General Election 2017

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Page 435 of 450 < 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 15 Jun 17 12.52pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 Taxing these corporations and the wealthy to re-dress the balance in favour of the 'many not the few' is quite justified IMO. Its just common sense they have the money and the 'just getting by' do not. The big problem is how do you actually get the money as they have so many ways of avoiding payment. Its only justified if it works and they buy into it. For anything to be really effective it has to work in reality rather than theory. So if the case is that you can raise more revenue from cutting corporation tax, then cutting corporation tax is justified. Similarly, if you can raise it and reasonable generate a steady increased revenue, then you should raise it. Ideological answers, and distorting stats and data to support an ideological view, demeans us all. Personally, I believe that the goal of government in terms of revenue should be to move towards provision being 'fairly' attributed as a percentage from all members of society, without exception, as a percentage. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 15 Jun 17 12.52pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

Taxing these corporations and the wealthy to re-dress the balance in favour of the 'many not the few' is quite justified IMO.

Its just common sense they have the money and the 'just getting by' do not.

The big problem is how do you actually get the money as they have so many ways of avoiding payment.

Its only justified if it works and they buy into it. For anything to be really effective it has to work in reality rather than theory.

So if the case is that you can raise more revenue from cutting corporation tax, then cutting corporation tax is justified.

Similarly, if you can raise it and reasonable generate a steady increased revenue, then you should raise it.

Ideological answers, and distorting stats and data to support an ideological view, demeans us all.

Personally, I believe that the goal of government in terms of revenue should be to move towards provision being 'fairly' attributed as a percentage from all members of society, without exception, as a percentage.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 15 Jun 17 12.54pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Realistically, I think you can tax the wealthy more, but not much more, unless they're seeing some kind of return for that taxation - Which I think is fair. The issue isn't really that we pay tax, but what kind of return we get from that tax. For example, if you could improve education to a state where by the difference between public and private education was minimal, then I think you'd find wealthier people and higher earners could live with that, as it would dismiss the need to provide private education for their children etc. Similarly with Health care etc. And there in lies the element of taxation that is often missed, people aren't so much pssed off with paying taxes, but with what they're getting in return for their investment. We can't even get the f*king bins collected once a week, or have enough pens and pencils for kids in school, but then seem to be able to pay some rather excessive expensives for MPs or find money for assorted 'government vanity projects' There is money for a new nuclear submarine project for defence, but we have cuts in policing when the primary area of defence threat to UK citizens is low scale random acts of terrorism against citizens. Taking out our differences towards defence I agree with you. On vanity projects the wisdom or lack of it over the northern/southern rail project is an interesting one. A thread on that would be informative. As for the shelved 'garden bridge' I personally was saddened to see it go. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 12.55pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

15 Jun 17 12.54pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Realistically, I think you can tax the wealthy more, but not much more, unless they're seeing some kind of return for that taxation - Which I think is fair. The issue isn't really that we pay tax, but what kind of return we get from that tax.

For example, if you could improve education to a state where by the difference between public and private education was minimal, then I think you'd find wealthier people and higher earners could live with that, as it would dismiss the need to provide private education for their children etc. Similarly with Health care etc.

And there in lies the element of taxation that is often missed, people aren't so much p*ssed off with paying taxes, but with what they're getting in return for their investment.

We can't even get the f**king bins collected once a week, or have enough pens and pencils for kids in school, but then seem to be able to pay some rather excessive expensives for MPs or find money for assorted 'government vanity projects'

There is money for a new nuclear submarine project for defence, but we have cuts in policing when the primary area of defence threat to UK citizens is low scale random acts of terrorism against citizens.

Taking out our differences towards defence I agree with you.

On vanity projects the wisdom or lack of it over the northern/southern rail project is an interesting one. A thread on that would be informative.

As for the shelved 'garden bridge' I personally was saddened to see it go.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 12.55pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 15 Jun 17 1.04pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Reality is the only way you can increase the tax take from the wealthy is to increase their profits...that increases the tax you take from them. As for elitism, as a societal problem I agree. I often rally against policies that insulate those with money from failure...it is directly against meritocracy. Still, this said, for people to invest they need confidence that they will receive a return. Unless you have some world government allocating tax policy any other approach is irrational. Socialism, on an economic front, has failed pretty much everywhere it has been used.....As usual those who suffer the most are the poor. I've looked into the Nordic countries where it has half worked and anyone who does that and then tells you it can be just repeated here is directly lying to you. There are problems with it but it does also produce a better society in general. However, once you look into it you can see that it can't be repeated here. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 12.45pm) The chancellor is running out of avenues where he can collect tax which is why he attempted to reign in the self-employed. Now the burden of tax should be falling on those able to carry it in other words those who actually have the money. So the govt. having penalised the 'just getting by' and the poor since the crash may now have to turn to their own supporters and donors, corporations and the wealthy. They have enjoyed the years since the financial crisis making little or no contribution to the country at the expense of the many who have and whose outlook is worse not better.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 15 Jun 17 1.04pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Reality is the only way you can increase the tax take from the wealthy is to increase their profits...that increases the tax you take from them. As for elitism, as a societal problem I agree. I often rally against policies that insulate those with money from failure...it is directly against meritocracy.

Still, this said, for people to invest they need confidence that they will receive a return. Unless you have some world government allocating tax policy any other approach is irrational.

Socialism, on an economic front, has failed pretty much everywhere it has been used.....As usual those who suffer the most are the poor. I've looked into the Nordic countries where it has half worked and anyone who does that and then tells you it can be just repeated here is directly lying to you.

There are problems with it but it does also produce a better society in general. However, once you look into it you can see that it can't be repeated here.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 12.45pm)

The chancellor is running out of avenues where he can collect tax which is why he attempted to reign in the self-employed.

Now the burden of tax should be falling on those able to carry it in other words those who actually have the money.

So the govt. having penalised the 'just getting by' and the poor since the crash may now have to turn to their own supporters and donors, corporations and the wealthy.

They have enjoyed the years since the financial crisis making little or no contribution to the country at the expense of the many who have and whose outlook is worse not better.

Alert a moderator to this post

We are goin up! Coulsdon 15 Jun 17 1.21pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Realistically, I think you can tax the wealthy more, but not much more, unless they're seeing some kind of return for that taxation - Which I think is fair. The issue isn't really that we pay tax, but what kind of return we get from that tax. For example, if you could improve education to a state where by the difference between public and private education was minimal, then I think you'd find wealthier people and higher earners could live with that, as it would dismiss the need to provide private education for their children etc. Similarly with Health care etc. And there in lies the element of taxation that is often missed, people aren't so much pssed off with paying taxes, but with what they're getting in return for their investment. We can't even get the f*king bins collected once a week, or have enough pens and pencils for kids in school, but then seem to be able to pay some rather excessive expensives for MPs or find money for assorted 'government vanity projects' There is money for a new nuclear submarine project for defence, but we have cuts in policing when the primary area of defence threat to UK citizens is low scale random acts of terrorism against citizens. Sounds to me like you want to privatise the lot The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
Alert a moderator to this post

We are goin up!

Coulsdon 15 Jun 17 1.21pm

Send a Private Message to We are goin up!

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

And there in lies the element of taxation that is often missed, people aren't so much p*ssed off with paying taxes, but with what they're getting in return for their investment.

Sounds to me like you want to privatise the lot

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 15 Jun 17 1.43pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 The chancellor is running out of avenues where he can collect tax which is why he attempted to reign in the self-employed. Now the burden of tax should be falling on those able to carry it in other words those who actually have the money. So the govt. having penalised the 'just getting by' and the poor since the crash may now have to turn to their own supporters and donors, corporations and the wealthy. They have enjoyed the years since the financial crisis making little or no contribution to the country at the expense of the many who have and whose outlook is worse not better. You just aren't addressing the realities. As a percentage those with money already do pay a lot more than anybody else. I don't disagree that they should pay more than those with less. However fantasy economics which push the idea that you can force people to pay tax without a direct incentive for it....that's just lying and giving false hope to the poor. That's a problem I have with some progressives who are intelligent enough to know the reality. Robin Hood wasn't as advertised in reality....In fact the whole 'Robin Hood' allegory works quite well....A simplistic myth that probably has a tiny basis in truth that become totally romantised. What matters is what works. That's when you genuinely help people.....not by selling them false cures that are doomed to fail and then finger pointing at others. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 1.44pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

15 Jun 17 1.43pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

The chancellor is running out of avenues where he can collect tax which is why he attempted to reign in the self-employed.

Now the burden of tax should be falling on those able to carry it in other words those who actually have the money.

So the govt. having penalised the 'just getting by' and the poor since the crash may now have to turn to their own supporters and donors, corporations and the wealthy.

They have enjoyed the years since the financial crisis making little or no contribution to the country at the expense of the many who have and whose outlook is worse not better.

You just aren't addressing the realities.

As a percentage those with money already do pay a lot more than anybody else. I don't disagree that they should pay more than those with less.

However fantasy economics which push the idea that you can force people to pay tax without a direct incentive for it....that's just lying and giving false hope to the poor. That's a problem I have with some progressives who are intelligent enough to know the reality.

Robin Hood wasn't as advertised in reality....In fact the whole 'Robin Hood' allegory works quite well....A simplistic myth that probably has a tiny basis in truth that become totally romantised.

What matters is what works. That's when you genuinely help people.....not by selling them false cures that are doomed to fail and then finger pointing at others.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 1.44pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 15 Jun 17 1.53pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays [Link] The tax take increase I posted accounted for what you say. If you ignore the accounting method the tax take went up 21 percent instead of 12. Your analysis is completely biased....which is unfortunate and fails to take account of the reality that increased profits lead to increased tax take. Profits are in part a consequence of business confidence and a Corbyn government is a direct contrast to that. It is a falsehood and unethical to tell the poor and/or gullible that Labour could get anything like the cash they claim. Indeed they would considerably worsen an already difficult environment. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 12.29pm) My point was not biased it was factual. The tax base has widened and companies have returned to taxable profits post GFC. The proportion of total tax take made up by CT has fallen. These are facts. Claiming that reduced rates have lead to higher profits is just barmy.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 15 Jun 17 1.53pm

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

[Link]

The tax take increase I posted accounted for what you say. If you ignore the accounting method the tax take went up 21 percent instead of 12.

Your analysis is completely biased....which is unfortunate and fails to take account of the reality that increased profits lead to increased tax take.

Profits are in part a consequence of business confidence and a Corbyn government is a direct contrast to that.

It is a falsehood and unethical to tell the poor and/or gullible that Labour could get anything like the cash they claim. Indeed they would considerably worsen an already difficult environment.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 12.29pm)

My point was not biased it was factual.

The tax base has widened and companies have returned to taxable profits post GFC.

The proportion of total tax take made up by CT has fallen.

These are facts. Claiming that reduced rates have lead to higher profits is just barmy.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 15 Jun 17 1.57pm
Originally posted by We are goin up! Took the words out of my mouth. If you want a higher tax take to fund public services, then drop taxes and make them a lot simpler. Are you a tax expert? Simpler yes, lower no.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 15 Jun 17 1.57pm

Originally posted by We are goin up!

Took the words out of my mouth. If you want a higher tax take to fund public services, then drop taxes and make them a lot simpler.

Are you a tax expert? Simpler yes, lower no.

Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 15 Jun 17 2.01pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Are you a tax expert? Simpler yes, lower no. Both simpler & lower would work for me. For starters lower all income tax levels across the board & raise VAT at least that way you are only paying added tax on stuff you buy. Why should your hard earned go to a government who squander it on sending a huge chunk of it to help out other countries. Pro USA & Israel
Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 15 Jun 17 2.01pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

Are you a tax expert? Simpler yes, lower no.

Both simpler & lower would work for me. For starters lower all income tax levels across the board & raise VAT at least that way you are only paying added tax on stuff you buy. Why should your hard earned go to a government who squander it on sending a huge chunk of it to help out other countries.

Pro USA & Israel

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 15 Jun 17 2.03pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays You just aren't addressing the realities. As a percentage those with money already do pay a lot more than anybody else. I don't disagree that they should pay more than those with less. However fantasy economics which push the idea that you can force people to pay tax without a direct incentive for it....that's just lying and giving false hope to the poor. That's a problem I have with some progressives who are intelligent enough to know the reality. Robin Hood wasn't as advertised in reality....In fact the whole 'Robin Hood' allegory works quite well....A simplistic myth that probably has a tiny basis in truth that become totally romantised. What matters is what works. That's when you genuinely help people.....not by selling them false cures that are doomed to fail and then finger pointing at others. Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 1.44pm) Who's suggesting that there is no incentive to pay taxes? That's ludicrous. Other countries accept the need to pay taxes and that the returns are in the shape of social security, healthcare, education, public goods. All of these things improve society and make it a better place to live and work. I have no idea why you persist with the idea that tax and public spending are negatives and policies to improve inequality and improve public services are doomed to fail.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 15 Jun 17 2.03pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You just aren't addressing the realities.

As a percentage those with money already do pay a lot more than anybody else. I don't disagree that they should pay more than those with less.

Robin Hood wasn't as advertised in reality....In fact the whole 'Robin Hood' allegory works quite well....A simplistic myth that probably has a tiny basis in truth that become totally romantised.

What matters is what works. That's when you genuinely help people.....not by selling them false cures that are doomed to fail and then finger pointing at others.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Jun 2017 1.44pm)

Who's suggesting that there is no incentive to pay taxes? That's ludicrous. Other countries accept the need to pay taxes and that the returns are in the shape of social security, healthcare, education, public goods. All of these things improve society and make it a better place to live and work.

I have no idea why you persist with the idea that tax and public spending are negatives and policies to improve inequality and improve public services are doomed to fail.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 15 Jun 17 2.04pm
Originally posted by Jimenez Both simpler & lower would work for me. For starters lower all income tax levels across the board & raise VAT at least that way you are only paying added tax on stuff you buy. Why should your hard earned go to a government who squander it on sending a huge chunk of it to help out other countries. Terrible idea. Massively regressive. Would make us poorer as a society and increase inequality, which is bad for the economy.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 15 Jun 17 2.04pm

Originally posted by Jimenez

Both simpler & lower would work for me. For starters lower all income tax levels across the board & raise VAT at least that way you are only paying added tax on stuff you buy. Why should your hard earned go to a government who squander it on sending a huge chunk of it to help out other countries.

Terrible idea. Massively regressive. Would make us poorer as a society and increase inequality, which is bad for the economy.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 15 Jun 17 2.17pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Who's suggesting that there is no incentive to pay taxes? That's ludicrous. Other countries accept the need to pay taxes and that the returns are in the shape of social security, healthcare, education, public goods. All of these things improve society and make it a better place to live and work. I have no idea why you persist with the idea that tax and public spending are negatives and policies to improve inequality and improve public services are doomed to fail. It doesn't matter how I perceive it. It doesn't matter how you perceive it. What matters is what the effect of the policies are. Is more money raised or less....Is it more effective in the long term or not? I have zero problems with improving infrastructure and public services. What I have a problem with are selling fantasy methods for doing it. I don't think they are honest. People do not pay tax willingly if they can avoid it. For me to have to say this is what is ridiculous. If you want to actually improve tax take you should look to improve profitability as your first port of call. If you are going to attempt to sell any other method then first tell me how you are going to force people to keep their money here and invest? People with money tend to be jealous with it....that's why they have it. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

15 Jun 17 2.17pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I have no idea why you persist with the idea that tax and public spending are negatives and policies to improve inequality and improve public services are doomed to fail.

It doesn't matter how I perceive it. It doesn't matter how you perceive it. What matters is what the effect of the policies are. Is more money raised or less....Is it more effective in the long term or not?

I have zero problems with improving infrastructure and public services. What I have a problem with are selling fantasy methods for doing it. I don't think they are honest.

People do not pay tax willingly if they can avoid it. For me to have to say this is what is ridiculous. If you want to actually improve tax take you should look to improve profitability as your first port of call.

If you are going to attempt to sell any other method then first tell me how you are going to force people to keep their money here and invest? People with money tend to be jealous with it....that's why they have it.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 15 Jun 17 2.21pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle My point was not biased it was factual. The tax base has widened and companies have returned to taxable profits post GFC. The proportion of total tax take made up by CT has fallen. These are facts. Claiming that reduced rates have lead to higher profits is just barmy. Yes, they have widened the tax base but that is only part of why the tax take went up. Increased profits were the main reason. That's what the FT directly said and you state as barmy. State where the financial times was wrong. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

15 Jun 17 2.21pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

My point was not biased it was factual.

The tax base has widened and companies have returned to taxable profits post GFC.

The proportion of total tax take made up by CT has fallen.

These are facts. Claiming that reduced rates have lead to higher profits is just barmy.

Yes, they have widened the tax base but that is only part of why the tax take went up. Increased profits were the main reason. That's what the FT directly said and you state as barmy.

State where the financial times was wrong.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 435 of 450 < 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors