-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
fuck you vince. you argued that the 50p tax band was good and talked about all the revenue it was bringing in in the chancellors debate last year, and now it's "undesirable". tories being tories is depressing enough for me, i can't deal with all the lib dems being unrecognizable from tories.
ZombieFred said:
I work in secondary education and thought Id be safe, how wrong I was.
Changes in the way educational funding works and an overall deficit in the national school budget have wrought havoc.
ICT services (my department), admin, expressive arts and PE have all been selected as redundancy pools by our school management team. As of yet, we don't know when the axe is going to fall but when it does its going to hurt like hell.
Teachers and support staff all across the country are losing their jobs. I hate to be the bearer of bad news - I can only hope that you will remain untouched.
blazinglord said:
I'm probably wrong but wasn't the 50p rate mostly a stopgap measure because of the recession and the defecit? It doesn't seem to me like we're out of that yet is all and with the lower/middle class "hurting" now just seems an unfair time to dump it is all.
As for taxation on a whole depending upon salary... I've never been fully behind any one position. I remember a scene in The West Wing when they're debating changing the tax brackets and basically I agreed with both sides. "Why should a doctor on a high salary be asked to pay more when the market values his services at that price?" I think was the argument... I'll have to find the scene again.
kurtrussell
Banned
Empty said:
A bit harsh when all they've done so far is begin to sort out Labour's mess.....
Wes said:
They cut taxes for lower earners too.
To be frank high earners mostly aren't high earners by accident, most will have worked hard, spent years in higher education, took risks,or followed a dream to get that point. If the government is just going to hammer them for doing so what would be the point of even trying?
Students make me smile as a lot have socialist views, which magically seems to evaporate the second they get into the real world and start earning their own money.
Loads of my old uni mates were all rob the rich to pay the poor in their attitudes, which never gets mentioned now they have their own bills to pay.....
The march in London on over the weekend made me smile too, as they were all waving banners saying "No cuts" then they all went to listen to that twat Milliband in the park who has said he will cut, just he won't tell us what, like he's some kind of pariah......
Are people really that dim?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Wes said:
Yes it was when introduced. Ed Milliband and Ed Balls committed to making it permanent during the Labour leadership election. My guess is that Balls meant it, but Milliband wanted the lefty votes and the union member votes, he has already started backtracking on the commitment. The Tories said going into the election that they wanted the 50% rate to be temporary, and they were sceptical of whether it would actually produce much revenue for the government. They have kept it for the reason of gesture politics to the detriment of us all.
Anyway, Osborne didn't dump it in the budget, he announced a HMRC investigation to see how much revenue the 50% rate actually brings in, it will report at the beginning of 2012 and pave the way for the removal of the 50% rate in the 2013 budget which will be pre-announced in the 2012 budget.
I think three tax tiers works best, no tax up to £17.5k, 30% up to £60k and 40% on anything above £60k. The middle classes pay more tax overall, but the poor pay no tax, it will also be a massive incentive to work so will reduce the welfare bill. It also gives entrepreneurs the incentive to start businesses in the country and employ people as the overall tax rate is low for a western country.
It would stop a lot of tax avoidance schemes, and it would have very few losers, I think those in the £40-70k range would be net losers and everyone else would have a net gain.
I haven't done the sums, but I think it would cost around £3bn a year for the government to implement on current tax income, but I believe it would cause a rise in tax receipts from VAT as a lot of people would pay no income tax at all would spend more on luxury goods which are eligible for VAT rather than a higher proportion on non VAT items like food.
It's a pretty radical system, but I think the less tax poor households pay the better as they tend to spend the largest proportion of their income in the UK.
One of the first things I heard on the news when I woke up this morning was an anchor ask the Policing minister if he thought the Royal Wedding was under threat. Does removal of masks include veils too? What if it's raining and they have their hood up? The last week in April is going to be one of the bizarrest for a long time.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
We should run a book on how many Diana front pages the Express will have in the run up to the royal wedding!
zomgbbqftw
Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
So the government has briefed journalists about the replacement for EMA.
It's basically what I had heard, similar system, better targeted half the cost.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6822713/another-phase-in-goves-revolution.thtml
The gist of the article is that the school will now be in charge of how much each student gets or if they get it at all.
I have heard teachers can grief report to the school/college if they see EMA funds being used to buy booze/fags and the money will be stopped for those reported. I think it gives ordinary teachers too much power, but I don't see any other way of policing the system.
Dark Machine
Member
I just find it amusing that the insistance is that higher taxes stifle growth. In fact I would argue that higher taxes can improve growth, as they ensure money is recycled back into the economy rather than removed into savings 'havens', foreign stocks and offshore accounts. Taxes help create wealth, especially if connected with government programs to help small and medium sized businesses. If the rich do not wish to pay taxes, then they should leave. One of the most progressive periods in the 20th century was when taxes were at 80% for the top earners.
Zomg, I'd be very grateful if you could shed some light on a question I have: Why is your company and bosses still housed here rather than totally in say Hong Kong, or the Cayman Islands? Taxes are lower there, and the business doesn't require any services particular to the UK seemingly. I'd be genuinely interested in that if you don't mind talking about it bro.
I'd also like to point out that the last time a government put in these policies; tax breaks and cuts for the rich and corporations, rises on the poor and cuts in Public Services to this degree, was in the early 1920s. It's never worked before, I sincerely doubt it'll work again.
What irks me the most is that Banks and Corporations in the City especially are not playing by their own rules. Their high street services should've been bought by the government to secure savings, all other parts should've failed. They asked for de-regulation, they got it, (New Labour were idiots determined to prove they were uber pro-business) and most of them failed, why are they still in business when the Capitalist market deems them to have lost? Obviously we don't run a market system, what system do we run here?
Also the only benefit of the Wedding is the nice day off we all get. Don't believe anything about Middleton being a 'commoner' either, it's very much a relative thing. She went to the same school as the Prince after all.
Teachers don't have enough power. They've been spat on by a large proportion of the populace ever since the mid-90s and shat on by the governments repeatedly (Lab and Con). It's swung too far the other way toward 'child protection' so these days 'think of the children' is taken advantage of by the large amount of twatty kids in school. Being the son of a teacher I can tell you straight that teaching is not 'teaching', it's 'teaching, riot control, councilling, administration, ICT specialist, actor, community activist and in many cases father/mother/auntie/uncle'. Whole system's gone downhill ever since the special schools got shut down.
And 'better targeted' is a debatable issue. But I actually agree with it in principle, one of my friends dads was a millionaire who paid no income tax because he ran his own business and didn't pay himself a wage. So his kid got the full £30 EMA. My worry is with a tighter budget, it'll be denied to those who truly need it.
Zomg, I'd be very grateful if you could shed some light on a question I have: Why is your company and bosses still housed here rather than totally in say Hong Kong, or the Cayman Islands? Taxes are lower there, and the business doesn't require any services particular to the UK seemingly. I'd be genuinely interested in that if you don't mind talking about it bro.
I'd also like to point out that the last time a government put in these policies; tax breaks and cuts for the rich and corporations, rises on the poor and cuts in Public Services to this degree, was in the early 1920s. It's never worked before, I sincerely doubt it'll work again.
What irks me the most is that Banks and Corporations in the City especially are not playing by their own rules. Their high street services should've been bought by the government to secure savings, all other parts should've failed. They asked for de-regulation, they got it, (New Labour were idiots determined to prove they were uber pro-business) and most of them failed, why are they still in business when the Capitalist market deems them to have lost? Obviously we don't run a market system, what system do we run here?
Also the only benefit of the Wedding is the nice day off we all get. Don't believe anything about Middleton being a 'commoner' either, it's very much a relative thing. She went to the same school as the Prince after all.
zomgbbqftw said:
Teachers don't have enough power. They've been spat on by a large proportion of the populace ever since the mid-90s and shat on by the governments repeatedly (Lab and Con). It's swung too far the other way toward 'child protection' so these days 'think of the children' is taken advantage of by the large amount of twatty kids in school. Being the son of a teacher I can tell you straight that teaching is not 'teaching', it's 'teaching, riot control, councilling, administration, ICT specialist, actor, community activist and in many cases father/mother/auntie/uncle'. Whole system's gone downhill ever since the special schools got shut down.
And 'better targeted' is a debatable issue. But I actually agree with it in principle, one of my friends dads was a millionaire who paid no income tax because he ran his own business and didn't pay himself a wage. So his kid got the full £30 EMA. My worry is with a tighter budget, it'll be denied to those who truly need it.
Dark Machine, when the Tories reduced the tax rate from ~60% to 40% in the 80s tax revenue increased.
Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8078915.stm
Nearly 3m higher rate taxpayers paid more than 25m lower rate taxpayers in income tax and before the recession nearly 4m people paid £91 BILLION in taxes, another £8 billion and that's the NHS budget!!! And you want these people to leave??
Also at the moment, the UK pays £50BILLION (ironically enough that's how much coropration tax the govt. receives) a year in interest, that's not the banker's fault (the bank bailouts aren't in the govt. finacials) its 12 years of a Labour govt.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6805933/your-fivepoint-guide-to-tomorrows-budget.thtml
Some good posts zomgbbqftw, these graphs show how crazy Labour got with the nation's credit card.
Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8078915.stm
Nearly 3m higher rate taxpayers paid more than 25m lower rate taxpayers in income tax and before the recession nearly 4m people paid £91 BILLION in taxes, another £8 billion and that's the NHS budget!!! And you want these people to leave??
Also at the moment, the UK pays £50BILLION (ironically enough that's how much coropration tax the govt. receives) a year in interest, that's not the banker's fault (the bank bailouts aren't in the govt. finacials) its 12 years of a Labour govt.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6805933/your-fivepoint-guide-to-tomorrows-budget.thtml
Some good posts zomgbbqftw, these graphs show how crazy Labour got with the nation's credit card.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Its nice that they're giving some people something, and its nice that they aspire to making more 'targetted' payments, but lets not pretend they've done anything other than cut the programme massively. It's not less "half the cost", he's cut £380m from the programme.
I never recieved EMA so I was always dubious about kids today getting it, but everything I've read - both in the news and anecdotally suggests it actually kinda worked.
I never recieved EMA so I was always dubious about kids today getting it, but everything I've read - both in the news and anecdotally suggests it actually kinda worked.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Dark Machine said:
No, the period of highest growth was after Nigel Lawson reduced the top rate of tax to 40%. Taxes are proven to stall growth. There is a very, very clear link between lowering high marginal rates of corporate and personal taxation and growth. The word progressive has lost all meaning, it has been hijacked by the left to mean leftist. The real meaning of progressive is that higher paid people pay a higher proportion of their earnings in tax. Nothing else. Every party in the UK (even UKIP) believe in a progressive tax system, there are few people, even in the City, who would move to a Bush style system of lower taxes for the super-rich and then hope it trickles down. If you are using Bush as an example of how trickle-down doesn't work, then don't. The politics he used were ridiculous and would never work anywhere in the world.
Also the government is very poor at recycling wealth. Every government (Lab and Con) claim they will make the government better at spending, but none really do. Conservative governments tend to stop government spending become more wasteful, but generally it is very, very hard to actually reduce government spending. Those Speccie graphs above me that look at total managed expenditure don't include the debt interest bill which is around 7% of all government expenditure today and by 2014 will become 9% of all government expenditure. So total expenditure will actually be much higher as a proportion of GPD than the Speccie would like to admit.
We like it here. The infrastructure, the ease of doing business is great in London. Not so great in the rest of the UK, but London specifically is great. There is a lot of resistance to moving abroad, but if Labour won the election I can almost guarantee we would be moving to Hong Kong.
The last time was actually from 1994-2000, which was also the highest period of growth ever recorded in the UK (outside of post war of course). It was only once Gordon Brown starting raising his stealth taxes and NI that growth stalled, that he increased public spending at the same time as slower growth was an almost fatal error to the UK economy. Most people we not in danger any more, and that we won't go bankrupt like in the 1970s but under Labour, well more specifically Gordon Brown, we would have a much higher chance mostly because the interest bill would be 20-30% higher than it is now.
We run a regulated market system, it isn't a pure free market in financial services. It was nearly one in 1997 when Gordon defanged the Bank (as you mentioned above) and you can see the result. The system we had before where the Bank would make sure banks and financial companies were behaving themselves was better as they were able to do something about it. If the FSA had never been put in charge of banks and financial services we would not be in such a shit position.
Day off is awesome though, I'm heading out to San Fran on the 23rd of April for nine days and I only had to take 3 days off!
I agree with you in that sense. Teachers definitely need more power to control the classroom. What I was specifically talking about was if giving teachers the power to effectively stop a person being able come to school, if that teacher had a vendetta or just plain didn't like the student (and I came across many at school and college) it would be bad for students.
