.

[Jacob]

One of the largest problem is that in many countries (especially here in Sweden), wages are taxed more than profits from capital. This basically means that the rich are taxed less and the poor more. It also distorts the economy and leads to an ever increasing financialization where resources are moved away from the real economy of goods and services and towards the financial sector.

Exactly. This is why corporation tax should be cranked up. It encourages businesses to invest, and even to pay higher wages!
Otherwise it gets frittered away as dividends, supplementing unearned incomes.

 

[Jorny]

The only problem with the idea of increasing taxes on the rich is that it assumes that they will stay put and take it, which of course they wont, so it doesnt work in practice. Healey famously announced that he would tax the rich until they squeaked, and introduced a top rate which equated to something like 98%. Very popular with the left im sure, but how much revenue did it raise, pipper all. Simply because the vast majority of those liable either found loopholes to avoid it, or voted with their feet and left the country. When Thatcher dropped the rate actual revenue increased overall. I do get annoyed when people keep saying"the rich should pay more tax". They DO pay more tax, if your salary was £1 million you would pay well over £400k in taxes, way more than you are going to take out of the system. What we need to crack down on is those who seek to avoid paying it. Increasing the rates just penalises the law abiding and does nothing to adress this. And I agree entirely the the idea of cutting taxes has no immediate benefit to the most needy, and was a stupid idea. Cant help wondering how many who voted for Truss are now regretting it, but then from speaking to a few people I know who got to vote, they were annoyed that the two final candidates, voted for by MP's, were the last people they wanted to see on the ballot.

The problem is that most rich people do not get their income as salary. They can even have very low salarys and get their income from various arrangements of capital.

 

[Jacob]

The only problem with the idea of increasing taxes on the rich is that it assumes that they will stay put and take it, which of course they wont, so it doesnt work in practice............

It always has worked in practice in the past, not necessarily very efficiently I agree. There are huge areas which could be taxed more efficiently. Literally in the case of land, which can't be moved or hidden away.

 

[Fergie 307]

The problem is that most rich people do not get their income as salary. They can even have very low salarys and get their income from various arrangements of capital.

I agree, and this is in itself a form of tax avoidance. This is why the system needs to be reformed. You should pay tax on your income overall, whatever its source.

 

[Fergie 307]

It always has worked in practice in the past, not necessarily very efficiently I agree. There are huge areas which could be taxed more efficiently. Literally in the case of land, which can't be moved or hidden away.

Jacob you keep on about the benefits of trickle up, can you give an eample of where this has been put into practice.

 

[Yorkieguy]

Don't get me started on immigration.
Do you know they get given a brand new car as soon as they say they have a child?

I assume that comment about 'immigrants' refers to asylum seekers.

Where did you get the fanciful notion that they get a 'brand new car' from?

If you're not interested in the facts, just file this under 'burn before reading'.
Otherwise, here's what they actually get while their application is being considered:

Somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both.

Housing:

You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.

Cash support:

You’ll get £39.63 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries. Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.

(So, that's just £5.66 a day for food, clothing, and such things as sanitary products).

Extra money for mothers and young children:

You’ll get extra money to buy healthy food if you’re pregnant or a mother of a child under 3. The amount you get will depend on your situation.

Your situation	Extra payment per week
Pregnant mother	£3
Baby under 1 year old	£5
Child aged 1 to 3	£3

And no - no car, and no i-phone either.

The broad term often used by hard-of-thinking racists to describe asylum seekers is 'illegals'.

It won't make any difference to those with a racist mindset, but anyone washed up on these shores who claims asylum is not an 'illegal immigrant' - they're an 'asylum seeker'. Most are from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and have made a perilous journey, the least dangerous part of which is sailing across the busiest shipping lane in the world in an overloaded inflatable. (In 2019, 68% of the world’s refugees came from just five countries: Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Myanmar). 45% of separated children applying for asylum in the UK in the year up to June 2020 were from Iran, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Most who arrive here uninvited (thousands of Afghans have been invited here after the collapse of Afghanistan because they'd worked as interpreters etc for the British Government and their lives are in danger. (Thousands have been left behind, betrayed by the UK/US Governments). It was Tony Blair who took the UK into Iraq based on a pack of lies, which has destabilised the whole of the Middle East, and who took us into Afghanistan - both unwinnable wars propagated by the USA, which have made the world a far more dangerous place.

And no - we don't take more refugees than other European countries. In proportion to its population, the year ending Dec 2021 the UK ranks 18th in Europe for asylum applications. The country with the highest numbers of refugees in the European Union is Germany. It hosts some 1.2 million refugees, 243,200 asylum seekers and 26,700 stateless persons.

2021 asylum applications:

Germany 127,730, France, 96,510, UK, 44,190.

Immigration statistics, year ending December 2021

Why aren't they put to work?

They're no allowed to. (Albeit some unscrupulous employers exploit them to work illegally for slave wages in menial jobs). This is to deter 'Economic Migrants' from coming here (usually from Eastern Europe, who are not in danger and are therefore are 'illegal'). Asylum seekers can only apply for permission to work if they have waited over 12 months for an initial decision on their asylum claim or for a response to a further submission for asylum; and they are not considered responsible for the delay in decision-making. (They can do voluntary unpaid work).

If an asylum seeker's application is upheld, they then become a 'refugee' with indefinite leave to remain.

Refugees are allowed to work in any role consistent with their skill level.

If their application for asylum is refused, in a long drawn-out process, they're returned to their country of origin.

if they overstay, only then do they become an illegal immigrant.

Source of information:

Summary of latest statistics

Asylum support - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Working in the UK while an asylum case is considered - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Can Refugees work in the UK? See:

Can Refugees work in the UK? | Sona Circle

Sensible balanced debate on this topic is impossible - it's highly polarised and generates more heat than light. Meanwhile, work-shy Brits who used to bemoan Eastern Europeans for 'stealing our jobs' no longer have that excuse but still don't want to get off their backsides to pick fruit and veg for £60k a year:

Fancy picking vegetables? It could earn you £62,000 a year (thelondoneconomic.com)

Nothing will change.

 

[Amateur]

Imaginary functioning communities outside the norm

If you say so.

 

[Jacob]

Jacob you keep on about the benefits of trickle up, can you give an eample of where this has been put into practice.

I was being ironic. In a free market wealth trickles up inexorably towards the better off, and stays there, It doesn't trickle down except very marginally.

 

[Jacob]

I assume that comment about 'immigrants' refers to asylum seekers.

Where did you get the fanciful notion that they get a 'brand new car' from?

If you're not interested in the facts, just file this under 'burn before reading'.
Otherwise, here's what they actually get while their application is being considered:

Somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both.

Housing:

You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.

Cash support:

You’ll get £39.63 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries. Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.

(So, that's just £5.66 a day for food, clothing, and such things as sanitary products).

Extra money for mothers and young children:

You’ll get extra money to buy healthy food if you’re pregnant or a mother of a child under 3. The amount you get will depend on your situation.

Your situation	Extra payment per week
Pregnant mother	£3
Baby under 1 year old	£5
Child aged 1 to 3	£3

And no - no car, and no i-phone either.

The broad term often used by hard-of-thinking racists to describe asylum seekers is 'illegals'.

It won't make any difference to those with a racist mindset, but anyone washed up on these shores who claims asylum is not an 'illegal immigrant' - they're an 'asylum seeker'. Most are from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and have made a perilous journey, the least dangerous part of which is sailing across the busiest shipping lane in the world in an overloaded inflatable. (In 2019, 68% of the world’s refugees came from just five countries: Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Myanmar). 45% of separated children applying for asylum in the UK in the year up to June 2020 were from Iran, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Most who arrive here uninvited (thousands of Afghans have been invited here after the collapse of Afghanistan because they'd worked as interpreters etc for the British Government and their lives are in danger. (Thousands have been left behind, betrayed by the UK/US Governments). It was Tony Blair who took the UK into Iraq based on a pack of lies, which has destabilised the whole of the Middle East, and who took us into Afghanistan - both unwinnable wars propagated by the USA, which have made the world a far more dangerous place.

And no - we don't take more refugees than other European countries. In proportion to its population, the year ending Dec 2021 the UK ranks 18th in Europe for asylum applications. The country with the highest numbers of refugees in the European Union is Germany. It hosts some 1.2 million refugees, 243,200 asylum seekers and 26,700 stateless persons.

2021 asylum applications:

Germany 127,730, France, 96,510, UK, 44,190.

Immigration statistics, year ending December 2021

Why aren't they put to work?

They're no allowed to. (Albeit some unscrupulous employers exploit them to work illegally for slave wages in menial jobs). This is to deter 'Economic Migrants' from coming here (usually from Eastern Europe, who are not in danger and are therefore are 'illegal'). Asylum seekers can only apply for permission to work if they have waited over 12 months for an initial decision on their asylum claim or for a response to a further submission for asylum; and they are not considered responsible for the delay in decision-making. (They can do voluntary unpaid work).

If an asylum seeker's application is upheld, they then become a 'refugee' with indefinite leave to remain.

Refugees are allowed to work in any role consistent with their skill level.

If their application for asylum is refused, in a long drawn-out process, they're returned to their country of origin.

if they overstay, only then do they become an illegal immigrant.

Source of information:

Summary of latest statistics

Asylum support - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Working in the UK while an asylum case is considered - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Can Refugees work in the UK? See:

Can Refugees work in the UK? | Sona Circle

Sensible balanced debate on this topic is impossible - it's highly polarised and generates more heat than light. Meanwhile, work-shy Brits who used to bemoan Eastern Europeans for 'stealing our jobs' no longer have that excuse but still don't want to get off their backsides to pick fruit and veg for £60k a year:

Fancy picking vegetables? It could earn you £62,000 a year (thelondoneconomic.com)

Nothing will change.

I think julianf was being ironic! Some irony deficit going on here? I thought that was an American ailment?
I agree with the above. In fact I think boat people etc should be given Duke of Edinburgh awards for initiative and courage, as soon as they arrive. They are obviously highly motivated and we need immigrants to support the economy.
"£62k per year " cabbage picking was "up to....etc" i.e. if you are very lucky you might hit that rate for a day or so. It's short term and seasonal too. They should pay a reasonable rate overall though.

 

[sammy.se]

Not only that, but here in DK, our gas bill has gone up to a whopping £3000 per quarter.

That sounds insane. How much % of income is that in DK? £12k per year on gas is inconceivable, nut maybe your typical income is £200k???? ;-)

 

[sammy.se]

It really does feel like we are on the cusp of societal breakdown. We had the industrial revolution to create economic growth, we then had the invention of the microchip which created another wave of growth. I am not sure where the next wave of economic growth for our country is going to come from because we can't manufacture anything and technological progress is now painstakingly slow in comparison to the past 50 years. I think we are the next Italy.

No government seems to have provided any credible plan to resolve the cost of housing or build more homes quickly.
With regards to mortgages, if the rates keep going up, I think the government will intervene and force the banks to make mortgages interest only for a few years

British Tik Tok influencers

 

[houtslager]

my prediction is another massive recession which will be an amazing opportunity like 2008 to buy things cheap again, the sooner it happens the better, and I'd love that tories get the blame this time, but they do everything in their path to prevent it and protect bankers instead, I can imagine civil unrest the way things are going.

Someone give me my old SLR please, I'd take a few out before the real revolution comes.

 

[johna.clements]

I was being ironic. In a free market wealth trickles up inexorably towards the better off, and stays there, It doesn't trickle down except very marginally.

If you look at the income distribution of countries with a more equal distribution the very rich are just as rich. The rich know that wealth trickles upward.

The very rich also know (the pragmatic ones) that if the poor have more income and so become better educated and healthier they can generate more wealth which will trickle up.

The very rich know that their children do not have to work to be comfortably off and most likely their grand children if the wealth is managed.


The problem is the people below them. They have to work to maintain a comfortable life.

They can help their children too buy a house but can not pay for them to live comfortably if they do not get a good job.

If the poor compete with their children, because they are better educated, then some of their children will loose out. They have to stop the poor from becoming able to compete with their children.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

As a society we seem to have created a set of logical, moral and pragmatic inconsistencies. It is much better to have a clear vision and strategy, than wander incoherently achieving little.

Some believe that fairness, and even progress, flows from redistribution of wealth. This ignores basic human behaviours - greed/avarice, competitive urges, selfishness etc.

Even if 99 out of 100 were motivated only by a "moral compass", "1" would impose their will on the rest. Make it too difficult to operate in the UK and the "1" will simply go elsewhere leaving the UK bereft of the energy, innovation, risk appetite that may otherwise have benefitted society.

Immigration - some would welcome all asylum seekers based on moral arguments and the benefits flowing from their energy and commitment in making a very difficult journey. Others see asylum seekers as a drain on resources better spent on those of UK origin. Some may simply be racist using other arguments to justify the unacceptable.

Politicians realise that having an explicit policy will likely alienate some part of their support - so there is no shared view, nor a realistic prospect of developing one. They need to do better.

IMHO - we do need to defend our borders from uncontrolled immigration but should help those in genuine need with a bias towards those with UK contacts (eg: family).

The immigration service needs radical overhaul - it is unacceptable that it can take years to conclude a case - a time limit of (say) 6 months should be allowed. Outcome -tick in the box or deportation (either to their country of origin if known or Ruanda). No extended legals.

Protecting living standards - there is a touching belief in the power of government to somehow protect all from the impacts of rising prices, interest rates and energy costs. Politicians fail to communicate a tough reality - borrowing to sustain a standard of living which is unearned is unsustainable (except as a short-term fix - eg: pandemic). This is true of individuals and nations.

That simply taxing the rich to help the poor is the solution does not stand scrutiny. The top 10% of incomes pay 60% of taxes. The bottom 50% pay 10%. Increasing tax on the wealthy simply risks avoidance or emigration.

Public expenditure is at record levels, yet we are dissatisfied with the level of public service (NHS, education, police etc). Are we creating expectations which realistically cannot be delivered, being run very inefficiently, or hamstrung by burdensome administration and regulation. Simply pumping more money is a simplistic solution which does nothing to address underlying issues.

 

[Mark65]

SLR=FN
Dont forget to remove the safety sear or jam something under it, it turns fully auto then.

 

[Dibs-h]

Their entire money borrowing system is outside the tax system.

Entire - No.

Some - Yes.

2 Examples.

Group Basis:

Say 36 people get together and chip in £100/month - that's 3.6K being generated every month and you'll pay in for 12 months (paying in 1.2K).

Every month 3 folk will get 1.2K. If you got it in month 1 - you've effectively got an interest free loan for 11 months. You are still paying in £100/month. If you got it (just) after month 12, i.e. the end - you just ended up saving £1.2K.

If you wanted to "save" more than £100/month - you'd get 2 or more "slots" etc.

12 months duration is the norm altho some do run for 24.

You can't just rock up and join one. You either have to be well known to the organisers or be vouched for by an existing member.

The "schemes" are set up to comply with money laundering regs and many use BACS for payments in/out.

Many schemes will entertain "requests\etc" - effectively allowing you to get the £1.2K at the end of month 2 (or 3 or 4 etc), if your circumstances are extenuating.

Individual Basis:

Say if someone wanted to buy a house, before selling their existing one, i.e. a bridging loan type scenario - and needed £200K, they could ask their relatives\friends and could in theory borrow £10K (on average - some more, some less) from 20 people, say for 1 year. Some may lend for a shorter period and some for a longer period.

Back in the late 90's when I bought my house - I used both although the sums were less than 10K in total.

 

[bansobaby]

Hypothesis:
If you simultaneously put 600 hundred BBC cameras in front of 600 politician's, giving them 3 seconds to answer this:
What is seven times eight?

I reckon roughly 10% would get it right within the 3 seconds (marginally lower than if it were a sample of the general population), 30% would um and ah and eventually get it right, 20% would get it totally wrong and the rest would just immediately start flapping their gobs and going into default mode of not answering the question......
An interesting hypothesis indeed....

 

[julianf]

Source/reference please. Cheers

My mate down the pub. He works for MI5.

 

[julianf]

I assume that comment about 'immigrants' refers to asylum seekers.

Where did you get the fanciful notion that they get a 'brand new car' from?

If you're not interested in the facts, just file this under 'burn before reading'.
Otherwise, here's what they actually get while their application is being considered:

Somewhere to live, a cash allowance or both.

Housing:

You’ll be given somewhere to live if you need it. This could be in a flat, house, hostel or bed and breakfast.
You cannot choose where you live. It’s unlikely you’ll get to live in London or south-east England.

Cash support:

You’ll get £39.63 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries. Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.

(So, that's just £5.66 a day for food, clothing, and such things as sanitary products).

Extra money for mothers and young children:

You’ll get extra money to buy healthy food if you’re pregnant or a mother of a child under 3. The amount you get will depend on your situation.

Your situation	Extra payment per week
Pregnant mother	£3
Baby under 1 year old	£5
Child aged 1 to 3	£3

And no - no car, and no i-phone either.

The broad term often used by hard-of-thinking racists to describe asylum seekers is 'illegals'.

It won't make any difference to those with a racist mindset, but anyone washed up on these shores who claims asylum is not an 'illegal immigrant' - they're an 'asylum seeker'. Most are from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and have made a perilous journey, the least dangerous part of which is sailing across the busiest shipping lane in the world in an overloaded inflatable. (In 2019, 68% of the world’s refugees came from just five countries: Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Myanmar). 45% of separated children applying for asylum in the UK in the year up to June 2020 were from Iran, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Most who arrive here uninvited (thousands of Afghans have been invited here after the collapse of Afghanistan because they'd worked as interpreters etc for the British Government and their lives are in danger. (Thousands have been left behind, betrayed by the UK/US Governments). It was Tony Blair who took the UK into Iraq based on a pack of lies, which has destabilised the whole of the Middle East, and who took us into Afghanistan - both unwinnable wars propagated by the USA, which have made the world a far more dangerous place.

And no - we don't take more refugees than other European countries. In proportion to its population, the year ending Dec 2021 the UK ranks 18th in Europe for asylum applications. The country with the highest numbers of refugees in the European Union is Germany. It hosts some 1.2 million refugees, 243,200 asylum seekers and 26,700 stateless persons.

2021 asylum applications:

Germany 127,730, France, 96,510, UK, 44,190.

Immigration statistics, year ending December 2021

Why aren't they put to work?

They're no allowed to. (Albeit some unscrupulous employers exploit them to work illegally for slave wages in menial jobs). This is to deter 'Economic Migrants' from coming here (usually from Eastern Europe, who are not in danger and are therefore are 'illegal'). Asylum seekers can only apply for permission to work if they have waited over 12 months for an initial decision on their asylum claim or for a response to a further submission for asylum; and they are not considered responsible for the delay in decision-making. (They can do voluntary unpaid work).

If an asylum seeker's application is upheld, they then become a 'refugee' with indefinite leave to remain.

Refugees are allowed to work in any role consistent with their skill level.

If their application for asylum is refused, in a long drawn-out process, they're returned to their country of origin.

if they overstay, only then do they become an illegal immigrant.

Source of information:

Summary of latest statistics

Asylum support - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Working in the UK while an asylum case is considered - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Can Refugees work in the UK? See:

Can Refugees work in the UK? | Sona Circle

Sensible balanced debate on this topic is impossible - it's highly polarised and generates more heat than light. Meanwhile, work-shy Brits who used to bemoan Eastern Europeans for 'stealing our jobs' no longer have that excuse but still don't want to get off their backsides to pick fruit and veg for £60k a year:

Fancy picking vegetables? It could earn you £62,000 a year (thelondoneconomic.com)

Nothing will change.

I think the people of this country have had enough of experts

 

[Dibs-h]

I think the people of this country have had enough of experts

Predicted many moons ago.

Edit: Wrongly attributed to Dostoevsky but interesting nonetheless. LOL