The Election Thread

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

The Election Thread

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 48 of 215 < 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 >

Teddy Eagle 07 Nov 19 8.07pm
Originally posted by Jway89 They should be footing a higher %, based on how much that group is worth. Are you honestly telling me that losing Philip Green will be a major loss? Let's just take Warren Buffett as an example to really nail this point. I personally do not care if he's a billionaire, well I do, but not because of his wealth, but the influence that wealth has. This guy is proud of the fact that he pays 15% in taxes while his secretary pays 30%ish. This is what happens here too. I separate corporation tax from personal tax. I would like to see corporation tax lower, but, if I earn £30k and pay 20%, so left with £24kish, how is it a good idea to allow someone to pay 10% on £5m? If the total amount the top 1% pay is 25% of the tax pot, it's because they have all the money. Who would I get to fill in the gap? Create new entrepreneurs, through tax incentives or funding incentives towards an agreed goal, being climate change, regional employment or whatever. A large proportion of money concentrated in a small group and I'm even not talking about people on £250k a year, leads to corruption, i.e. George Osborne is the Editor of the Evening Standard. A paper, who in the last election had the owner literally urging his readers to vote Conservative. Just look at the last 10 years. The FTSE has hit record highs and Corbyn is a candidate to be Prime Minister. How on Earth do you explain that? We should all be drinking champagne. To be fair to Warren Buffett and Bill Gates they are both leaving the bulk of their estates to the Foundation funds they started.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

07 Nov 19 8.07pm

Originally posted by Jway89

They should be footing a higher %, based on how much that group is worth.
Are you honestly telling me that losing Philip Green will be a major loss?
Let's just take Warren Buffett as an example to really nail this point. I personally do not care if he's a billionaire, well I do, but not because of his wealth, but the influence that wealth has.
This guy is proud of the fact that he pays 15% in taxes while his secretary pays 30%ish.

This is what happens here too. I separate corporation tax from personal tax. I would like to see corporation tax lower, but, if I earn £30k and pay 20%, so left with £24kish, how is it a good idea to allow someone to pay 10% on £5m?

If the total amount the top 1% pay is 25% of the tax pot, it's because they have all the money.

Who would I get to fill in the gap? Create new entrepreneurs, through tax incentives or funding incentives towards an agreed goal, being climate change, regional employment or whatever.

A large proportion of money concentrated in a small group and I'm even not talking about people on £250k a year, leads to corruption, i.e. George Osborne is the Editor of the Evening Standard. A paper, who in the last election had the owner literally urging his readers to vote Conservative.

Just look at the last 10 years. The FTSE has hit record highs and Corbyn is a candidate to be Prime Minister. How on Earth do you explain that? We should all be drinking champagne.

To be fair to Warren Buffett and Bill Gates they are both leaving the bulk of their estates to the Foundation funds they started.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Nov 19 8.07pm
For high taxes to work for the wealthy to work you need to have a society that they really want to live in to the exclusion of others. You need something pretty out there because the whole point about having money is that it buys you the accountants and all the intelligence you need to skirt the system....plus plenty of countries that would love to have you. It just isn't going to work......The kind of people who hold the wealth in the UK are proportionally more the finance sector and greater business sector .....and of course they have multiple options. As for the point that you can just create new opportunities for replacements......What? So that they can give most of their earnings away? I'm not seeing how the 'incentives' are actually 'incentives'. Low tax is an actual incentive for investment.....No one working for another is going to get that rich....but you'll have a job. Take that investment away and you'll have less jobs. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 8.12pm) '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

07 Nov 19 8.07pm

For high taxes to work for the wealthy to work you need to have a society that they really want to live in to the exclusion of others.

You need something pretty out there because the whole point about having money is that it buys you the accountants and all the intelligence you need to skirt the system....plus plenty of countries that would love to have you.

It just isn't going to work......The kind of people who hold the wealth in the UK are proportionally more the finance sector and greater business sector .....and of course they have multiple options.

As for the point that you can just create new opportunities for replacements......What? So that they can give most of their earnings away? I'm not seeing how the 'incentives' are actually 'incentives'.

Low tax is an actual incentive for investment.....No one working for another is going to get that rich....but you'll have a job. Take that investment away and you'll have less jobs.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 8.12pm)

'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

Deleted11 07 Nov 19 8.33pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays For high taxes to work for the wealthy to work you need to have a society that they really want to live in to the exclusion of others. You need something pretty out there because the whole point about having money is that it buys you the accountants and all the intelligence you need to skirt the system....plus plenty of countries that would love to have you. It just isn't going to work......The kind of people who hold the wealth in the UK are proportionally more the finance sector and greater business sector .....and of course they have multiple options. As for the point that you can just create new opportunities for replacements......What? So that they can give most of their earnings away? I'm not seeing how the 'incentives' are actually 'incentives'. Low tax is an actual incentive for investment.....No one working for another is going to get that rich....but you'll have a job. Take that investment away and you'll have less jobs. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 8.12pm) I don't see this as being controversial. Ok, so under Blair the economy grew by about £400b, pretty much the same as under Thatcher and Cameron, with differing tax regimes. The 1970s as a whole grew by about £200b, even with all the problems in that period. What the 70s shows is that you cannot give one group full control, which what happened with the unions, and other factors. Likewise, you cannot deify and give the rich everything they want, because at some point, Corbyn is going to look like a very good option. So, I'm not saying we should hate the rich, we all want to be rich, what I'm saying is that if the society we all want, which is what really should be the base of a referendum, is a society where we all contribute to Police, the Army, Social Wellbeing, and have opportunities to increase our wealth, there's going to have to be a fundamental change.
Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 07 Nov 19 8.33pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

For high taxes to work for the wealthy to work you need to have a society that they really want to live in to the exclusion of others.

It just isn't going to work......The kind of people who hold the wealth in the UK are proportionally more the finance sector and greater business sector .....and of course they have multiple options.

Low tax is an actual incentive for investment.....No one working for another is going to get that rich....but you'll have a job. Take that investment away and you'll have less jobs.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 8.12pm)

I don't see this as being controversial. Ok, so under Blair the economy grew by about £400b, pretty much the same as under Thatcher and Cameron, with differing tax regimes.
The 1970s as a whole grew by about £200b, even with all the problems in that period. What the 70s shows is that you cannot give one group full control, which what happened with the unions, and other factors. Likewise, you cannot deify and give the rich everything they want, because at some point, Corbyn is going to look like a very good option.

So, I'm not saying we should hate the rich, we all want to be rich, what I'm saying is that if the society we all want, which is what really should be the base of a referendum, is a society where we all contribute to Police, the Army, Social Wellbeing, and have opportunities to increase our wealth, there's going to have to be a fundamental change.

Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 07 Nov 19 8.46pm
Originally posted by cryrst 10% of 5m in one year is more than your example will pay in a lifetime. How much will they get back for there 500000 per year. Exactly the same as the 6 k a year. Tax the rich and push them out. Very sensible. Politics of envy. The only winners will be the feckless and work shy purely for votes. Exactly. Thank you It's not envy, it is what it is. If you start to capitalise the globe, capital will go to the highest returns, right? So, jobs in England are lost to China. What to we do to replace those jobs? Retail? High street jobs are dying, so you've basically fecked 90% of your population, but, don't worry a billionaire will come once we've gutted all our rights to take advantage of the returns. The problem here is that, you are now talking about maybe 10,000 people on the planet being able to do that.
Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 07 Nov 19 8.46pm

Originally posted by cryrst

10% of 5m in one year is more than your example will pay in a lifetime.
How much will they get back for there 500000 per year.
Exactly the same as the 6 k a year.
Tax the rich and push them out.
Very sensible.
Politics of envy.
The only winners will be the feckless and work shy purely for votes.

Exactly. Thank you
It's not envy, it is what it is. If you start to capitalise the globe, capital will go to the highest returns, right? So, jobs in England are lost to China. What to we do to replace those jobs? Retail? High street jobs are dying, so you've basically fecked 90% of your population, but, don't worry a billionaire will come once we've gutted all our rights to take advantage of the returns. The problem here is that, you are now talking about maybe 10,000 people on the planet being able to do that.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Nov 19 9.04pm
Originally posted by Jway89 I don't see this as being controversial. Ok, so under Blair the economy grew by about £400b, pretty much the same as under Thatcher and Cameron, with differing tax regimes. The 1970s as a whole grew by about £200b, even with all the problems in that period. What the 70s shows is that you cannot give one group full control, which what happened with the unions, and other factors. Likewise, you cannot deify and give the rich everything they want, because at some point, Corbyn is going to look like a very good option. So, I'm not saying we should hate the rich, we all want to be rich, what I'm saying is that if the society we all want, which is what really should be the base of a referendum, is a society where we all contribute to Police, the Army, Social Wellbeing, and have opportunities to increase our wealth, there's going to have to be a fundamental change. The seventies had high tax rates and Thatcher and those since didn't....that's one of the factors as well. I agree with your sentiment.....I just don't see how it works. As for Corbyn looking attractive. I get that....socialists will eventually get in anyway simply due to demographical change. Still, that's not going to happen this time around. But when they do the same thing will happen as it always does. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 9.05pm) '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

07 Nov 19 9.04pm

Originally posted by Jway89

The seventies had high tax rates and Thatcher and those since didn't....that's one of the factors as well.

I agree with your sentiment.....I just don't see how it works.

As for Corbyn looking attractive. I get that....socialists will eventually get in anyway simply due to demographical change.

Still, that's not going to happen this time around.

But when they do the same thing will happen as it always does.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 9.05pm)

'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

Deleted11 07 Nov 19 9.21pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays The seventies had high tax rates and Thatcher and those since didn't....that's one of the factors as well. I agree with your sentiment.....I just don't see how it works. As for Corbyn looking attractive. I get that....socialists will eventually get in anyway simply due to demographical change. Still, that's not going to happen this time around. But when they do the same thing will happen as it always does. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 9.05pm) I know and that's why i'm indifferent to any party. But, the interest rates under the Tories was through the roof in the 80s and 90s, so great for savers and people who bought their homes at the right time, but should've been crap for business, so why such a rise? I'll need to look into worldwide tax and interest rates. I assume, they'll be similar. But, zero self criticism on all sides is a problem. Politics, the new religion.
Alert a moderator to this post

Deleted11 07 Nov 19 9.21pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The seventies had high tax rates and Thatcher and those since didn't....that's one of the factors as well.

I agree with your sentiment.....I just don't see how it works.

As for Corbyn looking attractive. I get that....socialists will eventually get in anyway simply due to demographical change.

Still, that's not going to happen this time around.

But when they do the same thing will happen as it always does.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 9.05pm)

I know and that's why i'm indifferent to any party.

But, the interest rates under the Tories was through the roof in the 80s and 90s, so great for savers and people who bought their homes at the right time, but should've been crap for business, so why such a rise?
I'll need to look into worldwide tax and interest rates. I assume, they'll be similar.

But, zero self criticism on all sides is a problem. Politics, the new religion.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Nov 19 9.29pm
Originally posted by Jway89 I know and that's why i'm indifferent to any party. But, the interest rates under the Tories was through the roof in the 80s and 90s, so great for savers and people who bought their homes at the right time, but should've been crap for business, so why such a rise? I'll need to look into worldwide tax and interest rates. I assume, they'll be similar. But, zero self criticism on all sides is a problem. Politics, the new religion. Yep, reasonable points. I keep meaning to look at economics more deeply and read a few books.....but that enthusiasm for new learning has dimmed a bit. Since I've reached fifty I seem to be just as interested in the thermal effectiveness of slippers as I do anything else. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 9.31pm) '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

07 Nov 19 9.29pm

Originally posted by Jway89

I know and that's why i'm indifferent to any party.

But, zero self criticism on all sides is a problem. Politics, the new religion.

Yep, reasonable points.

I keep meaning to look at economics more deeply and read a few books.....but that enthusiasm for new learning has dimmed a bit.

Since I've reached fifty I seem to be just as interested in the thermal effectiveness of slippers as I do anything else.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 9.31pm)

'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

dannyboy1978 08 Nov 19 7.20am
Bunch of liars, [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyboy1978

08 Nov 19 7.20am

Bunch of liars,
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 08 Nov 19 7.33am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle To be fair to Warren Buffett and Bill Gates they are both leaving the bulk of their estates to the Foundation funds they started. He's ignoring the fact that tax on capital gains and dividends are lower than top slice income tax - also funding to their foundations are deductible.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 08 Nov 19 7.33am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

To be fair to Warren Buffett and Bill Gates they are both leaving the bulk of their estates to the Foundation funds they started.

He's ignoring the fact that tax on capital gains and dividends are lower than top slice income tax - also funding to their foundations are deductible.

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 08 Nov 19 9.01am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays The seventies had high tax rates and Thatcher and those since didn't....that's one of the factors as well. I agree with your sentiment.....I just don't see how it works. As for Corbyn looking attractive. I get that....socialists will eventually get in anyway simply due to demographical change. Still, that's not going to happen this time around. But when they do the same thing will happen as it always does. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 9.05pm) The latest calculus published today indicates a healthy Conservative win (96 seat majority), the one the other day indicated a 100 seat majority.I will be very surprised if a Conservative victory is on this scale. Polls have been wrong before, we have a volatile electorate, remainer pacts, Brexit party etc etc and there is still 5 weeks of campaiging left.I'm taking nothing for granted and getting carried away.Perhaps it's just my customary pessimism, demonstrated on HOL many times in respect of our team's prospects ! Edited by Willo (08 Nov 2019 9.02am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 08 Nov 19 9.01am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The seventies had high tax rates and Thatcher and those since didn't....that's one of the factors as well.

I agree with your sentiment.....I just don't see how it works.

As for Corbyn looking attractive. I get that....socialists will eventually get in anyway simply due to demographical change.

Still, that's not going to happen this time around.

But when they do the same thing will happen as it always does.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Nov 2019 9.05pm)

The latest calculus published today indicates a healthy Conservative win (96 seat majority), the one the other day indicated a 100 seat majority.I will be very surprised if a Conservative victory is on this scale.

Polls have been wrong before, we have a volatile electorate, remainer pacts, Brexit party etc etc and there is still 5 weeks of campaiging left.I'm taking nothing for granted and getting carried away.Perhaps it's just my customary pessimism, demonstrated on HOL many times in respect of our team's prospects !

Edited by Willo (08 Nov 2019 9.02am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 08 Nov 19 9.06am
Originally posted by Willo The latest calculus published today indicates a healthy Conservative win (96 seat majority), the one the other day indicated a 100 seat majority.I will be very surprised if a Conservative victory is on this scale. Polls have been wrong before, we have a volatile electorate, remainer pacts, Brexit party etc etc and there is still 5 weeks of campaiging left.I'm taking nothing for granted and getting carried away.Perhaps it's just my customary pessimism, demonstrated on HOL many times in respect of our team's prospects ! Edited by Willo (08 Nov 2019 9.02am) I see at least a thirty or forty seat majority mainly built on the 'Johnson' affect and irritation over parliament. It'll be quite an exciting campaigning season initially.....but by the end of it we'll all be sick of it. Wrap up warm for those doorstops. '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

08 Nov 19 9.06am

Originally posted by Willo

Edited by Willo (08 Nov 2019 9.02am)

I see at least a thirty or forty seat majority mainly built on the 'Johnson' affect and irritation over parliament.

It'll be quite an exciting campaigning season initially.....but by the end of it we'll all be sick of it.

Wrap up warm for those doorstops.

'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

Badger11 Beckenham 08 Nov 19 9.11am
Where are we? So both Labour and Tories have had a rocky start with resignations galore and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few more. As we know on the HOL social media can be an unforgiving place. Plenty has been made of those MPs who have chosen not to stand again as the "party" has moved away from them. That's one way of looking at it another way is that they stood on an election manifesto which they promptly betrayed and realised that they wouldn't be elected again. I think the Tories and Labour are re-aligning and I don't think that's a bad thing. The Tories will be more of a pro Brexit party pro Thatcher and Labour will reflect Corbyn's view. If you look at the history of the political parties this is not an uncommon thing. Margaret Thatcher moved the Tories to the right and Tony Blair did the same for Labour. Labour are now reverting back to the old seventies party whilst the Tory leadership now reflects its core voter which has never really budged. I think this is re-alignment of both parties is good because it means that the voters now know what type of party they are voting for. As for those who bemoan that the Tories have lurched to the right or that Labour have lurched to the left the answer is simple vote for another party. If you still don't like what's on offer form your own party. In the last 40 years I think both Labour and Tory governments have been guilty of deceiving the public by following policies that did not reflect their core voter base. A certain person on here might be happy that MPs vote with their conscience but I suspect that most of us want to vote for an MP that supports their electoral manifesto and doesn't do the dirty the minute they get their snout in the trough. I will never vote Labour but if Corbyn gets into power then the voters can't complain they didn't know when he starts to implement his hard left policies. And if you are a Corbyn supporter you will be happy that he is not a Tony Blair who was really "Tory light". Having a clear choice between parties is not a bad thing. Still all to play for. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 08 Nov 19 9.11am

Where are we?

So both Labour and Tories have had a rocky start with resignations galore and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few more. As we know on the HOL social media can be an unforgiving place.

Plenty has been made of those MPs who have chosen not to stand again as the "party" has moved away from them. That's one way of looking at it another way is that they stood on an election manifesto which they promptly betrayed and realised that they wouldn't be elected again.

I think the Tories and Labour are re-aligning and I don't think that's a bad thing. The Tories will be more of a pro Brexit party pro Thatcher and Labour will reflect Corbyn's view.

If you look at the history of the political parties this is not an uncommon thing. Margaret Thatcher moved the Tories to the right and Tony Blair did the same for Labour. Labour are now reverting back to the old seventies party whilst the Tory leadership now reflects its core voter which has never really budged.

I think this is re-alignment of both parties is good because it means that the voters now know what type of party they are voting for.

As for those who bemoan that the Tories have lurched to the right or that Labour have lurched to the left the answer is simple vote for another party. If you still don't like what's on offer form your own party.

In the last 40 years I think both Labour and Tory governments have been guilty of deceiving the public by following policies that did not reflect their core voter base.

A certain person on here might be happy that MPs vote with their conscience but I suspect that most of us want to vote for an MP that supports their electoral manifesto and doesn't do the dirty the minute they get their snout in the trough.

I will never vote Labour but if Corbyn gets into power then the voters can't complain they didn't know when he starts to implement his hard left policies. And if you are a Corbyn supporter you will be happy that he is not a Tony Blair who was really "Tory light".

Having a clear choice between parties is not a bad thing.

Still all to play for.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 48 of 215 < 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Election Thread

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors