There is reasonable evidence that this won't happen. People's motivations don't really work like that. What may happen is that people who were previously working longer hours may cut back since they no longer need to work so long.
Poll: General election voting intentions poll
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
There is reasonable evidence that this won't happen. People's motivations don't really work like that. What may happen is that people who were previously working longer hours may cut back since they no longer need to work so long.
Would I support it? No, but I wouldn't argue it was an abuse of rights. I wouldn't support it because of the economics, but that is a separate argument.
The phrase is property rights, and they are currently covered but with exemptions. Of course, the rights where there is most to gain from abusing others are the ones that people rally hardest against protecting. It doesn't make it any less a right.
Neither wealth nor income are indicators of ability to pay. If you want to tax ability to pay, a properly targeted sales tax aimed at luxuries is the way forward as that targets disposable income. Likewise taxation on multiple homes and the like.
To define ability to pay based on numbers plucked out of the air, or taken as an assessment of what the state thinks you need is entirely arbitrary.
So what flat rate would you support?.
If it's 20% for economic reasons then it sounds very convenient that this 'equality based stance on taxation' results in a greater share of the wealth for those already enriched & less for those at the bottom.
You mean like a mansion tax?, or do you not count a mansion as a luxury (obviously taking into account variance of house prices across the UK, it would have to compare again an average within a region to be done correctly).
I'd also expect that this 'sales tax' you would propose as an alternative would be set at such a level the net gain from the flat tax reduction out-scales the increase here. Except for of course when the poorest in society buy anything which can be considered a 'luxury' (the term is vague).
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm noticing a trend in the line of reasoning presented.
Last edited:
Dolph's already said that living in the area you want is a luxury that the state need not support so I don't see why it should be taken into consideration when viewing mansions: they can always move to another part of the country where they can have their very big house without paying so much for it.
20% is almost certainly too low, current rates of tax are around 30% when NI is taken in account. Somewhere around 30-35% would be reasonable in my mind.
The mansion tax isn't a tax on the purchase of luxuries, that would be stamp duty in the housing market. The mansion tax is an asset tax, not a purchase tax.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
I have to laugh at the current Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkin episodes. Both currently suspended pending investigations.
Somehow labour are suggesting that one is more serious than the other, because.....
Which is inherently the issue. Its either wrong or not. If it is wrong, then there is no because. I hate when they try to make political points on wrongdoing, when no matter what way you look at it, it is wrongdoing. (yet to be proven)
Ed's answer is that no one should have a second job or an income from a source outside of being an MP. Retarded short sighted view. Lets say someone runs a successful business, they therefore can't go into politics without giving up a previously built-up or afforded business.
I really think that if someone wishes to be an MP, then it is up to their constituents to decide if they want to elect someone who has other jobs, first through the parliamentary party selection, and then at the polls. Would someone being a millionaire stop me voting for them? No. Them being a tool would. I can't make a the decision based directly upon what someone owns or is worth, it would be based around what they plan to do, what their policies are, and how well they dedicated themselves to their job.
Labour: Suggesting policy changes, after disasters happen, but daring not to think of anything proactive or new (as long as the right buzz words are included) (and then we might take back the policy a week later when we realise it can't be funded- tuition fees)
Somehow labour are suggesting that one is more serious than the other, because.....
Which is inherently the issue. Its either wrong or not. If it is wrong, then there is no because. I hate when they try to make political points on wrongdoing, when no matter what way you look at it, it is wrongdoing. (yet to be proven)
Ed's answer is that no one should have a second job or an income from a source outside of being an MP. Retarded short sighted view. Lets say someone runs a successful business, they therefore can't go into politics without giving up a previously built-up or afforded business.
I really think that if someone wishes to be an MP, then it is up to their constituents to decide if they want to elect someone who has other jobs, first through the parliamentary party selection, and then at the polls. Would someone being a millionaire stop me voting for them? No. Them being a tool would. I can't make a the decision based directly upon what someone owns or is worth, it would be based around what they plan to do, what their policies are, and how well they dedicated themselves to their job.
Labour: Suggesting policy changes, after disasters happen, but daring not to think of anything proactive or new (as long as the right buzz words are included) (and then we might take back the policy a week later when we realise it can't be funded- tuition fees)
While I don't agree with the solution being presented, don't you think having conflicted interests can be seriously damaging to our political system?.
How can person A be excepted to remain objective when certain policy changes could greatly benefit or hinder them financially?.
How can person A be excepted to remain objective when certain policy changes could greatly benefit or hinder them financially?.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
How do you think elections and parliament works?
Those who vote in a party do so as they 'except certain policy changes could greatly benefit AND NOT hinder them financially'
That is the governmental system we work upon.
How you have phrased it, is a distilment of the situation, and indeed in a perfect system, you would hope politicians didn't have their own best interests at heart. However, we live in the UK, they all have their own best interests at heart, else they wouldn't be politicians. Most easily seen in Norn Iron, where the politicians agree to hold government in sessions of 5 years at a time, while achieving nothing, and blocking anything that might look like a victory for the 'other side'.
Quite the perfect definition of a shower of very heavy excrement.
The solution being presented is retarded, unthought and idiotic in constitution. I am glad he is labour leader, as the longer he remains such, the more likely it will be they do not win. The Kinnock of our times.
Those who vote in a party do so as they 'except certain policy changes could greatly benefit AND NOT hinder them financially'
That is the governmental system we work upon.
How you have phrased it, is a distilment of the situation, and indeed in a perfect system, you would hope politicians didn't have their own best interests at heart. However, we live in the UK, they all have their own best interests at heart, else they wouldn't be politicians. Most easily seen in Norn Iron, where the politicians agree to hold government in sessions of 5 years at a time, while achieving nothing, and blocking anything that might look like a victory for the 'other side'.
Quite the perfect definition of a shower of very heavy excrement.
The solution being presented is retarded, unthought and idiotic in constitution. I am glad he is labour leader, as the longer he remains such, the more likely it will be they do not win. The Kinnock of our times.
Having rough views on political changes which could somewhat benefit or hinder an individuals success is in no way the same scale as having a key economic investment in a key business unit which could be hugely influenced by policy changes.
We are speaking orders of magnitude kind of difference here, additionally while I expect that many politicians are nothing more than self-serving, this is not the case for all.
There are still some who vote against personal interested & in favour of changes which benefit the majority & hinder them personally.
According to the website.
http://may2015.com/category/gqrr/
Labour have maintained 82% of the 2010 vote, but the Conservatives are down to 73%. 20% of which have gone to UKIP & 5% to Labour. For Labour it seems that only 5% have gone to each of the main political parties (6% UKIP, 4% Conservative etc).
From the looks of it UKIP will be causing a Labour minority government (which is frankly hilarious, as Labour are the only ones not offering a referendum on the EU).
Looking at UKIP support it's highest in the 55+ age bracket with men being significantly more presented (in the lower DE class group). Thinking long term the Conservatives are going to have a real problem once the 65+ age bracket dies out, as support from this group is the only real bastion left (when comparing the age brackets), this is why I assume they have actively tried to 'modernise' & move to the centre on at least social policy.
http://may2015.com/category/gqrr/
Labour have maintained 82% of the 2010 vote, but the Conservatives are down to 73%. 20% of which have gone to UKIP & 5% to Labour. For Labour it seems that only 5% have gone to each of the main political parties (6% UKIP, 4% Conservative etc).
From the looks of it UKIP will be causing a Labour minority government (which is frankly hilarious, as Labour are the only ones not offering a referendum on the EU).
Looking at UKIP support it's highest in the 55+ age bracket with men being significantly more presented (in the lower DE class group). Thinking long term the Conservatives are going to have a real problem once the 65+ age bracket dies out, as support from this group is the only real bastion left (when comparing the age brackets), this is why I assume they have actively tried to 'modernise' & move to the centre on at least social policy.
Last edited:
I've looked at random polls data at various times and it seems evenly split between men and women, althrough i will give you that they tend to be older
Polling on UKIP support generally indicates that UKIP supporters skew male, e.g. 57% male from YouGov or 66% from Ashcroft.
Ashcroft's polling is generally considered to be well conducted and decently unbiased. I wouldn't take much else he says though
No, they don't. Here's a comparison of the house biases of various pollsters; Ashcroft lands pretty much in the middle of the lab/con spectrum of pollsters. His most recent poll shows a 4% lab lead on the same day that Populus shows Lab and Con on equal footing.
This shouldn't surprise you; the entire point of Ashcroft's entry into polling was to avoid the effects of so-called "comfort polling".
You wouldn't want to mix with those sorts would you now Dolph.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,159
Would Labour's economic plan please stand up.
I can't afford to live in London, so can't be near those sorts...
- Status