Fox Ulike Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 3 minutes ago, MattP said: If you want to drive every business out of the poorer EU countries then do it, it's more tried and failed politics but that doesn't seem to matter anymore. No I don't want that. I want a society in which people who have billions in personal wealth are considered to have a great legal and moral responsibility to give back a significant portion of that money to the collective, for the sake of everybody who lives on the planet, regardless of which tiny piece of rock you were lucky or unlucky enough to be born upon. Do you want that? 3
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 Just now, Carl the Llama said: No they just voted to leave and saw all the leave lies come to fruition instead Yep, both sides were lying, amazing that in politics. At least both sides got exposed this way unlike just one had we voted to stay.
Innovindil Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 Just now, Carl the Llama said: I'll have to take your word for it but colour me sceptical. The best analogy I've heard for it (from a high earner no less) is that it's like being asked by the missus to take the bins out: He'll huff about doing it but he'll go along with it anyway. Ha! It's funny because there's no choice. Got it.
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 Just now, Fox Ulike said: No I don't want that. I want a society in which people who have billions in personal wealth are considered to have a great legal and moral responsibility to give back a significant portion of that money to the collective, for the sake of everybody who lives on the planet, regardless of which tiny piece of rock you were lucky or unlucky enough to be born upon. Do you want that? Moral responsibility absolutely, legal one no chance. Soon as government starts to demand individual enterprise gives up it's wealth to them you end up with a terrible society devoid of aspiration and one that won't create any wealth anyway. I'd much prefer to see a return to a society and persons that encourage voluntary philanthropy like we used to have, they often to a better job of it than elected officials as well.
Fox Ulike Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 Yes there's certainly strong similarities in the strategies. But come on! Comparing Corbyn to Trump because they employ similar electioneering strategies is definitely straight out of the Daily Mail playbook.
Carl the Llama Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 Just now, Innovindil said: Ha! It's funny because there's no choice. Got it. Yeah that's the point, nothing to do with ending up living in a squalid hole filled with your own refuse... Not a metaphor man are you?
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 Just now, Fox Ulike said: Yes there's certainly strong similarities in the strategies. But come on! Comparing Corbyn to Trump because they employ similar electioneering strategies is definitely straight out of the Daily Mail playbook. Boring, twice in one day you've tried to make a point using the Daily Mail, so 2008. I don't read it (I doubt you do either given you misquoted it earlier as well) and have no intention of knowing what it's playbook is. If you can't see the comparison you are probably part of the cult.
James. Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 1 minute ago, MattP said: Moral responsibility absolutely, legal one no chance. Soon as government starts to demand individual enterprise gives up it's wealth to them you end up with a terrible society devoid of aspiration and one that won't create any wealth anyway. I guess the idea is not to take all wealth but just a small proportion of it. 1% of £1bn is £10m. £10m to a billionaire is nothing. To the worst off in society it is huge. 1
Innovindil Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: Yeah that's the point, nothing to do with ending up living in a squalid hole filled with your own refuse... Not a metaphor man are you? Pretty insensitive to insinuate that helping out the poorer of our country is like sorting out the trash tbh. Don't even think I'd go that low. 1
Fox Ulike Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 4 minutes ago, MattP said: Boring, twice in one day you've tried to make a point using the Daily Mail, so 2008. I don't read it (I doubt you do either given you misquoted it earlier as well) and have no intention of knowing what it's playbook is. If you can't see the comparison you are probably part of the cult. Yes. I did make the point though, didn't I. Your response was very much along the lines of "Enemy of the people"!! (hat-trick) Interesting. 1
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 Just now, James. said: I guess the idea is not to take all wealth but just a small proportion of it. 1% of £1bn is £10m. £10m to a billionaire is nothing. To the worst off in society it is huge. £10million isn't actually that much at all though is it in terms of public spending? (A sixteenth thousanth of the NHS budget) But as I say, start introducing wealth taxes and like in France and Sweden, you'll lose money overall and then find yourself in a terrible mess trying to cover the shortfall taxing ordinary people more. I'm interested into how it would even be done though, anyone want to take a shout? How would you find out what a billionaire is worth to then force them to hand over 1% of it? Would we invade the Bahamas and raid the banks, roll tanks through France and Germany into Switzerland? Would this wealth tax be every year or a one off? Would it be on assets or cash? Anyone think they would hang about to live in a country where the government decides to take 1% of everything? Why stop at 1%? We all know they wouldn't. Would we tell our owners they give the British government 1% of their wealth or Jeremy Corbyn would force them to sell the club? They aren't keen on tax given our accounts we are now based in the British Virgin Islands (private eye).
Fox Ulike Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 11 minutes ago, MattP said: Moral responsibility absolutely, legal one no chance. Soon as government starts to demand individual enterprise gives up it's wealth to them you end up with a terrible society devoid of aspiration and one that won't create any wealth anyway. I'd much prefer to see a return to a society and persons that encourage voluntary philanthropy like we used to have, they often to a better job of it than elected officials as well. Well, we half agree then. Which is good. In terms of voluntary philanthropy, I'm assuming you're not nostalgic for a return of Dickensian Poor houses? So how do you see this working?
Carl the Llama Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 7 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Pretty insensitive to insinuate that helping out the poorer of our country is like sorting out the trash tbh. Don't even think I'd go that low. I very rarely put people on ignore because I like to hear other people's opinions but you're dangerously close to making the list little troll.
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said: In terms of voluntary philanthropy, I'm assuming you're not nostalgic for a return of Dickensian Poor houses? So how do you see this working? Wealthy people do what they used to do, build hospitals, musuems, public houses, clubs etc - They often did it better than the state did given it was their legacy.
Fox Ulike Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 1 minute ago, MattP said: £10million isn't actually that much at all though is it in terms of public spending? (A sixteenth thousanth of the NHS budget) But as I say, start introducing wealth taxes and like in France and Sweden, you'll lose money overall and then find yourself in a terrible mess trying to cover the shortfall taxing ordinary people more. I'm interested into how it would even be done though, anyone want to take a shout? How would you find out what a billionaire is worth to then force them to hand over 1% of it? Would we invade the Bahamas and raid the banks, roll tanks through France and Germany into Switzerland? Would this wealth tax be every year or a one off? Would it be on assets or cash? Anyone think they would hang about to live in a country where the government decides to take 1% of everything? Why stop at 1%? We all know they wouldn't. Would we tell our owners they give the British government 1% of their wealth or Jeremy Corbyn would force them to sell the club? They aren't keen on tax given our accounts we are now based in the British Virgin Islands (private eye). It's a good point. I think the first step though is agreeing if it's necessary to tax more money from the billionaires. Do you agree with this? Once we have a society that's agreed upon the need for wealth distribution from mega rich people, we can then work out how we could go about doing it. I mean honestly, who needs a billion pounds? It's obscene.
James. Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 3 minutes ago, MattP said: £10million isn't actually that much at all though is it in terms of public spending? (A sixteenth thousanth of the NHS budget) But as I say, start introducing wealth taxes and like in France and Sweden, you'll lose money overall and then find yourself in a terrible mess trying to cover the shortfall taxing ordinary people more. I'm interested into how it would even be done though, anyone want to take a shout? How would you find out what a billionaire is worth to then force them to hand over 1% of it? Would we invade the Bahamas and raid the banks, roll tanks through France and Germany into Switzerland? Would this wealth tax be every year or a one off? Would it be on assets or cash? Anyone think they would hang about to live in a country where the government decides to take 1% of everything? Why stop at 1%? We all know they wouldn't. Would we tell our owners they give the British government 1% of their wealth or Jeremy Corbyn would force them to sell the club? They aren't keen on tax given our accounts we are now based in the British Virgin Islands (private eye). Well obviously I'm not suggesting we only tax one billionaire 1% of £1 billion. I think you know that and you're just being a bit facetious. I have absolutely no idea how it would work but I fully agree with the principle of a system that forces a more even distribution of wealth.
Guest Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said: Yes it's a fair point and one I don't really have an answer to now we're leaving the EU. The EU's plans to harmonise corporation tax would have gone some way to helping reduce the inequality gap... but once we're outside the EU, and under-cutting them, it's not really good news for anyone - apart from all those poor billionaires who we all love so much! Corporatiin tax receipts have gone up because the economy was shattered before they were down. As business profits have increased so have corporation tax revenues. This is particularly true of the banks. Cutting the rate hasn't done this.
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said: It's a good point. I think the first step though is agreeing if it's necessary to tax more money from the billionaires. Do you agree with this? Once we have a society that's agreed upon the need for wealth distribution from mega rich people, we can then work out how we could go about doing it. I mean honestly, who needs a billion pounds? It's obscene. Are you taxing wealth or income? Are you aware that the that evil top 1% actually contributes about 30% of the total tax take? What figure do you want it to be?
Innovindil Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 Just now, Carl the Llama said: I very rarely put people on ignore because I like to hear other people's opinions but you're dangerously close to making the list little troll. Who's trolling? You said people would be fine with giving up their hard earned money to "help the country" which clearly would mean helping the poorer of our country. Then went babbling out about people not wanting to live with refuse. Not my fault your metaphor was offensive. Fallen from your high horse. So sad.
Guest Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 4 minutes ago, MattP said: Wealthy people do what they used to do, build hospitals, musuems, public houses, clubs etc - They often did it better than the state did given it was their legacy. They do it now only its called pfi.
Guest Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 1 minute ago, MattP said: Are you taxing wealth or income? Are you aware that the that evil top 1% actually contributes about 30% of the total tax take? What figure do you want it to be? Yet they still earn and own 10000s of % more than v everybody else. The % of the overall take is irrelevant. Vastly disproportinate wealth is what is relevant.
Fox Ulike Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 Just now, MattP said: Are you taxing wealth or income? Are you aware that the that evil top 1% actually contributes about 30% of the total tax take? What figure do you want it to be? I want it to be in proportion to the % wealth that they own. On a global scale, the richest 1% own 99% of the wealth (according to Oxfam). So that's how much they should pay. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35339475 How much do you think they should pay?
Buce Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 32 trillion dollars is stashed in offshore accounts to avoid tax; the Tories have done nothing to retrieve any of that (for obvious reasons) - maybe Labour will do better. 1
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, James. said: Well obviously I'm not suggesting we only tax one billionaire 1% of £1 billion. I think you know that and you're just being a bit facetious. I have absolutely no idea how it would work but I fully agree with the principle of a system that forces a more even distribution of wealth. I understand the case, I'm just trying to work out what the point of it is. We have 104 billionaires in the UK, so even if you take 10million each off of them it would rake in just over a billion pounds, which is less than 0.2% of our total tax take. So we put a wealth tax on the highest earners, send a message to the World we are anti-wealth, assumed as anti-business and it raises a pittance, it's probably the daftest idea I've heard yet so I fully expect the Labour party to take this on. The sooner we work out a proper tax system rather than chasing money off billionaire boogeymen the better, I thought we had finally left this nonsense behind. Edited 27 September 2017 by MattP
Rincewind Posted 27 September 2017 Posted 27 September 2017 2 minutes ago, Buce said: 32 trillion dollars is stashed in offshore accounts to avoid tax; the Tories have done nothing to retrieve any of that (for obvious reasons) - maybe Labour will do better. Some of those are also the biggest donors to the Tory funds. Theres a lot of scratching backs goes on in politics
Recommended Posts