Political round up.............
+21
BamBam
Mind the windows Tino.
JuliusHMarx
mountain man
dummy_half
Pal Joey
Lowlandbrit
CaledonianCraig
JDizzle
Soul Requiem
lostinwales
superflyweight
GSC
Luke
Luckless Pedestrian
Pr4wn
navyblueshorts
Derek Smalls
Duty281
Samo
No name Bertie
25 posters
Page 7 of 20
Page 7 of 20 • 1 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 13 ... 20
Political round up.............
First topic message reminder :
ps the Best leaders surround themselves with the best people. Not so good leaders surround themselves with those that are not going to challenge them. So maybe the reason why it appears that there is a poor selection of candidates is partly due to Boris Johnson. Another reason may be that the leadership qualities and the general competence levels of elected mps has declined.
ps the Best leaders surround themselves with the best people. Not so good leaders surround themselves with those that are not going to challenge them. So maybe the reason why it appears that there is a poor selection of candidates is partly due to Boris Johnson. Another reason may be that the leadership qualities and the general competence levels of elected mps has declined.
No name Bertie- Posts : 3688
Join date : 2017-02-24
Re: Political round up.............
The long and short of it is “are the people who earn £200k a year going to notice an extra 5 grand?” Probably not. Would the people earning £20k a year notice an extra 5 grand? Absolutely. They’re also way more likely to spend it, putting more money back into the economy which drives growth.
If it were up to me I’d give every 18+ year old in the UK £1000 no questions asked and tell them to go out a spend it. Get money into the economy and kickstart growth that way. Not this trickle down rich-get-richer Tory cowpat.
If it were up to me I’d give every 18+ year old in the UK £1000 no questions asked and tell them to go out a spend it. Get money into the economy and kickstart growth that way. Not this trickle down rich-get-richer Tory cowpat.
Samo- Posts : 5796
Join date : 2011-01-29
Re: Political round up.............
Not sure how you'd fund that Samo, but our current government has no idea how to fund their plans either, so it's as good an idea as any.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Not sure how you'd fund that Samo, but our current government has no idea how to fund their plans either, so it's as good an idea as any.
Take it from the Magic Money Tree that only seems to appear when the Tories are in bother.
It would cost less than half what Truss is planning to give the energy companies. So the money is there.
Samo- Posts : 5796
Join date : 2011-01-29
Re: Political round up.............
Samo wrote:The long and short of it is “are the people who earn £200k a year going to notice an extra 5 grand?” Probably not. Would the people earning £20k a year notice an extra 5 grand? Absolutely. They’re also way more likely to spend it, putting more money back into the economy which drives growth.
If it were up to me I’d give every 18+ year old in the UK £1000 no questions asked and tell them to go out a spend it. Get money into the economy and kickstart growth that way. Not this trickle down rich-get-richer Tory cowpat.
That would cause a tremendous spike in inflation that would make everyone worse off in the long run. It also wouldn't do much for growth, as £1000 is small change these days, or people's prosperity for the same reason.
If achieving economic growth were as simple as hand out free money to people, it would have been done by now. But economics is a little more complicated than that.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote:The long and short of it is “are the people who earn £200k a year going to notice an extra 5 grand?” Probably not. Would the people earning £20k a year notice an extra 5 grand? Absolutely. They’re also way more likely to spend it, putting more money back into the economy which drives growth.
If it were up to me I’d give every 18+ year old in the UK £1000 no questions asked and tell them to go out a spend it. Get money into the economy and kickstart growth that way. Not this trickle down rich-get-richer Tory cowpat.
That would cause a tremendous spike in inflation that would make everyone worse off in the long run. It also wouldn't do much for growth, as £1000 is small change these days, or people's prosperity for the same reason.
If achieving economic growth were as simple as hand out free money to people, it would have been done by now. But economics is a little more complicated than that.
It is complicated. It's a shame the current government hasn't learnt from what hasn't worked in the past and has decided to take action that has been shown not to work, except for the wealthy.
One can only assume they are either incompetent or morally corrupt.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote:The long and short of it is “are the people who earn £200k a year going to notice an extra 5 grand?” Probably not. Would the people earning £20k a year notice an extra 5 grand? Absolutely. They’re also way more likely to spend it, putting more money back into the economy which drives growth.
If it were up to me I’d give every 18+ year old in the UK £1000 no questions asked and tell them to go out a spend it. Get money into the economy and kickstart growth that way. Not this trickle down rich-get-richer Tory cowpat.
That would cause a tremendous spike in inflation that would make everyone worse off in the long run. It also wouldn't do much for growth, as £1000 is small change these days, or people's prosperity for the same reason.
If achieving economic growth were as simple as hand out free money to people, it would have been done by now. But economics is a little more complicated than that.
Thats exactly what Kwarteng is doing, except he’s giving money to people who dont need it.
Probably for the best though, might aswell let things stagnate while inflation rises anyway.
Samo- Posts : 5796
Join date : 2011-01-29
Re: Political round up.............
Samo wrote:Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote:The long and short of it is “are the people who earn £200k a year going to notice an extra 5 grand?” Probably not. Would the people earning £20k a year notice an extra 5 grand? Absolutely. They’re also way more likely to spend it, putting more money back into the economy which drives growth.
If it were up to me I’d give every 18+ year old in the UK £1000 no questions asked and tell them to go out a spend it. Get money into the economy and kickstart growth that way. Not this trickle down rich-get-richer Tory cowpat.
That would cause a tremendous spike in inflation that would make everyone worse off in the long run. It also wouldn't do much for growth, as £1000 is small change these days, or people's prosperity for the same reason.
If achieving economic growth were as simple as hand out free money to people, it would have been done by now. But economics is a little more complicated than that.
Thats exactly what Kwarteng is doing, except he’s giving money to people who dont need it.
Probably for the best though, might aswell let things stagnate while inflation rises anyway.
No he isn't. The state is not giving money, it is taking less from earners. This is an important distinction. Your proposal involves the state printing money and giving it to people. Tax cuts means that earners keep more of their earnings.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote:The long and short of it is “are the people who earn £200k a year going to notice an extra 5 grand?” Probably not. Would the people earning £20k a year notice an extra 5 grand? Absolutely. They’re also way more likely to spend it, putting more money back into the economy which drives growth.
If it were up to me I’d give every 18+ year old in the UK £1000 no questions asked and tell them to go out a spend it. Get money into the economy and kickstart growth that way. Not this trickle down rich-get-richer Tory cowpat.
That would cause a tremendous spike in inflation that would make everyone worse off in the long run. It also wouldn't do much for growth, as £1000 is small change these days, or people's prosperity for the same reason.
