Billionaires - Right or Wrong

[inbetween]

MP pay rises wouldn’t even equate to 0.001% of tax revenue.

The civil list is more than paid for by the 100% tax revenue derived from the Crown Estate.

15 Year gilt yield is 1.45% so let me know where I can buy UK debt issues at 4%.

But I do agree with your premise that government tax spend is hugely inefficient.

Yes of course, I was merely pointing out that if we tax billionaires and remove their income then it will goto the state and not the poor. It is a misconception that increasing tax on any group in particular will make the poor richer.

Corbyn as an example has the objective of bringing the rich down as opposed to bringing the poor up.

On the %, I meant the interest repayments to servicing the national debt is 4% of GDP. We spend twice as much on servicing the national debt as we do on defence.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Don’t knock it ‘til you’ve tried it.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Yes of course, I was merely pointing out that if we tax billionaires and remove their income then it will goto the state and not the poor. It is a misconception that increasing tax on any group in particular will make the poor richer.

But it's hard to argue that none of it would go to the poor. There are cases where higher tax is levied and better social programs are provided as a result. It's not like it never went to the poor (to some degree) when the rich were additionally taxed.

Youre claim "if we tax billionaires and remove their income then it will goto the state and not the poor." would be hard to prove for a functional purpose nowadays. Afcourse then again the terms "remove their income" is a bit of a dishonest exageration imho if most tax boils down to just taking a bit (more) of their income and not all. I think i should translate youre claim (for it's original purpose) that "if youre going to additionally tax the rich that none of it would arrive with the poor". Even that seems like a brave statement, i think a claim like "it's not because you ar going to additionally tax the rich that the majority of it will wind down with the poor" as a far more safe and potentially reasonable one that the rather extreme one you formulated.

Feel free to quantify as youre confidence in claim suggests that you should be able to do. But personally i don't think it's that unrealistic or unseen to redistribute more to the poor and even in the last 3 decade'sthe wealth gap has been growing withought any apparent nessecity.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Something I heard the other day, about the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire, which gives made me think. Just have a quick guess, without resorting to google, how many days you’d get if you swapped a million pounds for a million seconds and a billion pounds for a billion seconds.

 

[bluethrunthru]

There's an off topic thread on a billionaire who died during penis extension surgery. I think he may have been wrong.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

There's an off topic thread on a billionaire who died during penis extension surgery. I think he may have been wrong.

And, I bet he went private............

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

There's an off topic thread on a billionaire who died during penis extension surgery. I think he may have been wrong.

Shame.
He was an up and coming entrepreneur.

 

[Bigga]

Abigail Disney: Crazy Rich Insane Bag Lady or Billionaire Democratic Socialist...?



CNBC = FOX.

 

[laughing gravy]

why do people need money they cannot spend?

 

[George Hannah]

I watched this the other night and felt the left's intellectual hero Rutger Bregman got a bit bullied - now I see that the Corbynista media are as one that it was a great victory over the evil Blairites and other billionaire boosters. Tragic.