The Left: Moribund.

[Mandryka]

Higher taxation for the super-rich not only drives them away to other tax régimes but also brings in very little extra revenue from those who decide to stay put. Efforts to reduce tax evasion are always welcome provided that they are directed solely at illegal evasion as distinct from legal avoidance but they are necessary at alltimes, not just as a contributory solution to the present woes. The "Robin Hood" tax will damage the City of London immensely if introduced and, whilst that may not both some people, it will as a consequence also damage the British economy which will affect many people adversely; not only that, like a tax on banks, it'll only get passed on to the poor long-siffering customer and there's nothing that anyone will be able to do to prevent that.

I think this is a very realistic view of the situation as it stands.

It might also be worth saying that 'the rich' are not all marching in lockstep to the same tune: they are not exclusively monsters of depravity motivated purely by greed and the desire for selfish gain; and they are not necessarily ALL averse to paying higher taxes (witness Warren Buffet's recent statement).

But I'd agree that the 'punishment' of high earners via taxes, just because they are high-earners, is wrong and counter-productive.

[teamsaint]

Higher taxation for the super-rich not only drives them away to other tax régimes but also brings in very little extra revenue from those who decide to stay put. Efforts to reduce tax evasion are always welcome provided that they are directed solely at illegal evasion as distinct from legal avoidance but they are necessary at alltimes, not just as a contributory solution to the present woes. The "Robin Hood" tax will damage the City of London immensely if introduced and, whilst that may not both some people, it will as a consequence also damage the British economy which will affect many people adversely; not only that, like a tax on banks, it'll only get passed on to the poor long-siffering customer and there's nothing that anyone will be able to do to prevent that.

well if they evade lots of tax anyway, I say tax em hard, and if they go abroad we won't be any worse off.
At least we would have a more equal, and thus happier society.
We would be well rid of people like Jim Davidson, Simon cowell, all bankers on over £150k a year, most of the cabinet, etc.

let them go. I don't care. its ordinary people that keep this country spinning, not the super rich.


Oh, and lots of them are rich because they exploit other people, not because they are fab , groovy, loveable people.

[ahinton]

I think this is a very realistic view of the situation as it stands.

It might also be worth saying that 'the rich' are not all marching in lockstep to the same tune: they are not exclusively monsters of depravity motivated purely by greed and the desire for selfish gain; and they are not necessarily ALL averse to paying higher taxes (witness Warren Buffet's recent statement).

But I'd agree that the 'punishment' of high earners via taxes, just because they are high-earners, is wrong and counter-productive.

We seem to be pretty much in agreement on these issues. Just do yourself and the rest of us a favour, please and stop being so unnecessarily rude to am51; it creates a most unpleasant impression and does you no good whatsoever.

Thanks.

By the way, no one is funding my bus pass as I don't possess one and there'd be precious little point in my having one (assuming that even I'd be entitled to one) because the nearest bus to where I am right now is some 3km distant.

[ahinton]

well if they evade lots of tax anyway, I say tax em hard, and if they go abroad we won't be any worse off.
At least we would have a more equal, and thus happier society.
We would be well rid of people like Jim Davidson, Simon cowell, all bankers on over £150k a year, most of the cabinet, etc.

let them go. I don't care. its ordinary people that keep this country spinning, not the super rich

Well, you might not care about seeing them go (assuming that they'd actually need to go as distinct from finding ways around excessive taxation without actually leaving), but if they did all go we'd lose the tax that they're paying now. Own. Goal. And if you were to get rid of "most of the Cabinet" as a direct consquence of such heavy tax imposition, there'd have to be as many by-elections as there would be defecting MPs, withouth the slightest guarantee that those defectors would not be replaced by more of the same, put in place by the electorate in the various constituencies affected thereby?

[teamsaint]

Well, you might not care about seeing them go (assuming that they'd actually need to go as distinct from finding ways around excessive taxation without actually leaving), but if they did all go we'd lose the tax that they're paying now. Own. Goal. And if you were to get rid of "most of the Cabinet" as a direct consquence of such heavy tax imposition, there'd have to be as many by-elections as there would be defecting MPs, withouth the slightest guarantee that those defectors would not be replaced by more of the same, put in place by the electorate in the various constituencies affected thereby?

I thought we agreed they are evading lots of tax.
Anyway, its all bluff. where will city bankers go. The few really talented ones WILL go, (to be replaced by equally talented youngsters). The rest, you know ,the ex military, ex public school brigade, who have absolutely no skills or talent, (I could name names, but won't) would not have a cat in hells chance of getting a decent job anywhere else in the world, and if they did, we might be a hell of a lot better off.

As for the cabinet........it would just be nice to see them go really, even if they are replaced by another equally useless, identikit lot.

This ought to be about making this country a great place to live, not about how to squeeze a bit more tax out of a pampered and worthless elite who have led this country (and europe) to the edge of economic catastrophe through greed and self interest.

as I said , let them go. We will be fine without them, and a good deal happier.

[ahinton]

I thought we agreed they are evading lots of tax.
Anyway, its all bluff. where will city bankers go. The few really talented ones WILL go, (to be replaced by equally talented youngsters). The rest, you know ,the ex military, ex public school brigade, who have absolutely no skills or talent, (I could name names, but won't) would not have a cat in hells chance of getting a decent job anywhere else in the world, and if they did, we might be a hell of a lot better off.

As for the cabinet........it would just be nice to see them go really, even if they are replaced by another equally useless, identikit lot.

This ought to be about making this country a great place to live, not about how to squeeze a bit more tax out of a pampered and worthless elite who have led this country (and europe) to the edge of economic catastrophe through greed and self interest.

as I said , let them go. We will be fine without them, and a good deal happier.

Of those whom you believe to occupy the category of "super-rich", I have no idea which ones evade tax, which pay all the taxes that are legally due or which enjoy what incomes from work or from investments or from both, so I would refrain from generalising about any of them as though they were somehow all the same. Those who derive the majority of the high incomes from investments won't have to worry about whether they can secure well-paid jobs outside Britain even if they find themselves forced to leave the country which, as I've already stated, is by no means certain in any case. You can't just "get rid" of the cabinet without fundamental changes in the law which would not get passed, because people have elected each member thereof and you'd be depriving them of their voting rights and their current MPs by so doing.

[teamsaint]

Of those whom you believe to occupy the category of "super-rich", I have no idea which ones evade tax, which pay all the taxes that are legally due or which enjoy what incomes from work or from investments or from both, so I would refrain from generalising about any of them as though they were somehow all the same. Those who derive the majori=ty of the high incomes from investments won;t have to worry about whether they can secure well-paid jobs outside Britain even if they find themselves forced to leave the country which, as I've already stated, is by no means certain in any case. You can't just "get rid" of the cabinet without fundamenbtal changes in the law which would not get passed, because people have elected each member thereof and you'd be depriving them of their voting rights and their current MPs by so doing.

the thing about the cabinet..was a throwaway. The kind of thing you say after a long day at work, and you see gormless George teliing us all how we need to get poorer, but we need to give the banks more money. (or QE as its currently known. ). and did you see that picture of him in a high viz on a building site? there are no polite words. the nearest george has come to a building site is owning one that other people develop for him).

I wouldn't refrain from generalising about the super rich. Tax them all at 60 %, if they stay fine, if they go good riddance.

They always tell us how indispensible they are. but they aren't. they live off other peoples hard work.
Example: footballer earns 50k a week. Who pays for this? me through the turnstiles, other people through sky subs, all paid for by OUR hard work.

[Lateralthinking1]

Am I the only one here not to have understood some of this thread? Shouldn't contributions be understandable to all?

[Mandryka]

The Occupy and other 'anti-capitalist' movements have all been about protest: they (think they) know what they're against but as far as I can make out, they have no idea what they are for, unless it's for some generalised idea of a 'fairer' society: how thatsociety is to be achieved, what laws will govern it and how it will be regulated don't seem to be things that have ever occurred to them.

I thought the choice of St. Paul's as a venue for occupation was very strange. At least in America they attempted to occupy a financial district.

Outrage doesn't constitute a policy.

[Lateralthinking1]

I would go for a policy of more social responsibility to others across the shaboodle.

[Mandryka]

I would go for a policy of more social responsibility to others.

Steve Hilton and co would argue that that was exactly what the Big Society (R.I.P.) was all about.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, but it wasn't across the shaboodle.

Furthermore, as you imply from your use of 3 of the 26 letters of the alphabet, it isn't even as alive as, say, Bruce on S.C.D.

[teamsaint]

The way I read "The big society", is to get people to do for free what other people currently get paid for.(check out you local library, if its not been boarded up). This will put the people that need a job out of work, but the 50p tax rate can be abolished, which is the important thing.

Thats about it, isn't it?

[subcontrabass]

I thought the choice of St. Paul's as a venue for occupation was very strange. At least in America they attempted to occupy a financial district.

If you looked at a map you would see that St Paul's is in the financial district, in close proximity to the London Stock Exchange

(see: http://www.paternosterlondon.co.uk/g...roduction.html).

[Lateralthinking1]

teamsaint - Well, this gives me the moment to introduce the 636 wonderful opportunities within 5 miles of Croydon - http://www.do-it.org.uk/search/oppor...cation=croydon.

Here is your exercise of the day:

1. They all require you to work for free. Spot how many roles, including admin, used to be paid.

2. Look with amazement at the application processes. You need to be of the highest calibre to get through.

3. Then go onto the Jobseekers website and have a look at the numbers and quality of the paid jobs. Contrast.

http://jobseekers.direct.gov.uk/listjob.aspx?sessionid=4fb00cc9-3342-4406-8030-6732bef2b272&pid=2&sid=329634253&p=1&so=1

4. Do some of them look questionable? Check the lists for other towns and find the same adverts.

(Please do this separately as I think we lose the Croydon link from the forum if you do it from the link itself - just go to "Jobseekers", type in "All Jobs" and the town you want to have a look at)

5. Are you a man? Do you realise that you can be an Avon representative too? Apply "locally" to Avon HQ.

(Handy Fact - The population of Croydon is 345,600).