Brexit and the Consequences

[dbphoenix]

If you generally accept the principle that the rich and above average earners contribute a disproportionate share in taxes that go to pay for everything . . .

And, incidentally, what evidence do you have to support this contention?

 

[counter_violent]

And, incidentally, what evidence do you have to support this contention?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...rners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html

There's plenty of evidence that the rich pay substantially more in taxes as a percent of income. Just aren't enough of them, otherwise everything would be dandy. So in their absence, if middle and lower end had wage potential increased, then the shortfall might be met. But not as long as the markets are flooded with cheep labour, which has the effect of dragging the middle down and keeping the poor poor.

Btw, I couldn't give a monkeys about the CEO with no office cleaner. He can either do it himself, or increase office cleaner pay until someone accepts the job.

 

[dbphoenix]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...rners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html

There's plenty of evidence that the rich pay substantially more in taxes as a percent of income.

What you've posted doesn't support that contention. If the wealthy paid the same percentage as the lower classes, you'd likely have no problem.

. . . if middle and lower end had wage potential increased, then the shortfall might be met. But not as long as the markets are flooded with cheep labour, which has the effect of dragging the middle down and keeping the poor poor.

You're assuming that the "middle" wants the jobs that are filled by cheap labor. This has not proven to be the case.

Btw, I couldn't give a monkeys about the CEO with no office cleaner. He can either do it himself, or increase office cleaner pay until someone accepts the job.

You missed my point, which had largely to do with value.

 

[Atilla]

What you've posted doesn't support that contention. If the wealthy paid the same percentage as the lower classes, you'd likely have no problem.



You're assuming that the "middle" wants the jobs that are filled by cheap labor. This has not proven to be the case.

Yes and by the same token it assumes jobs vacated by migrants will be filled by the unemployed who may not have the same temperament or physical skills - to do same jobs like fruit picking or car valeting.






You missed my point, which had largely to do with value.

As for the discrepancy in taxes paid it merely highlights just how much the inequitable, skewed distribution of the cake is. If 8 people own half of US wealth and UK income distribution is similar to US. Shows just how big the divide is.

Tory policy of cutting public services and giving away tax cuts simply compounds the issue.

It's mind boggling intelligent people and the Tory party can point to this approach as a solution to our predicaments about future strategy and direction of the UK.

Moreover, to assume raising wages will increase tax revenue is fallacy without explaining where the increase in wages will come from assuming money supply remains the same as before.

 

[timsk]

So where's the money going to come from? This is a niggling detail that conservatives and libertarians gloss over.

You'll have to ask those pesky conservatives and libertarians dbp!

I've made it very clear on more than one occasion that I welcome the cultural and economic contributions that immigrants make to the UK. I'm not for one minute suggesting that we close our doors to all new comers - far from it. However, if our schools are full, our roads are full, our trains are full and our hospitals are full then, self evidently, adding to the mix a city the size of Birmingham every five years will exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it. So, what to do? There are three areas that need to be addressed, IMO . . .

1. Reduce population growth
Reducing population growth is essential. As immigration is the key driver behind it, we'll have to bring the numbers down significantly while still letting in the people we need. To achieve this, something along the lines of the Australian points system is worth exploring.

2. Implement practical measures
Implement a whole swathe of practical measures - all designed to take the pressure off public services. It's not practicable to go into detail here, but I'll give a couple of examples of the sort of thing I have in mind. To help ease congestion on our roads, commercial vehicles would be given incentives to travel at night when the network is relatively quiet. To help relieve pressure on the NHS - all cosmetic surgery would stop. I must emphasize these are just examples - I accept completely that they won't have much impact on their own! However, if they are part of a large suite of practical steps then, collectively, they will make a difference.

3. Money, money, money
Lastly, money. Clearly, the two points above will only help to contain the problem - they won't solve it. So, in addition, we'll need to invest truck loads of money in all our public services. How to raise it is a matter for the politicians. Brexit is a good start, obviously! If I had my say, I'd cancel Trident which will add a few more billion. Thereafter - taxation of some sort is the most obvious answer.
Tim.

 

[dbphoenix]

But this is all just another way of saying "Something must be done!", in this case by politicians. In other words, kick the can, which is what both the UK and US (and others) have been doing since WWII.

This is no longer just message board fodder. We're running out of time.

 

[timsk]

But this is all just another way of saying "Something must be done!", in this case by politicians. In other words, kick the can, which is what both the UK and US (and others) have been doing since WWII.

This is no longer just message board fodder. We're running out of time.

Okay, so what do you suggest?

 

[Atilla]

Okay, so what do you suggest?

I suggest you change your ideas. :idea:

Produce some of your own instead of reading them up on the Daily Trash

A hair transplant isn't normally available on the NHS, as it is regarded as cosmetic surgery.





Got to watching this old clip. Not bad

 

[Atilla]

Did anybody watch Question Time last week.

Some columnist from the Daily Trash was on the panel and when he said the Daily Mail was an independent and quality newspaper with non-biased excellent journalism, the whole audience laughed out loud.

Put the snot back up his nose

 

[timsk]

I suggest you change your ideas. :idea:

Produce some of your own instead of reading them up on the Daily Trash

A hair transplant isn't normally available on the NHS, as it is regarded as cosmetic surgery.

Atilla,
I'm always open minded to other people's ideas - hence my question to dbp. And the views that I currently hold are always subject to review and are arrived at through careful thought and observation. They may may not be unique to me but, however they are formed, I can assure you it isn't via the 'Daily Trash'. I don't read it - or any other newspaper for that matter. Never have, never will.
Tim.

 

[dbphoenix]

Okay, so what do you suggest?

Increase taxes on the wealthy, same as I've been suggesting all along.

 

[tomorton]

1. Reduce population growth

2. Implement practical measures


3. Money, money, money

Some sensible and some not so sensible stuff but at least these are the right points we should be talking about.

1. Where is the evidence that a strong and growing economy is so due to a falling or even stable population?

2. UK governments have had decades to produce efficient public services and have failed to do so. Why could we expect a radical difference now?

3. Taxation needs to be increased so that public spending can be increased - IF this leads to a stronger and growing economy. Contrary to what db says, taxing the rich will not be enough - though some of them have income and assets multiple times those of the poorest members of society, there just aren't enough rich people in the UK to deliver the additional tax revenue we need.

In any case, on moral grounds, I don't see it as the prerogative of government to re-distribute wealth on an arbitrary basis. Surely the job of government is to ensure that there is equality of opportunity, not equality of wealth.

 

[dbphoenix]

Contrary to what db says, taxing the rich will not be enough

Db never said that taxing the rich would be enough. That's silly. But none of the problems that have been catalogued in this thread can be solved without increases in revenue. Unless of course we revert back to a 19th century agrarian economy, in which case there would be no need for most if not all of those things catalogued in this thread, beginning with excessive regulations. Or regulations at all.

 

[barjon]

Some sensible and some not so sensible stuff but at least these are the right points we should be talking about.

1. Where is the evidence that a strong and growing economy is so due to a falling or even stable population?

2. UK governments have had decades to produce efficient public services and have failed to do so. Why could we expect a radical difference now?

3. Taxation needs to be increased so that public spending can be increased - IF this leads to a stronger and growing economy. Contrary to what db says, taxing the rich will not be enough - though some of them have income and assets multiple times those of the poorest members of society, there just aren't enough rich people in the UK to deliver the additional tax revenue we need.

In any case, on moral grounds, I don't see it as the prerogative of government to re-distribute wealth on an arbitrary basis. Surely the job of government is to ensure that there is equality of opportunity, not equality of wealth.

Tomo

Can you give some examples of what public services are woefully inefficient. I see them as being fit for purpose at the very least. That's not to say they haven't fallen back a bit in the last few years 'nor that there is not room for improvement (there always is) but they are not chronically bad in my experience.

 

[barjon]

Db never said that taxing the rich would be enough. That's silly. But none of the problems that have been catalogued in this thread can be solved without increases in revenue. Unless of course we revert back to a 19th century agrarian economy, in which case there would be no need for most if not all of those things catalogued in this thread, beginning with excessive regulations. Or regulations at all.

No question that it will take money to resolve the problems, but the thrust of the argument is to try not to make matters worse by adding more pressure.

 

[dbphoenix]

No question that it will take money to resolve the problems, but the thrust of the argument is to try not to make matters worse by adding more pressure.

What pressure? On whom?

 

[timsk]

Increase taxes on the wealthy, same as I've been suggesting all along.

You disappoint me dbp.
I thought you were going to propose a radical new approach, rather than just another way of saying "Something must be done!", in this case by politicians. In other words, kick the can . . .

Besides which, I pretty much made this point in my third propsal: "Thereafter - taxation of some sort is the most obvious answer."
Tim

 

[dbphoenix]

You disappoint me dbp.
I thought you were going to propose a radical new approach, rather than just another way of saying "Something must be done!", in this case by politicians. In other words, kick the can . . .

Besides which, I pretty much made this point in my third propsal: "Thereafter - taxation of some sort is the most obvious answer."
Tim

Increasing taxes on the wealthy is not just another way of saying "Something must be done!" It's specific. And it doesn't occupy third place.

 

[timsk]

Increasing taxes on the wealthy is not just another way of saying "Something must be done!" It's specific. And it doesn't occupy third place.

dbp,
My proposals were equally specific and the order I put them in was hardly the point!

I get the uneasy feeling you're challenging my posts for reasons other than what I actually write - and that's a shame. I hope I'm wrong, but given that we are near enough in agreement regarding taxation, it's a possibility I have to consider.

Tim.

 

[Atilla]

Atilla,
I'm always open minded to other people's ideas - hence my question to dbp. And the views that I currently hold are always subject to review and are arrived at through careful thought and observation. They may may not be unique to me but, however they are formed, I can assure you it isn't via the 'Daily Trash'. I don't read it - or any other newspaper for that matter. Never have, never will.
Tim.

Me amigo I can see you are getting annoyed with me but I my self included increasingly realising the media set daily agenda. Between the media and political spin we are much like sheep - led.

Only the other day watching Sky News (which I dislike intensely) was showing some muslim speaking about events etc. What I did notice is that most of the commentators had body shots above waist line so one sees upper torso clearly about 2-3 meters away.

When this perfectly reasonable muslim came on the camera shot switched to a head shot where one could not even see his shoulders. The head shot and him speaking was hideous.

I thought WTF is going on here. Why? That's some nasty piece of editing to make the listener whether his aware or not turn away. Big fecking nasty head filling a 42" screen.

I noticed something similar with another muslim woman who was foaming with spit in her mouth talking about the Grenfell tower, as she spoke and so the camera moved into a full head footage magnifying my disgust.

It's all so very freaking subtle but next time take a note of the shots when they interview people.

Once again my point is the daily agenda is set by the media. Much like Brexit turned into a vote on migration as opposed the strategic direction UK should take. All these subtle shots and agendas and photos and red busses. I really would like to know what Murdochs agenda is. Hardly idealistic and independent journalism.

UK has always been sceptical about Europe, be it the single currency or the Maastrich treaty but this whole episode still doesn't sit well with me. Europeans have always catered for British interests and we have opted out. Similarly UK benefits to migrants much greater than European ones but that's a choice made by UK to attract them. Not one that was enforced by EU on us.

Now, It's just turnei into control borders and stop migrants flooding in as if they are the root cause of everything. Remember who caused the banking crises?

We are now discussing population and that debate is skewed by migration also. Problem is aging population people living longer alongside a falling birthrate among the white endogenous race.We are now discussing it as an increasing pop issue brought about mass migration. So freaking expensive bringing up children no wonder it puts people off having them. Moreover, if anyone ends up being a single parent; that's almost mission impossible.

Migration should be controlled, but I would add integration and source of migration is more important imo. Europe we have shared history and interest with and a better match than from far away other places.

I'd do away with bleeding religious schools too. It should be one UK-wide national curriculum. Any sect or religion should be allowed for people to pursue outside of the national curriculum in their own free time. No opt outs.

All the best matey, sorry for any upset.