I was struggling to think of an example (I'm not against retaining a deterrent). Its more the contradiction between not being able to employ police officers against a present and real threat to life, but we can to a future possible threat.

It wasn't specifically about Trident

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

I'd rather see rises across the board, on income tax, and dividends, rather than a tax aimed at just the top 1%. Its not because I love the top 1%, but that all of society should contribute, not just 'the people who don't vote for you'.

The cost of society should be born by its citizens as a whole, and its businesses. Companies that attempt to escape tax revenue, should be refused access to UK Markets. And no should UK arms of companies by offsetting losses made outside the UK by against UK Tax.

The system has to be fair(ish) if its to work, and that means everyone has to be contributing equally - All citizens, as one.

If necessary, I'd rather see higher levies on things like inheritance (widows and spouse excepted), capital gains and duties rather than targeting that specifically targets peoples income bracket.

It might really suck to pay 40% inheritance taxes for your parents house, or savings - but it isn't you who worked for it after all. Its still kind of 'free money'.

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

Correlation and causation are two different things. If you look at the reasons for increased tax take it's very hard to argue that decreasing the rate lead to increased tax revenues. There are other reasons for increased profitability. If anything you could argue that, if returns are measured after tax, then decreasing the rate allows lower effort and productivity to achieve the same targets. In reality most businesses look at metrics such as operating cash flows and EBITDA as measures of performance and benchmarking. The incentives to maximise profits don't fall away at the kind of relatively low rates we're debating. True if you get back up to 40-50% CT then the incentives would wear thin but not at 26%.

The best way to improve profitability is to look at improving productivity (reducing inequality helps a lot with this), providing a healthy, motivated and well educated workforce and improving national infrastructure (investment) such as transport, roads and 5G/broadband. Paying a few extra % in CT for companies is well worth it for such a return.

No it means that you keep more of what you earn and spend it accordingly on White goods,holidays, food & drink etc where you pay a higher VAT rate.

Pro USA & Israel

None of that happens H, we are only talking about them making a fair contribution to society.

Paying 3% more on an income of 80,000 is hardly going to bother you.

But that's not how taxation works. How tax works is that the rich people who have it, avoid paying as much as they can, and vote for political parties who keep reducing the amount of tax and providing tax shelter options for those who have it, whilst those who don't get f**ked.

This occurs so frequently, that people exist who entirely make their careers out of ensuring people with money pay as little tax as possible. Whilst oddly, at the other end of the scale, we have an entire infrastructure in place to ensure that those with a little of the wealth, have as little control over their taxation as possible.

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