I hope it is well targeted for the reasons you mention. That's why the system needed an overhaul.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Q4 GDP figures revised upwards to -0.5%, not a big change really. PMI is doing much better though, growth for Q1 is expected at 0.4-0.6%. We expect growth to be at the lower end of the range.
travisbickle
Member
travisbickle
Member
blazinglord said:
You heard it here first, people who earn £150,000 a year or more don't use public services... don't go to national parks, libraries, theatres, restaurants, art galleries or museums. They pay servants to carry them around everywhere so they don't officially use the public highways, and these servants also eat their rubbish so they don't have to use refuse services. Everywhere they go is actually 700 feet off the ground, and this is because rich people have funded nasa for the last 50 years to build a "rich world" that floats above us that contains all of the so called "public" services and they fly their by flying car, bypassing all road networks created to traffic people around, so they shouldn't pay tax!!
Blazing lord it's poor people who don't get their moneys worth from public services, read the statistics.
Dark Machine
Member
travisbickle said:
There was an idea from Johann Hari that the next step should be that all tax-dodging/avoiding companies should have their public services cut off, just like private companies would do if people couldn't/wouldn't pay them. So Topshop shouldn't have its rubbish collected, shouldn't have pest control sent when the rats come, shouldn't have street lighting outside its stores, should have its spot on the pavement left to decay, police won't come to break ins, firemen won't come to fires etc etc.
I'd be all for it if it didn't affect others, sadly the poor people living next door would suffer as well, and others might trip up on the pavement outside.
Also I'm interested in who exactly are these people from the bond market that are 'threatening' us. Everything I read says that borrowing is cheap now and was cheap even right after the crisis hit for the UK. It also says that borrowing went up for those countries that cut services and thus slowed down growth (Greece, Ireland etc.). Osbourne apparently wants to follow Ireland's example, so that means everyone's fired I suppose.
Forgive me, I'm obviously no economist, but surely if ordinary people stop spending as they do quite sensibly in a recession because they're losing their jobs, benefits etc. AND the government stops spending and investing...then where exactly is money going to come from? I've read recently in the Indie that the UK's outlook for exports is bleak, and we're way behind places like Germany, France, Japan, Korea, the USA in the developed world. That's why I was astonished the loan to a place like Sheffield Forgemasters to build Power Plant parts was denied. Maybe I'm being stupid, but I don't understand where the money is going to come from? There's been a lot of talk from this government about 'making things' here again (presumably for export) but who's paying for it?
dalyr95 said:
Calling massive massive bullshit on this. Income tax does not follow Laffer curve since people do not leave the country. Laffer curve works on capital gains. You're gonna have to source your claims since the evidence is heavily against the laffer curve based fantasy raising tax revenue on a real-terms basis when applied to income tax.
I've always had a little bit of a problem taxing the super rich. If you are earning 150 grand a year, you take home *only* 75 grand a year.
People earning over fifty grand a year make up less than a tenth of the population. At least that was the situation last time I checked.
Yet they make more than 90 percent of the wealth available. The balance there is off I think.
I mean I know, that it has always been the poor and working who pay more of their income into bills, foods, rents, council tax etc.
So how is it fair that you get to convert half of the money you earn into tax, in a fair and just society?
People earning over fifty grand a year make up less than a tenth of the population. At least that was the situation last time I checked.
Yet they make more than 90 percent of the wealth available. The balance there is off I think.
I mean I know, that it has always been the poor and working who pay more of their income into bills, foods, rents, council tax etc.
So how is it fair that you get to convert half of the money you earn into tax, in a fair and just society?
killer_clank
Member
Not sure if anyone else here follows Scottish Politics, but there's a leaders debate coming up at 9 with the leaders of the SNP, Scottish Labour, Con and LD in advance of the upcoming election.
Will be streaming here: http://news.stv.tv/election-2011/de...rsdebate-live-online-and-join-the-discussion/
Will be streaming here: http://news.stv.tv/election-2011/de...rsdebate-live-online-and-join-the-discussion/
travisbickle
Member
Ashes1396 said:
It's any money earned over £150,000 that you would pay 50% on.
(approximates)
0 - £37000 you pay 10%
£37000 - £150,000 pay 40%
over £150,000 you pay 50%
So if you earn £150,000 you probably pay about £49,000 about 33%; in reality they'll pay a lot less because when you earn that kind of money you also have the brains to find ways to pay less.
radioheadrule83
Banned
I've often wondered what the psychological difference would be if tax was factored into job adverts and made invisible on pay slips. It would be as though your employer was paying it for you, and for the first time - you'd be looking at your 'real' wage. One of the most depressing things about getting your payslip is looking at the deductions column.
I don't believe in mass redistribution of wealth, but I do believe being super rich in a country like this - that still has real poverty, is a privilege not a right. People can feel they've "earned" it all they like, if you're in the top 10th percentile of earners, I think you owe it to yourself and to society to try and contribute to society, and lift those around you. Nothing pisses me off more than bratty rich folk who look down their noses on the rest of society and feel their obscene wealth is justified. It's not justified. Especially if it was inherited through privilege. It's a symptom of a flawed society. If you have so much wealth that your bank balance interest is more than some people make in a year, and you still groan about paying taxes, you're a cunt. Go to some other country, be my guest, let someone else take your place. If you're on over £150,000 it probably takes you a couple of months to make the amount of money that it takes someone on minimum or average wage to make in a year. I like the initiative in the public sector that ensures people at the top can't earn more than 20 times what the lowest earner does. Sure, in theory, that might 'limit' the quality of person the civil service can bring in, but quite honestly - it was the obscenely rich that presided over the start of this recession. Maybe we can do without that kind of 'quality'. The market decides what worth to place on labour, on what people do, but that's not to say the market can't be wrong. I honestly would have had no problem with seeing some rich people strung up in London over the financial crisis. Tonnes of the cunts have no idea what it is like to live as a normal person.
I don't believe in mass redistribution of wealth, but I do believe being super rich in a country like this - that still has real poverty, is a privilege not a right. People can feel they've "earned" it all they like, if you're in the top 10th percentile of earners, I think you owe it to yourself and to society to try and contribute to society, and lift those around you. Nothing pisses me off more than bratty rich folk who look down their noses on the rest of society and feel their obscene wealth is justified. It's not justified. Especially if it was inherited through privilege. It's a symptom of a flawed society. If you have so much wealth that your bank balance interest is more than some people make in a year, and you still groan about paying taxes, you're a cunt. Go to some other country, be my guest, let someone else take your place. If you're on over £150,000 it probably takes you a couple of months to make the amount of money that it takes someone on minimum or average wage to make in a year. I like the initiative in the public sector that ensures people at the top can't earn more than 20 times what the lowest earner does. Sure, in theory, that might 'limit' the quality of person the civil service can bring in, but quite honestly - it was the obscenely rich that presided over the start of this recession. Maybe we can do without that kind of 'quality'. The market decides what worth to place on labour, on what people do, but that's not to say the market can't be wrong. I honestly would have had no problem with seeing some rich people strung up in London over the financial crisis. Tonnes of the cunts have no idea what it is like to live as a normal person.
godels rotating universe
Banned
Hear hear!Dark Machine said:
zomgbbqftw
Banned
travisbickle said:
0 - £37k is 16%
£37k - £100k is 40%
£100k - £115k is 65%
over £150k is 50%
NI is 12% on anything above £8000 gross pay up to around £100k
Other taxes are employers NI which is around £20k, but the employee doesn't bear that burden though I'm sure the employer does take it into account when pay rises are due.
On £150k your total tax paid is around £60k, but someone on £200000 pays £85k in tax. The 50% rate is what kills the system. Doing a job that pays this kind of money is anything but easy. I have seen guys here that come in at 5am and leave at 11pm, sure they get paid well and they get a bonus of sorts at the end of the year, but I would ask anyone who says the job is easy to work 18h per day for 6 days a week. It isn't easy and it's an extremely high pressure job, when you are looking at multi-million pound deals you can't afford for it to go wrong to there is a lot of pressure to get it right all the time. Not easy to do.
Someone who earns £200k pays £85k in tax, you need 14 people earning the average national wage to pay the same amount of tax that the single person pays. Now tell me you don't want to keep that person in the UK. If higher rate earners go, taxes for everyone else will have to go up as the top 10% of earners pay something like 60% of all income tax. Extend that to the top 20% and it is closer to 90%. Soaking the rich as Labour just love to do never works. People in that higher rate tax band are extremely mobile (you would be if you earned £200k) and extremely good at tax avoidance (not evasion which is illegal). The only way to ensure that top rate payers don't leave the country is to forcibly take their right to leave away, though the international community may have something to say if the government moves to soviet era exit visas strictly controlled by the state.