If achieving economic growth were as simple as hand out free money to people, it would have been done by now. But economics is a little more complicated than that.
It is complicated. It's a shame the current government hasn't learnt from what hasn't worked in the past and has decided to take action that has been shown not to work, except for the wealthy.
One can only assume they are either incompetent or morally corrupt.
Oh it's definitely worked in the past. And it'll work again. Good times ahead.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote:The long and short of it is “are the people who earn £200k a year going to notice an extra 5 grand?” Probably not. Would the people earning £20k a year notice an extra 5 grand? Absolutely. They’re also way more likely to spend it, putting more money back into the economy which drives growth.
If it were up to me I’d give every 18+ year old in the UK £1000 no questions asked and tell them to go out a spend it. Get money into the economy and kickstart growth that way. Not this trickle down rich-get-richer Tory cowpat.
That would cause a tremendous spike in inflation that would make everyone worse off in the long run. It also wouldn't do much for growth, as £1000 is small change these days, or people's prosperity for the same reason.
If achieving economic growth were as simple as hand out free money to people, it would have been done by now. But economics is a little more complicated than that.
It is complicated. It's a shame the current government hasn't learnt from what hasn't worked in the past and has decided to take action that has been shown not to work, except for the wealthy.
One can only assume they are either incompetent or morally corrupt.
Oh it's definitely worked in the past. And it'll work again. Good times ahead.
This I being compared to the 1972 budget - regarded as one of the worst ever.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply naive, unlike the Tories who are morally corrupt, only interested in keeping their rich power brokers happy, and sod society (there's no such thing).
The fact that they are refusing to call it a budget, thus avoiding the responsibilities and scrutiny of a budget is indicative of what is going to happen.
Terrible times ahead for most people.
The only good thing is that it practically guarantees they will lose the next election. Shame about all the suffering in the meantime.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote:The long and short of it is “are the people who earn £200k a year going to notice an extra 5 grand?” Probably not. Would the people earning £20k a year notice an extra 5 grand? Absolutely. They’re also way more likely to spend it, putting more money back into the economy which drives growth.
If it were up to me I’d give every 18+ year old in the UK £1000 no questions asked and tell them to go out a spend it. Get money into the economy and kickstart growth that way. Not this trickle down rich-get-richer Tory cowpat.
That would cause a tremendous spike in inflation that would make everyone worse off in the long run. It also wouldn't do much for growth, as £1000 is small change these days, or people's prosperity for the same reason.
If achieving economic growth were as simple as hand out free money to people, it would have been done by now. But economics is a little more complicated than that.
It is complicated. It's a shame the current government hasn't learnt from what hasn't worked in the past and has decided to take action that has been shown not to work, except for the wealthy.
One can only assume they are either incompetent or morally corrupt.
Oh it's definitely worked in the past. And it'll work again. Good times ahead.
This I being compared to the 1972 budget - regarded as one of the worst ever.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply naive, unlike the Tories who are morally corrupt, only interested in keeping their rich power brokers happy, and sod society (there's no such thing).
The fact that they are refusing to call it a budget, thus avoiding the responsibilities and scrutiny of a budget is indicative of what is going to happen.
Terrible times ahead for most people.
The only good thing is that it practically guarantees they will lose the next election. Shame about all the suffering in the meantime.
And as said before, this is nothing like the 1972 budget and the economic conditions that were around then, that's just being thrown around by commentators and jumped on by detractors. I doubt many of the people throwing it around have much knowledge of Heath's Premiership. There is no valid comparison to be made.
A better comparison to make would be with one of the budgets of the 1980s, which saw inflation tamed and consistent economic growth from around 83/84. The detractors wouldn't want to talk about those budgets of course, because the Tories won re-election in '83 and '87.
As said, we'll wait and see what happens. You think it'll be a period of decay and contraction, I don't. We'll see.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote:Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote:The long and short of it is “are the people who earn £200k a year going to notice an extra 5 grand?” Probably not. Would the people earning £20k a year notice an extra 5 grand? Absolutely. They’re also way more likely to spend it, putting more money back into the economy which drives growth.
If it were up to me I’d give every 18+ year old in the UK £1000 no questions asked and tell them to go out a spend it. Get money into the economy and kickstart growth that way. Not this trickle down rich-get-richer Tory cowpat.
That would cause a tremendous spike in inflation that would make everyone worse off in the long run. It also wouldn't do much for growth, as £1000 is small change these days, or people's prosperity for the same reason.
If achieving economic growth were as simple as hand out free money to people, it would have been done by now. But economics is a little more complicated than that.
Thats exactly what Kwarteng is doing, except he’s giving money to people who dont need it.
Probably for the best though, might aswell let things stagnate while inflation rises anyway.
No he isn't. The state is not giving money, it is taking less from earners. This is an important distinction. Your proposal involves the state printing money and giving it to people. Tax cuts means that earners keep more of their earnings.
There you go again with the semantics. Its money that would have went into the treasury to be redistributed. Its exactly the same principle as my method, redistributing tax payers money but using a more radical, direct way instead of helping those who dont need it.
For the sake of an example, lets say Mr. Smith pays £20k a year income tax.
Kwasi Kwartengs method:
Cut Mr. Smiths tax to £19k. He is now £1000 better off than he was.
My method:
Mr. Smith pays his £20k tax, but gets a £1000 rebate. He is now £1000 better off than he was.
And it didnt cost the government anything more or less. Its the same outcome in the end.
Samo- Posts : 5796
Join date : 2011-01-29
Re: Political round up.............
In other words a better comparison is one you'd like to make regardless of whether it is an accurate one.
Also, the economic conditions now are nothing like the 1980s either.
Also, the economic conditions now are nothing like the 1980s either.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:In other words a better comparison is one you'd like to make regardless of whether it is an accurate one.
Also, the economic conditions now are nothing like the 1980s either.
Incorrect, it's a better comparison because it's closer to the economic conditions we find ourselves in today, and therefore more accurate without being an exact science.
Talking about the 1972 budget is worthless.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Samo wrote:Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote:Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote:The long and short of it is “are the people who earn £200k a year going to notice an extra 5 grand?” Probably not. Would the people earning £20k a year notice an extra 5 grand? Absolutely. They’re also way more likely to spend it, putting more money back into the economy which drives growth.
If it were up to me I’d give every 18+ year old in the UK £1000 no questions asked and tell them to go out a spend it. Get money into the economy and kickstart growth that way. Not this trickle down rich-get-richer Tory cowpat.
That would cause a tremendous spike in inflation that would make everyone worse off in the long run. It also wouldn't do much for growth, as £1000 is small change these days, or people's prosperity for the same reason.
If achieving economic growth were as simple as hand out free money to people, it would have been done by now. But economics is a little more complicated than that.
Thats exactly what Kwarteng is doing, except he’s giving money to people who dont need it.
Probably for the best though, might aswell let things stagnate while inflation rises anyway.
No he isn't. The state is not giving money, it is taking less from earners. This is an important distinction. Your proposal involves the state printing money and giving it to people. Tax cuts means that earners keep more of their earnings.
There you go again with the semantics. Its money that would have went into the treasury to be redistributed. Its exactly the same principle as my method, redistributing tax payers money but using a more radical, direct way instead of helping those who dont need it.
For the sake of an example, lets say Mr. Smith pays £20k a year income tax.
Kwasi Kwartengs method:
Cut Mr. Smiths tax to £19k. He is now £1000 better off than he was.
My method:
Mr. Smith pays his £20k tax, but gets a £1000 rebate. He is now £1000 better off than he was.
And it didnt cost the government anything more or less. Its the same outcome in the end.
It isn't the same outcome because tax cuts exist for the life of the government. Mr Smith would be £1k better off a year going forward for every year that this tax cut is in operation; your plan involves a one-off payment of £1k. So if this tax cut exists for three years he becomes £2k better off in that time than with the government giving him money direct. Also, if Mr Smith gets a payrise in this time the value of his tax cut may go up.
Tax cuts also provide an incentive, whereas £1k handed out by the government does no such thing.
The cost, and inflationary nature of your policy, would come about because every adult in the UK would receive this £1k, including those not working or earning below the threshold. And the inflation caused by this policy would mean the value of the £1k handout would actually diminish, whereas a tax cutting policy is not going to be inflationary to anywhere near the same degree (if at all).
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Well Im convinced. Lets just keep borrowing and borrowing, driving the country even deeper in debt and ever closer to a cliff edge to help those that dont need the help. Im with you Duty. Frak poor people, its their fault they’re poor. Get better jobs worthless serfs.
Samo- Posts : 5796
Join date : 2011-01-29
Re: Political round up.............
Samo wrote: Well Im convinced. Lets just keep borrowing and borrowing, driving the country even deeper in debt and ever closer to a cliff edge to help those that dont need the help. Im with you Duty. Frak poor people, its their fault they’re poor. Get better jobs worthless serfs.
Thank you for showing you don't have a counterpoint to the flaws in your idea.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
If you think things are balanced in this country, and heading for the better, I think you're mistaken.Duty281 wrote:navyblueshorts wrote:You didn't read what I wrote. I said there's no a priori reason.Duty281 wrote:navyblueshorts wrote:I am more than fed up of the naive nonsense that public=bad and private=good. Dogma. There's no a priori reason that this should be the case, and it's not. There are a myriad of utter Poopie private services etc, but yep, private is awesome.Duty281 wrote:Health and education, yes, road maintenance probably. I would be unsure about the emergency services.
This is not naive nonsense. It's what history has shown us. I would support nationalised industry if it worked better than private industry, but it simply doesn't.
Private = choice to the consumer; competition so innovation; price competition; penalty for failure; more investment from the private sector; not a political football; efficient
Public = no choice to the consumer; no competition so stagnation; no price competition; no penalty for failure; less investment from the private sector; political football meaning inconsistency of direction and short-termist outlook; inefficient.
The good thing about a terrible private service is you can switch to a different private service, presumably a better one. If it's state-owned and it's terrible (e.g. Broadband if Corbyn had won) you're stuck with it.
I'd accept that there's a role for private, but in a similar way to Communism forgetting human nature, so has the much vaunted Capitalist model. It has to be a balance, and IMO, it's skewed too much away from a good society and too much towards people filling their pockets and damn the rest. The attitude of far too many these days is me, me, me. If trickle down models were ever a good idea, it's not in the 21st Century; we're way too selfish.
Pretty much all energy suppliers are Poopie in too many ways. Ditto broadband. Ditto water utilities. Etc.
I guess if it were easy, most countries (Russia and other despotic hell holes excepted) would be a Utopia.
Right, so everyone's selfish and everything is sh1t? I think you can do better, Navy.
We do have a balance in our society. We have a welfare state and a free market. We encourage high-earners, but also have a minimum wage. We have strong workers' rights and environmental regulation.
And it's not trickle down. This is just a lazy pejorative put about by the left (the same left that was moaning about the high taxes and NI rises and an increase in corporation tax not so long ago).
Yep, it's trickle down I'm afraid. Sorry you neither like the term or the fact it works as well as an inflatable dart board.
navyblueshorts- Moderator
- Posts : 11488
Join date : 2011-01-27
Location : Off with the pixies...
Re: Political round up.............
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote: Well Im convinced. Lets just keep borrowing and borrowing, driving the country even deeper in debt and ever closer to a cliff edge to help those that dont need the help. Im with you Duty. Frak poor people, its their fault they’re poor. Get better jobs worthless serfs.
Thank you for showing you don't have a counterpoint to the flaws in your idea.
Theres no point in giving you counter points because you’ve already decided that increasing borrowing (printing money) while inflation is already at 11% and the £ is worth less than monopoly money to give help to those who dont need help is a cause of celebration.
I gave a suggestion on how to give the economy a boost and maybe give some people who dont have very much a wee bit of joy. Maybe give their kids a great christmas this year or get a nice weekend away somewhere. But you dismissed it because it would “cause a massive spike in inflation” whilst simultaneously being “small change these days”.
I could give you a more radical, targetted long term solution but you’ll just pass it off as commie gobbledygook whislt you sit there like a good boy waiting for some of that sweet trickle down wealth, because as we already established - Frak the poor.
Samo- Posts : 5796
Join date : 2011-01-29
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:We shouldn't be surprised that, despite any claims he may make to the contrary, Duty cares so little about the poor and vulnerable in society, that he is pleased at the approach the Tories are taking.
It's a fairly good example of why I have so little faith in humanity.
Sorry, Julius, can't quite hear you over the sound of another champagne cork popping.
Have to go to sleep now. It has been a great day for this country, but all great days must reach their conclusion.
Exactly the callous type of response I'd expect.
Reading through this sort of discussion would usually wind me up, but I've come to terms with the fact that Duty and his ilk's biggest achievement in life is falling out of their mother's vagina on a particular bit of dirt. Once that lens is applied to his posts, it all just raises a smile
BamBam- Posts : 17226
Join date : 2011-03-17
Age : 35
Re: Political round up.............
Samo wrote:Duty281 wrote:Samo wrote: Well Im convinced. Lets just keep borrowing and borrowing, driving the country even deeper in debt and ever closer to a cliff edge to help those that dont need the help. Im with you Duty. Frak poor people, its their fault they’re poor. Get better jobs worthless serfs.
Thank you for showing you don't have a counterpoint to the flaws in your idea.
Theres no point in giving you counter points because you’ve already decided that increasing borrowing (printing money) while inflation is already at 11% and the £ is worth less than monopoly money to give help to those who dont need help is a cause of celebration.
I gave a suggestion on how to give the economy a boost and maybe give some people who dont have very much a wee bit of joy. Maybe give their kids a great christmas this year or get a nice weekend away somewhere. But you dismissed it because it would “cause a massive spike in inflation” whilst simultaneously being “small change these days”.
I could give you a more radical, targetted long term solution but you’ll just pass it off as commie gobbledygook whislt you sit there like a good boy waiting for some of that sweet trickle down wealth, because as we already established - Frak the poor.
Borrowed money is different to printed money, that's another distinction. As I've shown, giving £1k would not boost the economy - if boosting the economy was as simple as that, it would be done. It would also cause a spike in inflation, unless you can show otherwise?
Let's see this radical long-term solution. As usual, I will respond with my own points, not ad hominems.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
Some institutions say one thing, others say another, amazingly enough.
"We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24." NIESR.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:As usual, I will respond with my own points
How about some firm historical evidence that the Tory approach will lead to long-term benefits for anyone but the most wealthy in society? Because you've not provided that yet, and not really answered the facts presented by 'detractors' with anything other than your own optimism, which seems to be based on ideology rather than facts.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
Some institutions say one thing, others say another, amazingly enough.
"We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24." NIESR.
The same NIESR that says (does this look like good news for the poor to you?) -
The potential inflationary effects of this are likely to lead the Bank of England to raise rates more aggressively than we previously expected. We now expect the Bank rate to peak at around 5 per cent in the third quarter of 2023.
We expect the extra government spending and tax cuts to increase the government deficit by around £150 billion (roughly 5 per cent of GDP); we now forecast public sector debt to rise to 91.6 per cent of GDP in 2024-25, rather than fall to 87.5 per cent of GDP.
We welcome the focus on growth and investment but we question whether the measures announced today will reduce regional disparities: while London and the South East have grown by 2.4 per cent per year on average since the financial crisis of 2008-09, the rest of the country has grown by about 1 per cent – well below the target trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
We also welcome government support for household energy bills but we regret that the chosen policy represents a general subsidy for all households rather than targeted assistance for those who need it most, as we have argued in our proposal for a variable price cap.
We expect that low-income households, which do not qualify for tax credits, pension credits, legacy benefits or Universal Credit, will receive financial help that falls short of the increase in energy bills (nearly £2,000) and in food bills.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:As usual, I will respond with my own points
How about some firm historical evidence that the Tory approach will lead to long-term benefits for anyone but the most wealthy in society? Because you've not provided that yet, and not really answered the facts presented by 'detractors' with anything other than your own optimism, which seems to be based on ideology rather than facts.
We have spoken about it actually, because I've showed how inflation was tamed in the 1980s and the consistent economic growth that also occurred in that decade. That is the closest historical parallel in the UK.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
Some institutions say one thing, others say another, amazingly enough.
"We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24." NIESR.
The same NIESR that says (does this look like good news for the poor to you?) -
The potential inflationary effects of this are likely to lead the Bank of England to raise rates more aggressively than we previously expected. We now expect the Bank rate to peak at around 5 per cent in the third quarter of 2023.
We expect the extra government spending and tax cuts to increase the government deficit by around £150 billion (roughly 5 per cent of GDP); we now forecast public sector debt to rise to 91.6 per cent of GDP in 2024-25, rather than fall to 87.5 per cent of GDP.
We welcome the focus on growth and investment but we question whether the measures announced today will reduce regional disparities: while London and the South East have grown by 2.4 per cent per year on average since the financial crisis of 2008-09, the rest of the country has grown by about 1 per cent – well below the target trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
We also welcome government support for household energy bills but we regret that the chosen policy represents a general subsidy for all households rather than targeted assistance for those who need it most, as we have argued in our proposal for a variable price cap.
We expect that low-income households, which do not qualify for tax credits, pension credits, legacy benefits or Universal Credit, will receive financial help that falls short of the increase in energy bills (nearly £2,000) and in food bills.
As mentioned yesterday, the energy support initiatives and cost of living payments are the ones that are good news for the poorest.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:As usual, I will respond with my own points
How about some firm historical evidence that the Tory approach will lead to long-term benefits for anyone but the most wealthy in society? Because you've not provided that yet, and not really answered the facts presented by 'detractors' with anything other than your own optimism, which seems to be based on ideology rather than facts.
We have spoken about it actually, because I've showed how inflation was tamed in the 1980s and the consistent economic growth that also occurred in that decade. That is the closest historical parallel in the UK.
And did that lead to an increase in the divide between rich and poor or not? What was the unemployment rate in the 1980s compared to today? Was inflation tamed by massively increasing government borrowing at a time when interest rates were going up? Was it not actually the 1990s when inflation was finally brought under control and remained stable?
Are you really saying the starting point of the 1980s is very similar to the current economic situation?
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Luckless Pedestrian likes this post
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
Some institutions say one thing, others say another, amazingly enough.
"We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24." NIESR.
The same NIESR that says (does this look like good news for the poor to you?) -
The potential inflationary effects of this are likely to lead the Bank of England to raise rates more aggressively than we previously expected. We now expect the Bank rate to peak at around 5 per cent in the third quarter of 2023.
We expect the extra government spending and tax cuts to increase the government deficit by around £150 billion (roughly 5 per cent of GDP); we now forecast public sector debt to rise to 91.6 per cent of GDP in 2024-25, rather than fall to 87.5 per cent of GDP.
We welcome the focus on growth and investment but we question whether the measures announced today will reduce regional disparities: while London and the South East have grown by 2.4 per cent per year on average since the financial crisis of 2008-09, the rest of the country has grown by about 1 per cent – well below the target trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
We also welcome government support for household energy bills but we regret that the chosen policy represents a general subsidy for all households rather than targeted assistance for those who need it most, as we have argued in our proposal for a variable price cap.
We expect that low-income households, which do not qualify for tax credits, pension credits, legacy benefits or Universal Credit, will receive financial help that falls short of the increase in energy bills (nearly £2,000) and in food bills.
As mentioned yesterday, the energy support initiatives and cost of living payments are the ones that are good news for the poorest.
