The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[ozleicester]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Sorry, but what is that supposed to show? We tax the richest at the joint highest level in Europe?

It shows that since 1970, the top tax rate has collapsed from 90% to now 40%.

Which explains why there are so many rich people and some many people homeless, living in poverty and needing food banks.

Return tax to the proper levels and th NHS will be fully funded, the Schools will be fully funded, people will be able to live a decent life meanwhile the billionaires will only have a few billion less

[ozleicester]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Too busy posting pictures to engage @ozleicester?  

To be fair.. i just was watching this episode and thought id make that pic... pretty impressive for a few minutes  

[Mickyblueeyes]

6 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

It shows that since 1970, the top tax rate has collapsed from 90% to now 40%.

Which explains why there are so many rich people and some many people homeless, living in poverty and needing food banks.

Return tax to the proper levels and th NHS will be fully funded, the Schools will be fully funded, people will be able to live a decent life meanwhile the billionaires will only have a few billion less

I still don’t know if I agree with this. Not everyone at the 45% falls within the billionaire bracket from what I understand. It’s a high tax level. 

[Dahnsouff]

5 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

It shows that since 1970, the top tax rate has collapsed from 90% to now 40%.

Which explains why there are so many rich people and some many people homeless, living in poverty and needing food banks.

Return tax to the proper levels and th NHS will be fully funded, the Schools will be fully funded, people will be able to live a decent life meanwhile the billionaires will only have a few billion less

I see the argument but it’s an extreme example (95% tax to the rich), as also maybe it shows that times have changed and the general increase in wealth across the populace since the 1970s that a lower tax rate is sufficient to garner the same level of funding as seen in the 1970s. The issue with lack of funding (to any policy area) by successive governments should not be linked to the higher rate of tax in my opinion as it is a government choice and reductive.

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

I see the argument but it’s an extreme example (95% tax to the rich), as also maybe it shows that times have changed and the general increase in wealth across the populace since the 1970s that a lower tax rate is sufficient to garner the same level of funding as seen in the 1970s. The issue with lack of funding (to any policy area) by successive governments should not be linked to the higher rate of tax in my opinion as it is a government choice and reductive.

So, imagine if we had the current revenues from general taxes PLUS 90% on HIGH earners.

You cannot ignore the fact that less revenue means less spending.. the reason the NHS and all of the other services are suffering will be fixed by increasing high earners tax rates

[st albans fox]

21 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

It shows that since 1970, the top tax rate has collapsed from 90% to now 40%.

Which explains why there are so many rich people and some many people homeless, living in poverty and needing food banks.

Return tax to the proper levels and th NHS will be fully funded, the Schools will be fully funded, people will be able to live a decent life meanwhile the billionaires will only have a few billion less

I worked my butt off for more than 25 years and twice had to pay 45% tax. 

I never ever took anything like my holiday allocation since I started working - I generally worked 12 hours days (including some weekends) and had to spend weeks away from my young kids. 

I also had to risk my family home as security for a few years.

 

I know that I’m fortunate to have been educated well and have the drive (and an understanding wife) to do this but it was a choice I made

I can tell you that lt if the tax rate was much higher then I wouldn’t have bothered and my workforce would have been smaller and earned less than they did. 
 

if only I’d realised i was a billionaire …..

I’ll call the butler and ask him to get Krug this week I/o Moët ….

 

Edited 25 September 2022 by st albans fox

[Fazzer 7]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

It takes a special talent to post as though you were 16 and completely clueless about the workings of the world, but you really pull it off with aplomb. Well done, I’m impressed.

Thanks mate. You clearly lack a sense of humour. 

[Fazzer 7]

17 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

So, imagine if we had the current revenues from general taxes PLUS 90% on HIGH earners.

You cannot ignore the fact that less revenue means less spending.. the reason the NHS and all of the other services are suffering will be fixed by increasing high earners tax rates

Just throwing more and more money at the NHS is futile it won’t work. It needs proper reform but that will never happen. 

[Robo61]

14 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Thanks mate. You clearly lack a sense of humour. 

A classic case of the pot calling the kettle

Edited 25 September 2022 by Robo61

[Mickyblueeyes]

22 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I worked my butt off for more than 25 years and twice had to pay 45% tax. 

I never ever took anything like my holiday allocation since I started working - I generally worked 12 hours days (including some weekends) and had to spend weeks away from my young kids. 

I also had to risk my family home as security for a few years.

 

I know that I’m fortunate to have been educated well and have the drive (and an understanding wife) to do this but it was a choice I made

I can tell you that lt if the tax rate was much higher then I wouldn’t have bothered and my workforce would have been smaller and earned less than they did. 
 

if only I’d realised i was a billionaire …..

I’ll call the butler and ask him to get Krug this week I/o Moët ….

 

Well said. 
 

I’ve worked my backside off. From school, to university. I got a highly demanding job straight from university. I missed many years of children growing up. I didn’t come from a privileged family - I worked myself up. 
 

I then chose to start a business which now employs people - made sacrifices to my lifestyle to get that business going. 
 

I contribute to society - I give heavily to charity both in terms of time and donations. My cars are paid for, my house is not heavily mortgaged. Without turning this into a motivational post, this is attainable by anyone with sacrifice. I’m proof of that.  
 

Its madness that success should be punished - we are not all Tory boys who have had it handed to us. 

[Dahnsouff]

46 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

So, imagine if we had the current revenues from general taxes PLUS 90% on HIGH earners.

You cannot ignore the fact that less revenue means less spending.. the reason the NHS and all of the other services are suffering will be fixed by increasing high earners tax rates

But that chart showed nothing of the sort, it shows only percentage tax rates (I am sure it should be dropping in my mind, but it’s also distracting and misses the point either way) as think of the increase of people drawn into both the 45% bracket and the 40% bracket - it’s huge since the 1970s, the general increase to the middle and higher bands.

 

Punishing endeavour and innovation, even if that’s not what you are always you are rewarding 100% of the time, cannot be a way towards a healthy and productive society.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Thanks mate. You clearly lack a sense of humour. 

 

1 hour ago, Robo61 said:

A classic case of the pot calling the kettle

This is the phenomenon known as Schrodingers message-board user:

 

A clearly provocative comment is neither serious nor in jest until the waveform is collapsed by someone taking offence, at which point it becomes "just a joke".

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Well said. 
 

I’ve worked my backside off. From school, to university. I got a highly demanding job straight from university. I missed many years of children growing up. I didn’t come from a privileged family - I worked myself up. 
 

I then chose to start a business which now employs people - made sacrifices to my lifestyle to get that business going. 
 

I contribute to society - I give heavily to charity both in terms of time and donations. My cars are paid for, my house is not heavily mortgaged. Without turning this into a motivational post, this is attainable by anyone with sacrifice. I’m proof of that.  
 

Its madness that success should be punished - we are not all Tory boys who have had it handed to us. 

Well done to you, but the bolded isn't accurate.

 

Such success is possible to attain by anyone with hard work. However, whether one does attain that success comes down to far, far more than their work ethic - luck, connections, and being in the right place at the right time being big ones.

 

Sorry to nitpick, but I see this fallacy floated every day and it's both erroneous and cruel to those who buy into it and then fail through no fault of their own. Much better to be honest.

 

42 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

But that chart showed nothing of the sort, it shows only percentage tax rates (I am sure it should be dropping in my mind, but it’s also distracting and misses the point either way) as think of the increase of people drawn into both the 45% bracket and the 40% bracket - it’s huge since the 1970s, the general increase to the middle and higher bands.

 

Punishing endeavour and innovation, even if that’s not what you are always you are rewarding 100% of the time, cannot be a way towards a healthy and productive society.

This makes the assumption that material gain is the motivation behind most if not all human endeavour and innovation.

 

While that's a reasonably safe assumption, it doesn't have to always be so.

[Dahnsouff]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

….

 

This makes the assumption that material gain is the motivation behind most if not all human endeavour and innovation.

 

While that's a reasonably safe assumption, it doesn't have to always be so.

I can live with the imagined ratios for the statement 

[urban.spaceman]

Not everyone who's wealthy has worked their arse off to get where they are. Also, millions of people work their arses off every day on low wages and in harsh conditions and never see the benefit of it.

[Mickyblueeyes]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well done to you, but the bolded isn't accurate.

 

Such success is possible to attain by anyone with hard work. However, whether one does attain that success comes down to far, far more than their work ethic - luck, connections, and being in the right place at the right time being big ones.

 

Sorry to nitpick, but I see this fallacy floated every day and it's both erroneous and cruel to those who buy into it and then fail through no fault of their own. Much better to be honest.

 

This makes the assumption that material gain is the motivation behind most if not all human endeavour and innovation.

 

While that's a reasonably safe assumption, it doesn't have to always be so.

I agree somewhat but that person who endeavours will, after time improve their position - to what level is another thing. 
 

I remember when I was younger, the best advice I got (I didn’t realise it at the time but I do now), sort yourself out, you’re far more valuable to society and others than making decisions which essentially keeps you where you are. However, all of this is mindset. I sacrificed weekends in my twenties (my mates where out and about), invested heavily and went years without holidays - so it’s my opinion that there is working hard and working hard and smart. I needed see the fruit of Labour until many years after.
 

However, going back to the original point, why should someone be “punished” for attaining success. A 45% tax is certainly that - I mean when you have markets with far less and even no tax, losing that talent isn’t going to benefit society. There always seems to be judgement on high earners (not by you) which is not needed - high earners are needed just like anyone else, in some cases, perhaps more. 

[urban.spaceman]

3 hours ago, BenTheFox said:

The cult that surrounds him as well. Reading comments like 'Starmer is turning Labour into the BNP'. I mean, really? Labour have had an issue with connecting with their traditional voters in part because they have been perceived to be unpatriotic or 'anti-British'. I actually think that Corbyn had some valid points in terms of wealth distribution and ownership of public services, but culturally Labour have been so far left of the where the country is for so long. I would much rather have a Labour government than a Conservative government and if Labour have to be lean slightly right on identity and culture to appeal to voters that they had previously lost then so be it! 

They have so much in common with Trump supporters it's unbelievable. Utterly nauseating, with zero understanding of how the actual system works and convinced their Dear Leader was ousted by sabotage while at the same time, with zero self awareness, doing the exact same thing to the party afterwards.

 

They wear the 2017 GE like a badge of honour forgetting that they ****ing lost. He should have resigned then and we might have stood a chance in 2019.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

I agree somewhat but that person who endeavours will, after time improve their position - to what level is another thing. 
 

I remember when I was younger, the best advice I got (I didn’t realise it at the time but I do now), sort yourself out, you’re far more valuable to society and others than making decisions which essentially keeps you where you are. However, all of this is mindset. I sacrificed weekends in my twenties (my mates where out and about), invested heavily and went years without holidays - so it’s my opinion that there is working hard and working hard and smart. I needed see the fruit of Labour until many years after.
 

However, going back to the original point, why should someone be “punished” for attaining success. A 45% tax is certainly that - I mean when you have markets with far less and even no tax, losing that talent isn’t going to benefit society. There always seems to be judgement on high earners (not by you) which is not needed - high earners are needed just like anyone else, in some cases, perhaps more. 

Again, I guess this comes down to whether or not one thinks material wealth is the leading arbiter of success or not and how people let it shape their worldview.

 

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

 

I'm not saying it's the responsibility of everyone to work and toil for that, but the fact is that it is the best way, in some situations, to guarantee that there is a tomorrow just like today where people can actually enjoy that material wealth they have.

[Fazzer 7]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

This is the phenomenon known as Schrodingers message-board user:

 

A clearly provocative comment is neither serious nor in jest until the waveform is collapsed by someone taking offence, at which point it becomes "just a joke".

It started off as a joke, though. Well that was how it was intended. Now, where's my oscilloscope .

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Again, I guess this comes down to whether or not one thinks material wealth is the leading arbiter of success or not and how people let it shape their worldview.

 

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

 

I'm not saying it's the responsibility of everyone to work and toil for that, but the fact is that it is the best way, in some situations, to guarantee that there is a tomorrow just like today where people can actually enjoy that material wealth they have.

This seems a closed viewpoint, material wealth contains an inherently negative overtone, yet such wealth can be used for good on a charitable, personal or societal level

[Houdini Logic]

 

5 hours ago, ozleicester said:

It shows that since 1970, the top tax rate has collapsed from 90% to now 40%.

Which explains why there are so many rich people and some many people homeless, living in poverty and needing food banks.

Return tax to the proper levels and th NHS will be fully funded, the Schools will be fully funded, people will be able to live a decent life meanwhile the billionaires will only have a few billion less

You're making a lot of (IMO naive) assumptions about the correlations here 
 

[Sampson]

There’s plenty of people who worked their arse off, studied, got a masters or phd, sacrificed seeing their kids growing up, working 12hr days, worked their way up for a few years, only to find their careers become obsolete, replaced by machines, got a long term illness that made it too difficult to work, or a family member got a long term  illness and they had to give up their job or most often, their career was just no longer in demand anymore.

 

It still takes a hell of amount of luck and being in the right place at the right time to work from nothing to reaching that 45% tax bracket. I’m glad people manage it and would never hold hard-earned success against a person, but It is really not true to say it’s doable for everyone. There’s plenty who had all the motivation or hard work but got in the wrong career at the wrong time or much more important things than their career took over their life.

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Again, I guess this comes down to whether or not one thinks material wealth is the leading arbiter of success or not and how people let it shape their worldview.

 

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

 

I'm not saying it's the responsibility of everyone to work and toil for that, but the fact is that it is the best way, in some situations, to guarantee that there is a tomorrow just like today where people can actually enjoy that material wealth they have.

Again, why do I need to be taxed 45% for this to occur ?

[taupe]

23 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Again, why do I need to be taxed 45% for this to occur ?

Quite simply because you have the means to pay it.  It's not like you can take money off people with nothing to spare. Think of tax as a social responsibility rather than a punishment.

 

[Zear0]

36 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Again, why do I need to be taxed 45% for this to occur ?

Why would you pay yourself through PAYE at 45% is the lingering question here?