Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bigga said:
He's mentioned social housing a fair few times.

As for billionaires, how much does a billionaire need that they can't contribute a little extra towards the society that they live in? Whilst the society they live in/ take from suffers around them, they sit on hoards of cash in forms of grand yachts, huge multiple properties and stakes in other companies. All that is 'great' for them, but when they pay their workers min wage instead of including them in on the wealth, that's when people get annoyed. I know how that sounds, but it's the reality.

If you're set for life, your family and their family's families are set, what else do you need?

So, basically, if you have $10Bn and have to pay $2Bn to tax, you're going to kick off and run elsewhere that doesn't have the same comforts, freedoms and familiarity to where you know...?

Fair enough.
Click to expand...
You are effectively wanting to dictate exactly what someone should be allowed to earn, based on arbitrary figures
set by yourself, this has been the folly of leftists world wide, who simply fail to envisage the outcome of such actions.
Billionaires are not suddenly awash with cash by accident, they prosper by taking risks, growing their companies, working
very hard and employing ever more people as the business grows. Whilst this is happening, they are also, by dint of this growth,
paying ever increasing tax into the States coffers.
So, this billionaire, after building his company over a few years, suddenly gets told that, as his wealth has hit $10 billion, that's
more than enough for anybody, pay tax on it now, and have a healthy $8bill in the bank, any future earnings are, from now,
going to be taxed at a far higher rate, as obviously, he doesn't need any more. From that moment, he starts to contract the business
to keep his earnings at the previous level, staff are shed, and the business stops growing, why work simply to pay the majority of
your profit/income in tax?
Result, lower tax take, unemployment, etc; etc;
If tax rates increase beyond a certain median, reduced tax take ensues, I'm afraid you're still living in an economic
fairyland that believes it won't, simply because it sounds, superficially, fair.
 
Vic said:
So if a lot of private landlords sold their properties, would that not mean that houses would again be more affordable to buy? - as they were before buy to let became so profitable and forced up prices....
Click to expand...
Dearie me Vic, do I really have to explain this again?
You're talking about artificially adjusting the market, in a self defeating exercise, that was proved to be disastrous in the UK.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
Dearie me Vic, do I really have to explain this again?
You're talking about artificially adjusting the market, in a self defeating exercise, that was proved to be disastrous in the UK.
Click to expand...
Yes. Explain it again.

Mortgage tax relief. Artificial adjusting.
Right to buy. Artificial adjusting.
Buy to let mortgage interest relief. Artificial adjusting.
Help to buy. Artificial adjusting.
Bank of mum and dad. Artificial adjusting.
Buying to keep property empty as an investment. Artificial adjusting.
Dealing with Rachmanism. Artificial adjusting.
Secure tenancies. Artificial adjusting.
Council housing / housing associations not needing to make a profit on rents as against private landlords. Artificial adjusting.

Etc etc.

Now explain again. If people can't afford to buy their own home, and people with money buy to let, and that keeps prices high, why would making buy to let less profitable not reduce the market for buy to let and thus help keep prices lower for would-be homebuyers?
 
Vic said:
Civil war in Iraq?
Click to expand...

No. They said the Iranians may gather around their flag but also this guy controlled a lot of the militia across the region I.e Iraq, Syria etc and they may look for revenge. They also said that if the state of Iran targets American buildings such as embassies(which they can as missiles are apparently in striking distance) then all bets are off

I know next to nothing about Iran but I would think the second scenario is akin to suicide - I imagine the state will talk of peace but the militia they support will try to retaliate

I don’t know but surely there is no appetite for all out war in either country?
 
Ancient Citizen said:
You are effectively wanting to dictate exactly what someone should be allowed to earn, based on arbitrary figures
set by yourself, this has been the folly of leftists world wide, who simply fail to envisage the outcome of such actions.
Billionaires are not suddenly awash with cash by accident, they prosper by taking risks, growing their companies, working
very hard and employing ever more people as the business grows. Whilst this is happening, they are also, by dint of this growth,
paying ever increasing tax into the States coffers.
So, this billionaire, after building his company over a few years, suddenly gets told that, as his wealth has hit $10 billion, that's
more than enough for anybody, pay tax on it now, and have a healthy $8bill in the bank, any future earnings are, from now,
going to be taxed at a far higher rate, as obviously, he doesn't need any more. From that moment, he starts to contract the business
to keep his earnings at the previous level, staff are shed, and the business stops growing, why work simply to pay the majority of
your profit/income in tax?
Result, lower tax take, unemployment, etc; etc;
If tax rates increase beyond a certain median, reduced tax take ensues, I'm afraid you're still living in an economic
fairyland that believes it won't, simply because it sounds, superficially, fair.
Click to expand...

Watch the 'Patriot Act' video and you see'll see why billionaires would rather give to charity to avoid paying tax.
 
SWP's back said:
Seriously, all that’s going on and that’s your concern. The semantics of it.

Put it this way, if Iran assassinated Pence in France, would you and/or the US be considering an act of war?
Click to expand...

War hasn't been declared though has it?

Its an important fact worth pointing out at this moment in time.

Iran isn't going to go to war with the US.

This tit for tat killing has been going on for years and will continue to do so.
 
SWP's back said:
Seriously, all that’s going on and that’s your concern. The semantics of it.

Put it this way, if Iran assassinated Pence in France, would you and/or the US be considering an act of war?
Click to expand...

His reaction to the whole affair has been beyond bizarre.

His first reaction was "here come the Hezbollah cheerleaders" when to date, he's the only one who's brought them up, then he's questioning why the guy is in Iraq, then tried to equate this to drone strikes under Obama & now starting semantic debates.

He's so deeply embedded with his Trumpism that he can't just bring himself to acknowledge that assassinating Iran's de facto #2 is a bad thing.
 
blueinsa said:
War hasn't been declared though has it?

Its an important fact worth pointing out at this moment in time.

Iran isn't going to go to war with the US.

This tit for tat killing has been going on for years and will continue to do so.
Click to expand...
This is the most significant event in the Middle East since the US invaded Iraq. It’s nothing like any event since that time.

The was no war declared within 10 hours of Archduke Ferdinand being assassinated either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top