Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

50p tax rate


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 113 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 25 Jan 2014 19:29:36 GMT
Last edited by the author on 25 Jan 2014 19:37:01 GMT
gille liath says:
The Tories say they don't want it because it doesn't bring any money in (in that case why *not* have it?). 'Business leaders' say they don't want it because it will 'put talented people off' coming here - presumably by curtailing their earnings.

A pretty clever policy, to have those two opposite effects! I think we can safely infer that it *does* bring money in, and that hypothetical 'talented people' are not what the captains of industry are really worried about.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jan 2014 19:52:48 GMT
Spin says:
Gille; Ot depends on whether one supports the State or the Individual. A rich individual will spend more in the system. Tax him/her and one removes the flow of money in favour of Government allocation of funds to specific areas. To resolve this problem the nation must decide, once an for all, what politic it wants to adhere to. Raising and lowering taxes willy-nilly, depending on votes alone, will not rectify a nations economic difficulties.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jan 2014 20:21:15 GMT
gille liath says:
No, what matters is the level of aggregate demand - doesn't make much difference whether it's public or private sector.

The point here is that the contradictory justifications show the real reason they oppose it is nothing to do with economics. It's to do with their personal finances.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jan 2014 20:32:09 GMT
Last edited by the author on 25 Jan 2014 20:38:08 GMT
Spin says:
Gille; That is my point; what do you consider to be "personal" finances? If you believe there is a difference between "personal" and "public" finances, you also believe in the difference between "Public" and "Private" sector. The question is; which do you value more as a means of individual and societal progress? Or do you consider individual progress/contribution to be irrelevant to societal progress/contrubition and vice versa?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jan 2014 20:36:01 GMT
No we can't <<safely infer that it *does*>>. You can claim it, which doesn't mean a toss unless you have the evidence to back it up. How much extra revenue do you claim the 50% rate raised?

Posted on 25 Jan 2014 20:49:34 GMT
Spin says:
If folk cannot pay for thier medical or social care, should they be ignored? If one has an amount of cash doing nothing but making money for oneself, is it not right to give that money, or its profit, to those who need not the money, but the care? If one considers money to be the means by which one makes money then surely that investment is best spent on ones fellows. Profit for the sake of profit is not only immoral, it is savage.

Posted on 26 Jan 2014 15:56:21 GMT
It matters not whether the tax rate brings revenue in....focus on taxing the rich....lets have a 95% band on incomes over £1,000,000 per year....squeeze 'em says gomsy!!

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 19:06:12 GMT
David Groom says:
Gomsy,

'It matters not whether the tax rate brings revenue in....focus on taxing the rich....lets have a 95% band on incomes over £1,000,000 per year....squeeze 'em says gomsy!! '

Tried that in the 1960s when tax was 98%. All it did was generate the biggest brain drain on this country leading ultimately to the economic crisis of the late 1970s. Its the politics of envy and a simple matter of cutting off your own nose. Its daft and won't do the average working person any good at all. Indeed it will probably worsen their financial position considerably.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 19:32:28 GMT
<<Squeeze 'em>>, Why?

Does Bill Gates being rich make you poor?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 19:42:11 GMT
However this is a different time...it's not the sixties.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 19:42:54 GMT
Why? To create a more equal world. Teach 'em greed is a sin. Why not?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 19:49:01 GMT
David Groom says:
Gomsy,

'However this is a different time...it's not the sixties.'

The principal is exactly the same. Squeeze the wealth makers and you lose their skills. Lose their skills and you lose jobs for the rest. But in some respects the situation is different now. There are fewer and fewer jobs for the lower skilled people in heavy industries. Back then when the capable were forced out by punitive taxes, jobs for the semi-skilled could still be had with ease, so the impact on jobs wasn't so obvious. Now, take away those who invest and create jobs, there's nowhere for the workers to go.

Posted on 26 Jan 2014 20:02:49 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Jan 2014 21:39:58 GMT
gille liath says:
Now Digby Jones - bizarrely described in the news as 'former Labour minister' - has wound his neck out (surprise, surprise), and has come out with both contradictory objections in the same breath. Amazing. Thank goodness we have these experts around to advise us.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 20:04:04 GMT
How do you make out that people become wealthy through greed?

Do you think there is a fixed cake, and if your neighbour has more you have less?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 20:05:36 GMT
In what way is it <<different this time>>?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 20:47:54 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Jan 2014 20:49:08 GMT
Define wealthy?

No, there is no fixed cake...the cake grows bigger with debt...

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 20:48:28 GMT
Um....time has passed....time = movement....

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 21:18:29 GMT
What is it you imagine Bill Gates deprives you of? If Gates' assets were confiscated by Gomsiopia and handed to The State Software Collective, what would there be of them that President Gomsy could distribute to the Herd?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 21:20:01 GMT
<<the cake grows bigger with debt...>> this is brainless jibber jabber.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 21:21:05 GMT
Wriggling Gomsy. Explain how it's different this time.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 21:42:21 GMT
Where did I say he had deprived me if anything?

Do you think the lovely Mr Abramovich is entitled to his money?

I notice you ignored the question.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 21:42:52 GMT
Gordon....explain how the cake grows.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 21:43:30 GMT
Silly boy....everything is different from moment to moment..

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 21:54:28 GMT
OK explain how this not being the sixties makes it now imperative Gomsy squeezes the rich?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Jan 2014 21:55:52 GMT
Through the efforts of small shopkeepers like Gomsy and those of people like Bill Gates.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  9
Total posts:  113
Initial post:  25 Jan 2014
Latest post:  30 Jan 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions