Liz Truss Resigns [Who'll be the next Prime Minister?]

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The objective would be to find a more efficient way of providing the service.

Back into your old stomping ground then of eroding workers rights, pay and conditions then.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The objective would be to find a more efficient way of providing the service.

Coffey has addressed this issue: they just need to use the Oxford comma more frequently, Old Boy.

Back to the topic please which is our New Prime Minister:Liz Truss.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Why do you bother? It needs no analysis to identify leftie dogma.

Put the lazy tropes to one side for a moment and try and justify in rational terms why giving more money to wealthy helps those struggling to feed their children, pay their mortage/rent and to heat their homes. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that trickle-down economics is a failure so why do you pretend it still works? What do you personally hope to gain from supporting these policies that Truss is pushing?

You also miss the point that it was the unfettered greed, fuelled by excessive bonuses, of the casino bankers that caused the 2008 crash (see the Big Short film for an excellent exposure of this period). Truss's policy risks a repeat of this, learning nothing from history.

The other Truss policy of allowing the Energy companies to keep their obscene "war" profits, as opposed to enforcing a windfall tax like the EU have done, is another example of where the shadow figures that control her and her policies are visible. She appointed Matthew Sinclair, former boss at the right-wing TaxPayers’ Alliance, as her chief economic advisor. A hard-right economic think tank that is notoriously coy about its funding sources or backers.

Many people regard War profiteering as immoral; it seems Truss does not.

[jfman]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...budget-reports

Oh dear, Government looks to break long established fiscal rules and increase debt and the deficit. It’s not just the bankers at the roulette wheel seemingly. It’s the new Chancellor too.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Put the lazy tropes to one side for a moment and try and justify in rational terms why giving more money to wealthy helps those struggling to feed their children, pay their mortage/rent and to heat their homes. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that trickle-down economics is a failure so why do you pretend it still works? What do you personally hope to gain from supporting these policies that Truss is pushing?

You also miss the point that it was the unfettered greed, fuelled by excessive bonuses, of the casino bankers that caused the 2008 crash (see the Big Short film for an excellent exposure of this period). Truss's policy risks a repeat of this, learning nothing from history.

The other Truss policy of allowing the Energy companies to keep their obscene "war" profits, as opposed to enforcing a windfall tax like the EU have done, is another example of where the shadow figures that control her and her policies are visible. She appointed Matthew Sinclair, former boss at the right-wing TaxPayers’ Alliance, as her chief economic advisor. A hard-right economic think tank that is notoriously coy about its funding sources or backers.

Many people regard War profiteering as immoral; it seems Truss does not.

I've carefully explained the rationale for removing the limits on bankers' bonuses. It's a matter of economics in our principal service industry, including the tax take.

https://obr.uk/box/tax-revenues-from...ancial-sector/

July-2011_4.1_Chart-A.png

You, on the other hand (and one or two others), are taking the leftie's position of citing "wealth" and "greed" as reasons for not unshackling the economy.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I've carefully explained the rationale for removing the limits on bankers' bonuses. It's a matter of economics in our principal service industry, including the tax take.

https://obr.uk/box/tax-revenues-from...ancial-sector/

Attachment 30162

You, on the other hand (and one or two others), are taking the leftie's position of citing "wealth" and "greed" as reasons for not unshackling the economy.

The theory, at textbook level, is sound. But in practice if they're at the roulette wheel knowing the taxpayer will fundamentally back their losses - "too big to fail" - the situation necessitates tighter regulation.

If they're genuinely at the roulette wheel with their own money (no laughing at the back, please) then fair enough. Good luck to them, so long as they pay the appropriate tax of course.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I've carefully explained the rationale for removing the limits on bankers' bonuses. It's a matter of economics in our principal service industry, including the tax take.

https://obr.uk/box/tax-revenues-from...ancial-sector/

Attachment 30162

You, on the other hand (and one or two others), are taking the leftie's position of citing "wealth" and "greed" as reasons for not unshackling the economy.

I see no explanation, only support. You ignore the real risk of greed-based decision making in financial dealings. You are obviously not a student of history.

The fact that you equate making the wealthy wealthier to "unshackling the economy" says all you need to know about the current ERG-driven Conservative thinking.

---------- Post added at 15:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The theory, at textbook level, is sound. But in practice if they're at the roulette wheel knowing the taxpayer will fundamentally back their losses - "too big to fail" - the situation necessitates tighter regulation.

If they're genuinely at the roulette wheel with their own money (no laughing at the back, please) then fair enough. Good luck to them, so long as they pay the appropriate tax of course.

And there is the sleight of hand. The effective tax rate for these wealthy individuals, when compared with us P.A.Y.E schmucks, is the key here:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/resea...ich-really-pay

Using anonymised data from personal tax returns, we show that in 2015-16 the average rate of tax paid by people who received one million pounds in taxable income and gains was just 35 per cent: the same as someone earning £100,000. But one in four of these paid 45 per cent – close to the top rate – whilst another quarter paid less than 30 per cent overall. One in ten paid just 11 per cent—the same as someone earning £15,000. The rich, it seems, are not all in it together.

As I have said, they are laughing at us ...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I see no explanation, only support. You ignore the real risk of greed-based decision making in financial dealings. You are obviously not a student of history.

The fact that you equate making the wealthy wealthier to "unshackling the economy" says all you need to know about the current ERG-driven Conservative thinking.

---------- Post added at 15:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------



And there is the sleight of hand. The effective tax rate for these wealthy individuals, when compared with us P.A.Y.E schmucks, is the key here:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/resea...ich-really-pay


As I have said, they are laughing at us ...

Fundamentally this. To be 'competitive' in the gambling, sorry finance, sector that means giving the greatest tax breaks and standing behind the greatest amount of losses.

Essentially we are being mugged and told we should be grateful for it. It's a notion so ridiculous Pierre and I almost agree. Let that sink in.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Fundamentally this. To be 'competitive' in the gambling, sorry finance, sector that means giving the greatest tax breaks and standing behind the greatest amount of losses.

Essentially we are being mugged and told we should be grateful for it. It's a notion so ridiculous Pierre and I almost agree. Let that sink in.

ROFLMFAO.

Originally Posted by ianch99

And there is the sleight of hand. The effective tax rate for these wealthy individuals, when compared with us P.A.Y.E schmucks, is the key here:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/resea...ich-really-pay

I found one part of that article quite interesting.

A one-off wealth tax on millionaire couples paid at one per cent a year for five years, we found, would raise £260 billion.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

I found one part of that article quite interesting.

The problem is how you persuade these people to continue to work and invest in the UK. What would you do in their position?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The problem is how you persuade these people to continue to work and invest in the UK. What would you do in their position?

Sit at home with 95% of his wealth in 2027 (assuming his work and investments haven't grown his position in that time.

Presumably whatever work and investments to date have resulted in them achieving such wealth are at least somewhat reliant upon being in the UK? The idea that these people would up sticks - taking the hit on any asset values in the rush out the door - is fanciful.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The problem is how you persuade these people to continue to work and invest in the UK. What would you do in their position?

Well, its rare I agree with jfman but actually, I'd pretty much do this

Originally Posted by jfman

Sit at home with 95% of his wealth in 2027 (assuming his work and investments haven't grown his position in that time.

It would probably be more than 95% as well, since I would still have income, and interest coming in after the -1% each year.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Sit at home with 95% of his wealth in 2027 (assuming his work and investments haven't grown his position in that time.

Presumably whatever work and investments to date have resulted in them achieving such wealth are at least somewhat reliant upon being in the UK? The idea that these people would up sticks - taking the hit on any asset values in the rush out the door - is fanciful.

Not when you can accrue more wealth elsewhere, you wouldn’t, not if you were a true capitalist. How do you think they accrued such wealth in the first place? Certainly not by putting their feet up, which some on this forum would undoubtedly do, I’m sure!

That’s why they are lefties..and probably pretty poor!