General Election Is On

[Lowbankclaret]

Yes, it's called redistribution. That money injected into the economy in projects that benefit everyone, rather than squirreled away in a Cayman's bank, or spent on helicopters and yachts. The thing is the very rich will also benefit from this, because more industry, and more jobs means more consumers (and increased tax receipts) to buy products from businesses owned by the very rich.

Unlike Tory austerity, no rich people will suffer in this. Not a single one of them will be forced to move away from their family, or choose between heating their home and feeding their children. The economy works best when it works for everyone, rather than just the top five percent.

Oh my god, you seriously believe a billionaire is going to let a government make them pay more tax.

They are so rich they pay people to avoid it.

Just like Lewis Hamilton, they move abroad and pay nothing.

Like Lord Sugar, they will just move abroad.

The debt will be left to us down trodden workers to pay off.

Just like the bankers **** up was left to us.

[taio]

Again, I’m not bothered about the homes themselves (I only found out about the commitment today). I’m bothered about the Tories not even trying to keep their promises, and you trying to fool folk into thinking they did.

Why am I trying to fool folk? If the single issue of starter homes had been mentioned I wouldnt have disputed the point. But it wasnt mentioned at all. To satisfy your thirst to differentiate between new build and additional supply/delivery/provision of affordable homes, here you go:

There were 53,044 new build affordable homes completed in 2018-19, the third highest value
since 1991-92 and the highest since 2014-15. These were complemented by 3,803
acquisitions of existing stock and 638 homes where there is currently no information on
whether they are new build or acquisitions.

[KateR]

I have been reading Labour's Manifesto on and off getting through the numerous promises, I found myself smiling and thinking that is a good idea, I think this will benefit the country, a lot of what is said individually is tempting and I can see many people wanting it and voting for it on just one or two of the main line items.

However as I started to look at each individually in terms of it is part of a greater change and all that needs to be funded I found myself being somewhat skeptical and also noticed that some parts of this plan would affect many people who earn below the 5% top earners, like many posters on here I suspect. It will also have longer term detrimental effects to those already working and for the long term future, including the future of there children, which the majority of the people usually want to see do better than we did in our lifetime.

My conclusion is that there are great points and many tempting bits but that fundamentally due to the nature of the beast and belief that they will not keep these promises that a great risk comes with grabbing for the shiny star on offer.

I mean he wouldn't lie to us, would he?

[CombatClaret]

And all from the top 5% of wage earners.

Just let’s take that in.

The top 5% of the uk are going to pay 83 billion more in tax a year.

Just let that sink in.

"These include a financial transaction tax; a hike in corporation tax; a windfall tax on oil companies; and higher taxes for the top 5% of earners." - Bloomberg

So the top 5% are not paying it all, a lot of multi-billion pound companies will, Inc big oil.

Just let that sink in... And stop talking bs.

[Greenmile]

Why am I trying to fool folk? If the single issue of starter homes had been mentioned I wouldnt have disputed the point. But it wasnt mentioned at all. To satisfy your thirst to differentiate between new build and additional supply/delivery/provision of affordable homes, here you go:

There were 53,044 new build affordable homes completed in 2018-19, the third highest value
since 1991-92 and the highest since 2014-15. These were complemented by 3,803
acquisitions of existing stock and 638 homes where there is currently no information on
whether they are new build or acquisitions.

How many did the Tories promise to build? And how many did they build? These are the only facts that I’m interested in.

I only got involved in this conversation to make a crappy joke based around your ambiguous (and - as it turns out - misleading) use of language.

[taio]

How many did the Tories promise to build? And how many did they build? These are the only facts that I’m interested in.

Ive just told you how many they built. Any other information you want look up yourself. This is getting dull.

Misleading use of language is utter bullshit. The most common measure of housing is supply.

[Greenmile]

Ive just told you how many they built. Anything other information you want look up yourself. This is getting dull.

No you didn’t. You told me how many were “completed”. Language matters.

Edit - if this time you really did mean “built”, it looks like you’ve got your figures wrong - an honest mistake, I’m sure.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 06776.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Waine]

How many did the Tories promise to build? And how many did they build? These are the only facts that I’m interested in.

I only got involved in this conversation to make a crappy joke based around your ambiguous (and - as it turns out - misleading) use of language.

Hi Greenmile, does it matter that you are quoting from David Cameron's 2015 manifesto, rather than T May's 2017 manifesto?

And, I'm curious, did you think that "build" meant that the new starter homes would be build by Conservative MPs, or other members of the Conservative party, or including those who votes conservative at that GE?

[taio]

No you didn’t. You told me how many were “completed”. Language matters.

"Proportionally, of the 57,485 affordable homes delivered in 2018-19, 92% were new build and
7% were acquisitions"

It's not my fault you have no understanding of common terms used in the housing sector. Supply being the most appropriate and used term of them all.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm no Corbyn fan, but the **** of the last nine years is 100% Tory problems.

Yeah,, the manifesto is far too ambitious but at least it represents a change to what we have.

There is merit in that

[Lowbankclaret]

"These include a financial transaction tax; a hike in corporation tax; a windfall tax on oil companies; and higher taxes for the top 5% of earners." - Bloomberg

So the top 5% are not paying it all, a lot of multi-billion pound companies will, Inc big oil.

Just let that sink in... And stop talking bs.

And who will pay for the windfall tax on oil, not the oil company.

You will.


A higher corporation tax, will be be paid for by you in prices for product.

So your correct, the part that’s not paid by them will be paid for by you.

Being as they will avoid what they pay cause they are clever.

It will fall on you and me to pay.

This manifesto is in the land of Disney fairy stories.

Apart from our kids will pay for it for years to come.

[Paul Waine]

The good news, if JC wins, then the Clarets will have a chance of winning the "top UK football division." That's based on all the "billionaire" football club owners and all the "high earning" footballers taking their ball (and the Premier League) elsewhere.

UTC

[Greenmile]

Hi Greenmile, does it matter that you are quoting from David Cameron's 2015 manifesto, rather than T May's 2017 manifesto?

And, I'm curious, did you think that "build" meant that the new starter homes would be build by Conservative MPs, or other members of the Conservative party, or including those who votes conservative at that GE?

Hi Paul. No, it doesn’t matter.

I also think the commitment meant the houses would be built by builders, some of whom may have voted Conservative. Thanks for your interesting questions.

[Lancasterclaret]

Can we dial down on the rhetoric please lads?

I'm sure not every millionaire is going to leave!

[Greenmile]

"Proportionally, of the 57,485 affordable homes delivered in 2018-19, 92% were new build and
7% were acquisitions"

It's not my fault you have no understanding of common terms used in the housing sector. Supply being the most appropriate and used term of them all.

But not the term used in the Tory manifesto we’re discussing.

It’s not my fault you have no understanding of the concept of honesty.

[Paul Waine]

Can we dial down on the rhetoric please lads?

I'm sure not every millionaire is going to leave!

Sssssh, Lancs, don't let JC know that, they must be dodging taxes if they are planning to stay.

[taio]

But not the term used in the Tory manifesto we’re discussing.

It’s not my fault you have no understanding of the concept of honesty.

Which term? Tell me clearly and explicitly how I've been dishonest?

[Lowbankclaret]

Can we dial down on the rhetoric please lads?

I'm sure not every millionaire is going to leave!

Your correct, Corbyn the multi millionaire, already knows how he is not going to pay extra tax.

[Greenmile]

Which term? Tell me clearly and explicitly how I've been dishonest?

By using deliberately ambiguous language (“delivered” / “supplied” / “provided”) to imply that the Tories honoured their manifesto pledge (and maybe by making up the numbers re new builds completed, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one).

Edit - my mistake about your numbers. The article I linked wasn’t about affordable housing. Apologies.

[If it be your will]

Leaving the Labour manifesto out of it for a minute, because they're obviously not going to win anyway, what exactly should be done? If you hold the view that taxing large companies and rich folk more inevitably leads to economic ruin, what's the alternative?

I'm assuming most people aren't wandering about day-to-day thinking "Yes, things are pretty much as they should be, let's just carry on as we are, everything's going fine, basically." And Brexit, of itself, certainly isn't going to cure a lot.

So what's the alternative proposal? More markets? Less red tape? Less environmental stuff? Less labour right's? Swap NHS for an ability-to-pay model? More consumer spending? Death penalty for criminals? People just being nicer to one another?

What? What, exactly will begin to put this right, if taxing the rich more to pay for it is not an option?

[Greenmile]

Leaving the Labour manifesto out of it for a minute, because they're obviously not going to win anyway, what exactly should be done? If you hold the view that taxing large companies and rich folk more inevitably leads to economic ruin, what's the alternative?

I'm assuming most people aren't wandering about day-to-day thinking "Yes, things are pretty much as they should be, let's just carry on as we are, everything's going fine, basically." And Brexit, of itself, certainly isn't going to cure a lot.

So what's the alternative proposal? More markets? Less red tape? Less environmental stuff? Less labour right's? Swap NHS for an ability-to-pay model? More consumer spending? Death penalty for criminals? People just being nicer to one another?

What? What, exactly will begin to put this right, if taxing the rich more to pay for it is not an option?

It’s only folk who’ve bought the lies from the rich who think taxing the rich is not an option.

[taio]

By using deliberately ambiguous language (“delivered” / “supplied” / “provided”) to imply that the Tories honoured their manifesto pledge (and maybe by making up the numbers re new builds completed, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one).

It's not ambiguous language at all. It's commonplace in housing. You are suggesting I was dishonest about the commitment on starter homes. Yet starter homes wasnt originally mentioned. New homes generally was highlighted of which affordable housing is one type. The suggestion I may have made up the bit about 92% new build is laughable.

[Greenmile]

It's not ambiguous language at all. It's commonplace in housing. You are suggesting I was dishonest about the commitment on starter homes. Yet starter homes wasnt originally mentioned. New homes generally was highlighted of which affordable housing is one type. The suggestion I may have made up the bit about 92% new build is laughable.

They might be commonplace terms, but they aren’t synonymous with “build”. That’s my point, and where the dishonesty comes in. Remember, both the post you originally replied to, and the manifesto commitment it referred to, used the word “build”. You replaced that word with “delivered” when you replied, and hoped that nobody would notice or pull you up on it. You didn’t account for my hilarious Amazon joke, though.

“Paint” is probably a commonplace term in housing, but you wouldn’t credit the Tories for honouring their commitment if they had painted 200k houses, would you?

I’ve edited my last post to apologise for a misunderstanding on my part about your numbers, which I’m sure are correct.

[AndrewJB]

No it’s says if you can get here, we will let all family members in, remove any need for them to financially support themselves.

State picks up the bill.

What are you talking about? Family reunification is a really important thing, and anyone standing against that is simply heartless. In saying "if you can get here" I'm assuming you're referring to refugees - who we have a legal obligation to help, just as do all other UN countries. So if a refugee reaches Britain, are you saying their children, or parents, or siblings should just remain where they are? How do you justify that kind of nastiness, that you'd willfully separate people from those they love and care for? Do you not think that a refugee would make Britain more of a home when joined by family members, than if they were forced to be separated from them? Is your idea just that of saving money? Because I don't think it would. You only have to put yourself in the same position to understand that if your family were somewhere else (especially somewhere you've escaped from that made you a legitimate refugee), then you'd be desperate to get your family here. If the country you're in puts obstacles before your family reunification, you'd doubtless think less of the place. On the other hand, if the country is more welcoming to you and your family, you're likely to end up a better citizen - like many of those who have come here over the last thousand or so years, and become exemplary people.

[JohnDearyMe]

Good to see that they have committed to bringing in safe standing in their manifesto

[taio]

They might be commonplace terms, but they aren’t synonymous with “build”. That’s my point, and where the dishonesty comes in. Remember, both the post you originally replied to, and the manifesto commitment it referred to, used the word “build”. You replaced that word with “delivered” when you replied, and hoped that nobody would notice or pull you up on it. You didn’t account for my hilarious Amazon joke, though.

“Paint” is probably a commonplace term in housing, but you wouldn’t credit the Tories for honouring their commitment if they had painted 200k houses, would you?

I’ve edited my last post to apologise for a misunderstanding on my part about your numbers, which I’m sure are correct.

The idea that I was cherry picking the words hoping no one would notice is also laughable. I used the word 'delivered' because that was the word specifically used in the headline from Inside Housing I cited. I've gone on to evidence that 92% affordable homes were new build in 18/19 so I've no idea why you have a problem with the use of the words delivered, provided, completed or supplied, especially when the majority were new builds. The report I took the 92% from uses the words supply or supplied 74 times. I don't understand your obsession with new build when the crucial thing is an increase in supply of affordable homes. You're stabbing in the dark and looking for something that wasnt there and accusing me of being dishonest at the same time.

[dermotdermot]

Apparently Corbyn’s manifesto made Lily Allen, who is somehow worth an estimated 15m, cry her eyes out. I was also reduced to tears but not perhaps for the same reason.

[AndrewJB]

Oh my god, you seriously believe a billionaire is going to let a government make them pay more tax.

They are so rich they pay people to avoid it.

Just like Lewis Hamilton, they move abroad and pay nothing.

Like Lord Sugar, they will just move abroad.

The debt will be left to us down trodden workers to pay off.

Just like the bankers **** up was left to us.

If this is how everyone thought, we'd still have the local baron assuming his "rights" over virginal women the night before their weddings. I'm sorry to put it in such a crude fashion, but you have to understand the realities of power. Why do you think there has been such a surge in funding to the Tories (87% of the total)? Because the billionaires understand that a Labour government means business.

If billionaires are as powerful as you claim, then we have to curb that power, for the good of everyone else. Otherwise they get more power and control, and we lose the same, and then what does the future look like?

[Devils_Advocate]

Apparently Corbyn’s manifesto made Lily Allen, who is somehow worth an estimated 15m, cry her eyes out. I was also reduced to tears but not perhaps for the same reason.

She was just trolling the knuckle dragging snowflakes on Twitter and getting them raging about nothing as usual.

To be fair she pretty damn good at it and whist their making vile comments on her account they're not bothering anyone else

[Lowbankclaret]

What are you talking about? Family reunification is a really important thing, and anyone standing against that is simply heartless. In saying "if you can get here" I'm assuming you're referring to refugees - who we have a legal obligation to help, just as do all other UN countries. So if a refugee reaches Britain, are you saying their children, or parents, or siblings should just remain where they are? How do you justify that kind of nastiness, that you'd willfully separate people from those they love and care for? Do you not think that a refugee would make Britain more of a home when joined by family members, than if they were forced to be separated from them? Is your idea just that of saving money? Because I don't think it would. You only have to put yourself in the same position to understand that if your family were somewhere else (especially somewhere you've escaped from that made you a legitimate refugee), then you'd be desperate to get your family here. If the country you're in puts obstacles before your family reunification, you'd doubtless think less of the place. On the other hand, if the country is more welcoming to you and your family, you're likely to end up a better citizen - like many of those who have come here over the last thousand or so years, and become exemplary people.

I am saying immigration should be controlled by a points system.

[Paul Waine]

They might be commonplace terms, but they aren’t synonymous with “build”. That’s my point, and where the dishonesty comes in. Remember, both the post you originally replied to, and the manifesto commitment it referred to, used the word “build”. You replaced that word with “delivered” when you replied, and hoped that nobody would notice or pull you up on it. You didn’t account for my hilarious Amazon joke, though.
.

Hi Greenmile, as a friend, can I say that "build" "deliver" "supply" are all synonymous (that is: all have the same meaning...) if we are referring to "how many houses...."

It's not "mendacious" "lacking in integrity" or "dishonest" to use an extensive vocabulary, is it? Or, has JC decided to put a "language tax" on the number of synonyms we use?

[Paul Waine]

understand that a Labour government means no business.
?

Hi Andrew, I think it's a little more accurate now.

[AndrewJB]

I have been reading Labour's Manifesto on and off getting through the numerous promises, I found myself smiling and thinking that is a good idea, I think this will benefit the country, a lot of what is said individually is tempting and I can see many people wanting it and voting for it on just one or two of the main line items.

However as I started to look at each individually in terms of it is part of a greater change and all that needs to be funded I found myself being somewhat skeptical and also noticed that some parts of this plan would affect many people who earn below the 5% top earners, like many posters on here I suspect. It will also have longer term detrimental effects to those already working and for the long term future, including the future of there children, which the majority of the people usually want to see do better than we did in our lifetime.

My conclusion is that there are great points and many tempting bits but that fundamentally due to the nature of the beast and belief that they will not keep these promises that a great risk comes with grabbing for the shiny star on offer.

I mean he wouldn't lie to us, would he?

I think we need to compare it to the Tory manifesto, when it comes out. If you actually believe it.

But the general idea is that money is taxed from the upper echelons of our economy, and spread around the rest, through targeted investments that benefit the country. This is better than leaving the same money in silos around the world, and cutting spending on things that benefit everyone.

As an ordinary tax payer, I'd be happy to pay more tax for broadband across the whole country if it balanced with what I've been paying already - and that would be a reasonable tax hike. It all comes down to what's left in your pocket, right?

[AndrewJB]

Hi Andrew, I think it's a little more accurate now.

Hi Paul, I'm afraid I don't understand, or recognise your quote of me. Or have you been taken over by the Cummings Johnson election lie machine?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Leaving the Labour manifesto out of it for a minute, because they're obviously not going to win anyway, what exactly should be done? If you hold the view that taxing large companies and rich folk more inevitably leads to economic ruin, what's the alternative?

I'm assuming most people aren't wandering about day-to-day thinking "Yes, things are pretty much as they should be, let's just carry on as we are, everything's going fine, basically." And Brexit, of itself, certainly isn't going to cure a lot.

So what's the alternative proposal? More markets? Less red tape? Less environmental stuff? Less labour right's? Swap NHS for an ability-to-pay model? More consumer spending? Death penalty for criminals? People just being nicer to one another?

What? What, exactly will begin to put this right, if taxing the rich more to pay for it is not an option?

https://sdp.org.uk/new-declaration/

Decent, centre left economics with a social policy that is family, community and nation focused. A solid choice for those who cannot bring themselves to vote Tory, think Labour will bankrupt us, and think Lib Dems must have been stoned on their own weed policy.

[Devils_Advocate]

Oh, now .i believe polls.

2% meh

02CC6DB8-93EB-4E91-8C9F-DAA46E05FBE3.jpeg

Not like you to be duped

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197553343876481029

[AndrewJB]

I am saying immigration should be controlled by a points system.

And how many points does your system ascribe to love and family?

Why not have an exchange system? They come here, and we go there. We have thousands of younger people who travel every year. it's good for us all to see other places.

But what's you're problem with people coming to Britain?

[Jakubclaret]

And how many points does your system ascribe to love and family?

Why not have an exchange system? They come here, and we go there. We have thousands of younger people who travel every year. it's good for us all to see other places.

But what's you're problem with people coming to Britain?

Don't wish to speak for lowbankclaret as I should imagine he's more than capable of answering the question for himself, I don't think people as such have problems with people visiting the UK, more the fact when they arrive here some seem determined to make a home here & start a family ect as a long term plan that's the problem. The UK appears to be a ideal destination to stop when at the same time the UK growing population is increasing thus stretching public services ect, the infrastructure cannot cope with this problem.

[martin_p]

Don't wish to speak for lowbankclaret as I should imagine he's more than capable of answering the question for himself, I don't think people as such have problems with people visiting the UK, more the fact when they arrive here some seem determined to make a home here & start a family ect as a long term plan that's the problem. The UK appears to be a ideal destination to stop when at the same time the UK growing population is increasing thus stretching public services ect, the infrastructure cannot cope with this problem.

What you need is a party that will invest in our infrastructure then.

[Jakubclaret]

What you need is a party that will invest in our infrastructure then.

Or alternatively cap immigration.

[martin_p]

Or alternatively cap immigration.

You’re living in a dream land if you think capping immigration will magically sort out our public services.

[Jakubclaret]

You’re living in a dream land if you think capping immigration will magically sort out our public services.

All "our" public services is a broad spectrum, some it could reduce the damage if correctly implemented, assessing the workforce needed & any surplus not required. The problem is not really 1 person, extensions with families & relatives ect, you can't really recruit single people & expect the people not to embark upon relationships & not have children or invite the relatives over to stay, it doesn't work that way.

[dsr]

If this is how everyone thought, we'd still have the local baron assuming his "rights" over virginal women the night before their weddings. I'm sorry to put it in such a crude fashion, but you have to understand the realities of power. Why do you think there has been such a surge in funding to the Tories (87% of the total)? Because the billionaires understand that a Labour government means business.

If billionaires are as powerful as you claim, then we have to curb that power, for the good of everyone else. Otherwise they get more power and control, and we lose the same, and then what does the future look like?

I'm afraid you're still living in cloud cuckoo land. Let's look at a British billionaire, because we mostly know who he is and something about him. Bernie Ecclestone. He's a billionaire mainly because of his ownership of Formula 1, essentially.

Now, the Labour party doesn't like billionaires and wants him to stop being one. So they want him to hand over two thirds of his wealth (Forbes reckons he has £2.9 billion) so he has less than a billion left. What is he likely to do? Sell Formula 1 and pay the money? Or go and live somewhere else? Obviously the latter. [Details irrelevant. This is an exercise in what a billionaire might do.]

It's one thing to have the principle that the rich must not be so rich and so we're going to tax them till they aren't rich any more. You can certainly have the effect of ensuring that there are no billionaires in the country; but don't rely on seeing much of the cash.

