The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[ozleicester]

[RoboFox]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

It's a really good job Truss didn't go on national television only yesterday and claim that she was 100% committed to the plan, because that would've been pretty embarrassing. 

 

Edited 3 October 2022 by RoboFox

[lgfualol]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

What I want to know is what did they think the tax rate cute would be like? Did they initially think it's some grand idea? Could they not have foreseen the response? 

They crashed the pound after telling their rich chums to short it. That's why they did it, it made some filthy rich people even richer. 

[StanSP]

Feel sorry for those that couldn't get mortgages because of the announcement last week, only for the government to go back and do this anyway. 

[ozleicester]

Now put it back up to 90%..as its quite evident that cutting tax rates does NOT provide benefit for the country... right? 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, ozleicester said:

Now put it back up to 90%..as its quite evident that cutting tax rates does NOT provide benefit for the country... right? 

90% would discourage investment and you know it, but I do realise you only believe the public sector has societal value though

[ozleicester]

5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

90% would discourage investment and you know it, but I do realise you only believe the public sector has societal value though

Same story the tories are now acknowledging isnt true

[urban.spaceman]

Literally Friday.

 

[Dahnsouff]

3 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Same story the tories are now acknowledging isnt true

awww, you failed to answer the 2nd bit, such a shame

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

awww, you failed to answer the 2nd bit, such a shame

was an answer required?.. what is the question exactly?

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, ozleicester said:

was an answer required?.. what is the question exactly?

Guess you might have responded to the point about your preference for public sector support whilst demeaning the private sector, but perhaps my conclusion is incorrect  

[Fazzer 7]

What gets me on this general issue is that we’re football supporters and fans. We support players and managers,ok maybe not Rodgers, who earn obscene amounts of money, more in a week than most of us earn in a year. Sky tv and football are beneficiaries of capitalism, that we’re happy to support. But somehow anyone else who makes large amounts are demonised by the left. 

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Guess you might have responded to the point about your preference for public sector support whilst demeaning the private sector, but perhaps my conclusion is incorrect  

if you are earning $180,000 + in the private sector... id like you to be paying the top tax rate which should be 90%

if you are earning $180,000 + in the public sector... id like you to be paying the top tax rate which should be 90%

does that clear it up?

[ozleicester]

2 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

What gets me on this general issue is that we’re football supporters and fans. We support players and managers,ok maybe not Rodgers, who earn obscene amounts of money, more in a week than most of us earn in a year. Sky tv and football are beneficiaries of capitalism, that we’re happy to support. But somehow anyone else who makes large amounts are demonised by the left. 

Tax them ALL at the top tax rate... i support that

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, ozleicester said:

if you are earning $180,000 + in the private sector... id like you to be paying the top tax rate which should be 90%

if you are earning $180,000 + in the public sector... id like you to be paying the top tax rate which should be 90%

does that clear it up?

No, because it is an badly outdated unnecessary position where such high tax rates were warranted on the very few, but now such wealth exists amongst a larger portion of the population than in these older times, the tax revenue produced by the 40% far exceeds those generated during the 90% times.

 

I am not a fan of discouraging innovation or an entrepreneurial mind set, and giving those that have worked hard to have such extra income to be so is just odd, sure some have not and have been gifted these funds, but I would not damn effort to punish the few and some jobs do not pay their true value to society (Yes, this is a serious problem and Government, any Government, need to enforce better wage standards for such jobs but imposing such taxes I do not believe would solve this, as such funds would be lost in big ticket policy, see GBE which will bugger existing renewable producers)

 

Out of interest, would this level of taxation apply to you?:Or are you judging this theoretically? It certainly does not apply to me or mine  

 

[mancunianfox]

14 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

What gets me on this general issue is that we’re football supporters and fans. We support players and managers,ok maybe not Rodgers, who earn obscene amounts of money, more in a week than most of us earn in a year. Sky tv and football are beneficiaries of capitalism, that we’re happy to support. But somehow anyone else who makes large amounts are demonised by the left. 

I shouldn't but I'll bite...sports leagues are not a very good example here. If the football world was modelled on larger society most of that money would be distributed to the owners with very little of it going to the players. Given that it is the players (and to some extent managers) who are the actual product and perform in the games we pay for, as a leftist it is much better that the money goes to the players who are the ones performing on the pitch and putting in years of hard work rather than the owners. If anything sports are a more ideal model for society as they are by and large a meritocracy (albeit one where you are paid based on past performance up to when you signed your current contract which is not always representitave of current value). This isn't to say that the distribution of money in football is perfect but it feels fairer than in most areas of society.

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, mancunianfox said:

I shouldn't but I'll bite...sports leagues are not a very good example here. If the football world was modelled on larger society most of that money would be distributed to the owners with very little of it going to the players. Given that it is the players (and to some extent managers) who are the actual product and perform in the games we pay for, as a leftist it is much better that the money goes to the players who are the ones performing on the pitch and putting in years of hard work rather than the owners. If anything sports are a more ideal model for society as they are by and large a meritocracy (albeit one where you are paid based on past performance up to when you signed your current contract which is not always representitave of current value). This isn't to say that the distribution of money in football is perfect but it feels fairer than in most areas of society.

The same can be said for bankers with their huge bonuses. The leftist dream!

[ozleicester]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

No, because it is an badly outdated unnecessary position where such high tax rates were warranted on the very few, but now such wealth exists amongst a larger portion of the population than in these older times, the tax revenue produced by the 40% far exceeds those generated during the 90% times.

 

I am not a fan of discouraging innovation or an entrepreneurial mind set, and giving those that have worked hard to have such extra income to be so is just odd, sure some have not and have been gifted these funds, but I would not damn effort to punish the few and some jobs do not pay their true value to society (Yes, this is a serious problem and Government, any Government, need to enforce better wage standards for such jobs but imposing such taxes I do not believe would solve this, as such funds would be lost in big ticket policy, see GBE which will bugger existing renewable producers)

 

Out of interest, would this level of taxation apply to you?:Or are you judging this theoretically? It certainly does not apply to me or mine  

 

because it is an badly outdated unnecessary position where such high tax rates were warranted on the very few - why?

the tax revenue produced by the 40% far exceeds those generated during the 90% times...- and bread is more expensive, if you have a 90% top tax, you will raise more revenue than a 40%

It does NOT prevent innovation or entrepreneurs

To be honest my taxable income is none of your business.. if it applies to me do you think its a better idea?

Simply put, if there was a higher top tax rate the WHOLE country would be better off instead of a very restricted few... Bruno Fernandez earnt $12 million last year and paid the same tax rate (and probably less due to dodgy tax agents) as some people on this site, im assuming most people here dont fall into that top bracket.

[urban.spaceman]

 

 

[weller54]

3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

As committed as she was in backing REMAIN!!!..

What a pathetic creature 🤬🤬!!

 

[Dahnsouff]

10 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

because it is an badly outdated unnecessary position where such high tax rates were warranted on the very few - why?

the tax revenue produced by the 40% far exceeds those generated during the 90% times...- and bread is more expensive, if you have a 90% top tax, you will raise more revenue than a 40%

It does NOT prevent innovation or entrepreneurs

To be honest my taxable income is none of your business.. if it applies to me do you think its a better idea?

Simply put, if there was a higher top tax rate the WHOLE country would be better off instead of a very restricted few... Bruno Fernandez earnt $12 million last year and paid the same tax rate (and probably less due to dodgy tax agents) as some people on this site, im assuming most people here dont fall into that top bracket.

Of course you taxable income is none of my business I apologise for the question

It just feels like you are dealing with extremes, where as we want a balanced taxation system that incentivises people if they want incentives, if they do not, then taxation should be just and reflect the effort entailing their work and the nature of their work

Guess its just a differing opinion, but I do not feel your approach delivers that, I quite like the idea of (Finnish?) trial taxation system where a base salary is paid to everyone and if you want anything more you can work to top up, but no system is perfect

 

 

[Houdini Logic]

9 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

because it is an badly outdated unnecessary position where such high tax rates were warranted on the very few - why?

the tax revenue produced by the 40% far exceeds those generated during the 90% times...- and bread is more expensive, if you have a 90% top tax, you will raise more revenue than a 40%

It does NOT prevent innovation or entrepreneurs

To be honest my taxable income is none of your business.. if it applies to me do you think its a better idea?

Simply put, if there was a higher top tax rate the WHOLE country would be better off instead of a very restricted few... Bruno Fernandez earnt $12 million last year and paid the same tax rate (and probably less due to dodgy tax agents) as some people on this site, im assuming most people here dont fall into that top bracket.

Has it ever crossed your mind that the people who earn the most money in this country are the ones more likely to be in a position to be able to live and work wherever they please?
40% of their salary is better than 90% of f*** all

 

[ozleicester]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Of course you taxable income is none of my business I apologise for the question

It just feels like you are dealing with extremes, where as we want a balanced taxation system that incentivises people if they want incentives, if they do not, then taxation should be just and reflect the effort entailing their work and the nature of their work

Guess its just a differing opinion, but I do not feel your approach delivers that, I quite like the idea of (Finnish?) trial taxation system where a base salary is paid to everyone and if you want anything more you can work to top up, but no system is perfect

 

 

Agreed the Finnish system (though i only have a very limited knowledge of it) seems to be a good one.

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, Fazzer 7 said:

What gets me on this general issue is that we’re football supporters and fans. We support players and managers,ok maybe not Rodgers, who earn obscene amounts of money, more in a week than most of us earn in a year. Sky tv and football are beneficiaries of capitalism, that we’re happy to support. But somehow anyone else who makes large amounts are demonised by the left. 

Capitalism/greed is destroying football. We are football fans despite the ridiculous amounts of money involved not because of it.

[ozleicester]

14 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Agreed the Finnish system (though i only have a very limited knowledge of it) seems to be a good one.

lol, let me hold back on that opinion... from an admittedly far too brief read... Im not sure about the Finnish system after all