Trickling Down!

[I'm With Stupid]

It's quite simple. Poor people spend money. Rich people save money, often offshore, contributing very little to the local economy. If you're a multimillionaire and your after tax income goes from £2m to £2.2m, it's not going to make much of a difference to your spending habits. If you're earning £25k and you get to keep £21,500 rather than £20,867.02 as you do currently, then that extra money gets spent, often locally, helping local businesses and stimulating the economy. It also means things like, you know, kids don't go hungry and granny can afford to heat her flat and afford food, if you're interested in that sort of thing. Even Henry Ford knew that his business would fail if no-one can afford to buy his products. And businesses have been failing up and down the country in the past 10 years.

 

[NPBlue]

Look, I know its not popular, but I applaud the government for trying something different.

I bet there are builders and people who sell and fit hi-tech audio/video equipment who do very well in places like Knustford and Alderly Edge and Sale/Hale (where many of the City and United players reside). They then spend the money they have earnt in the local economy. Isn't that what 'trickle down' means?

I remember when I was a kid Labour had tax at like 98% for film stars and music stars, Sean Connery, Rod Stewart etc. so they all just went and lived in Switzerland or Monaco.

Surely this is a better system?

The government are gambling with everyones future with this policy. It has been tried before in a number of countries, including the UK in 1972, and has failed on every occasion in spectacular fashion.

All it has done is increase the levels of poverty among the domestic population, and that is the case everywhere it has been tried.

What you fail to understand is it's not rich people buying services that improve our wealth, but exports. A country's wealth can't increase without money coming in from outside. It's basic economics.

This poilcy of growth by decreasing the tax burden and putting more money into peoples pockets won't make a sqiddly jot of difference to our living standards now we have left the the EU. The barriers to free trade, and the increased costs of exporting from the UK to our nearest neighbours, the most prosperous economic bloc in the world, have resulted in a collapse in exports and why, when the government say their policies will increase foreign investment in the UK, would any company want to invest in the UK when it would be far easier and cheaper to locate their businesses outside the UK?

It's bullshit, pure and simple claptrap, that reducing the tax burden on the wealthiest members of society wiil increase the prosperity of the nation.

I think you ought to dig a little deeper, read the papers and books the current members of the Cabinet have published, and realise you are just as much a scrounging waster, enjoying benefits you don't deserve as everyone else, which they want to remove from all of us.

Paid holidays? JRM said don't expect them.

Retirement? IDS said it should be 75 years of age.

The NHS? Legislation is now passing through parliament that will end the governments responibilty for free at the source of healthcare to private companies with the autonomy to decide how, and on what, their services are provided

Protests? As long as it's quiet, that's OK, but not in the usual fashion we have been able to vent our spleen on over centuries.

Published Criticsm? No. Don't go there. It's will be 15 years in prison for daring to criticise the government. The Communications Bill will see to that.

Parliamentary Debate? Don't be stupid. The abuse of Statutary Instruments means the time honoured principle of parliament discussing then voting on legislation is well passed it's best. Better to have people in charge doing their own thing without pesky questions from oiks on the back benches.

Yeah, the tories are OK in your opinion.

I beg to differ.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Look, I know its not popular, but I applaud the government for trying something different.

I bet there are builders and people who sell and fit hi-tech audio/video equipment who do very well in places like Knustford and Alderly Edge and Sale/Hale (where many of the City and United players reside). They then spend the money they have earnt in the local economy. Isn't that what 'trickle down' means?

I remember when I was a kid Labour had tax at like 98% for film stars and music stars, Sean Connery, Rod Stewart etc. so they all just went and lived in Switzerland or Monaco.

Surely this is a better system?

Yes, sure. Ask Sunak, who has just had his new swimming pool paid back to him. Meanwhile, they allow the only natural source for the rest to go swimming with the shit.

I know I shouldn’t have replied, yours just seemed apt.

 

[Elbow beards]

Not a single pound of this will trickle down.
Whenever people have spare cash, if they don't need or want anything, they save it (unless you're a complete idiot and just spunk it away) and I'm talking about people with a normal income.
If you're mega rich and have all the shiny bells and whistles and already have an income that is more than you can spend in a week, this is just spare change you find down the back of the sofa. And what do you do with spare change? Chuck it in a jar, never to be used again.

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

An old mafia saying isn’t it, shit flows down and money flows up.

 

[Grassland Blue]

If the very rich people then spend the money here and it 'trickles down', I don't see the problem.

A very big word is 'IF''!

 

[hilts]

Look, I know its not popular, but I applaud the government for trying something different.

I bet there are builders and people who sell and fit hi-tech audio/video equipment who do very well in places like Knustford and Alderly Edge and Sale/Hale (where many of the City and United players reside). They then spend the money they have earnt in the local economy. Isn't that what 'trickle down' means?

I remember when I was a kid Labour had tax at like 98% for film stars and music stars, Sean Connery, Rod Stewart etc. so they all just went and lived in Switzerland or Monaco.

Surely this is a better system?

Oh dear

 

[Grassland Blue]

The government are gambling with everyones future with this policy. It has been tried before in a number of countries, including the UK in 1972, and has failed on every occasion in spectacular fashion.

All it has done is increase the levels of poverty among the domestic population, and that is the case everywhere it has been tried.

What you fail to understand is it's not rich people buying services that improve our wealth, but exports. A country's wealth can't increase without money coming in from outside. It's basic economics.

This poilcy of growth by decreasing the tax burden and putting more money into peoples pockets won't make a sqiddly jot of difference to our living standards now we have left the the EU. The barriers to free trade, and the increased costs of exporting from the UK to our nearest neighbours, the most prosperous economic bloc in the world, have resulted in a collapse in exports and why, when the government say their policies will increase foreign investment in the UK, would any company want to invest in the UK when it would be far easier and cheaper to locate their businesses outside the UK?

It's bullshit, pure and simple claptrap, that reducing the tax burden on the wealthiest members of society wiil increase the prosperity of the nation.

I think you ought to dig a little deeper, read the papers and books the current members of the Cabinet have published, and realise you are just as much a scrounging waster, enjoying benefits you don't deserve as everyone else, which they want to remove from all of us.

Paid holidays? JRM said don't expect them.

Retirement? IDS said it should be 75 years of age.

The NHS? Legislation is now passing through parliament that will end the governments responibilty for free at the source of healthcare to private companies with the autonomy to decide how, and on what, their services are provided

Protests? As long as it's quiet, that's OK, but not in the usual fashion we have been able to vent our spleen on over centuries.

Published Criticsm? No. Don't go there. It's will be 15 years in prison for daring to criticise the government. The Communications Bill will see to that.

Parliamentary Debate? Don't be stupid. The abuse of Statutary Instruments means the time honoured principle of parliament discussing then voting on legislation is well passed it's best. Better to have people in charge doing their own thing without pesky questions from oiks on the back benches.

Yeah, the tories are OK in your opinion.

I beg to differ.

15 years in jail incoming mate...

 

[Elbow beards]

The government are gambling with everyones future with this policy. It has been tried before in a number of countries, including the UK in 1972, and has failed on every occasion in spectacular fashion.

All it has done is increase the levels of poverty among the domestic population, and that is the case everywhere it has been tried.

What you fail to understand is it's not rich people buying services that improve our wealth, but exports. A country's wealth can't increase without money coming in from outside. It's basic economics.

This poilcy of growth by decreasing the tax burden and putting more money into peoples pockets won't make a sqiddly jot of difference to our living standards now we have left the the EU. The barriers to free trade, and the increased costs of exporting from the UK to our nearest neighbours, the most prosperous economic bloc in the world, have resulted in a collapse in exports and why, when the government say their policies will increase foreign investment in the UK, would any company want to invest in the UK when it would be far easier and cheaper to locate their businesses outside the UK?

It's bullshit, pure and simple claptrap, that reducing the tax burden on the wealthiest members of society wiil increase the prosperity of the nation.

I think you ought to dig a little deeper, read the papers and books the current members of the Cabinet have published, and realise you are just as much a scrounging waster, enjoying benefits you don't deserve as everyone else, which they want to remove from all of us.

Paid holidays? JRM said don't expect them.

Retirement? IDS said it should be 75 years of age.

The NHS? Legislation is now passing through parliament that will end the governments responibilty for free at the source of healthcare to private companies with the autonomy to decide how, and on what, their services are provided

Protests? As long as it's quiet, that's OK, but not in the usual fashion we have been able to vent our spleen on over centuries.

Published Criticsm? No. Don't go there. It's will be 15 years in prison for daring to criticise the government. The Communications Bill will see to that.

Parliamentary Debate? Don't be stupid. The abuse of Statutary Instruments means the time honoured principle of parliament discussing then voting on legislation is well passed it's best. Better to have people in charge doing their own thing without pesky questions from oiks on the back benches.

Yeah, the tories are OK in your opinion.

I beg to differ.

That reads like a Putin manifesto. Fucking scary stuff.

 

[robbieh]

This century has seen a dramatic shift in income inequality. So quite why this idiotic government thinks the rich need more help is beyond me. If making them richer helped we'd have seen it by now.

 

[Eebo]

This century has seen a dramatic shift in income inequality. So quite why this idiotic government thinks the rich need more help is beyond me. If making them richer helped we'd have seen it by now.

Abso-bloody-lutely this!!!

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

 

[NPBlue]

15 years in jail incoming mate...

It's 10 years, I made a mistake with that, but I forgot to add it won't be the judicial process as laid down in the Magna Carta that has protected our right to a free and fair trial for centuries, but the serving Home Secretary that will choose who they don't like, have them arrested, and choose how long they will serve in prison.

Those were Priti Patels ideas, and I return to the abuse of Statutary Instruments on those points. The Communications Bill was discussed in Parliament and the House of Lords, but after the white paper was returned to the House of Commons, she inserted those clauses without any further discussion or debate.

I've written on here before in other threads how we are currently sleepwalking into becoming a fascist state, where dissent of any sort won't be tolerated. The Communications Bill, and The Police and Crime Bill, will make undue criticism and protest illegal.

Bear in mind this is a Government that tried, and failed, to illegally prorogue Parliament. Our Prime Minister lied to the Queen, and when their intentions were correctly rejected by the highest court in the land, they called them lefty wokes and vowed to 'reform' them!

That reads like a Putin manifesto. Fucking scary stuff.

Fascism doesn't burst through the front door wearing jackboots and uniforms, it creeps in slowly through the unlit back door.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Look, I know its not popular, but I applaud the government for trying something different.

I bet there are builders and people who sell and fit hi-tech audio/video equipment who do very well in places like Knustford and Alderly Edge and Sale/Hale (where many of the City and United players reside). They then spend the money they have earnt in the local economy. Isn't that what 'trickle down' means?

I remember when I was a kid Labour had tax at like 98% for film stars and music stars, Sean Connery, Rod Stewart etc. so they all just went and lived in Switzerland or Monaco.

Surely this is a better system?

You applaud making the top earners 10% better off by borrowing extra money at high rates of interest that we’ll all have to pay back?
Have you really thought it through?

Is this one of those Rhetorical questionmibobs

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think there was probably some merit in the theory at previous points in capitalism’s history, but that was then and this is now.

 

[franksinatra]

This century has seen a dramatic shift in income inequality. So quite why this idiotic government thinks the rich need more help is beyond me. If making them richer helped we'd have seen it by now.

I don’t think they think the rich need any more help or that they think this policy helps. Its just greed sold to the gullible as an economic policy which will ultimately benefit the less well off also. There will be Tory voters, facing real struggles who will lap this up based on reading the Sun and the Daily Mail.

 

[Elbow beards]

It's all so contradictory. The government handle over millions to the rich I. The hopes they spend it to boost the economy, meanwhile the Bank of England are increasing interest rates to try and stop spending to easy inflation.
The cunts really don't have a clue.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Following the recent Billionaire's Budget thought it would be a good idea to set up a thread where we can all record examples of where very rich people having even more money has benefitted us normal folks.

At the moment the Trickle Down Effect just sounds like they are pissing on us, but I very much look forward to hearing all the lovely heart-warming stories of bankers passing on their bonuses to us plebs or business owners paying the heating bills for all their workers etc.

Go...

We don’t have (and haven’t for a very long time) a “trickle-down” Conservative outlook govt.

They have mainly been Neo-Liberal, which concentrates capital among very few people and allows them to get ridiculously rich and their money being spent around a small bunch of elite-concentrated businesses that cater only for the rich, or often spending their money abroad (if they even spend their money at all because a lot of the time the richest get things for free!), and it doesn’t trickle down through the rest of the economy or classes.

I can’t think of the last time we had Disraeli’s idea of Conservatism. David Cameron said he was a One-Nation Conservative but he lead an Austerity coalition with the LidDems so wasn’t ONC.

In One-Nationism the working class receive support from govt and from the richest people in society (and I’m not taking about a dozen of the richest people giving to charities around the world, because that doesn’t benefit the working class in this country) and that the classes have a responsibility for each other.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

This century has seen a dramatic shift in income inequality. So quite why this idiotic government thinks the rich need more help is beyond me. If making them richer helped we'd have seen it by now.

They still need a lot of help - there's hundreds out there who are still not billionaires!

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Look, I know its not popular, but I applaud the government for trying something different.

I bet there are builders and people who sell and fit hi-tech audio/video equipment who do very well in places like Knustford and Alderly Edge and Sale/Hale (where many of the City and United players reside). They then spend the money they have earnt in the local economy. Isn't that what 'trickle down' means?

I remember when I was a kid Labour had tax at like 98% for film stars and music stars, Sean Connery, Rod Stewart etc. so they all just went and lived in Switzerland or Monaco.

Surely this is a better system?

The chronic lack of investment outside London in the last 30 years proves that there is no such thing as trickling down. Property and currency speculators have made a fortune in recent decades and have invested their profits in London or abroad. The UK has one of the most unbalanced economies in the world and it is hammering most of us outside the South East.