Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There are currently 2 people viewing this thread.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c920vy2jxle8o
Don't you just buy your mate food or whatever he wants and he gives you the cash ?
Don't you just buy your mate food or whatever he wants and he gives you the cash ?
Show More
Fiat money now relies on goodwill.
On a £20 note, the monarch states I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF TWENTY POUNDS
What does that mean nowadays. Bugger all. Currency used to be backed by something tangible.
It should reflect value, ie cash facilitates the exchange of value between two parties. What's the difference between money printed by the royal mint or hasbro. Not a lot, beyond goodwill and faith.
They can print (or digitally create) as much sterling as they want. It doesn't increase the underlying value of the goods and services it's supposed to represent. The definition of devaluation.
On a £20 note, the monarch states I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF TWENTY POUNDS
What does that mean nowadays. Bugger all. Currency used to be backed by something tangible.
It should reflect value, ie cash facilitates the exchange of value between two parties. What's the difference between money printed by the royal mint or hasbro. Not a lot, beyond goodwill and faith.
They can print (or digitally create) as much sterling as they want. It doesn't increase the underlying value of the goods and services it's supposed to represent. The definition of devaluation.
It does make physical, tangible assets rather appealing.
half of the £324BN welfare bill is spent on OAP,s, £146BN of it on the state pension, its an aging populations thats spending all the £, with AI coming down the tracks eating job a it does, with an aging population the 7,6 million adults not working number will only get bigger
The state pension is money well spent. On the people that worked for 35-40 years accumulating their right to it via full time working.
Out of the vast selection of government waste to choose from, the SP is very low down.
I'm not opposed to a tweaking of it.
Out of the vast selection of government waste to choose from, the SP is very low down.
I'm not opposed to a tweaking of it.
The economic argument is that it matters because the very wealthy only spend a tiny fraction of their wealth. The more evenly spread money is, the more money that is spent, and the more that is produced to meet that demand. Asset prices increase because the very wealthy buy them up with the money they are not spending. The argument is that this is an increasing spiral. That argument is backed up by growth rates and asset prices in OECD countries over the last 80 years.
The social argument is that it means less power in a few people's hands = less corruption and leaves the majority of people happier and healthier and with more equal opportunities. If there was one person who owned everything is the extreme example.
Russia is a prime example of where almost everything is owned by a tiny handful of corrupt people. The US is heading that way
The social argument is that it means less power in a few people's hands = less corruption and leaves the majority of people happier and healthier and with more equal opportunities. If there was one person who owned everything is the extreme example.
Russia is a prime example of where almost everything is owned by a tiny handful of corrupt people. The US is heading that way
That's velocity, not distribution.
Increased taxes cause a slow down in velocity. Stamp duty is prime example.
Increased taxes cause a slow down in velocity. Stamp duty is prime example.
Literally if they decreased VAT for example, it would increase activity.
But the people doing what they are doing know what they are doing and why they are doing it. They aren't stupid. The slow destruction and managed decline is very much deliberate.
The foreign-born population rose from about 10.7 million to 13.1 million between the last census (in March 2021 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and March 2022 for Scotland), and June 2024. As a result, the non-UK-born now make up 19% of the population.
But the people doing what they are doing know what they are doing and why they are doing it. They aren't stupid. The slow destruction and managed decline is very much deliberate.
The foreign-born population rose from about 10.7 million to 13.1 million between the last census (in March 2021 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and March 2022 for Scotland), and June 2024. As a result, the non-UK-born now make up 19% of the population.
People will be more willing to fight a civil one than the other, howard.
When I was a young man I bought into the argument of trickle down economics, but history has proven that it's BS.
It's not an argument. Quite obviously if there is more buying and selling of properties, it leads to economic activity not directly related to the property ownership exchange.
I genuinely think some people reckon trickle down economics means people who don't do anything will become more affluent. Well, not really. It would help you, in my example, if you had the gumption to start a removals business. But sitting on your arse watching Netflix, not so much.
