UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
Well that confirms what I just said.
There’s nothing new about McDonnells policies. Nothing radical or progressive. Just a rehash of 1970s economics of high taxes more public ownership leading to strikes and unemployment Back then the UK was called the sick man of Europe. This time we won’t be in Europe - so just the sick man I guess.
I don't to fill the thread up with the same reply. Did you check my other posts. (Also the fact checker was from partly from the Adam Smith institution.)
Except most didn’t pay it
From the office of national statistics: "...of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest."
And how much are we spending on social care in comparison?
I'll give you a clue. It's been massively reduced and put even more stress on the NHS.
How much has our population demographic split aged since then?
I'll give you a clue. It's getting older. We need more investment in social care for our ageing population. Instead the Tories slashed funding for social care.
Surprised they are letting their masks slip this close to an election! They normally wait until the day after.
Ok boomer.
Well of course not, most weren't earning enough. So there was a high tax rate on top earners yet the US was incredibly prosperous.
If this myth that the rich will move somewhere else had any basis, you might have a technical point albeit an immoral one but it doesn't.
They were prosperous despite the tax system not because of it
It would be nice to have some further info from the account, because Swinson took part in 869 votes in the 10-15 government alone, rebelling once (per https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.ph...ire&house=commons&display=everyvote#divisions). So, given she's supposedly voted with Javid 739 times, the figures don't seem to match very well. Maybe she was absent from a lot of his votes and vice versa, but some context would be helpful, though I'm not sure how much can be expected from an account less than a week old with 22 followers.
Well how many of the top earners left the country? Do you think there was an exodus as you predict would happen in the UK?
What is this? Hey make way for the New world Old man? Give me a break
Excellent
I'll just reiterate that health spend is as high as it's ever been. Total public spend in terms of GDP is as high as it's ever been in non-recession peacetime and tax to GDP is likewise.
So we're being taxed at a record level. We're spending a record level and we're spending a record amount on health; whilst still running a budget deficit at a time where countries like Ireland and Germany have a surplus.
Could we spend slightly more? Possibly which I believe every party is committed to. Could we spend substantially more without either large scale borrowing or huge cuts to other departments that are saying they're equally as stretched? Of course not. Which brings me back to the original point: when are all parties going to be honest not about the next 3-4 years, but about the next 20-30 years.
What is this? Hey make way for the New world Old man? Give me a break
https://10daily.com.au/shows/thepro...omers-just-found-out-about-ok-boomer-20191105
I am sure I said this before, but, in the space of a few short days, Corbyn has gone from this utterly clueless, unelectable idiot, to the saviour of our country.
Soon you gullable lot will be shouting oooo Jeremy Corbyn all over again.
What changed? You lot have incredibly short memories.
Soon you gullable lot will be shouting oooo Jeremy Corbyn all over again.
What changed? You lot have incredibly short memories.
Corbyn or Boris?
What is this? Hey make way for the New world Old man? Give me a break
Don't worry, everyone seems old to fourteen year olds.
As i say they found ways round it so tax revenues did not increase as a direct result. They will find ways round it here too. They may not leave but they may not expand and employ either. The idea behind these policies is that extra revenues can be collected to pay for spending. The notion that the rich and big business alone will facilitate this is a pipe dream. Eventually the burden will have to be widened to the masses and the basic rate will need to increase. Workers will want more money to compensate and businesses will be squeezed leading to unemployment and a greater need for welfare and so on. It is bloody old hat, it has been tried before and it doesn't work.
I'm all for finding a more socially responsible way to run capitalism. It sounds like a good idea to go after the big corporations for instance. But they are probably more liable to move than any other business. It's a mere pen-stroke to them and the whole shooting match goes to Ireland or Romania or Timbuktu with thousands of jobs lost. They won't be the ones that pay, it will be the SME's like the one I run that take the brunt.
Well GE were called so that’s quite a big change if you ask me - and this time you’ll be making a huge call, no wonder some people prefer Corbyn than another decade of Tories this time with BoJo as a PM.
From your link:
1] The top federal income tax rate was 91 percent in 1950 and 1951, and between 1954 and 1959. In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent.
[2] Some of the distributional assumptions in the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman paper are questionable. In particular, the authors assume that the full burden of the corporate income tax falls on owners of capital, which may not be correct. However, the authors note that they “have tested a number of alternative tax incidence assumptions, and found only second-order effects.”
[3] It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s. The average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, compared to 40.8 percent today.
[4] The data from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman is not divided among federal, state, and local taxes, so it is difficult to tell exactly how much the rich were paying in federal income taxes specifically during this period.
Well one of the comparisons was with javid who has been in parliament since 2010 so that's a 9 year overlap not 14 for starters. So not sure how your maths works out in practice there.
My point is that higher taxes do not lead to higher revenues. People go out of their way to avoid paying even to the point of leaving the country or just moving their money to a more tax-friendly state. Lower taxation has the affect of more people paying rather than avoiding (because they see it as fairer) and thus revenues increase. There is plenty of evidence for this. The premise of funding public spending by taxing business and the wealthy is flawed in my view.
I believe her argument was she wanted to see more statues of successful women in public places. Whatever you think of Thatcher she was a historic woman politician. I think it is a defensible argument unless you have a problem with women politicians per se.
I mean feck you have Corbyn paying respects to dead terrorists but Swinson, a woman politician, who wants a statue of the first women PM in parliament square, is some kind of a moral headcase?
Last edited:
Look at the growth rate and tax rate in Ireland compared to the UK to illustrate. Ireland spends around 25-26% of GDP with much lower taxes (compared with 38%+ in the UK), whilst seeing growth rates of average 8-9% per annum for the last 6 years, compared with less than a third of that in the UK.
That's where the tax and spend argument falls down. More taxes = no growth = no extra spending. Ireland has low taxes and spending, the highest growth in the EU and therefore more physical spend.
Just seen Sturgeon in a pub pretending to play a guitar and singing.
Why do all politicians make such absolute feckin fools of themselves kissing pigs and babies or wearing butchers stripes, serving sausages, when there is an election coming ?
Shows the complete naivety of anyone who takes any of them seriously.
Why do all politicians make such absolute feckin fools of themselves kissing pigs and babies or wearing butchers stripes, serving sausages, when there is an election coming ?
Shows the complete naivety of anyone who takes any of them seriously.
You cannot measure only the NHS spend without taking into the social care spend which has been reduced by at least £7.7Bn since 2010. Not taking that cut into account while claiming record ever NHS spend is just fudging the numbers.
Corporation tax is lower than it has been for nearly 10 years and is set to be reduced further. Surely taking into account the ageing population and lack of spend on social care it is not prudent to make these large reductions in corporation tax?
What changed? During an election the media have a legal obligation to be unbiased? Or at least less biased.
Yeah well it’s still meaningless chavvie bollocks in the mold of “talk to the hand” or “whatevaar” except with a hashtag. Not surprised it’s thrown about on here.
Nah, it's just millenials doing the same thing back to boomers that they've been doing to millenials, they just don't like it when they're on the receiving end.
It seems more a case of ‘best of the worst’ at the moment than at any other time I have paid attention to politics. I wonder if that’s a shared opinion?
Whatever
Thatcher helped overthrow a democratic socialist government in Chile and replace it with a fascist dictator. Sent death squads into Northern Ireland. She wanted South Africa to be whites only and she sent the police to kick the shit of out the British working class (Honestly I think this is where we are different, you seem literally fine with almost anything as long as it done by a ''well dressed'' person in number 10).
But fair play Thatcher was the first person with a pair of tits to run the shit show that is the British state.
There are plenty of women in British history that Swinson could have picked btw - Countess Constance Markievicz(First elected women MP), Agnes Hardie(The first women MP from Glasgow, you know the city Swinson is from) or more recently Mo Mowlam but no Swinson picked Thatcher.
Be honest do you just fancy her ? Is it the accent ? Because its fecking bizarre watching you twist and turn like this.
What changed? During an election the media have a legal obligation to be unbiased? Or at least less biased.
It's got nothing to do with the media, it's to do with the posters in the Corbyn thread.
Ok boom.......
Is he seriously saying no one since Stalin has been persecuted as badly as the rich? I mean...
That's extraordinary, even by his standards.'They hate our freedoms'.
The handshake meme - Boris Johnson and Marxist-Leninists agree that Khrushchev was a revisionist.
- Status