FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Paying off The Deficit
Paying off The Deficit
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see Kier Starmers suggestion on bonds? Im not a financial expert so what's your thoughts? Surely a better and less painful option the Tories condone (austerity for those least able to burden) ? " The Conservative Northern Research Group put this idea forward a few weeks ago! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see Kier Starmers suggestion on bonds? Im not a financial expert so what's your thoughts? Surely a better and less painful option the Tories condone (austerity for those least able to burden) ? The Conservative Northern Research Group put this idea forward a few weeks ago! " Yup. I watched SKS speak and for the life of me I 'still' can't remember anything he says. lol. Even when he's stealing other people ideas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see Kier Starmers suggestion on bonds? Im not a financial expert so what's your thoughts? Surely a better and less painful option the Tories condone (austerity for those least able to burden) ? " Stupid it is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul it is a really bad idea it is why labour cannot be trusted to run the economy. Starmer has gone down in my estimation a lot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see Kier Starmers suggestion on bonds? Im not a financial expert so what's your thoughts? Surely a better and less painful option the Tories condone (austerity for those least able to burden) ? Stupid it is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul it is a really bad idea it is why labour cannot be trusted to run the economy. Starmer has gone down in my estimation a lot" I'm sure he is devoed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see Kier Starmers suggestion on bonds? Im not a financial expert so what's your thoughts? Surely a better and less painful option the Tories condone (austerity for those least able to burden) ? Stupid it is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul it is a really bad idea it is why labour cannot be trusted to run the economy. Starmer has gone down in my estimation a lot I'm sure he is devoed." I have heard that after reading Emma’s comment he has decided to resign | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see Kier Starmers suggestion on bonds? Im not a financial expert so what's your thoughts? Surely a better and less painful option the Tories condone (austerity for those least able to burden) ? Stupid it is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul it is a really bad idea it is why labour cannot be trusted to run the economy. Starmer has gone down in my estimation a lot I'm sure he is devoed. I have heard that after reading Emma’s comment he has decided to resign "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pinching ideas of tories. That's gonna go down well" does it matter who or where the idea comes from if it works great | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pinching ideas of tories. That's gonna go down welldoes it matter who or where the idea comes from if it works great " No, it doesn't matter. I think people were thinking this new re-launch for SKS was going to showcase new thinking, new ideas, an identity - instead they present existing Tory ideas and an already used Tory policy...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pinching ideas of tories. That's gonna go down welldoes it matter who or where the idea comes from if it works great " Suppose that depends how important you rate ideology. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politics aside.. would it help? " People will only invest if the returns are worth it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politics aside.. would it help? People will only invest if the returns are worth it. " This is what I was thinking.. more likely the rich rather than the less well off will benefit as mentioned above | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politics aside.. would it help? People will only invest if the returns are worth it. This is what I was thinking.. more likely the rich rather than the less well off will benefit as mentioned above " If the return waa say a flat 5%, then everyone benefits the same, rich or poor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politics aside.. would it help? People will only invest if the returns are worth it. This is what I was thinking.. more likely the rich rather than the less well off will benefit as mentioned above If the return waa say a flat 5%, then everyone benefits the same, rich or poor. " Yeah.. well 5% of what though lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He seemed to waffle on for quite some time with really only 2 salient things to offer - both off which are borrowed from the Tories. Recovery Bonds (CPS think-tank idea) and Start up Loans (George Osbourne did this back in 2012). Disappointing. " Proves my point it is a bad idea Osbourne was a poor chancellor and made a lot of anti Breit forcast that are total bullshit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see Kier Starmers suggestion on bonds? Im not a financial expert so what's your thoughts? Surely a better and less painful option the Tories condone (austerity for those least able to burden) ? The Conservative Northern Research Group put this idea forward a few weeks ago! Yup. I watched SKS speak and for the life of me I 'still' can't remember anything he says. lol. Even when he's stealing other people ideas. " Yep ^^^^^^ He’s always so terrified of misspeaking he ends up saying nothing. Hopeless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He seemed to waffle on for quite some time with really only 2 salient things to offer - both off which are borrowed from the Tories. Recovery Bonds (CPS think-tank idea) and Start up Loans (George Osbourne did this back in 2012). Disappointing. Proves my point it is a bad idea Osbourne was a poor chancellor and made a lot of anti Breit forcast that are total bullshit" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I still have hope for Starmer, but he does need to be braver though. I know we are far from out of COVID, and I think the mentality of the British people when we are in a crisis is not to rock the boat too much, but it wouldn't hurt for him to start driving in the knife. There's plenty of leverage to use." Not time yet it is to soon and people would resent him for it the election is years away | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He seemed to waffle on for quite some time with really only 2 salient things to offer - both off which are borrowed from the Tories. Recovery Bonds (CPS think-tank idea) and Start up Loans (George Osbourne did this back in 2012). Disappointing. Proves my point it is a bad idea Osbourne was a poor chancellor and made a lot of anti Breit forcast that are total bullshit" Who is Anti Breit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I still have hope for Starmer, but he does need to be braver though. I know we are far from out of COVID, and I think the mentality of the British people when we are in a crisis is not to rock the boat too much, but it wouldn't hurt for him to start driving in the knife. There's plenty of leverage to use." The acid test will be how he deals with boris and co post covid. He has got enough ammunition to tear them apart but he seems to be moving labour closer to them. I personally think the party needs to split..there are huge differences between the 2 wings that seem irreparable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I still have hope for Starmer, but he does need to be braver though. I know we are far from out of COVID, and I think the mentality of the British people when we are in a crisis is not to rock the boat too much, but it wouldn't hurt for him to start driving in the knife. There's plenty of leverage to use. The acid test will be how he deals with boris and co post covid. He has got enough ammunition to tear them apart but he seems to be moving labour closer to them. I personally think the party needs to split..there are huge differences between the 2 wings that seem irreparable." A Conservative's dream!