Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[AndrewJB]

They will borrow money.

So less prudent than Labour? And this runs counter to the whole austerity argument. Are the Tories now admitting they had it wrong for nine years?

[taio]

So less prudent than Labour? And this runs counter to the whole austerity argument. Are the Tories now admitting they had it wrong for nine years?

Labour would borrow too and tax more.

[Lowbankclaret]

Everybody started paying tax at £11,800, so when you spin this as “for lower earners” that’s not true. For anyone earning £6000pa or £8000pa they would see no benefit at all.

Let’s not forget that along with his tens of billions of pounds of extra spending, Johnson is also promising a tax cut to higher earners (as well as focusing another at lower income people), and so far nothing has emerged as to how all of this will be paid for. We get establishment media fury at Corbyn’s costed plans, and establishment media silence at the establishment’s poster boy’s slipshod economics. Funny that.

Sorry Andrew,
The Tories have raised the starting rate of Tax from around £6000 to around £12000.
I am only mentioning a fact.

History shows us the more you tax the richest, the lass money you get as they all move it offshore. I don’t have the figures as evidence but the person who told me does his research.

He said back in the day when the highest rate of tax was 90 odd percent the richest paid 6% of tax income.

Under the current system they pay 27%.

Let’s drive them out of the country as that will be a great idea and backfire with lower tax receipts.

[Lowbankclaret]

2E2DF002-158A-4A74-A3DB-38A92421A71E.png (186.45 KiB) Viewed 2321 times

1F515F5B-6AE5-4652-8A9C-5747A02400D9.png (160.47 KiB) Viewed 2321 times

Debt has certainly been climbing but borrowing has been dropping.

[AndrewJB]

Sorry Andrew,
The Tories have raised the starting rate of Tax from around £6000 to around £12000.
I am only mentioning a fact.

History shows us the more you tax the richest, the lass money you get as they all move it offshore. I don’t have the figures as evidence but the person who told me does his research.

He said back in the day when the highest rate of tax was 90 odd percent the richest paid 6% of tax income.

Under the current system they pay 27%.

Let’s drive them out of the country as that will be a great idea and backfire with lower tax receipts.

If we’re sticking with facts, the coalition government raised it (as a LibDem idea) up to £10k by 2015. Raising it beyond £10k to £11.8k has done nothing for people earning less than £10k. And the correct thing would be to offset the rise with an increase at the top to make it revenue neutral, but of course that hasn’t happened.

I don’t hold to this Tory appeasement idea that if you tax the rich more they’ll somehow wriggle out of it. Can you imagine reducing the rules on benefit fraud, “because otherwise people will just ignore the”? And nor do I hold to the magical thinking that if you tax people less you earn more. Successive governments have relaxed the rules (while making them more complicated), and failed to close loopholes, or even come to grips in a real way with aggressive avoidance. It’s no surprise that people in HMRC and big business move back and forth between industries, and things like the Vodophone £6 Billion tax bill forgiven happen.

It’s far easier and will raise more money while doing the least personal harm by taxing rich people rather than the expensive and nasty route of squeezing more out of the poor, yet this is what the Tories do.

[Lowbankclaret]

If we’re sticking with facts, the coalition government raised it (as a LibDem idea) up to £10k by 2015. Raising it beyond £10k to £11.8k has done nothing for people earning less than £10k. And the correct thing would be to offset the rise with an increase at the top to make it revenue neutral, but of course that hasn’t happened.

I don’t hold to this Tory appeasement idea that if you tax the rich more they’ll somehow wriggle out of it. Can you imagine reducing the rules on benefit fraud, “because otherwise people will just ignore the”? And nor do I hold to the magical thinking that if you tax people less you earn more. Successive governments have relaxed the rules (while making them more complicated), and failed to close loopholes, or even come to grips in a real way with aggressive avoidance. It’s no surprise that people in HMRC and big business move back and forth between industries, and things like the Vodophone £6 Billion tax bill forgiven happen.

It’s far easier and will raise more money while doing the least personal harm by taxing rich people rather than the expensive and nasty route of squeezing more out of the poor, yet this is what the Tories do.

Of course they wriggle out of it.

They pay accountants large amounts of money to avoid paying it.

Lord Sugar, a very large tax payer has said he will leave the country if Labour got in.

They can afford to leave and avoid paying any tax.

Which part of that are you struggling with.

[Right_winger]

Of course they wriggle out of it.

They pay accountants large amounts of money to avoid paying it.

Lord Sugar, a very large tax payer has said he will leave the country if Labour got in.

They can afford to leave and avoid paying any tax.

Which part of that are you struggling with.

This is exactly what those on the left end of the economic scale struggle to grasp though.

You could also argue that if these said individuals left the country and moved some of/all of their operations aswell that the country is also loosing out on the tax receipts of those workers.

I don’t get the tax the rich more mantra. Why should people who are striving to be successful penalised?

[Lowbankclaret]

1126C52E-1586-4DBA-AF57-FB07EC925709.png (228.67 KiB) Viewed 2289 times

B196D639-18CD-4D67-9E88-12F8E4D4ACE3.png (269.16 KiB) Viewed 2289 times

The stats don’t support that the Tories have been lowering tax for the rich.

[Lowbankclaret]

43FC2F33-0127-4D31-BF1C-BFB9C0C3A474.png (268.56 KiB) Viewed 2281 times

Increase in personal allowance over the last 9 years.

[Lowbankclaret]

https://www.ft.com/content/afd88af6-364 ... beb0903fa3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Have a read of this, may educate you some more.

Puts me in the top 5%. fFS

[summitclaret]

Care to comment on this disgraceful banner.

http://news.sky.com/story/utterly-vile- ... r-11822793" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Devils_Advocate]

Yes its disgraceful

[summitclaret]

Should have said fair play to andy burnham.

[martin_p]

This is exactly what those on the left end of the economic scale struggle to grasp though.

You could also argue that if these said individuals left the country and moved some of/all of their operations aswell that the country is also loosing out on the tax receipts of those workers.

I don’t get the tax the rich more mantra. Why should people who are striving to be successful penalised?

I love it how individuals who threaten to take their companies abroad absolutely must be taken seriously and therefor we must do what they say whereas companies threatening to leave the country because of Brexit are scaremongering and can be ignored.

Oh, and why is it only those with all the money who are striving to be successful. Don’t you think those on lower and middle incomes work hard too?

[martin_p]

Care to comment on this disgraceful banner.

http://news.sky.com/story/utterly-vile- ... r-11822793" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No one would think that acceptable. What do you think about Farage wanting to ‘take a knife to the pen pushers in Whitehall’ after Brexit is delivered?

[summitclaret]

It's pretty obvious he was talking about job cuts. He has since clarified that m. Anyway the police are not pursuing it.

[Lowbankclaret]

Care to comment on this disgraceful banner.

http://news.sky.com/story/utterly-vile- ... r-11822793" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed disgraceful!

[Spijed]

It's pretty obvious he was talking about job cuts. He has since clarified that m. Anyway the police are not pursuing it.

I presume when Brendan O'Neill said there should be riots you think it was a mis-understanding?

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/09/28/b ... ns-people/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lowbankclaret]

No one would think that acceptable. What do you think about Farage wanting to ‘take a knife to the pen pushers in Whitehall’ after Brexit is delivered?

Very bad choice of words.

As he said he should have used axe, but not sure that appropriate now either.

We are having a cost reduction redundancy, no sorry transformation.

Perhaps Farage should have said, a political transformation of the civil service. That would be PC.

[AndyClaret]

No one would think that acceptable. What do you think about Farage wanting to ‘take a knife to the pen pushers in Whitehall’ after Brexit is delivered?

Good grief, you know what he meant, i know what he meant, stop being such a snowflake.

When a manager is axed, it's not literally.

[taio]

I presume when Brendan O'Neill said there should be riots you think it was a mis-understanding?

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/09/28/b ... ns-people/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An odd presumption.

[Lowbankclaret]

I love it how individuals who threaten to take their companies abroad absolutely must be taken seriously and therefor we must do what they say whereas companies threatening to leave the country because of Brexit are scaremongering and can be ignored.

Oh, and why is it only those with all the money who are striving to be successful. Don’t you think those on lower and middle incomes work hard too?

Well my company is moving a very large slice of its manufacturing abroad.

I would love to go into detail but if I did I would be sacked.

[martin_p]

Very bad choice of words.

As he said he should have used axe, but not sure that appropriate now either.

We are having a cost reduction redundancy, no sorry transformation.

Perhaps Farage should have said, a political transformation of the civil service. That would be PC.

Thankfully he’ll never get the chance to do either!

But more evidence that the Brexit Party is indeed far to the right.

[summitclaret]

Where is b*llocks to brexit on the scale? It's a lot worse than surrender act imo

[Spijed]

Business has full confidence if we leave with no-deal:

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-29/bus ... IvJS4lMrNs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lowbankclaret]

Thankfully he’ll never get the chance to do either!

But more evidence that the Brexit Party is indeed far to the right.

Yep right, keep saying, you will believe it eventually.

How does Clair Fox being a Brexit ME-p and being a Marxist figure then.

[martin_p]

Yep right, keep saying, you will believe it eventually.

How does Clair Fox being a Brexit ME-p and being a Marxist figure then.

Don’t need to believe it eventually I believe it now. A party is judged by its policies not by the people who are MEPs. Slashing the public sector is a far right policy.

[Lowbankclaret]

Don’t need to believe it eventually I believe it now. A party is judged by its policies not by the people who are MEPs. Slashing the public sector is a far right policy.

You talking about Farage talking about our civil service that’s sold us down the river and he wants to restructure it?

[martin_p]

You talking about Farage talking about our civil service that’s sold us down the river and he wants to restructure it?

The civil service does what it’s told to by its ministers whether the people involved are in political agreement or not.

[Lowbankclaret]

The civil service does what it’s told to by its ministers whether the people involved are in political agreement or not.

Agreed, May wanted to remain as did the civil servants.

So Nigelwould replace them.
That’s right wing.

Every company I have worked for that happens.

[AndrewJB]

Of course they wriggle out of it.

They pay accountants large amounts of money to avoid paying it.

Lord Sugar, a very large tax payer has said he will leave the country if Labour got in.

They can afford to leave and avoid paying any tax.

Which part of that are you struggling with.

You’ve ver nearly highlighted the issue as I see it. Bear in mind though that the very rich as you say can afford to avoid tax, so we can’t say they’re in the same group paying a large slice of income tax as well.

Our country is way better off without people like “lord” Sugar acting like a dick in it. You might be into tugging your forelock at someone who thinks he can decide his own tax bill, but not me. Let them all go. Will they electronically transfer their property offshore too? Tax their U.K. passports. Tax their foreign earnings, tax the wealth they can’t take with them. Threaten them with imprisonment. It’s not actually beyond the ability of our civil service to devise ways to deal with the super rich - if the government tells them to. There are several U.K. citizens who have been stripped of their citizenships already, so it’s not like we’ve never done this before. They can only afford to leave and avoid paying tax because we’ve allowed a system to exist that they can game. In fact they only exist because we tolerate the right of people to have as much as they can get. We could restrict wealth to no more than the the tens of millions, and then they wouldn’t be able to influence politics and public debate to the degree they have in gaming our system.

[martin_p]

Agreed, May wanted to remain as did the civil servants.

So Nigelwould replace them.
That’s right wing.

Every company I have worked for that happens.

So you agree they were following orders but think they should be replaced for doing that? You’ve worked for some pretty dodgy companies if people are sacked for delivering what was asked!

[Lowbankclaret]

You’ve ver nearly highlighted the issue as I see it. Bear in mind though that the very rich as you say can afford to avoid tax, so we can’t say they’re in the same group paying a large slice of income tax as well.

Our country is way better off without people like “lord” Sugar acting like a dick in it. You might be into tugging your forelock at someone who thinks he can decide his own tax bill, but not me. Let them all go. Will they electronically transfer their property offshore too? Tax their U.K. passports. Tax their foreign earnings, tax the wealth they can’t take with them. Threaten them with imprisonment. It’s not actually beyond the ability of our civil service to devise ways to deal with the super rich - if the government tells them to. There are several U.K. citizens who have been stripped of their citizenships already, so it’s not like we’ve never done this before. They can only afford to leave and avoid paying tax because we’ve allowed a system to exist that they can game. In fact they only exist because we tolerate the right of people to have as much as they can get. We could restrict wealth to no more than the the tens of millions, and then they wouldn’t be able to influence politics and public debate to the degree they have in gaming our system.

Your a true communist.
Having been to China, the ultimate communist experiment that didn’t work and they have embraced a more capitalist structure.

Your methods simply do not work.
You end up poorer.

But like many your age your going to have to live through it to gain that experience.

[Lowbankclaret]

So you agree they were following orders but think they should be replaced for doing that? You’ve worked for some pretty dodgy companies if people are sacked for delivering what was asked!

Obviously that came across wrong.

Anyone who disagrees with the company line suffers career ending issues.

What that leads to is a yes sir mentality even if that means the company driving over a cliff edge to oblivion.

[taio]

Our country is way better off without people like “lord” Sugar acting like a dick in it. You might be into tugging your forelock at someone who thinks he can decide his own tax bill, but not me. Let them all go. Will they electronically transfer their property offshore too? Tax their U.K. passports. Tax their foreign earnings, tax the wealth they can’t take with them. Threaten them with imprisonment. It’s not actually beyond the ability of our civil service to devise ways to deal with the super rich - if the government tells them to. There are several U.K. citizens who have been stripped of their citizenships already, so it’s not like we’ve never done this before. They can only afford to leave and avoid paying tax because we’ve allowed a system to exist that they can game. In fact they only exist because we tolerate the right of people to have as much as they can get. We could restrict wealth to no more than the the tens of millions, and then they wouldn’t be able to influence politics and public debate to the degree they have in gaming our system.

A quite unbelievable post.

[AndrewJB]

Your a true communist.
Having been to China, the ultimate communist experiment that didn’t work and they have embraced a more capitalist structure.

Your methods simply do not work.
You end up poorer.

But like many your age your going to have to live through it to gain that experience.

I’m not a communist. Having higher taxes on the rich, and a ceiling for wealth does not prevent a functioning free market. In fact capitalism works better this way.

You would cravenly tolerate a class of people for whom our democracy, tax system, and society are but inconvenient things to subvert, and our economy something to be plundered. If they are in fact so rich they can do whatever they please, then we should be grasping the nettle now, rather than putting our fingers in our ears and insisting everything is fine.

[atlantalad]

Im guessing the Gaurdian article you are referencing is the one which pretty much just lays out Philip Booth of the IEA views

The IEA describes itself as a freemarket think tank and is regarded as having a heavy right wing bias. In fact this year it has received a formal warning for political bias from the regulator in the area it published its new paper in.

I think you just need to be careful what you read and look up sources and try to find multiple articles. Out of about 5 or 6 articles ive just looked at this is the only one with this view whereas everything else points to the 1980's government.

There is no doubt since 96 Labour could have done more and those who support the Labour Corbyn represents can fairly have a go at Blair and Brown but this approach was fully supported and backed by the Tory's who probably would have taken things further than the New Labour govt did

Ok - so you think there is a right wing bias. How about if the information comes straight from the horses mouth:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... r-failures
That is another source, straight from G Browns mouth accepting responsibility - on BBC but link does not work.

The fact is it was a Labour govt that deregulated the banks. It was a Labour govt holding the baby - it was their actions that lead to actual deregulation and the subsequent financial mess - so back to the original post about apportioning blame and placing responsibility for the poor, sick, under privileged, etc squarely at the banking sector.

[Lowbankclaret]

A quite unbelievable post.

It’s what your up against .

[Lowbankclaret]

I’m not a communist. Having higher taxes on the rich, and a ceiling for wealth does not prevent a functioning free market. In fact capitalism works better this way.

You would cravenly tolerate a class of people for whom our democracy, tax system, and society are but inconvenient things to subvert, and our economy something to be plundered. If they are in fact so rich they can do whatever they please, then we should be grasping the nettle now, rather than putting our fingers in our ears and insisting everything is fine.

You just don’t know what a communist is

[martin_p]

You just don’t know what a communist is

If you think it’s raising a few taxes for the wealthiest neither do you.

[Lancasterclaret]

You just don’t know what a communist is

There are a lot on here who don't know what a communist is to be fair

[martin_p]

Obviously that came across wrong.

Anyone who disagrees with the company line suffers career ending issues.

What that leads to is a yes sir mentality even if that means the company driving over a cliff edge to oblivion.

But there is a ‘yes’ mentality in the civil service. There’s a responsibility in an independent civil service to point out the potential pitfalls of minister’s decisions but not to stop them, and they don’t. Do you think all the austerity cuts implemented by the civil service had across the board support by the people doing it?

[Spijed]

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/queen-sough ... ter-638320" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Waine]

I’m not a communist. Having higher taxes on the rich, and a ceiling for wealth does not prevent a functioning free market. In fact capitalism works better this way.

You would cravenly tolerate a class of people for whom our democracy, tax system, and society are but inconvenient things to subvert, and our economy something to be plundered. If they are in fact so rich they can do whatever they please, then we should be grasping the nettle now, rather than putting our fingers in our ears and insisting everything is fine.

Hi Andrew, where do you stand on Brexit? I had you down as a remainer. Have I misunderstood?

Do you believe that all the "wealthy" people in the UK make their money from the UK economy alone? Don't you think that some of the earnings come from doing business in other countries, also? And, I guess you know that those "other countries" aren't limited to the EU27?

Do you plan to "shut off" the UK economy from the rest of the world? Is that what you mean by "grasping the nettle now.....?"

Having a ceiling on wealth does prevent a functioning free market - it leads to sub-optimal allocation of resources, etc, etc, etc.

[AndrewJB]

You just don’t know what a communist is

I suspect you're just using the term as a pejorative, perhaps to justify not engaging with my argument.

I've never advocated the abolition of private property. What I'm saying is it is entirely possible to tax the extremely rich in our country (defining "extremely rich" as individual and families with assets of twenty million or more), but the laws and resources we have to do so currently facilitate the extremely rich instead. You've said yourself they'll wriggle out of it, with all the highly paid lawyers and accountants they can muster.

If the law isn't working as intended we should change it or our approach, in order to make it work. This should be perfectly reasonable to anyone, but I get the impression you think we should appease them instead. Demanding more in tax from them isn't going to kill the extremely rich. It's not going to leave them hungry, or choosing between feeding their children and heating the house. If middle, and upper middle class people are sending substantial percentages of their incomes to the Exchequer, it's perfectly reasonable to ask those with hundreds, or thousands of times their wealth to also cough up. And if we ask them to, there should be no question as to them wriggling out of it.

This is called "taking back control" - a phrase I'm sure you appreciate. If we're going to "take back control" of our country from the EU, then why not also take back control from the extremely rich?

You might suggest to me that the extremely rich don't control us. We're a democracy, and we can all vote for who we want. But only the last part of that is true (we can vote for who we want). Eighty-seven percent of our print media by circulation is owned by billionaires (or in the case of the Mail, a nearly billionaire). Those papers all tend to agree that punishing the poor with austerity was harsh but fair (and necessary, rather than taxing the rich more). They all want us to leave the EU (so their control over us has no rival). They all hate political parties that advocate higher taxes on the rich. And they all promote Johnson as a good PM, despite his (fill this in yourself with what he's actually achieved so far).

The Tory Party take more donations from the City than from members. They sell "time" with the PM, cabinet ministers, and high ranking party members. When the daughter of a Russian oligarch spends thirty grand to play tennis with Johnson for one afternoon (he was merely an MP), she's unlikely to be pressing the issues of the disabled in London. I think lunch with May went for over a hundred grand (£135K - read the article: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... r-14976784" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

Is this "taking back control"?

[martin_p]

https://www.ft.com/content/afd88af6-364 ... beb0903fa3


Have a read of this, may educate you some more.

Puts me in the top 5%. fFS

I don’t earn enough to want to pay a subscription to the FT. You’ll have to cut and paste if you want anyone to read it.

[AndrewJB]

Hi Andrew, where do you stand on Brexit? I had you down as a remainer. Have I misunderstood?

Do you believe that all the "wealthy" people in the UK make their money from the UK economy alone? Don't you think that some of the earnings come from doing business in other countries, also? And, I guess you know that those "other countries" aren't limited to the EU27?

Do you plan to "shut off" the UK economy from the rest of the world? Is that what you mean by "grasping the nettle now.....?"

Having a ceiling on wealth does prevent a functioning free market - it leads to sub-optimal allocation of resources, etc, etc, etc.

Having a ceiling on wealth is entirely reasonable. You can't tell me that a few people dithering over whether to buy a yacht or a helicopter is more important than a lot of people choosing between food or heating.

Do you believe the extremely wealthy (as I described above) should just live here and not contribute? Is that taking back control?

A ceiling on wealth spreads money around the economy, and prevents it from accumulating in large pockets. This keeps capitalism moving forward, because you have many buyers of goods.

We are going toward a situation in which there are a small number of rich, and a very large number of poor. Why would you advocate this?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Having a ceiling on wealth is entirely reasonable. You can't tell me that a few people dithering over whether to buy a yacht or a helicopter is more important than a lot of people choosing between food or heating.

Do you believe the extremely wealthy (as I described above) should just live here and not contribute? Is that taking back control?

A ceiling on wealth spreads money around the economy, and prevents it from accumulating in large pockets. This keeps capitalism moving forward, because you have many buyers of goods.

We are going toward a situation in which there are a small number of rich, and a very large number of poor. Why would you advocate this?

A ceiling on wealth?

Ok.

Many questions - does that only apply to U.K. citizens or foreign owners? Does it apply to single owners or ownership by, say, pension funds?

The UK’s biggest manufacturing employer is Tara Group (India) with over 50,000 staff including Jaguar Land Rover. Should their wealth be curtailed? What will happen to their companies if it is?

As usual with this argument, the moral logic is sound, but the real world reality is dodgy as hell, and the road to ruin as a nation.

(I would personally want to tax money leaving the U.K. in dividends, or apply a turnover tax, but brighter minds than I (or ones that have studied the economics of it more) tend to say this would backfire too).

[AndrewJB]

A ceiling on wealth?

Ok.

Many questions - does that only apply to U.K. citizens or foreign owners? Does it apply to single owners or ownership by, say, pension funds?

The UK’s biggest manufacturing employer is Tara Group (India) with over 50,000 staff including Jaguar Land Rover. Should their wealth be curtailed? What will happen to their companies if it is?

As usual with this argument, the moral logic is sound, but the real world reality is dodgy as hell, and the road to ruin as a nation.

(I would personally want to tax money leaving the U.K. in dividends, or apply a turnover tax, but brighter minds than I (or ones that have studied the economics of it more) tend to say this would backfire too).

A ceiling on wealth based on the fact that a billionaire can't work as hard as a thousand millionaires. Do you dispute this?

[Imploding Turtle]

A ceiling on wealth based on the fact that a billionaire can't work as hard as a thousand millionaires. Do you dispute this?

The problem isn't about working hard enough, or smart enough, or anything to do with work. The problem with capitalism is even more fundamental than that in that for one person to have thousands of times more money than he needs for a comfortable life it requires that thousands of people have less than they need. This is the real problem with capitalism.