I guess the point is that these people are paying that much because they receive that much - with the obvious debate being on whether such remuneration is itself equitable and whether further taxation would unduly burden such potentially lavish lifestyles. In principle I agree with you on the wealth tax vs income tax thing (though I have spent absolutely no time researching how such a tax might be implemented, nor how easy it would be to sidestep).
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I guess the point is that these people are paying that much because they receive that much - with the obvious debate being on whether such remuneration is itself equitable and whether further taxation would unduly burden such potentially lavish lifestyles. In principle I agree with you on the wealth tax vs income tax thing (though I have spent absolutely no time researching how such a tax might be implemented, nor how easy it would be to sidestep).
Does that word have any meaning any more?
When the effect of the proposal is to reduce the overall tax take, then it does.
Also, those high top rates in the graph correspond with the 1st and 2nd World Wars, and then into the cold war.
Yeah, that's a whole other debate regarding what people can earn versus what they should earn. I presume, however, these high earners are somehow contributing to society, be it with what they do to earn that much or via taxes. On the other hand, just being wealthy and hoarding wealth isn't a net contribution to society.
Regarding wealth tax, there has been a lot of discussion of Elizabeth Warren's proposal in the USA. Pundits are split. But until it is implemented somewhere, we would never know how effective it could be.
The rates reduced drastically in the early 80s, pre-Gorbachev, when the Cold War was in one of its warmest phases (early Reagan/Thatcher, Star Wars, Afghanistan).
And would you look at that total coincidence!
Edit - also for the war hypothesis, Iraq doesn't seem to have had much effect at all.
Last edited:
The rates reduced drastically in the early 80s, pre-Gorbachev, when the Cold War was in one of its warmest phases (early Reagan/Thatcher, Star Wars, Afghanistan).
And would you look at that total coincidence!
And in Britain, after the rates were reduced in the '80s, the tax take from the rich nearly doubled.
The goal should always be to find the rates that optimise the overall tax take imo.
Based on what? Marr called him a lying toe rag and Farage stuck his fingers in his ears and said "la, la, la, I'm not listening".
I saw it as it happened.
I thought his line of attack, ignoring the questions, painting himself as a victim, attacking Marr, and talking about his one topic (Brexit) worked.
Unlike Ben Shapiro, he is actually skilled at deflecting an interview and winning it.
If that's winning an interview, what's losing one look like? Mind you, I am biased, I know that every single word that comes out of his mouth about Brexit is a barefaced lie.
Again, Ben Shapiro is an example of someone who tried to attack the interviewer and failed - laughably.
They clip shown of Farage was the second part of the interview. The first part was about Brexit, in which he basically lied through his teeth about, among other things, WTO rules and claiming that the 15% of UK trade with Europe, (really so low?) is pretty much irrelevant in the great scheme of things. Also, although his assertion that the UK only produces 2% of global CO2, maybe correct, although I'm inclined not to believe a word he says, the impact of Global Warming has provided thousands of job opportunities around the World, rather than causing people to lose their jobs.
He's a fecking liar and he peddles a narrative that only his deluded supporters would lap up. The fact that the Brexit party has so much support so quickly, just goes to show what your average little Englander believes.
Now if Marr had pulled him up on those things and highlighted inaccuracies and lies then he would have won, and Farage would have lost. But Marr didn't do that, Marr couldn't come off his script, which appeared to be asking irrelevant questions in a personal attack on Farage's past, and that allowed Farage to deliver his points on the day's real issue, Brexit, unchallenged. Which is why he 'won'.
We are almost there.
You can't do anything but laugh at this point. Clowns.
I know tons of 100k earners in the netherlands, its not a massive wage and they pay their 50+ % in tax. These are average joes that cannot conceal their earnings from the taxman.
To be a member of this elite 1% club in the UK requires you to be earning over £160k (€185k). Claiming that members of this group are just average joes is by definition nothing more than a comical non-sequitur. Regardless, my point was that the average wage of your top 1% isn't 100k (or 160k) - it has to be around 550k for the sums to work. Being a poorer member of this elite group is a thankless role, no doubt. Being lumped in with the super-rich while only being pretty wealthy is an unenviable position to be in and one that (thank heavens) 99% of the population will never have to endure.
Last edited:
The average income in the Netherlands is 37,000 euros a year, so no someone on 100,000 euros a year is not an 'average joe'.
Does Pareto's analysis still hold, that 80% of the wealth in a 'first world' country is held by 20% of the population and if so how does that relate to tax receipts for the Government ??
That's about what I'm getting on the dole
Revoke
So back where we started then.
They should have revoked A50 on 29 March. Then they could try to come up with something workable without any time pressure and have another go at A50 when there is an actual plan in place.
Hopefully, they'd get bored after a few years and give up on the idea.
They should have revoked A50 on 29 March. Then they could try to come up with something workable without any time pressure and have another go at A50 when there is an actual plan in place.
Hopefully, they'd get bored after a few years and give up on the idea.
She will be out of government long before she gets to make a decision.
But it will never go away whilst the media give so much attention to people like Farage, who is a parasite feeding off people's ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.
The person who is happiest that the UK haven't left yet is Farage, his meal ticket has been the EU for 20 years and as long as the UK are still there he remains relevant because too many people are too stupid to realise what a charlatan he is.
The EU made a mistake giving an extension because it's clear they'll never agree on anything. Don't think they'll make the same mistake again. And who's going to revoke A50?
'Just call it the Barnier Deal.'
'Surely, nobody's going to buy that level of rewriting history? We've had May table it three times, for goodness sake'
'Surely, nobody's going to buy that level of rewriting history? We've had May table it three times, for goodness sake'
Agreed, the time to revoke has passed now, May has made a complete bo**ocks of it. March the 29th was the time to revoke or to No deal. Everyone, UK politicians, EU officials and the 27 other member states, all looking at each other not knowing what the hell to do.
It has to be 'no deal' now by default, and a plague on all their houses!
So she has agreed to step down in June.
Why wait?
She's agreed to lay down a timetable in June, it's the next step on her resignation tour.
When can they next hold a vote of no confidence in her? She'll go a couple of weeks before that.
Boris gearing up.
One last go at getting her deal through.
When that fails, she'll step down, the Tories will run their leadership election and we'll have a new PM in time for conference in late September.
The new leader will presumably be a Brexiteer, so 'no deal' exit will probably be the eventual outcome in October.
That's not til December.
Genuinely think he’s overplayed his hand now. I don’t think he’s fair very well in a GE.
if Labour were to do poorly in the upcoming elections, then Labour could move to a vote of no confidence against Corbyn
3rd time lucky ?
Nah Corbyn is staying as Labour leader until the result of the next general election.