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I still have hope for Starmer, but he does need to be braver though. I know we are far from out of COVID, and I think the mentality of the British people when we are in a crisis is not to rock the boat too much, but it wouldn't hurt for him to start driving in the knife. There's plenty of leverage to use. The acid test will be how he deals with boris and co post covid. He has got enough ammunition to tear them apart but he seems to be moving labour closer to them. I personally think the party needs to split..there are huge differences between the 2 wings that seem irreparable." Eh that was my suggestion months ago and I didn't think you liked it at the time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I still have hope for Starmer, but he does need to be braver though. I know we are far from out of COVID, and I think the mentality of the British people when we are in a crisis is not to rock the boat too much, but it wouldn't hurt for him to start driving in the knife. There's plenty of leverage to use. The acid test will be how he deals with boris and co post covid. He has got enough ammunition to tear them apart but he seems to be moving labour closer to them. I personally think the party needs to split..there are huge differences between the 2 wings that seem irreparable. Eh that was my suggestion months ago and I didn't think you liked it at the time? " The Labour party and the Tories are both made up of 3 groups each. Realistically, none can form a government on their own, so they reside almost parasitically inside their host party, pushing it the way they want. Both parties would break up over time if we had PR. until then it won't happen unless it's forced. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I still have hope for Starmer, but he does need to be braver though. I know we are far from out of COVID, and I think the mentality of the British people when we are in a crisis is not to rock the boat too much, but it wouldn't hurt for him to start driving in the knife. There's plenty of leverage to use. The acid test will be how he deals with boris and co post covid. He has got enough ammunition to tear them apart but he seems to be moving labour closer to them. I personally think the party needs to split..there are huge differences between the 2 wings that seem irreparable. Eh that was my suggestion months ago and I didn't think you liked it at the time? " Dont remember that. I think a split is the only way forward | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If Labour split the both parties will need to play a longer game and build support. I doubt they would be electable anytime soon. Just look at the current picture. How can you not actually be smashing it in the polls against the current incumbents? " Probally a variety of reasons. I suspect he is holding back till covid is over. I'll say 1thing for the Tories, they certainly seem to keep their division much more in house. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just putting it out there . How about taxing the non domiciles and the trust funds in the Caribbean. That should cover it comfortably. Only at the going rate nothing more. " They have already swerved taxing the most well off a whole 1% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I still have hope for Starmer, but he does need to be braver though. I know we are far from out of COVID, and I think the mentality of the British people when we are in a crisis is not to rock the boat too much, but it wouldn't hurt for him to start driving in the knife. There's plenty of leverage to use. The acid test will be how he deals with boris and co post covid. He has got enough ammunition to tear them apart but he seems to be moving labour closer to them. I personally think the party needs to split..there are huge differences between the 2 wings that seem irreparable. A Conservative's dream! " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just putting it out there . How about taxing the non domiciles and the trust funds in the Caribbean. That should cover it comfortably. Only at the going rate nothing more. " How do you get them to pay? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just putting it out there . How about taxing the non domiciles and the trust funds in the Caribbean. That should cover it comfortably. Only at the going rate nothing more. How do you get them to pay?" The money is controlled by U.K. banks One call from the Bank of England . We do control where the money is both here in the U.K. and abroad that’s how we know how much they are not paying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax" Good luck with that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax" That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. " The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away." Is that income tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away. Is that income tax?" Nope it was intended to be a one off. It was a proposed bu the wealth tax commission. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away. Is that income tax? Nope it was intended to be a one off. It was a proposed bu the wealth tax commission. " A one off tax on what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away." And rightly so. Increase income tax, corporation tax, council tax over a certain band etc. But a wealth tax is a ridiculous proposal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away. Is that income tax? Nope it was intended to be a one off. It was a proposed bu the wealth tax commission. A one off tax on what?" A one off tax based on net wealth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away. Is that income tax? Nope it was intended to be a one off. It was a proposed bu the wealth tax commission. A one off tax on what? A one off tax based on net wealth" OK, I agree, that’s a non starter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if you can afford a KFC or a big mac you can afford the extra make the world better tax on it! chocolate is a luxury, add tax to that " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A one off tax on what?" it was aimed at unearned wealth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away. Is that income tax? Nope it was intended to be a one off. It was a proposed bu the wealth tax commission. A one off tax on what?" I gave the name of the report It's quite easy to find | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A one off tax on what? it was aimed at unearned wealth" It was aimed at net wealth. How do people create net wealth without earning? Apart from inheritance, which tax is already paid on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A one off tax on what? it was aimed at unearned wealth" As in inherited wealth or was it meant to prove how wealth had been accumulated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away. Is that income tax? Nope it was intended to be a one off. It was a proposed bu the wealth tax commission. A one off tax on what?" How about decriminalisation of cannabis, use the money raised to pay the debt back, I believe most of what is consumed here is now actually grown here. It would help divert billions to the treasury instead of the criminals. Just a thought x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking millionaires to pay an extra whopping 1%is obvs an unpopular move." I think you would find that such a tax would affect more than millionaires | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking millionaires to pay an extra whopping 1%is obvs an unpopular move. I think you would find that such a tax would affect more than millionaires " It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking millionaires to pay an extra whopping 1%is obvs an unpopular move." it’s not fucking unpopular for me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking millionaires to pay an extra whopping 1%is obvs an unpopular move.it’s not fucking unpopular for me " Seems to be on here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away. Is that income tax? Nope it was intended to be a one off. It was a proposed bu the wealth tax commission. A one off tax on what? How about decriminalisation of cannabis, use the money raised to pay the debt back, I believe most of what is consumed here is now actually grown here. It would help divert billions to the treasury instead of the criminals. Just a thought x" dont stop there, decriminalize crack cocaine lol or put an extra 50 pence on every easter egg sold this year to anyone who is just buying chocolate and has no idea who jesus is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"put an extra 50 pence on every easter egg sold this year to anyone who is just buying chocolate and has no idea who jesus is "Jesus is risen - give everybody a chocolate Egg - lol.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking millionaires to pay an extra whopping 1%is obvs an unpopular move. I think you would find that such a tax would affect more than millionaires It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand." Savings or assets? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking millionaires to pay an extra whopping 1%is obvs an unpopular move. I think you would find that such a tax would affect more than millionaires It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand. Savings or assets?" yes, a kid tax, if youve had loads of polluting children you should be taxed, your carbon foot print is massive! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away. Is that income tax? Nope it was intended to be a one off. It was a proposed bu the wealth tax commission. A one off tax on what? How about decriminalisation of cannabis, use the money raised to pay the debt back, I believe most of what is consumed here is now actually grown here. It would help divert billions to the treasury instead of the criminals. Just a thought x dont stop there, decriminalize crack cocaine lol or put an extra 50 pence on every easter egg sold this year to anyone who is just buying chocolate and has no idea who jesus is "Why link crack to cannabis? Nicotine is a gateway drug so is alcohol shouldn’t we ban those first? After all we know the effects the have on the body x Obviously you like the idea of the local drug gang selling any drug unregulated to anyone & all (pushers that introduced people to take harder drugs) as its a better system that hasn’t worked out that well since we went down the route of prohibition. If you look at the US most of the states that have gone down the decriminalisation path have benefited & not just financially x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax the superrich and hammer amazon for tax That would be my idea. However, the bonds idea isn't a bad idea in itself. The idea was floated for a 1%tax rise. It was obviously disregarded straight away. Is that income tax? Nope it was intended to be a one off. It was a proposed bu the wealth tax commission. A one off tax on what? How about decriminalisation of cannabis, use the money raised to pay the debt back, I believe most of what is consumed here is now actually grown here. It would help divert billions to the treasury instead of the criminals. Just a thought x dont stop there, decriminalize crack cocaine lol or put an extra 50 pence on every easter egg sold this year to anyone who is just buying chocolate and has no idea who jesus is
Why link crack to cannabis? Nicotine is a gateway drug so is alcohol shouldn’t we ban those first? After all we know the effects the have on the body x Obviously you like the idea of the local drug gang selling any drug unregulated to anyone & all (pushers that introduced people to take harder drugs) as its a better system that hasn’t worked out that well since we went down the route of prohibition. If you look at the US most of the states that have gone down the decriminalisation path have benefited & not just financially x"obviously i like the idea? are you pauline pens? but no no and no, oregan is shitting itself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking millionaires to pay an extra whopping 1%is obvs an unpopular move. I think you would find that such a tax would affect more than millionaires It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand. Savings or assets?" I haven't fully looked into it but I'm sure it was net assets | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking millionaires to pay an extra whopping 1%is obvs an unpopular move. I think you would find that such a tax would affect more than millionaires It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand." so not millionaires then. how much is expected to be raised by it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking millionaires to pay an extra whopping 1%is obvs an unpopular move. I think you would find that such a tax would affect more than millionaires It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand. Savings or assets? I haven't fully looked into it but I'm sure it was net assets" In that case, as I said above, it would affect more than just millionaires. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking millionaires to pay an extra whopping 1%is obvs an unpopular move. I think you would find that such a tax would affect more than millionaires It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand. Savings or assets? I haven't fully looked into it but I'm sure it was net assets" Nah to that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway." You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it" Obviously | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously " Obviously! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! " Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Asking millionaires to pay an extra whopping 1%is obvs an unpopular move." Is it 1% or 5%? When I read it in December, it came across as 1% a year for 5 years, so 5%. To include property, assets, savings, and pensions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” " I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death "So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??"There is no need to paraphrase. I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate. "Is it soul destroying because you’ve been shown to be talking out of your rear end ( again)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate. "I calling Bs on you genuinely being in a coma. I’m no expert like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate.
Is it soul destroying because you’ve been shown to be talking out of your rear end ( again)?
"Here is a unique thought. Why dont you say why you think the report is such a bad idea? Or propose an alternative.? Whilst the thought of spending the entire thread debating the difference between savings and personal wealth sounds appealing ,I'd rather watch paint dry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” " ive just started ignoring certain posts from people that comment on that many treads that they just pepper spray everything, like a tom cat lol ref tax, dont think you can legally tax people more than once, i.e they considered taxing you when you sell your home when youve already paid stamp duty to buy it! Hence idea was dropped | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate.
Is it soul destroying because you’ve been shown to be talking out of your rear end ( again)?
Here is a unique thought.
Why dont you say why you think the report is such a bad idea?
Or propose an alternative.?
Whilst the thought of spending the entire thread debating the difference between savings and personal wealth sounds appealing ,I'd rather watch paint dry."You were the one who first mentioned the report and then incorrectly reported it’s contents. Maybe you should either learn to read or understand what you are reading before attempting to debate such issues. I’ve already said that such a tax would hit a lot more than millionaires. Anyone with a modest property and pension pot would be hit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the people who have wealth demand that the people who don't have any wealth are taxed ... who'd have thought it" As it should be in this instance. That wealth has already been taxed. And for some, taxes at a higher rate than standard. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate.
Is it soul destroying because you’ve been shown to be talking out of your rear end ( again)?
Here is a unique thought.
Why dont you say why you think the report is such a bad idea?
Or propose an alternative.?
Whilst the thought of spending the entire thread debating the difference between savings and personal wealth sounds appealing ,I'd rather watch paint dry.
You were the one who first mentioned the report and then incorrectly reported it’s contents. Maybe you should either learn to read or understand what you are reading before attempting to debate such issues.
I’ve already said that such a tax would hit a lot more than millionaires. Anyone with a modest property and pension pot would be hit.
"Define "modest' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the people who have wealth demand that the people who don't have any wealth are taxed ... who'd have thought it" how about everyone buying a phone costing more £150 pays extra tax, i may drive a merc sl but i still have my flip phone lol or everyone who gets more than one easter egg has to pay 100% tax on the others? saves chasing yachts into monaco | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate.
Is it soul destroying because you’ve been shown to be talking out of your rear end ( again)?
Here is a unique thought.
Why dont you say why you think the report is such a bad idea?
Or propose an alternative.?
Whilst the thought of spending the entire thread debating the difference between savings and personal wealth sounds appealing ,I'd rather watch paint dry.
You were the one who first mentioned the report and then incorrectly reported it’s contents. Maybe you should either learn to read or understand what you are reading before attempting to debate such issues.
I’ve already said that such a tax would hit a lot more than millionaires. Anyone with a modest property and pension pot would be hit.
Define "modest'"Don’t you have a dictionary to hand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the people who have wealth demand that the people who don't have any wealth are taxed ... who'd have thought it As it should be in this instance. That wealth has already been taxed. And for some, taxes at a higher rate than standard." Ok So you are against this. The gmnt have instead announced a pay freeze for key workers who worked through the pandemic Coming on top of a previous 6 year pay freeze. Would you say that was fair? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate.
Is it soul destroying because you’ve been shown to be talking out of your rear end ( again)?
Here is a unique thought.
Why dont you say why you think the report is such a bad idea?
Or propose an alternative.?
Whilst the thought of spending the entire thread debating the difference between savings and personal wealth sounds appealing ,I'd rather watch paint dry.
You were the one who first mentioned the report and then incorrectly reported it’s contents. Maybe you should either learn to read or understand what you are reading before attempting to debate such issues.
I’ve already said that such a tax would hit a lot more than millionaires. Anyone with a modest property and pension pot would be hit.
Define "modest'
Don’t you have a dictionary to hand?"So modest is a universal defeniton according to you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate.
Is it soul destroying because you’ve been shown to be talking out of your rear end ( again)?
Here is a unique thought.
Why dont you say why you think the report is such a bad idea?
Or propose an alternative.?
Whilst the thought of spending the entire thread debating the difference between savings and personal wealth sounds appealing ,I'd rather watch paint dry.
You were the one who first mentioned the report and then incorrectly reported it’s contents. Maybe you should either learn to read or understand what you are reading before attempting to debate such issues.
I’ve already said that such a tax would hit a lot more than millionaires. Anyone with a modest property and pension pot would be hit.
Define "modest'
Don’t you have a dictionary to hand?
So modest is a universal defeniton according to you?"Did I say that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"average house price in london 500,000 add pension pot and everyone in london is getting taxed! "that’s the problem with the U.K. every decision is based around London | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"earned income has been taxed already yet we still pay tax again when we spend it, so that argument of money being taxed once is enough is nonsense." Course it is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"500k seems to be a low threshold is the consensus . So above £2million based on everything outside the main residence at 1% and over 30 million at 3%. If you’ve got more than £30m I’m not worried about anyone raising it. Just numbers out of the air I admit but if it’s a wealth tax it should tax wealth not some guy who’s inherited his grans flat in Notting hill . " he could always sell the flat lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"500k seems to be a low threshold is the consensus . So above £2million based on everything outside the main residence at 1% and over 30 million at 3%. If you’ve got more than £30m I’m not worried about anyone raising it. Just numbers out of the air I admit but if it’s a wealth tax it should tax wealth not some guy who’s inherited his grans flat in Notting hill . " is that if they move in to the nans flat or if he rents it out while remaining in the £45,000 ex-colliery terrace in rhondda? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"earned income has been taxed already yet we still pay tax again when we spend it, so that argument of money being taxed once is enough is nonsense." i didnt write the law, agree tax when earn it taxed when save it taxed when.... but apparently it was seen as a double hit on the same transaction, so its not nonsense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"500k seems to be a low threshold is the consensus . So above £2million based on everything outside the main residence at 1% and over 30 million at 3%. If you’ve got more than £30m I’m not worried about anyone raising it. Just numbers out of the air I admit but if it’s a wealth tax it should tax wealth not some guy who’s inherited his grans flat in Notting hill . is that if they move in to the nans flat or if he rents it out while remaining in the £45,000 ex-colliery terrace in rhondda?" I’m thinking we need to investigate how gran died!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"500k seems to be a low threshold is the consensus . So above £2million based on everything outside the main residence at 1% and over 30 million at 3%. If you’ve got more than £30m I’m not worried about anyone raising it. Just numbers out of the air I admit but if it’s a wealth tax it should tax wealth not some guy who’s inherited his grans flat in Notting hill . he could always sell the flat lol" True and good for him if it’s below £2m he’s done well!! I’d be pleased for him either way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"500k seems to be a low threshold is the consensus . So above £2million based on everything outside the main residence at 1% and over 30 million at 3%. If you’ve got more than £30m I’m not worried about anyone raising it. Just numbers out of the air I admit but if it’s a wealth tax it should tax wealth not some guy who’s inherited his grans flat in Notting hill . is that if they move in to the nans flat or if he rents it out while remaining in the £45,000 ex-colliery terrace in rhondda? I’m thinking we need to investigate how gran died!! " pmsl howling I’d bet he never shed many tears at nanas funeral the lucky twat lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"500k seems to be a low threshold is the consensus . So above £2million based on everything outside the main residence at 1% and over 30 million at 3%. If you’ve got more than £30m I’m not worried about anyone raising it. Just numbers out of the air I admit but if it’s a wealth tax it should tax wealth not some guy who’s inherited his grans flat in Notting hill . is that if they move in to the nans flat or if he rents it out while remaining in the £45,000 ex-colliery terrace in rhondda? I’m thinking we need to investigate how gran died!! " ha! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"houses are continuously re-taxed annually. double tax argument remains nonsense." are we at cross purposes? the stamp duty idea, as spoken of earlier, ref sellers paying again! was kicked in to touch as you cant tax twice on what is the same transaction in effect, believe it or not, i dont care really! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate.
Is it soul destroying because you’ve been shown to be talking out of your rear end ( again)?
Here is a unique thought.
Why dont you say why you think the report is such a bad idea?
Or propose an alternative.?
Whilst the thought of spending the entire thread debating the difference between savings and personal wealth sounds appealing ,I'd rather watch paint dry.
You were the one who first mentioned the report and then incorrectly reported it’s contents. Maybe you should either learn to read or understand what you are reading before attempting to debate such issues.
I’ve already said that such a tax would hit a lot more than millionaires. Anyone with a modest property and pension pot would be hit.
Define "modest'
Don’t you have a dictionary to hand?
So modest is a universal defeniton according to you?
Did I say that?"So looking up the defeniton of a word that varies from person to person,in a dictionary, is rather pointless? No? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"clearly angry dolphins .... the thread is about taxing wealth but you have wandered into stamp duty by mistake." Well considering you are wealthy, how much would you be willing to pay? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate.
Is it soul destroying because you’ve been shown to be talking out of your rear end ( again)?
Here is a unique thought.
Why dont you say why you think the report is such a bad idea?
Or propose an alternative.?
Whilst the thought of spending the entire thread debating the difference between savings and personal wealth sounds appealing ,I'd rather watch paint dry.
You were the one who first mentioned the report and then incorrectly reported it’s contents. Maybe you should either learn to read or understand what you are reading before attempting to debate such issues.
I’ve already said that such a tax would hit a lot more than millionaires. Anyone with a modest property and pension pot would be hit.
Define "modest'
Don’t you have a dictionary to hand?
So modest is a universal defeniton according to you?
Did I say that?
So looking up the defeniton of a word that varies from person to person,in a dictionary, is rather pointless?
No?"You are such a simple soul Lionel. I think the term modest when applied to property would mean the same regardless of the occupant. The value, of course, would differ wildly depending upon location of said property. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"clearly angry dolphins .... the thread is about taxing wealth but you have wandered into stamp duty by mistake." stamp duty is a tax and does target wealth, it goes up the bigger the property! educate yourself as they say | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"earned income has been taxed already yet we still pay tax again when we spend it, so that argument of money being taxed once is enough is nonsense." It's not nonsense at all. We're talking double tax on 'wealth' I've already paid tax on what I've earnt and everything I own. Yes I pay tax when I spend too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the people who have wealth demand that the people who don't have any wealth are taxed ... who'd have thought it As it should be in this instance. That wealth has already been taxed. And for some, taxes at a higher rate than standard. Ok So you are against this. The gmnt have instead announced a pay freeze for key workers who worked through the pandemic Coming on top of a previous 6 year pay freeze. Would you say that was fair?" What has that got to do with anything? And for clarity, I believe a lot of public sector workers should get a pay rise, not because of the pandemic though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate.
Is it soul destroying because you’ve been shown to be talking out of your rear end ( again)?
Here is a unique thought.
Why dont you say why you think the report is such a bad idea?
Or propose an alternative.?
Whilst the thought of spending the entire thread debating the difference between savings and personal wealth sounds appealing ,I'd rather watch paint dry.
You were the one who first mentioned the report and then incorrectly reported it’s contents. Maybe you should either learn to read or understand what you are reading before attempting to debate such issues.
I’ve already said that such a tax would hit a lot more than millionaires. Anyone with a modest property and pension pot would be hit.
Define "modest'
Don’t you have a dictionary to hand?
So modest is a universal defeniton according to you?
Did I say that?
So looking up the defeniton of a word that varies from person to person,in a dictionary, is rather pointless?
No?
You are such a simple soul Lionel. I think the term modest when applied to property would mean the same regardless of the occupant. The value, of course, would differ wildly depending upon location of said property."So to you Someone could live in a house in London worth say a million.. and describe it as modest Whilst someone living in a 2up 2 down in Burnley, would similarly describe the london property as modest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the people who have wealth demand that the people who don't have any wealth are taxed ... who'd have thought it As it should be in this instance. That wealth has already been taxed. And for some, taxes at a higher rate than standard. Ok So you are against this. The gmnt have instead announced a pay freeze for key workers who worked through the pandemic Coming on top of a previous 6 year pay freeze. Would you say that was fair? What has that got to do with anything? And for clarity, I believe a lot of public sector workers should get a pay rise, not because of the pandemic though" I was simply comparing the 2 situations You think the wealth tax is unfair. Fair enough. So I was simply asking if you felt the forthcoming pay freeze was unfair. As the gmnt clearly dont. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been rejected anyway. You’ve obviously not read it or if you have read it, not understood it Obviously Obviously! Quoting Lionel “It would affect people who have savings over 500 grand” Quoting article “The WTC proposes that the tax should cover all assets, including private homes and pensions and apply to UK residents and those who have recently been resident. It suggests the tax should have a broad base with a proposal that it might apply to personal wealth above £500,000 per person, or £1 million per couple.” I'm really flattered you hang on my every word..but everytime I enter a debate with you, I genuinely lose the will to live. So you will have to bore some else to death
So, to paraphrase “ I’ve been proved wrong again so I’m going to slink off a sulk in the corner” ??
There is no need to paraphrase.
I'm sorry but you genuinly put me into a coma and I'd rather cut of my toenails with a rusty hammer than engage in another soul destroying debate.
Is it soul destroying because you’ve been shown to be talking out of your rear end ( again)?
Here is a unique thought.
Why dont you say why you think the report is such a bad idea?
Or propose an alternative.?
Whilst the thought of spending the entire thread debating the difference between savings and personal wealth sounds appealing ,I'd rather watch paint dry.
You were the one who first mentioned the report and then incorrectly reported it’s contents. Maybe you should either learn to read or understand what you are reading before attempting to debate such issues.
I’ve already said that such a tax would hit a lot more than millionaires. Anyone with a modest property and pension pot would be hit.
Define "modest'
Don’t you have a dictionary to hand?
So modest is a universal defeniton according to you?
Did I say that?
So looking up the defeniton of a word that varies from person to person,in a dictionary, is rather pointless?
No?
You are such a simple soul Lionel. I think the term modest when applied to property would mean the same regardless of the occupant. The value, of course, would differ wildly depending upon location of said property.
