Cost of living crisis.

[Jon the Hat]

43 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

oh no, we mustnt tax them more, it wouldnt be fair...

Who said anything about fair?  I am more concerned with them ****ing off somewhere else with their taxes and reducing the overall tax take.  They do enough of that already.

 

I bet there are some great skilled jobs in creating this rather stunning yacht.

[ozleicester]

11 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Who said anything about fair?

 

 

From the...... FINANCIAL TIMES... 2021....

The latest such evidence comes from the London School of Economics. In December it released a study looking at 50 years of tax cuts across 18 OECD countries. The conclusion was that cuts did not lead to significant increases in competitiveness or GDP. Rather, the main thing they led to was greater inequality because the top 1 per cent captured nearly all of the gains. “Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak,” said one of the authors....

...And higher tax rates rarely result in mass exoduses. When the UK briefly raised the top rate to 50 per cent a decade ago, some wealthy people, such as the financier Guy Hands moved. But many stayed put, perhaps deciding it was worth paying a bit extra to live in London rather than Guernsey.

 

 

The moving away con, is the same as the trickle down con,.... its a lie developed by the wealthy, spread by the greedy, believed by the politicians and damaging to ALL of society, but most of all to the working class.



Study from the Economic review April 2022...

In sum, this study finds that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, but do not boost economic performance. It therefore provides strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to benefit the wider economy. The study also points to a number potentially fruitful avenues for future research. It remains puzzling why ‘trickle down’ ideas have been so powerful and persistent in tax policy-making in the advanced democracies despite the lack of macroeconomic benefits from cutting taxes on the rich. Further research is also needed to more rigorously test the specific mechanisms driving our results. Lastly, future studies could investigate the extent to which the results generalize to developing and emerging economies, as well as non-democratic regimes

 

[Zear0]

9 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

 

 

From the...... FINANCIAL TIMES... 2021....

The latest such evidence comes from the London School of Economics. In December it released a study looking at 50 years of tax cuts across 18 OECD countries. The conclusion was that cuts did not lead to significant increases in competitiveness or GDP. Rather, the main thing they led to was greater inequality because the top 1 per cent captured nearly all of the gains. “Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak,” said one of the authors....

...And higher tax rates rarely result in mass exoduses. When the UK briefly raised the top rate to 50 per cent a decade ago, some wealthy people, such as the financier Guy Hands moved. But many stayed put, perhaps deciding it was worth paying a bit extra to live in London rather than Guernsey.

 

 

The moving away con, is the same as the trickle down con,.... its a lie developed by the wealthy, spread by the greedy, believed by the politicians and damaging to ALL of society, but most of all to the working class.



Study from the Economic review April 2022...

In sum, this study finds that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, but do not boost economic performance. It therefore provides strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to benefit the wider economy. The study also points to a number potentially fruitful avenues for future research. It remains puzzling why ‘trickle down’ ideas have been so powerful and persistent in tax policy-making in the advanced democracies despite the lack of macroeconomic benefits from cutting taxes on the rich. Further research is also needed to more rigorously test the specific mechanisms driving our results. Lastly, future studies could investigate the extent to which the results generalize to developing and emerging economies, as well as non-democratic regimes

 

I remember a BBC documentary (frustratingly can't recall the exact title) that interviewed a Canadian billionaire who was so candid on the matter I actually respected him for it. He said he was basically aghast that the population believe in "trickle down economics" and he is waiting for the day people realise this and just take his stuff (who h he supported). Even the "Patriotic Billionaire" group in the US have said tax us please.

 

The above is a great read, thanks for sharing. I'm a very simple man, and in these situations I just look at the US (particularly California where I previously worked and was stung hard) which cannot be described as low tax economy by any measure. Seems to do alright. 

[Jon the Hat]

18 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

 

 

From the...... FINANCIAL TIMES... 2021....

The latest such evidence comes from the London School of Economics. In December it released a study looking at 50 years of tax cuts across 18 OECD countries. The conclusion was that cuts did not lead to significant increases in competitiveness or GDP. Rather, the main thing they led to was greater inequality because the top 1 per cent captured nearly all of the gains. “Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak,” said one of the authors....

...And higher tax rates rarely result in mass exoduses. When the UK briefly raised the top rate to 50 per cent a decade ago, some wealthy people, such as the financier Guy Hands moved. But many stayed put, perhaps deciding it was worth paying a bit extra to live in London rather than Guernsey.

 

 

The moving away con, is the same as the trickle down con,.... its a lie developed by the wealthy, spread by the greedy, believed by the politicians and damaging to ALL of society, but most of all to the working class.



Study from the Economic review April 2022...

In sum, this study finds that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, but do not boost economic performance. It therefore provides strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to benefit the wider economy. The study also points to a number potentially fruitful avenues for future research. It remains puzzling why ‘trickle down’ ideas have been so powerful and persistent in tax policy-making in the advanced democracies despite the lack of macroeconomic benefits from cutting taxes on the rich. Further research is also needed to more rigorously test the specific mechanisms driving our results. Lastly, future studies could investigate the extent to which the results generalize to developing and emerging economies, as well as non-democratic regimes

 

It doesn't have to be a mass exodus to have a negative effect on total tax take.  The rest of the article is disputing a different point entirely.  If you want to boost the economy you cut the take rate of low and middle income people.  The spending of the 1% is too small to make any difference.

[ozleicester]

14 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I remember a BBC documentary (frustratingly can't recall the exact title) that interviewed a Canadian billionaire who was so candid on the matter I actually respected him for it. He said he was basically aghast that the population believe in "trickle down economics" and he is waiting for the day people realise this and just take his stuff (who h he supported). Even the "Patriotic Billionaire" group in the US have said tax us please.

 

The above is a great read, thanks for sharing. I'm a very simple man, and in these situations I just look at the US (particularly California where I previously worked and was stung hard) which cannot be described as low tax economy by any measure. Seems to do alright. 

Thanks.. apparently there is  a patriotic billionaire group forming in the UK too..but im not sure.

Also, interestingly, Im led to believe in the US they have a similar discussion about the rich leaving states that have higher state taxes to go to lower taxing states, which has also been proven to be false... and right now lower taxing states are increasing.

Edited 2 August 2022 by ozleicester

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

It doesn't have to be a mass exodus to have a negative effect on total tax take.  The rest of the article is disputing a different point entirely.  If you want to boost the economy you cut the take rate of low and middle income people.  The spending of the 1% is too small to make any difference.

it specifically says...  .."And higher tax rates rarely result in mass exoduses..." (with the exception of financiers  )  which was one of your reasons for not increasing the rates 

.."I am more concerned with them ****ing off somewhere else with their taxes and reducing the overall tax take"

So if im correct, you now accept that trickle down is a con, and that raising taxes wont cause mass exoduses?

 

and yet, you are opposed to them?

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

it specifically says...  .."And higher tax rates rarely result in mass exoduses..." (with the exception of financiers  )  which was one of your reasons for not increasing the rates 

.."I am more concerned with them ****ing off somewhere else with their taxes and reducing the overall tax take"

So if im correct, you now accept that trickle down is a con, and that raising taxes wont cause mass exoduses?

 

and yet, you are opposed to them?

No I said it provides no evidence that raising taxes (significantly) on higher earners increases the tax take.  What is the point if you get the same amount of tax or less and lose some of the entrepreneurs and job creators?

 

Trickle down is not a conservative economic theory which has any credence, and as i said if you want to boost the economy you have to cut tax on the lowest earners.  They spend their money.

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

No I said it provides no evidence that raising taxes (significantly) on higher earners increases the tax take.  What is the point if you get the same amount of tax or less and lose some of the entrepreneurs and job creators?

 

Trickle down is not a conservative economic theory which has any credence, and as i said if you want to boost the economy you have to cut tax on the lowest earners.  They spend their money.

Wait, im confused.... you dont think that increasing the tax rate on high income earners will increase the tax take?

The article quoted that there will not be an exodus (excluding bankers) so how can that NOT increase the tax take?

The evidence also shows you do NOT lose job creation (unemployment was the same 5 years after the cuts as it was 3 years before), or entrepreneurs....

The wealthy JUST PAY MORE TAX and society benefits with better hospitals, pensions and schools etc etc etc.

 

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

No I said it provides no evidence that raising taxes (significantly) on higher earners increases the tax take.  What is the point if you get the same amount of tax or less and lose some of the entrepreneurs and job creators?

 

Trickle down is not a conservative economic theory which has any credence, and as i said if you want to boost the economy you have to cut tax on the lowest earners.  They spend their money.

I think our main difference is that if someone created a product of business which changes the world, I don't have a problem with the becoming rich off it.  This will lead to an enormous contribution through tax and employing lots of people.  Generally the rich then invest in other businesses too.  

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Wait, im confused.... you dont think that increasing the tax rate on high income earners will increase the tax take?
The article quoted that there will not be an exodus (excluding bankers) so how can that NOT increase the tax take?
The evidence also shows you do NOT lose job creation (unemployment was the same 5 years after the cuts as it was 3 years before), or entrepreneurs....
The wealthy JUST PAY MORE TAX and society benefits with better hospitals, pensions and schools etc etc etc.

No - and the article you shared provides zero evidence that it does.  Personally I think 45% top rate is enough - under which the people you are shooting at pay the vast majority of tax.

 

Much prefer to focus on increasing the tax free allowance to get the government out of people's finance as much as possible.  Taxing then giving it back in benefits is a massive waste of time and money.  

[ozleicester]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I think our main difference is that if someone created a product of business which changes the world, I don't have a problem with the becoming rich off it.  This will lead to an enormous contribution through tax and employing lots of people.  Generally the rich then invest in other businesses too.  

HSBC CEO - $10 million  (pounds actually but heyho)
LLoyds CEO - $6 million
JP Morgan London - $22 Million
Com bank Aust - $8.5 Million

I could go on... but what exactly have these people "invented'?

Of course someone who invents something that is a success should get rich from it....but someone who works in his/her warehouse for example, should get paid a decent wage and not pay anything near the tax rate of their billionaire boss

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, ozleicester said:

HSBC CEO - $10 million  (pounds actually but heyho)
LLoyds CEO - $6 million
JP Morgan London - $22 Million
Com bank Aust - $8.5 Million

I could go on... but what exactly have these people "invented'?

Of course someone who invents something that is a success should get rich from it....but someone who works in his/her warehouse for example, should get paid a decent wage and not pay anything near the tax rate of their billionaire boss

They are very smart people who have delivered success for their banks who are making billions in profit.  A bit like football, should the owners get all the rewards or should the star players get well paid too?

 

Also they aren't buying that Superyacht on those salaries are they?  Insane as those salaries are, people building and selling businesses (includes to be fair thieving oligarchs) are.

 

On the rest agreed - and the increases to the tax free allowance in the past decade (thanks Nick) have been key in that.

[ozleicester]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

No - and the article you shared provides zero evidence that it does.

Do i seriously need to find an articles that says... if you make people pay more tax, there is an increase in tax revenue?

Tax doesnt just go to benefits (i know, they are all just scroungers and lazy right)... Hospitals, Schools,  creating a better world for people with mental health issues, pensioners, people with disabilities, better public transport, working to create real change on climate damage.

[ozleicester]

Well, thats an hour of my employers time that has not been very beneficial for them, back to work.

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

They are very smart people who have delivered success for their banks who are making billions in profit.

I know it was before you arrived here, but id respectfully point you to the "Banking Royal Commission" which found (amongst thousands of other dodgy things) that these "very smart" people....

Charged dead people for loan advice

Charged for providing reveiws that never happened

Paid out commissions (Bribes) to unskilled lenders resulting in more than $20 billion in loans (faked payslips, envelopes filled with cash, that kind of thing)

Engaged in "serious misconduct" ...."Head of financial advice Anthony Regan confessed the company had lost count of how many times".

 
Rigged one of Australia's key interest rates

Oh and i nearly missed the KNOWN... Money Laundering for terrorists, Sex traffickers, child abusers and Drug Syndicates

 

In responding to the issue of 'why', the Commissioner determined that:^[103]

.....the answer seem(ed) to be greed – the pursuit of short term profit at the expense of basic standards of honesty..... From the executive suite to the front line, staff were measured and rewarded by reference to profit and sales..... When misconduct was revealed, it either went unpunished or the consequences did not meet the seriousness of what had been done.

Very Smart People

 

 

Edited 2 August 2022 by ozleicester

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

I know it was before you arrived here, but id respectfully point you to the "Banking Royal Commission" which found (amongst thousands of other dodgy things) that these "very smart" people....

Charged dead people for loan advice

Charged for providing reveiws that never happened

Paid out commissions (Bribes) to unskilled lenders resulting in more than $20 billion in loans (faked payslips, envelopes filled with cash, that kind of thing)

Engaged in "serious misconduct" ...."Head of financial advice Anthony Regan confessed the company had lost count of how many times".

 
Rigged one of Australia's key interest rates

Oh and i nearly missed the KNOWN... Money Laundering for terrorists, Sex traffickers, child abusers and Drug Syndicates

 

In responding to the issue of 'why', the Commissioner determined that:^[103]

.....the answer seem(ed) to be greed – the pursuit of short term profit at the expense of basic standards of honesty..... From the executive suite to the front line, staff were measured and rewarded by reference to profit and sales..... When misconduct was revealed, it either went unpunished or the consequences did not meet the seriousness of what had been done.

Very Smart People

 

 

Certainly some complete arseholes make it to the top.

[Nalis]

BP made almost £7bn in profits in Q2 2022. Thats 3 months of the year.

 

Cue the 'reinvesting in renewable sources' line from BP and their band of brothers when that portion would have been spent before profits already.

 

 

[fox_up_north]

Are you comfortable with the idea that someone whose parents were rich, who paid for them to private school (but they didn't do very well) and they still make millions despite doing less work than you? 

[yorkie1999]

38 minutes ago, Nalis said:

BP made almost £7bn in profits in Q2 2022. Thats 3 months of the year.

 

Cue the 'reinvesting in renewable sources' line from BP and their band of brothers when that portion would have been spent before profits already.

 

 

Amazing, how do they do it?

[grobyfox1990]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

They are very smart people who have delivered success for their banks who are making billions in profit.  A bit like football, should the owners get all the rewards or should the star players get well paid too?

 

Also they aren't buying that Superyacht on those salaries are they?  Insane as those salaries are, people building and selling businesses (includes to be fair thieving oligarchs) are.

 

On the rest agreed - and the increases to the tax free allowance in the past decade (thanks Nick) have been key in that.

Honestly fair play to you for actually believing that, i am in the cynical camp whereby its the 'seat' rather than the 'person' that delivers the profit at most FS firms. Certainly there are some stonecold killers out there, Jamie Dimon at JPM springs to mind, fantastically stewarded bank that rode out the 08 crash to become even stronger. JPM are a benchmark of strength and stability. But most of them play the swings in the market, like any untrained zoo animal could. Markets go up = profit, look how clever and amazing and god-like i am theres no one better than me. Markets go down = oh crap, who can we blame this on, lets threaten to relocate to Hong Kong?

 

Therefore entirely different to football, the ultimate meritocracy, earn your success or get relegated.

 

There was a poster a month or so ago, Isaac or Izzy or something, who responded to every claim on a thread that CEO pay is too high with 'well what would you do about it' pretending like its some mythical and unsolveable conumdrum. I gave him a lengthy list of realistic options after 5 beers on a beach in Malaga. Yeh he didnt bother responding.

[Foxdiamond]

7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

No I said it provides no evidence that raising taxes (significantly) on higher earners increases the tax take.  What is the point if you get the same amount of tax or less and lose some of the entrepreneurs and job creators?

 

Trickle down is not a conservative economic theory which has any credence, and as i said if you want to boost the economy you have to cut tax on the lowest earners.  They spend their money.

The very lowest paid pay no or very little tax. Cutting income tax won't help them. 

[RoboFox]

3 hours ago, Nalis said:

BP made almost £7bn in profits in Q2 2022. Thats 3 months of the year.

 

Cue the 'reinvesting in renewable sources' line from BP and their band of brothers when that portion would have been spent before profits already.

 

 

And so the transfer of wealth continues and normal people are being squeezed to death by the 0.1%

 

Be nice if, say, Thatcher didn't privatise BP in '87 and we'd be seeing these immense profits being pumped directly back into the economy rather than lining the ever-growing pockets of shareholders.

[Milo]

1 hour ago, RoboFox said:

And so the transfer of wealth continues and normal people are being squeezed to death by the 0.1%

 

Be nice if, say, Thatcher didn't privatise BP in '87 and we'd be seeing these immense profits being pumped directly back into the economy rather than lining the ever-growing pockets of shareholders.

Doesn't quite work like that, though. 
 

Do you honestly think that if it wasn’t privatised it would be making the profits we’re seeing today? 

[Foxdiamond]

19 minutes ago, Milo said:

Doesn't quite work like that, though. 
 

Do you honestly think that if it wasn’t privatised it would be making the profits we’re seeing today? 

What is more important is that we are being ripped off and people will seriously suffer the consequences. 

[Milo]

8 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

What is more important is that we are being ripped off and people will seriously suffer the consequences. 

Absolutely no argument about that here. 
 

It’s obscene