godels rotating universe
Banned
the mail has become a treasure-trove of wonder the past few days
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-looks-like-Hitler-complete-naff-parting.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-dinosaurs-humans-existed-just-mud-stain.html
highlight:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-looks-like-Hitler-complete-naff-parting.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-dinosaurs-humans-existed-just-mud-stain.html
highlight:
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I could feel my IQ dropping as I skimmed those articles. The best part were the most negatively rated comments, those are always good for a laugh...
blazinglord
Member
You asked me to look at the statistics, I'm looking at the statistics:travisbickle said:
In my experience those earning over £150k a year do not get welfare and have private health insurance - two areas that accounts for just under a half of total government spending. The public services you mention, with the possible exception of public highways, are funded for by local government which each and everyone of us contributes to via council tax. Furthermore, cultural services such as libraries, museums etc accounts for a very small proportion of total government spending. I therefore reject your claim that those earning £150k+ are getting their money's worth.
I stress though, that I am not opposed to the principle of income tax. But I fundamentally disagree with this shift from the taxation being a social contribution to it being a penalty on high earners, just because they earn more. Which is what the increase to 50% represents. It makes no economic sense and serves no purpose other than being a political gesture. Albeit one that is a bit more subtle that staging a sit-in at Fortnum and Mason.
radioheadrule83
Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
Are you saying they wouldn't if they could? For that kind of money?
I don't. I don't like them, I don't want them, I want this country to work towards a place where we're not so dependent upon your industry. I wish we had an economy that was nowhere near as focused on the financial services industry, and that wealth was more evenly distributed. I would rather have 14 normal people earning the average wage frankly. Or even for us all to pay a higher cost in taxes. At least then, we really would be "all in this together".
Nothing is more obnoxious than the suggestion that city workers are of indispensable worth, as there is an inherent suggestion that normal, everyday, hardworking people are not. They are the people who pay for goods, who use your services, who are lured into indebtedness just to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. They're the teat that fucking everybody preys on and milks, the creatures of habit that people gamble on. They struggle payday to payday while people in the city live like fucking kings. I'm not saying that what some rich people do isn't hard, or that it isn't important -- it is often hard, and it is often important, I just wish people would have some fucking sense of perspective and realise how fortunate they are... and realise how they got there too. Poeple should recognise that not everybody in this country has those opportunities. This is not a meritocracy. It is an inequitable and injust society with a massive gulf between the poor and the normal, and the normal and the rich. Wealth is so disgracefully concentrated in the minority, and we are NOT all in this together.
I'm not an extremist lefty at heart, I don't want radical, damaging change or anything. With increasing unease, I find that I agree more and more with the Tories on the economy. That being said, I am angry at what is happening right now, at the squeeze that me and countless other people are feeling; I am angry about the near term prospects for people losing their jobs, when they shouldn't be. I am angry about kids getting out of school, college and University and having to compete against impossible odds. The richest people in this society don't have a fucking clue what that is like unless they have been there and experienced it. I don't feel obliged to feel grateful to society's richest and luckiest in the slightest. In fact, the more ignorant and greedy of them? Fuck them. I wouldn't condone it, but I would have a significant degree of empathy and understanding if some filthy prole wandered into Canary Wharf and started stabbing people.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Good post. The politics of envy is never good.
I put the sums through our proprietary tax calculator and our numbers come out at the 50% rate contributing £800m, then £200m then a net loss of £400m which will continue to grow as fewer entrepreneurs locate in the UK because of punitive taxes. Removing it should be a priority of the government because without people starting businesses private sector job growth will stall and the economy will stall.
We need tax relief on capital expenditure and something for regular business expenditure so private companies start investing money in the economy again. Forget bank loans, businesses have got massive bank balances atm, but they have no incentive to spend any of it, the system punishes any investment over £100k per year and we need to remove barriers to investment by private companies to stimulate the private sector.
I put the sums through our proprietary tax calculator and our numbers come out at the 50% rate contributing £800m, then £200m then a net loss of £400m which will continue to grow as fewer entrepreneurs locate in the UK because of punitive taxes. Removing it should be a priority of the government because without people starting businesses private sector job growth will stall and the economy will stall.
We need tax relief on capital expenditure and something for regular business expenditure so private companies start investing money in the economy again. Forget bank loans, businesses have got massive bank balances atm, but they have no incentive to spend any of it, the system punishes any investment over £100k per year and we need to remove barriers to investment by private companies to stimulate the private sector.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
radioheadrule83 said:
I'm sure they would. Not everyone is suited to the lifestyle though. People quit after the first month all the time.
As much you leftist diatribe is a great read you lack very basic understanding of how taxes work. If the city and its tax income disappeared the UK would lose around 3% of population and more than 20% of its tax income. That shortfall would have to be made up somewhere. It would mean higher taxes or worse services for everyone. Think about the NHS just suddenly not existing, that's the scale of how bad things would get it that tax income just went away.
I think you will find we do live in a meritocracy. I came from literally nothing and I work in the city now. My parents aren't rich and I didn't go to private school, I have the wrong colour skin and the wrong name. I still got where I am and plenty of others have as well. The barriers to entry for these jobs are mostly self-imposed. People think they won't get the job so they don't apply. I saw a poll last month which said the working class have the most prejudice against others not in their class and they have the most self imposed barriers. There is no barrier to entry for people from a working class background, we want the best people regardless of where they come from, that's how I got the job. I mean I went to a state school, didn't go to Oxbridge, not in any kind of social chapters like the Greek system at US colleges. I still did made it, if I can others should be able to as well.
Edit: if you think the squeeze on your income is bad now, you have no idea how bad it would get it the financial sector ceased to exist. This country is extremely dependent on the tax income from high-fliers and the city. How that happened is the subject of another discussion and whether a country should be so dependent on such a fickle business is yet another discussion. The fact of the matter is that the UK is dependent on the financial services industry, more than any other western nation and that won't change for at least the next 10 years, not without a massive amount of upheaval that would put the squeeze on even harder.
godels rotating universe
Banned
People not applying for jobs in the city because they don't think they can get them is a red herring. I'm pretty sure I could get a job in the city if I wanted to. I don't want to.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
That's a self imposed barrier.
Like I said, most people could apply to work in the city and they can do the work, either they don't want to or they think they won't get the job.
Like I said, most people could apply to work in the city and they can do the work, either they don't want to or they think they won't get the job.
godels rotating universe
Banned
It's not a barrier at all. I don't want to work in the city.zomgbbqftw said:
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
I am wondering if you guys who have voted for the Leb Dem are not satisfied with their policies. Do you guys feel betrayed by them? I am not a Brit, but i lurked in UK election thread and there was a lot of excitement for the Leb Dems. That means that you will vote Labor next election right?
godels rotating universe
Banned
I'll probably vote green.Beam said:
[edit]I would not be surprised if the lib dems either oust their current MP leaders or split before the end of the coalition. A lot of lib dem members are very unhappy with their role in government right now.
zomgbbqftw said:
Didn't you go to a good university though? That's kind of how I took your last response to education.
It's easy to blame the victim as it were. This is an old argument. It doesn't take into consideration nepotism, nor favouritism, nor racism, nor sexism, nor cultural or class based prejudice, nor the borough a person is from, nor the primary/secondary/sixth form a person went to, nor the fact that a good university seems to mean more than a degree in the subject from an average university; i.e. I find it very hard to believe that with the sheer volume of people applying for finance, that purely through numbers the big financial institutions wouldn't be finding people with the right degree in their area.
There are now more first classes passes then ever before, so your intelligence isn't giving you a leg up. So I wonder what is?
My sister for example, is on her way to a first class first this summer, she came from a poor borough, went to a shitty primary school, a mediocre secondary school, a so-so sixth form, and a middling university. She had always gotten good grades. To my memory anyway.
She hasn't even finished and is applying to hundreds and hundreds of jobs, and by hundreds, I mean hundreds, and in her field of accounting and business. So what I'm trying to understand, is when she had done the work, and gotten the best possible results that she could have gotten, why she isn't getting ahead of the game?
I'm sure she'll land on her feet, and I still see her applying for jobs, apprenticeships, graduation schemes; there is always change in the job market; but could you perhaps bring to light what possible reasons there are that she isn't getting her job?
She says it isn't due to not graduating already, as she is almost certainly going to get a first class first, and the employers haven't agreed on that.
It seems to be the lack of experience (she's already working at quite a jobs, and in some financial institutions) , and or that some people have been jobless for longer or something... It takes on average about five years or something to make good of your degree.
