|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 3, 2024 6:19:27 GMT
"The problem with trying to increase taxation by squeezing the rich is that there aren't enough of them."
This is the key point - and the more you squeeze them the less of them you get. We already have record levels of taxation and as a result massive outflows of high net worth individuals who are tired of being used as cash cows - if you want public spending of scandinavian levels you need taxation of scandinavian levels - ie: 25% VAT.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 3, 2024 7:02:40 GMT
I was reading an article the other day about the top 1% of income, they have grown their fortunes exponentially since the banking crisis(Con) but you can bet all this talk of more taxation won't be affecting them, no what the establishment mean, is you have more you can give.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 3, 2024 8:17:29 GMT
They are not going to be giving you anything if they have all fucked off to somewhere else with lower taxes...
The French found that out when they introduced (and then rapidly dropped) their wealth tax.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Jun 3, 2024 10:48:54 GMT
I was reading an article the other day about the top 1% of income, they have grown their fortunes exponentially since the banking crisis(Con) but you can bet all this talk of more taxation won't be affecting them, no what the establishment mean, is you have more you can give. The left have always pointed at the "top 1%" and suggested everybody could have a share of that pie. It's a bullshit argument. It's just a dog whistle so you will agree with the rest of the things they say. Top 1% of income, or top 1% of wealth? They are very different things. Footballers, pop & movie stars are probably the top 1% of income... but the billionaires will have very little income. They will be living off loans secured against the value of shares that they own, which they repay when they cash in the shares. Nobody has explained to me how you tax the shares that people hold. If you taxed Bezos on his shares he would have to keep selling them to pay the tax and before long he would no longer hold enough to be in charge of his own company lol. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 3, 2024 11:28:21 GMT
Don't fuck about - go for it. What could possibly go wrong?   You take me too literally. I was describing the kind of emotional response re taxes that some of the more obnoxious amongst us can trigger in me. The obnoxious attitudes of Rat On A Cliff, makes me want to see people like him have to pay shedloads. But that is an emotional response, and not an actual policy suggestion. I hope you can understand the difference. I forgot to acknowledge the stereotypical name calling typical from lefties like you with no logical argument so I l'll correct my omission SRB ? what could that possibly be an acronym for ?( look it up if you don't understand the word) Maybe ...... Self righteous bastard ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2024 11:30:18 GMT
Benefits payments for the unemployed are paid at subsistence levels, for which reason most of what is left after paying the greedy landlord is well below tax threshold levels anyway. What in any case would be the point of paying more than subsistence just so they can pay tax? Are you such a stupid twat that you think it makes sense to give people more than they need so as to claim some of it back in tax at great bureaucratic cost? Instead of simply only giving them what they need to start with? It is a total waste of resources to give to people then take some of it back instead of simply only giving them what they need in the first place. Or perhaps the system is less stupid than you obviously are and has already figured that out. You are seething with vindictive malice borne largely of ignorance, and as such are the sort of typical scum who'd let the hungry starve to death whilst scoffing your foie gras and smoked salmon Personally, you are a walking, talking argument for taxing the better off, simply by demonstrating by example what mean spirited assholes some of you seem to be. Your attitude here makes me think you ought to be taxed until your eyes water. Ah that standard lefty dishonest crap about subsistence levels of welfare spongers Benefits for spongers aren't a single payment, they come as a package and one benefit opens the doors for even more ''eligibility'', just like buses Even with the so called benefits cap in greater London (only marginally less outside GL)as a basic the single parent with a child gets handout income of £25323 p.a. tax free plus if they want they can also earn £793 per month on top without affecting handouts bringing their annual tax free income to £34839 pa Not bad for doing sweet fanny adams , hardly subsistence and nearly treble the personal allowance allowed to normal people and lefties like you call spongers ''poor'' and think this is fair , anyone who disagrees is ''mean spirited '' . ( if they can get one of the household with a ''disability'' label like ADHD / ASD /anxiety etc the skies the limit as there's no cap) If you’re in a couple £486.98 per week £2,110.25 per month If you’re a single parent and your children live with you £486.98 per week £2,110.25 per month If you’re a single adult £326.29 per week £1,413.92 per month gov.uk Well you are clearly talking out of your arse as usual. The amount of UC for a single adult over 25 is £393.45 a month!!!. Not a week. For a single adult under 25 it is only £311.68 a month!!!
In addition to this you would get an extra £287.92 per month, for each additional child, which for most people would get them nowhere 2k a month. A couple over the age of 25 would only get £617.60 per month, dropping to less than £500 per month if both are under 25. Any payments above these levels for rent are for the landlord's benefit, not the claimant's These facts are easily checkable via the government's own website. There is absolutely no excuse for you to be spouting such absolute nonsense. Did you actually believe that a single adult benefit claimant gets over £1400 a month? You need to start thinking with your brain and not your bollocks and start talking out of your mouth instead of your arse. And get your facts right before posting ill informed twaddle. Check it out for yourself.... www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2024 11:34:40 GMT
Ah, so the problem with taxation is that the poor don't pay enough of it. Of course it is. lol The problem with trying to increase taxation by squeezing the rich is that there aren't enough of them. The top 1% already pay 30% of taxation. But under Gordon Brown (with his near 50% big state) more than 50% of the country became net beneficiaries of the tax system - in fact income tax in particular has become a very expensive money redistribution system. There's basically no net revenue from income tax. So the problem is definitely that the poor don't pay enough net tax. And the reason is that many of the "poor" people are not as poor as HMRC thinks. Almost every tradesman I use gives discounts for cash. But it's actually quite difficult now for the wealthy to avoid tax. That oft quoted statistic of course conveniently ignores NI and VAT, not to mention Council Tax, Fuel Duty, and so on |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 3, 2024 11:37:37 GMT
Ah that standard lefty dishonest crap about subsistence levels of welfare spongers Benefits for spongers aren't a single payment, they come as a package and one benefit opens the doors for even more ''eligibility'', just like buses Even with the so called benefits cap in greater London (only marginally less outside GL)as a basic the single parent with a child gets handout income of £25323 p.a. tax free plus if they want they can also earn £793 per month on top without affecting handouts bringing their annual tax free income to £34839 pa Not bad for doing sweet fanny adams , hardly subsistence and nearly treble the personal allowance allowed to normal people and lefties like you call spongers ''poor'' and think this is fair , anyone who disagrees is ''mean spirited '' . ( if they can get one of the household with a ''disability'' label like ADHD / ASD /anxiety etc the skies the limit as there's no cap) If you’re in a couple £486.98 per week £2,110.25 per month If you’re a single parent and your children live with you £486.98 per week £2,110.25 per month If you’re a single adult £326.29 per week £1,413.92 per month gov.uk Well you are clearly talking out of your arse as usual. The amount of UC for a single adult over 25 is £393.45 a month!!!. Not a week. For a single adult under 25 it is only £311.68 a month!!!
In addition to this you would get an extra £287.92 per month, for each additional child, which for most people would get them nowhere 2k a month. A couple over the age of 25 would only get £617.60 per month, dropping to less than £500 per month if both are under 25. Any payments above these levels for rent are for the landlord's benefit, not the claimant's These facts are easily checkable via the government's own website. There is absolutely no excuse for you to be spouting such absolute nonsense. Did you actually believe that a single adult benefit claimant gets over £1400 a month? You need to start thinking with your brain and not your bollocks and start talking out of your mouth instead of your arse. And get your facts right before posting ill informed twaddle. Check it out for yourself.... www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-getAs previously posted my figures were a direct c&p from gov.uk for the benefits package whereas you ( as per most lefties ) try to pretend that a sponger receives merely one benefit) For a normal contributing person to achieve the untaxed £ 25000 of a sponger they'd need to be earning £33000 pa before tax It's an untaxed benefits PACKAGE - far exceeeding the personal tax allowance and like buses one benefit opens the further benefit doors for others , but lefties don't like dealing with facts and prefer their made up ill informed rubbish Tis you , as usual posting out of your rear end (you even try to pretend that free/subsidised housing is not for the benefit of the sponger claiming it - un- believable . Normal people have to pay for their housing out of their taxed income- why should spongers get it gratis?) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2024 13:32:40 GMT
Well you are clearly talking out of your arse as usual. The amount of UC for a single adult over 25 is £393.45 a month!!!. Not a week. For a single adult under 25 it is only £311.68 a month!!!
In addition to this you would get an extra £287.92 per month, for each additional child, which for most people would get them nowhere 2k a month. A couple over the age of 25 would only get £617.60 per month, dropping to less than £500 per month if both are under 25. Any payments above these levels for rent are for the landlord's benefit, not the claimant's These facts are easily checkable via the government's own website. There is absolutely no excuse for you to be spouting such absolute nonsense. Did you actually believe that a single adult benefit claimant gets over £1400 a month? You need to start thinking with your brain and not your bollocks and start talking out of your mouth instead of your arse. And get your facts right before posting ill informed twaddle. Check it out for yourself.... www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-getAs previously posted my figures were a direct c&p from gov.uk for the benefits package whereas you ( as per most lefties ) try to pretend that a sponger receives merely one benefit) For a normal contributing person to achieve the untaxed £ 25000 of a sponger they'd need to be earning £33000 pa before tax It's an untaxed benefits PACKAGE - far exceeeding the personal tax allowance and like buses one benefit opens the further benefit doors for others , but lefties don't like dealing with facts and prefer their made up ill informed rubbish Tis you , as usual posting out of your rear end (you even try to pretend that free/subsidised housing is not for the benefit of the sponger claiming it - un- believable . Normal people have to pay for their housing out of their taxed income- why should spongers get it gratis?) If you are going to talk shit and pluck figures out of the air without any evidence, when I have posted a link to the government's own source for the actual figures, fake news borne of ignorance and malice is obviously more important to you than facts. Do you not understand that UC rolls most benefits into one? The main exceptions being Council Tax Benefit, which only poorer pensioners get paid in full, and PIP which is not means tested at all but is a disability payment based on the severity of any disability. The millionaire in a wheelchair will get exactly the same as the pauper in a wheelchair. Besides, no group sponges more off the working man than you pensioners, most of whom are already better off than the people you sponge off. You fucking entitled hypocrite!!! And do you really think the poor should be requited to pay £12k rents out of £8k incomes or stupid shit like that? Are you really so arithmetically stupid? Or are you really such an evil and malicious little cunt that you think the poor should all be starving on the streets without homes as in Kolkata or something. You really are a walking, talking advocate for the desirability of taxing you so heavily that you fuck off somewhere else. People like you are very persuasive when it comes to showcasing your inherent evil. You are the best argument I have seen for voting Labour all week, lol |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jun 3, 2024 13:55:24 GMT
Ah, so the problem with taxation is that the poor don't pay enough of it. Of course it is. lol The problem with trying to increase taxation by squeezing the rich is that there aren't enough of them. The top 1% already pay 30% of taxation. But under Gordon Brown (with his near 50% big state) more than 50% of the country became net beneficiaries of the tax system - in fact income tax in particular has become a very expensive money redistribution system. There's basically no net revenue from income tax. So the problem is definitely that the poor don't pay enough net tax. And the reason is that many of the "poor" people are not as poor as HMRC thinks. Almost every tradesman I use gives discounts for cash. But it's actually quite difficult now for the wealthy to avoid tax. Taxation of wealth should be an equalised percentage of wealth owned. So we are ALL paying the same. There are some in the top 1% paying a lesser percentage of tax than people on NMW - that is shameful. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 3, 2024 14:03:40 GMT
Truss was in charge, and it was the sudden implementation of her mini budget that knocked £425 billion of pension funds' assets and plunged the UK onto the brink of recession.
Apart from that, she was fine...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 3, 2024 14:10:50 GMT
Truss was in charge, and it was the sudden implementation of her mini budget that knocked £425 billion of pension funds' assets and plunged the UK onto the brink of recession.
Apart from that, she was fine...
So explain why Jeremy Hunt within a year after Truss being ousted more or less had the same budget as Truss, yet his was hailed a great success? ... something more than a bit odd about that. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 3, 2024 14:34:09 GMT
Truss was in charge, and it was the sudden implementation of her mini budget that knocked £425 billion of pension funds' assets and plunged the UK onto the brink of recession.
Apart from that, she was fine...
So explain why Jeremy Hunt within a year after Truss being ousted more or less had the same budget as Truss, yet his was hailed a great success? ... something more than a bit odd about that. Hunt scrapped the Truss budget that worried the markets, regained a portion of stability and international confidence, then introduced his budget in a totally different environment... |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 3, 2024 15:02:34 GMT
So explain why Jeremy Hunt within a year after Truss being ousted more or less had the same budget as Truss, yet his was hailed a great success? ... something more than a bit odd about that. Hunt scrapped the Truss budget that worried the markets, regained a portion of stability and international confidence, then introduced his budget in a totally different environment... Nothing economically had changed since Truss budget and Hunt budget, interest rates are still sky high, inflation was still as high when Hunt did his budget, granted it's come down a bit, but not enough for the BoE to lower interest rates, so to me there was no 'totally different environment' ... The markets were spooked but not sure it was Truss budget that triggered it. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 3, 2024 15:13:17 GMT
As previously posted my figures were a direct c&p from gov.uk for the benefits package whereas you ( as per most lefties ) try to pretend that a sponger receives merely one benefit) For a normal contributing person to achieve the untaxed £ 25000 of a sponger they'd need to be earning £33000 pa before tax It's an untaxed benefits PACKAGE - far exceeeding the personal tax allowance and like buses one benefit opens the further benefit doors for others , but lefties don't like dealing with facts and prefer their made up ill informed rubbish Tis you , as usual posting out of your rear end (you even try to pretend that free/subsidised housing is not for the benefit of the sponger claiming it - un- believable . Normal people have to pay for their housing out of their taxed income- why should spongers get it gratis?) If you are going to talk shit and pluck figures out of the air without any evidence, when I have posted a link to the government's own source for the actual figures, fake news borne of ignorance and malice is obviously more important to you than facts. Do you not understand that UC rolls most benefits into one? The main exceptions being Council Tax Benefit, which only poorer pensioners get paid in full, and PIP which is not means tested at all but is a disability payment based on the severity of any disability. The millionaire in a wheelchair will get exactly the same as the pauper in a wheelchair. Besides, no group sponges more off the working man than you pensioners, most of whom are already better off than the people you sponge off. You fucking entitled hypocrite!!! And do you really think the poor should be requited to pay £12k rents out of £8k incomes or stupid shit like that? Are you really so arithmetically stupid? Or are you really such an evil and malicious little cunt that you think the poor should all be starving on the streets without homes as in Kolkata or something. You really are a walking, talking advocate for the desirability of taxing you so heavily that you fuck off somewhere else. People like you are very persuasive when it comes to showcasing your inherent evil. You are the best argument I have seen for voting Labour all week, lol My post with full evidence , as now stated for a third time was a c&p directly from the linked gov.uk . Figures as per April 2024. Perhaps you have reading comprehension issues or like many lefties think that if you shout loud enough or insult crudely enough another lefty might listen to your disingenuous ramblings ? You think I'm a pensioner too ? More unevidenced lefty ramblings . |
|