[dsr]

Leaving the Labour manifesto out of it for a minute, because they're obviously not going to win anyway, what exactly should be done? If you hold the view that taxing large companies and rich folk more inevitably leads to economic ruin, what's the alternative?

I'm assuming most people aren't wandering about day-to-day thinking "Yes, things are pretty much as they should be, let's just carry on as we are, everything's going fine, basically." And Brexit, of itself, certainly isn't going to cure a lot.

So what's the alternative proposal? More markets? Less red tape? Less environmental stuff? Less labour right's? Swap NHS for an ability-to-pay model? More consumer spending? Death penalty for criminals? People just being nicer to one another?

What? What, exactly will begin to put this right, if taxing the rich more to pay for it is not an option?

Taxing the rich certainly isn't an option. They want £85billion per year in extra tax, so let's look at billionaires with the cash to pay for it.

The 2017 Forbes rich list shows 54 British billionaires, with £190 billion between them. The first on the list, Jim Ratcliffe (£32 bn) has already decamped to Monaco. The next two, the Hindujas and the Reubens, are both Indian born and moved here at least partly for financial reasons; they will no doubt be willing to move away for financial reasons too. That's another £35 bn between them. The Barclay Brothers live in the Channel Islands; Richard Branson, in the BVI; Joe Lewis, whoever he might be, in the Bahamas. Between them, that's another £16 billion out of reach.

So we're already down to not much over £100 billion assets between all the UK resident billionaires. How long can we sustain £85 billion per year in extra taxes from them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... _net_worth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Swizzlestick]

Joe Lewis, whoever he might be

Majority owner of Tottenham Hotspur.

Made his money through investments.

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

Labour's spending plans will bring us up, proportionally, to the average in the rest of the EU and only slightly above Germany. Yes, Merkel's Germany, that bastion of pie-in-the-sky socialism.

[AndrewJB]

I'm afraid you're still living in cloud cuckoo land. Let's look at a British billionaire, because we mostly know who he is and something about him. Bernie Ecclestone. He's a billionaire mainly because of his ownership of Formula 1, essentially.

Now, the Labour party doesn't like billionaires and wants him to stop being one. So they want him to hand over two thirds of his wealth (Forbes reckons he has £2.9 billion) so he has less than a billion left. What is he likely to do? Sell Formula 1 and pay the money? Or go and live somewhere else? Obviously the latter. [Details irrelevant. This is an exercise in what a billionaire might do.]

It's one thing to have the principle that the rich must not be so rich and so we're going to tax them till they aren't rich any more. You can certainly have the effect of ensuring that there are no billionaires in the country; but don't rely on seeing much of the cash.

Instead of making things up, you could just try reading the Labour Manifesto and answering that.

[Caballo]

I'm no Corbyn fan, but the **** of the last nine years is 100% Tory problems.

Yesterday the raising of the personal allowance 2010-15 was the responsibility of the Dems, are they not in anyway responsible for the shitty policies in that period too?

[CombatClaret]

All "our" public services is a broad spectrum, some it could reduce the damage if correctly implemented, assessing the workforce needed & any surplus not required. The problem is not really 1 person, extensions with families & relatives ect, you can't really recruit single people & expect the people not to embark upon relationships & not have children or invite the relatives over to stay, it doesn't work that way.

"Problem with immigrants is they breed"

Nice.

[CombatClaret]

Taxing the rich certainly isn't an option. They want £85billion per year in extra tax, so let's look at billionaires with the cash to pay for it.

The 2017 Forbes rich list shows 54 British billionaires, with £190 billion between them. The first on the list, Jim Ratcliffe (£32 bn) has already decamped to Monaco. The next two, the Hindujas and the Reubens, are both Indian born and moved here at least partly for financial reasons; they will no doubt be willing to move away for financial reasons too. That's another £35 bn between them. The Barclay Brothers live in the Channel Islands; Richard Branson, in the BVI; Joe Lewis, whoever he might be, in the Bahamas. Between them, that's another £16 billion out of reach.

So we're already down to not much over £100 billion assets between all the UK resident billionaires. How long can we sustain £85 billion per year in extra taxes from them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... _net_worth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You're the second person on this page to pretend that the £85b figure has to come from private citizens alone

"A financial transaction tax; a hike in corporation tax; a windfall tax on oil companies; and higher taxes for the top 5% of earners."

So now please recalculate with all the bits that come before the tax on the top 5%, like a corporation tax that would still be less than France, the worlds 7th largest economy.