Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Kamala Harris, one time favourite the Democratic nomination, r

SystemSystem Posts: 12,170
edited December 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Kamala Harris, one time favourite the Democratic nomination, reported to be pulling out of the race

The big new from the US is that the California Senator, Kamala Harris, is reported to be quitting the race for the nomination. This come less than six months after moving to the favourite slot following her performance in the first TV debate.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,678
    edited December 2019
    Boo, though a truly great trading bet.

    Oh was this a primus inter pares?
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    Remember folks: Post early and post often.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Completely O/T but carried on from last thread:

    Within three years there will be 263 more weekly services, with destinations including Walsall, Gobowen and Llandudno getting direct services to and from London Euston.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/avanti-virgin-trains-london-west-coast-main-line-euston-birmingham-manchester-a9220776.html

    As a vet’s son I know bullshit when I smell it. There simply are not 263 additional pathways for these trains. They couldn’t even find five daily for Cannock.

    That is a pledge that could only be met when HS2 is finally opened, which is a lot more than three years away.

    So the operators are one of stupid, mad, pig ignorant or lying. They are clearly not stupid or mad, and currently run a railway company. I’ll go with the ‘lying’ option.
  • Good stuff. I’ll be happy when Yang pulls out too, though suspect he’ll stay in quite a time yet.

    Two of my other biggest lays aren’t even in the race!!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    Good stuff. I’ll be happy when Yang pulls out too, though suspect he’ll stay in quite a time yet.

    Funny, they said that about Clinton as well.

    But that was both before and after he was elected.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?
  • ydoethur said:

    Completely O/T but carried on from last thread:

    Within three years there will be 263 more weekly services, with destinations including Walsall, Gobowen and Llandudno getting direct services to and from London Euston.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/avanti-virgin-trains-london-west-coast-main-line-euston-birmingham-manchester-a9220776.html

    As a vet’s son I know bullshit when I smell it. There simply are not 263 additional pathways for these trains. They couldn’t even find five daily for Cannock.

    That is a pledge that could only be met when HS2 is finally opened, which is a lot more than three years away.

    So the operators are one of stupid, mad, pig ignorant or lying. They are clearly not stupid or mad, and currently run a railway company. I’ll go with the ‘lying’ option.

    It's 263 more stops per week.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Mincemeat.

    Not in a pie you‘ll understand, just watching Labour being turned into it.
  • It was a really great call. You should be proud of it Mike. I got on at 66/1 too, but layed off most some while back.

    She was a strong candidate but I think there were serious weaknesses in her campaign organisation.
  • O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Updated with the YouGov:

    https://imgur.com/Y6NsnSA
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    ydoethur said:

    Completely O/T but carried on from last thread:

    Within three years there will be 263 more weekly services, with destinations including Walsall, Gobowen and Llandudno getting direct services to and from London Euston.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/avanti-virgin-trains-london-west-coast-main-line-euston-birmingham-manchester-a9220776.html

    As a vet’s son I know bullshit when I smell it. There simply are not 263 additional pathways for these trains. They couldn’t even find five daily for Cannock.

    That is a pledge that could only be met when HS2 is finally opened, which is a lot more than three years away.

    So the operators are one of stupid, mad, pig ignorant or lying. They are clearly not stupid or mad, and currently run a railway company. I’ll go with the ‘lying’ option.

    It's 263 more stops per week.
    Hmmm.

    Still not convinced. For them to be expresses, that’s still far more extra trains than he WCML can manage.
  • ydoethur said:

    Good stuff. I’ll be happy when Yang pulls out too, though suspect he’ll stay in quite a time yet.

    Funny, they said that about Clinton as well.

    But that was both before and after he was elected.
    It’s Hillary’s egotistical Twitter output that keeps her price low, so I’m happy.

    Long may it continue.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Mincemeat.

    Not in a pie you‘ll understand, just watching Labour being turned into it.
    When I was about six I was sent to the shops for 1/2 pound of mince. I came back with a large jar of mincemeat and couldn’t understand what I had done wrong, it was July but even so!
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    I'm hoping to be drunk on sweet Labour tears.
  • RobD said:

    Updated with the YouGov:

    https://imgur.com/Y6NsnSA

    something about Labour having momentum, right?
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Oh dear, what a shame, nevermind.
  • RobD said:

    Updated with the YouGov:

    https://imgur.com/Y6NsnSA

    We're right at that excruciating tipping point between "Oh, it was always going to be 2017 all over again, wasn't it?" and "Any fool can tell that pattern looks nothing at all like 2017, duh!".

  • nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Copious amounts of wine (though I have a new tradition of switching to whisky on the Scottish results) along with cured meats and cheese. The only way.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,211
    Thanks for the equity Harris
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Copious amounts of wine (though I have a new tradition of switching to whisky on the Scottish results) along with cured meats and cheese. The only way.
    Some of us have to work the following morning.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Mincemeat.

    Not in a pie you‘ll understand, just watching Labour being turned into it.
    When I was about six I was sent to the shops for 1/2 pound of mince. I came back with a large jar of mincemeat and couldn’t understand what I had done wrong, it was July but even so!
    I'll be on Ryanair.com in case I have to move to Spain in the event of a CORBYNISTA win!
  • ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Copious amounts of wine (though I have a new tradition of switching to whisky on the Scottish results) along with cured meats and cheese. The only way.
    Some of us have to work the following morning.
    That’s why it has to be copious amounts. Can’t be hungover if you’re still drunk.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    edited December 2019

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?

    6. Where precisely is the "simplistic nonsense" in the article?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    SunnyJim said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    I'm hoping to be drunk on sweet Labour tears.
    It’s all an hour later for me so I run out of steam and whatever popcorn I laid in far to early. Will only stay past the exit poll if it looks interesting. In 2015, my wife, who has memory problems came down having gone to bed at nine as normal came down took one look at the exit poll and asked if she had died and gone to hell, I said no that was unfortunately last year but thankfully she didn’t understand my comment.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Mincemeat.

    Not in a pie you‘ll understand, just watching Labour being turned into it.
    When I was about six I was sent to the shops for 1/2 pound of mince. I came back with a large jar of mincemeat and couldn’t understand what I had done wrong, it was July but even so!
    Bloody third time in a row I'm overseas for a major political event. Referendum I was in Greece, 2017 I was in Japan and this time I'll be in Hungary. Unfortunately it severely limits my betting ability.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Ave_it said:

    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Mincemeat.

    Not in a pie you‘ll understand, just watching Labour being turned into it.
    When I was about six I was sent to the shops for 1/2 pound of mince. I came back with a large jar of mincemeat and couldn’t understand what I had done wrong, it was July but even so!
    I'll be on Ryanair.com in case I have to move to Spain in the event of a CORBYNISTA win!
    At least you might be able to keep your freedom of movement and healthcare rights if that happens . If Bozo screws up you’ll be stuck in the UK .
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Copious amounts of wine (though I have a new tradition of switching to whisky on the Scottish results) along with cured meats and cheese. The only way.
    Some of us have to work the following morning.
    That’s why it has to be copious amounts. Can’t be hungover if you’re still drunk.
    There are clauses in my contract about not turning up drunk.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    she’s been a dreadful senator. almost as bad as boxer.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?

    6. Where precisely is the "simplistic nonsense" in the article?
    4. These people sit there all day looking at their respective bank balances. It's not as if most of the wealth is tied up in companies they have built, no, that's obviously not the answer. 🙄
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Ave_it said:

    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Mincemeat.

    Not in a pie you‘ll understand, just watching Labour being turned into it.
    When I was about six I was sent to the shops for 1/2 pound of mince. I came back with a large jar of mincemeat and couldn’t understand what I had done wrong, it was July but even so!
    I'll be on Ryanair.com in case I have to move to Spain in the event of a CORBYNISTA win!
    Well if you want any advice..
  • O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    BBC London News reporting that Labour are in with a chance of winning Guildford...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
    No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,211
    Whisper it quietly but I'm starting to wonder if Trump might romp home in the general.
    Bloomberg too disliked and entering race late, Sanders will get support but not enough to win. Buttigieg can't get any black voters, and Warren has peaked too soon. Which leaves err... Joe Biden.
    He can stave off mental degradation till March but I reckon by the time November comes round it's going to be in full view - Trump whilst obese and not the picture of health himself has got most of his faculties...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    tlg86 said:

    BBC London News reporting that Labour are in with a chance of winning Guildford...

    No they are not the labour candidate is
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    edited December 2019
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
    No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
    So if one person (me for instance) owned all the wealth and the rest of you none of it you'd be fine with that?

    PS A lot of this wealth is property - those owning it aren't going to be taking that out of the country when they leave.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    tlg86 said:

    BBC London News reporting that Labour are in with a chance of winning Guildford...

    Lmao ! Guildford. Absolutely no chance .
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,211
    tlg86 said:

    BBC London News reporting that Labour are in with a chance of winning Guildford...

    Labour!?!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    On rich people, are you proposing that Jim Ratcliffe should give up all of his shares in Ineos (the source of his wealth) to the government @Benpointer?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,484
    Charles said:

    she’s been a dreadful senator. almost as bad as boxer.

    She looks good though. Like Vanessa Williams if you scrunch your eyes up.
  • dr_spyn said:
    or just leave him alone?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    edited December 2019

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
    No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
    So if one person (me for instance) owned all the wealth and the rest of you none of it you'd be fine with that?
    Do we live in a two person country, because I'd be more upset about that.
  • You know that BBC thing that they used to do in the FA Cup where they start with a lowly club in the early rounds, until they are beaten and then switch to following the club that beats them, and so on until the Final.....

    Well on the basis of personal preference not likelihood of winning, that's me on the US Presidential. I started on Sherrod Brown and when he got nowhere switched to Kamala Harris.....

    All I am looking for is a plausible centrist candidate who is under 70 years old. Is that too much to ask? Mayors of small towns need not apply.
  • Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    BBC London News reporting that Labour are in with a chance of winning Guildford...

    Labour!?!
    I hadn't believed the stories about the BBC collaborating with the Tories until this moment... :wink:
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    You know that BBC thing that they used to do in the FA Cup where they start with a lowly club in the early rounds, until they are beaten and then switch to following the club that beats them, and so on until the Final.....

    Well on the basis of personal preference not likelihood of winning, that's me on the US Presidential. I started on Sherrod Brown and when he got nowhere switched to Kamala Harris.....

    All I am looking for is a plausible centrist candidate who is under 70 years old. Is that too much to ask? Mayors of small towns need not apply.

    Mayor Pete!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    nichomar said:

    tlg86 said:

    BBC London News reporting that Labour are in with a chance of winning Guildford...

    No they are not the labour candidate is
    Reporter said "now some polls show Labour is in with a fighting chance."
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627
    tlg86 said:

    BBC London News reporting that Labour are in with a chance of winning Guildford...

    That’s great news for the Tories, they’ll win if it turns into a three way fight.
  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    nichomar said:

    Ave_it said:

    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Mincemeat.

    Not in a pie you‘ll understand, just watching Labour being turned into it.
    When I was about six I was sent to the shops for 1/2 pound of mince. I came back with a large jar of mincemeat and couldn’t understand what I had done wrong, it was July but even so!
    I'll be on Ryanair.com in case I have to move to Spain in the event of a CORBYNISTA win!
    Well if you want any advice..
    TY I'll let you know! :lol:
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    tlg86 said:

    nichomar said:

    tlg86 said:

    BBC London News reporting that Labour are in with a chance of winning Guildford...

    No they are not the labour candidate is
    Reporter said "now some polls show Labour is in with a fighting chance."
    That’s like my fighting chance to lose two stone and get a six pack ! Basically zero !
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,627
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
    No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
    One doesn’t make the poor richer, simply by making the rich poorer.
  • O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?

    6. Where precisely is the "simplistic nonsense" in the article?
    It’s the implication that the wealthy are hogging the real wealth of the poor, who should rightly have it instead that bothers me.

    It’s been the cry of socialists throughout the ages since time immemorial and it’s as much bullshit now as it was then.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614

    Charles said:

    she’s been a dreadful senator. almost as bad as boxer.

    She looks good though. Like Vanessa Williams if you scrunch your eyes up.
    This is the only Kamala I've ever heard of -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnAjoiKSFAw
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,127
    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Copious amounts of wine (though I have a new tradition of switching to whisky on the Scottish results) along with cured meats and cheese. The only way.
    Some of us have to work the following morning.
    I don't think you'll have to stay up too long.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
    No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
    So if one person (me for instance) owned all the wealth and the rest of you none of it you'd be fine with that?

    PS A lot of this wealth is property - those owning it aren't going to be taking that out of the country when they leave.
    You will always have a small number at the very top who’ve done, comparatively, very well. Many thousands more try and fail. It’s a statistically tiny number and the sign of a dynamic economy.

    There’s no good that can come to wider society by expropriating their assets.
  • tlg86 said:

    nichomar said:

    tlg86 said:

    BBC London News reporting that Labour are in with a chance of winning Guildford...

    No they are not the labour candidate is
    Reporter said "now some polls show Labour is in with a fighting chance."

    God, you wonder how some BBC reporters get the job.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    BluerBlue said:

    RobD said:

    Updated with the YouGov:

    https://imgur.com/Y6NsnSA

    We're right at that excruciating tipping point between "Oh, it was always going to be 2017 all over again, wasn't it?" and "Any fool can tell that pattern looks nothing at all like 2017, duh!".

    It’s not in anyone’s interests to say the latter. Certainly journalists who were made to look stupid last time. A “it could change until the last minute” narrative gives a justification for being wrong.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,484
    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
    No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
    One doesn’t make the poor richer, simply by making the rich poorer.
    Actually you do, every time they buy stuff. And we can, and should, get them to buy more of our stuff. But that's too proactive for many people, so they prefer just getting annoyed about it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
    No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
    So if one person (me for instance) owned all the wealth and the rest of you none of it you'd be fine with that?

    PS A lot of this wealth is property - those owning it aren't going to be taking that out of the country when they leave.
    You will always have a small number at the very top who’ve done, comparatively, very well. Many thousands more try and fail. It’s a statistically tiny number and the sign of a dynamic economy.

    There’s no good that can come to wider society by expropriating their assets.
    You say expropriating, I say taxing :smile:
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,127

    dr_spyn said:
    or just leave him alone?
    It doesn't matter if you are a hero or a villain, the British press will not rest until it has hurt you.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Whisper it quietly but I'm starting to wonder if Trump might romp home in the general.
    Bloomberg too disliked and entering race late, Sanders will get support but not enough to win. Buttigieg can't get any black voters, and Warren has peaked too soon. Which leaves err... Joe Biden.
    He can stave off mental degradation till March but I reckon by the time November comes round it's going to be in full view - Trump whilst obese and not the picture of health himself has got most of his faculties...

    I’ve thought Trump might win (if he stands) for some time.

    Mayor Pete strikes me as someone who could beat him. I think the black voters thing is a myth (rcs convinced me of that).
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
    No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
    So if one person (me for instance) owned all the wealth and the rest of you none of it you'd be fine with that?

    PS A lot of this wealth is property - those owning it aren't going to be taking that out of the country when they leave.
    You will always have a small number at the very top who’ve done, comparatively, very well. Many thousands more try and fail. It’s a statistically tiny number and the sign of a dynamic economy.

    There’s no good that can come to wider society by expropriating their assets.
    Worrying about billionaires is a distraction maybe more analysis of CEO vs average employee earnings as a ratio tells you more of direction. It has grown dramatically as CEO’s and other senior managers are awarded pay rises far outstripping those that work for them
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
    No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
    One doesn’t make the poor richer, simply by making the rich poorer.
    Actually you do, every time they buy stuff. And we can, and should, get them to buy more of our stuff. But that's too proactive for many people, so they prefer just getting annoyed about it.
    If you want that wealth to be used to 'buy stuff' move it to the poor... they spend money rather than sit on it.
  • BluerBlueBluerBlue Posts: 521
    edited December 2019

    BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
    Are you utterly ******* insane? Most people's "wealth" is not in the form of liquid assets or currency that can be used to pay your spiteful envy taxes.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,708
    RobD said:

    Updated with the YouGov:

    https://imgur.com/Y6NsnSA

    The lead line is just about precisely flat for the last 6 days.
  • BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
    Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,127
    MaxPB said:

    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Mincemeat.

    Not in a pie you‘ll understand, just watching Labour being turned into it.
    When I was about six I was sent to the shops for 1/2 pound of mince. I came back with a large jar of mincemeat and couldn’t understand what I had done wrong, it was July but even so!
    Bloody third time in a row I'm overseas for a major political event. Referendum I was in Greece, 2017 I was in Japan and this time I'll be in Hungary. Unfortunately it severely limits my betting ability.
    Ok, legitimately puzzled. All the bookies have online sites and you can open an account. Can't you log on from abroad?
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,683

    tlg86 said:

    nichomar said:

    tlg86 said:

    BBC London News reporting that Labour are in with a chance of winning Guildford...

    No they are not the labour candidate is
    Reporter said "now some polls show Labour is in with a fighting chance."

    God, you wonder how some BBC reporters get the job.
    They had a poll in the BBC office.
  • On the subject of Corbyn and billionaires, there was a great line in the CityAM editorial this morning:

    Jeremy Corbyn is well and truly getting into the Christmas spirit — he’s making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who’s naughty or nice, Jeremy is coming to town.

    Momentum activists could turn that into a Christmas number one. But who’s on the Labour leader’s list?

    Well, he’s pretty clear about who’s been naughty. Indeed, he revels in pointing the finger at bad bosses, fat cats, bankers, hedge funds, polluters, privatisers, Tories (obviously) and of course, billionaires.

    Corbyn sees billionaires everywhere. He claims they wrote the Tory manifesto, and that they paid for it. This seems like a poor deal


    https://www.cityam.com/corbyn-cant-fix-your-miserable-commute/
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
    No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
    So if one person (me for instance) owned all the wealth and the rest of you none of it you'd be fine with that?

    PS A lot of this wealth is property - those owning it aren't going to be taking that out of the country when they leave.
    You will always have a small number at the very top who’ve done, comparatively, very well. Many thousands more try and fail. It’s a statistically tiny number and the sign of a dynamic economy.

    There’s no good that can come to wider society by expropriating their assets.
    You say expropriating, I say taxing :smile:
    Then, that’s a different argument.

    You might be able to bring in a few extra billions (maybe tens of billions) a year with a 1-2% wealth tax (any more than that and they’d bugger off or do something else with the money) but again it’s not going to be transformative when spread across 14 million people.

    What will be is affordable housing, help with childcare, good schools, stable families and good well-paid jobs.

    For that you need a strong economy and a sensible Government following the right policies.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    edited December 2019
    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Mincemeat.

    Not in a pie you‘ll understand, just watching Labour being turned into it.
    When I was about six I was sent to the shops for 1/2 pound of mince. I came back with a large jar of mincemeat and couldn’t understand what I had done wrong, it was July but even so!
    Bloody third time in a row I'm overseas for a major political event. Referendum I was in Greece, 2017 I was in Japan and this time I'll be in Hungary. Unfortunately it severely limits my betting ability.
    Ok, legitimately puzzled. All the bookies have online sites and you can open an account. Can't you log on from abroad?
    From Spain if I bet on a Spanish site I can bet on most things but last time I looked there was no UK Politics, without a VPN I can’t access a UK betting site. Telephone accounts would solve that.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    Let's seize the means of production! Capitalists out!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    MikeL said:

    RobD said:

    Updated with the YouGov:

    https://imgur.com/Y6NsnSA

    The lead line is just about precisely flat for the last 6 days.
    https://i.imgur.com/VRmgDj7.gif
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695

    BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
    Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.
    Nonsense. If they cannot make >4% + inflation from it they are being badly advised. In which case they will just have to live with £2,970,000 next year (when they will fall below the @Benpointer Wealth Tax threshold).
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,127
    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Since 2001 it's been Doritos and dip. Usually garlic dip. It used to be Schloer as well, tho' that's not too good these days.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,484

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    Billionaires have lots of money, in related news it turns out bears really do shit in the woods.
    Out of interest, is there any level of inequality that you would consider too much?
    No. It's the politics of envy and it does none of us any good. What we need to do is ensure that those wealthy people feel as though they can invest in this country and create jobs for the rest of us. Taxing them into leaving won't achieve anything, really.
    One doesn’t make the poor richer, simply by making the rich poorer.
    Actually you do, every time they buy stuff. And we can, and should, get them to buy more of our stuff. But that's too proactive for many people, so they prefer just getting annoyed about it.
    If you want that wealth to be used to 'buy stuff' move it to the poor... they spend money rather than sit on it.
    I agree, but doing so is not just about taking that wealth by law, it is about attracting it.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
    Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.
    Nonsense. If they cannot make >4% + inflation from it they are being badly advised. In which case they will just have to live with £2,970,000 next year (when they will fall below the @Benpointer Wealth Tax threshold).
    Given that the majority of assets are in primary residences how do those people pay for it? Do they sell small bits of their house?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    BluerBlue said:

    BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
    Are you utterly ******* insane? Most people's "wealth" is not in the form of liquid assets or currency that can be used to pay your spiteful envy taxes.
    £3m in assets and none of it liquid? You're the one who's insane.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    BluerBlue said:

    BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
    Are you utterly ******* insane? Most people's "wealth" is not in the form of liquid assets or currency that can be used to pay your spiteful envy taxes.
    £3m in assets and none of it liquid? You're the one who's insane.
    But how do they make 4% returns on it when most is tied up in their home?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    viewcode said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Since 2001 it's been Doritos and dip. Usually garlic dip. It used to be Schloer as well, tho' that's not too good these days.
    I’m going down the cheddar cheese chocolate peanuts and shortbread biscuits with high quality Spanish red wine until I can’t stand up, that ensures I get up every hour to track progress whilst looking after other problems.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    edited December 2019

    BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
    Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.
    Nonsense. If they cannot make >4% + inflation from it they are being badly advised. In which case they will just have to live with £2,970,000 next year (when they will fall below the @Benpointer Wealth Tax threshold).
    Why are you assuming those with £3m in assets have it invested in anything much more than their house It business? I’m being slightly provocative but if you’re in single digit millions it’s not always the case that you have much in the way of liquidity. Make it £10m and I start to agree (with some concerns about marginal tax rates).
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    You know that BBC thing that they used to do in the FA Cup where they start with a lowly club in the early rounds, until they are beaten and then switch to following the club that beats them, and so on until the Final.....

    Well on the basis of personal preference not likelihood of winning, that's me on the US Presidential. I started on Sherrod Brown and when he got nowhere switched to Kamala Harris.....

    All I am looking for is a plausible centrist candidate who is under 70 years old. Is that too much to ask? Mayors of small towns need not apply.

    We’ve swung from youngish leaders (B Clinton, Cameron, Obama, Blair) to a gerontocracy who seem immune to original thought or any desire to go away.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    MaxPB said:

    BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
    Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.
    Nonsense. If they cannot make >4% + inflation from it they are being badly advised. In which case they will just have to live with £2,970,000 next year (when they will fall below the @Benpointer Wealth Tax threshold).
    Given that the majority of assets are in primary residences how do those people pay for it? Do they sell small bits of their house?
    What proportion of people own houses valued at >£3m?

    What proportion of the wealthiest 1% have all their assets tied up in their main residence? I'd guess none of them but if I'm wrong, they can always downsize.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533


    Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.

    It's a problem that most people wouldn't mind having. Few asset-holders have their entire wealth in illiquid form.

    This is, after all, akin to Swiss policy. The Swiss feel that a modest wealth tax is helpful in inducing the wealthy to invest their wealth profitably, seeling off land they don't need etc. I've not heard that people are fleeing Switzerland as a result.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    matt said:

    You know that BBC thing that they used to do in the FA Cup where they start with a lowly club in the early rounds, until they are beaten and then switch to following the club that beats them, and so on until the Final.....

    Well on the basis of personal preference not likelihood of winning, that's me on the US Presidential. I started on Sherrod Brown and when he got nowhere switched to Kamala Harris.....

    All I am looking for is a plausible centrist candidate who is under 70 years old. Is that too much to ask? Mayors of small towns need not apply.

    We’ve swung from youngish leaders (B Clinton, Cameron, Obama, Blair) to a gerontocracy who seem immune to original thought or any desire to go away.
    Macron, Trudeau?
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    edited December 2019
    Looks like someone's betfair bot went haywire, and was handing out evens for Con over317.5 (guessing they meant to play the over/under 340.5). Correct price is 1.20-1.25 or so, it's reset back to that now.

    Expensive mistake :-)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    nichomar said:

    viewcode said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Since 2001 it's been Doritos and dip. Usually garlic dip. It used to be Schloer as well, tho' that's not too good these days.
    I’m going down the cheddar cheese chocolate peanuts and shortbread biscuits with high quality Spanish red wine until I can’t stand up, that ensures I get up every hour to track progress whilst looking after other problems.
    Sounds splendid!
  • BluerBlue said:

    BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
    Are you utterly ******* insane? Most people's "wealth" is not in the form of liquid assets or currency that can be used to pay your spiteful envy taxes.
    £3m in assets and none of it liquid? You're the one who's insane.
    You and Corbyn / McDonnell deserve each other. Although I notice that even they weren't stupid enough to propose something so electorally poisonous in their manifesto!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,127
    nichomar said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    nichomar said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    What are people planning to sustain themselves with on election night I know popcorn is traditional but there must be better solutions, given the proximity of Christmas seasonal offerings or are just going to rely on a sick bag?

    Mincemeat.

    Not in a pie you‘ll understand, just watching Labour being turned into it.
    When I was about six I was sent to the shops for 1/2 pound of mince. I came back with a large jar of mincemeat and couldn’t understand what I had done wrong, it was July but even so!
    Bloody third time in a row I'm overseas for a major political event. Referendum I was in Greece, 2017 I was in Japan and this time I'll be in Hungary. Unfortunately it severely limits my betting ability.
    Ok, legitimately puzzled. All the bookies have online sites and you can open an account. Can't you log on from abroad?
    From Spain if I bet on a Spanish site I can bet on most things but last time I looked there was no UK Politics, without a VPN I can’t access a UK betting site. Telephone accounts would solve that.
    Some bookmakers do still offer telephone betting. I'll check my notes tonight, see if I can dig out some numbers.

  • Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.

    It's a problem that most people wouldn't mind having. Few asset-holders have their entire wealth in illiquid form.

    This is, after all, akin to Swiss policy. The Swiss feel that a modest wealth tax is helpful in inducing the wealthy to invest their wealth profitably, seeling off land they don't need etc. I've not heard that people are fleeing Switzerland as a result.
    That is the old school Liberal argument, and I understand it, but I tend to think that if you’ve earned income and want to shove it under your mattress then that’s your choice. You’ve already been taxed on it.

    Now if we discussed income tax and council tax reforms at the same time...
  • MaxPB said:

    BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
    Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.
    Nonsense. If they cannot make >4% + inflation from it they are being badly advised. In which case they will just have to live with £2,970,000 next year (when they will fall below the @Benpointer Wealth Tax threshold).
    Given that the majority of assets are in primary residences how do those people pay for it? Do they sell small bits of their house?
    What proportion of people own houses valued at >£3m?

    What proportion of the wealthiest 1% have all their assets tied up in their main residence? I'd guess none of them but if I'm wrong, they can always downsize.
    How about you downsize your desire for other people's assets instead?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695

    BluerBlue said:

    O/T Not sure if this has been covered already here but this cannot be good for the country...

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/uk-six-richest-people-control-as-much-wealth-as-poorest-13m-study

    It’s simplistic nonsense.

    If you confiscated all of their assets (all £39.4bn) and gave all of it equally to those 14 million they’d have... a one-off payment of £2,800 each.

    Corbyn’s promising a bigger bung to the WASPIS.
    Good grief, where to begin?

    1. No one is suggesting confiscating £39.4bn from six people and giving 14m £2,800 each.

    (2. Although as an aside, if they did it would improve the sum of human happiness in the UK immeasurably.)

    3. Most of those 14m have no assets at all beyond the clothes they wear and the furniture they sit on - quite a few don't even have the furniture.

    4. What is that £39bn doing exactly?

    5. Why would anyone need more than a few million let alone multiple billions? what's the point of it?
    I'll only bother answering your 5.:

    It's none of your business. But once the Government decides they can confiscate 999 pounds out of every 1000 you have, property rights are dead and the entire economic system collapses. And that's everyone's business.
    Who's suggesting confiscating £999 out of every £1000?

    How about we start with 1% p.a. on wealth over a £3m. Just from the top 1% in other words, but since they own over £1.3tn that would bring in £13bn each year.

    And they'd hardly notice it.
    Most people with £3m in assets would struggle to pay your £30,000 wealth tax on top of their income tax etc.
    Nonsense. If they cannot make >4% + inflation from it they are being badly advised. In which case they will just have to live with £2,970,000 next year (when they will fall below the @Benpointer Wealth Tax threshold).
    Why are you assuming those with £3m in assets have it invested in anything much more than their house It business? I’m being slightly provocative but if you’re in single digit millions it’s not always the case that you have much in the way of liquidity. Make it £10m and I start to agree (with some concerns about marginal tax rates).
    Well, I'd compromise on £10m to get started. Or how about 1% of everything above £3m.

    I know a few of you are thinking envy tax etc. but honestly, I am comfortably off, not envious. I just think we need to address the inequality a bit more than we currently do.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    matt said:

    You know that BBC thing that they used to do in the FA Cup where they start with a lowly club in the early rounds, until they are beaten and then switch to following the club that beats them, and so on until the Final.....

    Well on the basis of personal preference not likelihood of winning, that's me on the US Presidential. I started on Sherrod Brown and when he got nowhere switched to Kamala Harris.....

    All I am looking for is a plausible centrist candidate who is under 70 years old. Is that too much to ask? Mayors of small towns need not apply.

    We’ve swung from youngish leaders (B Clinton, Cameron, Obama, Blair) to a gerontocracy who seem immune to original thought or any desire to go away.
    Macron, Trudeau?
    I was thinking particularly of the US and the U.K.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    RobD said:

    Updated with the YouGov:
    https://imgur.com/Y6NsnSA

    That should calm some Tory nerves a bit.
This discussion has been closed.