The years of discontent, 2022/23

[19QOS19]

1 hour ago, Marshmallo said:

Lol wonder why you picked these numbers

Well because it goes up at 43K and 99K is as high as it goes before it hits 6 figures. I thought that was pretty obvious tbh. 

[Left Back]

12 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Yeah, there seems to be a fair bit of "let's be realistic, nobody's going to make rich people pay, so the middle-income earners should take up the slack". Surprisingly, not just from Oaksoft for once!  

It’s called living in the real world.  If you have a way of taxing earnings of corporations that book their profits outside of the UK, or the high earners that earn very little in income and send dividends to tax havens, you should probably give Starmer a call. Might be a vote winner.

[Marshmallo]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

I've no idea. It's horrifying to think about.

People will be sitting with no heating on at all and will be using candles for light. There won't be an alternative.

Some will be visiting things like libraries or other free public buildings/shopping centres to keep warm. OAPs with free bus passes will definitely be doing this if they are active enough. It's disabled people I'm particularly thinking about right now though.

It's hard not to be furious with all of the politicians who have caused this by leaving us exposed to rogue states like Russia for our energy.

I saw this on Twitter a couple of weeks ago. Puts things into perspective for people saying "Al notice it tae!" when they choose to switch from Lurpak to Tesco own brand butter or turn their heating down from 22 to 20 over the winter.

 

[Aufc]

That spit-flecked rant didn't actually answer any of the questions in the post you quoted.
Let's try one as a starter: if we magically secured enough money to address rising costs across society, why should we give a 10% rise to someone earning £35k per year and 10% to someone on UC (under £5k)?

If the company can afford to do it then why can’t they give out equivalent rises to all their staff? Or perhaps give an amount to help in the current situation

[Left Back]

4 minutes ago, Aufc said:

If the company can afford to do it then why can’t they give out equivalent rises to all their staff? Or perhaps give an amount to help in the current situation

Which then causes another argument.  10% of a big number is obviously more than 10% of a small number thereby fuelling wage inequality.  Already been discussed on this thread today.

[101]

1 hour ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

A reduced tax rate from 13.25% to 3.25% isn’t a 10% reduction? 

You are describing a 10 percentage point reduction, which is a clumsy way to talk about percentages. 10% of 13.25% is 1.325%

[BFTD]

32 minutes ago, Left Back said:

It’s called living in the real world.  If you have a way of taxing earnings of corporations that book their profits outside of the UK, or the high earners that earn very little in income and send dividends to tax havens, you should probably give Starmer a call. Might be a vote winner.

A bizarre thing to publicly promote unless you're personally alright with the morality behind it. If middle-earners decide to follow the Conservative ethos of "f**k the poor" and refuse to pay extra, presumably that'll be OK too. Hopefully those running the show don't decide they also need less money in the future.

Yer man Keef has as little interest in raising taxes on the well-off as anyone actually in government BTW, but surely you know that.

[BFTD]

Ooooooooft.

[Left Back]

10 minutes ago, BFTD said:

A bizarre thing to publicly promote unless you're personally alright with the morality behind it. If middle-earners decide to follow the Conservative ethos of "f**k the poor" and refuse to pay extra, presumably that'll be OK too. Hopefully those running the show don't decide they also need less money in the future.

Yer man Keef has as little interest in raising taxes on the well-off as anyone actually in government BTW, but surely you know that.

Who is promoting it?  I accept the reality of the situation which you seem unwilling to do.

You seem to have all the answers.  Feel free to demonstrate how you’re implementing what you’re advocating.

[ICTChris]

51 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Yeah, there seems to be a fair bit of "let's be realistic, nobody's going to make rich people pay, so the middle-income earners should take up the slack". Surprisingly, not just from Oaksoft for once!  

If you are talking about income tax then it’s not a question of realism. There are about 20,000 people who earn over £150,000, that’s too few to base a tax policy on.

If a party came out an said that they’d reband to increase taxes on people from £40-50 and then £50-70k etc it would be one solution. Whether it would work is another matter, (what does work mean in this instance is a pertinent question) and it would be ferociously unpopular. That’s why political parties, including the sainted ones in Scotland, don’t do it. 

[101]

1 minute ago, ICTChris said:

If you are talking about income tax then it’s not a question of realism. There are about 20,000 people who earn over £150,000, that’s too few to base a tax policy on.

If a party came out an said that they’d reband to increase taxes on people from £40-50 and then £50-70k etc it would be one solution. Whether it would work is another matter, (what does work mean in this instance is a pertinent question) and it would be ferociously unpopular. That’s why political parties, including the sainted ones in Scotland, don’t do it. 

A band beginning at £70k would be sensible, also changing £150k rate to 49% would be good but let's be honest the best thing HMRC could do is close loop holes in the tax system which are well known and abused by the wealthy, that would be popular and effective.

[Aufc]

Which then causes another argument.  10% of a big number is obviously more than 10% of a small number thereby fuelling wage inequality.  Already been discussed on this thread today.

Fair point. Give everyone the same number then, problem solved

[DA Baracus]

27 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

I'm always astonished at the level of entitlement in people and their unwilligness to place their problem in any sort of perspective.

For some people, this is going to be the first extended period of serious hardship they'll have ever experienced. Those who could have saved something for a rainy day but instead have spunked every penny they've earned are about to learn a very painful lesson indeed. Same goes for those who couldn't control their materialistic urges and their credit cards. Not all of them are going to be helped and we could easily be looking at historic levels of personal bankruptcy.

Sounds like you're absolutely desperate for that to happen. You'll be loving it no doubt.

[BFTD]

21 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Who is promoting it?  I accept the reality of the situation which you seem unwilling to do.

You seem to have all the answers.  Feel free to demonstrate how you’re implementing what you’re advocating.

You're quite right - I don't accept that the small minority of people absorbing the overwhelming majority of the world's wealth get to decide how much of it they share. If you want to accept that, feel free - even if you're alright, Jack, you might not be tomorrow, as they're taking more each year.

If you're after detailed strategy to ensure the incorruptability of our politicians on a global scale, and ensure that the wealthy are forced to pay for society's needs, you're in the wrong place. I'm pretty sure advocating meek acceptance isn't going to be part of it, however.

[BFTD]

18 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Sounds like you're absolutely desperate for that to happen. You'll be loving it no doubt.

Perhaps finally we'll be in a situation where poverty does, in fact, exist.

Spoiler

 

[Left Back]

38 minutes ago, BFTD said:

You're quite right - I don't accept that the small minority of people absorbing the overwhelming majority of the world's wealth get to decide how much of it they share. If you want to accept that, feel free - even if you're alright, Jack, you might not be tomorrow, as they're taking more each year.

If you're after detailed strategy to ensure the incorruptability of our politicians on a global scale, and ensure that the wealthy are forced to pay for society's needs, you're in the wrong place. I'm pretty sure advocating meek acceptance isn't going to be part of it, however.

So you want to howl at the moon about something you, I, or even governments across the world can do hee-haw about.  When you’re not howling at the moon you want to dig out people that don’t waste their energy howling at the moon about it?

Knock yourself out pal.

[BFTD]

30 minutes ago, Left Back said:

So you want to howl at the moon about something you, I, or even governments across the world can do hee-haw about.  When you’re not howling at the moon you want to dig out people that don’t waste their energy howling at the moon about it?

Knock yourself out pal.

Welcome to the politics forum - thousands of pages of people howling at the moon about things they don't have the power to change. Or trolling for attention, naturally.

Wasting energy howling in favour of apathy is an interesting new trend, though. We'll see if it catches on.

[Left Back]

6 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Welcome to the politics forum - thousands of pages of people howling at the moon about things they don't have the power to change. Or trolling for attention, naturally.

Wasting energy howling in favour of apathy is an interesting new trend, though. We'll see if it catches on.

I’m not howling about anything mate but you bash on with your wee rant if it makes you feel better.

[BFTD]

8 minutes ago, Left Back said:

I’m not howling about anything mate but you bash on with your wee rant if it makes you feel better.

Aye, me neither.

That's the way it works, right? We get to decide ourselves?  

[BFTD]

Be very specific.