What's wrong with the left?

Well, i am old enough to recall the Labour Government making such a pig’s ear of things they had to grovel to the International Monetary Fund.

What i asked was whether you thought the 83% income tax and 15% special additional tax on monies received from investments made in private companies in hope of a decent return for helping them avoid the grasping hands of the bankers was a good idea.

Are you a financial expert, in honesty I cannot answer that question as my skills are limited in that area.

I do know that because of it we avoided further harm to the people of the country.

Well perhaps you can actually indicate whether the examples I gave you are racist or not. It really is a simple yes or no answer. I am trying to indicate the reality of what I believe is the intrinsic problems of the left which was the question you asked. You may disagree of course but then that would entail saying why such acts are not racist or are acceptable racism. I am keen to know.

Redressing the balance is fine and dandy unless of course you are the one against whom the balance is being redressed. It does raise the moral question as regards is racial discrimination morally indefensible or is it something that is only morally wrong if it is used incorrectly. The latter of course means that someone has to make a decision as regards its correct usage and this is where the left come in. Racial selection in their eyes is just plain wrong and as such must be redressed, Not by the outlawing of racial selection but by empowering racial selection to achieve the corrections they believe are required.
The point about the BPA is that it is an association, whose members have the power of arrest, that disallows voting to white members. Any police association that existed before gave equal voting rights to all members and work only for black police officers. The BNP were taken to court for this very act of discrimination in membership. A Police Association made up of almost entirely white officers was largely because the country was made up almost entirely of white people. 

There have been brutal terrorist attacks in our country committed by extremist religious fundamentalists.
There have been children raped by extremist religious gangs.
And Labour's response to this situation?
To regard people who have a problem with fundamentalist Islam, as if they're racist.

For too long, Labour has sought the votes of Islamist fundamentalists.
To side with Palestine against the Israelis instead of saying "a plague on both your houses".

Support the civilians, oppose fundamentalists.
Oppose terrorists.
Oppose Islamism.

It is not racist to stand against prejudice.

Labour have made rather a lot of mistakes over the last 26 years, I am not convinced they have learned from those mistakes.

Especially when the knee-jerk reaction of many on the left is to instantly blame Israel for the Hamas atrocities.

It's anti-Semitism writ large.

i have an O level in economics which means i probably know more than most chancellors of the exchequer on BOTH sides of the house.

You opened this thread asking for a debate on the policies of the left. I deliberately picked this one as it speaks to the fundamental difference between the old school left and right of my youth.

I have at various times since the age of 14 been employed, unemployed, self employed, a director of a limited company and an employer of staff. As such i contend that i have a wider grasp of economic reality than mist occupants of number 11 in the past century.

If you pop into wikipedia you will find that on two occasions in the past both closely associated with world war 1 and 2 ‘the rich’ were taxed at 134% and 147% respectively through surcharges on funds invested. As an obvioys out and out Marxist that surely makes you glow with pride.

The issue i particularly wished to discuss was Dennis Healey’s decision to screw the nuts off ‘the rich’ and the impact it actually had.

I’m sure you have some grasp of how dividends and bank loans work.

When i studied O Level Economics i was shown how the Bank Of England - a private company, remember - engineers things to create eleven pounds of loans from each pound invested and makes a profit of about three pounds as a result. In short, if you put a pound in a current account, the bank is required to retain about 8p of that and can create loans and overdrafts with the other 92p. But those are bank accounts for which the bank us only required to retain 8p in the pound and can therefore use 84p of the 92p overdraft / loan to person A as a loan offered to person B and 77p of that overdraft can be loaned to person C …

It is the ultimate pyramid ponzi scheme and when you keep multiplying £1 by 0.92 you end up with well over eleven quid of loans with only the bank’s name, the Bank of England’s guarantee to be the lender of last resort and a prayer that the borrowers are good for the repossession of the guarantee capital if their business plans go tits up standing between us and another Lehman Brothers

When i took my O level, authorised overdrafts were about 28% APR.

The point i was getting at was Healey set out to destroy the ability of the corporate business sector to secure funds by the issue of share capital. Most Marxists see only the bull, and particularly the bear speculation that epitomise the worst excesses of the good for nothing middlemen profiteering from the need for business to raise finance. The fact is companies issue shares to raise money for the business and the selling and buying of such at a profit and loss masks the true worth of shares to the company, which is a way to acquire funds for which a fee is paid by declaring a dividend.

Healey’s antics had many adverse effects and it is widely accepted his actions made a shitty situation far worse. I remember Max Bygraves calling himself a real life father christmas as he was one of a mere handful of people earning enough to suffer the 85% tax and 15% NI rate who did not immediately take action to move themselves AND their money out of the country

When Geoffrey Howe dropped the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% the budget commentary programmes all said with one voice the one thing it had done at a stroke is removed any point in being a non UK domiciled person.

So, having laid the above out, i will ask again

Do you think Healey’s 98% tax rate including the 15% surtax on dividends received from investments in shares funding companies who as a result of that funding could invest in production for less than a third of the cost of borrowing from a bank was a goid idea ?