They moan about the new mummt tax

[anything I don't mind]

Increasing minimum wage will increase unemployment. Employers will simply take on less staff if they are forced to pay more. Increasing minimum wage is not going to solve anything.

Labour always make the claim that the rich are getting tax breaks but the poor get the cuts. This is a realy class based focus of their mentality. The rich contribute the most in taxes, in percentage and real teams already. The rich also have more chance of investing money in to the country and making purchases that will lead to increases in productivity in the economy and more jobs etc. Giving a poor person extra money might alleviate that individuals personal circumstances but it won't help to alleviate a wider economic problem of poverty and unemployment.

I am not against taxing the rich specifically but rather against tax in general. I don't think lack of revenue is the governments problem. I think the problem is spending or allocation of that revenue. But with the way the state works it is practically difficult to change structure or spending of the state, not only because it is very inefficient and lacks incentive to do so but also because the resistance from the staff and their unions and the leftist politicians is so great that it ends up putting the politicians in power, who are trying to solve a government budget crisis that is affecting nearly every country in the world, out of power.

Usually the left will claim that any changes to the government structure or spending allocation is some how malicious, like the conservatives want to negatively affect the disabled and single moms on purpose. You can see this how the BBC try and remind the public that the conservatives are like thatcher and out to get the poor but out to help the rich. I realy don't think that is the motive behind the conservatives actions. Firstly it would be political suicide and they know that, so why do it? Because they want to fix the budget but every time they try to make a change they get labelled as i described.

It wouldn't be so bad if the leftist had a better plan to replace it with, but they don't, the plan is to spend more money, get more debt and that is it. But I would be the first to point out that they could cut many other sectors before cutting money from a single mom. Like military for example. Recently they talked about cutting foreign assistance and instead of saying that they will plow it all back in to infrastructure projects or something like that, they said, the military can spend it instead.

 

[estebanrey]

The rich also have more chance of investing money in to the country and making purchases that will lead to increases in productivity in the economy and more jobs etc.

I disagree with this, almost 100% of a poor persons income is reinvested back into the UK, whereas a rich person is far more likely to invest it abroad.

 

[MrMoonX]

Increasing minimum wage will increase unemployment. Employers will simply take on less staff if they are forced to pay more. Increasing minimum wage is not going to solve anything.

Labour always make the claim that the rich are getting tax breaks but the poor get the cuts. This is a realy class based focus of their mentality. The rich contribute the most in taxes, in percentage and real teams already. The rich also have more chance of investing money in to the country and making purchases that will lead to increases in productivity in the economy and more jobs etc. Giving a poor person extra money might alleviate that individuals personal circumstances but it won't help to alleviate a wider economic problem of poverty and unemployment.

I am not against taxing the rich specifically but rather against tax in general. I don't think lack of revenue is the governments problem. I think the problem is spending or allocation of that revenue. But with the way the state works it is practically difficult to change structure or spending of the state, not only because it is very inefficient and lacks incentive to do so but also because the resistance from the staff and their unions and the leftist politicians is so great that it ends up putting the politicians in power, who are trying to solve a government budget crisis that is affecting nearly every country in the world, out of power.

Usually the left will claim that any changes to the government structure or spending allocation is some how malicious, like the conservatives want to negatively affect the disabled and single moms on purpose. You can see this how the BBC try and remind the public that the conservatives are like thatcher and out to get the poor but out to help the rich. I realy don't think that is the motive behind the conservatives actions. Firstly it would be political suicide and they know that, so why do it? Because they want to fix the budget but every time they try to make a change they get labelled as i described.

It wouldn't be so bad if the leftist had a better plan to replace it with, but they don't, the plan is to spend more money, get more debt and that is it. But I would be the first to point out that they could cut many other sectors before cutting money from a single mom. Like military for example. Recently they talked about cutting foreign assistance and instead of saying that they will plow it all back in to infrastructure projects or something like that, they said, the military can spend it instead.

Just wrong, the people who pay the most tax are the middle & low earners because they cannot avoid it or have the means to avoid it. The very rich dont invest their money in the UK they squirrel it in accounts through companies based off shore. Just look at what Jimmy Carr, Rooney, etc. do with their income to minimise their taxes, the average worker on PAYE cannot do this.

The only reason the tories do anything is to appease their rich party backers, they hate the welfare state and NHS, because it puts rich and poor on an equal and was a construction of a left labour government, labour in the 70s appeased the Trade unions, because that's where their party funding came from. The political system as a whole is corrupt and is based solely on who has the money, gets the bigger say.

The issue with the economy is that capitalist greed is a broken system

 

[Freakbro]

Increasing minimum wage will increase unemployment. Employers will simply take on less staff if they are forced to pay more. Increasing minimum wage is not going to solve anything.

Absolute rubbish, that's the same increase in unemployment you guys said would happen if the min wage was first brought in? Oh wait, it didn't happen.

The rich contribute the most in taxes

Well, yea.....that's because they have the most income and money....by a long long way

in percentage (terms)

As shown in the moon landings and 9/11 thread, you really do live in a fantasy world...

and real teams already.

Well, yea..because they have the most income and money...

The rich also have more chance of investing money in to the country and making purchases that will lead to increases in productivity in the economy and more jobs etc.

I think the trickle down economy has well and truly been shown as fallacious..

Giving a poor person extra money might alleviate that individuals personal circumstances but it won't help to alleviate a wider economic problem of poverty and unemployment.

Err no, giving rich people more money means it just stagnates, unspent, giving it to poor people generally means it gets spent on goods and services, which are beneficial to the economy

I am not against taxing the rich specifically but rather against tax in general. I don't think lack of revenue is the governments problem. I think the problem is spending or allocation of that revenue. But with the way the state works it is practically difficult to change structure or spending of the state, not only because it is very inefficient and lacks incentive to do so but also because the resistance from the staff and their unions and the leftist politicians is so great that it ends up putting the politicians in power, who are trying to solve a government budget crisis that is affecting nearly every country in the world, out of power.

Such a cliche and inaccurate view of how unions should work. Look at Germany, who have a powerful union base, which works with business, not against, to provide the best for the companies and the workers. It isn't all about militancy and strikes you know...but a fair wage for a skilled workforce.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I disagree with this, almost 100% of a poor persons income is reinvested back into the UK, whereas a rich person is far more likely to invest it abroad.

Spending and investment are not the same thing. I hear your point but the type of investment I am talking about is actual investment. Be it starting a business or investing in a business by buying stock etc. This is the sort of activity that generates wealth. Going down to local shop and buying some cider and some iceland meals is not the type of investment i was referring to. But I do agree that a lot of rich people sit on their money and take it out the country.

Just wrong, the people who pay the most tax are the middle & low earners because they cannot avoid it or have the means to avoid it. The very rich dont invest their money in the UK they squirrel it in accounts through companies based off shore. Just look at what Jimmy Carr, Rooney, etc. do with their income to minimise their taxes, the average worker on PAYE cannot do this.

The only reason the tories do anything is to appease their rich party backers, they hate the welfare state and NHS, because it puts rich and poor on an equal and was a construction of a left labour government, labour in the 70s appeased the Trade unions, because that's where their party funding came from. The political system as a whole is corrupt and is based solely on who has the money, who the bigger say.

Technically there is nothing stopping middle class earners from creating a company in a tax haven and getting paid through their company. But they are less likely to do it because they can't afford accountants and usually their employer won't want to deal with a company but rather an employee. Even though the rich find all these ways to avoid tax they still pay more tax in real terms and usually they pay more percentage wise than the middle class when you look deeper in to it.

Peter schiff makes a fair point about how the government taxes rich people multiple times. I definitely agree that corporations avoid a lot of taxes. But when you compare the top employees of corporations (including board members and similar) they often pay a higher percentage than the middle earners and of course a much much high contribution in real terms.

There is also a lot of negative consequences that are associated with increasing taxes on the rich, the reason why the reduce taxes is to try and encourage businesses to come to the country. Look at Ireland with a low corporation tax or capital gains tax, all sorts of international companies chose Ireland as their euro base and this creates jobs and economic activity as i described.


I realy don't think they reduce taxes to help their corporate backers. While I am the first to point out the problem of government helping out corporations, in the many different ways that they can be corrupt. I do however think this is a problem of government and not specific to the conservative party. You realy expect people to believe that the labour government never gave corporations any subsidy or tax breaks or similar favors? I also don't think they hate the nhs and welfare state because they like the class divide, that is ridiculous. Firstly the nhs and welfare state does not even come close to putting the poor on the same level as the rich. I think they go after the welfare state and nhs because it is a large chunk of the spending pie and a good candidate for restructuring and reallocation of spending. I agree that government is corrupt, if it is not the trade unions it is the corporations. But i think it is far easier for the government to get away with appeasing trade unions than corporations. Although the amount of tax some corporations pay is beyond a joke. Some even end up paying less tax than they earn through subsidy, this is worse in the usa.

But the point is that the rich pay a lot of tax and the problem of the government is not a revenue problem, they take in £800 billion per year, that is not enough?

 

[MrMoonX]

Peter Schiff an ex-banker, now a CEO and republican - yeah seems like an unbiased source to talk about fair taxation

 

[estebanrey]

Spending and investment are not the same thing.

I never said they were (although investment is a form of spending).

I hear your point but the type of investment I am talking about is actual investment. Be it starting a business or investing in a business by buying stock etc.

Which are two ways of helping to boost an economy, another is more people (i.e the general population) spending more on goods and services.

Starting a business and investing in stocks would be pointless without customers or people able to spend on your goods/services.

It nice investing is cool parts for your bike, but what's the point if there's no one to ride it?

This is the sort of activity that generates wealth.

Only for the business owners. Well not 'only for' but again you can't just look at one part of the economic system (the people who invest in business) and ignore the major other fundamental part (a population of people to buy stuff from those businesses).

The problem with the trickle down ideology you advocate it it (wrong IMO) assumes money in an economy only moves one way, down from the richest to the poorest but an economy is cyclical. But moves upward a lot faster than it does downward.

When a rich person starts a business, he creates jobs which moves money down the chain in chain in wages, but those wages are ultimately provided by the rest of society via buying products/services from that business in which case the money moves up the chain. So ultimately the chain starts at the bottom with customers buying products, a profit is taken from that then the rest os given back to the staff in wages who in turn use that to buy products and services again and so it goes on.

Now the person at the top is taking a part of that cash flow out each time as profit, the person at the bottom will be having nothing left at the end of the month after essentials and as you go up in the chain in terms if pay the more each person gets to keep as profit (or ability to spend on luxuries on an individual personal basis).

 

[anything I don't mind]

Absolute rubbish, that's the same increase in unemployment you guys said would happen if the min wage was first brought in? Oh wait, it didn't happen.



Well, yea.....that's because they have the most income and money....by a long long way



As shown in the moon landings and 9/11 thread, you really do live in a fantasy world...



Well, yea..because they have the most income and money...



I think the trickle down economy has well and truly been shown as fallacious..



Err no, giving rich people more money means it just stagnates, unspent, giving it to poor people generally means it gets spent on goods and services, which are beneficial to the economy



Such a cliche and inaccurate view of how unions should work. Look at Germany, who have a powerful union base, which works with business, not against, to provide the best for the companies and the workers. It isn't all about militancy and strikes you know...but a fair wage for a skilled workforce.

The trickle down economy? Oh wait, so you are making the claim that investment in productive capacity does not contribute to increases in general prosperity? Real prosperity instead comes from the government extracting wealth from everyone else in order to redistribute it.

Spending is all we need then? we should all just rack up debt and spend or maybe the government should just hand out a £100k to each person in the country, so that they can spend it.

I am not very familiar with germany's unions. I was under the impression that it was productive economic activity that has lead to germany's success. I am not against unions but I would not join one and I don't like the idea of forcing staff that don't want to be in the union to not be able to get the same benefits as union staff. Maybe that is what the person would have received even without the union. Maybe if it was not for the union the person would be able to negotiate a better deal. In my opinion if a company needs a union then there is an ethos problem at the company. Look at google or these types of companies, you think they will need a union? I don't think unions contribute to solving this problem very much. But sure in some types of companies i can see how a union could help to improve circumstances, like large factories and similar. But I would much prefer to depend on the market than force my employer through strike action.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I never said they were (although investment is a form of spending).



Which are two ways of helping to boost an economy, another is more people (i.e the general population) spending more on goods and services.

Starting a business and investing in stocks would be pointless without customers or people able to spend on your goods/services.

It nice investing is cool parts for your bike, but what's the point if there's no one to ride it?



Only for the business owners. Well not 'only for' but again you can't just look at one part of the economic system (the people who invest in business) and ignore the major other fundamental part (a population of people to buy stuff from those businesses).

Sure spending can boost an economy but the point is long term prosperity. If all we need to do is spend, then why doesn't the government just take on loads of debt. There is also rarely a shortage of demand for goods and services. People want to spend money and want money etc. First we need the good and services, there will always be a demand for the good and services. Because if there is no economic demand then there will be no goods and services to meet that demand. This is not a chicken and egg like paradox, it is quite clear that we need a microwave to exist before people can purchase it. Investment comes before consumer spending.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

giving tax breaks to millionaires

But of course even Labour (when they synically introduced a tax just before an election they were likely to lose) said that the tax HAD to be temporary since it would only lead to avoidance if kept that high.

Plus of course its a factually incorrect statement, they have given a tax reduction to those EARNING not those who could be millionaires on paper but not actually earning high amounts.

 

[TommyV]

cheaper option is to not get ya bird up the chuff, simples