I genuinely think some people reckon trickle down economics means people who don't do anything will become more affluent. Well, not really. It would help you, in my example, if you had the gumption to start a removals business. But sitting on your arse watching Netflix, not so much.
very wealthy cant spend it. they can lose it. or they can do what many in the u.s. do and turn to philanthropy, an alien concept in other places, but thats another story
if it was all spread out evenly it might not be possible fro anyone to spend anything, although im speculating. also if it was likely to be spread it wouldnt exist as there would be the incentive to acquire it in the first place and nobody would have any to splurge
economic and social arguments are aren to be treated witth deep scepticism. not for nothing is economics known as the dismal scoence. economists make astrologers look good
the u.s. accumulation of wealth isnt corrupt. its derived by free markets, razor-sharp competition, robust law of contract and intellectual property and the ability to make stuff people desire
russia produces nothing (what have you ever bought that was russian-made?)and its is based on theft. big difference
if it was all spread out evenly it might not be possible fro anyone to spend anything, although im speculating. also if it was likely to be spread it wouldnt exist as there would be the incentive to acquire it in the first place and nobody would have any to splurge
economic and social arguments are aren to be treated witth deep scepticism. not for nothing is economics known as the dismal scoence. economists make astrologers look good
the u.s. accumulation of wealth isnt corrupt. its derived by free markets, razor-sharp competition, robust law of contract and intellectual property and the ability to make stuff people desire
russia produces nothing (what have you ever bought that was russian-made?)and its is based on theft. big difference
If the UK prints loads of money, inflation rises massively and the £ is devalued, so that it buys the same number of global goods and services as before. It's worse than that ofc because inflation lads to instability and lack of investment.
If actual money mattered rather than distirbution, then I could just print myself billions of counterfeit pound notes. Would that be good for the economy or not?
If actual money mattered rather than distirbution, then I could just print myself billions of counterfeit pound notes. Would that be good for the economy or not?
In my example suppose that no one ever knew I'd printed myself billions of counterfeit currency. Is that good for the economy or not?
That doesn't make any sense. But obviously people who have a lot of assets valued in sterling can easily realise the value in another currency.
You want people who have lots of assets in sterling keep them in sterling. I do agree they should be incentivised to utilise/deploy them. Or government actively encourages people to either sell sterling assets or hoard them, as if they try to use them, they are heavily scalped.
I just want an answer to this question..
In my example suppose that no one ever knew I'd printed myself billions of counterfeit currency. Is that good for the economy or not?
Good for the UK economy? Good for the World Economy?
In my example suppose that no one ever knew I'd printed myself billions of counterfeit currency. Is that good for the economy or not?
Good for the UK economy? Good for the World Economy?
Like I said, it makes no sense. Under the assumption that nobody will treat it as genuine money, it's completely irrelevant.
sterlings association with silver and its implied worth is on the way to being a misnomer given whats coming down the track
You could of course use crypto as an example, as enough people put faith in it to make it have a value in fiat currency.
Crypto is a theoretical threat to the fiat cash house of cards.
Crypto is a theoretical threat to the fiat cash house of cards.
It's not a simple question imo. But I'd have thought it should be a straight forward answer for many.
One valid answer would be it depends what I did with the money.
Pretty difficult to answer in the way you are asking, as the premise is fundamentally flawed. If you print pictures of banknotes on your HP, it makes no tangible difference to anyone. Perhaps your paper supplier, ink supplier, electricity provider. Currys if you need a new printer.
Negligible impacts. Your real money is probably most impacted, depending on the volume of printing.
I'll reframe the question but it makes no difference. Suppose I bought thousands of Bitcoins at £1 each on inception, I'd lost my code, until yesterday. Now my Bitcoin is worth £100Bn. Is that good for the economy or not?
and also assume that I've only moved to the UK after realising my bitcoin profits
not as bad as the uk govt.
100 billion is about what we are spending interest
100 billion is about what we are spending interest
I don't pay any UK tax because my wealth is sat in offshore holding accounts
How much of that £100bn am I going to spend on UK goods and services?
as you are a scot, not much
its hard to spend that much on just about anything, unless you are a pothouse gamboller
on a basic assumption, if tons of snidey moolah is sloshing around, the spend on goods and services would produce inflation as the resulting scarcity would push up prices. i dunno. not my scene. too dull
its hard to spend that much on just about anything, unless you are a pothouse gamboller
on a basic assumption, if tons of snidey moolah is sloshing around, the spend on goods and services would produce inflation as the resulting scarcity would push up prices. i dunno. not my scene. too dull
Exactly my point. That is why distribution matters.
Wealth doesn't work like that. Nobody has £100Bn in an offshore account and leaves all of their wealth in cash.
What you would do though is hire expensive advisers and you would take your wealth where you could retain most of it, and eventually pass it on to your benefactors.
Which would mean the UK was near the foot of the possible options.
What you would do though is hire expensive advisers and you would take your wealth where you could retain most of it, and eventually pass it on to your benefactors.
Which would mean the UK was near the foot of the possible options.
It's a completely unrealistic hypothetical, obviously. But if you converted BTC to sterling, the person or people that had that assumed value in sterling have passed it to you.
It depends upon how your portfolio is constructed, and the performance, but someone or people will get fees for managing it. Assuming you are mortal, it will be passed on to your beneficiaries. The impact of that depends up the jurisdiction.
It does happen like that in the real world. Billionaires spend an awful lot of money, and pay an awful lot of tax. Plenty of the mega rich 'lose' it all.
It depends upon how your portfolio is constructed, and the performance, but someone or people will get fees for managing it. Assuming you are mortal, it will be passed on to your beneficiaries. The impact of that depends up the jurisdiction.
It does happen like that in the real world. Billionaires spend an awful lot of money, and pay an awful lot of tax. Plenty of the mega rich 'lose' it all.
As I just watched a race in Listowel, think JPM. And how much he spends on his jump racing hobby.
JPM hasn't paid tax in Ireland since 1995. He's based in Switzerland
What has Macca got to do with getting layabouts back to work?
Switzerland has mandatory wealth taxes. Not sure how that works for JPM. Probably not very effectively
According to th elatest study I've jus made up he reduces the number of layabouts in the UK by 2 thanks to Henderson on Jonjo employing 1 extra person each.
The money/power game is ****, and as George Carling used to say,
"It's one big big club, and you ain't in it"
"It's one big big club, and you ain't in it"
In fact the entire horse racing industry is pretty much 'trickle down'.
The 'creation of money' into circultion not taught in schools for hundreds of years.
Fractional reserve banking, 'money' created and circulated as debt.
You sign a mortgage agreement - Is it your signature that creates the loan, or does the lender have it in reserve?
I deposit a tenner's worth of gold with you, youz realise I'm unlikely to ask for it back for many a year so you lend as the banker 10 x the value of it to 'other' lenders and charge 10% interest on every other tenner you lend.
Fractional reserve banking, 'money' created and circulated as debt.
You sign a mortgage agreement - Is it your signature that creates the loan, or does the lender have it in reserve?
I deposit a tenner's worth of gold with you, youz realise I'm unlikely to ask for it back for many a year so you lend as the banker 10 x the value of it to 'other' lenders and charge 10% interest on every other tenner you lend.
Nothing unusual about that.
Gordon Brown and other politicians cheated the system by 'creating' money and lending it out at effective negative borrowing rates.
They got away with it as the pain it creates comes much further down the line, when borrowing rates normalise, and inflation catches up.
Gordon Brown and other politicians cheated the system by 'creating' money and lending it out at effective negative borrowing rates.
They got away with it as the pain it creates comes much further down the line, when borrowing rates normalise, and inflation catches up.
Britain's benefits bonanza has worsened since Labour swept to power, with a car scheme handing 13,000 premium motors to claimants last year.
New analysis exposes the sheer scale of the handouts, with 3.23 million people now claiming Personal Independence Payments (PIP) even as taxes sit at their highest level since WW2.
The high-end cars dolled out to claimants include Mercedes, BMWs and Audis, and four in every five PIP claimants also trouser a mobility handout worth between £30.30 and £80 a week.
New analysis exposes the sheer scale of the handouts, with 3.23 million people now claiming Personal Independence Payments (PIP) even as taxes sit at their highest level since WW2.
The high-end cars dolled out to claimants include Mercedes, BMWs and Audis, and four in every five PIP claimants also trouser a mobility handout worth between £30.30 and £80 a week.
The PIP scheme is broken but this "even as taxes sit at their highest level since WW2." is deliberately complete BS. Top rates of tax were 90%+ in the US and UK in the 50s.
It doesn't matter what the tax rates are for the super rich though. They don't pay tax. All their money is in offshore holding accounts and current tax law doesn't address it.
It doesn't matter what the tax rates are for the super rich though. They don't pay tax. All their money is in offshore holding accounts and current tax law doesn't address it.
And if that is clearly complete BS, I suspect the other figures are too.
The PIP scheme is broken but this "even as taxes sit at their highest level since WW2." is deliberately complete BS. Top rates of tax were 90%+ in the US and UK in the 50s.
This calculation is the tax take out of THE WHOLE ECONOMY. Not about bespoke rates.
Of the top of my head, it is pushing 40%
Not from 'professional' gamblers, obviously :)
This calculation is the tax take out of THE WHOLE ECONOMY. Not about bespoke rates.
Of the top of my head, it is pushing 40%
Not from 'professional' gamblers, obviously :)
Or PIP claimants, since that is handed out tax free and not means tested
Here you go. From the horse's mouth...
In 2025/26, UK government raised around £1,232 billion (£1.232 trillion) in receipts – income from taxes and other sources. This is equivalent to around 40% of the size of the UK economy, as measured by GDP. Receipts were last consistently around 39%-40% of GDP in the early-1980s.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/
In 2025/26, UK government raised around £1,232 billion (£1.232 trillion) in receipts – income from taxes and other sources. This is equivalent to around 40% of the size of the UK economy, as measured by GDP. Receipts were last consistently around 39%-40% of GDP in the early-1980s.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/
To any layman highest level means tax rate. Anything else is deliberately misleading
A lot of people are ignorant on this stuff. The highest level means the highest level (not highest rate)
Not just the 50s. 1979 it was 25% up to £750 all the up to 83% over £24k.
The super rich weren't paying that ofc, just normal people. The difference bewteen 1983 and 2026 is that in 1983 there were only a very few super rich people so it didn't effect the economy too much. Now there are far more so it is.
The super rich weren't paying that ofc, just normal people. The difference bewteen 1983 and 2026 is that in 1983 there were only a very few super rich people so it didn't effect the economy too much. Now there are far more so it is.
no it means rate of tax. Not tax take (which will have several different ways of calculating to produce whatever figures you want) whereas tax rate has only one. You can't fudge the figure
It's like going around in circles. If the 'rates' are too high, less tax is collected as people change their behaviour. Quite radically if the rates are pernicious.
There is a tolerance on the level across the economy. We've already reached it. Hence wealthy people ditching the country.
Nowadays of course, the level includes all of the sneaky taxes and scalping. Not just headline top rates.
Since the late 1940s public sector current receipts have fluctuated between 31% and 43% of GDP, with peaks in the early 1950s, late 1960s, mid-late 1970s, early 1980s and now. Receipts were smallest relative to the size of the economy in 1993/94.
The composition of tax revenues has changed. Relatively more revenue is now raised from general taxes on goods and services (largely VAT) than was the case in 1965. Relatively less is raised from taxes on specific goods and services, such as excise duties, than was the case in 1965. Taxes on individual incomes (largely income tax) have raised the largest revenues in all years.
There is a tolerance on the level across the economy. We've already reached it. Hence wealthy people ditching the country.
Nowadays of course, the level includes all of the sneaky taxes and scalping. Not just headline top rates.
Since the late 1940s public sector current receipts have fluctuated between 31% and 43% of GDP, with peaks in the early 1950s, late 1960s, mid-late 1970s, early 1980s and now. Receipts were smallest relative to the size of the economy in 1993/94.
The composition of tax revenues has changed. Relatively more revenue is now raised from general taxes on goods and services (largely VAT) than was the case in 1965. Relatively less is raised from taxes on specific goods and services, such as excise duties, than was the case in 1965. Taxes on individual incomes (largely income tax) have raised the largest revenues in all years.
Increasing VAT on employment decreases the incentive to employ people.
Almost like it's deliberate.
Almost like it's deliberate.
How much tax is collected is not objective if rates are higher or lower is subjective. Tax rates are objective and what normal people consider
Cider, how is VAT applied to employment other than employment agencies or secondment?
How did I know what they were referencing? This is common terminology. Nobody who knows what they are talking about is going to say income tax is at the highest rate since WW2. And they didn't.
There's not much cash in the economy now. Digital forensics and cross border co-operation means avoiding and evading tax should be much harder than it was. What you need is effective tax laws.
You just can't see past your ideology. TAX THE RICH ! TAKE ALL OF THEIR STUFF ! IT'S NOT FAIR !
Not just income tax. Corporation tax too was much higher. Were any tax rates lower?
If we had a functional state, people wouldn't mind paying a bit more tax.
It couldn't get much more dysfunctional right now, could it?
It couldn't get much more dysfunctional right now, could it?
The rich aren't paying tax. Got nowt to with ideology. Everyone should pay tax
I don't know how this will format
THE FULL LIST OF BRITAIN’S TOP 50 TAXPAYERS
TAX LIST RANK NAME BUSINESS SECTOR TAX LIABILITY 2017/18 (£m) RICH LIST RANK 2018 WEALTH (£m)
1 Stephen Rubin and family Sportswear 181.6 49 2,820
2 Denise, John and Peter Coates Gambling 156.0 21 5,754
3 Sir James Dyson and family Household goods and technology 127.8 12 9,500
4 Bruno Schroder and family Finance 114.3 24 5,239
5 Jim Ratcliffe Chemicals 110.5 1 21,050
6 The Weston family Retailing 76.0 9 10,050
7 Sir Chris Hohn Hedge fund 64.8 136= 1,000
8 Sir Peter Wood Insurance 53.7 172 781
9 James Benamor Finance 52.2 337= 380
10 Baroness Howard de Walden and family Property 44.1 30 4,015
11 Tom Morris and family Discount stores 39.2 37 3,490
12= John Reece Chemicals 36.8 16= 7,000
12= Andy Currie Chemicals 36.8 16= 7,000
14 Peter Hargreaves Finance 35.6 42 3,164
15 Glenn Gordon and family Spirits 35.1 55 2,572
16 John Bloor Construction and property 34.9 73 1,858
17 Lord Edmiston Car sales and property 34.4 133 1,040
18 Ross Turner Hedge fund 33.6 410= 300
19 Carrie and Francois Perrodo and family Oil, gas and wine 32.6 22 5,556
20 Mike Ashley Sports equipment and fashion 30.4 58 2,437
21 Peter Harris and family Hotels and caravan parks 30.3 167= 800
22 The Duke of Westminster & The Grosvenor family Property 27.2 10 9,964
23 The Cadogan family Property 26.4 20 6,700
24 Simon, Bobby and Robin Arora Discount stores 25.6 60 2,300
25 Chris and Sarah Dawson Discount stores 25.4 71 1,960
26 Steve Morgan Construction 24.3 150 942
27 Henry Moser Finance 24.0 134= 1,010
28 David Harding Hedge fund 23.6 136= 1,000
29 Julian Dunkerton Fashion 23.4 297 441
30 The Clark family (car dealers) Car sales 22.3 120= 1,175
31 Patrick McKenna Finance and media 22.2 n/a
32 Tony Pidgley Construction 21.9 399= 310
33 James and John Martin and family Ejection seats 21.4 178 765
34 Sten Mortstedt Property 21.2 205 675
35 Stephen Butt and family Finance 21.0 180= 750
36 Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou and family Aviation 20.7 48 2,950
37 Daren Whitaker Construction 19.2 n/a
38 Bernard Lewis and family Fashion and property 18.6 63 2,125
39= Philip Day Fashion 17.7 115= 1,200
39= Neil Moffitt Restaurants 17.7 n/a
41 Sir Charles Dunstone Mobile phones 16.9 153 918
42 Charles Rolls Drinks 16.8 372= 340
43 Eugene Kaspersky Anti-virus software 16.6 n/a
44 John Kirkland and family Construction 16.4 242= 530
45 Charles Cayzer and family Finance 15.7 149 949
46 John Whittaker and family Property 15.6 61 2,250
47 The Warburton family Baking 14.5 238 545
48 Peter Cruddas and family Finance 12.9 206 661
49 David and Victoria Beckham Football and fashion 12.7 372= 340
50 Clinton, Spencer and John McCarthy Construction 12.1 213 635
THE FULL LIST OF BRITAIN’S TOP 50 TAXPAYERS
TAX LIST RANK NAME BUSINESS SECTOR TAX LIABILITY 2017/18 (£m) RICH LIST RANK 2018 WEALTH (£m)
1 Stephen Rubin and family Sportswear 181.6 49 2,820
2 Denise, John and Peter Coates Gambling 156.0 21 5,754
3 Sir James Dyson and family Household goods and technology 127.8 12 9,500
4 Bruno Schroder and family Finance 114.3 24 5,239
5 Jim Ratcliffe Chemicals 110.5 1 21,050
6 The Weston family Retailing 76.0 9 10,050
7 Sir Chris Hohn Hedge fund 64.8 136= 1,000
8 Sir Peter Wood Insurance 53.7 172 781
9 James Benamor Finance 52.2 337= 380
10 Baroness Howard de Walden and family Property 44.1 30 4,015
11 Tom Morris and family Discount stores 39.2 37 3,490
12= John Reece Chemicals 36.8 16= 7,000
12= Andy Currie Chemicals 36.8 16= 7,000
14 Peter Hargreaves Finance 35.6 42 3,164
15 Glenn Gordon and family Spirits 35.1 55 2,572
16 John Bloor Construction and property 34.9 73 1,858
17 Lord Edmiston Car sales and property 34.4 133 1,040
18 Ross Turner Hedge fund 33.6 410= 300
19 Carrie and Francois Perrodo and family Oil, gas and wine 32.6 22 5,556
20 Mike Ashley Sports equipment and fashion 30.4 58 2,437
21 Peter Harris and family Hotels and caravan parks 30.3 167= 800
22 The Duke of Westminster & The Grosvenor family Property 27.2 10 9,964
23 The Cadogan family Property 26.4 20 6,700
24 Simon, Bobby and Robin Arora Discount stores 25.6 60 2,300
25 Chris and Sarah Dawson Discount stores 25.4 71 1,960
26 Steve Morgan Construction 24.3 150 942
27 Henry Moser Finance 24.0 134= 1,010
28 David Harding Hedge fund 23.6 136= 1,000
29 Julian Dunkerton Fashion 23.4 297 441
30 The Clark family (car dealers) Car sales 22.3 120= 1,175
31 Patrick McKenna Finance and media 22.2 n/a
32 Tony Pidgley Construction 21.9 399= 310
33 James and John Martin and family Ejection seats 21.4 178 765
34 Sten Mortstedt Property 21.2 205 675
35 Stephen Butt and family Finance 21.0 180= 750
36 Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou and family Aviation 20.7 48 2,950
37 Daren Whitaker Construction 19.2 n/a
38 Bernard Lewis and family Fashion and property 18.6 63 2,125
39= Philip Day Fashion 17.7 115= 1,200
39= Neil Moffitt Restaurants 17.7 n/a
41 Sir Charles Dunstone Mobile phones 16.9 153 918
42 Charles Rolls Drinks 16.8 372= 340
43 Eugene Kaspersky Anti-virus software 16.6 n/a
44 John Kirkland and family Construction 16.4 242= 530
45 Charles Cayzer and family Finance 15.7 149 949
46 John Whittaker and family Property 15.6 61 2,250
47 The Warburton family Baking 14.5 238 545
48 Peter Cruddas and family Finance 12.9 206 661
49 David and Victoria Beckham Football and fashion 12.7 372= 340
50 Clinton, Spencer and John McCarthy Construction 12.1 213 635
despite what reform/tory,s try to convince their lemmings 24/7 , PIP isnt an out of work benefit so if it was means tested ,nothing to top anyone means testing THE STATE PENSION,
so what % of those happy to see PIP means tested do you think would agree to the STATE PENSION been means tested ?
over 60% of reform voter,s are against disability benefit,s been cut
so what % of those happy to see PIP means tested do you think would agree to the STATE PENSION been means tested ?
over 60% of reform voter,s are against disability benefit,s been cut
Interestingly my dad went to school with Stephen Rubin.
Don't confuse the highest taxpayers with the most wealthy. Thet are massively different
Don't confuse the highest taxpayers with the most wealthy. Thet are massively different
I don't want to go after those wealthy folk that are paying tax. I want to go after those who aren't, of which there are far more
I don't want to go after those wealthy folk that are paying tax.
You think people should be taxed, just because they are wealthy?
As I asked you before, how much should you pay based on your wealth?
You think people should be taxed, just because they are wealthy?
As I asked you before, how much should you pay based on your wealth?
So Fred Done and his brother are not the UKs highest tax payers then Cider?
If the wealthy are paying tax then there's no need to tax them. I'd tax those super wealthy because they are avoiding paying tax. A wealth tax does that and stops them avoiding it.
That's an old chart, I used that as we are no longer permitted to post pics. I've not looked at the most recent numbers, probably Coates.
I'm not interested in the individuals at this point. Just challenging the claim that 'the rich aren't paying tax'.
It's a ludicrous concept in my view, believing the state can/should grab assets just as someone thinks others have 'too much'.
There are multiple points that the state has a scalp at them, anyway.
There are multiple points that the state has a scalp at them, anyway.
Set up a holding company. Don't draw any income and get a loan against the assets in the holding company. End result = no tax
I'm interested in why Cider thinks its OK for billionaires to pay no tax when everyone else is
Year after year their income and assets are compounding tax free in holding companies. Exponentially over decades that's a huge amount of tax free wealth at everyone else's expense who is paying tax at 40%
Yes, you'd rather have billionaires spending their wealth in this country. In fact, you'd welcome it. If you want the country to be successful.
You think if you hold billions in Chinese assets you can simply leave China and avoid tax? That is a fantasy world
Have you shifted from thinking it's unfair to tax them to thinking oh we can't tax them, they'll just move?
I think it's unfair to tax existing 'wealth' ie assets that people already own.
It's a helluva lot more simple to tax multi millionaires and billionaires effectively than to stop the boat people crossing the Channel
What do you think the ccp would do about illegal immigrants? I'm thinking not a free credit card and other bounty, and left alone to do whatever they want.
Inheritance tax and savings and investment tax is a tax on wealth already earned. The only difference is how you define and tax "realised" profit
What I know is that successive governments are doing all they can to try and crack the immigrant problem and failing. They are not throwing everything they can about the taxation of holding companies. They are sitting on their hands doing nothing.
Oh right, they're doing a good job of supressing the footage of boat people being rescued and being taken back to France. It appears to be one way traffic.
The counterfactual is pretty helpful in these situations. Imagining third world people piling onto boats on a British beach, going out to sea, switching the engine off and the French 'recuing' them all back to France. Giving them lots of bounty, and nice pace to stay, and the freedom of France.
No, me neither
No, me neither
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539