RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:The death threats, the rape threats and the actual brick through a window are beyond pathetic.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Id much rather that we stopped bashing the rich, who contribute the lions share of the taxes the Treasury uses to fund services and benefits to everyone else, and concentrate on how best to make Britain more of a meritocracy, i.e. make social advancement easier.

You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

HMRC would disagree with you.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:
You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

HMRC would disagree with you.

It's not altogether new thinking that the rich take money out of the system, Aristotle used to bang on about accrual of wealth such money wasn't invested back into the wider economy just to date how long such thinking has been around. And actually the German economy has typically been much better than ours at making wealth available to new business starts ups and manufacturing, and they've realised some benefits on the back of that.

As to whether the rich pay their share, well that's going to depend on how one frames the question, but the actual answer is probably yes and no, or it depends.

kk67 wrote:It's become a mockery of democracy.
I'm torn on the use of this faux-democracy. If we had a referendum on Murderous Punishment......the morons would pass that as well.

I now accept that we cannot trust the rural voter.......but we must retain democracy among the informed people.
I'm reaching the opinion that we should gerrymander the hell out of our societies. There are so many blonde haired, pretty boys sitting on the rightwing benches who represent all the home counties of rural bullsh*t, self interested, NIMBY, w*nkers .
.....and because they're psychopathic/Sociopathic narcissist megalomaniacs, they're also terrified of being caught.

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:
You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

HMRC would disagree with you.

It's not altogether new thinking that the rich take money out of the system, Aristotle used to bang on about accrual of wealth such money wasn't invested back into the wider economy just to date how long such thinking has been around. And actually the German economy has typically been much better than ours at making wealth available to new business starts ups and manufacturing, and they've realised some benefits on the back of that.

As to whether the rich pay their share, well that's going to depend on how one frames the question, but the actual answer is probably yes and no, or it depends.

Sandydragon wrote:Well, the NEC has ruled that Corbyn doesn't need to be nominated, but will automatically be on the paper as the incumbent.

The battle for the Labour Party begins. May must be cursing the fix term parliaments, this is a prime time for a snap election.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

kk67 wrote:

kk67 wrote:It's become a mockery of democracy.
I'm torn on the use of this faux-democracy. If we had a referendum on Murderous Punishment......the morons would pass that as well.

I now accept that we cannot trust the rural voter.......but we must retain democracy among the informed people.
I'm reaching the opinion that we should gerrymander the hell out of our societies. There are so many blonde haired, pretty boys sitting on the rightwing benches who represent all the home counties of rural bullsh*t, self interested, NIMBY, w*nkers .
.....and because they're psychopathic/Sociopathic narcissist megalomaniacs, they're also terrified of being caught.

Is this what you accept as political, Eugene..?

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

Is ownership of property VAT exempt in any circumstance?

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

Is ownership of property VAT exempt in any circumstance?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

Is ownership of property VAT exempt in any circumstance?

VAT is a sales tax.

i'm not sure we have any ownership taxes in the UK. There are disposal taxes - Capital Gains, Inheritance, property purchases (Stamp duty as it's known) etc - and obviously income taxes but I can't think of ownership taxes.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

You entire premise of "fairness' is based on the spurious assumption that the government requires tax 'income' to spend and therefore tax is a 'contribution' to the operation of the state.

It is an entirely false notion. The government creates the money that pays the taxes.

Pretending otherwise is futile.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

You entire premise of "fairness' is based on the spurious assumption that the government requires tax 'income' to spend and therefore tax is a 'contribution' to the operation of the state.

It is an entirely false notion. The government creates the money that pays the taxes.

Pretending otherwise is futile.

The government creates the money we use in a physical form.

The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).

But the government tends to avoid creating money without basing it on something.

The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.

Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.

QE is dangerous and is thus used sparingly.

QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.

What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?

The tax system is designed to be redistributive and does that to an extent.

The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.

The net effect for people is the rich pay a considerable percentage of the nations taxes, proper people pay less, with a high proportion of homes receiving more back than they pay in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[

jared_7 wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
By the standards of most Brits he is a lefty loon, and for me at least I'd hoped we'd reached a point wherein Corbyn and those of a similar ilk would be confined to the SWP leaving Labour to go forwards as a Social Democratic party. Sadly instead the inmates have taken over the asylum and we're going to have to waste a lot of time going at least until the next general election it seems until there's a chance for some order to return. And I don't just blame Corbyn for this, but also those in the middle ground and to the right of the Labour party who are allowing us to continue without a credible opposition to the government.

In what way is he a lunatic?

Most of what he's actually said makes sense, and he is the leader of the UK's only mainstream socialist party...

What do you define as Social Democrat?

Oh, and mods: why is language like this allowed against the left, and not against the right?

On second thoughts, don't bother. You're both rather right wing...

He wants his left wing parties to be fiscally and economically identical to the right wing parties, just more progressive on social issues. He ignores the fact this is pretty much what we've had for the last 30-40 years, where many people feel (and statistics can back up) that during this time their position in society is worse off. The middle and lower classes have been pinched, while those at the very top have seen their wealth grow exponentially.

He wants society to work for the top 10% and anyone challenging that position is, apparently, a "left wing loony".

"It is what it is, chaps; accept your lot and don't you dare complain".

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

You entire premise of "fairness' is based on the spurious assumption that the government requires tax 'income' to spend and therefore tax is a 'contribution' to the operation of the state.

It is an entirely false notion. The government creates the money that pays the taxes.

Pretending otherwise is futile.

The government creates the money we use in a physical form.

The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).

But the government tends to avoid creating money without basing it on something.

The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.

Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.

QE is dangerous and is thus used sparingly.

QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.

What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?

The tax system is designed to be redistributive and does that to an extent.

The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.

The net effect for people is the rich pay a considerable percentage of the nations taxes, proper people pay less, with a high proportion of homes receiving more back than they pay in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[

If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.

If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.

It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.

UGagain wrote: Eagle was widely derided for not putting forward any policies at her campaign launch, but really I think everybody knows the kind of things she stands for, and she was wise not to mention any of them. Indeed, given the makeup of the electorate, the whole thrust of her campaign should be to try to stop people remembering what she represents, and ideally who she is.

Frankie Boyle

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-the-poor

Probably the Grauniad's best columnist these days.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

morepork wrote:

Is ownership of property VAT exempt in any circumstance?

VAT is a sales tax.

i'm not sure we have any ownership taxes in the UK. There are disposal taxes - Capital Gains, Inheritance, property purchases (Stamp duty as it's known) etc - and obviously income taxes but I can't think of ownership taxes.

Council tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk