Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
07 May 17
12:25
Joined:
Date Joined:
21 May 10
There most definitely is a trickle-down effect of wealth from the rich to the rest. The only thing is, it cascades upwards from the poor to the rich. 
Show More
Apparently the rich have so much more money than the poor. Jeremy will change that and make us all equally poor.
trickle down economics - they are telling you they are pissingg on the poor.
I heard something on the radio recently about this. Since the late 70s, the rich have made enormous gains in widening the gap between them and the rest of the population.
Which is borne out by the ridiculously high salaries handed out to senior public sector workers and executives in private companies for a few instances.
How's the labour movement going these days? Totally ineffective I'd say.
Yet considering the biggest part of the population look to it for any gains to their prosperity, I'd say they're being led up the garden path by politicians of every code and the unions in particular.
Which makes you wonder who left-wing journalists like Polly Toynbee and Owen Jones actually represent.
When their efforts in the press, support the very policies that serve to create these divisions in society.
Which is borne out by the ridiculously high salaries handed out to senior public sector workers and executives in private companies for a few instances.
How's the labour movement going these days? Totally ineffective I'd say.
Yet considering the biggest part of the population look to it for any gains to their prosperity, I'd say they're being led up the garden path by politicians of every code and the unions in particular.
Which makes you wonder who left-wing journalists like Polly Toynbee and Owen Jones actually represent.
When their efforts in the press, support the very policies that serve to create these divisions in society.
I would argue the Middle Class has grown to a huge number. Prosperity has come to millions in the last 40 years.
The so called Working Classes own homes, cars, travel abroad, have countless life opportunities that previous generations could only dream of.
As for the very rich, they would have to be insanely stupid NOT to increase their wealth. It's quite straightforward after the 1st million (so I've heard..)
The so called Working Classes own homes, cars, travel abroad, have countless life opportunities that previous generations could only dream of.
As for the very rich, they would have to be insanely stupid NOT to increase their wealth. It's quite straightforward after the 1st million (so I've heard..)
so called middle class, has so called grown because of personal debt that 50 or 60 years ago even people who could afford to take it on would have been ashamed to do so
Debt or credit?!
Agreed, most of us are propped up by borrowing, whether it be mortgages, persoanal loans or credit cards.
Overrall though the standard of living has soared in Britain.
In the 60s my parents were refused credit for a freezer!
Agreed, most of us are propped up by borrowing, whether it be mortgages, persoanal loans or credit cards.
Overrall though the standard of living has soared in Britain.
In the 60s my parents were refused credit for a freezer!
If you own a Ferrari and a Fiesta then you are 20 times wealthier than the person who owns a Fiesta
But you have less than twice the utility
And you have the same amount of google and Wikipedia as the poorer person
All this stuff about wealth inequality - it's just jealousy from people in the top 5-10% who would like to be in the top 0-5%
But you have less than twice the utility
And you have the same amount of google and Wikipedia as the poorer person
All this stuff about wealth inequality - it's just jealousy from people in the top 5-10% who would like to be in the top 0-5%
Why does anyone need or want to earn more than £300k pa?
Good question.
Along with: Why does anyone with millions of £ in the bank and all the cars, houses, boats, horses, food, furniture and everything already bought and paid for, want to make more money?
The other BIG thing about the mega rich is that they earn SO much, because earning a normal amount is meaningless to them.
Along with: Why does anyone with millions of £ in the bank and all the cars, houses, boats, horses, food, furniture and everything already bought and paid for, want to make more money?
The other BIG thing about the mega rich is that they earn SO much, because earning a normal amount is meaningless to them.
The top earning 1% pay 25% of all income tax.
Almost half pay nothing at all.
Almost half pay nothing at all.
Wonder how many chit chatters earn 300k a year
I'd say between 1-3.
I'd say between 1-3.
The top 1% have got over 50% of the money and they pay 25% of the tax.
Worldwide the richest 1% have more money than the rest of the world put together.
The richest (I believe) 8 people in the world (a figure diminishing each year - was 62 last year, 80 in 2015) have as much money as the poorest 50% - that is 3.6 BILLION people. That doesn't include the stuff we don't know about, like world leaders and offshore and hidden stuff.
Doesn't seem so fair when you think of it like that!
Anyway income tax is only about 30% of tax collected
EVERYONE pays VAT at the same rate, Tax on fuel, food and drink, bills etc etc at the same rate.
So let's use a premiership - most likely foreign
- footballer as an example as a member of the 'top 1%', one who might earn more in a week than many of us will earn in a year.
The bills are not much more and out of say £250,000 a week he will still clear about £140,000 to pay for them.
Plus there will be all sorts of methods to save a bit of tax which the "normals" don't have.
Anyway the average worker on about £25,000 a year might clear as much as £280 a week to pay for the same amount of food, drink, bills etc.
After ridiculous rents or mortgage costs. Not much left is there. So maybe, just maybe the geezer with £140,000 to spend might be able to spare a little more to help everyone else without it cramping his lifestyle too much.
Worldwide the richest 1% have more money than the rest of the world put together.
The richest (I believe) 8 people in the world (a figure diminishing each year - was 62 last year, 80 in 2015) have as much money as the poorest 50% - that is 3.6 BILLION people. That doesn't include the stuff we don't know about, like world leaders and offshore and hidden stuff.
Doesn't seem so fair when you think of it like that!
Anyway income tax is only about 30% of tax collected
EVERYONE pays VAT at the same rate, Tax on fuel, food and drink, bills etc etc at the same rate.
So let's use a premiership - most likely foreign
- footballer as an example as a member of the 'top 1%', one who might earn more in a week than many of us will earn in a year.The bills are not much more and out of say £250,000 a week he will still clear about £140,000 to pay for them.
Plus there will be all sorts of methods to save a bit of tax which the "normals" don't have.
Anyway the average worker on about £25,000 a year might clear as much as £280 a week to pay for the same amount of food, drink, bills etc.
After ridiculous rents or mortgage costs. Not much left is there. So maybe, just maybe the geezer with £140,000 to spend might be able to spare a little more to help everyone else without it cramping his lifestyle too much.
The top 1% have got over 50% of the money and they pay 25% of the tax.
If they have 50% of the money, should the not pay 50% of the tax?
If they have 50% of the money, should the not pay 50% of the tax?
My point exactly.
And that of others, tbf, Racingqueen.
But as the MPs and many of the top journos providing us with information who all earn above the national average don't see why they should pay more tax than they do, huge numbers of middle earners are persuaded that higher tax would affect them and they wouldn't like it (even though it almost certainly wouldn't affect them) so they support the "lower income tax" promises and the burden falls on the ones with least voice, ie those without much money.
The richest 5% might well pay 27% of the income tax, but:
a, As a proportion of income it's often less than it should be because of schemes, deals and clawbacks from HMRC
b, In terms of actual money they still have far more to play with than the rest of us
c, If they paid a bit more the other 95% might be a bit better off
d, The same goes for the richest companies. What's left of small business in the UK has to pay a full share of tax, while bigger corporations not only pay far less, but in part because of the lower tax can undercut and ruin even more opposition, thus killing off even more small business.
And that of others, tbf, Racingqueen.
But as the MPs and many of the top journos providing us with information who all earn above the national average don't see why they should pay more tax than they do, huge numbers of middle earners are persuaded that higher tax would affect them and they wouldn't like it (even though it almost certainly wouldn't affect them) so they support the "lower income tax" promises and the burden falls on the ones with least voice, ie those without much money.
The richest 5% might well pay 27% of the income tax, but:
a, As a proportion of income it's often less than it should be because of schemes, deals and clawbacks from HMRC
b, In terms of actual money they still have far more to play with than the rest of us
c, If they paid a bit more the other 95% might be a bit better off
d, The same goes for the richest companies. What's left of small business in the UK has to pay a full share of tax, while bigger corporations not only pay far less, but in part because of the lower tax can undercut and ruin even more opposition, thus killing off even more small business.
So, the "poor" don't ever cheat ?
The " system" needs to reward investment, enterprise and risk taking not punish it.
How many jobs do the entrepreneurs create ?
Why are the rich rich ? Is it just luck ?
If you set tax rates too high the payers will just clear off and locate somewhere else and we end up with nothing at all ? - Is that what you want ?
The " system" needs to reward investment, enterprise and risk taking not punish it.
How many jobs do the entrepreneurs create ?
Why are the rich rich ? Is it just luck ?
If you set tax rates too high the payers will just clear off and locate somewhere else and we end up with nothing at all ? - Is that what you want ?
Is it possible that nothing would happen if they were to leave?
by the time you are/maybe taxed heavily you have already done the risk taking, or not, as in the case of many highly paid jobs
the question is how does a country create wealth for everyone, it doesn't do it by taxation.
How much the wealthy are taxed is pretty irrelevant to creating a stable and fair and prosperous society.
How much the wealthy are taxed is pretty irrelevant to creating a stable and fair and prosperous society.
the only thing that creates a healthy and fair society is if the working, and middle classes are needed by those with the wealth and power.
And that means limiting the supply of people.
And that means limiting the supply of people.
in a prosperous and well run economy and country there is always a shortage of labour, it is a defining characteristic.
when company owners and businesses and farmers and doctors and nhs bosses and civil servants and politicians say there will be a possible shortage of labour if we leave Europe.
that's a good thing.
because the alternative is a never ending supply of labour.
and in time that is disaster for any economy and country.
that's a good thing.
because the alternative is a never ending supply of labour.
and in time that is disaster for any economy and country.
May 9, 2017 -- 6:30AM, Johnny The Guesser wrote:
So, the "poor" don't ever cheat ?The " system" needs to reward investment, enterprise and risk taking not punish it. How many jobs do the entrepreneurs create ?Why are the rich rich ? Is it just luck ?If you set tax rates too high the payers will just clear off and locate somewhere else and we end up with nothing at all ? - Is that what you want ?
Of course the poor cheat. Almost everyone does, given the opportunity. Some cheating is cheaper than other cheating though.
Loopholes need closing, cheating opportunities need to be removed.
I think manufacturing, innovation, investment from within and not abroad (which is profits end up) are more important than the financial industry, outside investment and especially huge corporations who actually help no-one from their staff to their opposition, let alone the tax issue.
Entrepreneurs creating jobs?.... Why would this stop?
What, exactly, are entrepreneurs anyway? Do they pay fair wages?
If you want to talk about rewarding investment, consider the millions of small businesses that have closed because of lack of any help from banks or government (despite their promises to help) and all the savings, houses and assets that have been lost. Then compare these to the fact that corporations can afford to set up businesses to fail and squeeze small opposition out of business readily, because they can afford to. The punishment is happening already and has been for about 40 years. Which is why we're no longer a "Nation of shop-keepers".
For many of the rich, I would say yes it IS luck, or nepotism. Very few wealthy people I have ever met or even know of made it from nowhere. There are some, but not many.
If they went somewhere else, someone would simply take their place. Who are these people that they can hold us to ransom?
Oh, that's right, they're MP's Friends and payers of MP's or MP's and other people who own all the money and who don't see why they shouldn't.
Where would they go anyway?
If the cheating was stopped and loopholes closed and the cheats and ones taking advantage over the rest of us would sod off anyway - If they really had somewhere to sod off to!
To answer your final question. It wouldn't bother me in the least. We'd survive (and quite probably prosper more).
"The top 1% have got over 50% of the money and they pay 25% of the tax."
This is the problem with internet discussion. Bollox spoken and people just accept it.
Where did you get this figure from? 50%. How convenient.
Wiki says in the UK the top 1% have 21% of the wealth. So you're only out by more than 100%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom
This is the problem with internet discussion. Bollox spoken and people just accept it.
Where did you get this figure from? 50%. How convenient.
Wiki says in the UK the top 1% have 21% of the wealth. So you're only out by more than 100%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom
Once again just taking the merest snippet and taking it out of context whilst ignoring the rest, Just Checking.
You are looking at household figures, the wealth in this (and any other nation) includes its business.
I also mentioned that income tax is only about 30% of the total tax gathered in, so the 50% quote is accurate.
I also wrote - If you'd care to read properly "The top 5% pays 27% of the income tax"
The top 1% of money owners have a majority of it hidden in all sorts of schemes and places none of us could know about. There's a good chance they have an even greater percentage. If you don't think that correct then naivety can be added to your list of failings.
Globally the top 1% owns 99% of the wealth.
A fact you find unworthy of picking up on.
The fact remains that people who earn a LOT of money have a LOT more to live on than the vast majority of the population any tax over a threshold is only deducted on money earned ABOVE that threshold.
What really puzzles me is that you (and you're not alone) will defend to the hilt a lifestyle and tax regime which if changed couldn't possibly ever affect you, I doubt that any of those arguing on their behalf on here is anywhere approaching the top 1%.
Or are you a multi-millionaire?
Your unbending adherence to the cause and anti anything to do with anything you perceive as left-wing (which it usually isn't) means you argue for the sake of it.
As for "bollox spoken" I can only bow to your mastery.
You are looking at household figures, the wealth in this (and any other nation) includes its business.
I also mentioned that income tax is only about 30% of the total tax gathered in, so the 50% quote is accurate.
I also wrote - If you'd care to read properly "The top 5% pays 27% of the income tax"
The top 1% of money owners have a majority of it hidden in all sorts of schemes and places none of us could know about. There's a good chance they have an even greater percentage. If you don't think that correct then naivety can be added to your list of failings.
Globally the top 1% owns 99% of the wealth.
A fact you find unworthy of picking up on.
The fact remains that people who earn a LOT of money have a LOT more to live on than the vast majority of the population any tax over a threshold is only deducted on money earned ABOVE that threshold.
What really puzzles me is that you (and you're not alone) will defend to the hilt a lifestyle and tax regime which if changed couldn't possibly ever affect you, I doubt that any of those arguing on their behalf on here is anywhere approaching the top 1%.
Or are you a multi-millionaire?
Your unbending adherence to the cause and anti anything to do with anything you perceive as left-wing (which it usually isn't) means you argue for the sake of it.
As for "bollox spoken" I can only bow to your mastery.
I think the rate of Inheritance Tax should be equalised for all people, from the pauper to the prince.
And the subsidies for owning agricultural land should be equalised for all people, from the pauper to the prince.
And the right to take recreational drugs in private or licenced premises should be equalised across all people, from the pauper to Prince.
I'll get my coat.
And the subsidies for owning agricultural land should be equalised for all people, from the pauper to the prince.
And the right to take recreational drugs in private or licenced premises should be equalised across all people, from the pauper to Prince.
I'll get my coat.
So your answer to questioning the 50% is some hand waving about unproven hidden wealth that adds to 50%, then upping the verbosity, and slinging it back at me with a load of blatant strawmen and ad hominem cr*p about what I didn't say. Nice! You don't take being wrong well do you.
Actually, I maintain it's right, if anything understated. Just because Wikipedia didn't say so doesn't mean I'm not.
You say I'm writing "bollox" and tell ME I'm writing ad hominem cr*p. A bit rich (pun intended).
As for what you didn't say.... You're always saying it, you have done for years.
You didn't find anything else to pick me up on?
Have another trawl through it, I'm sure you'll find something
You say I'm writing "bollox" and tell ME I'm writing ad hominem cr*p. A bit rich (pun intended).
As for what you didn't say.... You're always saying it, you have done for years.
You didn't find anything else to pick me up on?
Have another trawl through it, I'm sure you'll find something
I'm sick of people just saying stuff on the internet and other people taking is the truth with absolutely no backup.
You said something with nothing to back up, and people are just accepting it. So much that's wrong with the internet in one go.
I've no idea why you've such a persecution complex, I can't even remember arguing with you before.
You said something with nothing to back up, and people are just accepting it. So much that's wrong with the internet in one go.
I've no idea why you've such a persecution complex, I can't even remember arguing with you before.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539