Point being, isolated cases are isolated cases, I don't think your theory applies to the general work environment, i.e. blaming the working class for basically being stupid, or workshy.
radioheadrule83
Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
I don't lack understanding at all, it is my understanding that things are exactly as you say which leads me to believe we need to move away from a dependency on the financial sector. Like you say, how that happened, who is to blame, and what can or could possibly be done about it, is another topic altogether...
I believe you're wrong. I believe you are naive to believe that this is a meritocracy. It seems you are basing that belief on your own personal experiences, which believe me - I do respect and admire. But come back in the next life as a child on a run down council estate and attend the only crap school you can get into, full of crap teachers and troublemakers, and try and make yourself what you are today. I'm betting it'll be even more difficult..
I don't doubt that some people erect their own personal barriers to progress, but it's worth considering what might cause them to do that. And in any case, personal commitment is only one variable:
- Geographical factors most definitely come into play, as not all regions perform on an equal footing, or enjoy equal local economies and services.
- There are hereditary factors that affect a persons upbringing - both tangible and intangible: genes, phsyical health, access to resources (financial resources, books, computers, the internet)...
- Environmental factors affect a child's outlook and confidence too: parenting, peer networks, the local community.
Studies by organisations like ISER have clearly found that children from poorer backgrounds do worse than their richer counterparts; they have found that children rarely attain jobs that are better than the positions their parents held. Now to me, sounds like a glass ceiling, not a meritocracy. People in their late 20s/early 30s earn more than their parents did, but thats more a measure of the economy, not a measure of their social mobility. Social mobility has improved in the time that I've been alive, but by no means do I think that things are perfect now or that this is a meritocracy. Would you have us believe that all the struggling people in the country at the moment are struggling and unhappy purely because they just don't try hard enough? Do you have any idea how many millions of people you are insulting if that is the case?
I wasn't proposing doing away with central London tomorrow, although honestly, I would welcome armageddon if it meant we could be without rich, grumbling, tax averse snobs who don't know how good they've got it.
J Tourettes
Banned
Beam said:
I voted Lib Dem and don't feel betrayed. Some people seem to be under the illusion that the Lib Dems were going to get all their policies acted upon/made law which was never going to happen when they're a junior partner in a coalition. As it is, we're getting a referendum on AV (not STV but it's a start) and the lower income tax threshold hold has been raised by a fair amount, helping the working poor and with a commitment to raise it to £10k.
That's more than I expected them to get plus we get the added bonus of the tories wanting to build nuclear power plants, overriding the lib dem resistance to them.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Clegg has been scapegoated for what's going on completely. The media seem set on that narrative for the timebeing, just as they are at portraying Ed Milliband as clumsy and useless.
I voted Lib-Dem, and don't regret it in the slightest. Labour are a discredited mess, they have not rectified that as yet, and I didn't want a pure Tory manifesto being enacted. I knew a hung parliament was a likelihood going in. I think it would be a good thing for politics if in 4 years time, we look back and think - hey, that coaltion actually did a decent job.
The AV vote is a big thing for me too.
I voted Lib-Dem, and don't regret it in the slightest. Labour are a discredited mess, they have not rectified that as yet, and I didn't want a pure Tory manifesto being enacted. I knew a hung parliament was a likelihood going in. I think it would be a good thing for politics if in 4 years time, we look back and think - hey, that coaltion actually did a decent job.
The AV vote is a big thing for me too.
J Tourettes
Banned
radioheadrule83 said:
The two things I mentioned (AV and tax threshold) where the two things I was most bothered about so that's why I'm pretty pleased so far.
What I am pissed off at is the Labour people coming out against AV.
The most worrying aspect of the AV vote for me is that if the NO votes win we're unlikely to have any other referendum on electoral reform for a generation at least.
----------- An interesting aside:
The question proposed was:
This wording was criticised by the Electoral Commission, saying that "particularly those with lower levels of education or literacy, found the question hard work and did not understand it". The Electoral Commission recommended a changed wording to make the issue easier to understand, and the government subsequently amended the Bill to bring it into line with the Electoral Commission's recommendations.
The question posed by the referendum will be:
----------- An interesting aside:
The question proposed was:
This wording was criticised by the Electoral Commission, saying that "particularly those with lower levels of education or literacy, found the question hard work and did not understand it". The Electoral Commission recommended a changed wording to make the issue easier to understand, and the government subsequently amended the Bill to bring it into line with the Electoral Commission's recommendations.
The question posed by the referendum will be: