-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Piers?
Yes. Hancock got pissed off at PM. So PM has abbreviated all context to make Hancock look as bad as possible
-
-
@majorrage I find myself agreeing with PM at times but then shit like this comes up and it makes me re-evaluate the previous PoV.
He is such a dick.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage I find myself agreeing with PM at times but then shit like this comes up and it makes me re-evaluate the previous PoV.
He is such a dick.
Mate, he's been a complete and utter fluffybunny througout the pandemic. There is no other word for it. It's been all about his opinions, and tabloid, gutter press & a real pusher of trying to create confusion where there didn't need to be any. Lots of govt pandemic strategies are open to heavy criticism, but on quite a few, a bit of a media push would have been helpful.
He's gone nuts again this morning at the Education secretary (who is an incompetent fool) as he's hammered him on the PPE scandal!!!! And the dimwitted politician has apologised for the law break! Y'know, in the middle of a pandemic, when the health secretary states "we broke the law because we were 2 weeks late in filing public contracts as we were all working 18 hours a day 7 days a week to secure PPE which was far more important, I'd do exactly the same again" ... you'd actually think a level headed person may sit back and think about that.
Instead, he's now trying to sending this viral with "Why can't Hancock say this, but Williamson can"
Complete and utter fluffybunny.
Which is a shame, as most of his opinions on global silliness I actually agree with. But his ego is out of control.
-
Interesting times in blighty (when isn't it).
So Sunak's budget comes out 3rd March. Most rumours are centred around changes in taxation, which will be used to start covering the astronomical costs of the pandemic in the UK. Widely predicted increases in corporation tax, capital gains and reduction in break/allowances.
The interesting part? Labour is opposing them. So Labour is now to the right of the Tories on taxation.
A real what in the actual f**k moment! Aren't they supposed to say the rises aren't enough? Should be more! 95% tax for anybody earning above 75k!
The country confuses the shit out of me ...
-
@majorrage I think the quirk here is that the possible reduction in allowances etc hits the lower paid disproportionately.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage I think the quirk here is that the possible reduction in allowances etc hits the lower paid disproportionately.
I'm still waiting for Farage to ask what happens to (European) immigrants receiving Furlough who then leave the country the second Furlough ends ...
Everything always disproportionately affects the lower income. As far as the looney Labour left (not all Labour) is concerned there are two incomes in this country. 1. Minimum wage. 2. Billionaires.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage I think the quirk here is that the possible reduction in allowances etc hits the lower paid disproportionately.
I'm still waiting for Farage to ask what happens to (European) immigrants receiving Furlough who then leave the country the second Furlough ends ...
Everything always disproportionately affects the lower income. As far as the looney Labour left (not all Labour) is concerned there are two incomes in this country. 1. Minimum wage. 2. Billionaires.
There are some taxes that don't disproportionately hit the lower paid. CGT (usually), higher rate income tax, loss of HRT relief on pension contributions. The problem though is two fold. Firstly due to the smaller number of people involved the amount raised is not as significant. Secondly, avoidance. Is it worth all the costs and effort to avoid paying 40% income tax? Probably not 50%? 60%? Well that's a different story, plus of course you are talking about people who can afford to pay for rigorous planning.
Agree with the binary viewpoint and also see the hypocrisy in their own financial positions. Which of the two are they?
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
There are some taxes that don't disproportionately hit the lower paid. CGT (usually), higher rate income tax, loss of HRT relief on pension contributions. The problem though is two fold. Firstly due to the smaller number of people involved the amount raised is not as significant. Secondly, avoidance. Is it worth all the costs and effort to avoid paying 40% income tax? Probably not 50%? 60%? Well that's a different story, plus of course you are talking about people who can afford to pay for rigorous planning.
I think we need a debate on how efficiently the state spends our money at the same time as we debate tax rises (which almost certainly need to happen).
Agree with the binary viewpoint and also see the hypocrisy in their own financial positions. Which of the two are they?
Welsh friend of mine grew up in the valleys, went to a Comprehensive, has a PhD and is probably the smartest guy I know, on why his family was never left-wing: "We were never rich enough to be socialists".
Too many people on the Left see wealth as obscene - but not for themselves of course, as they are far too virtuous..
-
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
There are some taxes that don't disproportionately hit the lower paid. CGT (usually), higher rate income tax, loss of HRT relief on pension contributions. The problem though is two fold. Firstly due to the smaller number of people involved the amount raised is not as significant. Secondly, avoidance. Is it worth all the costs and effort to avoid paying 40% income tax? Probably not 50%? 60%? Well that's a different story, plus of course you are talking about people who can afford to pay for rigorous planning.
I think we need a debate on how efficiently the state spends our money at the same time as we debate tax rises (which almost certainly need to happen).
Agree with the binary viewpoint and also see the hypocrisy in their own financial positions. Which of the two are they?
Welsh friend of mine grew up in the valleys, went to a Comprehensive, has a PhD and is probably the smartest guy I know, on why his family was never left-wing: "We were never rich enough to be socialists".
Too many people on the Left see wealth as obscene - but not for themselves of course, as they are far too virtuous..
To be honest, any tax rise which seems fair is likely to be pretty easily accepted. Taxes on online shopping, tweaks to capital gains / pensions etc. I imagine people will be stupid enough to accept any changes which they don't see which effect them, like rises in employee NI.
I cannot see wealth taxes being accepted. Sunak has ruled that out as that is something dreamed up by the minimum wage or billionaire gang. In the modern financial environment all that will do is ensure the rich shift their assets elsewhere. Which is disastourous.
And then you read completely absurd things like the below ... which suggests nothing has changed at ll in financial technologies since 1950.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
I cannot see wealth taxes being accepted. Sunak has ruled that out as that is something dreamed up by the minimum wage or billionaire gang. In the modern financial environment all that will do is ensure the rich shift their assets elsewhere. Which is disastourous.
It's also economic idiocy. The top 1% own 20% of the UK's £13tn wealth or £2.6tn. Assuming that wealth stayed in the UK and you taxed that wealth at 10% a year (£260bn) for 10 years and carried on spending as now, you'd pay off the nation debt.
But in the 11th year the debt would start growing again by £100bn a year (or more, as tax on rich people's income would be decimated) and the same old problems would surface. Only this time there's no wealth to tax as you've spent it all. You can play with the rate of the wealth tax, but you still end up buggered.
And then you read completely absurd things like the below ... which suggests nothing has changed at ll in financial technologies since 1950.
My 14yr-old grand-niece can pick holes on Jones absurd arguments. It's all emotion and rage, rather than any intellectual insight.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
There are some taxes that don't disproportionately hit the lower paid. CGT (usually), higher rate income tax, loss of HRT relief on pension contributions. The problem though is two fold. Firstly due to the smaller number of people involved the amount raised is not as significant. Secondly, avoidance. Is it worth all the costs and effort to avoid paying 40% income tax? Probably not 50%? 60%? Well that's a different story, plus of course you are talking about people who can afford to pay for rigorous planning.
I think we need a debate on how efficiently the state spends our money at the same time as we debate tax rises (which almost certainly need to happen).
Agree with the binary viewpoint and also see the hypocrisy in their own financial positions. Which of the two are they?
Welsh friend of mine grew up in the valleys, went to a Comprehensive, has a PhD and is probably the smartest guy I know, on why his family was never left-wing: "We were never rich enough to be socialists".
Too many people on the Left see wealth as obscene - but not for themselves of course, as they are far too virtuous..
To be honest, any tax rise which seems fair is likely to be pretty easily accepted. Taxes on online shopping, tweaks to capital gains / pensions etc. I imagine people will be stupid enough to accept any changes which they don't see which effect them, like rises in employee NI.
I cannot see wealth taxes being accepted. Sunak has ruled that out as that is something dreamed up by the minimum wage or billionaire gang. In the modern financial environment all that will do is ensure the rich shift their assets elsewhere. Which is disastourous.
And then you read completely absurd things like the below ... which suggests nothing has changed at ll in financial technologies since 1950.
All you had to say was 'Owen Jones' ...
-
Owen Jones could do with reading a book himself. Effective rate of income tax during the war peaked at 99.25% not 98%. The 98% effective income tax rate was during the mid to late 1970s when Labour were in power.
Aside from his inaccuracies, I am not sure what point he was trying to make.
He is a complete wankstain.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
The 98% effective income tax rate was during the mid to late 1970s when Labour were in power.
The top rate of tax was 83% and there was a 15% "Investment income surcharge" on top of that.
Funnily enough, UK industry suffered from major underinvestment at the time - can't think why.
-
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
The 98% effective income tax rate was during the mid to late 1970s when Labour were in power.
The top rate of tax was 83% and there was a 15% "Investment income surcharge" on top of that.
Funnily enough, UK industry suffered from major underinvestment at the time - can't think why.
Against that I think one’s butler, housekeeper, chauffeur, nanny, etc. were fully deductible!
-
@pakman said in British Politics:
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
The 98% effective income tax rate was during the mid to late 1970s when Labour were in power.
The top rate of tax was 83% and there was a 15% "Investment income surcharge" on top of that.
Funnily enough, UK industry suffered from major underinvestment at the time - can't think why.
Against that I think one’s butler, housekeeper, chauffeur, nanny, etc. were fully deductible!
From memory not the nanny. Something to do with non-specific additional services.
Maybe that was just in the Cato household though.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@pakman said in British Politics:
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
The 98% effective income tax rate was during the mid to late 1970s when Labour were in power.
The top rate of tax was 83% and there was a 15% "Investment income surcharge" on top of that.
Funnily enough, UK industry suffered from major underinvestment at the time - can't think why.
Against that I think one’s butler, housekeeper, chauffeur, nanny, etc. were fully deductible!
From memory not the nanny. Something to do with non-specific additional services.
Maybe that was just in the Cato household though.
New meaning to non deductible deposit!
-
@pakman said in British Politics:
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
The 98% effective income tax rate was during the mid to late 1970s when Labour were in power.
The top rate of tax was 83% and there was a 15% "Investment income surcharge" on top of that.
Funnily enough, UK industry suffered from major underinvestment at the time - can't think why.
Against that I think one’s butler, housekeeper, chauffeur, nanny, etc. were fully deductible!
Don't think those things were deductible, but you could off-set things like interest on loans, life Assurance premiums etc, pension contributions etc. Company cars were almost untaxed.
Much easier to use a limited company to route earnings thru as well.
British Politics