. One study of economists suggests that a marginal income tax rate of 70% is considered a level at which the Laffer curve effect may start to occur. In other words, if income tax rates are 80% and they are cut to 70% – the incentive effect may increase total tax revenue. So we can go to 70% tax? Most right wingers quote the current tax rate of 52% (total tax) as the breaking point, but in fact most wealthy people pay total tax percentage far lower than even this. So plenty of wriggle room there. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 22, 2023 21:47:41 GMT
What is ridiculous about it - you have just told me that the Laffer Curve does not exist and that people do not change behavour in response to tax levels (the Laffer Curve). OK - forget 100% as that is totally ridiculous. How about something that the Labour Party tried before, a 98% tax rate. have a guess why that was scrapped. I'll give you a hint - it was the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. Its absolutely ridiculous to compare the laffer curve to 100% tax. One study of economists suggests that a marginal income tax rate of 70% is considered a level at which the Laffer curve effect may start to occur. In other words, if income tax rates are 80% and they are cut to 70% – the incentive effect may increase total tax revenue. So we can go to 70% tax? Most right wingers quote the current tax rate of 52% (total tax) as the breaking point, but in fact most wealthy people pay total tax percentage far lower than even this. So plenty of wriggle room there. So the Laffer curve does exist? - yesterday you told me that the Laffer curve did not exist and now you are saying it does - just arguing over the rate. Currently we have marginal tax rates of 70% - so if you think there is much prospect in producing significant extra revenue for the Treasury by increasing taxes then you are going to be massively disappointed when people change their financial affairs. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 23, 2023 6:06:42 GMT
Its absolutely ridiculous to compare the laffer curve to 100% tax. One study of economists suggests that a marginal income tax rate of 70% is considered a level at which the Laffer curve effect may start to occur. In other words, if income tax rates are 80% and they are cut to 70% – the incentive effect may increase total tax revenue. So we can go to 70% tax? Most right wingers quote the current tax rate of 52% (total tax) as the breaking point, but in fact most wealthy people pay total tax percentage far lower than even this. So plenty of wriggle room there. So the Laffer curve does exist? - yesterday you told me that the Laffer curve did not exist and now you are saying it does - just arguing over the rate. Currently we have marginal tax rates of 70% - so if you think there is much prospect in producing significant extra revenue for the Treasury by increasing taxes then you are going to be massively disappointed when people change their financial affairs. Every time we reach the so called Laffer curve ceiling they simply raise it. For all intense and purposes it exists in name only, like unicorns. As for a wealth tax, many wealthy people derive much of the income simply from increases in asset values, getting richer each year just from owning things like land and property. They have no need to sell these items and pay tax on that sale, its dead money sitting with people who already have so much they cannot spend it. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 23, 2023 6:16:23 GMT
Typical non-debate nonsense, just Rightist denigration ^^^ Your credibility is at zero. You are becoming very insulting c...2. Insulting those who insult me. Whatever next IMO Righties have got away for far too long with their denigrations and insinuations, it is time for them to be held to account. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on May 23, 2023 6:19:39 GMT
You are becoming very insulting c...2. Insulting those who insult me. Whatever next IMO Righties have got away for far too long with their denigrations and insinuations, it is time for them to be held to account. Talking of accounts, do you have any money you could let me have? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 23, 2023 6:35:06 GMT
You are becoming very insulting c...2. Insulting those who insult me. Whatever next IMO Righties have got away for far too long with their denigrations and insinuations, it is time for them to be held to account. Well as you are insult to anyone with at least some intelligence, it seems what goes around comes around. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 23, 2023 6:41:05 GMT
So the Laffer curve does exist? - yesterday you told me that the Laffer curve did not exist and now you are saying it does - just arguing over the rate. Currently we have marginal tax rates of 70% - so if you think there is much prospect in producing significant extra revenue for the Treasury by increasing taxes then you are going to be massively disappointed when people change their financial affairs. Every time we reach the so called Laffer curve ceiling they simply raise it. For all intense and purposes it exists in name only, like unicorns. As for a wealth tax, many wealthy people derive much of the income simply from increases in asset values, getting richer each year just from owning things like land and property. They have no need to sell these items and pay tax on that sale, its dead money sitting with people who already have so much they cannot spend it. Oh we want a wealth tax now - must be due to the stunning success of the one they had in France.. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on May 23, 2023 8:30:08 GMT
Investment of nearly £160 billion is not to be sneezed at. You have a link that says the standing charge is for that amount of investment? And that’ll be a no then |
|
