Ken Livingstone - Mayor candidate. 'Same old Labour'

rml380z

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

He rationally chose to avoid that risk and potential suffering. The Pope decided to join, rather than resist on moral grounds, the most evil regimes in human history. It’s hard to criticize that choice today, and calling him a nazi for doing so is maggotty.

So the pope compromised his morals for political reasons. Sounds like the perfect person to lead the church.

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Oi breakfast - chill the feck down, seriously dude you'll give yourself a coronary getting this wound up about internet discussions.

Back on topic - percy pigs standard or the fizzy tails?

Colin the Caterpillar is the lord now, beating Percy in all his false guises.

tailwindhome

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The pope was 14 years old. People who stood up to the nazis tended to end up in concentration camps. Long after it had been explained that Hitler Jugend membership was compulsory and it was, at best, unwise to enter into conflict with the nazi party this creature repeated the allegations.

Some people did oppose the nazis and they were tortured and imprisoned. To call a young boy a nazi for joining the Hitler Jugend is contemptible, these people who say they would have stood up against them literally have no idea.

Being offensive for the sake of it, in his mind he's a brave iconclast, in reality he's a bellend.

Weak, and spiteful.

Many young men chose to resist the Nazi military on moral principles.

While most were not executed, they did face concentration camps, terrible physical hardship and the risk of death. Those people who took great risks and suffered mightily did so because they refused to sacrifice their morals and dignity for personal wellbeing or ideology. Ratzinger was not one of them.

He rationally chose to avoid that risk and potential suffering. The Pope decided to join, rather than resist on moral grounds, the most evil regimes in human history. It’s hard to criticize that choice today, and calling him a nazi for doing so is maggotty.

You may have a point there.

However it's a shame the Pope continues his chosen coward's path today.

DonDaddyD

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

£137m has been raised, in the financial year 2007/08, to invest back into improving transport in London. By law, all net revenue raised by the charge has to be invested in improving transport in London.

Congestion was 21% lower in ther same period.

21% lower than what?

The Guardian said in 2008 that TfL claimed that congestion was back to pre CC levels.

Even TfL's website says congestion is over pre CC levels (although it says traffic is down 21%. Congestion has risen partly as a result of, well, measures implemented to increase congestion which are said to helps peds :roll:).

As for reinvestment, there's a fair bit of doubt as to just how much is available to go back into PT; most of the gross income goes to running the system itself and funding Capita: see here

You only have to spend a little while in London to realise that some of the biggest contributors to congestion are asshole bus drivers who think it's perfectly acceptable to enter a junction on green when there's no exit, and block it for a cycle of traffic light changes.[/url]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear.

You are the colossal k unt who called the pope a nazi.


You are desperate for attention and anxious to be offensive for the sake of it.

Wowza! I don't think even could go on such a random assault if I tried...

The Force is extremely strong with this one!

wulfhound

Am surprised there aren't more here who feel that in Central London, private cars should be the transport option of last resort & priced as such - and in the outer zones, there needs to be further investment in public transport (eg Croydon tram extension, Cross River tram both proposed by Ken & cancelled by Boris) so more people feel like they have the option to leave the car at home.

DDD - prices went up a lot on buses and Tube for non Oyster users when the cards were introduced. If you get an Oyster (ok, not 100% comfortable with the civil liberties implications of the cards myself, but that's another long thread of its own) the buses are as cheap or cheaper than they've ever been.

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23882598-labour-ahead-of-tories-in-poll-for-first-time-in-three-years.do


Labour is more popular than the Tories for the first time in three years, according to a poll released today.

Support for Labour has risen to 40% while that for the Conservative Party is now on 39%, according to the YouGov survey for The Sun.

Probably because the BBC spend 90% of the news reporting the Labour conference.
.

Yes.

90%.

Yes.

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Also taxation needs to be fair..... this is not the same as equal.

+ A hell of a lot.

DDD, do you remember the Poll Tax and the riots it lead to?
The equal taxation that you seem to be leaning to would lead to more of that. Its not fair that a banker/footballer etc would pay (for example) £100 council tax and his cleaner, earning 500 times less, also pays £100 council tax.

If I took 10% of your take home pay as a special EKE tax, I imagine you would notice it, but you'd still basically be OK. Maybe less Wetherspoons steaks (that is what you like, isn't it?) and maybe a few less comics, but you wouldn't go cold or hungry.
If I took 10% of a minimum wage earner's take home pay, they would be truly bum-farked (with no lube).

EKE, council tax is a seperate issue that's based on area, average property value in the area and whether there is grass on the pavement or not - it was done on the back of a fag packet and needs to be revised. - It would only get more expensive so best left alone for now.

What I'm talking about is taxable salary. I've given the equal vs fair tax a lot of thought to be honest.

In this instance, if everyone pays the same percentage of tax on their earning then I feel it is fair.

What annoys me is when someone says "why should I pay the same tax as someone earning more than me". This leads to proposals such as graduate tax, the assumption being that graduates (will) earn more therefore have to pay more - its bollocks.

From the perspective of a person earning into the 40% tax threshold, its not fair to them that they should pay more percentage of tax simply because they earn more. The person earning less is always going to have less so the the issue isn't about the amount of earnings after tax. It's simply to appease the notion that rich should pay more than the poor. They shouldn't they should pay the same percentage, which still works out as more.

In this instance to be fair for both perspectives (person earning more and person earning less) everyone pays *% and if you have more then its because you earn more.


And before I get flamed by lurkers, stalkers and haters that start harping on about middle (senior) management, public sector salaries and claiming that its easier for me to say now. I've always felt this way, when I was getting paid per hour and when I was on sub £20,000.

DonDaddyD

wulfhound wrote:

Am surprised there aren't more here who feel that in Central London, private cars should be the transport option of last resort & priced as such - and in the outer zones, there needs to be further investment in public transport (eg Croydon tram extension, Cross River tram both proposed by Ken & cancelled by Boris) so more people feel like they have the option to leave the car at home.

DDD - prices went up a lot on buses and Tube for non Oyster users when the cards were introduced. If you get an Oyster (ok, not 100% comfortable with the civil liberties implications of the cards myself, but that's another long thread of its own) the buses are as cheap or cheaper than they've ever been.

I agree that the car in Central London should be an option of last resort but the proposed extension appeared to extend further than what most Londoners call Central London. When it starts scraping the suburbs and the places you would normally drive to avoid the congestion zone to get across London, that's when you know they're taking the piss.

I actually don't know how I would get to South West Essex (between Basildon and Southend) if the zone is extended.

I do agree about Oysters, but everything else is expensive. £148 it would cost me a month for a zone 1 - 4/5 travel card and because I get a combination of rail and tube its no cheaper as an Oyster. (Sometimes its not practical to cycle to work.)

MonkeyMonster

wulfhound wrote:

Am surprised there aren't more here who feel that in Central London, private cars should be the transport option of last resort & priced as such

I suspect you'll find a lot of us feel that way tbh but little way of changing it sensibly alas. Education and as you say investment in public transport would help.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Also taxation needs to be fair..... this is not the same as equal.

+ A hell of a lot.

DDD, do you remember the Poll Tax and the riots it lead to?
The equal taxation that you seem to be leaning to would lead to more of that. Its not fair that a banker/footballer etc would pay (for example) £100 council tax and his cleaner, earning 500 times less, also pays £100 council tax.

If I took 10% of your take home pay as a special EKE tax, I imagine you would notice it, but you'd still basically be OK. Maybe less Wetherspoons steaks (that is what you like, isn't it?) and maybe a few less comics, but you wouldn't go cold or hungry.
If I took 10% of a minimum wage earner's take home pay, they would be truly bum-farked (with no lube).

EKE, council tax is a seperate issue that's based on area, average property value in the area and whether there is grass on the pavement or not - it was done on the back of a fag packet and needs to be revised. - It would only get more expensive so best left alone for now.

What I'm talking about is taxable salary. I've given the equal vs fair tax a lot of thought to be honest.

In this instance, if everyone pays the same percentage of tax on their earning then I feel it is fair.

What annoys me is when someone says "why should I pay the same tax as someone earning more than me". This leads to proposals such as graduate tax, the assumption being that graduates (will) earn more therefore have to pay more - its bollocks.

From the perspective of a person earning into the 40% tax threshold, its not fair to them that they should pay more percentage of tax simply because they earn more. The person earning less is always going to have less so the the issue isn't about the amount of earnings after tax. It's simply to appease the notion that rich should pay more than the poor. They shouldn't they should pay the same percentage, which still works out as more.

In this instance to be fair for both perspectives (person earning more and person earning less) everyone pays *% and if you have more then its because you earn more.


And before I get flamed by lurkers, stalkers and haters that start harping on about middle (senior) management, public sector salaries and claiming that its easier for me to say now. I've always felt this way, when I was getting paid per hour and when I was on sub £20,000.

Don't worry DDD there are others who agree with you:

http://www.adamsmith.org/think-piece/ec ... -flat-tax/

A flat tax system will lead to public sector job losses at HMRC though.

bigmat

What a fun thread this is! So, the pope isn't a Nazi? OK, he's just a paedophile collaborator then. Nothing to worry about.

DDD, I think the notion that the rich pay more tax is based on the fact that they can afford to pay more - you only need so much to live, anything more is greedy. I'll happily pay more than people earning the minimum wage because I can afford to and I want to contribute to society. Bizarrely, I feel that I would actually benefit in the end if everyone in society was able to take home a living wage.

As for Boris v Ken, Ken was actually a pretty good mayor. Its just there is something a bit weaselly about him, the slight whiff of corruption, misjudged comments, unwise associations. I'd still rather him over Boris, but its not the greatest choice. As for Lembit Opik... :roll:

ketsbaia

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree that the car in Central London should be an option of last resort but the proposed extension appeared to extend further than what most Londoners call Central London. When it starts scraping the suburbs and the places you would normally drive to avoid the congestion zone to get across London, that's when you know they're taking the wee-wee.

The extension covered Kensington & Chelsea. Where lots of Boris's friends live. Wonder why it was scrapped?

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

[In this instance, if everyone pays the same percentage of tax on their earning then I feel it is fair.

You're missing the point here.

The same percentage deduction applies a greater burden to those who earn less.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

Don't worry DDD there are others who agree with you:

http://www.adamsmith.org/think-piece/ec ... -flat-tax/

A flat tax system will lead to public sector job losses at HMRC though.

Can't please everyone = Trouble with public sector reform (in general).

(Bringing that side comment full circle) - Now that aspects of the NHS is more independant from central Government I wonder which candidate will look to work with them, if at all.

rml380z

DonDaddyD wrote:

In this instance, if everyone pays the same percentage of tax on their earning then I feel it is fair.

When you say fair, you mean you want to pay less tax and don't care who has to pay more to make up the difference.

mybreakfastconsisted

MatHammond wrote:

What a fun thread this is! So, the pope isn't a Nazi? OK, he's just a paedophile collaborator then.

You have the set of facts that supports the pope-as-paedophile-enabler narrative that the entire world's media missed?

rml380z

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

[In this instance, if everyone pays the same percentage of tax on their earning then I feel it is fair.

You're missing the point here.

The same percentage deduction applies a greater burden to those who earn less.

You can use this document to help either side of this argument; http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Taxes-Benefits-2007-2008/Taxes_benefits_0708.pdf

See table 8 (page 9) to show that under the current system the lowest-income families pay more tax as a percentage of their income than the highest paid.
Conversely, the document can also be used to show the highest 10% of earners pay over 50% of all the taxes.

PBo

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

What a fun thread this is! So, the pope isn't a Nazi? OK, he's just a paedophile collaborator then.

You have the set of facts that supports the pope-as-paedophile-enabler narrative that the entire world's media missed?

Look, this is the internet, not a court of law....

Not every opinion has to be rational, well argued or provable.

In this case, the Pope is a proxy for a huge, influential institution, which many people have a problem with - me included.

Cheap and easy shots at the Pope - which I too admit to taking - are as much a criticism of the catholic church as at him personally - a shot across the bows of the hypocracy of the Catholic church. Heck, it's even a shot at organised religion in it's broadest sense.

Are you a catholic who's offended by this? If so, I understand you're stance. if not, and you just have some deep seated sense of what's right, and want to point out other people's errors, then I suggest you stay the hell away from the internet, unless you have a lot of time and energy...

W1

rml380z wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

In this instance, if everyone pays the same percentage of tax on their earning then I feel it is fair.

When you say fair, you mean you want to pay less tax and don't care who has to pay more to make up the difference.

That's not (necessarily) how a flat tax system works.

W1

ketsbaia wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree that the car in Central London should be an option of last resort but the proposed extension appeared to extend further than what most Londoners call Central London. When it starts scraping the suburbs and the places you would normally drive to avoid the congestion zone to get across London, that's when you know they're taking the wee-wee.

The extension covered Kensington & Chelsea. Where lots of Boris's friends live. Wonder why it was scrapped?

I wonder why it was introduced at all - to spite all the K&C residents who didn't like Red Ken perhaps?

Envy politics (again).

ketsbaia

W1 wrote:

rml380z wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

In this instance, if everyone pays the same percentage of tax on their earning then I feel it is fair.

When you say fair, you mean you want to pay less tax and don't care who has to pay more to make up the difference.

That's not (necessarily) how a flat tax system works.

But you know it would. Especially if the ASI got its way.

PBo

rml380z wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

[In this instance, if everyone pays the same percentage of tax on their earning then I feel it is fair.

You're missing the point here.

The same percentage deduction applies a greater burden to those who earn less.

You can use this document to help either side of this argument; http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Taxes-Benefits-2007-2008/Taxes_benefits_0708.pdf

See table 8 (page 9) to show that under the current system the lowest-income families pay more tax as a percentage of their income than the highest paid.
Conversely, the document can also be used to show the highest 10% of earners pay over 50% of all the taxes.

But the amount of the total wealth they held in 2004 -2005 was 53%. I suspect that it's a bit more now. So you could still argue they are undertaxed, if based on a flat tax of total wealth, not just income tax

ETA: got this figure from wikipedia, who quote HMRC, but I haven't checked the raw data.

Stevo_666

For those of you who favour even higher taxes than we have now, the counterpoint has already been made to some extent but this little story sums it up quite nicely. There comes a limit somewhere between where we are now and where Red Ken thinks we should be, that raising taxes actually reduces the tax take. Labour found this out to their cost back in the 70's when the top rate of tax was 83% on earned income and 98% on investment income :shock: And they wondered why they couldn't collect enough :roll:

"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a pound out of the £20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got £10!'

'Yes, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Will the last Englishman to leave the country, please turn out the lights, because there will be no one left, willing pay to the bill."

ketsbaia

W1 wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree that the car in Central London should be an option of last resort but the proposed extension appeared to extend further than what most Londoners call Central London. When it starts scraping the suburbs and the places you would normally drive to avoid the congestion zone to get across London, that's when you know they're taking the wee-wee.

The extension covered Kensington & Chelsea. Where lots of Boris's friends live. Wonder why it was scrapped?

I wonder why it was introduced at all - to spite all the K&C residents who didn't like Red Ken perhaps?

Envy politics (again).

Yeah, envy, whatever. Is that why Elephant & Castle is in the zone?

Next!

ketsbaia

Stevo 666 wrote:

"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a pound out of the £20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got £10!'

'Yes, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Will the last Englishman to leave the country, please turn out the lights, because there will be no one left, willing pay to the bill."

Jimmy Tarbuck from 1983 called. He wants his old material back, please.

gtvlusso

I don't give a f*ck, I live in Brizzle......

PBo

W1 wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree that the car in Central London should be an option of last resort but the proposed extension appeared to extend further than what most Londoners call Central London. When it starts scraping the suburbs and the places you would normally drive to avoid the congestion zone to get across London, that's when you know they're taking the wee-wee.

The extension covered Kensington & Chelsea. Where lots of Boris's friends live. Wonder why it was scrapped?

I wonder why it was introduced at all - to spite all the K&C residents who didn't like Red Ken perhaps?

Envy politics (again).

No - because of all the stupid fuck3rs who live there and drive 4x4s on the school run....

I'm SSSSOOOOO envious. Sometimes, my brain hurts, and if I only had the few brain cells they did, the pain would go away....

PBo

ketsbaia wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a pound out of the £20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got £10!'

'Yes, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Will the last Englishman to leave the country, please turn out the lights, because there will be no one left, willing pay to the bill."

Jimmy Tarbuck from 1983 called. He wants his old material back, please.

Seriously, though, it's not a joke, it's an interesting illustration. These large scale effects of total tax dropping once rates go to far isn't dogma, it's just what happens, and you need to pragmatic and work with it - no point in taxing the rich until their pips squeak. That doesn't mean that you can't have a good, progressive tax system.

Stevo_666

ketsbaia wrote:

Jimmy Tarbuck from 1983 called. He wants his old material back, please.

I'm not too worried about where it came from. Jimmy Tarbuck seems to be a bright guy though if that is his.

The point is that a lot of the people and companies that our dear leaders are seeking to tax more have a choice about where they base themselves. When they go, they take a lot of taxable revenue offshore with them. Some countries are bright enough to realise that taking (say) 40% of something is better than getting (say) 80% of nothing. Some people here it would appear, haven't quite got that figured yet...

ketsbaia

Well I remember that lot being trotted out before the 92 election and then again before the 97 election.

Of course, we witnessed millions of people and companies fleeing our shores when new Labour got in, didn't we? You do have a point, but it's a pretty obvious one and something that hasn't gone unnoticed, which is why precious few argue for punitive taxation on the rich outside the once smoke-filled rooms of SWP meetings.

buddha

Stevo 666 wrote:

......The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'.......

Was this is a city bar, occupied with people who like to make simple things complicated? Anyone with some sence would have multiplied what each drinker was paying by 0.8