The Chronicles of Rishi

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I hope you're ready for the rapid exodus of wealth and investment that will result.

Rapid exodus indeed... Labour does not have any new ideas how to keep people happy.


I am a labour supporter. The inequality in the UK is far too deep.

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The country will cope after Sunak's move to California.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I hope you're ready for the rapid exodus of wealth and investment that will result.

Just like in 1997?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The country will cope after Sunak's move to California.

After a never ending all consuming narcissistic political soap drama many will be happy with just a boring soap drama..

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Just like in 1997?

Be fair, Phil Collins retreated to Switzerland with his cash as promised.
It was the main reason for Labour's landslide

If only Gary Barlow would do the same, Starmer would be assured victory!

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I hope you're ready for the rapid exodus of wealth and investment that will result.

That is what they want you to believe. It is how they are ultra wealthy and (I assume) you are not.

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

Rapid exodus indeed... Labour does not have any new ideas how to keep people happy.


I am a labour supporter. The inequality in the UK is far too deep.

It is far too deep because so many people are to frightened to ask why so much wealth is in the hands of so few.

[Mr K]

Rishi has a cunning plan... He's really in touch with what the public wants.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...rs-uk/#comment

Downing Street is considering a tax cut for five million high earners next year to galvanise Tory voters after suffering historic by-election defeats in two “safe” Conservative seats.

The threshold for paying the 40 per cent higher rate of income tax could be raised in an effort to plot a path to re-election despite polls predicting a Labour victory.

Surveys have been carried out by No 10 to see which tax cut would, in theory, give the party the biggest political pre-election boost, with the 2024 Spring Budget considered the earliest opportunity it could be announced.

Don't waste it on the NHS or public services, let's stuff our pockets even more before we're booted out... .

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Rishi has a cunning plan... He's really in touch with what the public wants.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...rs-uk/#comment


Don't waste it on the NHS or public services, let's stuff our pockets even more before we're booted out... .

They must think a large part of the electorate were born yesterday, nothing is working anymore and yet they think this is going to save them come the general election.

The electorate might be taken in once but not a second time.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

That is what they want you to believe. It is how they are ultra wealthy and (I assume) you are not.

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:54 ----------



It is far too deep because so many people are to frightened to ask why so much wealth is in the hands of so few.

I suspect that most people understand how the world works.

At one end, there are state managed economies (not many), like China where everything is supposed to be levelled down. Yet they spawn extremely wealthy people because that's how human nature works. Strive to better yourself if you can - or you can give a bung to a politician. The general population are in the 'just managing' category (except in N. Korea).

At the other end, there are capitalist states (most of Europe, USA, etc) which spawn the same wealthy elites for the same reason - human nature.

In the middle are countries where investors don't think there is going to be much financial return other than on an exploitation basis. Again, human nature.

So, turning to your statement, what should happen if the many openly ask 'why so much wealth is in the hands of so few'?

The answer is given in my first three paragraphs. Then, what will they want? They'll likely say a 'fairer distribution of wealth'. What the heck does that mean? Effectively rob the rich to pay the poor? Tax the rich so that they leave the UK, taking jobs with them and relegating the UK to the middle grouping? The people will become even more exploited; government will have to take even more tax to keep services going.

Your vision is deeply flawed.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I suspect that most people understand how the world works.

At one end, there are state managed economies (not many), like China where everything is supposed to be levelled down. Yet they spawn extremely wealthy people because that's how human nature works. Strive to better yourself if you can - or you can give a bung to a politician. The general population are in the 'just managing' category (except in N. Korea).

At the other end, there are capitalist states (most of Europe, USA, etc) which spawn the same wealthy elites for the same reason - human nature.

In the middle are countries where investors don't think there is going to be much financial return other than on an exploitation basis. Again, human nature.

So, turning to your statement, what should happen if the many openly ask 'why so much wealth is in the hands of so few'?

The answer is given in my first three paragraphs. Then, what will they want? They'll likely say a 'fairer distribution of wealth'. What the heck does that mean? Effectively rob the rich to pay the poor? Tax the rich so that they leave the UK, taking jobs with them and relegating the UK to the middle grouping? The people will become even more exploited; government will have to take even more tax to keep services going.

Your vision is deeply flawed.

You are wrong. Most people do not know how the global, pan-tax jurisdiction, corporate capitalist market works.

Your argument is basically this: the ultra-wealthy are going to roger us what ever we try and do so we may as well just bend over and suck it up?

Nah, no thanks. We can do better than this. The Nordic model is a good start esp. Denmark.

Your focus, as we have been conditioned to think over the years, is that the only significant tax base available are the Middle Classes. This is so untrue.

Let's take this example: your wealth increases each year by £60k, principally through income, and you pay an overall effective tax rate of, say, 35%. Let's then say that my wealth increases by £100m each year but my overall effective tax rate is 10% or less. Do you think this is fair & equitable?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are wrong. Most people do not know how the global, pan-tax jurisdiction, corporate capitalist market works.

Your argument is basically this: the ultra-wealthy are going to roger us what ever we try and do so we may as well just bend over and suck it up?

Nah, no thanks. We can do better than this. The Nordic model is a good start esp. Denmark.

Your focus, as we have been conditioned to think over the years, is that the only significant tax base available are the Middle Classes. This is so untrue.

Let's take this example: your wealth increases each year by £60k, principally through income, and you pay an overall effective tax rate of, say, 35%. Let's then say that my wealth increases by £100m each year but my overall effective tax rate is 10% or less. Do you think this is fair & equitable?

All that 'most people' you mentioned need to do is to read my previous post. Then they'll understand how it all works.

If those '£100K' bods are overtaxed, they'll leave and take the jobs they employ with them. I suggest you join the dots.

As to effective tax rates, I didn't understand your calculation by reason of the cumulative increase you cited. What did you mean by 'your wealth increasing by £60K (or £100K) per year'? After tax? After spending? What is the taxable salary within those figures?

Originally Posted by Mr K

Don't waste it on the NHS or public services, let's stuff our pockets even more before we're booted out... .

Typical nonsense.
Every tax payer who pays 40% isnt automatically a Conservative.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

All that 'most people' you mentioned need to do is to read my previous post. Then they'll understand how it all works.

If those '£100K' bods are overtaxed, they'll leave and take the jobs they employ with them. I suggest you join the dots.

As to effective tax rates, I didn't understand your calculation by reason of the cumulative increase you cited. What did you mean by 'your wealth increasing by £60K (or £100K) per year'? After tax? After spending? What is the taxable salary within those figures?

I doubt most 100k a year bods have the ability to move their jobs to other countries. Surely that’s up to employers who would do so anyway if there was anything in it for them.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

I doubt most 100k a year bods have the ability to move their jobs to other countries. Surely that’s up to employers who would do so anyway if there was anything in it for them.

Ah - but Ian kept it vague as to what he meant by wealth growing by £100K/year. So there's no real reference point.

Ian doesn't like the idea of people being wealthy and only paying a top rate of 45% tax. If those people have their tax increased, they'll leave, imo. The wealthy may well have big business here and I have no doubt that they would move those business to a lower taxation country.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Ah - but Ian kept it vague as to what he meant by wealth growing by £100K/year. So there's no real reference point.

Ian doesn't like the idea of people being wealthy and only paying a top rate of 45% tax. If those people have their tax increased, they'll leave, imo. The wealthy may well have big business here and I have no doubt that they would move those business to a lower taxation country.

I’m not convinced the vast, vast, majority of higher earners in this country will have the skills or expertise to move abroad for a marginal tax advantage. Those that could have would have done so.