FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Liz Truss - a sadly missed opportunity
Liz Truss - a sadly missed opportunity
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession." There may well have been some merit in her policies. But she failed to consult before announcing them, and took colleagues, the media, and financial markets by surprise. That in itself is a serious shortcoming in a senior politician. She should have known better. Sometimes is as much how you do things as what you do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession." Trussonomics was essentially ‘reward the wealthy’, trickle down economics. It doesn’t work. It’s been proven not to work time and again. All it does is widen wealth disparity in a nation that (among rich nations) only lags behind the USA in wealth inequality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession." If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this part of an article ? It feels disjointed. " It's from The Critic. A Tory propaganda magazine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this part of an article ? It feels disjointed. It's from The Critic. A Tory propaganda magazine. "  but is it the whole of the article?
"We have made people poorer because the top 1pc may move elsewhere to pay less tax. And it's all Sunak and Hung that have have cause high interest rates (but also, let's hope the rich dont have "lpi" pensions... Which below up under truss... Because of rapidly spiking ir")
I'm hoping it's because the OP only selected part of an article to try and make a point.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?" . It would be interesting to know what criteria you used to come to your conclusion. You appear to be saying that those whom support a party with whom you disagree should not be allowed to post . In any event you have quoted the incorrect source data for the information . In light of your comments and potentially superior knowledge I had decided to do a reality check of my opinions against the wider public. Last time I checked the Comderavatives were still the majority party and supported by a wide selection of the population. We will see what happens at the general election. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?" I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?. It would be interesting to know what criteria you used to come to your conclusion. You appear to be saying that those whom support a party with whom you disagree should not be allowed to post . In any event you have quoted the incorrect source data for the information . In light of your comments and potentially superior knowledge I had decided to do a reality check of my opinions against the wider public. Last time I checked the Comderavatives were still the majority party and supported by a wide selection of the population. We will see what happens at the general election. " How do you know I don't agree with them? Anyway, I generally find your trolling of Conservative voters to be amusing. So feel free to crack on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. " I Google searched the text you pasted in. It leads directly to the article in The Critic which you copied it from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. " Where did you get the information from then? Because it’s been copy/pasted from The Critic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I can say is I’d definitely fuck her!" If the rumours were true, she was already owned  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. I Google searched the text you pasted in. It leads directly to the article in The Critic which you copied it from. " . A perfect illustration of how dangerous it is to rely on Google . I have never heard of The Critic and do not even know what it is. I would be surprised if many people have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. I Google searched the text you pasted in. It leads directly to the article in The Critic which you copied it from. . A perfect illustration of how dangerous it is to rely on Google . I have never heard of The Critic and do not even know what it is. I would be surprised if many people have. " So where did you get the info from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. Where did you get the information from then? Because it’s been copy/pasted from The Critic." I have never heard of The Critic . Out in the real world there are a wide variety of sources of information . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. Where did you get the information from then? Because it’s been copy/pasted from The Critic. I have never heard of The Critic . Out in the real world there are a wide variety of sources of information . " Maybe they read your post on here, copied and pasted it, then published your work on their website? I'd get your lawyer on the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. Where did you get the information from then? Because it’s been copy/pasted from The Critic. I have never heard of The Critic . Out in the real world there are a wide variety of sources of information . " who are either copying the critic. Or are being copied. ATM it looks as if, like truss, you're being owned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. Where did you get the information from then? Because it’s been copy/pasted from The Critic. I have never heard of The Critic . Out in the real world there are a wide variety of sources of information . who are either copying the critic. Or are being copied. ATM it looks as if, like truss, you're being owned. " Ffs. spat coffee everywhere  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. Trussonomics was essentially ‘reward the wealthy’, trickle down economics. It doesn’t work. It’s been proven not to work time and again. All it does is widen wealth disparity in a nation that (among rich nations) only lags behind the USA in wealth inequality." Sounds to me like you're promoting socialism. That's been tried and always fails. The government just runs out of other folks money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. I Google searched the text you pasted in. It leads directly to the article in The Critic which you copied it from. " SUPERB. Pat’s trolling is good but he needs to stop quoting his sources directly and instead paraphrase them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. " 
There was the metaphor of having enough monkeys banging on typewriters, eventually producing the complete works of Shakespeare. If that article and the OP were produced similarly in isolationism, it would prove it.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There may well have been some merit in her policies. But she failed to consult before announcing them, and took colleagues, the media, and financial markets by surprise." Snipped to reduce thread length Truss had no policies of her own! Trusseconomics is an oxymoron. There wasn’t a single original thought in her head (except when she embarrassed herself with statements like “pork markets”). Truss was a sock puppet for the various organisations associated with Tufton St. She was their greatest achievement (getting one of theirs into no.10 until it all went quickly wrong). Not consulting (beyond her Tufton St puppet masters) was not only hubris, it was utter arrogance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. Trussonomics was essentially ‘reward the wealthy’, trickle down economics. It doesn’t work. It’s been proven not to work time and again. All it does is widen wealth disparity in a nation that (among rich nations) only lags behind the USA in wealth inequality. Sounds to me like you're promoting socialism. That's been tried and always fails. The government just runs out of other folks money." Socialism like welfare support? Like a universal healthcare system? You’re absolutely right I support socialism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I can say is I’d definitely fuck her! If the rumours were true, she was already owned "She is one of those people who so desperately wants to be popular and have “friends” or belong somewhere. Those type of people are easy to manipulate! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. I Google searched the text you pasted in. It leads directly to the article in The Critic which you copied it from. . A perfect illustration of how dangerous it is to rely on Google . I have never heard of The Critic and do not even know what it is. I would be surprised if many people have. " Oh Pat we don’t believe you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession." Yup. We ended up in a worse position on mortgages, interest rates, gilt yields without the wage growth and gdp growth that was to come with liz reforms. Sadly she was toow earlier and sack KK to appease the ready for rishis. Hopefully rishi and left of centre ecpnomic policies will disappear soon and we can get some actual conservatives in the Tory party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. Yup. We ended up in a worse position on mortgages, interest rates, gilt yields without the wage growth and gdp growth that was to come with liz reforms. Sadly she was toow earlier and sack KK to appease the ready for rishis. Hopefully rishi and left of centre ecpnomic policies will disappear soon and we can get some actual conservatives in the Tory party. " Oh Rishi will disappear, I’m sure. Just after the next GE, with any luck | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. I Google searched the text you pasted in. It leads directly to the article in The Critic which you copied it from. . A perfect illustration of how dangerous it is to rely on Google . I have never heard of The Critic and do not even know what it is. I would be surprised if many people have. Oh Pat we don’t believe you ". Probably best to concentrate on what is happening in the real world. By your own admission you are extremely well and have openly posted the fact on the forum. I an not criticising you in any way way but maybe it makes it more difficult for you to understand how hard some people have to work and what they wish to achieve. Every day in life I mix with people who simply go about their life helping others. I would probably be laughed at if I were to mention Tufton sheet. Like most people they would never have heard of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S Insert "Tufton street/ trussnomics Blah blah" That's all you'll get as a reply from people in here, who because of the complexities of the gilt markets and bofe etc. Can't actually form a rebuttal or breakdown the markets. They'd rather just mock. " Nope just the truth. Truss (nee Liz to you) had no original ideas of her own. All her policies came from Tufton St organisations. That has nothing to do with the Gilt markets or BoE. Rightly or wrongly they reacted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. Yup. We ended up in a worse position on mortgages, interest rates, gilt yields without the wage growth and gdp growth that was to come with liz reforms. Sadly she was toow earlier and sack KK to appease the ready for rishis. Hopefully rishi and left of centre ecpnomic policies will disappear soon and we can get some actual conservatives in the Tory party. " how long does it take to see GDP and wage increases (outside this of us who would get higher take home?). I've never seen any breakeven analysis on this. Although I haven't really looked. I understand there is a school of thought that says her policies were more wrong time, than wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. I Google searched the text you pasted in. It leads directly to the article in The Critic which you copied it from. . A perfect illustration of how dangerous it is to rely on Google . I have never heard of The Critic and do not even know what it is. I would be surprised if many people have. Oh Pat we don’t believe you . Probably best to concentrate on what is happening in the real world. By your own admission you are extremely well and have openly posted the fact on the forum. I an not criticising you in any way way but maybe it makes it more difficult for you to understand how hard some people have to work and what they wish to achieve.
Every day in life I mix with people who simply go about their life helping others. I would probably be laughed at if I were to mention Tufton sheet. Like most people they would never have heard of it. "All anybody has asked is where you sourced the piece from, because it was undoubtedly a copy/paste from the critic. So either you copied it or someone else did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. Yup. We ended up in a worse position on mortgages, interest rates, gilt yields without the wage growth and gdp growth that was to come with liz reforms. Sadly she was toow earlier and sack KK to appease the ready for rishis. Hopefully rishi and left of centre ecpnomic policies will disappear soon and we can get some actual conservatives in the Tory party. how long does it take to see GDP and wage increases (outside this of us who would get higher take home?). I've never seen any breakeven analysis on this. Although I haven't really looked. I understand there is a school of thought that says her policies were more wrong time, than wrong. " Truss’ budget would have helped the most well-off and harmed the poorest. The fact that Sunak/Hunt have fared no better is by the by. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. I Google searched the text you pasted in. It leads directly to the article in The Critic which you copied it from. . A perfect illustration of how dangerous it is to rely on Google . I have never heard of The Critic and do not even know what it is. I would be surprised if many people have. Oh Pat we don’t believe you . Probably best to concentrate on what is happening in the real world. By your own admission you are extremely well and have openly posted the fact on the forum. I an not criticising you in any way way but maybe it makes it more difficult for you to understand how hard some people have to work and what they wish to achieve.
Every day in life I mix with people who simply go about their life helping others. I would probably be laughed at if I were to mention Tufton sheet. Like most people they would never have heard of it. "Oh I agree. Most people don’t care. They just want more money. But they want that money in their pocket not someone else’s. Btw “Every day in life I mix with people who simply go about their life helping others.“ is a very interesting statement to make. Would you care to tell us more? I know you are often found giving advice to swingers on Cap d’Agde under your other profile Pat. Does that count  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread "Been waiting patiently for you to get all School Master like with us and start scolding for going off topic (which we aren’t because article of Truss = copy n paste and Truss = Tufton St so all totally on topic) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread "What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor. Surely this is actually this is vital. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital."Feisty is being contrary | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
Been waiting patiently for you to get all School Master like with us and start scolding for going off topic (which we aren’t because article of Truss = copy n paste and Truss = Tufton St so all totally on topic) "Youreblucky modern day schooling doesn't allow for the across the knee and belt
It all looks on topic tbf if thats how you look at it but come on, the immediate discrediting of a source and nothing regards the content.
The weird thing is, I haven't even read Pats post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital."Vital because they're not on your side | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
Been waiting patiently for you to get all School Master like with us and start scolding for going off topic (which we aren’t because article of Truss = copy n paste and Truss = Tufton St so all totally on topic)
Youreblucky modern day schooling doesn't allow for the across the knee and belt
It all looks on topic tbf if thats how you look at it but come on, the immediate discrediting of a source and nothing regards the content.
The weird thing is, I haven't even read Pats post "A week’s detention for you for committing the Cardinal Sin of not actually reading the OP (and not using a possessive apostrophe)
Or a spanked bottom? Your choice!
As Pat clearly did not write the content in his post, picking it apart or querying it is likely a futile exercise. AND this really is just Pat’s normal clever Top Tory Trolling anyway! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080)," Can you provide the full tax liabilities (which vary by state) rather than only talk about Federal Income Tax. Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
Been waiting patiently for you to get all School Master like with us and start scolding for going off topic (which we aren’t because article of Truss = copy n paste and Truss = Tufton St so all totally on topic)
Youreblucky modern day schooling doesn't allow for the across the knee and belt
It all looks on topic tbf if thats how you look at it but come on, the immediate discrediting of a source and nothing regards the content.
The weird thing is, I haven't even read Pats post
A week’s detention for you for committing the Cardinal Sin of not actually reading the OP (and not using a possessive apostrophe)
Or a spanked bottom? Your choice!
As Pat clearly did not write the content in his post, picking it apart or querying it is likely a futile exercise. AND this really is just Pat’s normal clever Top Tory Trolling anyway! "I'll take the spanks, only if MrsB is handing out the punishment
The post could be full of wonderful insight | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side "Who isn't? I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters."The source. Didn't think that needed explaining. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
Been waiting patiently for you to get all School Master like with us and start scolding for going off topic (which we aren’t because article of Truss = copy n paste and Truss = Tufton St so all totally on topic)
Youreblucky modern day schooling doesn't allow for the across the knee and belt
It all looks on topic tbf if thats how you look at it but come on, the immediate discrediting of a source and nothing regards the content.
The weird thing is, I haven't even read Pats post
A week’s detention for you for committing the Cardinal Sin of not actually reading the OP (and not using a possessive apostrophe)
Or a spanked bottom? Your choice!
As Pat clearly did not write the content in his post, picking it apart or querying it is likely a futile exercise. AND this really is just Pat’s normal clever Top Tory Trolling anyway!
I'll take the spanks, only if MrsB is handing out the punishment
The post could be full of wonderful insight "MrsB is well up for administering the severest of punishments for naughty boys like you Feisty! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
Been waiting patiently for you to get all School Master like with us and start scolding for going off topic (which we aren’t because article of Truss = copy n paste and Truss = Tufton St so all totally on topic)
Youreblucky modern day schooling doesn't allow for the across the knee and belt
It all looks on topic tbf if thats how you look at it but come on, the immediate discrediting of a source and nothing regards the content.
The weird thing is, I haven't even read Pats post
A week’s detention for you for committing the Cardinal Sin of not actually reading the OP (and not using a possessive apostrophe)
Or a spanked bottom? Your choice!
As Pat clearly did not write the content in his post, picking it apart or querying it is likely a futile exercise. AND this really is just Pat’s normal clever Top Tory Trolling anyway!
I'll take the spanks, only if MrsB is handing out the punishment
The post could be full of wonderful insight
MrsB is well up for administering the severest of punishments for naughty boys like you Feisty! "Yay | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. Yup. We ended up in a worse position on mortgages, interest rates, gilt yields without the wage growth and gdp growth that was to come with liz reforms. Sadly she was toow earlier and sack KK to appease the ready for rishis. Hopefully rishi and left of centre ecpnomic policies will disappear soon and we can get some actual conservatives in the Tory party. how long does it take to see GDP and wage increases (outside this of us who would get higher take home?). I've never seen any breakeven analysis on this. Although I haven't really looked. I understand there is a school of thought that says her policies were more wrong time, than wrong. " According to the imf it would come through this year in 2023. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining. "The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence. "*is as bias as they come. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence. "You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap. You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will. Rather than attack, you really should try, educate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would any one like to point out what Catherine got wrong?" Whose Catherine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession." This. Is. A. Disgrace!!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate "Bridge what gap? How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one? Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would any one like to point out what Catherine got wrong? Whose Catherine?" A pet name for Pat perhaps? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from?"I didn't have a go at you. You replied directly to my post, which was aimed at all, hence was a standalone post. If you're going to directly reply to me, I'm going to respond | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would any one like to point out what Catherine got wrong? Whose Catherine?" The author of the article quoted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would any one like to point out what Catherine got wrong? Whose Catherine? The author of the article quoted." *Copied and pasted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from?
I didn't have a go at you. You replied directly to my post, which was aimed at all, hence was a standalone post.
If you're going to directly reply to me, I'm going to respond "Bridge what gap? How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from?
I didn't have a go at you. You replied directly to my post, which was aimed at all, hence was a standalone post.
If you're going to directly reply to me, I'm going to respond
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
"The gap between left and right. How about reading said article and explaining to the poster why it's wrong rather than just attacking it with no substance. It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from?
I didn't have a go at you. You replied directly to my post, which was aimed at all, hence was a standalone post.
If you're going to directly reply to me, I'm going to respond
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
The gap between left and right.
How about reading said article and explaining to the poster why it's wrong rather than just attacking it with no substance.
It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups. "I'm not bridging a gap between left and right. I didn't attack the article. I pointed out where the OP copied and pasted it from. "It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups." This is what I'm talking about, you always seem to make it personal against me. Try to play the ball instead of the player. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from?
I didn't have a go at you. You replied directly to my post, which was aimed at all, hence was a standalone post.
If you're going to directly reply to me, I'm going to respond
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
The gap between left and right.
How about reading said article and explaining to the poster why it's wrong rather than just attacking it with no substance.
It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups. "Shut up you Tufton street shills. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from?
I didn't have a go at you. You replied directly to my post, which was aimed at all, hence was a standalone post.
If you're going to directly reply to me, I'm going to respond
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
The gap between left and right.
How about reading said article and explaining to the poster why it's wrong rather than just attacking it with no substance.
It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups.
I'm not bridging a gap between left and right.
I didn't attack the article. I pointed out where the OP copied and pasted it from.
"It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups."
This is what I'm talking about, you always seem to make it personal against me. Try to play the ball instead of the player.
"As I said, you responded directly to me, I said nothing of you telling anyone where the c&p was from 
It is hard work, I always seem to have to explain things to you.
Are you genuinely trying to lecture me on 'playing the ball'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from?
I didn't have a go at you. You replied directly to my post, which was aimed at all, hence was a standalone post.
If you're going to directly reply to me, I'm going to respond
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
The gap between left and right.
How about reading said article and explaining to the poster why it's wrong rather than just attacking it with no substance.
It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups.
I'm not bridging a gap between left and right.
I didn't attack the article. I pointed out where the OP copied and pasted it from.
"It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups."
This is what I'm talking about, you always seem to make it personal against me. Try to play the ball instead of the player.
As I said, you responded directly to me, I said nothing of you telling anyone where the c&p was from
It is hard work, I always seem to have to explain things to you.
Are you genuinely trying to lecture me on 'playing the ball'? "Not lecturing you, just asking politely. You can of course ignore and crack on as usual. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from?
I didn't have a go at you. You replied directly to my post, which was aimed at all, hence was a standalone post.
If you're going to directly reply to me, I'm going to respond
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
The gap between left and right.
How about reading said article and explaining to the poster why it's wrong rather than just attacking it with no substance.
It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups.
I'm not bridging a gap between left and right.
I didn't attack the article. I pointed out where the OP copied and pasted it from.
"It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups."
This is what I'm talking about, you always seem to make it personal against me. Try to play the ball instead of the player.
As I said, you responded directly to me, I said nothing of you telling anyone where the c&p was from
It is hard work, I always seem to have to explain things to you.
Are you genuinely trying to lecture me on 'playing the ball'?
Not lecturing you, just asking politely. You can of course ignore and crack on as usual.
"Cheers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from?
I didn't have a go at you. You replied directly to my post, which was aimed at all, hence was a standalone post.
If you're going to directly reply to me, I'm going to respond
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
The gap between left and right.
How about reading said article and explaining to the poster why it's wrong rather than just attacking it with no substance.
It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups.
Shut up you Tufton street shills."That would be Catherine McBride (if it was THAT Catherine who wrote the original article)! Most definitely associated with Tufton St! Another Tufton St person Morley refers to by first name! Curious? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This threads been up 7 hours I asked if any 1 wanted to debunk the article an hour ago We wait." I haven't had the time to read it fully. I have found it (so answered my own question whether it was part of an article... Yes it was). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This threads been up 7 hours I asked if any 1 wanted to debunk the article an hour ago We wait." I’ll quote myself from another thread discussion with you Morley as it feels fairly relevant... "The Tufton St orgs are well funded and have been undertaking research to support their agenda for years. Their “findings” only ever support their agenda (naturally) and that makes me suspicious. However, neither I or anybody else on here is equipped or has the time to deeply research counter arguments (or know where to find them). So naturally your “evidence” will appear more weighty. At the end of the day this is a forum on a swinger website. You are not going to get a room full of academics, economists, scientists etc who can effectively debate against Tufton St narratives. So for that reason it may often appear that you have scored some kind of victory, but it will always be hollow at best." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ " Not the well know Fancesca Willow with her art degree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Not the well know Fancesca Willow with her art degree "Plenty of sourced research in there to read, though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Not the well know Fancesca Willow with her art degree
Plenty of sourced research in there to read, though "Oh I'm not serious. I just wanted to join the 'let's bash the source' gang | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?" . Your comment is bizarre . Most rational people will never have heard of the Critic Magazine (whatever it is ). Your guess of the source is simply wrong. People would hardly refer to academic research backed by evidence and facts as Tory propaganda. Those who believe in these policies want the best for the county regardless of party . All the evidence to date would tend to suggest that Liz Truss was right and her foresight was a lot better than others . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I can say is I’d definitely fuck her! If the rumours were true, she was already owned
She is one of those people who so desperately wants to be popular and have “friends” or belong somewhere. Those type of people are easy to manipulate!". What evidence do you have to support that statement? She is already as extremely succesfull political. I doubt that she needs to find friends. They all come to her . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?. Your comment is bizarre . Most rational people will never have heard of the Critic Magazine (whatever it is ). Your guess of the source is simply wrong. People would hardly refer to academic research backed by evidence and facts as Tory propaganda. Those who believe in these policies want the best for the county regardless of party . All the evidence to date would tend to suggest that Liz Truss was right and her foresight was a lot better than others . " Can you explain yet how your post was word for word the same as the article in The Critic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?. Your comment is bizarre . Most rational people will never have heard of the Critic Magazine (whatever it is ). Your guess of the source is simply wrong. People would hardly refer to academic research backed by evidence and facts as Tory propaganda. Those who believe in these policies want the best for the county regardless of party . All the evidence to date would tend to suggest that Liz Truss was right and her foresight was a lot better than others . " Just a case of infinite monkeys then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here? I have never heard of the critic and do not even know what it is . Your comment is a little bizzzare . Guessing the source. I Google searched the text you pasted in. It leads directly to the article in The Critic which you copied it from. . A perfect illustration of how dangerous it is to rely on Google . I have never heard of The Critic and do not even know what it is. I would be surprised if many people have. Oh Pat we don’t believe you . Probably best to concentrate on what is happening in the real world. By your own admission you are extremely well and have openly posted the fact on the forum. I an not criticising you in any way way but maybe it makes it more difficult for you to understand how hard some people have to work and what they wish to achieve.
Every day in life I mix with people who simply go about their life helping others. I would probably be laughed at if I were to mention Tufton sheet. Like most people they would never have heard of it.
Oh I agree. Most people don’t care. They just want more money. But they want that money in their pocket not someone else’s.
Btw “Every day in life I mix with people who simply go about their life helping others.“ is a very interesting statement to make. Would you care to tell us more? I know you are often found giving advice to swingers on Cap d’Agde under your other profile Pat. Does that count ". However most people do care. What matters to them is their health and strength, family values , living in a pleasant and safe environment and not being under too much financial pressure . Ever day I mix with carers and regularly speak to Doctors , social workers and medical support staff . Having fedback from people who use these services provides a good view of reality. Whilst the health service needs a dramatic overhaul it is still delivering service . I recently phoned a Doctors surgery for an appointment. for a third party , I made the phone call at 10 10 and they were seeing the Doctor at 11.15 the same day ( it was non urgent ) . We need to adapt a similar funding structure for the NHS to that used in France and Germany . The country cannot afford to carry on providing these services free of charge | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I can say is I’d definitely fuck her! If the rumours were true, she was already owned
She is one of those people who so desperately wants to be popular and have “friends” or belong somewhere. Those type of people are easy to manipulate!. What evidence do you have to support that statement? She is already as extremely succesfull political. I doubt that she needs to find friends. They all come to her ."I don’t care if you believe Pat. It is true though. She was considered a complete joke at Oxford. The person you tried to keep parties and get togethers hidden from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from?
I didn't have a go at you. You replied directly to my post, which was aimed at all, hence was a standalone post.
If you're going to directly reply to me, I'm going to respond
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
The gap between left and right.
How about reading said article and explaining to the poster why it's wrong rather than just attacking it with no substance.
It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups. "********************************** It's his M.O. on here, playing the victim. Not the first time, there's lots of instances and, no doubt, many more to look forward to...! Some people....... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?. Your comment is bizarre . Most rational people will never have heard of the Critic Magazine (whatever it is ). Your guess of the source is simply wrong. People would hardly refer to academic research backed by evidence and facts as Tory propaganda. Those who believe in these policies want the best for the county regardless of party . All the evidence to date would tend to suggest that Liz Truss was right and her foresight was a lot better than others . Can you explain yet how your post was word for word the same as the article in The Critic? " A bit difficult as I have never heard of the critic and do not ever know what it is . It is hard to believe that many people would be bothered about the source of information on a swingers site. If you add the wrong oil to your car it may not perform properly , on a site such as this the source of information is irrelevant. Why would it be of any interest to anyone? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?. Your comment is bizarre . Most rational people will never have heard of the Critic Magazine (whatever it is ). Your guess of the source is simply wrong. People would hardly refer to academic research backed by evidence and facts as Tory propaganda. Those who believe in these policies want the best for the county regardless of party . All the evidence to date would tend to suggest that Liz Truss was right and her foresight was a lot better than others . Can you explain yet how your post was word for word the same as the article in The Critic? A bit difficult as I have never heard of the critic and do not ever know what it is . It is hard to believe that many people would be bothered about the source of information on a swingers site. If you add the wrong oil to your car it may not perform properly , on a site such as this the source of information is irrelevant. Why would it be of any interest to anyone? " I'm starting to think OP may actually be Boris .. the denial has become the story ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?. Your comment is bizarre . Most rational people will never have heard of the Critic Magazine (whatever it is ). Your guess of the source is simply wrong. People would hardly refer to academic research backed by evidence and facts as Tory propaganda. Those who believe in these policies want the best for the county regardless of party . All the evidence to date would tend to suggest that Liz Truss was right and her foresight was a lot better than others . Can you explain yet how your post was word for word the same as the article in The Critic? A bit difficult as I have never heard of the critic and do not ever know what it is . It is hard to believe that many people would be bothered about the source of information on a swingers site. If you add the wrong oil to your car it may not perform properly , on a site such as this the source of information is irrelevant. Why would it be of any interest to anyone? " I’m fascinated by the notion that someone could accidentally type a piece which happened to be exactly the same as a published article on a website they’ve never heard of. I wonder what the odds are of that happening? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?. Your comment is bizarre . Most rational people will never have heard of the Critic Magazine (whatever it is ). Your guess of the source is simply wrong. People would hardly refer to academic research backed by evidence and facts as Tory propaganda. Those who believe in these policies want the best for the county regardless of party . All the evidence to date would tend to suggest that Liz Truss was right and her foresight was a lot better than others . Can you explain yet how your post was word for word the same as the article in The Critic? A bit difficult as I have never heard of the critic and do not ever know what it is . It is hard to believe that many people would be bothered about the source of information on a swingers site. If you add the wrong oil to your car it may not perform properly , on a site such as this the source of information is irrelevant. Why would it be of any interest to anyone? " It's quite easy to fix. And I say this as someone who thinks content is infinitely more important than source. Cite your source. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fuck me. I have a few hours off and we're discrediting sources from the off starting with The Critic and now moving on to Tufton St. This is gonna be a fun thread
What's wrong with discussion on the source? Especially when the OP copied and pasted this from a Tory supporting magazine that's founder is a Tory party donor.
Surely this is actually this is vital.
Vital because they're not on your side
Who isn't?
I sometimes enjoy the way the OP trolls Conservative voters.
The source. Didn't think that needed explaining.
The source isn't as bias as they come, doesn't matter what "side" you perceive it or me to be on. That's the point, especially when the OP copied and pasted the text, then denied any knowledge of the magazine in question, using the Baldrick defence.
You keep on doing you. I'm sure it helps you to bridge that gap.
You know you keep saying the Tories will win the next GE, its attitudes like this that will help them. Not that I think they will.
Rather than attack, you really should try, educate
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
Why do you always have a go at me for, in today's instance, pointing out where the OP copied and pasted his original post from?
I didn't have a go at you. You replied directly to my post, which was aimed at all, hence was a standalone post.
If you're going to directly reply to me, I'm going to respond
Bridge what gap?
How should I attempt to educate someone who copies and pastes something from a magazine like this one?
The gap between left and right.
How about reading said article and explaining to the poster why it's wrong rather than just attacking it with no substance.
It's hard work having to explain this to grown ups.
**********************************
It's his M.O. on here, playing the victim.
Not the first time, there's lots of instances and, no doubt, many more to look forward to...!
Some people......."Please refrain from making personal attacks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?. Your comment is bizarre . Most rational people will never have heard of the Critic Magazine (whatever it is ). Your guess of the source is simply wrong. People would hardly refer to academic research backed by evidence and facts as Tory propaganda. Those who believe in these policies want the best for the county regardless of party . All the evidence to date would tend to suggest that Liz Truss was right and her foresight was a lot better than others . Can you explain yet how your post was word for word the same as the article in The Critic? A bit difficult as I have never heard of the critic and do not ever know what it is . It is hard to believe that many people would be bothered about the source of information on a swingers site. If you add the wrong oil to your car it may not perform properly , on a site such as this the source of information is irrelevant. Why would it be of any interest to anyone? I’m fascinated by the notion that someone could accidentally type a piece which happened to be exactly the same as a published article on a website they’ve never heard of. I wonder what the odds are of that happening?" You could calculate the probability of putting these words in this order. Including some of the more unusual word combinations such as "the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media". Plus the probability of doing this within four days of the article being published. But it would get to be such an astronomically small number, that I don't think we could express it with any meaningful fractions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?. Your comment is bizarre . Most rational people will never have heard of the Critic Magazine (whatever it is ). Your guess of the source is simply wrong. People would hardly refer to academic research backed by evidence and facts as Tory propaganda. Those who believe in these policies want the best for the county regardless of party . All the evidence to date would tend to suggest that Liz Truss was right and her foresight was a lot better than others . Can you explain yet how your post was word for word the same as the article in The Critic? A bit difficult as I have never heard of the critic and do not ever know what it is . It is hard to believe that many people would be bothered about the source of information on a swingers site. If you add the wrong oil to your car it may not perform properly , on a site such as this the source of information is irrelevant. Why would it be of any interest to anyone? " It's not your own thinking, you've simply and obviously copied and pasted it .. If you stand by it and clearly you do, the at least attribute the credit to who wrote it .. Why are you so worried ..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The countdown has started. A new alt persona and profile is imminent. Let’s place bets. I think there has been Hay/horses, Tractors, Trucks, Cheshire. What’s next?" There's been so many, difficult to keep track.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ " Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A) trickle down economics doesn’t work B) I could make a valid argument that because of trust and kwartang, our inflation rate is higher than other G7 countries…. You could call it the global environment plus the truss ineptitude…. C) is pat suing “the critic” for plagiarism…. Or did he fess up for nicking their article…. Because word for word would be almost an impossibility " Truss budget wasnt trickle down economics. Feel free to point to inflation reasoning.( this will be funny) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess" It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. " No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again" I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum." Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. " Lolz. That's amazing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. " Who are the poor in this example, where do they sit on the scale exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. Who are the poor in this example, where do they sit on the scale exactly?" Typically those on very low wages, in receipt of benefits etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. " How exactly does cutting the higher rate of tax help someone on minimum wage as the economy crumbles around them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She had the right idea and got the execution wrong. Instead of pulling out all the changes overnight she could have done that gradually. She announced energy bill support while also reducing the taxes massively. She could have just announced the base tax rate reduction first and then gone for reduction of higher tax slabs. Unfortunately, the bad execution put her out of power. Now we are back to doing the same mistake and get stuck in the loop - Increase taxes to pay social welfare, productivity goes down, increase tax again to pay for social welfare. Foolishness is trying the same thing again and again while expecting a different result, isn't it?" are there any studies that show how productibitu and tax are linked. In my mind, our insanity is continuing to think complex problems will be solved by pulling simple levers. I fear we are sometimes Skinner's pigeons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. How exactly does cutting the higher rate of tax help someone on minimum wage as the economy crumbles around them?" She also reduced the lower tax rate by a percentage. As far as how higher tax rate helps someone on minimum wage, it improves the supply side of employment. No, it's not "trickle down" economics. Trickle down economics is not a thing free market proponents came up with. Anyone who understands free market will never use the term. It's a term frequently used by left wing people because they are the ones who think wealth is a zero sum property and wealth "trickles down". What happens when you reduce higher tax rates is that it results in more high earning people willing to come to the country and stay here. - You end up collecting more taxes because you have more people in the higher tax slabs. - More businesses come up because of the arrival of more wealthy people, resulting in high labour demand and new opportunities, which pushes the wages up without even having to increase minimum wage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. How exactly does cutting the higher rate of tax help someone on minimum wage as the economy crumbles around them? She also reduced the lower tax rate by a percentage. As far as how higher tax rate helps someone on minimum wage, it improves the supply side of employment. No, it's not "trickle down" economics. Trickle down economics is not a thing free market proponents came up with. Anyone who understands free market will never use the term. It's a term frequently used by left wing people because they are the ones who think wealth is a zero sum property and wealth "trickles down". What happens when you reduce higher tax rates is that it results in more high earning people willing to come to the country and stay here. - You end up collecting more taxes because you have more people in the higher tax slabs. - More businesses come up because of the arrival of more wealthy people, resulting in high labour demand and new opportunities, which pushes the wages up without even having to increase minimum wage. " Cutting higher rates of tac has a history of stunting growth, not increasing it. Sorry to burst that particular old trope. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"She had the right idea and got the execution wrong. Instead of pulling out all the changes overnight she could have done that gradually. She announced energy bill support while also reducing the taxes massively. She could have just announced the base tax rate reduction first and then gone for reduction of higher tax slabs. Unfortunately, the bad execution put her out of power. Now we are back to doing the same mistake and get stuck in the loop - Increase taxes to pay social welfare, productivity goes down, increase tax again to pay for social welfare. Foolishness is trying the same thing again and again while expecting a different result, isn't it?are there any studies that show how productibitu and tax are linked. In my mind, our insanity is continuing to think complex problems will be solved by pulling simple levers. I fear we are sometimes Skinner's pigeons. " It's hard to perform studies on this. Economics is hard problem. But setting the correct incentives for individuals is always way better than a centralised entity trying to control everything, which is the main reason why socialism ends up in a disaster whenever there is a minor economic depression. Why do you think US recovered faster both after the recession and after Covid while Europe is always sluggish? Europe's solution to any problem is to increase taxes. The better solution is to let people keep more of their money which gives them the incentive to work more and also invest more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economic impact of keeping tax low for the rich - 50 years of data from 18 OECD nations: https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich" "Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak" How does this translate to reducing taxes stunts the growth as you mentioned in previous message? You know, if you search Google on economic matters, you can find a study that supports any economic theory. Here is a page with a list of studies showing how reduction in taxes results in improvement of economy: .https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economic impact of keeping tax low for the rich - 50 years of data from 18 OECD nations: https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich "Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak" How does this translate to reducing taxes stunts the growth as you mentioned in previous message? You know, if you search Google on economic matters, you can find a study that supports any economic theory. Here is a page with a list of studies showing how reduction in taxes results in improvement of economy: .https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/" You know the quote you gave was what the piece was arguing against, right? Did you read it? Check the sources? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economic impact of keeping tax low for the rich - 50 years of data from 18 OECD nations: https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich "Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak" How does this translate to reducing taxes stunts the growth as you mentioned in previous message? You know, if you search Google on economic matters, you can find a study that supports any economic theory. Here is a page with a list of studies showing how reduction in taxes results in improvement of economy: .https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/ You know the quote you gave was what the piece was arguing against, right? Did you read it? Check the sources? " I said that reducing taxes will improve the economy. You said that reducing taxes will stunt growth which is a negative effect on economy. The article says that reducing tax has no positive effect on economy. This is not what you claimed. The link I shared shows plenty of studies which shows reduction of taxes indeed has positive effect on economy. Truth is there are plenty of "studies" which claim to show different of effects of taxation. When you have a group of people and you want them to be more wealthy, letting them keep the money they earn is always a much better way to do it than taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. Socialists prefer the latter because they can't get out of their belief system that wealth is a zero-sum property. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economic impact of keeping tax low for the rich - 50 years of data from 18 OECD nations: https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich "Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak" How does this translate to reducing taxes stunts the growth as you mentioned in previous message? You know, if you search Google on economic matters, you can find a study that supports any economic theory. Here is a page with a list of studies showing how reduction in taxes results in improvement of economy: .https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/ You know the quote you gave was what the piece was arguing against, right? Did you read it? Check the sources? I said that reducing taxes will improve the economy. You said that reducing taxes will stunt growth which is a negative effect on economy. The article says that reducing tax has no positive effect on economy. This is not what you claimed. The link I shared shows plenty of studies which shows reduction of taxes indeed has positive effect on economy. Truth is there are plenty of "studies" which claim to show different of effects of taxation. When you have a group of people and you want them to be more wealthy, letting them keep the money they earn is always a much better way to do it than taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. Socialists prefer the latter because they can't get out of their belief system that wealth is a zero-sum property." How does increasing the wealth gap improve an economy? I’d like to see evidence - because I provided a piece with 50 years of data that disputes it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economic impact of keeping tax low for the rich - 50 years of data from 18 OECD nations: https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich "Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak" How does this translate to reducing taxes stunts the growth as you mentioned in previous message? You know, if you search Google on economic matters, you can find a study that supports any economic theory. Here is a page with a list of studies showing how reduction in taxes results in improvement of economy: .https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/ You know the quote you gave was what the piece was arguing against, right? Did you read it? Check the sources? I said that reducing taxes will improve the economy. You said that reducing taxes will stunt growth which is a negative effect on economy. The article says that reducing tax has no positive effect on economy. This is not what you claimed. The link I shared shows plenty of studies which shows reduction of taxes indeed has positive effect on economy. Truth is there are plenty of "studies" which claim to show different of effects of taxation. When you have a group of people and you want them to be more wealthy, letting them keep the money they earn is always a much better way to do it than taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. Socialists prefer the latter because they can't get out of their belief system that wealth is a zero-sum property. How does increasing the wealth gap improve an economy? I’d like to see evidence - because I provided a piece with 50 years of data that disputes it. " And the link I shared has multiple researches done across different countries. Long term economics is hard to understand based on studies. So many things happen in societies this big and it's hard to differentiate correlation and causation. About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/05/308380342/most-americans-make-it-to-the-top-20-percent-at-least-for-a-while 61% of households in the US break into top 20% income through their lives in the US. So it's not the same set of people. If top 20% wealth increases, it actually means 61% of households are better off. Another point is, wealth gap itself isn't inherently bad. Would you rather be in a society where everyone's income is 10,000£ or the one where lower income is 15,000£, middle class earning 50,000£ and rich people earn 200,000£? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economic impact of keeping tax low for the rich - 50 years of data from 18 OECD nations: https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich "Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak" How does this translate to reducing taxes stunts the growth as you mentioned in previous message? You know, if you search Google on economic matters, you can find a study that supports any economic theory. Here is a page with a list of studies showing how reduction in taxes results in improvement of economy: .https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/ You know the quote you gave was what the piece was arguing against, right? Did you read it? Check the sources? I said that reducing taxes will improve the economy. You said that reducing taxes will stunt growth which is a negative effect on economy. The article says that reducing tax has no positive effect on economy. This is not what you claimed. The link I shared shows plenty of studies which shows reduction of taxes indeed has positive effect on economy. Truth is there are plenty of "studies" which claim to show different of effects of taxation. When you have a group of people and you want them to be more wealthy, letting them keep the money they earn is always a much better way to do it than taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. Socialists prefer the latter because they can't get out of their belief system that wealth is a zero-sum property. How does increasing the wealth gap improve an economy? I’d like to see evidence - because I provided a piece with 50 years of data that disputes it. And the link I shared has multiple researches done across different countries. Long term economics is hard to understand based on studies. So many things happen in societies this big and it's hard to differentiate correlation and causation. About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/05/308380342/most-americans-make-it-to-the-top-20-percent-at-least-for-a-while 61% of households in the US break into top 20% income through their lives in the US. So it's not the same set of people. If top 20% wealth increases, it actually means 61% of households are better off. Another point is, wealth gap itself isn't inherently bad. Would you rather be in a society where everyone's income is 10,000£ or the one where lower income is 15,000£, middle class earning 50,000£ and rich people earn 200,000£? " Nations with higher wealth gaps historically have more fragile and vulnerable economies which are ill equipped to cope with economic change. Yes, vast wealth economy (and the U.K. is second only to the US amongst rich countries) are inherently bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It looks like Liz Truss was right all along - very sad that we are all suffering because the ill informed failed to appreciate the not insubstantial long term benefits on her policies . We have simply made everyone poorer . Those who drove out Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have a lot to answer for . At least Boris polled an 80 seat majority - a true reflection of his popularity . Who cares about the standards and committee and what they think . Article as below Finally, the bête noire of the Truss-blaming media: her proposal to lower the top income tax bracket from 45 per cent back to 40 per cent. This was the top rate until almost the last few days of the Brown Labour Government in April 2010. Even though the 45 per cent tax bracket included many media presenters, the bile poured onto this proposal was beyond belief. Journalists failed to understand that many high-paying service jobs are mobile — especially after Covid when everyone (including a senior Treasury civil servant) has discovered that they can live and work wherever they like and attend meetings via Zoom or Teams when necessary. Tax rates are more important than ever for keeping financial services, consulting, accounting services, legal services and other screen-based workers as residents for tax purposes in the UK. Many other financial centres have much lower taxes: the top rate of federal income tax in the US is only 37 per cent and only applies to income over $539,900 (£411,080), whilst Singapore’s top income tax rate will be 24 per cent on earnings over S$1 million (£575,800) in 2024. Keeping high earners in London is important because the top one per cent of earners in the UK pay 28 per cent of total UK income taxes — but cost the government little to nothing. They mostly send their children to private schools and have private medical insurance and private pensions (hopefully not the LDI kind). Equally, attracting more high earners to Britain would have helped balance the books and sent a powerful signal that Britain is once again fully open for business. Instead, the media screamed “unfair”, and the policy was dropped. Losing Truss’s economic reforms was a tragedy for the UK. As expected, the market did what markets always do: gas prices have fallen back to normal levels, so the much-prophesied horror of average energy bills over £5,000 never happened. Instead, we still have higher mortgage rates under the Sunak/Hunt government. We haven’t got a growing economy, though, nor a thriving oil and gas industry, nor a population fully back at work, nor an entrepreneurial class of self-employed people building new businesses, nor an influx of international bankers and lawyers and accountants wanting to live and work and pay taxes in the UK. If the accountancy firms are to be believed, that tide is going in the other direction. All we got was a Chancellor who is apparently looking forward to the coming recession. If we wanted to read propaganda, we'd go to The Critic Magazine website. Why the need to copy and paste this Tory funding rag into here?. It would be interesting to know what criteria you used to come to your conclusion. You appear to be saying that those whom support a party with whom you disagree should not be allowed to post . In any event you have quoted the incorrect source data for the information . In light of your comments and potentially superior knowledge I had decided to do a reality check of my opinions against the wider public. Last time I checked the Comderavatives were still the majority party and supported by a wide selection of the population. We will see what happens at the general election. " Think most people maybe a little annoyed with her policies which made their mortgages spike by several £100s per month, made borrowing much more expensive ect. Even if they hadn't have crashed the economy - which they did, but we'll pretend they didn't; there'd have still been no benefit for ordinary people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economic impact of keeping tax low for the rich - 50 years of data from 18 OECD nations: https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich "Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak" How does this translate to reducing taxes stunts the growth as you mentioned in previous message? You know, if you search Google on economic matters, you can find a study that supports any economic theory. Here is a page with a list of studies showing how reduction in taxes results in improvement of economy: .https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/ You know the quote you gave was what the piece was arguing against, right? Did you read it? Check the sources? I said that reducing taxes will improve the economy. You said that reducing taxes will stunt growth which is a negative effect on economy. The article says that reducing tax has no positive effect on economy. This is not what you claimed. The link I shared shows plenty of studies which shows reduction of taxes indeed has positive effect on economy. Truth is there are plenty of "studies" which claim to show different of effects of taxation. When you have a group of people and you want them to be more wealthy, letting them keep the money they earn is always a much better way to do it than taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. Socialists prefer the latter because they can't get out of their belief system that wealth is a zero-sum property. How does increasing the wealth gap improve an economy? I’d like to see evidence - because I provided a piece with 50 years of data that disputes it. And the link I shared has multiple researches done across different countries. Long term economics is hard to understand based on studies. So many things happen in societies this big and it's hard to differentiate correlation and causation. About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/05/308380342/most-americans-make-it-to-the-top-20-percent-at-least-for-a-while 61% of households in the US break into top 20% income through their lives in the US. So it's not the same set of people. If top 20% wealth increases, it actually means 61% of households are better off. Another point is, wealth gap itself isn't inherently bad. Would you rather be in a society where everyone's income is 10,000£ or the one where lower income is 15,000£, middle class earning 50,000£ and rich people earn 200,000£? Nations with higher wealth gaps historically have more fragile and vulnerable economies which are ill equipped to cope with economic change. Yes, vast wealth economy (and the U.K. is second only to the US amongst rich countries) are inherently bad." So you don't have any answer for the questions I raised. You say countries like US are ill equipped to handle change. And yet, US seemed to recover from recession and Covid way quicker compared to European countries. Seems to go opposite to your claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. " Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economic impact of keeping tax low for the rich - 50 years of data from 18 OECD nations: https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich "Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak" How does this translate to reducing taxes stunts the growth as you mentioned in previous message? You know, if you search Google on economic matters, you can find a study that supports any economic theory. Here is a page with a list of studies showing how reduction in taxes results in improvement of economy: .https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/ You know the quote you gave was what the piece was arguing against, right? Did you read it? Check the sources? I said that reducing taxes will improve the economy. You said that reducing taxes will stunt growth which is a negative effect on economy. The article says that reducing tax has no positive effect on economy. This is not what you claimed. The link I shared shows plenty of studies which shows reduction of taxes indeed has positive effect on economy. Truth is there are plenty of "studies" which claim to show different of effects of taxation. When you have a group of people and you want them to be more wealthy, letting them keep the money they earn is always a much better way to do it than taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. Socialists prefer the latter because they can't get out of their belief system that wealth is a zero-sum property. How does increasing the wealth gap improve an economy? I’d like to see evidence - because I provided a piece with 50 years of data that disputes it. And the link I shared has multiple researches done across different countries. Long term economics is hard to understand based on studies. So many things happen in societies this big and it's hard to differentiate correlation and causation. About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/05/308380342/most-americans-make-it-to-the-top-20-percent-at-least-for-a-while 61% of households in the US break into top 20% income through their lives in the US. So it's not the same set of people. If top 20% wealth increases, it actually means 61% of households are better off. Another point is, wealth gap itself isn't inherently bad. Would you rather be in a society where everyone's income is 10,000£ or the one where lower income is 15,000£, middle class earning 50,000£ and rich people earn 200,000£? Nations with higher wealth gaps historically have more fragile and vulnerable economies which are ill equipped to cope with economic change. Yes, vast wealth economy (and the U.K. is second only to the US amongst rich countries) are inherently bad. So you don't have any answer for the questions I raised. You say countries like US are ill equipped to handle change. And yet, US seemed to recover from recession and Covid way quicker compared to European countries. Seems to go opposite to your claim. " Actually I would argue that the trillion dollar infrastructure bill and Covid recovery act brought in the Biden administration actually helped a lot with the recovery… To the point where every one republican who voted against the bill and called it socialist/marxist… now run claiming they brought government money into their districts! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? " The answer to your first question is in the second question. The wealth gap argument is made by the leftists in such a way that we have two different groups of people who are either always wealthy or always in poverty. In reality, people accumulate wealth over time. If you dig deeper into the lower wealth people, it's usually people who just entered workforce. Over a period of time, they accumulate wealth and enter top wealth section. So if the top 20% are earning more over a period of time, it actually is a good thing for most of the society because about 60% of people enter the top 20% at some point in their life. It's just a matter of when. And then there is the question of would you rather have everyone poor, which is what socialism leads to, or have some poor people, most middle-class people and some rich people? It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The economic impact of keeping tax low for the rich - 50 years of data from 18 OECD nations: https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich "Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak" How does this translate to reducing taxes stunts the growth as you mentioned in previous message? You know, if you search Google on economic matters, you can find a study that supports any economic theory. Here is a page with a list of studies showing how reduction in taxes results in improvement of economy: .https://taxfoundation.org/reviewing-recent-evidence-effect-taxes-economic-growth/ You know the quote you gave was what the piece was arguing against, right? Did you read it? Check the sources? I said that reducing taxes will improve the economy. You said that reducing taxes will stunt growth which is a negative effect on economy. The article says that reducing tax has no positive effect on economy. This is not what you claimed. The link I shared shows plenty of studies which shows reduction of taxes indeed has positive effect on economy. Truth is there are plenty of "studies" which claim to show different of effects of taxation. When you have a group of people and you want them to be more wealthy, letting them keep the money they earn is always a much better way to do it than taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. Socialists prefer the latter because they can't get out of their belief system that wealth is a zero-sum property. How does increasing the wealth gap improve an economy? I’d like to see evidence - because I provided a piece with 50 years of data that disputes it. And the link I shared has multiple researches done across different countries. Long term economics is hard to understand based on studies. So many things happen in societies this big and it's hard to differentiate correlation and causation. About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/05/308380342/most-americans-make-it-to-the-top-20-percent-at-least-for-a-while 61% of households in the US break into top 20% income through their lives in the US. So it's not the same set of people. If top 20% wealth increases, it actually means 61% of households are better off. Another point is, wealth gap itself isn't inherently bad. Would you rather be in a society where everyone's income is 10,000£ or the one where lower income is 15,000£, middle class earning 50,000£ and rich people earn 200,000£? Nations with higher wealth gaps historically have more fragile and vulnerable economies which are ill equipped to cope with economic change. Yes, vast wealth economy (and the U.K. is second only to the US amongst rich countries) are inherently bad. So you don't have any answer for the questions I raised. You say countries like US are ill equipped to handle change. And yet, US seemed to recover from recession and Covid way quicker compared to European countries. Seems to go opposite to your claim. Actually I would argue that the trillion dollar infrastructure bill and Covid recovery act brought in the Biden administration actually helped a lot with the recovery… To the point where every one republican who voted against the bill and called it socialist/marxist… now run claiming they brought government money into their districts! "Biden's increased corporation tax is enforced only from next year. So you won't see the effects of it yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? The answer to your first question is in the second question. The wealth gap argument is made by the leftists in such a way that we have two different groups of people who are either always wealthy or always in poverty. In reality, people accumulate wealth over time. If you dig deeper into the lower wealth people, it's usually people who just entered workforce. Over a period of time, they accumulate wealth and enter top wealth section. So if the top 20% are earning more over a period of time, it actually is a good thing for most of the society because about 60% of people enter the top 20% at some point in their life. It's just a matter of when. And then there is the question of would you rather have everyone poor, which is what socialism leads to, or have some poor people, most middle-class people and some rich people? It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid." I'm sorry but this simply isn't how the world works. It's very unusual for people to rise through the social classes. The system is set up to keep those at the top, at the top, and the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves at the bottom. Still if you think left wingers are stupid. It's probably pointless continuing. So I'll leave you to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm waiting for the day a tory policy makes a positive difference to my life or anybody I know" Unless your mates are billionaires. You're going to be waiting for a fucking long time! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? The answer to your first question is in the second question. The wealth gap argument is made by the leftists in such a way that we have two different groups of people who are either always wealthy or always in poverty. In reality, people accumulate wealth over time. If you dig deeper into the lower wealth people, it's usually people who just entered workforce. Over a period of time, they accumulate wealth and enter top wealth section. So if the top 20% are earning more over a period of time, it actually is a good thing for most of the society because about 60% of people enter the top 20% at some point in their life. It's just a matter of when. And then there is the question of would you rather have everyone poor, which is what socialism leads to, or have some poor people, most middle-class people and some rich people? It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid. I'm sorry but this simply isn't how the world works. It's very unusual for people to rise through the social classes. The system is set up to keep those at the top, at the top, and the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves at the bottom. Still if you think left wingers are stupid. It's probably pointless continuing. So I'll leave you to it." I am sorry, how I said is exactly how the world works. 5 of the top 10 richest people are from poorer or middle class households. Take a look at the top ten richest people at the start of every decade and see how it radically changes. So much for keeping the richest at the top. If that's the goal, they are clearly doing a terrible job at it. If the left wingers can't see this and still follow the phenomenal disaster that Marxism has been for every country it touched, yes they are stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? The answer to your first question is in the second question. The wealth gap argument is made by the leftists in such a way that we have two different groups of people who are either always wealthy or always in poverty. In reality, people accumulate wealth over time. If you dig deeper into the lower wealth people, it's usually people who just entered workforce. Over a period of time, they accumulate wealth and enter top wealth section. So if the top 20% are earning more over a period of time, it actually is a good thing for most of the society because about 60% of people enter the top 20% at some point in their life. It's just a matter of when. And then there is the question of would you rather have everyone poor, which is what socialism leads to, or have some poor people, most middle-class people and some rich people? It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid. I'm sorry but this simply isn't how the world works. It's very unusual for people to rise through the social classes. The system is set up to keep those at the top, at the top, and the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves at the bottom. Still if you think left wingers are stupid. It's probably pointless continuing. So I'll leave you to it. I am sorry, how I said is exactly how the world works. 5 of the top 10 richest people are from poorer or middle class households. Take a look at the top ten richest people at the start of every decade and see how it radically changes. So much for keeping the richest at the top. If that's the goal, they are clearly doing a terrible job at it. If the left wingers can't see this and still follow the phenomenal disaster that Marxism has been for every country it touched, yes they are stupid." That's 5 people. Out of 6 billion. Doesn't seem like a sensible sample size to me. Left wing does not equal Marxism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? The answer to your first question is in the second question. The wealth gap argument is made by the leftists in such a way that we have two different groups of people who are either always wealthy or always in poverty. In reality, people accumulate wealth over time. If you dig deeper into the lower wealth people, it's usually people who just entered workforce. Over a period of time, they accumulate wealth and enter top wealth section. So if the top 20% are earning more over a period of time, it actually is a good thing for most of the society because about 60% of people enter the top 20% at some point in their life. It's just a matter of when. And then there is the question of would you rather have everyone poor, which is what socialism leads to, or have some poor people, most middle-class people and some rich people? It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid. I'm sorry but this simply isn't how the world works. It's very unusual for people to rise through the social classes. The system is set up to keep those at the top, at the top, and the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves at the bottom. Still if you think left wingers are stupid. It's probably pointless continuing. So I'll leave you to it. I am sorry, how I said is exactly how the world works. 5 of the top 10 richest people are from poorer or middle class households. Take a look at the top ten richest people at the start of every decade and see how it radically changes. So much for keeping the richest at the top. If that's the goal, they are clearly doing a terrible job at it. If the left wingers can't see this and still follow the phenomenal disaster that Marxism has been for every country it touched, yes they are stupid. That's 5 people. Out of 6 billion. Doesn't seem like a sensible sample size to me. Left wing does not equal Marxism. " That's 5 out of ten richest people. As I shared the link above, over 60% of people in the US reach top 20% earning households at some point in their life. Far from "unusual" like you mentioned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? The answer to your first question is in the second question. The wealth gap argument is made by the leftists in such a way that we have two different groups of people who are either always wealthy or always in poverty. In reality, people accumulate wealth over time. If you dig deeper into the lower wealth people, it's usually people who just entered workforce. Over a period of time, they accumulate wealth and enter top wealth section. So if the top 20% are earning more over a period of time, it actually is a good thing for most of the society because about 60% of people enter the top 20% at some point in their life. It's just a matter of when. And then there is the question of would you rather have everyone poor, which is what socialism leads to, or have some poor people, most middle-class people and some rich people? It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid. I'm sorry but this simply isn't how the world works. It's very unusual for people to rise through the social classes. The system is set up to keep those at the top, at the top, and the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves at the bottom. Still if you think left wingers are stupid. It's probably pointless continuing. So I'll leave you to it. I am sorry, how I said is exactly how the world works. 5 of the top 10 richest people are from poorer or middle class households. Take a look at the top ten richest people at the start of every decade and see how it radically changes. So much for keeping the richest at the top. If that's the goal, they are clearly doing a terrible job at it. If the left wingers can't see this and still follow the phenomenal disaster that Marxism has been for every country it touched, yes they are stupid. That's 5 people. Out of 6 billion. Doesn't seem like a sensible sample size to me. Left wing does not equal Marxism. That's 5 out of ten richest people. As I shared the link above, over 60% of people in the US reach top 20% earning households at some point in their life. Far from "unusual" like you mentioned." 60% of people are in the top 20%? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/amp/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/amp/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html" I was talking about economic right. Not social. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? The answer to your first question is in the second question. The wealth gap argument is made by the leftists in such a way that we have two different groups of people who are either always wealthy or always in poverty. In reality, people accumulate wealth over time. If you dig deeper into the lower wealth people, it's usually people who just entered workforce. Over a period of time, they accumulate wealth and enter top wealth section. So if the top 20% are earning more over a period of time, it actually is a good thing for most of the society because about 60% of people enter the top 20% at some point in their life. It's just a matter of when. And then there is the question of would you rather have everyone poor, which is what socialism leads to, or have some poor people, most middle-class people and some rich people? It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid. I'm sorry but this simply isn't how the world works. It's very unusual for people to rise through the social classes. The system is set up to keep those at the top, at the top, and the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves at the bottom. Still if you think left wingers are stupid. It's probably pointless continuing. So I'll leave you to it. I am sorry, how I said is exactly how the world works. 5 of the top 10 richest people are from poorer or middle class households. Take a look at the top ten richest people at the start of every decade and see how it radically changes. So much for keeping the richest at the top. If that's the goal, they are clearly doing a terrible job at it. If the left wingers can't see this and still follow the phenomenal disaster that Marxism has been for every country it touched, yes they are stupid. That's 5 people. Out of 6 billion. Doesn't seem like a sensible sample size to me. Left wing does not equal Marxism. That's 5 out of ten richest people. As I shared the link above, over 60% of people in the US reach top 20% earning households at some point in their life. Far from "unusual" like you mentioned. 60% of people are in the top 20%? "It says 60% of people reach top 20% at some point in their life. If leftists understood these basic concepts, they probably wouldn't be leftists in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? The answer to your first question is in the second question. The wealth gap argument is made by the leftists in such a way that we have two different groups of people who are either always wealthy or always in poverty. In reality, people accumulate wealth over time. If you dig deeper into the lower wealth people, it's usually people who just entered workforce. Over a period of time, they accumulate wealth and enter top wealth section. So if the top 20% are earning more over a period of time, it actually is a good thing for most of the society because about 60% of people enter the top 20% at some point in their life. It's just a matter of when. And then there is the question of would you rather have everyone poor, which is what socialism leads to, or have some poor people, most middle-class people and some rich people? It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid. I'm sorry but this simply isn't how the world works. It's very unusual for people to rise through the social classes. The system is set up to keep those at the top, at the top, and the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves at the bottom. Still if you think left wingers are stupid. It's probably pointless continuing. So I'll leave you to it. I am sorry, how I said is exactly how the world works. 5 of the top 10 richest people are from poorer or middle class households. Take a look at the top ten richest people at the start of every decade and see how it radically changes. So much for keeping the richest at the top. If that's the goal, they are clearly doing a terrible job at it. If the left wingers can't see this and still follow the phenomenal disaster that Marxism has been for every country it touched, yes they are stupid. That's 5 people. Out of 6 billion. Doesn't seem like a sensible sample size to me. Left wing does not equal Marxism. That's 5 out of ten richest people. As I shared the link above, over 60% of people in the US reach top 20% earning households at some point in their life. Far from "unusual" like you mentioned. 60% of people are in the top 20%?
It says 60% of people reach top 20% at some point in their life. If leftists understood these basic concepts, they probably wouldn't be leftists in the first place."You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t know what socialism is, so I’d be wary of throwing around accusations of low intellect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't know it it's been said, but Boris had such a big majority because he was the only leader of a major party that was promising to honour the Brexit result if they got in. There had been plenty of warnings, the last EU election vote we took part in was the far biggest. " And yet second referendum backing parties earned more votes than Brexit supporting ones in the 2019 election that gave Johnson an 80 seat majority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? The answer to your first question is in the second question. The wealth gap argument is made by the leftists in such a way that we have two different groups of people who are either always wealthy or always in poverty. In reality, people accumulate wealth over time. If you dig deeper into the lower wealth people, it's usually people who just entered workforce. Over a period of time, they accumulate wealth and enter top wealth section. So if the top 20% are earning more over a period of time, it actually is a good thing for most of the society because about 60% of people enter the top 20% at some point in their life. It's just a matter of when. And then there is the question of would you rather have everyone poor, which is what socialism leads to, or have some poor people, most middle-class people and some rich people? It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid. I'm sorry but this simply isn't how the world works. It's very unusual for people to rise through the social classes. The system is set up to keep those at the top, at the top, and the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves at the bottom. Still if you think left wingers are stupid. It's probably pointless continuing. So I'll leave you to it. I am sorry, how I said is exactly how the world works. 5 of the top 10 richest people are from poorer or middle class households. Take a look at the top ten richest people at the start of every decade and see how it radically changes. So much for keeping the richest at the top. If that's the goal, they are clearly doing a terrible job at it. If the left wingers can't see this and still follow the phenomenal disaster that Marxism has been for every country it touched, yes they are stupid. That's 5 people. Out of 6 billion. Doesn't seem like a sensible sample size to me. Left wing does not equal Marxism. That's 5 out of ten richest people. As I shared the link above, over 60% of people in the US reach top 20% earning households at some point in their life. Far from "unusual" like you mentioned. 60% of people are in the top 20%?
It says 60% of people reach top 20% at some point in their life. If leftists understood these basic concepts, they probably wouldn't be leftists in the first place.
You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t know what socialism is, so I’d be wary of throwing around accusations of low intellect. "You don't have arguments against any of the points I raised. So this is the kind of response you want to fall back to? Anyway, tell me what socialism is. Are you talking about social democracy? Are you talking about the Marxist version? Are you talking about communism? And show me the countries which have been successful through socialism. Or are you one of the people in the "Socialism was never implemented properly" gang? I come from India which was predominantly socialist until the early 1990s. The country was heading for a disaster. Luckily, the same political party that embraced socialism after independence, had a moment of genius and decided to liberalise the economy. The country has been in the path of growth ever since. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? The answer to your first question is in the second question. The wealth gap argument is made by the leftists in such a way that we have two different groups of people who are either always wealthy or always in poverty. In reality, people accumulate wealth over time. If you dig deeper into the lower wealth people, it's usually people who just entered workforce. Over a period of time, they accumulate wealth and enter top wealth section. So if the top 20% are earning more over a period of time, it actually is a good thing for most of the society because about 60% of people enter the top 20% at some point in their life. It's just a matter of when. And then there is the question of would you rather have everyone poor, which is what socialism leads to, or have some poor people, most middle-class people and some rich people? It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid. I'm sorry but this simply isn't how the world works. It's very unusual for people to rise through the social classes. The system is set up to keep those at the top, at the top, and the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves at the bottom. Still if you think left wingers are stupid. It's probably pointless continuing. So I'll leave you to it. I am sorry, how I said is exactly how the world works. 5 of the top 10 richest people are from poorer or middle class households. Take a look at the top ten richest people at the start of every decade and see how it radically changes. So much for keeping the richest at the top. If that's the goal, they are clearly doing a terrible job at it. If the left wingers can't see this and still follow the phenomenal disaster that Marxism has been for every country it touched, yes they are stupid. That's 5 people. Out of 6 billion. Doesn't seem like a sensible sample size to me. Left wing does not equal Marxism. That's 5 out of ten richest people. As I shared the link above, over 60% of people in the US reach top 20% earning households at some point in their life. Far from "unusual" like you mentioned. 60% of people are in the top 20%?
It says 60% of people reach top 20% at some point in their life. If leftists understood these basic concepts, they probably wouldn't be leftists in the first place.
You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t know what socialism is, so I’d be wary of throwing around accusations of low intellect.
You don't have arguments against any of the points I raised. So this is the kind of response you want to fall back to?
Anyway, tell me what socialism is. Are you talking about social democracy? Are you talking about the Marxist version? Are you talking about communism? And show me the countries which have been successful through socialism. Or are you one of the people in the "Socialism was never implemented properly" gang?
I come from India which was predominantly socialist until the early 1990s. The country was heading for a disaster. Luckily, the same political party that embraced socialism after independence, had a moment of genius and decided to liberalise the economy. The country has been in the path of growth ever since. "Marxism, soc-Dem and communism are all very different. I myself am a proponent of Scandinavian style soc-dem, which has been very successfully utilised, as I’m sure you well know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About your question on wealth gap, first of all "wealth gap" is a massive red-herring left wing politicians use to distract people. Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side. Why would only left wing people care about the wealth gap? Surely not all right wingers are heartless narcissists. Seems a bit insulting. "Wealth gap is a problem only if it's the same set of people who are in the wealthy side and the poverty side." Can you elaborate on this? The answer to your first question is in the second question. The wealth gap argument is made by the leftists in such a way that we have two different groups of people who are either always wealthy or always in poverty. In reality, people accumulate wealth over time. If you dig deeper into the lower wealth people, it's usually people who just entered workforce. Over a period of time, they accumulate wealth and enter top wealth section. So if the top 20% are earning more over a period of time, it actually is a good thing for most of the society because about 60% of people enter the top 20% at some point in their life. It's just a matter of when. And then there is the question of would you rather have everyone poor, which is what socialism leads to, or have some poor people, most middle-class people and some rich people? It's not about right wingers being heartless narcissists. It's about left wingers being stupid. I'm sorry but this simply isn't how the world works. It's very unusual for people to rise through the social classes. The system is set up to keep those at the top, at the top, and the rest of us fighting amongst ourselves at the bottom. Still if you think left wingers are stupid. It's probably pointless continuing. So I'll leave you to it. I am sorry, how I said is exactly how the world works. 5 of the top 10 richest people are from poorer or middle class households. Take a look at the top ten richest people at the start of every decade and see how it radically changes. So much for keeping the richest at the top. If that's the goal, they are clearly doing a terrible job at it. If the left wingers can't see this and still follow the phenomenal disaster that Marxism has been for every country it touched, yes they are stupid. That's 5 people. Out of 6 billion. Doesn't seem like a sensible sample size to me. Left wing does not equal Marxism. That's 5 out of ten richest people. As I shared the link above, over 60% of people in the US reach top 20% earning households at some point in their life. Far from "unusual" like you mentioned. 60% of people are in the top 20%?
It says 60% of people reach top 20% at some point in their life. If leftists understood these basic concepts, they probably wouldn't be leftists in the first place.
You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t know what socialism is, so I’d be wary of throwing around accusations of low intellect.
You don't have arguments against any of the points I raised. So this is the kind of response you want to fall back to?
Anyway, tell me what socialism is. Are you talking about social democracy? Are you talking about the Marxist version? Are you talking about communism? And show me the countries which have been successful through socialism. Or are you one of the people in the "Socialism was never implemented properly" gang?
I come from India which was predominantly socialist until the early 1990s. The country was heading for a disaster. Luckily, the same political party that embraced socialism after independence, had a moment of genius and decided to liberalise the economy. The country has been in the path of growth ever since.
Marxism, soc-Dem and communism are all very different.
I myself am a proponent of Scandinavian style soc-dem, which has been very successfully utilised, as I’m sure you well know. "Socialism and social democracy are very different. Anyway, let us talk about "Scandinavian style" economics most leftists rave about, yet haven't done even basic reading about how it works. You say you want to tax the rich? You know how it works in Sweden? They tax the crap out of everyone. Even someone receiving 1000£ per month pay 13% in taxes. http://liveandworkinsweden.com/index.php/tax-tables It increases very fast and reaches over 50% for middle class earners. So, it's not about "Tax those rich people". Their idea is simple. Social welfare needs social trust. One way to build social trust is to make everyone to pay for social welfare so that they have some sense of responsibility. Finland and Denmark has similar if not higher taxes than Denmark. Norway is the only country that has a tax system similar to UK because they make a lot of money in Oil. And I don't even want to talk about the futility in comparing high resource countries with low density of population with rest of the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. How exactly does cutting the higher rate of tax help someone on minimum wage as the economy crumbles around them? She also reduced the lower tax rate by a percentage. As far as how higher tax rate helps someone on minimum wage, it improves the supply side of employment. No, it's not "trickle down" economics. Trickle down economics is not a thing free market proponents came up with. Anyone who understands free market will never use the term. It's a term frequently used by left wing people because they are the ones who think wealth is a zero sum property and wealth "trickles down". What happens when you reduce higher tax rates is that it results in more high earning people willing to come to the country and stay here. - You end up collecting more taxes because you have more people in the higher tax slabs. - More businesses come up because of the arrival of more wealthy people, resulting in high labour demand and new opportunities, which pushes the wages up without even having to increase minimum wage. " In the 1960’s and 1970’s, tax rates were higher for everyone but the highest tax brackets were much higher than today. In those days, an ordinary family with one full-time and not necessarily skilled breadwinner could afford to buy a house and buy and run a family car. In that era, the so called wealth gap was nothing like it is today. The U.K. (and the USA) subsequently spent the following decades looking at ways of cutting taxes on the false assumption that cutting taxes would in fact generate more productivity, more tax take and a fairer society. The exact opposite has happened. Therefore when Truss announced an unfounded tax cut for the top income tax earners in this country - she spooked the markets. Ideology is one thing, but the real lived experience of the post-WW2 economy in this country is inescapable fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone arguing that ‘socialism does this’ or ‘socialism does that’ is not worth listening to. We live in a wealthy capitalist country which has elements of socialism contained within its organisation. The welfare state is socialism. The NHS is socialism. Publicly funded police, fire services - socialism. Equally the argument that socialism makes everyone poorer - when we live in a predominantly capitalist system which has increasing numbers of people using food banks or sleeping rough - these are capitalist failures. " This is all very true. It would be amusing if it were not so utterly stupid to hear so much nonsense being written about low taxes promoting growth. People need to step back from ideology and think about how a society functions best and then figure out how to create and pay for the infrastructure needed to make society function. So let’s look at the basics… A functioning society needs people. Are sufficient people being born, or do we need to import them? What about the ones that are being born… we need them to be well educated and healthy and as they become adults we need them to be mobile and successful enough in employment to create their own family and replicate the cycle. To do the above - we need a functioning health service, a functioning education service and a functioning transport service. We also need to make sure that people feel valued in their adult employment and confident enough to be able to start their own families. Successive Governments (including Labour) have failed to address the fundamental infrastructure needs of society and this is why now the discussions are all about personal and selfish ideological solutions - such as cutting taxes for the individual. In fact, the discussion should be about fixing the societal infrastructure so that society as a whole can be lifted. It is just unfortunate that we have all become cynical about any Governments ability to be careful and honest custodians of the tax take and that is why I think we need to radically overhaul our system of Government so that it can never be “the fault of Labour, or the Tories.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion." Good post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion." Pretty much this. I'm more cynical, the governments around the world want the majority of people to think like this so they allow bs to spread unchecked. A dumber population are easier to control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion. Pretty much this. I'm more cynical, the governments around the world want the majority of people to think like this so they allow bs to spread unchecked. A dumber population are easier to control. "100% agree with this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The start has interesting numbers. As many seem to do they compare increases in yields under the various CXs without bearing in mind tenure. Sunak oversaw an increase in 10yr gilts of 80pc pa. That's ounds high. But zahawi saw increases of 470pc pa (albeit only over two months) And kwarteng saw over to 5000pc. Indeed he saw a greater rise in his month than zahawi saw in his two months. And would have beaten Sunaks in 4. I agree that the markets were probably getting comfortable. The rises we were seeing mid 2022 were beyond stress test. Which makes kwartengs doubling them something else. (Caveat: extrapolation on the tails is a foolish man's science. So everything above is written knowing it is not completely fair and extrapolations don't hold rigour. However comparing total numbers over 2.5 yeara versus 2 months v 30 odd days is equally dishonest. It's akin to calling Alardyce England's best ever manager). As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not sure if her other reforms were bad. Or bad timing. For whatever reason large parts of the market did not believe her. That was possibly political naivety on her part. Any CEO knows the work in managing messages to the market. Imo her policies may not have been terrible, but she was. And if I were tufton id be throwing her under the wheels. Because as it stands the first attempt of the policies led to carnage. (Although I know the idea "they are all as bad as each other" is an easy one to hide behind) " Agree on the timing issue. Hkw about the unwinding of the gilts once the bofe did it's job? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. How exactly does cutting the higher rate of tax help someone on minimum wage as the economy crumbles around them? She also reduced the lower tax rate by a percentage. As far as how higher tax rate helps someone on minimum wage, it improves the supply side of employment. No, it's not "trickle down" economics. Trickle down economics is not a thing free market proponents came up with. Anyone who understands free market will never use the term. It's a term frequently used by left wing people because they are the ones who think wealth is a zero sum property and wealth "trickles down". What happens when you reduce higher tax rates is that it results in more high earning people willing to come to the country and stay here. - You end up collecting more taxes because you have more people in the higher tax slabs. - More businesses come up because of the arrival of more wealthy people, resulting in high labour demand and new opportunities, which pushes the wages up without even having to increase minimum wage. " History has shown, this is correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion." Part of corporation tax changes were in the Truss budget. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don people want to address points raised in the article? A) remote working and tax. B) ldi pensions C) £5000 energy bills. D)the rise in mortgage rates " Didn't think any one would have the stones to try and address this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion." I'd also throw out that some of those I'm guessing are close to 45pc are more pro-tax lefties than the average fabster. And those that are super rich are way beyond caring about income tax levels. And have means for reducing the bill anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion. Part of corporation tax changes were in the Truss budget." Care to say more? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don people want to address points raised in the article? A) remote working and tax. B) ldi pensions C) £5000 energy bills. D)the rise in mortgage rates Didn't think any one would have the stones to try and address this "I've already put my stones out there. Just before the thread took a tangent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion." I agree that corporate tax reduction creates lot more jobs. But lower income tax does that indirectly. People having more money in their pockets tend to invest. You usually need a combination of both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion.I'd also throw out that some of those I'm guessing are close to 45pc are more pro-tax lefties than the average fabster. And those that are super rich are way beyond caring about income tax levels. And have means for reducing the bill anyway. " Hmmm I’d say very few people are “pro tax”. Nobody WANTS to pay tax. We’d all love to retain 100% of what we earn. However, many people are also pragmatists and recognise that public services have to be properly funded. Even those they might not need to use themselves because, invariably, the people that work for them and help to generate their wealth will likely make use of those public services. It is actually relatively easy to legally avoid paying tax in the UK (just ask Mrs Sunak). That is why the whole “lower the top rate of tax” is a mis-direction because some of it can already be legally avoided by those with a decent accountant! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don people want to address points raised in the article? A) remote working and tax. B) ldi pensions C) £5000 energy bills. D)the rise in mortgage rates Didn't think any one would have the stones to try and address this I've already put my stones out there. Just before the thread took a tangent. "Was that your long reply? I dont think it addressed.any of the above questions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion. Part of corporation tax changes were in the Truss budget. Care to say more?" What more do you want? Look at thrnproposed corp tax I the kk budget vs hunts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don people want to address points raised in the article? A) remote working and tax. B) ldi pensions C) £5000 energy bills. D)the rise in mortgage rates Didn't think any one would have the stones to try and address this I've already put my stones out there. Just before the thread took a tangent. "I appreciate you actually trying to discuss the topic at hand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. How exactly does cutting the higher rate of tax help someone on minimum wage as the economy crumbles around them? She also reduced the lower tax rate by a percentage. As far as how higher tax rate helps someone on minimum wage, it improves the supply side of employment. No, it's not "trickle down" economics. Trickle down economics is not a thing free market proponents came up with. Anyone who understands free market will never use the term. It's a term frequently used by left wing people because they are the ones who think wealth is a zero sum property and wealth "trickles down". What happens when you reduce higher tax rates is that it results in more high earning people willing to come to the country and stay here. - You end up collecting more taxes because you have more people in the higher tax slabs. - More businesses come up because of the arrival of more wealthy people, resulting in high labour demand and new opportunities, which pushes the wages up without even having to increase minimum wage. History has shown, this is correct." Except of course where it hasn’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. How exactly does cutting the higher rate of tax help someone on minimum wage as the economy crumbles around them? She also reduced the lower tax rate by a percentage. As far as how higher tax rate helps someone on minimum wage, it improves the supply side of employment. No, it's not "trickle down" economics. Trickle down economics is not a thing free market proponents came up with. Anyone who understands free market will never use the term. It's a term frequently used by left wing people because they are the ones who think wealth is a zero sum property and wealth "trickles down". What happens when you reduce higher tax rates is that it results in more high earning people willing to come to the country and stay here. - You end up collecting more taxes because you have more people in the higher tax slabs. - More businesses come up because of the arrival of more wealthy people, resulting in high labour demand and new opportunities, which pushes the wages up without even having to increase minimum wage. History has shown, this is correct. Except of course where it hasn’t. " Feel free to post examples where over 5 years as corp tax has increased the level of tax receipts have gone up considerably I have a few examples of where when corp tax has gone down, tax receipts have gone up over that 5 year period | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don people want to address points raised in the article? A) remote working and tax. B) ldi pensions C) £5000 energy bills. D)the rise in mortgage rates Didn't think any one would have the stones to try and address this I've already put my stones out there. Just before the thread took a tangent.
Was that your long reply?
I dont think it addressed.any of the above questions?"it focussed on their analysis of gilts which is the cornerstone of mortgage and lpi. I haven't got strong views on the other bits. Id need to see more detail in why they think it works. My sense is at the every least it's a slow burn. It may be positive in the longer run but on short term it's only reduction in tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. How exactly does cutting the higher rate of tax help someone on minimum wage as the economy crumbles around them? She also reduced the lower tax rate by a percentage. As far as how higher tax rate helps someone on minimum wage, it improves the supply side of employment. No, it's not "trickle down" economics. Trickle down economics is not a thing free market proponents came up with. Anyone who understands free market will never use the term. It's a term frequently used by left wing people because they are the ones who think wealth is a zero sum property and wealth "trickles down". What happens when you reduce higher tax rates is that it results in more high earning people willing to come to the country and stay here. - You end up collecting more taxes because you have more people in the higher tax slabs. - More businesses come up because of the arrival of more wealthy people, resulting in high labour demand and new opportunities, which pushes the wages up without even having to increase minimum wage. History has shown, this is correct. Except of course where it hasn’t. Feel free to post examples where over 5 years as corp tax has increased the level of tax receipts have gone up considerably I have a few examples of where when corp tax has gone down, tax receipts have gone up over that 5 year period " Why are you limiting the convo to corporation tax? That’s not the discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion. Part of corporation tax changes were in the Truss budget. Care to say more? What more do you want? Look at thrnproposed corp tax I the kk budget vs hunts" Do you have a link? Was it a blanket reduction or a move to progressive CT bands (ehich is what I favour). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. How exactly does cutting the higher rate of tax help someone on minimum wage as the economy crumbles around them? She also reduced the lower tax rate by a percentage. As far as how higher tax rate helps someone on minimum wage, it improves the supply side of employment. No, it's not "trickle down" economics. Trickle down economics is not a thing free market proponents came up with. Anyone who understands free market will never use the term. It's a term frequently used by left wing people because they are the ones who think wealth is a zero sum property and wealth "trickles down". What happens when you reduce higher tax rates is that it results in more high earning people willing to come to the country and stay here. - You end up collecting more taxes because you have more people in the higher tax slabs. - More businesses come up because of the arrival of more wealthy people, resulting in high labour demand and new opportunities, which pushes the wages up without even having to increase minimum wage. History has shown, this is correct. Except of course where it hasn’t. Feel free to post examples where over 5 years as corp tax has increased the level of tax receipts have gone up considerably I have a few examples of where when corp tax has gone down, tax receipts have gone up over that 5 year period Why are you limiting the convo to corporation tax? That’s not the discussion. " Feel free to use the personal tax then. I find corp tax easier myself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion. Part of corporation tax changes were in the Truss budget. Care to say more? What more do you want? Look at thrnproposed corp tax I the kk budget vs hunts Do you have a link? Was it a blanket reduction or a move to progressive CT bands (ehich is what I favour)." Did you not read the kk budget did you not read the hunt 1? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trickle Down economics (Trussonomics) doesn’t work: https://ethicalunicorn.com/2021/06/30/what-is-trickle-down-economics-why-it-doesnt-work/ Liz truss budget wasn't trickle down economics. Still waiting for people to address the points I guess It genuinely was. It was tax breaks for the rich and nothing for the poor. No it wasn't. I think you need tka cruelly delve intot reckless down and delve into the policy of trusses budget.vit was nothing to do with trickle down economics. Try again I trust economists evaluations of budgets over my own, I don’t pretend to be one on a swingers forum. Last time I checked Liz Truss has held many senior positions including working for a prestigious organisation such as Shell. Her experience is vast compared to the so called economists. We have missed many opportunities by back tracking on her policies which were designed to help everyone. How exactly does cutting the higher rate of tax help someone on minimum wage as the economy crumbles around them? She also reduced the lower tax rate by a percentage. As far as how higher tax rate helps someone on minimum wage, it improves the supply side of employment. No, it's not "trickle down" economics. Trickle down economics is not a thing free market proponents came up with. Anyone who understands free market will never use the term. It's a term frequently used by left wing people because they are the ones who think wealth is a zero sum property and wealth "trickles down". What happens when you reduce higher tax rates is that it results in more high earning people willing to come to the country and stay here. - You end up collecting more taxes because you have more people in the higher tax slabs. - More businesses come up because of the arrival of more wealthy people, resulting in high labour demand and new opportunities, which pushes the wages up without even having to increase minimum wage. History has shown, this is correct. Except of course where it hasn’t. Feel free to post examples where over 5 years as corp tax has increased the level of tax receipts have gone up considerably I have a few examples of where when corp tax has gone down, tax receipts have gone up over that 5 year period Why are you limiting the convo to corporation tax? That’s not the discussion. Feel free to use the personal tax then. I find corp tax easier myself. " I’ve already provided a piece using 50 years worth of data in 18 OECD countries that demonstrates that lowering high tax rates actually stifles economic growth rather than creating it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would hazard a guess (purely based on statistics) that the vast majority of people posting in the politics forum are not 45% taxpayers. Some will be aspiring to reach that but most will stay in the 40% bracket. It makes me laugh how these people will fight tooth and nail to help and protect the 45% payers. It’s kind of weird when you think about it. What is the actual benefit to them? The idea that super rich people won’t come and live in the UK and lavish us with all their wonderful taxed income is inherently flawed. The super rich are all offshored anyway! It isn’t income tax levels that create jobs. It is the corporate tax regime and govt investment that incentivises start ups and inward corporate investment (like the TATA battery factory news recently). You want to stimulate the economy introduce progressive tax banding for companies to encourage start ups and investment/expansion. Part of corporation tax changes were in the Truss budget. Care to say more? What more do you want? Look at thrnproposed corp tax I the kk budget vs hunts Do you have a link? Was it a blanket reduction or a move to progressive CT bands (ehich is what I favour). Did you not read the kk budget did you not read the hunt 1? " I do not remember all the detail and thought for the benefit of discussion you might make it easy as you clearly have it at your fingertips (or can quote verbatim)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