So to you
Someone could live in a house in London worth say a million.. and describe it as modest
Whilst someone living in a 2up 2 down in Burnley, would similarly describe the london property as modest?"I’m saying the same type of house in each location would be described as modest although the values would be significantly different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"clearly angry dolphins .... the thread is about taxing wealth but you have wandered into stamp duty by mistake. Well considering you are wealthy, how much would you be willing to pay? " whatever it takes. how about you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the people who have wealth demand that the people who don't have any wealth are taxed ... who'd have thought it As it should be in this instance. That wealth has already been taxed. And for some, taxes at a higher rate than standard. Ok So you are against this. The gmnt have instead announced a pay freeze for key workers who worked through the pandemic Coming on top of a previous 6 year pay freeze. Would you say that was fair? What has that got to do with anything? And for clarity, I believe a lot of public sector workers should get a pay rise, not because of the pandemic though I was simply comparing the 2 situations You think the wealth tax is unfair. Fair enough. So I was simply asking if you felt the forthcoming pay freeze was unfair. As the gmnt clearly dont." The situations aren't comparable | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"stamp duty and wealth tax are not comparible by that logic. stamp duty is a transaction tax the proposed welth tax is not a transaction tax." They aren't comparable. As you said, one is a transaction tax and one is not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its quite simple really. The gmnt can go after the more well off sections of society(I mean I'm sure that 1%will cripple a lot of them financially)and maybe go after those who may as little tax as possible. Or they could target those who are struggling as it is." Best wait for the budget then. Not long now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"clearly angry dolphins .... the thread is about taxing wealth but you have wandered into stamp duty by mistake. Well considering you are wealthy, how much would you be willing to pay? whatever it takes. how about you?" What does whatever it takes mean? Are you donating money to the government now then? Me? I'm not wealthy and have never claimed to be so doesn't really apply | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone see Kier Starmers suggestion on bonds? Im not a financial expert so what's your thoughts? Surely a better and less painful option the Tories condone (austerity for those least able to burden) ? " dont see any mention of tax just how to pay off deficit... jumble sales? or there are 3.5million mc donalds customers per day, add a too lazy to cook tax of £1 and well be cutting into those loans quick time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This may get me shouted at but shouldn't everyone contribute towards it. Yes for sure tax evasion needs clamping down on but all need to help not just the wealthy. If its a percentage thing on income then those that earn more will pay more. I doubt much will happen in this budget but more likely the next one" The thing is..if you are lower down the scale,you dont have much choice in what you pay. Whilst if you are more well off you bring in an accountant and he will make sure you pay as little tax as possible So imagine how much those huge firms are getting away with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some people always bitch about the rich avoiding tax as they pay their mate cash in hand lol and work every dodge they know! "And some people are quite happy to live in a society where some people live in castles and others live on the street. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some people always bitch about the rich avoiding tax as they pay their mate cash in hand lol and work every dodge they know!
And some people are quite happy to live in a society where some people live in castles and others live on the street.
"im not stopping you from attacking a castle lionel lol but im not sure youll scale any walls lol but as ive said before, youve got a sofa, let a homeless person sleep on it, if everyone did theyd be no homeless! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This may get me shouted at but shouldn't everyone contribute towards it. Yes for sure tax evasion needs clamping down on but all need to help not just the wealthy. If its a percentage thing on income then those that earn more will pay more. I doubt much will happen in this budget but more likely the next one The thing is..if you are lower down the scale,you dont have much choice in what you pay. Whilst if you are more well off you bring in an accountant and he will make sure you pay as little tax as possible So imagine how much those huge firms are getting away with." Yes which is why I said tax evasion should be clamped down on in my post. I just don't think just one sector should pay only. I am not claiming you are suggesting that by the way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some people always bitch about the rich avoiding tax as they pay their mate cash in hand lol and work every dodge they know!
And some people are quite happy to live in a society where some people live in castles and others live on the street.
im not stopping you from attacking a castle lionel lol but im not sure youll scale any walls lol but as ive said before, youve got a sofa, let a homeless person sleep on it, if everyone did theyd be no homeless! "The 'why don't you house a homeless person then haha' argument is so gross and heartless and just downright stupid. People need permanent homes, not sofas or spare rooms. It should be OK to ask the government to do that for all citizens without being asked why you're not doing it personally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This may get me shouted at but shouldn't everyone contribute towards it. Yes for sure tax evasion needs clamping down on but all need to help not just the wealthy. If its a percentage thing on income then those that earn more will pay more. I doubt much will happen in this budget but more likely the next one The thing is..if you are lower down the scale,you dont have much choice in what you pay. Whilst if you are more well off you bring in an accountant and he will make sure you pay as little tax as possible So imagine how much those huge firms are getting away with. Yes which is why I said tax evasion should be clamped down on in my post. I just don't think just one sector should pay only. I am not claiming you are suggesting that by the way" But they dont do they? As soon as that is brought up the old 'well they create jobs argument 'is brought. Let's be honest here..the people who are going to get hammered here who are those who can least afford it. We have already seen that with pay feezes and council taxes rises. Personally I domt see a problem with those at the top ,paying a little more. And we aremt talking massive amounts here,we are talking 1%. Which is a lot less than a 7 year pay freeze. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This may get me shouted at but shouldn't everyone contribute towards it. Yes for sure tax evasion needs clamping down on but all need to help not just the wealthy. If its a percentage thing on income then those that earn more will pay more. I doubt much will happen in this budget but more likely the next one The thing is..if you are lower down the scale,you dont have much choice in what you pay. Whilst if you are more well off you bring in an accountant and he will make sure you pay as little tax as possible So imagine how much those huge firms are getting away with. Yes which is why I said tax evasion should be clamped down on in my post. I just don't think just one sector should pay only. I am not claiming you are suggesting that by the way" Tax evasion is not illegal, just immoral. Tax avoidance is both illegal and immoral. The UK tax laws are just too complicated, and HMRC are always one step behind those that have the money and the knowledge to exploit the many loopholes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"hmrc are toothless. big business tells the hmrc how much they are prepared to pay and that's how it works. funnily enough though, the people who are involved in big business are the same people who are sat in the commons making laws to benefit their big business. and still the masses lap it up willingly." You're not wealthy at all are you?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"some people always bitch about the rich avoiding tax as they pay their mate cash in hand lol and work every dodge they know!
And some people are quite happy to live in a society where some people live in castles and others live on the street.
im not stopping you from attacking a castle lionel lol but im not sure youll scale any walls lol but as ive said before, youve got a sofa, let a homeless person sleep on it, if everyone did theyd be no homeless!
The 'why don't you house a homeless person then haha' argument is so gross and heartless and just downright stupid.
People need permanent homes, not sofas or spare rooms.
It should be OK to ask the government to do that for all citizens without being asked why you're not doing it personally.
"how do you know i dont? which is why they arent homeless! any fool can say the government should cover it for every single argument on here! cladding deficit jobs banking climate....but no extra tax and no responsibility for the actual citizens? you only have to look at all the rubbish dropped in the street to see why there are problems in life, because people like you that think the problem is always for others to sort, that is gross and heartless and thoughtless! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"hmrc are toothless. big business tells the hmrc how much they are prepared to pay and that's how it works. funnily enough though, the people who are involved in big business are the same people who are sat in the commons making laws to benefit their big business. and still the masses lap it up willingly. You're not wealthy at all are you? "ive got my doubts to lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This may get me shouted at but shouldn't everyone contribute towards it. Yes for sure tax evasion needs clamping down on but all need to help not just the wealthy. If its a percentage thing on income then those that earn more will pay more. I doubt much will happen in this budget but more likely the next one The thing is..if you are lower down the scale,you dont have much choice in what you pay. Whilst if you are more well off you bring in an accountant and he will make sure you pay as little tax as possible So imagine how much those huge firms are getting away with. Yes which is why I said tax evasion should be clamped down on in my post. I just don't think just one sector should pay only. I am not claiming you are suggesting that by the way Tax evasion is not illegal, just immoral. Tax avoidance is both illegal and immoral. The UK tax laws are just too complicated, and HMRC are always one step behind those that have the money and the knowledge to exploit the many loopholes. " My bad, I keep getting those two mixed up. As none here can actually change the law we can only say what we would like to happen. I would like to see these tax schemes clamped down on and an increase in income tax. As its a percentage the lowest paid will contribute the least. I don't think it should be all put on one sector of society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This may get me shouted at but shouldn't everyone contribute towards it. Yes for sure tax evasion needs clamping down on but all need to help not just the wealthy. If its a percentage thing on income then those that earn more will pay more. I doubt much will happen in this budget but more likely the next one The thing is..if you are lower down the scale,you dont have much choice in what you pay. Whilst if you are more well off you bring in an accountant and he will make sure you pay as little tax as possible So imagine how much those huge firms are getting away with. Yes which is why I said tax evasion should be clamped down on in my post. I just don't think just one sector should pay only. I am not claiming you are suggesting that by the way Tax evasion is not illegal, just immoral. Tax avoidance is both illegal and immoral. The UK tax laws are just too complicated, and HMRC are always one step behind those that have the money and the knowledge to exploit the many loopholes. My bad, I keep getting those two mixed up. As none here can actually change the law we can only say what we would like to happen. I would like to see these tax schemes clamped down on and an increase in income tax. As its a percentage the lowest paid will contribute the least. I don't think it should be all put on one sector of society. " Actually you were correct. It’s tax evasion that’s illegal. According to an article in the FT, increasing all the income tax bands by 1%, would raise the following amounts: 20/21%. 4.7bn 40/41%. 1.0bn 45/46% 105m | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This may get me shouted at but shouldn't everyone contribute towards it. Yes for sure tax evasion needs clamping down on but all need to help not just the wealthy. If its a percentage thing on income then those that earn more will pay more. I doubt much will happen in this budget but more likely the next one The thing is..if you are lower down the scale,you dont have much choice in what you pay. Whilst if you are more well off you bring in an accountant and he will make sure you pay as little tax as possible So imagine how much those huge firms are getting away with. Yes which is why I said tax evasion should be clamped down on in my post. I just don't think just one sector should pay only. I am not claiming you are suggesting that by the way Tax evasion is not illegal, just immoral. Tax avoidance is both illegal and immoral. The UK tax laws are just too complicated, and HMRC are always one step behind those that have the money and the knowledge to exploit the many loopholes. My bad, I keep getting those two mixed up. As none here can actually change the law we can only say what we would like to happen. I would like to see these tax schemes clamped down on and an increase in income tax. As its a percentage the lowest paid will contribute the least. I don't think it should be all put on one sector of society. Actually you were correct. It’s tax evasion that’s illegal. According to an article in the FT, increasing all the income tax bands by 1%, would raise the following amounts: 20/21%. 4.7bn 40/41%. 1.0bn 45/46% 105m" Thanks for the figures. I presume the reason the 20/21 group make the largest overall contribution is because there are more of them, not that they are paying more individually than the other groups. Is that a fair presumption | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax evasion is not illegal, just immoral. Tax avoidance is both illegal and immoral." that is incorrect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This may get me shouted at but shouldn't everyone contribute towards it. Yes for sure tax evasion needs clamping down on but all need to help not just the wealthy. If its a percentage thing on income then those that earn more will pay more. I doubt much will happen in this budget but more likely the next one The thing is..if you are lower down the scale,you dont have much choice in what you pay. Whilst if you are more well off you bring in an accountant and he will make sure you pay as little tax as possible So imagine how much those huge firms are getting away with. Yes which is why I said tax evasion should be clamped down on in my post. I just don't think just one sector should pay only. I am not claiming you are suggesting that by the way Tax evasion is not illegal, just immoral. Tax avoidance is both illegal and immoral. The UK tax laws are just too complicated, and HMRC are always one step behind those that have the money and the knowledge to exploit the many loopholes. My bad, I keep getting those two mixed up. As none here can actually change the law we can only say what we would like to happen. I would like to see these tax schemes clamped down on and an increase in income tax. As its a percentage the lowest paid will contribute the least. I don't think it should be all put on one sector of society. Actually you were correct. It’s tax evasion that’s illegal. According to an article in the FT, increasing all the income tax bands by 1%, would raise the following amounts: 20/21%. 