General Election - December 12th, 2019

Who will you vote for in the 2019 General Election?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 160 30.9%

  • Labour

    Votes: 230 44.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 59 11.4%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 13 2.5%

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 28 5.4%

  • Plaid Cymru/SNP

    Votes: 7 1.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 21 4.1%
  • Total voters
    518
Straight question, I am guessing that all the Torries that lost the whip voted Remain? Amber Rudd I assume did. She didn't have a big majority in last GE. 300odd. Also not sure I would put too much faith in polls. Its a shame that any up and coming GE will be largely decided or dominated by the single issue of Brexit and not other matters equally or probably more important to many.
 
Rascal said:
The evidence can be interpreted in many ways.

France is not the UK and nobody is advocating a 75% tax rate. There will always be a few super rich who move, not necessarily though for tax reasons, more for lifestyle reasons as in the UK it never stops fucking raining and they can afford to move. If the tax rate was so inhibiting how does it explain the taking over of vast swathes of London real estate by Oligarchs?

Most of the world’s billionaires – about 84% – still live in their country of birth. And among those who do live abroad, most moved to their current country of residence long before they became wealthy – either as children with their parents, or as students going abroad to study (and then staying).

The world’s billionaires largely live where they were born or where they began their careers

Only about 5% of world billionaires moved abroad after they became successful. These individuals readily fit the stereotype of a “transnational capitalist class” – unplugged from their nation state, travelling the world for some combination of tax avoidance and cosmopolitan lifestyle.

Many of them can be found in London claiming “non-dom” status to avoid the tax laws of both their homeland and those that apply to British citizens. Others are located in tropical tax havens – such as Sir Richard Branson, who moved to the British Virgin Islands after becoming a billionaire
,

Optimal taxation sounds suspiciously like the Laffer curve, which has been discredited as economic nonsense and Laffer exposed as a fraud. I may be wrong of course and it may make sense, I would have to look into it though.

Taxation should be organised on a basic principle, the more you earn, the more you pay. I am not an advocate of Healyite squeeze them to the pips squeak taxation, but I do believe in the basic principle that those with more should pay more. I happen to believe that paying tax makes you a stakeholder in society and as I believe that society is the one of the most important and greatest achievements of mankind then of course I am going to believe that. I have actually considered writing a book on Societism, which could be a post capitalist state we live in.

What this government has done is really underhand, it has raised the thresholds to make it look as though those with least are the sole beneficiaries "the taking people out of tax mantra" but they don't tell you it applies to everyone including Billionaires.
Click to expand...

I still think the French example is the closest thing we have to look at, even if it isn’t an apples to apples comparison as I noted.

I agree with a lot of your post but surely you’re not being serious about the swathes of oligarchs? A lot of them buy property here but aren’t resident or domiciled here for tax purposes anyway. There’s more to shifting money to the UK and buying property here - oligarchs aren’t subject to lose their vast fortunes at Putin’s whim if it’s beyond his reach. Same goes for people from other countries trying to offshore their fortune. London is allegedly one of the money laundering capitals of the world (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....sh-unexplained-wealth-orders-money-laundering) I’d say that’s more of a consideration than our tax rates (for now, anyway.)

Just because people live and work in the UK doesn’t mean they pay tax here. Your example of Richard Branson is spot on, add in people like Phillip Green and so on. I read an article a few years ago about flights outside UK air space just cruising around so the passengers could claim to have been in the UK less than 90 days or w/e it is for them not to be subject to tax here. It might actually have been in Phillip Green’s book but I can’t remember off the top of my head.

This kind of horseplay increases as the tax rate increases. The more you try to take from people, the increasing lengths they’ll go to in order to avoid paying it.

Which brings me onto optimal taxation. I didn’t mention Laffer because I think we should conduct our own study and draw our own conclusions. If it’s proven that punitive tax rates bring in the most money then that’s fine. But I think the optimal figure probably isn’t 50% or more.

I’m all for a fairer, richer society but I don’t think our current tax system allows for that. I am of the belief the personal allowance should probably be higher, but the tax rate flat. Those earning the most will still pay more.
 
McDonnell on Marr now proclaiming it's time to put the nation above party - so no election and not a shred of a reason why other than a post October election will help Farage. "You have to be honest with people" he says then tells us that if Labour win he plans a referendum without No Deal as an option - after claiming there is currently no mandate for one. Morally bankrupt - back to the 70s.
 
gandalfthebrave said:
The evidence says otherwise. The most recent/similar event to cite is Hollande’s implementation of 75% tax in France: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....eaving-france-please-turn-out-the-lights/amp/

Not an apples to apples comparison, but to blanket state that people won’t “fuck off” if taxes are ramped up is simply not true.

What would be good would be a proper study into the optimal level of taxation (certainly payroll and corp tax). Optimal taxation would probably not be 50% or 75% - possibly even a lot lower. The point behind optimal taxation being to identify the rate at which the treasury receives the most tax take.
Click to expand...

My guess is it's around where it is now, I.e. 45%. There's lots of things which may have effected this of course, but nevertheless it is true to say that receipts from the additional higher rate band decreases when the rate was changed from 45% to 50%. And then increases again when the rate was reduced back to 45% again.

I'm sure some of that may have been people taking bonuses early and other such avoidance measures, but the point stands, because this is all about minimising avoidance.

There's also an emotional angle to it. First, personally I have a moral problem with the idea of taking more than half of someone's earning off them. Maybe that's just me. But second, if the base rate was say 33% and the top rate 60, I imagine (perhaps bizarrely) people would find the 60% more palatable.

Currently, someone on £120,000 a year, pays £39,496 in income tax. Someone on £20,000 pays £1,498.

That's 26 times more, for 6x the earnings. And that's before the lower paid person gets money back in benefits. Ditto someone on £200k already pays about 25x more than someone on £30k.

Corbyn's tax pledges will make the ratio much higher, which many will find unacceptable. I have no doubt the very rich will do everything they can to avoid paying it.
 
Last edited:
The obvious problem for many of the electorate is since corbyn has become leader, Labour have moved even more to the left and the same with conservatives moving further right with Johnson.

That means there is a gaping hole in the middle and anyone on a left-right spectrum between 25%-75% has nobody viable to vote for.
Lib dems is the obvious vote for these but they don't have any genuine chance even though many would be more aligned with their policies than the big 2.
 
Marr asks McDonnell if a Labour GE victory would mean the end of the UK because they advocate a united Ireland and an independent Scotland. McDonnell smiles and says there is no deal with the Nationalists, it's just his personal view.
 
George Hannah said:
Andrew Marr starring Amber Rudd - starting early at 8.30am BBC 1 - now!
Also news that Bercow's seat will be contested
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that Rudd wanted to go out in a blaze of glory rather than possibly lose her seat in ignominy at the next GE. Bercow has disgraced the position of speaker ever since he became speaker. Should have gone long ago.
 
George Hannah said:
Marr asks McDonnell if a Labour GE victory would mean the end of the UK because they advocate a united Ireland and an independent Scotland. McDonnell smiles and says there is no deal with the Nationalists, it's just his personal view.
Click to expand...
Should have asked him about systemic change and the dismantling of the capitalist state.

Seems the fucking irony of him criticizing a hard Brexit "because of the tremendous damage to our economy" - was entirely lost on people.

There could be no more tremendous damage than having that lunatic setting the policies. He couldn't even manage the GLC's finances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.