Would you rather go down on her or wank off Corbyn?
She is appalling in interviews- she wouldn't even deny the Junker stuff- 'Brussels gossip'.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
She is appalling in interviews- she wouldn't even deny the Junker stuff- 'Brussels gossip'.
It's not about hating the rich though is it? It's about redustribution of wealth, which is appropriately higher for the wealthy.
Wealth creators? Give me a break, that's a recent right wing buzz term shipped in from the US, after they realized that 'rich people' didn't sell well to the workers. On both sides of the Atlantic the same thing has been happening, vast wealth is accumulating in the hands of a small number, and the gap between them and the rest is widening exponentially. Either we start redistributing that so that normal working people have the opportunity to start creating some wealth of their own, or we're going to end up with an oligarchy. Society cannot maintain massive income inequality in the long term, its poisonous socially, politically and obviously economically.
Is it them despising anyone who gets rich though, or just wanting to ensure that those who don't get rich are still treated fairly and get plenty of opportunities? Naturally I've got nothing against people who earn their own wealth, or companies who contribute to the UK economy and employ plenty of people, but I can equally understand (and largely agree with) the left-wing argument that a ton of major companies who operate in the UK (Amazon, Starbucks etc) do all they can to avoid paying taxes.
Of course, there's only so much that can be done to tackle this because if you put too much pressure on companies they end up leaving in the country which costs jobs, but at the same time I don't think it's unreasonable to be critical of companies who don't give back what they should. Although a CGT increase may not be the best way to do that...and perhaps more importantly, Labour's plans seem incredibly poor thought through because Abbott had no idea whatsoever how they were planning to fund any of them.
Is that true? He didn't notice he was facing a wall and there were loads of people behind him?
Wait what? I thought he was correct at the 1st attempt? Or was there a bigger crowd behind the cameras?
Add to that his foreign policy and stance on trident.
On certain measures, the income gap has been dropping in recent years. I do get the impression that Corbyn genuinely hates the wealthy -him and his party can't even agree on what wage makes you classed as wealthy.
Wealth redistribution is good in theory, but in practice it means that people are taxed to death. I took on masses of debt to do my masters and now earn a reasonable wage, but get clobbered with tax, overly funding others. Not sure fairness applies to anyone earning an above average salary.
I agree on the tax issue, but it seems that most of the avoidance is down to EU law that enables you to funnel your profits from the continent through a single country, ie the one with the lowest rate of corporation tax. It will be interesting to see if there is an improvement on the tax take from these firms post-Brexit. I'm not holding my breath...
I have a bit of sympathy there tbh, given he is facing his adoring hordes.
It's not a CGT increase though is it? Their pledge is to keep the tax at the current rate and just scrap the Tory plans to decrease it in order to help fund public services. Sounds more than fair when our public services are clearly in dire need. Would you really prefer to spend less on public services in favour of a capital gains tax reduction?
What I don't understand (yet again) is why the Brexit bill isn't being used as a proper point of attack in the campaign.
The Tories (rightfully) attack Labour for where their spending promises don't add up, but I'm yet to hear any sums being mentioned which are at the level of the €60-100b bill we're going to need to pay for our Brexit liabilities.
Brexit wasn't necessary and doesn't have an upside. The Tories dragged us into this ludicrous referendum and prominent members of their party made blatant lies to confuse and distort the debate. We're now being told we'll have to pay up to €100b before we can even enter trade talks and minimise the change to the economy from the status quo. The whole thing is ridiculous and still makes me angry. I can't believe this isn't front and centre of the campaign, and being used to attack the government every day. Why will no-one fight for reason?!
The Tories (rightfully) attack Labour for where their spending promises don't add up, but I'm yet to hear any sums being mentioned which are at the level of the €60-100b bill we're going to need to pay for our Brexit liabilities.
Brexit wasn't necessary and doesn't have an upside. The Tories dragged us into this ludicrous referendum and prominent members of their party made blatant lies to confuse and distort the debate. We're now being told we'll have to pay up to €100b before we can even enter trade talks and minimise the change to the economy from the status quo. The whole thing is ridiculous and still makes me angry. I can't believe this isn't front and centre of the campaign, and being used to attack the government every day. Why will no-one fight for reason?!
Who is there to do the attacking? Labour are more or less in the same place as the Tories on Brexit, and the Lib Dems and Greens are too small to really change the topic of conversation.
Sorry, I meant she said reversing Tory CGT cuts.
Not advocating cutting public services, but higher rate used to be aimed at the wealthy- now it hits anyone on a slightly above average wage.
But that's ridiculous. 48% of the electorate voted to remain in the EU. The last general election saw the three main parties lead by Europhiles. I'm continually astonished by how quickly the Brexit debate has been won by the leave side.
What measures of those?
I'm not surprised they find it hard to agree, there are lots of different opinions and you can find exception cases that make each of them look bad.
To use your situation though for example, the way it used to work was that you'd get a free education and grants to ensure you didn't need to take on debt. Then when you'd graduated you'd have paid more tax than now, but you never started from a negative position so there was rarely a sense of it being unfair.
Why do people feel taxed to death anyway? It can't actually be the tax levels, because they're much lower than they've been in the past. It seems to me that the feeling of being squeezed is coming from other directions linked to the decline of public services and increasing living and housing costs. The thing is, you can't fix those at a national level without increasing taxes, even though that might seem like an additional burden. We need to re-examine the social contract, so that taxation isn't just seen as taking money away from people, but ensuring that its actually used in ways that improve the lives of everybody, no matter where they are on the economic scale.
Totally agree with the above, skimming through this thread there is more talent on here than in Westminster, the political parties need to shape up before any of the above will happen but it won't, they're just full of people so far out of touch with the real world that I think it'll get far worse before it gets better.
The latest batch of income data from the UK’s Office for National Statistics reveals the poorest British householders saw their incomes rise by 5.1 per cent (£700) in 2015/16 while the richest fifth suffered a 1.9 per cent drop in the same period.
“There has been a gradual decline in income inequality in the last 10 years, with levels similar to those seen in the mid to late 1980s”, said the ONS.
https://www.ft.com/content/34f071ef-a620-32bf-9706-578f5b6aef2e
I had around £15k of debt after my masters and earned really shite money in my early working years. Housing is obviously a hideous cost, living in London, but I guess the more you pay in tax, the more resentment you feel when you hear about how much of it is wasted on poor management and ill-thought out projects.
I've given more money to charity this year than in any other year of my live, so I'm not averse to helping back decent causes.
That's why a Wealth Tax is needed, not a larger income tax.
And the best way to implement a Wealth Tax is via an Inheritance tax. Especially when holding money on a hedge fund or just the general stocks and shares market should cause your money to increase 10 fold every 35 years. A decent inheritance tax should be of no issue whatsoever.
New money is earned. Old money is not
@Jippy
I think you're conflating two things which ought not to get conflated but understand why they are for you.
Debt (your debt, the specific kind of debt, you're being mugged off on, relative to others who won't ever repay it). That isn't the fault of the poor people who don't have debt who aren't paying enough tax where you feel you're overpaying tax compared to them to subsidise them getting extra stuff which they aren't earning, but need (disputable, obvs).
The unpaid debt (not yours) will get moved on - someone can make a profit from it somewhere at some stage (theoretically).
I think you're conflating two things which ought not to get conflated but understand why they are for you.
Debt (your debt, the specific kind of debt, you're being mugged off on, relative to others who won't ever repay it). That isn't the fault of the poor people who don't have debt who aren't paying enough tax where you feel you're overpaying tax compared to them to subsidise them getting extra stuff which they aren't earning, but need (disputable, obvs).
The unpaid debt (not yours) will get moved on - someone can make a profit from it somewhere at some stage (theoretically).
Inheritance tax is a scandal. I pay tax on all of my earnings throughout my lifetime. I pay tax on lots of things that I buy throughout my lifetime. If I end up with over £425k in assets (which will probably include a house worth more than that on its own (I live in London)) I then have to pay a further 40% on anything above that so my children (who I am trying to provide for in future life) get less. F*ck that. I've already paid enough.
No wonder people say that only idiots pay inheritance tax.
I also had to take on a masters loan and the prior student debt but i don't have any associated feelings of now being treated as unfairly because i pay a higher band of tax (although i assume much less than Jippy).
The schools, universities, general economy and country we live in don't come free of any contribution. I'm not being punished for doing well, im taking the advantages offered to me by a working society and in line i benefit and the tax man benefits, all this will allow others to do the same or the disabled to live a life.
If you see tax as a purely consumption model where you're paying for a service then your going to be annoyed as others pay less for doing less (for whatever reason).
Wealth creators is a ridiculous notion as well, fine if you're an exporter and bringing money in okay. However the majority of the rich are not creating wealth they're absorbing domestic wealth and expending it (to a lesser degree), they rely on a functioning society to absorb from.
Even though I've been eligible for some time, I'll be officially voting for my first time in this election!
You won't pay anything you'll be dead. If your children are lucky enough to inherit such a substantial amount they'll do fine don't you think? 40% above that amount isn't going to put them into poverty
Yup.
Please someone correct me if I am wrong with any of the following:
If you are married your inheritance tax allowance doubles to up to £850k before you pay anything.
So - if you were married and had a £1m estate, which you left fully to your partner and then your your children, then they would pay £60k tax on that estate. A 6% tax on the full amount.
Bear in mind again that the "stocks and shares market" grows on average 7% a year.
Okay, well maybe that is still too much? Then put as much as you can in your pensions and use that as a tax relief vehicle?
Or maybe that is still too much? Give away some of your income as a gift each year and hope you live an extra 7 years.
And if you really don't want to pay any more tax, put it in a trust fund.
You are right - only idiots pay inheritance tax. But at the same time, inheritance tax should be more (or at least, close the loopholes) not less!!!!
No of course it won't put them into poverty, but its the principle I don't like. Pay substantial amounts of tax all of your life and then pay some more when you are dead? What I finish up with at the end of the day to pass on has already been taxed multiple times over. I resent hugely paying anything further. Fortunately, there are simple ways around paying it, which I'm sure most people utilise.
@Kentonio I gotta say, this is the second thread where you've provided a good analysis and opinion which I can agree with.
You're pretty smart, even though you're a Chelsea fan.
You're pretty smart, even though you're a Chelsea fan.
Which is usually what these discussions arrive at the principle of it. Nothing to do with children's well being but the fact whats yours gets taken away which doesn't seem fair even if your dead and it has no effect on you.
For me it depends how you earn it, chances are slim that you'll earn it all without societal influence (property inflation would make up a lot of your wealth) think of it as gaining the advantage whilst alive which then gets corrected slightly.
You'd really rather pay more tax whilst alive rather than your children inherit slightly less but still widely substantial amount?
@Kentonio I gotta say, this is the second thread where you've provided a good analysis and opinion which I can agree with.
You're pretty smart, even though you're a Chelsea fan.
We all have our faults.
Try looking at it this way, while it's totally understandable that every parent wants to give their kids the best possible start in life, with a large inheritance your kids would be starting out with a massive advantage over 95% of other people on society. It's not about you and what you've paid, its about an accumulation of wealth in the hands of a small percentage of people. So once they inherit that money, they don't need to worry about things like rent or buying a house, thats already been given to them along with presumably a decent education and enough money not to worry about the basics in life. But because of a low tax burden, other families are facing far less opportunity to improve their lives.
Because its your kids that probably seems like an acceptable price to pay, but looking at it on a societal scale its toxic. Accumulated wealth doesn't circulate in the economic system well, so you're also not helping the country grow, you're contributing towards economic stagnation. I don't mean this to sound like an attack, because I get why you feel the way you do, but nationally we have to look beyond the very natural desire for parents to uplift their children on a major financial scale. When you die, its not unreasonable for a portion of your accumulated wealth to be put back into the system to help a hundred family's kids have a decent chance at life, rather than ensuring that just one family can live a wealthy life.
It does have to do with children's well being. They will be better off without having £x much less as an inheritance. That fact will affect me during my lifetime, decisions I take etc.
Yes, property will form a massive %age of what I end up with most likely, unless I win the lottery or something. However, I will have spent 25+ years paying for that house. Saving for a deposit, paying stamp duty when I bought it and then paying interest on a loan, which the last statement showed over the course of the term I'll be paying 165% I think it was of the total loan amount back (and no PPI bonus either
)IHT receipts in 2015-16 were £4.6bn. Honestly, I'd rather pay more income tax now than getting a final bill at the end of it.
As a comparison, in the US, the inheritance tax threshold is $5.45m per individual.
The US also has the highest income inequality on earth, with staggering amounts of poverty and pre-Obamacare an estimated 40,000 unnecessary deaths each year due to lack of healthcare. Be careful what you wish for.
Might be time for Labour to get into the propaganda game.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-c...e-rather-unfortunate-problem-2017-5?r=UK&IR=T
http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-c...e-rather-unfortunate-problem-2017-5?r=UK&IR=T
That is straight out of The Thick Of It.
The Tories have released an attack document criticising Labour's spending plans. Labour's manifesto is being released a week on Monday, which means they're probably in the final stages of drafting. I bet this is a disruption tactic.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/m7y0mgql...5c3LgHa?dl=0&preview=GE2017_Cost+of+Chaos.pdf
The key takeaway is that the Tories will be claiming that infrastructure spending counts as regular spending. There's a debate to be had about whether it should be counted that way or not, but I rather suspect the public will think that it should. If they do, Labour will have even more problems with economic credibility.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/m7y0mgql...5c3LgHa?dl=0&preview=GE2017_Cost+of+Chaos.pdf
The key takeaway is that the Tories will be claiming that infrastructure spending counts as regular spending. There's a debate to be had about whether it should be counted that way or not, but I rather suspect the public will think that it should. If they do, Labour will have even more problems with economic credibility.
The reported figure has just risen to 100bn and the chief negotiator is insisting on one lump sum, to which we've told them to go forth and multiply. Where does Labour go after that, that they would accede to Brussels' demands?
It is my impression that the more we hear our of Europe the stronger May's electoral position becomes, out of defiance if nothing else.