| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| What some millionairs are saying.; Are Laffer and co laughable? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 9 2015, 11:23 AM (970 Views) | |
| C-too | Jan 9 2015, 11:23 AM Post #1 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The ideas from radical economists like Laffer that lower taxation would stimulate growth, that "the rich should be free from the burden of tax" and that "taxing the rich would make society as a whole poorer". With low taxation trickle-down would be our reward. These ideas obviously appealed to Thatcher and Reagan. The reality is that both in the UK and in the US the suggested growth did not take place, investment actually fell. 30 Years of low taxation/trickle-down has in reality been low taxation/trickle-up. 30 years ago the richest people in the country owned 10% of the wealth, today it is claimed they own 20%. Even multi millionaires on the programme were saying that things need to change, that the middle classes are suffering economically, pushing more of them out of the housing market was an example given. There was even the suggestion that there are ongoing detrimental changes in society that will benefit no one in the end. When millionaires both in the UK and the US are saying we got it wrong and changes need to be made, then maybe changes do need to be made. |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 9 2015, 12:10 PM Post #2 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This documentary provided objective and clear academic evidence to what I have always believed, that making the rich richer, does not trickle down to the rest of us, I am afraid that Thatcherism and Reagonomics over the years, has made the middle classes poorer. Apart from the economic argument, there is also the moral argument, it is inherently wrong to give tax cuts to the rich when at the same time you penalize the least well off - are you listening George Osborne, David Cameron. ? |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 9 2015, 12:13 PM Post #3 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You say absolutely nothing as to why it is that asset prices have grown internationally well ahead of inflation for nigh on 40 years now. Do you have any inkling why this came about? Do you not even know that during the Greenspan/Brown era it actually accelerated. C2 you whinge, the lefty whine, however whilst your anger might be genuine, only might, you show no understanding of the reasons why such changes have come about. Just a tip; there are Millionaire property owners in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, USA, and the rest of the World even China has a few too. Still the prognosis is that in the coming decades this trend could reverse and that is nothing to do with taxation, high, low or otherwise. You also fail to point out that it is not just capital that has done well through investments in assets, but those with education and skills have generally improved their lot. Those that have not, the poorly educated and unskilled have found that their numbers have exploded in the queues at Factory gates across the Planet. I know that you just love to smack Capitalists over the head, but best understand the nature of your assumed cudgel. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 9 2015, 12:37 PM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
RJD I know I am wasting my time with you because you won't watch it but you obviously missed this programme last night:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04xw2x8/the-superrich-and-us-episode-1#group=p02fv3nt Britain has more billionaires per head than any other country on earth, yet we're also the most unequal nation in Europe. We were told the super-rich would make us richer too, so why hasn't that happened, and what does the arrival of their astronomical wealth really mean for the rest of us? In programme one of this two-part series, Jacques Peretti looks at how the super-rich first exploited an obscure legal loophole to make Britain one of the most attractive tax havens on earth. He argues this was no accident. Wooing the super-rich was a deliberate strategy by government to reconfigure the British economy, under the belief their wealth would trickle down to the rest of us. But it didn't. The OECD now say the British economy would have been 20 per cent bigger had we not pursued the super-rich. So who sold us the fallacy and why? Jacques meets the super-rich themselves - from those buying premiership football clubs to the billionaires who are breaking ranks to criticise the decisions that made them richer and society more unequal. Jacques challenges the architects of these policies, as well as tracking down the foreign multimillionaires who are buying up Britain and turning us from a nation of property owners to a nation of renters. He uncovers new research that shows growing inequality has been driven by this key factor of unaffordable property, and the far-reaching effect this will have on every aspect of our lives. Inequality is reshaping Britain into two simple classes: the 99 per cent and the one per cent. This is the story of how it happened and what it means for all of us. |
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Jan 9 2015, 12:42 PM Post #5 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Last nights documentary explained how some European nations, in particular the Nordic nations, had not indulged in lowering taxes for the wealthy, their living standards (for all) have surpassed ours, we are not better off. The narrator and others also pointed out that no one has been in any rush to leave those countries, neither have any companies, and the citizens of those nations experience a much better standard of living than we do, but it is also the quality of life that far exceeds ours. There s nothing wrong with capitalism, and those of us who want fundamental change in our approach to society are not looney lefties, we want to see capitalism regulated and restricted, in order to steer us to a fairer society, commonly known as "capitalism with a social conscience". The Thatcherites of this world believe in pure market forces, let the wind blow us here, there and everywhere, the market alone will find its own level, with as little regulation as possible, and consequences are just hard luck. The difference in Helsinki, Copenhagen or Oslo is that you do not walk out of your big posh riverside appartment into stark poverty, you dont walk for miles past vast estates of people at the other end of the spectrum, struggling to pay rent, high crime, poor health, the disparity in our society as compared to other places is vast, and its not acceptable to those of us with a moral conscience. Thats not how most people want the way |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 9 2015, 01:25 PM Post #6 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was probably fast asleep. However, I see that you do not even bother to separate out those that have made their fortunes here in the UK from those that are now domicile and have most of their assets outside of the UK. You do not even bother to indicate in what way has a Russian Oligarch say, hindered investment in real jobs in the UK. The lack of detail, lack of analysis uncovers a very shallow assumption that these people if they have not directly helped a poor individual must have harmed him. Why you assume that I would not watch such a program is beyond me, my complaint is never about such but your often lazy interpretations or complete misunderstandings. Where is your interpretation? |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 9 2015, 01:32 PM Post #7 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You would never watch such a programme RJD because it would challenge your mind set with evidence.
|
![]() |
|
| Che Frederick | Jan 9 2015, 02:41 PM Post #8 |
|
Junior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Laffer's curve is just a theory. Fans of Ronald "Aids" Reagan preach it as if it were the gosepl. But when debating, never start fro the assumtpion that Laffer's curve is correct. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 9 2015, 02:52 PM Post #9 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The program raised some interesting points, but spent far too much time highlighting the disparity of wealth. Yes we could rid ourselves of everyone of these Non-Doms this year if we wished, but the Presenter has not bothered to show what the gain or loss would be. The Presenter lazily infers that there is something fundamentally wrong with renting property without stating that this is the case for most citizens of the EU. The Presenter spent much time citing "Billionaires", but only interviewed a few home grown "Millionaires". As for these Billionaires where is their wealth? Where was it created? Do UK Citizens have any ethical right to attach themselves to this via taxation? Interesting to note that as I said the rate of acceleration accelerated in the UK post 1997. Brown promised to hit the Non-Doms then did nothing. Why? As for the claim that only Politicians in Gov. gained, as the effects on GDP statements effectively massaged reality is pure BS as those that follow these trends in detail understand those details. The one big claim which was for me a surprise was that Politicians had recommended the influx of foreign Super-rich people as a means of making us all richer. Love to have a reference for that one as I do not recall this as a general solution for our economic difficulties. I hope that subsequent programs are more informative and not designed to rev up feelings of envy. It really is not difficult. Drive the rich bastards out of the country and tell them we do not wish to observe their vulgar displays of wealth. That said I doubt that the average Brit would be one Penny better off, some would be a lot worse off. As for investments in property or land in the UK by companies/individuals not based in the UK what can be done? It is easy to set up a UK Ltd to be the vehicle for such investments and ownership. Maybe you have to ban foreigners, those not carrying a British Passport from owning property or you could do what this Gov. has done, namely, increase Stamp Duties. Clearly the Non-Dom annual fee of £30,000 is for some no more than Chicken Feed, but that is not the case for thousands of others who would up sticks for economic reasons if increased to £100,000 PA. Yep some adjustment is necessary and my question, still unanswered, of how do you shift £20b PA from the top to the bottom remains. Whining and whinging is an insufficient response. Finally the £30,000 spent on a gold infused facial was a complete waste of money, but it does indicate that these people are often easily parted from their money especially via their wives purse. So program was a good long whinge, thin on details and bereft of solutions. Hope it improves. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 9 2015, 02:55 PM Post #10 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry Mr Smurf but you are generalising from the specific. I only object to your links which have proven to be, to often for my liking, to be a complete waste of time. Inferring that because I avoid your links this is proof that I avoid all is not logical, but such claims are your bread and butter. Stop making yourself look like a silly boy. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 9 2015, 04:15 PM Post #11 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I posted a link to a TV programme that would FACTUALLY challenge your mind set. You would not be able to take that, you would blow a gasket. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Jan 9 2015, 04:54 PM Post #12 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What you call "lefty whine" is not mine, they are the comments from multi millionaires on both sides of the Atlantic and a comment from one of the top economists in the world. Your nonsense is trumped this time by information that came straight from the horses mouth as they say. Obfuscation and avoidance doesn't help you this time.
|
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 9 2015, 05:20 PM Post #13 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And my previous disclosure of what I personally believe has been the (Master) plan all along is this very outcome. It is part of the Globalisation of the world economy and the gradual move towards homogeneity of the Continents. Edited by Affa, Jan 9 2015, 05:20 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 9 2015, 06:40 PM Post #14 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Did you ever get round to reading that piece by the IMF about how wealth inequality actually damages financial performance over the long term? THOUGHT NOT! Perhaps you were asleep again!
|
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 10 2015, 02:24 PM Post #15 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Those that want to increase tax say we're on the lhs and those that want to cut it say we're on the rhs. I'd say the recent French experience (and we're not so divergent economy from theirs) suggests we're on the whole somewhere in the middle. In detail probably on the rhs for income and lhs for wealth. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 10 2015, 03:13 PM Post #16 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In sixty years of post war taxation the burden of tax %GDP has fluctuated between 32% - 37% (approximations). The highest rate being not under a Labour government, but under a Conservative government. Where do you think we are today, today when getting the deficit reduced is said to be the most pressing problem - a problem that leading to borrowing and debt at record levels? You'd have to think that faced with such an urgent requirement to 'spare our grandkids the burden of debt of this generation' the Chancellor would use every means possible to reduce that burden, that deficit, and taxation is a way to do so. So is the burden of tax @ 32%GDP or 37% GDP. Remarkably it is at the lower end ........ has been reduced at a time when all reason suggests it should rise ......... and so the deficit remains stubbornly high and the debts (and interest payments) just mount up. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Jan 10 2015, 03:20 PM Post #17 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The problem with the Laffer curve is that it is a product of a man who believes in low taxes/no taxes, and that the rich deserve all the wealth they can acquire which he then defends on the premise that his approach will lead to investment and trickledown that would benefit everyone. He clearly got it wrong. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 10 2015, 04:02 PM Post #18 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is also a theory that some people here keep quoting as a fact. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 10 2015, 07:45 PM Post #19 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Totally agree, however Tory incompetents Scammers or Giddie won't listen. All they care about are millionaires. High time, taxation was increased substantially for these leaches. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 10 2015, 07:47 PM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Laffer curve is as discredited as the incompetents economic record. |
![]() |
|
| Lewis | Jan 10 2015, 07:52 PM Post #21 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Seems completely true for this person, that coupled with the obvious narcissistic and sociopathic traits, together make him a complete basket case. Never let the truth get in the way of a deeply embedded opinion. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jan 10 2015, 09:34 PM Post #22 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I just cannot get my head round this argument, why do any of us pay taxes.....for local services, emergency services, councils, highways maintenance etc etc. How many of these services do the wealthy ever use, I doubt that they use the NHS, yes, their refuse will be collected, street lights, I doubt that they worry about them in their chauffered limos, they pay tax as it is but barely use the services, they pay for utility usage the same as we all do, they employ tradesmen, they probably have their grub delivered, employ household staff, groundsmen, security, these are all jobs here in this country, probably pay a premium to the local cop shop to have immediate attendance should an alarm go off. It does not bother me one bit how much dosh they have or how they got it, they have been allowed into this country to live, (part time if they so wish) and they contribute to the economy, would all you envious folks rather that they went and lived in another country, and all their mansions became empty and turned into socially affordable tenements? that would cost the local authorities a fortune to maintain, all those lost jobs, all the lost revenue to the shops and retailers, oh no, far better to have millions of migrants here bleeding us dry.............I despair at the politics of envy. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 10 2015, 10:12 PM Post #23 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Society is the foundation on which business feeds. There is no profit to made (in a Capitalist society such as ours) without the use and adaptation of resources that the State provides ........ therefore it is the responsibility of the State to ensure both the security and the infrastructure that permits society and business to exist. The idea of a tax on income is simply to determine that those who benefit most from this arrangement make a similar larger contribution to the cost of these provisions. Over time this balance has been lost and the situation is that those on modest incomes pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes than those that are taking the lions share the wealth being created. Tax avoidance/evasion cannot be dismissed as mistakes made by the authorities, the law makers ...... there are loopholes in the system because the system is designed to have loopholes. Edited by Affa, Jan 10 2015, 10:14 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 10 2015, 10:28 PM Post #24 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Taxation is the price we pay to live in a civil and stable country, and yes Rich even millionaires benefit from that, and you should care about how wealth is accumulated, taking without putting anything back in or asset stripping by the better off is a social evil. I noticed in another thread you condemned the actions of a certain Russell Brand for making a fuss on behalf of some tenants (and some other causes) who faced eviction because a US company was buying the building to re let it out presumably to better off folks, many of these people were poor, elderly, or had lived there for decades, it struck me as rather sad that you as a tenant yourself felt the need to criticise, what would you do if they decided to boot you out of your council house so an already wealthy person could enrich themselves further? Time to put your right wing working class dogma in the bin, it's doing you no favours, I used to be like you but realised it was self defeating and designed to keep you firmly in your place.... |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 10 2015, 10:47 PM Post #25 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For those that say the Laffer curve is false I really do suggest look at what happened in the 1970s when (amazingly under Heath's conservatives) the top rate of income tax reached 98%. Talent left this country in droves, our manufacturing industry never recovered and the tax avoidance industry boomed. Right now so many think it clever to tax most those they see as richer than them - those earning £100k to £200k and not realise they are the very people that can save a future for the working age populations of the next decade and decades to come. Really rich people have NO or negligible taxable income - think it through. Just because Laffer may have been a dislikeable man (I know not if he was) doesn't discredit the truth of the curve associated with his name. There is always a point where raising a particular tax rate becomes self defeating. The debate should be where we are relative to that point Edited by Steve K, Jan 10 2015, 10:49 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 10 2015, 11:05 PM Post #26 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree up to a point. But....... I visit Denmark usually twice a year and I know a few very wealthy people there, paying your taxes is seen as your patriotic duty, no if's no buts. The same is also true in much of Scandinavia and to a lesser extent in Germany. Some of the mega wealthy live openly frugal lives and avoid lecturing and bleating, they seem to gain much credit from behaving with restraint and responsibility. Britain is in danger of emulating countries like Greece and Italy where tax avoidance is regarded as some kind of sport, if that becomes the norm the entire country will suffer, including the better off. |
![]() |
|
| AndyK | Jan 10 2015, 11:08 PM Post #27 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So tell us how much tax you think will be collected with a 100% tax rate? |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Jan 10 2015, 11:41 PM Post #28 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think the point has been answered in the OP, answered by multi millionaires on both sides of the Atlantic. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 11 2015, 01:00 PM Post #29 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You are being very silly as the only gasket likely to be blown is your own. Just because such a program plays to your own prejudice it does not mean that all the claims are correct or even linked, but in the minds of the dogmatic only a superficial visual link is necessary. Mr Smurf I suspect that you are totally incapable of separating out facts from fictions. You are addicted to false logic and believe that the character of the Messenger is more important than the contents of the Message. In short all the traits of a serial bigot. You also make a big mistake in claiming that because I do not follow your links then clearly I don't not follow others. Your arrogance is that you assume that yours, the links you provide, have value when in reality, far too often, they had none or little or even ran counter to your claims. Best if you spent more time being Devil's Advocate and trying to understand the nature of such programs. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 11 2015, 01:22 PM Post #30 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is no evidence, currently, that shows that increasing taxes on income in a dramatic way would increase revenues. There is a good reason why Gordon Brown did not increase higher tax rates for thirteen years right up to 6 weeks before he left Office. If individuals of high net worth wish to donate money to charities including HMRC then good for them and us, but such cannot be generalised into a claim that the majority wish to. There is also a problem for those that cite high net worth Non-Doms as a source for tax revenues as in the main their wealth was not created in the UK, does not exist in the UK, their interest in the UK as a country is purely selfish and to do with their lives/life-style. In short I doubt if there is much sustainable income to be found in that quarter. So you either put up with their vulgar conspicuous consumption or tell them to p155 off. As for those moderately wealthy Non-Doms who are here to work rather than spend, if they go to Switzerland then Zurich's gain will be our loss, that said the fee could be increased from £30,000 to £50,000 say. So what remains is the indigenous target of those of high net worth that made their wealth whilst operating from a solid UK base and are clearly "domicile UK for purposes of taxation". The likes of Dyson. There is more in the way of taxes to be pumped from this quarter, but how much for how long? Where are we going to get the £20b PA needed to close the gap? As for those that claim that £20b PA can be easily obtained by closing down methods of evasion or collaring those bastards that hide their gains abroad, well best write to HMRC and tell them how. This Gov. has done more than any previous Gov. to rake in additional revenues from this quarter and although every Penny is welcome and significantly more than that received hitherto, it is still peanuts. Where is the £20b PA I need to close the gap? Where is the extra £billions required by the NHS. What about the additional £10b+ required by Welfare? If I add up the dosh required to satisfy the claimants here I will probably need ~£50b PA. Fat chance I will ever have of reducing the debts passed on to my Grandchildren! |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 11 2015, 01:25 PM Post #31 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would watch that programme RJD. I'm about 2/3 through it as I type. Thought provoking if flawed at times. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 11 2015, 01:48 PM Post #32 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually I watched it from end to end as soon as I became aware of it's existence and reported my comments shortly afterwards. Raised some good points, but was heavily biased to revving up the Envy and Spite Brigade. I hope that in the next program there are less images of vulgar consumption and more on detrimental effects plus solutions , if such can be identified and more than just an opinion, but I doubt it as they are out to entertain the bigots. The Reporter kept on making the claim that the Political Classes had sold Joe Public that inviting these high net worth Non-Doms to live in the UK was the fundamental solution to our economic problems. Well I have seen every GE since WW2 and do not recall reading such in any Manifesto and doubt that such words could trip off Gordon Brown's tongue. The Reporter kept on showing us vulgar consumption of high net worth non-doms, those that could p155 £30,000 up the wall on a Saturday drinks party, then the next image was off those that would find it difficult to scrape £30 together. You do the links and arrive at the false conclusions, it's easy, that is what they do with such programs. I doubt that the very high net worth Non-Doms produce much for us of great lasting value, but I also doubt that they are much of a source for lasting significant tax revenues. Funny how the Reporter spent a lot of time with images of expensive watches, expensive cars and so little on where good clean income can be found and by how much it could be squeezed. Yep he revved up the serial bigots. One thing he did not mention was whether or not the absence of major wars has spurred the concentration of wealth in an ever upward direction. Is there not clear evidence that the last two major European wars resulted in a great levelling? Me I am for am for a real increase in earnings for the vast majority, in particular for the bottom 50% say, however, I could make a quick impact by getting rid of Employers NI and raising tax thresholds asap. Vilifying the very rich Non-Doms with their vulgar life-styles will not put much if any bread on the table. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 11 2015, 01:53 PM Post #33 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But collecting all the tax they have evaded would. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 11 2015, 01:59 PM Post #34 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well when you first identify what it is and where it is I will then weigh the possibility of attaching HMRC to it. Here I require names and numbers plus addresses not just fantasy global generalised assessments. For your words to have any meaning and be of any value I require details and detailed solutions. Otherwise what you offer is nothing but a continuation of a long whine that started sometime in the last century and that is getting to be boring. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 11 2015, 02:38 PM Post #35 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Pretty good summary of the flaws in the programme that was clearly very politically one sided and that is not what a public broadcaster should be doing. I'd add that he kicked off moaning about so few owning such a high % but didn't even consider that a key effect of the policies would inevitably distort the demographics. For example would Tony Fernandes be in the UK is we had Danish tax policies? No He also used too much historical perspective and hardly touched the changes that Darling and especially Osborne brought in to constrain tax avoidance. But a lot of the points did hit home, these hyper rich new residents have grossly distorted the property market to the detriment of many. And the point was well made that we are destroying the middle class leading our successor generations to an inevitability of a few rich and an awful lot of property renting worse off by today's terms. Part 2 will be interesting |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 11 2015, 05:22 PM Post #36 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^ Fact free rant. Less cliches and more substance please! |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 11 2015, 05:26 PM Post #37 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You still haven't read that report by the IMF that proves that ever growing wealth inequality is economic bad news for just about everyone in the long term! Basically if you run out of consumers in a consumer based economy you are stuffed, you also strangle ambition at the bottom end of society and the top end freed from competition stagnates. Any fule knows this. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 11 2015, 05:33 PM Post #38 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Right-wingers don't do 'common sense', the term common offends them. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 11 2015, 06:47 PM Post #39 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Already known RJD, the only problem is the reluctance of HMRC and George Osborne to collect it. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jan 11 2015, 07:18 PM Post #40 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am all confused now, where exactly do you stand on this issue? It would seem that you are both missing the point, deflation causes further deflation as consumers hang on to their money waiting for retail prices to drop even further whilst retailers put pressure on suppliers to lower their prices and suppliers repress the wages of their workers thereby completing the vicious circle as the workers per se are the main consumers. Perhaps you both should read MY post again, seeing as how the pair of you seem to know more than anyone else about everything. And btw......you are not me, I'll take my own advice thankyou very much! From Snigger (below) Yet more folksy simplistic nonsense from you, the problem is that every time consumer spending increases it sucks in imports, we've just had the worst trade deficit since 1989 because we magic money out of thin air and spend it on imports, note this money did not come about because of better productivity or economic reform, the money is largely speculative gain. The customer may well be British but the vendor as you put it is often foreign. Edited by Rich, Jan 11 2015, 07:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




2:33 PM Jul 11