Michael Meacher's Economic Figures

[silvagod]

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2012/04/brit...

If this is true (and there's no reason to think it isn't) it just shows that we are heading for a wider gap between the 'haves and have nots'

I personally think it stinks that there are so many that could pay off 70% of our deficit with just a 28% tax and don't when there's many more paying 40%+ on not so much.

I don't have a clue what the answer is to the economy, but statistics like this provide gloomy reading.

Anyone care to dispute or let us know what could or should be done?

[Rollin]

Who pays next years deficit?

[voyds9]

Why is it depressing.

Everyone is trying to improve their lot, it's just the are more successful.

I don't hate them but I would like to emulate them

[Randy Winkman]

silvagod said:

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2012/04/brit...

If this is true (and there's no reason to think it isn't) it just shows that we are heading for a wider gap between the 'haves and have nots'

I personally think it stinks that there are so many that could pay off 70% of our deficit with just a 28% tax and don't when there's many more paying 40%+ on not so much.

I don't have a clue what the answer is to the economy, but statistics like this provide gloomy reading.

Anyone care to dispute or let us know what could or should be done?

Don't even bother on PH - it's not worth it.

[ringram]

Who invests in business expansion and new job growth once the money earmarked for that is taxed away?

[silvagod]

voyds9 said:

Why is it depressing.

I find it depressing that there is such a wide gap between the 'ordinary' working man and the super rich. I don't have a problem with capitalist views per se, but when the country you earned your wealth through hits the skids, you shouldn't get fatter off the back of it. Governments have always pandered to the super rich, they probably always will (the 15 years mentioned in the article was mostly under a Labour Govt. so it's a cross party thing).

I am sitting here thinking 2 things...

1. What can I do to get that rich and would I feel like helping the country more if I did?

and

2. I wonder what communism is really like?

[silvagod]

Randy Winkman said:

Don't even bother on PH - it's not worth it.

I wondered about that point to be honest, but there again, thought I'd try and get some of 'them' to comment

[Rollin]

So who pays next years deficit when you've nicked the wealth off the rich people and they've fked off?

[Derek Chevalier]

silvagod said:

or let us know what could or should be done?

You should ignore asshats that produce rubbish such as "who caused the financial crash in the first place"

[silvagod]

Rollin said:

So who pays next years deficit when you've nicked the wealth off the rich people and they've fked off?

That's a very good point.

If their pots grow at the same rate, and the deficit is cut, the amount required next year would be less. They would retain a lot of their accumulated wealth and the masses would be able to contribute more of a percentage.

However, what makes you think they will leave if they are asked to pay more towards the country that gave them that wealth? The article mentions bankers, hedge fund managers as some of the super rich. We are a global centre for banking as it stands, do you really think that taxation above our current levels would frighten the banking industry away?

As I said, I don't have answers, if I did, I would be one of the super rich myself!

[silvagod]

Derek Chevalier said:

silvagod said:

or let us know what could or should be done?

You should ignore asshats that produce rubbish such as "who caused the financial crash in the first place"

I did recoil at that particular part myself. It was a global financial meltdown as far as I know, but, and it's a big but, the banking industry did get rather greedy and lent money in the vain hope it would be repaid. As far as I understand, there wasn't a massive crop failure / world war / famine that caused commodity prices to jump exponentially, it was banks that led the way in share prices tumbling.

Please feel free to correct me on any points, I am not a financial wizard and may not understand the full process. Just don't burn me too much with the flames!

[mybrainhurts]

Before you go any further, I'd check Meacher's figures. He's so dumb he thought he could get away with denying being himself in a telephone conversation with someone who knew his voice.
The idiot forgot to hang up and the caller heard his wife berating him for being such a prick.

[Rollin]

Do you understand that the budget deficit is an annual thing? You are going to ask the wealthy to pay £150 billion every year? Would you stay here if that were the case?

[mybrainhurts]

Rollin said:

Do you understand that the budget deficit is an annual thing? You are going to ask the wealthy to pay £150 billion every year? Would you stay here if that were the case?

I'd risk a little bet that Michael doesn't understand this...

[silvagod]

Rollin said:

Do you understand that the budget deficit is an annual thing? You are going to ask the wealthy to pay £150 billion every year? Would you stay here if that were the case?

Yes I know it's annual, but does it not reduce?

I think I'd better run away now and read some books on finance!! I do my own tax returns though.

[ralphrj]

silvagod said:

pay more towards the country that gave them that wealth?

A considerable chunk of the of the super rich that make up the Sunday Times rich list did not make their fortunes in the UK.

For example of the top 10 richest only 1 made their fortune in the UK (and most of that was inherited).

[silvagod]

ralphrj said:

A considerable chunk of the of the super rich that make up the Sunday Times rich list did not make their fortunes in the UK.

For example of the top 10 richest only 1 made their fortune in the UK (and most of that was inherited).

Ah...thanks for that. Then are we a cheap place to live if you have mega wealth and if so, why?

[tig]

At the risk of over simplifying things the financial crisis has been caused by too much debt. Govts were responsible because they kept low interest rates in order to stave off (necessary) recessions and provide the illusion of growth. Most of the 'growth' can be accounted for by the additional debt. The private (e.g. mortgage) debt was encouraged by these govts to keep the whole game alive while they got re-elected.

Bankers ? Just the modern day Jews taking the blame from failing politics

[silvagod]

mybrainhurts said:

Before you go any further, I'd check Meacher's figures. He's so dumb he thought he could get away with denying being himself in a telephone conversation with someone who knew his voice.
The idiot forgot to hang up and the caller heard his wife berating him for being such a prick.

Oops...

I knew that someone on here would have an insight into the person.

I'm learning things though, so all is good

[Puggit]

silvagod said:

ralphrj said:

A considerable chunk of the of the super rich that make up the Sunday Times rich list did not make their fortunes in the UK.

For example of the top 10 richest only 1 made their fortune in the UK (and most of that was inherited).

Ah...thanks for that. Then are we a cheap place to live if you have mega wealth and if so, why?

Because the ridiculously complicated tax system is riddled with loopholes.

Now, if we had a flat rate of tax (20% for arguments sake) - the super rich would be far more willing to part with their cash.

Personally I find 50% tax (and above) morally wrong. I'm not super rich, I'm not even heading there, but I don't think anyone should be charged that much.