Labour Conference....total maddness or even possable ?
Discussion
NRS said:
Roman Rhodes said:
So the high earners don't have the money but the tax take hasn't gone up? Therefore the low earners must be paying less. OR the low earners are paying the same and so are the high earners (the tax take hasn't gone up, so despite the increase in rate for the high earners they have somehow avoided it).
Put even more simply, the choices are:
A) The 40% want to increase taxes for the rich knowing that the overall tax take will not increase. The rich will pay more the 'poor' will pay less.
B) The 40% want to increase taxes for the rich knowing that the overall tax take will not increase. The 'poor' will not pay less therefore the rich cannot be paying more.
You cannot have it both ways.
C) the cost of running the new tax is the same as they gain from it. So no one else is affected but there is no extra money as a result of the tax.Put even more simply, the choices are:
A) The 40% want to increase taxes for the rich knowing that the overall tax take will not increase. The rich will pay more the 'poor' will pay less.
B) The 40% want to increase taxes for the rich knowing that the overall tax take will not increase. The 'poor' will not pay less therefore the rich cannot be paying more.
You cannot have it both ways.
The question is not asking if taxing rich people more would benefit poorer people. Its asking if there would be no benefit should money still be taken on moral grounds, i.e. it should be taken on principal.
That can only be envy or spite.
i think that people are barking up the wrong tree on taxation.
removing all VAT and abolishing council tax would benefit much more people that fiddling around with income and corp tax.
expensive to do this but done gradually over a long time it's would be better levers to pull than corp or income tax.
Smiler. said:
First actual LOL of the day, thanks!El stovey said:
...
This has become the poll that people use to prove irrefutably
that lefties are jealous, and driven by politics of envy and spite etc.
It’s pretty much become followers evidence of god actually existing. This is the holly grail for PHs right wingers.
It’s not enough to support one party, you have to demonise the other, with religious
Out of interest, how would you describe the desire to implement something that has no material benefit whatsoever? (Or worse, actually sees the tax take drop). This has become the poll that people use to prove irrefutably
that lefties are jealous, and driven by politics of envy and spite etc. It’s pretty much become followers evidence of god actually existing. This is the holly grail for PHs right wingers.
It’s not enough to support one party, you have to demonise the other, with religious
98elise said:
Exactly. It could also be that the higher tax causes more people/businesses to move abroad.
The question is not asking if taxing rich people more would benefit poorer people. Its asking if there would be no benefit should money still be taken on moral grounds, i.e. it should be taken on principal.
That can only be envy or spite.
Except Roman Rhodes is still struggling with this, despite numerous people having explained it to him.The question is not asking if taxing rich people more would benefit poorer people. Its asking if there would be no benefit should money still be taken on moral grounds, i.e. it should be taken on principal.
That can only be envy or spite.
98elise said:
...
Its asking if there would be no benefit should money still be taken on moral grounds, i.e. it should be taken on principal.
...
"It's", not "its", and "principle", not "principal". One good thing about being a lefty is that you are rarely jealous of the linguistic prowess of the typical PH righty. There seems to be something about expressing conservative views on the internet and inability to spell, punctuate, or use grammar. Maybe it's something to do with all those posh schools that us chippy plebs are so jealous of. Its asking if there would be no benefit should money still be taken on moral grounds, i.e. it should be taken on principal.
...
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 3rd October 09:52
Roman Rhodes said:
Tediously quoting other people's opinions that reflect yours is not evidence!
They are aware of the background to the question that you are seemingly oblivious h]of, hence the nonsensical interpretation that you are desperate to cling to!Roman Rhodes said:
Laughably, what on earth do you think your Exhibit 3 does to support your case (you may like to think of yourself as the George Carman of PH, but you really aren't)? The survey does not support that proposition at all. If the total amount of tax raised hasn't increased and one group hasn't paid less then another group can't have paid more. Basic maths.
You're still struggling with the impact of higher taxes, the larger curve, tax avoidance, and changing behaviours. No wonder you are still struggling with this!Roman Rhodes said:
You're a funny old stick sidicks. On the one hand making the cringey claims to 'do a lot of great work for charidee' and donate 10% of your salary, but on the other missing no opportunity to sit in binary judgment on anyone you have deemed beneath you. 'Considerably richer than yowse' not only because you're better but because 'yowse' are feeble, envious and spiteful!
I've said no such thing, just further evidence of your inability to make a logical interpretation of what has been said.What is most amusing is that, if the question was interepreted in the same way I have (and which agrees with just about everyone else who has commented on here) you come to the exact same conclusion as I did! Explain that one....
If only you understood the question, then you'd be able to stop making a fool of yourself. Of course that would mean you'd have to admit you were wrong.
Roman Rhodes said:
Learn a bit of humility and empathy chap - you'll be a happier person and waste less time on the internet trying to belittle the opinions of those you don't agree with.
Have a nice day!
No need to belittle your opinions 'chap' - they belittle themselves by being devoid of logic based on the available evidence!Have a nice day!
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 3rd October 09:59
Breadvan72 said:
"It's", not "its", and "principle", not "principal". One good thing about being a lefty is that you are rarely jealous of the linguistic prowess of the typical PH righty. There seems to be something about expressing conservative views on the internet and inability to spell, punctuate, or use grammar. Maybe it's something to do with all those posh schools that us chippy plebs are so jealous of.
Stupid generalisations are stupid.Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 3rd October 09:52
The point he is making is clear, however. Do you want to comment on that?
Never mind about upping or lowering rates of personal taxation continue closing great sinkholes in the taxation system. If you can afford good accountants they will soon squirrel away vast sums from the prying eyes and grasping hands of our mate the taxman. Corporate tax has seen a start with the likes of, well I don't need to list them do I.
Murph7355 said:
El stovey said:
...
This has become the poll that people use to prove irrefutably that lefties are jealous, and driven by politics of envy and spite etc.
It’s pretty much become followers evidence of god actually existing. This is the holly grail for PHs right wingers.
It’s not enough to support one party, you have to demonise the other, with religious
Out of interest, how would you describe the desire to implement something that has no material benefit whatsoever? (Or worse, actually sees the tax take drop). This has become the poll that people use to prove irrefutably
that lefties are jealous, and driven by politics of envy and spite etc. It’s pretty much become followers evidence of god actually existing. This is the holly grail for PHs right wingers.
It’s not enough to support one party, you have to demonise the other, with religious
You may agree or disagree with that concept but it’s not correct that aim is to introduce something simply out of spite with no benefit to anyone,
crankedup said:
Never mind about upping or lowering rates of personal taxation continue closing great sinkholes in the taxation system. If you can afford good accountants they will soon squirrel away vast sums from the prying eyes and grasping hands of our mate the taxman. Corporate tax has seen a start with the likes of, well I don't need to list them do I.
Except that’s not the case, particularly for those on PAYE. As explained earlier.Of course, feel free to provide a link to evidence suggesting the opposite...
sidicks said:
Except that’s not the case, particularly for those on PAYE. As explained earlier.
Of course, feel free to provide a link to evidence suggesting the opposite...
There are lots of ways of reducing PAYE liability if you can afford not to take the cash home as salary.Of course, feel free to provide a link to evidence suggesting the opposite...
All perfectly legitimate and open to anyone - however you are significantly more likely to be able to take advantage of them if you are a high earner.
I am sure there is no need for me to provide a link.
sidicks said:
Stupid generalisations are stupid.
The point he is making is clear, however. Do you want to comment on that?
No, because all this wThe point he is making is clear, however. Do you want to comment on that?
ky focus on a wky poll is wky. How stupid is the stupid generalisation that people only hold lefty views because of envy or spite? Here's a generalisation for you: People often vote against their self interest. I am moderately affluent, have little personal need for state education and healthcare, good public transport, social housing, and so on, and so I should on some views be a Tory. But I'm not a Tory. I will vote to pay more tax and do other things that might seem contrary to my self interest. Meanwhile, working class voters sometimes support things that are likely to do them harm such as having Tory Governments and leaving the EU. People do not always make the obvious choices.
desolate said:
There are lots of ways of reducing PAYE liability if you can afford not to take the cash home as salary.
All perfectly legitimate and open to anyone - however you are significantly more likely to be able to take advantage of them if you are a high earner.
I am sure there is no need for me to provide a link.
He claimed ‘vast sums’ - please explain how someone who should be paying the top rate of tax, can ‘squirrell away’ vast sums without paying tax.All perfectly legitimate and open to anyone - however you are significantly more likely to be able to take advantage of them if you are a high earner.
I am sure there is no need for me to provide a link.
Thank you.
sidicks said:
Breadvan72 said:
"It's", not "its", and "principle", not "principal". One good thing about being a lefty is that you are rarely jealous of the linguistic prowess of the typical PH righty. There seems to be something about expressing conservative views on the internet and inability to spell, punctuate, or use grammar. Maybe it's something to do with all those posh schools that us chippy plebs are so jealous of.
Stupid generalisations are stupid.Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 3rd October 09:52
Breadvan72 said:
The love that Corbyn and also some trad labour voters have for Brexit are rather different, and in the case of the latter the love is much less optimistic.
A posh school over there --------> may be able to help with that.El stovey said:
The suggestion is that the material benefit is reducing wealth inequality and the benefit is that it creates a more equitable society with less social problems and a happier population.. It isn’t actually just about redistribution of wealth.
You may agree or disagree with that concept but it’s not correct that aim is to introduce something simply out of spite with no benefit to anyone,
I don’t fully agree with your logic, but it’s a credible position. At least you’ve understood the question, which is more than Roman Rhodes has!You may agree or disagree with that concept but it’s not correct that aim is to introduce something simply out of spite with no benefit to anyone,
Breadvan72 said:
No, because all this wky focus on a wky poll is wky. How stupid is the stupid generalisation that people only hold lefty views because of envy or spite?
Who claimed that?ky focus on a wky poll is wky. How stupid is the stupid generalisation that people only hold lefty views because of envy or spite? However, I think it would be difficult to argue than none of the people voting in that survey had views that were driven more by spite / envy than logic and fairness!
Roman Rhodes said:
Here's a generalisation for you: People often vote against their self interest. I am moderately affluent, have little personal need for state education and healthcare, good public transport, social housing, and so on, and so I should on some views be a Tory. But I'm not a Tory. I will vote to pay more tax and do other things that might seem contrary to my self interest. Meanwhile, working class voters sometimes support things that are likely to do them harm such as having Tory Governments and leaving the EU. People do not always make the obvious choices.
I’m not sure the data would support that claim. Didn’t the income gap rise under Labour and fall under the Coalition / Tories?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff