Big Boris, Our Prime Minister

[antrin]

23 hours ago, oaksoft said:

If the unfairness you are talking about relates to tax paid by individuals then unless you have access to the personal tax returns of our richest people then you have no more of an idea of what they pay than anyone else. You can't in good faith make a judgement about whether they are paying a fair amount or not for the use of state provided services.

 

22 hours ago, antrin said:

Just not true.

There are many avenues open to establish who “earns” what and how much tax is paid.  Published accounts etc.  The richest people are companies: PAYE is not for them.  

Media outlets use them - not often enough- when they want to pillory a person.

 

”naive and simplistic” as you said...
 

 

11 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I was certainly talking about "rich people" and how they are at the heart of bringing ideas to the market where governments (quite rightly) and average individuals have shown no ability to do that. The reason I brought that up is because like it or not if we get rid of rich people we have seen no historical evidence that we can be confident that governments and/or average joe will pick up the economic slack. Be careful what you wish for was the point of my argument to one poster. There's positives and negatives in everything, nothing is black and white was a second point I was trying to make.

Since then you and now antrim have tried to switch the goalposts twice. Once to make this about "don't rich people use state assets"? which I have never argued against and fail to see the significance of and then secondly to attempt to move the definition of "rich people" from people to companies. It's pretty clear that the intention of both of you is to simply bring this back to a blanket attack the rich (companies or people) with no appreciation of any positives that they bring. Quite happy to debate stuff but I'm not really interested in the direction this is taking so I'll probably withdraw at this point for the moment.

If I am “Antrim”, then I never “switched” anything.  Merely clarified your terms of debate.  See my post above.

All those in public life, in the media, politics, sports..... they all garner their earnings as Companies and thus are visible and they can be seen by anyone with an interest.

this is simply a fact.  Yes, it undermines your assertions, but if your argument is strong enough and your logic unassailable, then you could continue discussion...

You could accept it rather than claim it is a switch of goalposts and you’re not having that and you’re going to take your ball and go home!

i actually gave you credit for being more mature than that.

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by antrin

[oaksoft]

9 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

The lack of self awareness in your post is astonishing.
You've basically just described yourself but in your mind it's anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Every thread you enter into on here involves you telling everyone you are right.
I'm still trying to comprehend the meltdown reply you had to me when I mentioned trickle down economics and billionaires. It bore absolutely no relevance to my post but I suppose that's my fault as well

Yawn.

[oaksoft]

8 hours ago, antrin said:

 

 

If I am “Antrim”, then I never “switched” anything.  Merely clarified your terms of debate.  See my post above.

All those in public life, in the media, politics, sports..... they all garner their earnings as Companies and thus are visible and they can be seen by anyone with an interest.

this is simply a fact.  Yes, it undermines your assertions, but if your argument is strong enough and your logic unassailable, then you could continue discussion...

You could accept it rather than claim it is a switch of goalposts and you’re not having that and you’re going to take your ball and go home!

i actually gave you credit for being more mature than that.

 

YAWN.....

[oaksoft]

10 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Ah dear. I forgot that you are a sequential thinker with s need to join the dots. Should you wish to form your own opinion then I suggest you read reviews of the book. 

I see you've returned to spamming the entire forum with low quality content again.

Oh well.

[oaksoft]

10 hours ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

I wouldn’t say the unions are 100% useless. In the past they had helped me out a couple of times. One occasion seen the company aim to shift me department without any real warning, and as a result breached contract. After days of arguing with management over it (who couldn’t seem to give me a valid reason for the move) I contacted the union and the company immediately backed down. The other occasion involved myself facing disciplinary proceedings, to which the union aided me well and helped me through the case. 
 

 

Fair enough.

[faraway saint]

9 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

The lack of self awareness in your post is astonishing.
You've basically just described yourself but in your mind it's anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Every thread you enter into on here involves you telling everyone you are right.
I'm still trying to comprehend the meltdown reply you had to me when I mentioned trickle down economics and billionaires. It bore absolutely no relevance to my post but I suppose that's my fault as well

Why do you escalate this to billionaires?

Could you tell me why, let's say, rich people's money doesn't trickle down?

 

[St.Ricky]

7 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I see you've returned to spamming the entire forum with low quality content again.

Oh well.

Oh well. Oh dear. 

Deflection

[faraway saint]

10 hours ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

I wouldn’t say the unions are 100% useless. In the past they had helped me out a couple of times. One occasion seen the company aim to shift me department without any real warning, and as a result breached contract. After days of arguing with management over it (who couldn’t seem to give me a valid reason for the move) I contacted the union and the company immediately backed down. The other occasion involved myself facing disciplinary proceedings, to which the union aided me well and helped me through the case. 
 

Unfortunately their lack of action over the recent situation was enough to make me cancel my membership. Indeed the incoming contracts were a big reason into my decision to move on and escape (I’m still there on a seasonal basis but no longer rely on it).

Your second point is spot on.

I would, overall, agree.

In m y early career it was the "done thing" and I had some assistance when I had an industrial injury.

When I was attending college a wise old lecturer described unions as a necessary evil.

I think that sums them up rather nicely. 

[St.Ricky]

10 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

I would, overall, agree.

In m y early career it was the "done thing" and I had some assistance when I had an industrial injury.

When I was attending college a wise old lecturer described unions as a necessary evil.

I think that sums them up rather nicely. 

In part of my career, I represented the Scottish Staff of a large UK financial organisation as chair of the local union group. The main challenge was to have members focus on anything other than pay. 

Swings and roundabouts with Union Power and The Power of Money, I guess. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by St.Ricky

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Why do you escalate this to billionaires?
Could you tell me why, let's say, rich people's money doesn't trickle down?
 

Because the discussion at the time was about billionaires?

[St.Ricky]

7 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Why do you escalate this to billionaires?
Could you tell me why, let's say, rich people's money doesn't trickle down?
 

Because the discussion at the time was about billionaires?

He can be a little slow. 

There is some good news though where a number of prominent billionaires in the USA have very publically committed to giving away a lot of their money to support change and good causes. The Benefits Corporation movement is also committed to change in how capital and people interact to mutual bur redefined benefit. Early days. 

[faraway saint]

25 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Why do you escalate this to billionaires?
Could you tell me why, let's say, rich people's money doesn't trickle down?
 

Because the discussion at the time was about billionaires?

Pardon me for not reading all the drivel in here.

Oh thanks for that cracking explanation, been fun. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by faraway saint

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Pardon me for not reading all the drivel in here.
Oh thanks for that cracking explanation, been fun. 

I fully answered your question.
The second part of your post is vague, in that you woukd need to define rich.

[St.Ricky]

9 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

I fully answered your question.
The second part of your post is vague, in that you woukd need to define rich.

Interesting question. I'm not rich, I'm not poor, I'm comfortable. My brother in law is rich however. Sold his share of a US based firm for many, many millions. He was at the Scottish Cup win in 1987 but more of a Celtic fan these days. Spends 6 months in the States, the period he is allowed to stay here which protects his non resident tax status. That's rich... Damned inconvenient. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by St.Ricky

[faraway saint]

2 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

I fully answered your question.
The second part of your post is vague, in that you woukd need to define rich.

FFS, vague. 🤣 Squirming like a worm. 

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

FFS, vague. 🤣 Squirming like a worm. 

Squirm. Squirm

[delpierro]

Iran crisis: 1st test for the Fat Buffoon Budda's, leadership and he's posting missing.l

[Guest TPAFKATS]

FFS, vague. [emoji1787] Squirming like a worm. 

No, it's essential to any conversation on the subject.
I appreciate this doesn't fit with your approach to posting on here so I'll post a goodbye waving emoji instead

[emoji112][emoji112]

[Bud the Baker]

On 1/6/2020 at 10:20 PM, oaksoft said:

I was certainly talking about "rich people" and how they are at the heart of bringing ideas to the market where governments (quite rightly) and average individuals have shown no ability to do that. The reason I brought that up is because like it or not if we get rid of rich people we have seen no historical evidence that we can be confident that governments and/or average joe will pick up the economic slack. Be careful what you wish for was the point of my argument to one poster. There's positives and negatives in everything, nothing is black and white was a second point I was trying to make.

Since then you and now antrim have tried to switch the goalposts twice. Once to make this about "don't rich people use state assets"? which I have never argued against and fail to see the significance of and then secondly to attempt to move the definition of "rich people" from people to companies. It's pretty clear that the intention of both of you is to simply bring this back to a blanket attack the rich (companies or people) with no appreciation of any positives that they bring. Quite happy to debate stuff but I'm not really interested in the direction this is taking so I'll probably withdraw at this point for the moment.

I disagree that I've been switching goalposts, I consider it all relevant to the creation & retention of wealth within society in the 21st century.

•  The state provides the bedrock upon which clever individuals can make money, from what I've observed it is never a case of one individual having a unique idea but of said individual getting a workable idea to the market first so I don't think there would be any need to worry about economic slack.
•  Putting your income into a company is a form of tax avoidance so IMO relevant to the current direction of the discussion.

[Bud the Baker]

A positive development?

Quote

Clive Lewis, the Labour leadership hopeful, has revealed plans for a partial alliance with the Greens if he takes over from Jeremy Corbyn, highlighting what seems likely to be an increasing focus for Labour as it comes to terms with its latest election defeat.

Lewis, the Norwich South MP and shadow Treasury minister, said that if he became leader he would seek to work directly with the Greens on a so-called green new deal, the idea of investing heavily to transform the economy on a sustainable basis. He said:

We need a new politics of collaboration and openness as the building blocks of the political forces and practices necessary for progressives to take power nationally by 2024 at the latest.

The Greens’ sole MP, Caroline Lucas, said she welcomed the idea of cooperation on the green new deal, an idea pioneered in the UK by her party.

In practical terms this probably won’t make much difference, for two reasons. Firstly, while the Greens would argue for a more radical reshaping of the economy than Labour, it seems inevitable they would back a Labour green new deal plan in parliament anyway. Also, Lewis is currently seen as an outsider to win the leadership contest.

But it is nonetheless a notable move, cementing ideas of the so-called progressive alliance on the left as a way to circumvent the first-past-the-post electoral system. Lewis himself is a notable Labour proponent of proportional representation, which does tend to necessitate closer cross-party collaboration.

 

[faraway saint]

On 1/3/2020 at 11:20 AM, TPAFKATS said:

I can't believe that people are still naive enough to believe that there is a trickle down economics effect when it comes to billionaires.

Ok, let me make it easy for you as you seem to be struggling.............................

Explain to me how there's no "trickle down" from billionaires?

(I'm assuming trickle down means money makes it's way to the less rich?)

 

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Ok, let me make it easy for you as you seem to be struggling.............................
Explain to me how there's no "trickle down" from billionaires?
(I'm assuming trickle down means money makes it's way to the less rich?)
 
 

The billionaires bit was explained last week - antrin I think.

The main way that money would trickle down would be through firms of taxation. Very little taxation paid by billionaires.

It would be more relevant for you try to show how it does trickle down.
Hint - your previous answer that they "spend money" isn't the correct answer.

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

The billionaires bit was explained last week - antrin I think.

The main way that money would trickle down would be through firms of taxation. Very little taxation paid by billionaires.

It would be more relevant for you try to show how it does trickle down.
Hint - your previous answer that they "spend money" isn't the correct answer.

Oh right so you're not taking about individuals, you're talking about companies? 

Don't these companies employee people, purchase goods, build/rent buildings, etc?

Why should I show how it does, you're the guy throwing around statements that people are naive to believe so, the emphasis is on you to show how people are naive? 

As for Tantrum, he's deranged, I wouldn't trust him if he told me it was Wednesday today. 

[St.Ricky]

5 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

I disagree that I've been switching goalposts, I consider it all relevant to the creation & retention of wealth within society in the 21st century.

•  The state provides the bedrock upon which clever individuals can make money, from what I've observed it is never a case of one individual having a unique idea but of said individual getting a workable idea to the market first so I don't think there would be any need to worry about economic slack.
•  Putting your income into a company is a form of tax avoidance so IMO relevant to the current direction of the discussion.

Much to be said for your arguments. Also covered in a book I have mentioned in here relating to Trump and the USA where he is systematically breaking up government activities and inadvertently (I hope) destroying research. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Oh right so you're not taking about individuals, you're talking about companies? 

Don't these companies employee people, purchase goods, build/rent buildings, etc?

Why should I show how it does, you're the guy throwing around statements that people are naive to believe so, the emphasis is on you to show how people are naive? 

As for Tantrum, he's deranged, I wouldn't trust him if he told me it was Wednesday today. 

No, I am talking about individuals not companies as you state.

Many of these folk set themselves up as companies in order to limit their tax.