Jump to content

who will be the next pm ?


Recommended Posts

Just now, Born Hunter said:

Let's just put things in perspective. It's not like this top 0.1% are not paying tax on 95% of their income. Everything over like 50k they're paying 40% on. 

As I know I don’t need to tell you, the less you tax anybody the more incentive there is for them to do well.

I have never agreed with penalising success. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 491
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How some people have the audacity to moan that our country is becoming like the third world when they openly welcome the third world into our country is beyond my logic !

They inherited low inflation, low mortgage rates tied to low interest rates. 14k police, but an untold number of illegal and legal immigrants, countering all investment in NHS schools etc. G

Labour were apoplectic with the Tory's planned NI rise....... Now Labour are apoplectic that the planned NI rise is cancelled ! Labours default setting is simply to oppose anything the Tory'

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Nicepix said:

And who repairs and services all this equipment? It will create employment, hopefully some of it in the UK.

Yeah sure, I'm just saying it won't be proportionate. Most of the budget will go into things, not soldiers. And lean crewing and manufacturing is a big thing in the UK compared to the US. We design a lot of our processes and systems to require very minimal people.

All I'm saying is don't expect 100k bodies in the Army again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WILF said:

As I know I don’t need to tell you, the less you tax anybody the more incentive there is for them to do well.

I have never agreed with penalising success. 

Completely. My comment wasn't aimed at you, but more in support of yours. I just think a lot of people genuinely think no one now pays tax on earnings over 150k. The 45% tax rate has just been dropped to 40%. Whoopie f***ing do. How dare they only have 40% of their earnings stolen! :laugh:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made. For instance taxing rich people because they can afford it. This stifles enterprise and it is the rich people that often create employment through their enterprises. Taxing the rich also results in more money being hidden abroad instead of being invested in the UK.

Not chasing those who do cash in hand jobs creates unfair competition for legitimate trades. Many trades are struggling with the taxes and necessary legislation as it is without losing work to casuals on the black.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm! A class war?

Starmer is a knighted barrister. Dodds was a lecturer at Kings College. Shabana Mahmood is also a barrister. Rachel Reeves was an economist at the Bank of England and the British Embassy in Washington. David Lammy, another barrister as is Nick Thomas-Symons..................

Just the sort of people you'd meet at the dog track 🤔

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nicepix said:

Hmmm! A class war?

Starmer is a knighted barrister. Dodds was a lecturer at Kings College. Shabana Mahmood is also a barrister. Rachel Reeves was an economist at the Bank of England and the British Embassy in Washington. David Lammy, another barrister as is Nick Thomas-Symons..................

Just the sort of people you'd meet at the dog track 🤔

Theyre just VVankers the lot of them

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

Hmmm! A class war?

Starmer is a knighted barrister. Dodds was a lecturer at Kings College. Shabana Mahmood is also a barrister. Rachel Reeves was an economist at the Bank of England and the British Embassy in Washington. David Lammy, another barrister as is Nick Thomas-Symons..................

Just the sort of people you'd meet at the dog track 🤔

More like the bogs on Wandsworth Common ! Lol 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sandymere said:
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

I’m not saying This Morning has started a revolution, but maybe we’ve had our fill of a few getting ahead while the...

 

This is the woman who wrote that article.

I can almost guarantee her husband hates every minute of every day of his sexless miserable life.

Screenshot_20220926-164310.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ken's Deputy said:

Can't she get reconstructive surgery, for that, poor cow?

 

Not since the Tories ruined the NHS by flooding the country with immigrants. It's ok though, if labour get in they will increase immigration to staff the NHS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/09/2022 at 18:52, sandymere said:

The International Monetary Fund, the champion of capitalist orthodoxy, said unambiguously, “when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down”.

You mean like this research by the IMF?

Abstract

This paper assesses the macroeconomic and distributional impact of personal income tax (PIT) reforms in the U.S. drawing on a multi-sector heterogenous agents model in which consumers have non-homothetic preferences and sectors differ in terms of their relative labor and skill intensity. The model is calibrated to key characteristics of the US economy. We find that (i) PIT cuts stimulate growth but the supply side effects are never large enough to offset the revenue loss from lower marginal tax rates; (ii) PIT cuts do “trickle-down” the income distribution: tax cuts stimulate demand for non-tradable services which raise the wages and employment prospects of low-skilled workers even if the tax cut is not directly incident on them; (iii) A revenue neutral tax plan that reduces PIT for middle-income groups, raises the consumption tax, and expands the Earned Income Tax Credit can have modestly positive effects on growth while reducing income polarization; (iv) The growth effects from lower income taxes are concentrated in non-tradable service sectors although the increased demand for tradable goods generate positive spillovers to other countries; (v) Tax cuts targeted to higher income groups have a stronger growth impact than tax cuts for middle income households but significantly worsen income polarization, even after taking into account trickle-down effects and an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is, trickle down has case studies that support it and oppose it. Economics is far to complex to expect cause and effect to be so easy to study.

Not to mention, this budget isn’t really trickle down economics, it’s tax cuts across the earning spectrum.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

The fact is, trickle down has case studies that support it and oppose it. Economics is far to complex to expect cause and effect to be so easy to study.

Not to mention, this budget isn’t really trickle down economics, it’s tax cuts across the earning spectrum.

Do you think " tax cuts across the earning spectrum" will leave you and me better off?

The markets have been spooked at the rigid ideology of Kwarteng and Truss and the pound has nose dived. This in turn means we pay more for petrol and food, since we sold off our oil fields and import 60% of our food.

Everybody parroted the mantra "austerity, austerity", now we are told debt doesn't matter and we can borrow our way out of economic shit. The problem is we are  having to pay over 4% to borrow. This is a rate which even Greece didn't have to endure when it was baled out. So those in the know reckon we are a bigger  basket case than Greece! I'm pretty sure I'm  not going to better off. Will you?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

Do you think " tax cuts across the earning spectrum" will leave you and me better off?

The markets have been spooked at the rigid ideology of Kwarteng and Truss and the pound has nose dived. This in turn means we pay more for petrol and food, since we sold off our oil fields and import 60% of our food.

Everybody parroted the mantra "austerity, austerity", now we are told debt doesn't matter and we can borrow our way out of economic shit. The problem is we are  having to pay over 4% to borrow. This is a rate which even Greece didn't have to endure when it was baled out. So those in the know reckon we are a bigger  basket case than Greece! I'm pretty sure I'm  not going to better off. Will you?

 

I have no idea. I’m just challenging the factual false dross I read on here to give people another view point.

If tax cuts never work then tax everyone 100%.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...