shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yes. Absolutely love PFI me. It’s how I paid for the Tony Blair statue in my front garden
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (40 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Yes. Absolutely love PFI me. It’s how I paid for the Tony Blair statue in my front garden
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You have a belief those things will improve which is not founded on anything the current leadership says but on Labour's historic record.
That is fair enough, you are probably right.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yes. Absolutely love PFI me. It’s how I paid for the Tony Blair statue in my front garden
*am still paying 27 years later for
I didn't have any school fees you twerp.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I hear you mate, and believe it or not I'm enjoying the debate. You make a lot of fair points.
Just to say though, a lot of the policies that Corbyn proposed, and that Starmer said he'd support when he ran as party leader (I voted for him, as a Labour member at that time), were popular. They're not in and of themselves going to lose voters.
And the fact that Starmer is a more normal bloke than the hugely wealthy that you correctly highlight, doesn't in itself mean that he's going to change anything significant on this regard.
There's little that he says or supports that seems to threaten the established order any more than the traditional Tories do, imho.
Anyway, here's a read that probably puts some of what I'm trying to say in a more coherent way.
The Guardian view on Labour’s green retreat: wrong, wrong, wrong | Editorial
Editorial: Keir Starmer’s announcement is a historic mistake on economic, political and environmental grounds
duffer
Well-Known Member
Yes. Absolutely love PFI me. It’s how I paid for the Tony Blair statue in my front garden
You'll need to start charging visitors £10 an hour to park in your drive to pay for it then - it's that or cut your staffing costs.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I don’t think any rational person would disagree but people have also got to be realistic. We live in a global world where it’s pretty much at peoples whim where they live/pay their taxes. That’s why the attached list should be commended to some extent as although they net income will be ridiculous, they’re choosing to pay that (look at the list of Brits that don’t !)
JK Rowling and Ed Sheeran estimated to be among UK's highest tax payers - BBC News
The 100 contributors, ranked by the Sunday Times, were judged to have paid £5.35bn in tax last year.www.bbc.co.uk
In this country the top 1% pay around 30% of total income tax. Top 10% pay around 60%. It’s a fine line though, have a look at what happened when Hollande tried to implement 75% wealth tax France and also what’s happening in Norway currently
Super-rich abandoning Norway at record rate as wealth tax rises slightly | Norway | The Guardian
Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receiptsamp.theguardian.com
France forced to drop 75% supertax after meagre returns | France | The Guardian
Hollande’s measure was meant to force wealthiest to help dig country out of economic crisis, but was accused of being anti-business
I personally think it’s disgusting that the super rich feel the need to avoid paying more tax but that’s the reality. If we want better public services it will be mainly middle and higher (not rich) income earners who will have to pay for it. Unless we suddenly get some global tax regimes implemented let’s have an honest debate about what we want as a country and what it will cost us
ps before you say it FP, I know we could just carry on printing more money to cover it
There's nothing in either of those articles that actually says that redistributive tax lost more overall than it earned. Some very rich people left and complained long and loud about it, some stayed and paid up.
This is similar to the Laffer curve argument, one that actually doesn't really have a great deal of evidence to support it. It's a handy and overly simplistic tool for very rich and powerful people to convince the rest of us that redistributive taxation is a bad idea though.
Opinion: Laffer curve still hangs over mainstream tax debate
Arthur Laffer's famous bell curve still looms large in tax policy even though the evidence for it doesn’t stack up.
www.internationaltaxreview.com
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
During the economic golden age in the USA taxes were at levels that they would call eye watering now. What we do have a lot of evidence for now is that when you give huge tax cuts to the richest and big business, they just say thanks very much and keep the money.There's nothing in either of those articles that actually says that redistributive tax lost more overall than it earned. Some very rich people left and complained long and loud about it, some stayed and paid up.
This is similar to the Laffer curve argument, one that actually doesn't really have a great deal of evidence to support it. It's a handy and overly simplistic tool for very rich and powerful people to convince the rest of us that redistributive taxation is a bad idea though.
Opinion: Laffer curve still hangs over mainstream tax debate
Arthur Laffer's famous bell curve still looms large in tax policy even though the evidence for it doesn’t stack up.www.internationaltaxreview.com
It isn’t redistributed and the state loses a lot of money in the process.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I hear you mate, and believe it or not I'm enjoying the debate. You make a lot of fair points.
Just to say though, a lot of the policies that Corbyn proposed, and that Starmer said he'd support when he ran as party leader (I voted for him, as a Labour member at that time), were popular. They're not in and of themselves going to lose voters.
And the fact that Starmer is a more normal bloke than the hugely wealthy that you correctly highlight, doesn't in itself mean that he's going to change anything significant on this regard.
There's little that he says or supports that seems to threaten the established order any more than the traditional Tories do, imho.
Anyway, here's a read that probably puts some of what I'm trying to say in a more coherent way.
The Guardian view on Labour’s green retreat: wrong, wrong, wrong | Editorial
Editorial: Keir Starmer’s announcement is a historic mistake on economic, political and environmental grounds
The problem with this “policies are popular” is this in isolation everything sounds great but then when you add it all up voters start asking about money and even now have this irrational belief Labour generally overspends and the Tories don’t. It’s maddening but it really is the biggest blocker to going into an election campaign on a left wing platform. And I don’t know how you change it, big discussion that for me starts with loosening Tory power over various institutions. But as I say when you’re leader of a party you have a five year max timescale to get elected. It’s very hard to shift things from opposition, not so much from government (look at social indicators before and after Blair for example). So it really is deal with what you have.
I’ve said this before and I don’t think it’ll go down any better this time but quite how bad Corbyn was in the eyes of the public has made a lot of policy simply off limits because of how much distance you need to put between any Labour govt and Corbyn.
2017 we had a decent overall strategy in terms of balance, the God awful leader, some terrible strategy as a result of not having done it before, and some grim hangers on ruined that, but at its core it’s a good strategy for a left wing leader. Problem really is we don’t have a competent left wing leader. Or a charismatic one. Where is the lefts Boris or Farage let alone their Obama, Blair or even Cameron? The very fact Corbyn stood “because it was his turn” shows how little effort the left puts into electoral success. Yet expects everyone else to produce exactly what they want.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
There's nothing in either of those articles that actually says that redistributive tax lost more overall than it earned. Some very rich people left and complained long and loud about it, some stayed and paid up.
This is similar to the Laffer curve argument, one that actually doesn't really have a great deal of evidence to support it. It's a handy and overly simplistic tool for very rich and powerful people to convince the rest of us that redistributive taxation is a bad idea though.
Opinion: Laffer curve still hangs over mainstream tax debate
Arthur Laffer's famous bell curve still looms large in tax policy even though the evidence for it doesn’t stack up.www.internationaltaxreview.com
I’m not at all convinced by brain drain as a phenomenon outside of extremes TBH. We lose far more talent because our wages are shit and our country is unlivable than we do because of tax rates.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Did mention his name before, but Clive Lewis has impressed me any time I’ve seen him.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Ges probably the best of a bad bunch TBF
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Laura Trott is a prime example of somebody promoted way beyond their ability because the talent pool is so small.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Funny name for a Tory tho so I’ll let it slide.
(is she the one Evan Davis took apart over fiscal rules?)
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Yep.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Don't forget how much talent is simply overlooked at the top echelons of civil service, politics, and industry, just for not going to the right school.
There's no lack of talent and serious brain power in my current line of work (finance), or where I was before (the car industry), but they ain't often the ones on the really big money right at the top, funnily enough.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Finance is the real brain drain in this country. We take some of the worlds best minds and put them to work getting Joe Q Billionaire another 0.1% on his investments.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Apropos of our earlier discussion @CCFCSteve
Fag packet maths and my payslip suggest Sunak is paying about 22% of his income as tax and I’m paying closer to 40%. Surely something simple like CGT reform raises tax with little impact on the average person?
Fag packet maths and my payslip suggest Sunak is paying about 22% of his income as tax and I’m paying closer to 40%. Surely something simple like CGT reform raises tax with little impact on the average person?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Isnt he the misogynist?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It surely isn't controversial that earned income should be taxed at a lower rate than unearned income.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Is he?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Why did the RMT stop donating to Labour? More to the point why hasn’t it restarted?
100% agree that capital gains above a certain amount should be taxed at a higher rate. I think that’s coming as well. But equally you start putting it at silly rates and people will move, especially if their CGT is generated from shares, investments etc
My point was that even with additional tweaks etc to generate more from the rich, the lions share for improved public services will still be paid by higher (but not super rich) and middle income earners. so let’s not kid ourselves and have a proper debate about what we want and are all collectively willing to pay
ps if you’re blended tax rate is 40% you’re doing well for yourself ! ; )
No he's not he's literally saying the same as me and shmmeee hence BSB's comment
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
To get to the other side?
I've made plenty.
Lynch is saying exactly what I've been saying for God knows how long there. Almost to the letter.
And you're trying to claim that he's actually saying the same thing as you.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Did they ever?