Asia-Pacific

Check out this week's top Asia-Pacific news on the Asia Pacific Headline page.
  

Follow RoF

For all the breaking news, follow RoF on Twitter and Facebook

         
   
  

My Profile

Check all your messages, update your blog, change your account details,  find friends and much more on the My Profile section.
  

Regional Firms

Thinking of moving out of the City? Regional Inside Info gives you the lowdown on firms in Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester and Leeds.
  

Main Discussion

Rate it
0
Report as offensive
Wellington
Posted - 20 April 2017 08:59
They still haven't worked out the middle class people vote, working class people don't.
Wellington
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:03
Report as offensive
faod I don't think anyone in labour actually said that people on £70K should be taxed at 50% did they?

Just that people earning over that should pay more tax

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-rich-tax-increase-70000-income -raise-money-john-mcdonnell-public-services-funding-party-a7690156.html
old git roundabout
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:04
Report as offensive
McDonnell and Milne I suspect

May as well go down in flames!
Keef has political fatigue
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:04
Report as offensive
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170420/281651074984542

He seems determined to reduce the Parliamentary party to less than a 100.
Saillaw
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:05
Report as offensive
Enough to persuade me to become even more part-time than I am already.
Clergs (!)
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:06
Report as offensive
How much tax do people think they pay right now?
Legal Alien
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:06
Report as offensive
It was from an interview on the Today programme on radio 4 yesterday. No doubt you oafs wake up to Capital FM or radio one or some such sh*t.
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:08
Report as offensive
well they have said that those earning 70-80k are rich and they have also said that the rich should pay 50% tax. Hopefully this will never actually be joined up and make it into the manifesto.

The irritating thing is that Corbyn actually speaks many truths that said in the right way by the right person would hit home. Unfortunately he is not the right person and they are not said in the right way.
#lockuptheorangeclown!
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:08
Report as offensive
stupid fvcking marxists

bye bye
Pinkus
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:11
Report as offensive
Err... why shouldn't those on over £70k pay 50% tax?
Colonel Pantyfloofle
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:13
Report as offensive
If I wanted to increase the size of the state (which I don't), I would just remove or heavily reduce all the various tax deductions like:

Pension contributions
ISA allowances
NI exemption for pensioners
CGT for primary residences
etc

Increasing the headline rates of income tax/NI is bonkers
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:14
Report as offensive
Indeed Colonel - there are plenty of middle class perks that could be removed first.
12
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:18
Report as offensive
I have no factual basis for this, but I strongly suspect that both the government and (much to the chagrin of the lefties) the government has plenty of money already, and just needs to spend it properly. That doesn't mean stripping out savings by fvcking the poor and needy (even if that means a few DM articles about hooligans with 49 children), but it does mean not spending ridic amounts on failed IT projects, probably foreign aid, means testing pensions and other welfare perks, can prob trim the defence budget etc. And crack down on corporate avoidance obvs.
12
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:19
Report as offensive
the NHS*
#lockuptheorangeclown!
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:21
Report as offensive
the govt wastes monumental amounts on failed projects m3

mountains of cash pi88ed into the private sector and just-about-middle-managing black holes of incompetence

they're called the 'middle class'
Lydia
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:43
Report as offensive
It's best to look at charts of tax spending - those of us who get a tax return get one once a year.

Welfare not including pensions is 25%
Health is about 20%
State education 12%

So about half of the tax you pay is going on those bits of the welfare state.
Add about 13% state pensions

Total of those 4 categories is 70%. So you could reduce your tax bill by 70% and indirect taxes like VAT, insurance tax, flight taxes, fuel taxes if we got rid of those 4 things and paid for them ourselves instead.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-yo ur-tax-summary/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary
🐤🐤🐤 is voting Conservative
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:44
Report as offensive
This is traditional Labour ideology. I don't see why people are so *shocked*.
🐝 buzz
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:46
Report as offensive
Are you suggesting that getting rid of those 4 things is a good idea Lydia or is there no point to your observation other than the blindingly obvious point that government spending less means it needs less money?
Lib-Dem-Cyp-ree-en
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:47
Report as offensive
I can see Jezza losing his seat to a LibDem.
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:51
Report as offensive
"So Lydia you would like to get rid of welfare/state pension/state health and state education?"

Unfortunately you may find that the uneducated starving homeless millions may start to make your nice life in a big house a bit uncomfortable...
Colonel Pantyfloofle
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:55
Report as offensive
I can't. The London Labour infrastructure is robust and a surprising number of people reflexively vote Labour, per The North.

It's going to be hard enough to return Vince Cable and kick out Hoey.
minkie
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:56
Report as offensive
Actually its a lot worse than just paying more tax, which is what you would expect from Lab anyway.

I listened to Emily Thornberry on R4 this morning being interviewed on the subject of Lab taxes.
Time and again she talked about big business and the "elite" not paying taxes and cheating and how people like Mike Ashley etc should be worried etc etc. And then constantly conflated that with people who earn £70k plus. The implication being that anyone with a high income is automatically a tax cheat.

Tbf the interviewer was kinda encouraging this train of thought and was mostly trying to get her to drill down on the manifesto which she couldnt do, but there was clear implication that "rich" and "high earners" and "tax cheats" are interchangeable expressions.
🐝 buzz
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:58
Report as offensive
Vince's old constituency office has now been converted back into a family home which is nice. It was a sad sight in the weeks after the last GE. I digress...
Likes to eat cheeseburgers
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:00
Report as offensive
Put VAT up to 33%.

Taxing consumption is the way to do it.

Hell, make it 50% so all the ickle kiddies can have free lunches and free university and free everything.
#lockuptheorangeclown!
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:01
Report as offensive
jezza has a monumental majority cyp....
Lib-Dem-Cyp-ree-en
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:06
Report as offensive
Jezza had.

Conservative/UKIP got 21% of Islington North.

The borough is liberal left/anti war/anti Brexit and pro-green.

Greens and LibDems can mount a strong challenge.
#lockuptheorangeclown!
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:08
Report as offensive
he got 60% of the vote, it's not gonna happen.....
old git roundabout
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:10
Report as offensive
Farron is vulnerable though.
🐝 buzz
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:11
Report as offensive
Who was the last leader of a major party to lose their seat at a GE?
Pinkus
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:16
Report as offensive
Yeah. Put up VAT. Stick CGT on principle private residences. Stick 50% income tax on higher rate tax payers. 100% inheritance tax would do nicely. Have a school fees tax.
Colonel Pantyfloofle
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:35
Report as offensive
Lib Dems increasing their seat count and Farron losing his seat would be awesome.
I like straight bananas
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:38
Report as offensive
I like straight bananas
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:40
Report as offensive
Oops.


I like straight bananas
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:41
Report as offensive
strutter
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:41
Report as offensive
Buzz, I seem to recall that it was Arthur "Bob's your uncle" Balfour in 1906, but I am happy to be corrected on that
I like straight bananas
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:42
Report as offensive
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:43
Report as offensive
If you count Australia, I think John Howard lost his seat as Prime Minister in 2007.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:44
Report as offensive
Yes, Galbraith was a smug twat, wasn't he?
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:46
Report as offensive
What Reggie said.

All political schools of thought are prone to using a convenient morality to support the position they would adopt anyway.
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:48
Report as offensive
Gordon Brown, God bless him, at least didn't waste our time with long-winded justification. He just used to say "I did it, because it was the right thing to do". Genius.
DeadPartnerWalking
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:51
Report as offensive

"the modern middle class lefty is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral hypocrisy; that is, the indulgent search for an ideological unicorn in the face of all evidence to the contrary and without regard for the suffering of the less privileged"
Parsnip
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:53
Report as offensive
humans have a right to be selfish
it doesnt have to be a dirty word
anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite
you don't need the state to redistribute your wealth / the product of your labout
you could do that yourself without state intervention
Its about levels / appropriateness
DeadPartnerWalking
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:54
Report as offensive

non-ideological conservatives aren't looking for a justification for selfishness - they just pragmatically accept the fallen nature of man and recognise that an acceptance of that is the only basis for a humane political system.
amen.
I like straight bananas
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:56
Report as offensive
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:58
Report as offensive
In fact the whole of modern party politics seems to be about appeals to base emotion and narrow ideas of identity to justify state action different to what is supported by cold reason and hard evidence.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:58
Report as offensive
Tbf though the only thing worse than that would be politics based on "cold reason". We know how that turns out.
DeadPartnerWalking
Posted - 20 April 2017 10:59
Report as offensive

not a bad illustration of a champagne socialist.
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:00
Report as offensive
Reggie - well, "how that turns out" would be hard evidence I suppose !
DeadPartnerWalking
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:01
Report as offensive

reggie! are you alright?
Likes to eat cheeseburgers
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:02
Report as offensive
not a bad illustration of a champagne socialist.

x1,000,000,000
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:03
Report as offensive
Yes thx.
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:05
Report as offensive
What conservatives fail to understand is that the concept of property is not indelible - it has not existed for most of human existence, it is how we choose to organize ourselves at the moment, and indeed might be the best way of doing it, but there is no inalienable right to own resources or land or the undisputed means to acquire resources or land. The relatively well off should think less about how much of what is "theirs" is taken away and be grateful society allows them to keep so much without them having to fight to defend it.
Siegfreid
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:05
Report as offensive
Most of you are paying close to 50% top rate anyway.

If May's plan is for a low tax, low wage economy (which she is) the low tax bit is for corporations. Like in Ireland, income tax will have to take up the slack. Lube up.
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:06
Report as offensive
but in any event I disagree about "cold reason". At the risk of making the most basic mistake on the internet, if we look at the Nazis...... everything depended on "othering" sections of the people, and that was achieved by manipulation of feelings of humiliation and resentment after WW1 and by spreading emotionally attractive lies.
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:08
Report as offensive
Hank, I agree with much of what you say about the concept of property.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:10
Report as offensive
The Nazis claimed that their ideas were hard-headed and scientific, just like modern-day "race realists" do. Adolf prided himself on his clear-thinking rationalism (and slapped down the likes of Himmler who had a more mystical, pseudo-pagan take on Nazism).

But I didn't have the Nazis in mind (mostly). I was thinking mainly of Communism, the ultimate example of scientistic rationalism applied to politics, and also to some extent the Jacobins, who showed us what the Enlightenment looks like when it gets into the hands of people with political power and guillotines.
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:10
Report as offensive
..... not !
DeadPartnerWalking
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:11
Report as offensive

"it has not existed for most of human existence"

you're of the school of fantasy that when sid the neanderthal killed a wooly mammoth after a week's stalk he then happily shared it with whichever other humanoids happened to be around as well as making sure that the nice cuddly wolves had a share too.

obviously it's not "indelible" but theory isn't really very helpful. anyway, unless you believe in a revolutionary transformation of consciousness (so that we once again can live happily in the garden of eden) then theoretically we are probably in agreement.
#lockuptheorangeclown!
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:12
Report as offensive
"society allows them to keep so much "

heh
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:12
Report as offensive
Borat not joke fail. Damn.
DeadPartnerWalking
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:13
Report as offensive

"cold reason" is a fantasy and buying into it = absolutism = communism/fascism/religious fanaticism etc.
Colonel Pantyfloofle
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:13
Report as offensive
I thought the basis of National Socialism was a romantic "might is right" philosophy. I didn't think it was rational at all.
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:14
Report as offensive
What's the solution then, Reggie ?
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:15
Report as offensive
DPW until maybe 10,000 years ago humans lived communal lifestyles without individual property or ownership of land. That is not fantasy it is undeniable fact.

I don't seek to transform the property system I merely seek remind people that are well off that they do very well by the current system even if they are paying a relatively large amount of tax and they may perhaps be happier if they reflected on what they get to keep rather than on what gets taken away.
Lydia
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:16
Report as offensive
I mentioned the 70% of all tax going on welfare and education because people pick silly things like MP salaries and even foreign aid and defence and suggest that is where all the mnoey is going. In fact about three quarters of all tax is on the welfare stage which is absolutely vast. I am not saying I don't want any at all but it could be a lot less.

(I agree the concept of property is very new. For the 1m years we wandered happily across the planet before men took over, grew crops, stole women accommulated wealth, we had just about no footprint and when you have to carry everything you have very little more than your baby sling and spear (I learned this week women were as good at hunting as men with spears and it was only when bow and arrows came in fairly recently men with stronger arms had an advantage!)

By the way I just found the 1976 university grant figures. I went in 79. 76 - minimum grant was £50 a year plus your fees paid (for the 15% of us who went to university with middle class parents) and the full grant (which is the figure my parents made my minimum up to which covered your rent and food etc) was £875.

So if we compare 1979 and 2017 regarding student funding for the middle class the difference is primarily the £9250 a year fee v zero fee.
Sigh of the Oppressed
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:17
Report as offensive
Pinkus
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:11
Report as offensive

Err... why shouldn't those on over £70k pay 50% tax?

Because there is no "should" about it.

Obviously, there is no logical should (unless you couch it in terms of "to be cost-effective, you should concentrate on taxing people with more money).

There is no moral "should" because "rich people should pay 50%" is an arbitrary non-sequitur and the assertion that it is moral is merely that. A statement. It has the same status as "tall people should buy green toothpaste". It may cater to an individual's personal preferences, but that does not make it moral. You can assert it no more successfully than a person can assert "The state should not deprive citizens of their property" as a counter.
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:17
Report as offensive
"For the 1m years we wandered happily across the planet before men took over, grew crops, stole women accommulated wealth, we had just about no footprint and when you have to carry everything you have very little more than your baby sling and spear (I learned this week women were as good at hunting as men with spears and it was only when bow and arrows came in fairly recently men with stronger arms had an advantage!)"

Oh FFS....
Colonel Pantyfloofle
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:19
Report as offensive
I think it would be useful to distinguish between government expenditure on "stuff" like the NHS, and transfers like pensions and welfare.

What proportion of transfers are going to people who are already wealthy?

What proportion of expenditure is on "stuff"?
DeadPartnerWalking
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:22
Report as offensive

Hank
Your first paragraph is utter, pink sparkly dusted, bollocks.
I agree entirely with your second paragraph.
DPW
Likes to eat cheeseburgers
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:22
Report as offensive
The UK's economy is as buoyant as it is because of the protection by law of people's property.

Look how well the economies in tinpoy South American countries are doing. They are rich in resources, yet economies are in the toilet, partly because corporations don;t want to invest in places with no secure property rights.

Venezuela, by the way, is totally and utterly fvcked. Mismanaged by lefties.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:25
Report as offensive
Colonel Pantyfloofle
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:13 Report as offensive Report Offensive
I thought the basis of National Socialism was a romantic "might is right" philosophy. I didn't think it was rational at all.


To be clear, I don't actually believe that Nazism was rational. I'm just pointing out that it attempted to base itself on cold, rational truths, like the inequality of races and the inevitability of aggressive struggle between them. Modern-day racists say the same thing. They accuse mainstream liberals of being in denial and pretending that the facts of life are different from what they are.
DeadPartnerWalking
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:26
Report as offensive

you can guarantee that the individual hunters in those idyllic (not) hunter gatherer societies referred to very much considered their bows and arrows (so painstakingly made with enormous skill and resource (inc. time) input) to be very much their individual property to be used by them or as loaned or given by them.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:26
Report as offensive
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:14 Report as offensive Report Offensive
What's the solution then, Reggie ?


Heh. There isn't one!
🐝 buzz
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:27
Report as offensive
Good God(win).
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:27
Report as offensive
Can I just say, I'm disappointed by how civilised this discussion is.
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:34
Report as offensive


Hank
Your first paragraph is utter, pink sparkly dusted, bollocks.
I agree entirely with your second paragraph.
DPW

Fair enough DPW, but the second paragraph is the important one.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:36
Report as offensive
sad banta
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:27 Report as offensive Report Offensive
Can I just say, I'm disappointed by how civilised this discussion is.


That is exactly what a Jew traitor would say.

Bringing up the stone age in order to defend redistributive policies is never a good idea.
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 13:30
Report as offensive
Look how well the economies in tinpoy South American countries are doing. They are rich in resources, yet economies are in the toilet, partly because corporations don;t want to invest in places with no secure property rights.

Most Latin American countries have performed way below their potential for centuries, whether run by the left or the right (and most have had long periods of both). Latin America is just resource rich as North America and was colonised first so its continuing relative poverty is something of a puzzle (albeit one to which there are many suggested answers) but it is certainly not to do with socialism.

One reason they have not developed as Europe has in the latter part of the 20th century is the absence of an organisation like the EU - as anyone who has queued at their chaotic borders will testify. Oh...
Third Half
Posted - 20 April 2017 13:57
Report as offensive
Hank, I read in a book shop about 20 years ago a book that cogently explained that while Argentina was a huge country with tremendous resources, (and at the beginning of the 20th century about 4th richest economy in the world) not least the land that enabled production of vast amounts of wheat and [the very best] beef, actually that same self land mass had for decades acted as a drag on the real driver - the (relatively) vibrant economy of Buenos Aires (which accounts for about a third of the population of the country anyway.)

I don't recall the title or author and have long regretted not buying it, but I was a poor student at the time so had to make do with reading it in-store leaning against a wall.
Third Half
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:19
Report as offensive
And don't forget Hernando so Soto. the Peruvian economist, who has written on land tenure. He is only one source that confirms to me that in the last century or so a major (even the main) reason for the wealth of the UK (and Ireland), and shall we say the 'Old Commonwealth' (quite aside from any fortunes to be extracted from the earth or sea) is the Torrens system of land registration and the related law of trusts; [I know Law of Property 101] e.g. in England one may only have to deal with 4 landowners and registered mortgagees; while in a country like Spain (which is also rich), one can never be sure. Good luck*

*I have a Spanish friend (quite educated, otherwise) who bought a property there. Nothing untoward happened but when I asked about her lawyer she scoffed 'what do you need a lawyer for?' Heck, in the UK the coveyancing lawyers I know don't even act for themselves. Partly because time v work but also because they know to dissipate the risk. Otherwise, if it goes pear shaped, then sue yourself.
Hotblack Desiato
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:30
Report as offensive
Ah. My favourite half-educated half-clever person who thinks he is clever than he is. What choice morsels have you vomited up for my entertainment today. Let me see:

"Hank is voting LibDem
Posted - 20 April 2017 11:05 Report as offensive Report Offensive
What conservatives fail to understand is that the concept of property is not indelible"

Do conservatives fail to understand this? I am not sure that all conservatives do fail to understand this point. Moreover, why do you say this? Because conservatives emphasise the importance of property? But that is not the same thing as thinking it is indelible. I might emphasise the importance of liberty, or justice, without thinking that they are indelible. Indeed, I might emphasise them all the more strongly if I thought that they were "delible" as opposed to "indelible"


"it has not existed for most of human existence"

Assuming that this is true (which is actually questionable) - well so what? Neither has language, or agriculture, or peace, or justice, or a notion of universal humanity, or medicine, or sexy underwear. But these are all important things.

As regards the assumption that "property" has not existed for most of human existence, the concept of real property is undoubtedly a recentish development - but as to notions of "property" in movable objects it may well be the case that private ownership of tools and trinkets was generally recognised for as long as such objects have been created by humans (and that is a long time). Animals certainly reduce down parts of the natural world into their possession and dispute the entitlement of other animals to re-appropriate that material - e.g. Bower birds, Adele Penguins and almost any animal that stores food or builds nests.

"it is how we choose to organize ourselves at the moment"

No sh1t Sherlock.

"and indeed might be the best way of doing it"

Well the empirical evidence on that one is pretty clear.


"but there is no inalienable right to own resources or land or the undisputed means to acquire resources or land."

There are no inalienable rights to anything. We pretend that there are such rights, but our pretending that there are such rights doesn't currently do the North Koreans much good, in circumstances where Kim Jong Un prefers to proceed on the basis that they don't have such rights.

"The relatively well off should think less about how much of what is "theirs" is taken away"

Should they? I always took the view that people were entitled to think what the fvck they want, when they want. But you obviously know better and know not just what people should DO, but what they should THINK. That is because you are just such a totes amazeballs person.

"and be grateful society allows them to keep so much without them having to fight to defend it."

Fvck me - where to start with this one? OK as time is short, I am going to overlook the implicit glorification of mob violence with this, and restrict myself to pointing out that in circumstances where "society" takes X percentage of Y amount of the fruits of person P's labour and redistributes that, "society" might find that if it sought to increase X to X + 10, that might dissuade P from working so hard, with the result that Y reduced to Y - 10, with the result that both person P and "society" as a whole were worse off.
vicious little weasel
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:33
Report as offensive
"Ah. My favourite half-educated half-clever person who thinks he is clever than he is. What choice morsels have you vomited up for my entertainment today. Let me see:"

Well done on not coming across as an arrogant prick.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:33
Report as offensive
Not being funny, but what is a Bovver bird?
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:34
Report as offensive
Most of what you write is nonsense HD, but the biggest is your assumption that private wealthy is the "fruits of a persons labour" HAHAHA, significant wealth is nearly always the fruits of capital not labour.
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:38
Report as offensive
"Ah. My favourite half-educated half-clever person who thinks he is clever than he is"

Do I assume from this you consider yourself fully educated, fully clever and are not cleverer than you think you are?
Lydia
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:44
Report as offensive
South America is just the place to pick if we want to compare natives in very small groups in rainforest and man ruining the planet with farming cattle and wheat having chopped down all the trees which enable us to breath.

People used to be a lot happier when we had fewer things and indeed things were held in common and we move to that now - people can't buy homes and the space many young peopl heave in cities is tiny so your life in a sense in the cloud, on your phone and in your head and is your relationships to others and your experiences and sports rather than physical stuff you own which drags you down. Whether we want all our thoughts, uploads, posts and the like of course in the pubilc domain is a separate issue.
Hotblack Desiato
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:45
Report as offensive
"Hank is voting LibDem
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:34 Report as offensive Report Offensive
Most of what you write is nonsense HD, but the biggest is your assumption that private wealthy is the "fruits of a persons labour" HAHAHA, significant wealth is nearly always the fruits of capital not labour."

I did not make that assumption. given that this thread started by your good self, was entitled "taxing those on 70k at 50%" I had assume that your comment about people bleating about "what's theirs" related to income and income tax, in which context my point holds good - putting tax up on those earning 70k and upwards would mostly hit workers (albeit well-paid workers) rather than rich trusafarians and might end up reducing the overall tax take by removing incentives for, say women to return to work after having children.

Now as it happens I am all in favour of land value taxation and think that inherited land wealth has a generally deadening effect on the economy as a whole. But I didn't really see anything in any of your posts specifically focussed on that (forgive me if I overlooked something)
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:46
Report as offensive
"People used to be a lot happier when we had fewer things and indeed things were held in common "

Says the women who purchased a personal island...
Hotblack Desiato
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:46
Report as offensive
"Hank is voting LibDem
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:38 Report as offensive Report Offensive
"Ah. My favourite half-educated half-clever person who thinks he is clever than he is"

Do I assume from this you consider yourself fully educated, fully clever and are not cleverer than you think you are?"

I consider myself fully educated but thick as pigsh1t and as stupid as I am. Does that help?
1g voted douche not turd sarni
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:47
Report as offensive
"this thread started by your good self"

*rings bellend gong*
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:49
Report as offensive
"I did not make that assumption. given that this thread started by your good self, was entitled "taxing those on 70k at 50%"

If you had actually read my OP properly you would have seen I was OPPOSED to this.

As for the rest of your post. Since when did income from capital not attract income tax?

We are clearly in agreement on land tax, which is re-assuring to me given your status as a fully educated fully clever person.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:49
Report as offensive
Nobody is ever fully educated.
Hotblack Desiato
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:49
Report as offensive
"Twinkle twinkle little wang
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:47 Report as offensive Report Offensive
"this thread started by your good self"

*rings bellend gong*"

Why did you have to wait until I had actually written something before ringing that particular gong?
1g voted douche not turd sarni
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:50
Report as offensive
If I'd wanted to summon you to the thread I'd have blown the great horn of nobhead
chimp_
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:51
Report as offensive
Labour seem determined to completely set fire to themselves
Hotblack Desiato
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:52
Report as offensive
"Since when did income from capital not attract income tax?"

when the capital is held in a tax haven. Next silly question?

Hotblack Desiato
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:54
Report as offensive
"Twinkle twinkle little wang
Posted - 20 April 2017 14:50 Report as offensive Report Offensive
If I'd wanted to summon you to the thread I'd have blown the great horn of nobhead"

I didn't realise that you and Laz were in a physical relationship. And I don't know what Laz has been telling you, but you sucking him off does not magically cause me to appear on a thread.
Hotblack Desiato
Posted - 20 April 2017 15:00
Report as offensive
"a major (even the main) reason for the wealth of the UK (and Ireland), and shall we say the 'Old Commonwealth' (quite aside from any fortunes to be extracted from the earth or sea) is the Torrens system of land registration and the related law of trusts; [I know Law of Property 101] e.g. in England one may only have to deal with 4 landowners and registered mortgagees; while in a country like Spain (which is also rich), one can never be sure. Good luck*"

Lord protect us from Peruvian economists and their half-educated half-clever acolytes. A more credible explanation for the wealth of the UK and the "Old Commonwealth" would be Anglo-Saxon market economics, contract law, and an impartial judiciary making for a more efficient exchange of goods and services than more influence or nepotism based systems
Budgie Quay
Posted - 20 April 2017 15:09
Report as offensive
"Rich people on 70-80 K"

The shortest suicide note in history, scribbled on the back of a fag packet by a man with terminal cancer...

They are going to do worse than Foot aren't they?
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:02
Report as offensive
Hotblack, can I ask what gives you so much confidence in your own cleverness and education?
minkie
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:07
Report as offensive
As someone who studied prehistory at uni ersity I can tell you ealry humans were extremely territorial and colonising. Before currency as we know it high value items were used in gift exchange, for status and then for trade.
The implication that humans are not inclined towards ownership is laughable
1g voted douche not turd sarni
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:08
Report as offensive
He has the only qualification that beats a Wharton MBA in the wow leagues: a cycling proficiency certificate
Lydia
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:11
Report as offensive
Labour as expected will win the election for May, so that's a good thing....
Still I want everyone on RoF to vote.
the twins' school has emailed them all today to tell them to register to vote (although I have had them on as 16/17 year olds on the forms each year so I would be very surprised if they aren't already on the register now they are 18).

The 1m of humankind before we started to grow crops - we had about 6000 acres per person or something like that so a bit more space than we do now. There is 600 acres UK £800k http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-57114016.html

However if we are going to have confiscatory house taxes (leaving people with flats, women, oil painting and bank cash untouched) perhaps we should all be buying luxury motor homes instead.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:13
Report as offensive
I think some women own houses, Lyds.
bookem
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:17
Report as offensive
This sparked an amazeballs day on Twitter discussing what made people rich.

There are a lot of people in this coutry with very low expections...
Hank is voting Labour
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:19
Report as offensive
The implication that humans are not inclined towards ownership is laughable

This is a complete misunderstanding (one shared by others on this thread) of what is being said. Yes of course people would have tried to maintain exclusive use over material items, other people and perhaps even land, but there was no concept of "property" as such if you wanted to keep something you had to defend it physically. I am not suggesting there was ever an idyllic time when everyone was happy to share equals pequals I am saying that there was not a concept of legal property whereby society as a whole would defend your right to the exclusive use of something - which is something people enjoy now and wrongly take for granted as the natural order of things.
Abbeywell/NSA
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:21
Report as offensive
(I learned this week women were as good at hunting as men with spears and it was only when bow and arrows came in fairly recently men with stronger arms had an advantage!)

How do they bloody know?
Hotblack Desiato
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:23
Report as offensive
"Hank is voting LibDem
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:02
Report as offensive

Hotblack, can I ask what gives you so much confidence in your own cleverness and education?"

I have no confidence at all in my cleverness. I am, as I said, thick as pigsh1t.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:28
Report as offensive
Socratic irony doesn't travel well on here, HD.
Robert Musil
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:39
Report as offensive
"significant wealth is nearly always the fruits of capital not labour." This is similar to the Marxist conceits that only manual labour creates value and that capitalists are somehow lazy. These ideas are usually allied with a very narrow conception of what profit consist of and how it is created.
Sigh of the Oppressed
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:54
Report as offensive
Hank is voting LibDem
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:19


I am saying that there was not a concept of legal property whereby society as a whole would defend your right to the exclusive use of something - which is something people enjoy now and wrongly take for granted as the natural order of things.

That is unknowable.

Now to get back to what actually matters here (and always) i.e. what I said, importing "should" into who should be taxed isn't just a classic "is/ought" it is a statement which necessarily begs the question.

Also, whether property is an immensely old, or just a very old indeed, concept, has nothing to do with the status of "the wealthy should pay more" versus "the state should not compel people to yield up their property under threat" as "moral" statements.

(FAOD Hank/HD, today I am bidding for 0.735 educated and 0.632 clever. I reserve the right to change my bid at any time and without notice.)
minkie
Posted - 20 April 2017 16:55
Report as offensive
Scott there most certiainly is evidence, in archaeology
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 17:00
Report as offensive
For once, the demented lunatic Halifax is right. You can't extract normative judgements about contemporary politics from a study of stone age tribes. It's also dangerously close to evopsych mischief-making.
Sigh of the Oppressed
Posted - 20 April 2017 17:51
Report as offensive
ReggiePerrin
Posted - 20 April 2017 17:00
Report as offensive

For once, the demented lunatic Halifax is right.

And he was far too erudite to indulge in tautologies like "demented lunatic", Mr Perrin.

How we both wish we were that man.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 17:53
Report as offensive
It's not a tautology, it's a pleonasm.
Discworld_Librarian
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:11
Report as offensive
Hank is voting LibDem
Posted - 20 April 2017 09:08
Report as offensive

well they have said that those earning 70-80k are rich and they have also said that the rich should pay 50% tax. Hopefully this will never actually be joined up and make it into the manifesto.

The irritating thing is that Corbyn actually speaks many truths that said in the right way by the right person would hit home. Unfortunately he is not the right person and they are not said in the right way.

.....

This is absolutely it. There are things they propose that aren't bad ideas. But they are hell-bent on accentuating the negative and being frankly thuddingly unskilled with the way they communicate.

The rubbish the other week about a tax on private school fees paying for free school lunches was a case in point (of hundreds). So the Beeb duly went up north and found some not-particularly-expensive fee paying schools, with northern-accented parents to say how unfair it was that they would be singled out and punished for trying to do their best for their kids.

Why the f*ck make the punitive element the big selling point? Just say you'll provide free lunches and obfuscate around how you'll pay for it with some palatable doublespeak UNTIL YOU'RE IN POWER. Don't ever call it a private school fee tax, even when you actually do it. Like the Conservatives do when they're plotting something. FFS, there are ways and means.
1g voted douche not turd sarni
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:12
Report as offensive
Oh fgs what Serge said. I hate having to do that.

So much bollocks pesented as fact about humans pre farming. A combination of the word "caveman" and idiotic cabeman diets I suspect.

I am going to have to shower now.
Sigh of the Oppressed
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:20
Report as offensive
Dear Mr Perrin

"demented...

SYNONYMS: mad, insane, deranged, out of one's mind, not in one's right mind, crazed, LUNATIC, unbalanced, unhinged, unstable, disturbed, distracted, " (emphasis added).

Also, any tautology is necessarily a pleonasm.




ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:23
Report as offensive
What makes you think I'm a "Mr"?
Sigh of the Oppressed
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:28
Report as offensive
You are a Mr in my dreams. I'd turn for you Reggie, you know that.

I also know, even if only by irresistible implication, that, unlike me, you're not a Dr.

I'll allow you to be a Duke. I'm a accommodating chap - I'd still turn for Duke Reggie.
Parsnip
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:30
Report as offensive
corbyn has probably been looking at these stats (which are quite interesting)

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/distribution-of-total-income-before-and-a fter-tax-by-gender-2010-to-2011
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:31
Report as offensive
I'm going to start using "Mx" as soon as it starts being used by people who aren't wankers.
Salacious B. Crumb
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:31
Report as offensive
Excellent, Sotofax and HD on the same thread. The grand final of pub bore tede offs is on.
Sigh of the Oppressed
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:33
Report as offensive
ReggiePerrin
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:31

I'm going to start using "Mx" as soon as it starts being used by people who aren't wankers.

How sad that you can't be the one who begins that trend...
1g voted douche not turd sarni
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:34
Report as offensive
"ReggiePerrin
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:31 Report as offensive Report Offensive
I'm going to start using "Mx" as soon as it starts being used by people who aren't wankers."

Heh, just to warn you - I will totes start calling u Little Mx if u do
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:35
Report as offensive
I don't even know what that joke means, wang.
ReggiePerrin is voting Lib Dem
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:35
Report as offensive
Oh I see, it's a popular beat combo.
1g voted douche not turd sarni
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:39
Report as offensive
It takes an intelligent man to admit what he doesnot know Reg

porcello
Posted - 20 April 2017 18:40
Report as offensive
What S. B. Crumb said........ fvck me it's like Pseuds Corner without the laughs.
Excession
Posted - 20 April 2017 20:11
Report as offensive
To be really progressive in the personal tax sphere you would lower taxes on earned income and consumption and more heavily tax unearned income and inherited capital/capital gains.

Won't happen of course...