4.7bn 40/41%. 1.0bn 45/46% 105m Thanks for the figures. I presume the reason the 20/21 group make the largest overall contribution is because there are more of them, not that they are paying more individually than the other groups. Is that a fair presumption" Yes, that’s correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax evasion is not illegal, just immoral. Tax avoidance is both illegal and immoral. that is incorrect. " The opposite is true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This may get me shouted at but shouldn't everyone contribute towards it. Yes for sure tax evasion needs clamping down on but all need to help not just the wealthy. If its a percentage thing on income then those that earn more will pay more. I doubt much will happen in this budget but more likely the next one The thing is..if you are lower down the scale,you dont have much choice in what you pay. Whilst if you are more well off you bring in an accountant and he will make sure you pay as little tax as possible So imagine how much those huge firms are getting away with. Yes which is why I said tax evasion should be clamped down on in my post. I just don't think just one sector should pay only. I am not claiming you are suggesting that by the way Tax evasion is not illegal, just immoral. Tax avoidance is both illegal and immoral. The UK tax laws are just too complicated, and HMRC are always one step behind those that have the money and the knowledge to exploit the many loopholes. My bad, I keep getting those two mixed up. As none here can actually change the law we can only say what we would like to happen. I would like to see these tax schemes clamped down on and an increase in income tax. As its a percentage the lowest paid will contribute the least. I don't think it should be all put on one sector of society. Actually you were correct. It’s tax evasion that’s illegal. According to an article in the FT, increasing all the income tax bands by 1%, would raise the following amounts: 20/21%. 4.7bn 40/41%. 1.0bn 45/46% 105m" Well they could say increase tax 20/21% £4.7 billion 40/42% £2.0 billion 45/49% £420 million 420 tax £500 million Telly tax £3.7 billion & no more bbc So a total of £11.32 billion a year Close more tax loopholes & quicker, as well as looking at taxing items that are not currently taxed, I know people may mock but currently there is an estimated 2 million regular marijuana users in the UK spending approximately £2.5 billion none of it taxed yet costing us money to police, imprisonments & treatment of offenders, by the way the UK already produces 44% of the worlds medical marijuana (legally). So if that raised £500 million from taxing personnel usage. & no I’m not advocating usage of it & certainly I’m not suggesting other harder drugs being decriminalised. I’m sure there could be other thing that could be taxed that aren’t it’s just an idea. We could also just scrap the BBC but still charge everyone the telly tax I think that raises £3.7 billion a year X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax evasion is not illegal, just immoral. Tax avoidance is both illegal and immoral. that is incorrect. The opposite is true" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tax evasion is not illegal, just immoral. Tax avoidance is both illegal and immoral. that is incorrect. " Apologies, you are correct. Too many early mornings i'm afraid.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Might need it's own thred but just over hall all tax. Scrap PAYE to meny get round it let people have what they earn. And reabuld VAT if it's 20% make it 35% On real luckery items 55 2 65% sounds a lot but remember you now have 20% in your pocket for some 40% ish Food stays at a low VAT but sweets chocolate wine etc 45%" VAT hits the poorest hardest. And a lot of the lowest paid already pay little or no income tax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Might need it's own thred but just over hall all tax. Scrap PAYE to meny get round it let people have what they earn. And reabuld VAT if it's 20% make it 35% On real luckery items 55 2 65% sounds a lot but remember you now have 20% in your pocket for some 40% ish Food stays at a low VAT but sweets chocolate wine etc 45% VAT hits the poorest hardest. And a lot of the lowest paid already pay little or no income tax " surly the pore have less to spend so would may less. But it would get the cash econermy better | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Might need it's own thred but just over hall all tax. Scrap PAYE to meny get round it let people have what they earn. And reabuld VAT if it's 20% make it 35% On real luckery items 55 2 65% sounds a lot but remember you now have 20% in your pocket for some 40% ish Food stays at a low VAT but sweets chocolate wine etc 45% VAT hits the poorest hardest. And a lot of the lowest paid already pay little or no income tax " What are you basing that on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Might need it's own thred but just over hall all tax. Scrap PAYE to meny get round it let people have what they earn. And reabuld VAT if it's 20% make it 35% On real luckery items 55 2 65% sounds a lot but remember you now have 20% in your pocket for some 40% ish Food stays at a low VAT but sweets chocolate wine etc 45%" I dont think you have thought that through very well it would really fuck the poorest in society.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Might need it's own thred but just over hall all tax. Scrap PAYE to meny get round it let people have what they earn. And reabuld VAT if it's 20% make it 35% On real luckery items 55 2 65% sounds a lot but remember you now have 20% in your pocket for some 40% ish Food stays at a low VAT but sweets chocolate wine etc 45% VAT hits the poorest hardest. And a lot of the lowest paid already pay little or no income tax What are you basing that on?" Facts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Might need it's own thred but just over hall all tax. Scrap PAYE to meny get round it let people have what they earn. And reabuld VAT if it's 20% make it 35% On real luckery items 55 2 65% sounds a lot but remember you now have 20% in your pocket for some 40% ish Food stays at a low VAT but sweets chocolate wine etc 45% VAT hits the poorest hardest. And a lot of the lowest paid already pay little or no income tax What are you basing that on? Facts "What facts? Even if you are on minimum wage and work full time,you still pay tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"VAT hits the poorest hardest. And a lot of the lowest paid already pay little or no income tax " nobody pays tax on that money though so yet another pointless red herring comparison to be fair | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Might need it's own thred but just over hall all tax. Scrap PAYE to meny get round it let people have what they earn. And reabuld VAT if it's 20% make it 35% On real luckery items 55 2 65% sounds a lot but remember you now have 20% in your pocket for some 40% ish Food stays at a low VAT but sweets chocolate wine etc 45% VAT hits the poorest hardest. And a lot of the lowest paid already pay little or no income tax What are you basing that on? Facts
What facts?
Even if you are on minimum wage and work full time,you still pay tax."Can you not read? I said little or no tax. And if you don't understand that VAT hits the poorest hardest then there's no hope | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