Giving the poorest £100 and the richest £1000 could also be argued as good news for the poorest - because, hey look, they get £100. That's good news, right?
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
Pal Joey wrote:Derek, I saw your pre-edited post about China "turning the loan money tap off" just before.
I believe this is already happening. Defaults on Belt & Road initiatives are now snowballing up to 60-70% levels leaving China very exposed. I didn't realise most of it was going to Russia to prop up their oil and gas industries. I did realise, however, that the rest was going to various central Asian countries which are also in severe distress and unable to meet their repayment obligations.
That, along with reduction of imports (and flow on reduction in exports), worsening BoP, credit rating shot, extreme Covid measures (and therefore economic productivity falling through the floor, factories closing but it's not so easy to flick a switch and simply restart... costs a fortune) and of course the collapse of the property market. The Belt & Road exposure is monumental - 3 times the property market exposure... so we are talking USD trillions and it's it's going to be very hard to turn around given the current global economic conditions.
So China is now in a very difficult place. Does the State bail out (it probably has to) or let the massive default payments continue? Their currency is also going the wrong way which only adds to the scale of the crisis. So all indicators look very bleak indeed. Lending has almost completely stopped now.
We'll know soon enough (October/November) if China is officially in recession with more than 2 quarters of decline in real GDP.
Have a look at the following video.
- china debt crisis:
It's quite a simple presentation but the numbers don't look good at all. So together with what's going on in Ukraine and the rest of the globe as a whole we are all in a very precarious position at present. There's some other good videos from this bloke too re: Russia, China and even Turkey - which stupidly lowered interest rates when inflation was rising (!) and is having a bit of a squabble with Greece over military fly-overs and use of US military technology. Maybe the EU and NATO will try and pull them into line... or kick them out if they move closer to Russia.
Thanks for that, Pal Joey. I will have a good look at that.
I edited because I was throwing a lot of ingredients into the stew, a problem with late night posting maybe! Plus I didn't know enough to sustain a debate on the issue so thanks again,!
Derek Smalls- Posts : 354
Join date : 2020-08-19
Re: Political round up.............
I am poor and as a poor person each quarterly I get one kick in the head from my superiors, but I don't grumble. However, in the last quarterly I got three kicks to the head, they said something about Putin's war and we all have to do our bit for world security. Anyway I heard that next quarterly I am going to be receiving six kicks to the head. I started complaining but my superiors said that it should be eight kicks to the head but that they have applied a kick in the head cap for people like me. Also I was told that one of the kick in the heads is going to be downgraded to a boot in the nuts.
No name Bertie- Posts : 3688
Join date : 2017-02-24
Re: Political round up.............
Lights going out and a kick in the balls is all that you get in the name of entertainment
Derek Smalls- Posts : 354
Join date : 2020-08-19
Re: Political round up.............
No name Bertie wrote:I am poor and as a poor person each quarterly I get one kick in the head from my superiors, but I don't grumble. However, in the last quarterly I got three kicks to the head, they said something about Putin's war and we all have to do our bit for world security. Anyway I heard that next quarterly I am going to be receiving six kicks to the head. I started complaining but my superiors said that it should be eight kicks to the head but that they have applied a kick in the head cap for people like me. Also I was told that one of the kick in the heads is going to be downgraded to a boot in the nuts.
That's exactly the type of good news Duty is talking about. Britain is magnificent!
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:As usual, I will respond with my own points
How about some firm historical evidence that the Tory approach will lead to long-term benefits for anyone but the most wealthy in society? Because you've not provided that yet, and not really answered the facts presented by 'detractors' with anything other than your own optimism, which seems to be based on ideology rather than facts.
We have spoken about it actually, because I've showed how inflation was tamed in the 1980s and the consistent economic growth that also occurred in that decade. That is the closest historical parallel in the UK.
And did that lead to an increase in the divide between rich and poor or not? What was the unemployment rate in the 1980s compared to today? Was inflation tamed by massively increasing government borrowing at a time when interest rates were going up? Was it not actually the 1990s when inflation was finally brought under control and remained stable?
Are you really saying the starting point of the 1980s is very similar to the current economic situation?
You asked for 'historical evidence'. I think the late 70s/early 1980s is the closest comparison to today, unless you have an alternative?
Inflation came properly down in 1983 and this was a long-lasting change that provided long-term benefit. There was an increased divide between rich and poor, but all levels of income were better off than in 1979, thanks to the continued economic growth from around 83/84, which was better than that under the previous Labour government.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
Some institutions say one thing, others say another, amazingly enough.
"We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24." NIESR.
The same NIESR that says (does this look like good news for the poor to you?) -
The potential inflationary effects of this are likely to lead the Bank of England to raise rates more aggressively than we previously expected. We now expect the Bank rate to peak at around 5 per cent in the third quarter of 2023.
We expect the extra government spending and tax cuts to increase the government deficit by around £150 billion (roughly 5 per cent of GDP); we now forecast public sector debt to rise to 91.6 per cent of GDP in 2024-25, rather than fall to 87.5 per cent of GDP.
We welcome the focus on growth and investment but we question whether the measures announced today will reduce regional disparities: while London and the South East have grown by 2.4 per cent per year on average since the financial crisis of 2008-09, the rest of the country has grown by about 1 per cent – well below the target trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
We also welcome government support for household energy bills but we regret that the chosen policy represents a general subsidy for all households rather than targeted assistance for those who need it most, as we have argued in our proposal for a variable price cap.
We expect that low-income households, which do not qualify for tax credits, pension credits, legacy benefits or Universal Credit, will receive financial help that falls short of the increase in energy bills (nearly £2,000) and in food bills.
As mentioned yesterday, the energy support initiatives and cost of living payments are the ones that are good news for the poorest.
Giving the poorest £100 and the richest £1000 could also be argued as good news for the poorest - because, hey look, they get £100. That's good news, right?
Indeed it could. And many people on the left are more obsessed about what the rich are earning than helping the poorest out.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:No name Bertie wrote:I am poor and as a poor person each quarterly I get one kick in the head from my superiors, but I don't grumble. However, in the last quarterly I got three kicks to the head, they said something about Putin's war and we all have to do our bit for world security. Anyway I heard that next quarterly I am going to be receiving six kicks to the head. I started complaining but my superiors said that it should be eight kicks to the head but that they have applied a kick in the head cap for people like me. Also I was told that one of the kick in the heads is going to be downgraded to a boot in the nuts.
That's exactly the type of good news Duty is talking about. Britain is magnificent!
A wonderful place.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
Some institutions say one thing, others say another, amazingly enough.
"We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24." NIESR.
The same NIESR that says (does this look like good news for the poor to you?) -
The potential inflationary effects of this are likely to lead the Bank of England to raise rates more aggressively than we previously expected. We now expect the Bank rate to peak at around 5 per cent in the third quarter of 2023.
We expect the extra government spending and tax cuts to increase the government deficit by around £150 billion (roughly 5 per cent of GDP); we now forecast public sector debt to rise to 91.6 per cent of GDP in 2024-25, rather than fall to 87.5 per cent of GDP.
We welcome the focus on growth and investment but we question whether the measures announced today will reduce regional disparities: while London and the South East have grown by 2.4 per cent per year on average since the financial crisis of 2008-09, the rest of the country has grown by about 1 per cent – well below the target trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
We also welcome government support for household energy bills but we regret that the chosen policy represents a general subsidy for all households rather than targeted assistance for those who need it most, as we have argued in our proposal for a variable price cap.
We expect that low-income households, which do not qualify for tax credits, pension credits, legacy benefits or Universal Credit, will receive financial help that falls short of the increase in energy bills (nearly £2,000) and in food bills.
As mentioned yesterday, the energy support initiatives and cost of living payments are the ones that are good news for the poorest.
Giving the poorest £100 and the richest £1000 could also be argued as good news for the poorest - because, hey look, they get £100. That's good news, right?
Indeed it could. And many people on the left are more obsessed about what the rich are earning than helping the poorest out.
Which doesn't excuse the right helping out the rich more than the poor, or you celebrating that fact.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
Some institutions say one thing, others say another, amazingly enough.
"We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24." NIESR.
The same NIESR that says (does this look like good news for the poor to you?) -
The potential inflationary effects of this are likely to lead the Bank of England to raise rates more aggressively than we previously expected. We now expect the Bank rate to peak at around 5 per cent in the third quarter of 2023.
We expect the extra government spending and tax cuts to increase the government deficit by around £150 billion (roughly 5 per cent of GDP); we now forecast public sector debt to rise to 91.6 per cent of GDP in 2024-25, rather than fall to 87.5 per cent of GDP.
We welcome the focus on growth and investment but we question whether the measures announced today will reduce regional disparities: while London and the South East have grown by 2.4 per cent per year on average since the financial crisis of 2008-09, the rest of the country has grown by about 1 per cent – well below the target trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
We also welcome government support for household energy bills but we regret that the chosen policy represents a general subsidy for all households rather than targeted assistance for those who need it most, as we have argued in our proposal for a variable price cap.
We expect that low-income households, which do not qualify for tax credits, pension credits, legacy benefits or Universal Credit, will receive financial help that falls short of the increase in energy bills (nearly £2,000) and in food bills.
As mentioned yesterday, the energy support initiatives and cost of living payments are the ones that are good news for the poorest.
Giving the poorest £100 and the richest £1000 could also be argued as good news for the poorest - because, hey look, they get £100. That's good news, right?
Indeed it could. And many people on the left are more obsessed about what the rich are earning than helping the poorest out.
Which doesn't excuse the right helping out the rich more than the poor, or you celebrating that fact.
Yep, definitely celebrating it, because it fosters the conditions for economic growth which will help out everyone in the medium-long term.
But you may have an alternative plan for economic growth?
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:In other words a better comparison is one you'd like to make regardless of whether it is an accurate one.
Also, the economic conditions now are nothing like the 1980s either.
Incorrect, it's a better comparison because it's closer to the economic conditions we find ourselves in today, and therefore more accurate without being an exact science.
Talking about the 1972 budget is worthless.
As is debating this budget with a zealot.
Pr4wn- Moderator
- Posts : 5797
Join date : 2011-03-09
Location : Vancouver
Re: Political round up.............
Pr4wn wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:In other words a better comparison is one you'd like to make regardless of whether it is an accurate one.
Also, the economic conditions now are nothing like the 1980s either.
Incorrect, it's a better comparison because it's closer to the economic conditions we find ourselves in today, and therefore more accurate without being an exact science.
Talking about the 1972 budget is worthless.
As is debating this budget with a zealot.
Then don't, no one's forcing you to.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
Some institutions say one thing, others say another, amazingly enough.
"We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24." NIESR.
The same NIESR that says (does this look like good news for the poor to you?) -
The potential inflationary effects of this are likely to lead the Bank of England to raise rates more aggressively than we previously expected. We now expect the Bank rate to peak at around 5 per cent in the third quarter of 2023.
We expect the extra government spending and tax cuts to increase the government deficit by around £150 billion (roughly 5 per cent of GDP); we now forecast public sector debt to rise to 91.6 per cent of GDP in 2024-25, rather than fall to 87.5 per cent of GDP.
We welcome the focus on growth and investment but we question whether the measures announced today will reduce regional disparities: while London and the South East have grown by 2.4 per cent per year on average since the financial crisis of 2008-09, the rest of the country has grown by about 1 per cent – well below the target trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
We also welcome government support for household energy bills but we regret that the chosen policy represents a general subsidy for all households rather than targeted assistance for those who need it most, as we have argued in our proposal for a variable price cap.
We expect that low-income households, which do not qualify for tax credits, pension credits, legacy benefits or Universal Credit, will receive financial help that falls short of the increase in energy bills (nearly £2,000) and in food bills.
As mentioned yesterday, the energy support initiatives and cost of living payments are the ones that are good news for the poorest.
Giving the poorest £100 and the richest £1000 could also be argued as good news for the poorest - because, hey look, they get £100. That's good news, right?
Indeed it could. And many people on the left are more obsessed about what the rich are earning than helping the poorest out.
Which doesn't excuse the right helping out the rich more than the poor, or you celebrating that fact.
Yep, definitely celebrating it, because it fosters the conditions for economic growth which will help out everyone in the medium-long term.
But you may have an alternative plan for economic growth?
Help out the poor more than the rich because it not only fosters conditions for economic growth which will help out everyone in the medium-long term, its morally the better choice for the short term.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
Some institutions say one thing, others say another, amazingly enough.
"We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24." NIESR.
The same NIESR that says (does this look like good news for the poor to you?) -
The potential inflationary effects of this are likely to lead the Bank of England to raise rates more aggressively than we previously expected. We now expect the Bank rate to peak at around 5 per cent in the third quarter of 2023.
We expect the extra government spending and tax cuts to increase the government deficit by around £150 billion (roughly 5 per cent of GDP); we now forecast public sector debt to rise to 91.6 per cent of GDP in 2024-25, rather than fall to 87.5 per cent of GDP.
We welcome the focus on growth and investment but we question whether the measures announced today will reduce regional disparities: while London and the South East have grown by 2.4 per cent per year on average since the financial crisis of 2008-09, the rest of the country has grown by about 1 per cent – well below the target trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
We also welcome government support for household energy bills but we regret that the chosen policy represents a general subsidy for all households rather than targeted assistance for those who need it most, as we have argued in our proposal for a variable price cap.
We expect that low-income households, which do not qualify for tax credits, pension credits, legacy benefits or Universal Credit, will receive financial help that falls short of the increase in energy bills (nearly £2,000) and in food bills.
As mentioned yesterday, the energy support initiatives and cost of living payments are the ones that are good news for the poorest.
Giving the poorest £100 and the richest £1000 could also be argued as good news for the poorest - because, hey look, they get £100. That's good news, right?
Indeed it could. And many people on the left are more obsessed about what the rich are earning than helping the poorest out.
Which doesn't excuse the right helping out the rich more than the poor, or you celebrating that fact.
Yep, definitely celebrating it, because it fosters the conditions for economic growth which will help out everyone in the medium-long term.
But you may have an alternative plan for economic growth?
Help out the poor more than the rich because it not only fosters conditions for economic growth which will help out everyone in the medium-long term, its morally the better choice for the short term.
What does this mean in specifics, though? What policies, or ideological set of policies, would you pursue which help out the poor more than the rich and how would they engender economic growth? And do you have historical or current examples which support this view?
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Duty, one of the greatest injustices in society is the rich/poor divide. We know that for the most part the rich don't care about this and are happy, or at best indifferent, to see the divide get greater (as are you, regardless of whether you are rich or not).
The Tory budget* may make the poorer better off at some nebulous point in the future, although we can't be sure of that, but it is much more likely to make the rich better off in both the short, medium and long term, and thus is very likely to increase the rich/poor divide.
I would argue that those who are in favour of that injustice getting worse not better are morally bankrupt.
*Fiscal event - wouldn't want it to have proper scrutiny from the OFR.
The Tory budget* may make the poorer better off at some nebulous point in the future, although we can't be sure of that, but it is much more likely to make the rich better off in both the short, medium and long term, and thus is very likely to increase the rich/poor divide.
I would argue that those who are in favour of that injustice getting worse not better are morally bankrupt.
*Fiscal event - wouldn't want it to have proper scrutiny from the OFR.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
Some institutions say one thing, others say another, amazingly enough.
"We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24." NIESR.
The same NIESR that says (does this look like good news for the poor to you?) -
The potential inflationary effects of this are likely to lead the Bank of England to raise rates more aggressively than we previously expected. We now expect the Bank rate to peak at around 5 per cent in the third quarter of 2023.
We expect the extra government spending and tax cuts to increase the government deficit by around £150 billion (roughly 5 per cent of GDP); we now forecast public sector debt to rise to 91.6 per cent of GDP in 2024-25, rather than fall to 87.5 per cent of GDP.
We welcome the focus on growth and investment but we question whether the measures announced today will reduce regional disparities: while London and the South East have grown by 2.4 per cent per year on average since the financial crisis of 2008-09, the rest of the country has grown by about 1 per cent – well below the target trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
We also welcome government support for household energy bills but we regret that the chosen policy represents a general subsidy for all households rather than targeted assistance for those who need it most, as we have argued in our proposal for a variable price cap.
We expect that low-income households, which do not qualify for tax credits, pension credits, legacy benefits or Universal Credit, will receive financial help that falls short of the increase in energy bills (nearly £2,000) and in food bills.
As mentioned yesterday, the energy support initiatives and cost of living payments are the ones that are good news for the poorest.
Giving the poorest £100 and the richest £1000 could also be argued as good news for the poorest - because, hey look, they get £100. That's good news, right?
Indeed it could. And many people on the left are more obsessed about what the rich are earning than helping the poorest out.
Which doesn't excuse the right helping out the rich more than the poor, or you celebrating that fact.
Yep, definitely celebrating it, because it fosters the conditions for economic growth which will help out everyone in the medium-long term.
But you may have an alternative plan for economic growth?
Help out the poor more than the rich because it not only fosters conditions for economic growth which will help out everyone in the medium-long term, its morally the better choice for the short term.
What does this mean in specifics, though? What policies, or ideological set of policies, would you pursue which help out the poor more than the rich and how would they engender economic growth? And do you have historical or current examples which support this view?
One simple thing would be to keep the 45% tax band and use the money from that to help the poor heat their homes, feed their families in this current crisis by using that money to increase the threshold at which tax/NI is paid. Alternatively (perhaps better), use that money for a one-off payment for those who earn under a certain amount. This puts money back into the economy - money that will actually be spent, not kept in a savings account, thus driving economic growth.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, one of the greatest injustices in society is the rich/poor divide. We know that for the most part the rich don't care about this and are happy, or at best indifferent, to see the divide get greater (as are you, regardless of whether you are rich or not).
The Tory budget* may make the poorer better off at some nebulous point in the future, although we can't be sure of that, but it is much more likely to make the rich better off in both the short, medium and long term, and thus is very likely to increase the rich/poor divide.
I would argue that those who are in favour of that injustice getting worse not better are morally bankrupt.
*Fiscal event - wouldn't want it to have proper scrutiny from the OFR.
Yes, I see our difference of view here. I am indifferent to the rich/poor divide, as you describe it, I do not think of it as an injustice. It is also easier to make more money when you're rich than when you're poor which ensures the divide gets bigger, not smaller.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63019307
"Meanwhile, the IFS published analysis suggesting only those earning over £155,000 would see any benefits from the tax policies over the current Parliament, with the "vast majority of income tax payers paying more tax".
The think tank also said the chancellor was "betting the house" by putting government debt on an "unsustainable rising path".
IFS director Paul Johnson told BBC Breakfast: "If looked straightforwardly at people's incomes with these tax changes, the more money you have, the more you gain.
"In fact, because there was one big tax increase the chancellor didn't reverse - and that is the fall over time in the point at which you start paying income tax. If you take that into account, in three or four years' time, the only people gaining from this will be earning more than about £150,000 a year.""
From the same article -
"The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which focuses on those on low to middle incomes, said the package would do nothing to stop more than two million people falling below the poverty line, amid soaring living costs.
The richest 5% will see their incomes grow by 2% next year (2023-24), while the other 95% of the population will get poorer, it said."
Duty - I know you will ignore all these doom-sayers, because you know better than they do and a new golden age is upon us.
Some institutions say one thing, others say another, amazingly enough.
"We now forecast that the energy support guarantee, together with the tax cuts announced today, will lead to positive GDP growth in the fourth quarter of this year, shortening the recession and raising annual GDP growth to around 2 per cent over 2023-24." NIESR.
The same NIESR that says (does this look like good news for the poor to you?) -
The potential inflationary effects of this are likely to lead the Bank of England to raise rates more aggressively than we previously expected. We now expect the Bank rate to peak at around 5 per cent in the third quarter of 2023.
We expect the extra government spending and tax cuts to increase the government deficit by around £150 billion (roughly 5 per cent of GDP); we now forecast public sector debt to rise to 91.6 per cent of GDP in 2024-25, rather than fall to 87.5 per cent of GDP.
We welcome the focus on growth and investment but we question whether the measures announced today will reduce regional disparities: while London and the South East have grown by 2.4 per cent per year on average since the financial crisis of 2008-09, the rest of the country has grown by about 1 per cent – well below the target trend growth rate of 2.5 per cent.
We also welcome government support for household energy bills but we regret that the chosen policy represents a general subsidy for all households rather than targeted assistance for those who need it most, as we have argued in our proposal for a variable price cap.
We expect that low-income households, which do not qualify for tax credits, pension credits, legacy benefits or Universal Credit, will receive financial help that falls short of the increase in energy bills (nearly £2,000) and in food bills.
As mentioned yesterday, the energy support initiatives and cost of living payments are the ones that are good news for the poorest.
Giving the poorest £100 and the richest £1000 could also be argued as good news for the poorest - because, hey look, they get £100. That's good news, right?
Indeed it could. And many people on the left are more obsessed about what the rich are earning than helping the poorest out.
Which doesn't excuse the right helping out the rich more than the poor, or you celebrating that fact.
Yep, definitely celebrating it, because it fosters the conditions for economic growth which will help out everyone in the medium-long term.
But you may have an alternative plan for economic growth?
Help out the poor more than the rich because it not only fosters conditions for economic growth which will help out everyone in the medium-long term, its morally the better choice for the short term.
What does this mean in specifics, though? What policies, or ideological set of policies, would you pursue which help out the poor more than the rich and how would they engender economic growth? And do you have historical or current examples which support this view?
One simple thing would be to keep the 45% tax band and use the money from that to help the poor heat their homes, feed their families in this current crisis by using that money to increase the threshold at which tax/NI is paid. Alternatively (perhaps better), use that money for a one-off payment for those who earn under a certain amount. This puts money back into the economy - money that will actually be spent, not kept in a savings account, thus driving economic growth.
Thank you for your answer. I'm not sure there would that much money from that 5% differential as there's only around 400,000 who earn at that bracket.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
OK - increase it to from 45% to 50% then.
Or lower the rate at which 45% is paid so more people pay it.
It's possible the people hit by that wouldn't like that - because most people don't like helping out other people. We're selfish and greedy and don't care very much for others less well off than ourselves. It's part of what makes us magnificent.
Or lower the rate at which 45% is paid so more people pay it.
It's possible the people hit by that wouldn't like that - because most people don't like helping out other people. We're selfish and greedy and don't care very much for others less well off than ourselves. It's part of what makes us magnificent.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, one of the greatest injustices in society is the rich/poor divide. We know that for the most part the rich don't care about this and are happy, or at best indifferent, to see the divide get greater (as are you, regardless of whether you are rich or not).
The Tory budget* may make the poorer better off at some nebulous point in the future, although we can't be sure of that, but it is much more likely to make the rich better off in both the short, medium and long term, and thus is very likely to increase the rich/poor divide.
I would argue that those who are in favour of that injustice getting worse not better are morally bankrupt.
*Fiscal event - wouldn't want it to have proper scrutiny from the OFR.
Yes, I see our difference of view here. I am indifferent to the rich/poor divide, as you describe it, I do not think of it as an injustice. It is also easier to make more money when you're rich than when you're poor which ensures the divide gets bigger, not smaller.
In other words we have a society where rich people don't have to work as hard for their money as poor people. So much for rewarding hard work.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:OK - increase it to from 45% to 50% then.
Or lower the rate at which 45% is paid so more people pay it.
It's possible the people hit by that wouldn't like that - because most people don't like helping out other people. We're selfish and greedy and don't care very much for others less well off than ourselves. It's part of what makes us magnificent.
No, Julius, no. I don't know what dark event happened in your life, or who you associate with, but people in the main are warm, giving and charitable. 28 million did some volunteering for their community last year. People in the UK donated £11bn to charity in 2020.
And the top 10% of income earners contribute over 60% of income tax. And they pay more in council tax.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, one of the greatest injustices in society is the rich/poor divide. We know that for the most part the rich don't care about this and are happy, or at best indifferent, to see the divide get greater (as are you, regardless of whether you are rich or not).
The Tory budget* may make the poorer better off at some nebulous point in the future, although we can't be sure of that, but it is much more likely to make the rich better off in both the short, medium and long term, and thus is very likely to increase the rich/poor divide.
I would argue that those who are in favour of that injustice getting worse not better are morally bankrupt.
*Fiscal event - wouldn't want it to have proper scrutiny from the OFR.
Yes, I see our difference of view here. I am indifferent to the rich/poor divide, as you describe it, I do not think of it as an injustice. It is also easier to make more money when you're rich than when you're poor which ensures the divide gets bigger, not smaller.
In other words we have a society where rich people don't have to work as hard for their money as poor people. So much for rewarding hard work.
You do get rewarded for hard work, or for smart work. And some people get lucky. It's the way of the world.
I'm very lucky to be born here and not Pakistan. I could have been luckier and born the son of a billionaire, but I'm not. Way of the world.
Duty281- Posts : 34583
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 29
Location : I wouldn’t want to be faster or greener than now if you were with me; O you were the best of all my days
Re: Political round up.............
Duty281 wrote:JuliusHMarx wrote:OK - increase it to from 45% to 50% then.
Or lower the rate at which 45% is paid so more people pay it.
It's possible the people hit by that wouldn't like that - because most people don't like helping out other people. We're selfish and greedy and don't care very much for others less well off than ourselves. It's part of what makes us magnificent.
No, Julius, no. I don't know what dark event happened in your life, or who you associate with, but people in the main are warm, giving and charitable. 28 million did some volunteering for their community last year. People in the UK donated £11bn to charity in 2020.
And the top 10% of income earners contribute over 60% of income tax. And they pay more in council tax.
We have people in this country living in poverty. We have more than enough money to prevent it. We don't prevent it.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22615
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Page 7 of 20 • 1 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 13 ... 20
Similar topics
» Political round up !!
» Political round up.............
» Political round up.............
» Political round up.............
» Political round up.............
» Political round up.............
» Political round up.............
» Political round up.............
» Political round up.............
Page 7 of 20
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum