|
Post by herbiedumplings on Aug 31, 2024 13:36:46 GMT
Donnie pissing off the armed forces again www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/29/arlington-cemetery-altercation-trump-visittbh I really don’t like the idea of treating a veteran cemetery as a hallowed shrine or sacred ground. That said, I can see why the forces and families of KIAs would rather politicians didn’t use the cemeteries for photo ops, especially politicians who have shown so much contempt for KIAs in the past (along with current servicemen - a military employee tried keeping Donnie out of the cemetery but got shoved aside by staffers) Terrible person. And the mice in the attic have definitely chewed through the wiring. That said, he's still evens to win. If the USA vote him in then frankly they deserve the attack on their rights and their Constitution that is around the corner. It’s his only chance of staying out of prison. If it takes him and his family jetting around the country stuffing ballot boxes themselves to “win”, then that’s what they’ll do. There’s no way he’s not being “re-elected” IMO.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Aug 31, 2024 13:37:57 GMT
The public get what the public wants. But I want nothing this society's got. A m not getting involved in this, I’m going underground.
|
|
|
Post by nelly on Aug 31, 2024 14:03:45 GMT
But I want nothing this society's got. A m not getting involved in this, I’m going underground. You've made your bed, you better lie in it.
|
|
|
Post by hedleyverity on Sept 1, 2024 5:49:29 GMT
The public get what the public wants. But I want nothing this society's got. Apart from the roads, the viaducts, the sanitation
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 1, 2024 8:11:28 GMT
But I want nothing this society's got. Apart from the roads, the viaducts, the sanitation Speaking of which (indirectly), I see the right-wing press is saying all the uber-rich are emigrating because they don’t want to pay capital gains at the same rate as everyone else pays income tax. Because contributing to society is anathema, presumably. (And before anyone gets all self-righteous “pounds and pence blah blah”, remember Mark 12:41-44. Not that I’m a religious man, but the Mail, Express etc all like to paint themselves as pious…)
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Sept 1, 2024 10:18:16 GMT
Apart from the roads, the viaducts, the sanitation Speaking of which (indirectly), I see the right-wing press is saying all the uber-rich are emigrating because they don’t want to pay capital gains at the same rate as everyone else pays income tax. Because contributing to society is anathema, presumably. (And before anyone gets all self-righteous “pounds and pence blah blah”, remember Mark 12:41-44. Not that I’m a religious man, but the Mail, Express etc all like to paint themselves as pious…) Tories make me absolutely sick. Don't tax rich people because they might leave the country? What a bunch of deferent, cap doffing, servitudinal, c*nts. Can they not parse that it's crap like this, a complete fetish for not paying one's way in society, which means we can't carry on giving old people money every winter? They really are devoid of the capability to think.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Sept 1, 2024 10:23:27 GMT
Speaking of which (indirectly), I see the right-wing press is saying all the uber-rich are emigrating because they don’t want to pay capital gains at the same rate as everyone else pays income tax. Because contributing to society is anathema, presumably. (And before anyone gets all self-righteous “pounds and pence blah blah”, remember Mark 12:41-44. Not that I’m a religious man, but the Mail, Express etc all like to paint themselves as pious…) Tories make me absolutely sick. Don't tax rich people because they might leave the country? What a bunch of deferent, cap doffing, servitudinal, c*nts. Can they not parse that it's crap like this, a complete fetish for not paying one's way in society, which means we can't carry on giving old people money every winter? They really are devoid of the capability to think. They can leave, their assets can’t. Tax the assets.
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Sept 1, 2024 10:24:24 GMT
Speaking of which (indirectly), I see the right-wing press is saying all the uber-rich are emigrating because they don’t want to pay capital gains at the same rate as everyone else pays income tax. Because contributing to society is anathema, presumably. (And before anyone gets all self-righteous “pounds and pence blah blah”, remember Mark 12:41-44. Not that I’m a religious man, but the Mail, Express etc all like to paint themselves as pious…) Tories make me absolutely sick. Don't tax rich people because they might leave the country? What a bunch of deferent, cap doffing, servitudinal, c*nts. Can they not parse that it's crap like this, a complete fetish for not paying one's way in society, which means we can't carry on giving old people money every winter? They really are devoid of the capability to think. look up the Laffer curve. basically, you raise tax too high, hyper mobile people will leave, the government gets absolutely no tax revenue from those people. You may not like it, but it’s pretty well evidenced economic theory.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Sept 1, 2024 10:34:27 GMT
Tories make me absolutely sick. Don't tax rich people because they might leave the country? What a bunch of deferent, cap doffing, servitudinal, c*nts. Can they not parse that it's crap like this, a complete fetish for not paying one's way in society, which means we can't carry on giving old people money every winter? They really are devoid of the capability to think. look up the Laffer curve. basically, you raise tax too high, hyper mobile people will leave, the government gets absolutely no tax revenue from those people. You may not like it, but it’s pretty well evidenced economic theory. You may be totally correct but it does not make bigmartins comment being less true about how they actually think.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Sept 1, 2024 10:38:32 GMT
Tories make me absolutely sick. Don't tax rich people because they might leave the country? What a bunch of deferent, cap doffing, servitudinal, c*nts. Can they not parse that it's crap like this, a complete fetish for not paying one's way in society, which means we can't carry on giving old people money every winter? They really are devoid of the capability to think. look up the Laffer curve. basically, you raise tax too high, hyper mobile people will leave, the government gets absolutely no tax revenue from those people. You may not like it, but it’s pretty well evidenced economic theory. The laffer curve has plenty of contrary evidence, or at least where the peak is is well up for debate. The only part of it that’s certainly true is that at 0% and and 100% you inevitably end up receiving the same amount of tax. Zero. The whole argument behind the laffer curve is “cut taxes to stimulate growth and increase tax revenue as a result”. Reagan and Bush reversing the former’s tax cuts over time was a perfect example of this not being such a truism. Regarding whether or not the laffer curve is in play here I’d argue no. Thing is with people who make their money from assets and capital (rather than earned income) the vast majority of the time they might be moveable but their assets and capital aren’t. More often than not it’s property or businesses here in the UK. They can still be taxed whether the owner is in the country or not. Ultimately it’s an empty threat.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 1, 2024 10:44:45 GMT
look up the Laffer curve. basically, you raise tax too high, hyper mobile people will leave, the government gets absolutely no tax revenue from those people. You may not like it, but it’s pretty well evidenced economic theory. The laffer curve has plenty of contrary evidence, or at least where the peak is is well up for debate. The only part of it that’s certainly true is that at 0% and and 100% you inevitably end up receiving the same amount of tax. Zero. The whole argument behind the laffer curve is “cut taxes to stimulate growth and increase tax revenue as a result”. Reagan and Bush reversing the former’s tax cuts over time was a perfect example of this not being such a truism. Regarding whether or not the laffer curve is in play here I’d argue no. Thing is with people who make their money from assets and capital (rather than earned income) the vast majority of the time they might be moveable but their assets and capital aren’t. More often than not it’s property or businesses here in the UK. They can still be taxed whether the owner is in the country or not. Ultimately it’s an empty threat. If it were that solid, it wouldn’t be a theory. Also, I wonder who funded the research…
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Sept 1, 2024 10:56:58 GMT
look up the Laffer curve. basically, you raise tax too high, hyper mobile people will leave, the government gets absolutely no tax revenue from those people. You may not like it, but it’s pretty well evidenced economic theory. The laffer curve has plenty of contrary evidence, or at least where the peak is is well up for debate. The only part of it that’s certainly true is that at 0% and and 100% you inevitably end up receiving the same amount of tax. Zero. The whole argument behind the laffer curve is “cut taxes to stimulate growth and increase tax revenue as a result”. Reagan and Bush reversing the former’s tax cuts over time was a perfect example of this not being such a truism. Regarding whether or not the laffer curve is in play here I’d argue no. Thing is with people who make their money from assets and capital (rather than earned income) the vast majority of the time they might be moveable but their assets and capital aren’t. More often than not it’s property or businesses here in the UK. They can still be taxed whether the owner is in the country or not. Ultimately it’s an empty threat. agreed, finding the sweet spot on the curve is a non-trivial task. I’d disagree it’s an empty threat though. There’s a reason Lewis Hamilton lives in Monaco, Stott was based in Dubai etc. and it’s not the cultural landscape of those places. Taxing businesses is also non-trivial in a globalised world of corporations - again, there’s a reason companies are based in Ireland / Luxembourg / Delaware etc. Property I again agree with, it’s ludicrously under taxed in the UK, hence house price inflation. I think the fundamental here is you are dealing with highly mobile people here - they can just as well live and be tax resident in New York / Tokyo / Zurich / wherever as in London - it’s an extreme example of the somewheres vs anywheres thing.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Sept 1, 2024 11:03:32 GMT
The laffer curve has plenty of contrary evidence, or at least where the peak is is well up for debate. The only part of it that’s certainly true is that at 0% and and 100% you inevitably end up receiving the same amount of tax. Zero. The whole argument behind the laffer curve is “cut taxes to stimulate growth and increase tax revenue as a result”. Reagan and Bush reversing the former’s tax cuts over time was a perfect example of this not being such a truism. Regarding whether or not the laffer curve is in play here I’d argue no. Thing is with people who make their money from assets and capital (rather than earned income) the vast majority of the time they might be moveable but their assets and capital aren’t. More often than not it’s property or businesses here in the UK. They can still be taxed whether the owner is in the country or not. Ultimately it’s an empty threat. agreed, finding the sweet spot on the curve is a non-trivial task. I’d disagree it’s an empty threat though. There’s a reason Lewis Hamilton lives in Monaco, Stott was based in Dubai etc. and it’s not the cultural landscape of those places. Taxing businesses is also non-trivial in a globalised world of corporations - again, there’s a reason companies are based in Ireland / Luxembourg / Delaware etc. Property I again agree with, it’s ludicrously under taxed in the UK, hence house price inflation. I think the fundamental here is you are dealing with highly mobile people here - they can just as well live and be tax resident in New York / Tokyo / Zurich / wherever as in London - it’s an extreme example of the somewheres vs anywheres thing. Someone like Hamilton earns the majority of his income through racing and sponsorship. He's always going to be able to be resident elsewhere without it harming his income. Stott has a significant amount of assets in Dubai, so again he could be based there. His assets over here were and are taxed though. I bristle at any mention of the laffer curve to be perfectly honest. It's overly simplistic, often misunderstood, and used by the economically illiterate to justify austerity.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Sept 1, 2024 11:29:09 GMT
Tories make me absolutely sick. Don't tax rich people because they might leave the country? What a bunch of deferent, cap doffing, servitudinal, c*nts. Can they not parse that it's crap like this, a complete fetish for not paying one's way in society, which means we can't carry on giving old people money every winter? They really are devoid of the capability to think. look up the Laffer curve. basically, you raise tax too high, hyper mobile people will leave, the government gets absolutely no tax revenue from those people. You may not like it, but it’s pretty well evidenced economic theory. I know about the Laffer curve. I did Economics at college and came close to going to Uni to study it. It's interesting you raise it because it's a really controversial principle which pretty hardcore conservatives, mainly in the US, use to justify against raising the rate of taxation to any meaningful level. Used as a "bogeyman" against taxing people who ought to be taxed more. It's disingenuous because no-one's talking about "raising tax too high", just raising taxes to an equitable level. And people forget and overlook that the top of the bell is set pretty high (60-70% tax if I recall correctly?). Because, people actually won't leave when they're taxed reasonably, they'll just whinge, flex and try to affect Government policy.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Sept 1, 2024 11:35:37 GMT
look up the Laffer curve. basically, you raise tax too high, hyper mobile people will leave, the government gets absolutely no tax revenue from those people. You may not like it, but it’s pretty well evidenced economic theory. I know about the Laffer curve. I did Economics at college and came close to going to Uni to study it. It's interesting you raise it because it's a really controversial principle which pretty hardcore conservatives, mainly in the US, use to justify against raising the rate of taxation to any meaningful level. Used as a "bogeyman" against taxing people who ought to be taxed more. It's disingenuous because no-one's talking about "raising tax too high", just raising taxes to an equitable level. And people forget and overlook that the top of the bell is set pretty high (60-70% tax if I recall correctly?). Because, people actually won't leave when they're taxed reasonably, they'll just whinge, flex and try to affect Government policy. Laffer himself didn’t put any figures on the top of the bell. As far as I can recall (I’ve never formally studied economics, just read an awful lot of theory when I had 3 years of a fantastic library and then the last 10-15 of using the internet to find actual studies and academic papers, it’s a weird hobby of mine (among many)) any figures placed on the curve have been put on by subsequent economists trying to make their own arguments. I could entirely be wrong though.
|
|