It is bad for a country's productivity and for its economy to tax income more heavily than windfall inherited wealth. It rewards being born of the right parents rather than enterprise and hard work. Very poor show Osborne.
Cav is definitely handicapped by the fact his lead out train is nowhere near as organized as when Cav with with HTC or Sky. Both those teams had it down to perfection.
More to the point why are you going on and on and on ... Labour accept the need for cuts in the absurd tax credit system but squeal when someone has the guts to do it. The public see right through this kind of silliness. Until you come up with a credible alternative way of clearing the deficit you and your party are on a treadmill to nowhere.
Now I'll wait for the farcical argument of how "cutting taxes on the super-rich increases the tax take".
Because the very wealthy are able to decide where they live, where they employ people and where they pay their taxes.
As much as certain of the left dislike this fact, it remains a fact. Punitive and usurious rates of tax only encourage emigration and restructuring, reducing both GDP and overall tax take.
More to the point why are you going on and on and on ... Labour accept the need for cuts in the absurd tax credit system but squeal when someone has the guts to do it. The public see right through this kind of silliness. Until you come up with a credible alternative way of clearing the deficit you and your party are on a treadmill to nowhere.
Firstly, what is this "you"? I don't speak for Labour as a whole. I don't care about whether the deficit is cleared or not - though if I did, I would start by not pissing away money on countless freebies for the rich (top-rate tax cut, corporation tax cut, inheritance tax cut).
Now I'll wait for the farcical argument of how "cutting taxes on the super-rich increases the tax take".
It's not a farcical argument - it happens. But if you don't speak for Labour then your view is even more of a minority. It's bizarre to be so hostile to the rich and prudent since without them there would be no deficit and even less for those in genuine need. I guess you enjoy going around with a giant chip of moral supremacy on your shoulder. maybe you should give some of it to the needy and give the food banks a break.
More to the point why are you going on and on and on ... Labour accept the need for cuts in the absurd tax credit system but squeal when someone has the guts to do it. The public see right through this kind of silliness. Until you come up with a credible alternative way of clearing the deficit you and your party are on a treadmill to nowhere.
Now I'll wait for the farcical argument of how "cutting taxes on the super-rich increases the tax take".
Because the very wealthy are able to decide where they live, where they employ people and where they pay their taxes.
As much as certain of the left dislike this fact, it remains a fact. Punitive and usurious rates of tax only encourage emigration and restructuring, reducing both GDP and overall tax take.
Mr Danny when the tax take was reduced to 45% the amount taken for benefit of the entire country went up. I know someone here will know where the graph is but the graph will show it just did.
You argue a good case and a good cause Danny and with a passion which I really respect but just sometimes you have to face reality. The world operates in a slightly different way to your thinking however bizarre that working may be?
On Greece, is it really the case that an EU offer was put to the Greek people, they voted against it by a huge margin just a week ago, and now a deal is going to be signed on almost identical terms?
Whenever the EU is involved, democracy gets ignored. It's incredible.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Greece thinks Tsipras is the man who can get them the best deal, so when he asks them to say no they oblige, and when he says OK, this is the best we can get they say yes. Doesn't mean they're right, but it's not a problem of EU democracy. The EU is not obliged to accede to whatever one of its member states wants, any more than a referendum in Surrey or Yorkshire would be binding on Britain.
"so when he asks them to say no they oblige, and when he says OK, this is the best we can get they say yes"
If that's what you think then fine: ask the Greeks again. But the Greeks just voted to reject a deal and the government is turning around and agreeing to it. You can't come up with mental logistics to pretend they voted yes when they voted no.
The anti-democratic action is by the Greek government, of course, not the EU, but the EU will be complicit if they go along with pretending the new deal is different to the one that was just rejected.
It's rather reminiscent of the Lisbon Treaty, when the British public were promised a referendum, re-elected the government on that basis, and that government then signed the treaty without a fresh mandate, pretending it was a different treaty.
It is not the job of the EU to ensure that all its members fulfil their manifesto promises, nor could or should it be. Blame for the Labour parties deception belongs squarely with them and it is the publics job to hold them to account at the next election. Which we did, ejecting Labour in 2010. If the Greek public aren't happy with the job Syriza is doing then they need to hold them to account too.
More to the point why are you going on and on and on ... Labour accept the need for cuts in the absurd tax credit system but squeal when someone has the guts to do it. The public see right through this kind of silliness. Until you come up with a credible alternative way of clearing the deficit you and your party are on a treadmill to nowhere.
Now I'll wait for the farcical argument of how "cutting taxes on the super-rich increases the tax take".
Because the very wealthy are able to decide where they live, where they employ people and where they pay their taxes.
As much as certain of the left dislike this fact, it remains a fact. Punitive and usurious rates of tax only encourage emigration and restructuring, reducing both GDP and overall tax take.
Mr Danny when the tax take was reduced to 45% the amount taken for benefit of the entire country went up. I know someone here will know where the graph is but the graph will show it just did.
That was because the global economy recovered. Tax revenues also went up in the USA in the same time period despite tax rates there not being reduced.
I hope everyone coming out against the IHT cut is also anti-monarchy and anti-aristocracy. Or is it one rule for the middle classes and another for royalty ?
My MP Caroline Ansell - Tory, emailed this out earlier today
Since becoming MP two months ago I have had more correspondence on the subject of fox hunting than just about anything else! Next week the issue will come before Parliament, and we are yet to see exactly what the specific votes will be on, but for the avoidance of doubt, I will NOT be voting for a repeal of the Fox Hunting Act.
I wonder if the narrative of the budget is starting to alter slightly? That economics article would suggest so.
Personally I think this massive transfer of wealth from the working to the non working is storing up massive issues for the future. Success in the UK is becoming less to do with your talent and ability, and much more to do with your ability to inherit assets.
I hope everyone coming out against the IHT cut is also anti-monarchy and anti-aristocracy. Or is it one rule for the middle classes and another for royalty ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought inheritance tax applied to the Queen's private wealth (rather than assets she holds for the nation, as it were). And aristocrats also pay inheritance tax (if they are careless enough).
Yes. The first one (42.4) was out when the replay was looked at, but no-one appealed at the time. The second was two balls later (42.6) and they all shouted, but it was correctly given not out.
More to the point why are you going on and on and on ... Labour accept the need for cuts in the absurd tax credit system but squeal when someone has the guts to do it. The public see right through this kind of silliness. Until you come up with a credible alternative way of clearing the deficit you and your party are on a treadmill to nowhere.
Now I'll wait for the farcical argument of how "cutting taxes on the super-rich increases the tax take".
Because the very wealthy are able to decide where they live, where they employ people and where they pay their taxes.
As much as certain of the left dislike this fact, it remains a fact. Punitive and usurious rates of tax only encourage emigration and restructuring, reducing both GDP and overall tax take.
Mr Danny when the tax take was reduced to 45% the amount taken for benefit of the entire country went up. I know someone here will know where the graph is but the graph will show it just did.
That was because the global economy recovered. Tax revenues also went up in the USA in the same time period despite tax rates there not being reduced.
MrDanny
Sure a very valid point and I am not going to argue. I really like the way you fight your case And your position.. However, at day's end as much as we would want to "tax the rich" it is better not to do so quite so much and attract the investment that they bring. Let's very subtly "leech" off them if you like?
There are always going to be rich people and if you take the "squeaking pips" approach there will still be rich people. Turn this then to your advantage and say ok these people exist. They will always exist but how can we ask them in a very fair manner to contribute further. If you can do that then you will persuade people to your thinking.
A 40% tax rate would do that just like Labour had for 12 years and 10 months of their entire government with massive majorities. They got it right but oddly reversed that position in April 2010 but I remain completely nonplussed as to why they did that? ;-)
Just saying like in the interest of fair, friendly and open discussion........
No thanks. I prefer my e-numbers. At least, they've been tested. The most dangerous and toxic things in nature are the "organic" things - they've been developed over years to be so.
"Chemicals" tend to be purer and their toxicological profile is known.
And I like preservatives; I'm always suspicious of organic foods - you can almost see them rotting in situ.
I assume you're being deliberately controversial, but this is nonsense.
Your body isn't designed for a big old hit of chemical, it is designed to utilise a complex and highly evolved (or created if you wish) mixture of enzymes, vitamins, fibre, protein, carbohydrates, and friendly bacteria, that can only come from a whole food, or a combination of whole foods.
I wonder if the narrative of the budget is starting to alter slightly? That economics article would suggest so.
Personally I think this massive transfer of wealth from the working to the non working is storing up massive issues for the future. Success in the UK is becoming less to do with your talent and ability, and much more to do with your ability to inherit assets.
Alter? The budget clearly said £17bn of welfare cuts and £20bn of other departmental cuts. It also said 8bn extra for NHS and defence at 2% of GDP. It also said plainly IHT starts at £1bn for couples It said that plainly. On the day. What is there to alter?
Children have been inheriting assets for generations. Its actually what parents work for. Bearing in mind that children ought to have the responsibility to look after their parents in old age, then I rather think they have earned their inheritance. And the asset in question is a house which they have shelled out countless thousands for with a small fortune in interest payments on the way. All these days paid for out of taxed income. And the left want to tax them when they are dead on it? All because they have the good sense to live in a respectable area and governments cannot control house price inflation?
My MP Caroline Ansell - Tory, emailed this out earlier today
Since becoming MP two months ago I have had more correspondence on the subject of fox hunting than just about anything else! Next week the issue will come before Parliament, and we are yet to see exactly what the specific votes will be on, but for the avoidance of doubt, I will NOT be voting for a repeal of the Fox Hunting Act.
I may have missed this but when is that much expected
"working mans fishing with line and rod in local rivers and canals and then chucking the poor fish back in for other workings mans pleasure to drag out of its natural environment with a steel barb stick in the side of the mouth"
.............. green paper going to be introduced on the floor of the house?
In 1983 the Tories had a majority of 144 compared with just 12 in 2015. That's quite a difference - and Labour was stronger in England in 2015 than it was in 1992 - never mind 1983. If accepting your base date Labour manages a 1987 scale advance next time by just winning 20 seats that might well suffice to remove the Tories from office simply because no party outside Ulster would wish to support them.
A 20 seat swing would leave Labour on 252 and the Tories on 310.
If Labour were to form a coalition of the losers from there then they would pay a major price the election after, its just not plausible.It would again rely upon being propped up by the SNP with all that entails. Plus that's assuming there's no boundary reforms.
It would not be easy but I see no way that any of the small parties beyond Unionists and UKIP would prop the Tories up. Does anyone really believe that Farron and the LibDems would support them?
If Labour are 60 seats behind then there is simply no way that a rainbow coalition would be sustainable, especially now that Labour are as unpopular, dead and buried as the Tories are in Scotland.
The Lib Dems and the SNP etc wouldn't have to vote for the Tories if Labour are 60 seats behind. They'd simply need to abstain. In order to overcome that gap you'd need basically 100% of minor parties to line up religiously behind Labour and there's no reason for them to do that.
Especially with EVEL on the books. A majority Tory England could (rightly) block any rainbow votes with SNP support.
The SNP would not abstain - and neither would Plaid, Greens, SDLP or Lady Hermon. If SNP still had circa 55 seats that would total 315ish. I also think you might be underestimating the desire of the LibDems for revenge viv a vis the Tories. Beyond that once it became clear that there was insufficient support to keep the Tories going there would be every chance of the DUP switching sides.
Comments
What was your point again?
Oops... Bell goes.
As much as certain of the left dislike this fact, it remains a fact. Punitive and usurious rates of tax only encourage emigration and restructuring, reducing both GDP and overall tax take.
England 2.3
Australia 2.3
Drawn 5.9
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/cricket/market/1.113071675
Looks like no more than a light shower before lunch on Sunday, but if there's any doubt then surely better to declare early.
You argue a good case and a good cause Danny and with a passion which I really respect but just sometimes you have to face reality. The world operates in a slightly different way to your thinking however bizarre that working may be?
Personally I think this massive transfer of wealth from the working to the non working is storing up massive issues for the future. Success in the UK is becoming less to do with your talent and ability, and much more to do with your ability to inherit assets.
The second was two balls later (42.6) and they all shouted, but it was correctly given not out.
Sure a very valid point and I am not going to argue. I really like the way you fight your case And your position.. However, at day's end as much as we would want to "tax the rich" it is better not to do so quite so much and attract the investment that they bring. Let's very subtly "leech" off them if you like?
There are always going to be rich people and if you take the "squeaking pips" approach there will still be rich people. Turn this then to your advantage and say ok these people exist. They will always exist but how can we ask them in a very fair manner to contribute further. If you can do that then you will persuade people to your thinking.
A 40% tax rate would do that just like Labour had for 12 years and 10 months of their entire government with massive majorities. They got it right but oddly reversed that position in April 2010 but I remain completely nonplussed as to why they did that? ;-)
Just saying like in the interest of fair, friendly and open discussion........
Your body isn't designed for a big old hit of chemical, it is designed to utilise a complex and highly evolved (or created if you wish) mixture of enzymes, vitamins, fibre, protein, carbohydrates, and friendly bacteria, that can only come from a whole food, or a combination of whole foods.
The budget clearly said £17bn of welfare cuts and £20bn of other departmental cuts. It also said 8bn extra for NHS and defence at 2% of GDP. It also said plainly IHT starts at £1bn for couples
It said that plainly. On the day.
What is there to alter?
Children have been inheriting assets for generations. Its actually what parents work for. Bearing in mind that children ought to have the responsibility to look after their parents in old age, then I rather think they have earned their inheritance.
And the asset in question is a house which they have shelled out countless thousands for with a small fortune in interest payments on the way. All these days paid for out of taxed income. And the left want to tax them when they are dead on it? All because they have the good sense to live in a respectable area and governments cannot control house price inflation?
Get away!
"working mans fishing with line and rod in local rivers and canals and then chucking the poor fish back in for other workings mans pleasure to drag out of its natural environment with a steel barb stick in the side of the mouth"
.............. green paper going to be introduced on the floor of the house?
Nemo's have rights too you know......