So Nick Clegg is talking rubbish again.

It's not the same at all. Everyone in the UK has access to the BBC, only a few thousand have access to ocuk.

But the people that post to the BBC webiste are a subset of the UK population. Can be bothered->Care enough about the subject to have an opinion->Have access to the internet.

You would have to grab random people on the streets in every town, even then you would have to use force as to not discount the people smart enough to look busy as they walk past the clipboard army.
 
It's not the same at all. Everyone in the UK has access to the BBC, only a few thousand have access to ocuk.

Everyone in the world has access to both sites.

They attract demographics based upon their content, Moley's point is entirely valid. The BBC's readership tends to follow the outlet's rather liberal* stance, hence the comments reflect this and are against the anti-liberal sentiment of Nick Clegg's policy direction.

*Proper liberal, not 'liberal' in the US (incorrect) sense.
 
Why on earth would anyone impose such a rate.... That is robbery!

I may lead to mass migration!

When you consider wages at the top have multiplied 10 fold or more in recent years it's not going to hurt the rich at all, they have just become accustomed to a level of greed beyond most peoples comprehension and now don't want it taken away from them.

It will be interesting to see how France does with a 75% tax rate on high income earners, I don't believe for a second that it will be doom and gloom like they would have everyone believe.
 
And, working on credit is *exactly* how new buisness is formed! They even invented a word for it, "investment". You secure funds to start by convincing a bank or investor that your idea is good enough to establish a growing company that can repay its debt. And how do you do that? By proving your product is wanted, and affordable to those that want it.

What you are suggesting is that even though nobody can afford my diamond encrusted chastity belts, if I make a ton of them, people will suddenly want to buy them. And no worries to start up costs, as tools and materials will appear out of thin air.

But to be fair nowadays doesn't that work both ways? How much stuff is bought on credit cards or by loans by consumers for example?
 
Can someone answer something for me:

The graph showing the top 1% of earners paying 30% of the total tax revenue looks shocking on the face of it, but it doesn't show the total wealth of that 1% in relation to the rest of the population.

I.e. If the top 1% of earners only earned 1% of the total taxable income then the outrage about paying 30% of tax revenue would be valid, but if say, they earn around 50% of total taxable income, they are getting a good deal only paying 30% of the tax revenue.

Does that make any sense? Can anyone shed some light on these figures?
 
Can someone answer something for me:

The graph showing the top 1% of earners paying 30% of the total tax revenue looks shocking on the face of it, but it doesn't show the total wealth of that 1% in relation to the rest of the population.

I.e. If the top 1% of earners only earned 1% of the total taxable income then the outrage about paying 30% of tax revenue would be valid, but if say, they earn around 50% of total taxable income, they are getting a good deal only paying 30% of the tax revenue.

Does that make any sense? Can anyone shed some light on these figures?

I doubt accurate stats of that nature exist, however, as has earlier been stated a gross per annum income of £149,000 is enough to get you into the 1% club (as of the 07/08 tax year).

If you go on the basis that everybody in the 1% club is now in the 50% tax band (soon to be 45%) at that income level, it's likely that most of the people at that income level do not have the wherewithal to significantly offset their income tax unless they are small business owners, in which case there are a number of ways of offsetting your tax (for example, LLPs get a fair few benefits).

That being said, by that point, you're already losing your personal allowance anyway and have next to zero tax-free income.

Sure, there will be outliers - billionaires that skew the numbers - but I'd wager that the vast majority of people in that 1% are paying their fair share, not necessarily that the vast majority of the money in that particular bracket is going to HMRC (if that makes sense?). By way of an example, it's allegedly a commonplace practice for professional footballers to have their incomes paid to a holding company so that they offset significant tax liability. Depending on the structure of this company, they can then take the income as a loan (so zero tax, zero interest) which they never have to repay as they own the company and there are no shareholders to lose out. It's not as grossly simple as that, but it is the general gist of it.
 
Last edited:
And, working on credit is *exactly* how new buisness is formed! They even invented a word for it, "investment". You secure funds to start by convincing a bank or investor that your idea is good enough to establish a growing company that can repay its debt. And how do you do that? By proving your product is wanted, and affordable to those that want it.

What you are suggesting is that even though nobody can afford my diamond encrusted chastity belts, if I make a ton of them, people will suddenly want to buy them. And no worries to start up costs, as tools and materials will appear out of thin air.

New businesses are formed from investment of course. RICH people who made surplus wealth in the REAL world invest their wealth in to projects they believe will crate growth and pay them back with interest. It's better than having simply having a pile of gold in your vault.

Why should someone be able to simply imagine a bunch of money in to existence and then loan it out to people? How does that create anything in the real world? It amounts to counterfeiting. There is nothing in the real world to back that imaginary money, except a vague promise of the government paying it back later somehow (i.e. taxing your grand kids one day).

"There is another name for QE..."

 
Or in terms of my very basic description, the artist goes to the farmer and says I think I can sell a bunch of these paintings but I need to borrow some wealth to start up. I need to borrow your "demand" right now, and I will pay you back with the "demand" from other people later (plus extra). You will make more wealth than just sitting on gold.

The farmer then goes round the town and asks people if they like the paintings, how much they would pay... he does his due diligence.

Then he lends some gold to the painter so he can buy equipment, people buy the paintings with their surplus wealth and eventually the farmer gets paid back. If the painter fails he goes bankrupt, and the farmer loses out.

That's how it's supposed to work, the wealth always has to come before the demand.

When a bank lends imaginary money, it's only accepted on the good faith that it is backed by future tax payers, or a powerful military who can steal wealth from other countries. It has to be paid back one day. It heats up the economy right now at the expense of the future. But people get sloppy with their due diligence (houses ALWAYS go up right), they get euphoric from this "free money" and go hog wild "investing" and you get huge bubbles which eventually blow up in their face.

It used to be backed by actual gold until last century.
 
Education is another bubble about to blow up. When you have easy student loans who needs to check if a degree will actually get you a job. Who cares how much a degree costs. It's not your money, it's the government's... who cares, they can print more right?
 
You seem to be under the impression that rich entrepreneurs drive the demand for businesses creation which drives the demand for jobs. If so, you have it backwards.

Demand comes from the general (spending) population, who create demand for business creation, which in turns creates jobs.

Rich entrepreneurs do not create job... a public with spending power does, and they in turn make entrepreneurs who capitalise on that demand rich.

I'm not sure that is always the case, an entrepreneur can create a product (and a business to supply it) that drives demand.

There wasn't much demand for iPhones, or smartphones at all, until Apple created it. Clegg would create an environment where a British Steve Jobs would be best served by moving elsewhere.

Being rich isn't a crime Mr Clegg. Lets not punish people for it.
 
So it's greed to want to keep your money, but not greed to want take it away?

Nail on head. That is the logical fallacy.

We live in a world where people tell us wanting to keep the money we earned is greedy, but the government wanting more of it is not.
 
When you consider wages at the top have multiplied 10 fold or more in recent years it's not going to hurt the rich at all, they have just become accustomed to a level of greed beyond most peoples comprehension and now don't want it taken away from them.

It will be interesting to see how France does with a 75% tax rate on high income earners, I don't believe for a second that it will be doom and gloom like they would have everyone believe.

Those bankers you're probably talking about are just the other head of this weird hybrid socialist-capitalist monster. Who cares if you lose 75% of your FREE money you magicked out of thin air? I'd imagine the more prudent ones are cashing in their chips and leaving though.

Wait for faith in the system to erode further and we see assets deleveraging proper, and how much "wealth" they are left with. This is a faith based system, the underlying collateral is miniscule the rest is pure faith and dreams.

Even if the government confiscated all their assets what would they have? A few mansions, some yachts, and a bunch of hugely leveraged financial derivatives backed by QE money? Even the ones who own gold... most of it is only paper. Those gold funds only own a fraction of whats on paper... the whole thing is a ponzi scheme. If too many people try to collect at once it crashes. It could go on for 10 years or it could crash tomorrow.
 
I was going to say nothing about growth. I was going to say that either you have a completely different definition of 'demand' to everyone else or you fail to grasp what it means. Demand isn't something that can be 'stolen', it's a principle that always exists and can only really be manipulated through marketing.

If anything, there's no such thing as surplus wealth - just wealth an employer withholds ("steals", if you like) from an employee.


the demand is stolen from the future by spending money that has been borrowed and has to be paid back, but by a generation later than the one that spent it.

demand is triggered by an ability to spend, that ability has been provided for at least the last 30 years by borrowing money from the future. (stealing money from the future workers)

of course the money will never be paid back and will be defaulted upon or inflated away.
 
Back
Top Bottom