Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Anyone who wnats the rights of Trade Unions restricted clearly isn't old enough to remember how bad it was when Unions had no rights.
See, I can play that game too.
Last edited by a moderator:
The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
Anyone who wnats the rights of Trade Unions restricted clearly isn't old enough to remember how bad it was when Unions had no rights.
See, I can play that game too.
No, I have a problem with vague rubbish being presented as a solution.
This is a prime example.
Bit of a red herring that one. Starving any infrastructure of cash is going to cause major issues. British Rail was terrible towards the end because it was given no funding, the fact it was publically owned at the time wasn't really relevant.
If the aim of privatisation was to reduce taxpayer subsidies to rail then it utterly failed.
Agreed on the lack of investment, but there's a delicious irony in the notion of stopping the practice of taking money from everyone via their electricity bills, and giving it to a combination of private sector companies in renewables, and back to those affluent enough to afford thousands, or £10k plus, of solar panels in the form of a couple of decades of FIT payments, and then calling it a "Tory assault".
Oh by the way, when you load up energy bills with green taxes, it's a great way to clobber the least well off. The wealthy barely notice it, and the poor struggle even harder. It's damn near the definition of a regressive tax.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Electricity and gas tariffs should be discounted as an inverse function of your tax rate on the first 50% of usage.
I.e. if you don't earn enough to pay income tax, you get a 40% discount, if you pay 20% tax, you get a 20% discount, if you pay 40%, you get no discount.
There are obvious issues around marginal tax rates and household vs individual tax liabilities that would need investigating.
And of course, this requires a nationalised utilities industry and products charged at a rate they actually cost to produce and deliver, not at a rate that makes the shareholders a profit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coming from you that is just hilarious.
Great soundbites, but again, isn't at all answering the question. It is a diversion. "Look at the food banks!" isn't an answer to "How are you going to pay for nationalising public transport?".
Like the nhs...
Taxes on the rich and actually stamping down on the billions of pounds lost to off shore accounts due to tax fiddles...
It can be done...but not under Tory conservatism ideology .
the top 1% are already paying a quarter of the bill with the top 10% paying nearly 50% of it
how much more unfair do you want to make it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,612
- Location
- La France
I wasn't alive in the 1920s - 1930s, so you've got me there.
the top 1% are already paying a quarter of the bill with the top 10% paying nearly 50% of it
how much more unfair do you want to make it?
I want the rich to foot the bill instead of the poor. The wealth divide in this country is abhorrent but not quite as abhorrent as those people who try and deny it.
top 50% paying 90% of the total isn't footing the bill?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
the top 1% are already paying a quarter of the bill with the top 10% paying nearly 50% of it
how much more unfair do you want to make it?
Remove the bottom 25% from tax, redistrubute the gap to the remainder, top weighted. And actually invest in the HMRC to collect owed/avided tax.
Negative income tax would be a good start.
Last edited by a moderator:
No. No where near adequate. Millions of people on welfare and resorting to food banks just to keep their stomachs full. Screw the rich, make them pay more, they can afford it. Viva La Socialism !
I don't. Whats the point in disincentivising people further to work hard and study? I'm glad my 1 vote counteracts yours.
I don't. Whats the point in disincentivising people further to work hard and study? I'm glad my 1 vote counteracts yours.
I'm glad your vote is negated by mine.
the top 1% are already paying a quarter of the bill with the top 10% paying nearly 50% of it
how much more unfair do you want to make it?
That's why rich people benefit from reducing income inequality - they'll "foot" less of the bill if total income is shared out more equally.
In my ideal world, a man could live modestly on a modest income, in a modest house, and not struggle all the time to make ends meet. He might not have every material possession known to man, but he wouldn't be living in debt or fear for the future.I don't. Whats the point in disincentivising people further to work hard and study? I'm glad my 1 vote counteracts yours.
That man could be a cleaner, a road sweeper, or a factory worker. All jobs that need doing.
I don't believe that you need to punish those at the bottom to incentivise study and hard work. Nor do I believe that low-earners don't work hard.
In the real world, a man on a modest income gives most of his money to those better off than he is. Ie, his landlord, etc.
And then of course you have the ridiculous situation where some people can choose to not work, but instead have a few kids, and the state will pay for everything.
You have to accept that there is a lot wrong with our society at both ends. The massive wealth gap between rich and poor, and the stupidity of making benefits more attractive than work for a whole generation of chavs. No idea why we lurch from one extreme to the other.
but to share it out you'll take it from them first?