Do you want to discuss boring politics? (14 Viewers)

[SBT]

hardcore lefties are trying to groom students outside colleges. Grown men stood outside a college.

Weird.

Groom?

 

---

[Nick]

Groom?

Yep into their politics it seems. (And that's giving them the benefit of the doubt).

 

[SBT]

Yep into their politics it seems. (And that's giving them the benefit of the doubt).

Not a Charlie Kirk fan I’m guessing then?

I think “grooming” has a more specific meaning these days

 

[Nick]

Not a Charlie Kirk fan I’m guessing then?

I think “grooming” has a more specific meaning these days

What are you on about? Didn't seem to be related to Charlie Kirk.

Men in their 30s stood outside a college trying to whip 16 year olds up just going to college to learn.

Very strange.

 

[SBT]

What are you on about? Didn't seem to be related to Charlie Kirk.

Men in their 30s stood outside a college trying to whip 16 year olds up.

Very strange.

Well if you consider men in their 30s who spend their time trying to whip up college students with political arguments to be groomers then I would stay out of the Charlie Kirk thread. Many of his fans consider him a hero for doing that.

 

[SBAndy]

hardcore lefties are trying to groom students outside colleges. Grown men stood outside a college.

Weird.

Where am I seeing this?

 

[Nick]

Well if you consider men in their 30s who spend their time trying to whip up college students with political arguments to be groomers then I would stay out of the Charlie Kirk thread. Many of his fans consider him a hero for doing that.

Nice deflection attempt.

 

[Ccfcisparks]

hardcore righties trying to groom kids on the internet and in apprenticeships really odd!

 

[SBT]

Nice deflection attempt.

Deflection from what? I think it’s fine in both cases, you presumably think they’re both “groomers”, big deal.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

it never does, but it always manages to find a way to flow one way and never the other

Billionaires/multi-millionaires don’t get rich by earning an income. It’s all in assets and the wealth is in many cases ‘paper value’. For example, Elon funds his lifestyle by taking loans out with his shares as collateral. The idea of taxing ‘assets’ continuously is pretty pernicious and generally doesn’t have the desired effects (see countries that have wealth taxes or Wales’ taxes on 2nd homes).
Wealth inequality isn’t in of itself a bad thing, like anything, too much of it is a bad thing.

The economic model needs remodelling. Mass migration has coincided with GDP per capita declining, this is something the ‘New Left’ has completely neglected - old trade unionists were against ‘freedom of movement’. Thats one issue.

Historians/economists will look at quantitive easing very unkindly. The asset boom has meant house prices have stayed above inflation and wage increases which has (and still) hollowed out the middle class.

Another is productivity and wage stagnation. For context, the median salary would be £51k had things steadily increased from 2008 levels of growth.

Rich Dad, Poor Dad is a v good book that explains spending habits of middle class v the rich.

And I feel this is the fallacy: to my mind at least, raising revenue is a secondary aim of any ‘wealth tax’ with the primary aim being to disincentivise the hoarding of wealth/assets. Whose purpose does it really serve having families at the top of the tree sitting on billions upon billions?

The purpose of a tax is to raise revenue…

Wealth taxes aren’t a new idea, Labour looked into in the 1970s. France implemented this under Hollande and raised not a lot of money. Why? There’s a lot of admin involved in determining ‘wealth’ i.e. the sum of one’s assets

In the v narrow example you used, the problem isn’t ‘hoarding’. In fact, the Welsh government clamped down on 2nd home ownership and this hasn’t had the desired impact. That is, making houses more affordable for local residents. This is because the values of the houses are still too high. The fundamental issue is that demand exceeds supply and house building has not kept up with population growth. House building targets that aren’t being met are based on net migration of 300k. All in all, the housing deficit is well over £1m and a disproportionate of social housing is going to non-UK citizens - on housing in particular, immigration needs to be addressed and ‘the left’ parties have not accepted this. Hence, working class voters across Europe and the USA have opted for anti-immigration parties who tend to be to the right. Years of QE have also made credit abundant and cheap which has inflated the values of property.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but wealth taxes is a fundamentally dumb policy. Particularly when the people targeted (the top 10%) make up c. 60% of all tax revenue.

 

[Grendel]

Billionaires/multi-millionaires don’t get rich by earning an income. It’s all in assets and the wealth is in many cases ‘paper value’. For example, Elon funds his lifestyle by taking loans out with his shares as collateral. The idea of taxing ‘assets’ continuously is pretty pernicious and generally doesn’t have the desired effects (see countries that have wealth taxes or Wales’ taxes on 2nd homes).
Wealth inequality isn’t in of itself a bad thing, like anything, too much of it is a bad thing.

The economic model needs remodelling. Mass migration has coincided with GDP per capita declining, this is something the ‘New Left’ has completely neglected - old trade unionists were against ‘freedom of movement’. Thats one issue.

Historians/economists will look at quantitive easing very unkindly. The asset boom has meant house prices have stayed above inflation and wage increases which has (and still) hollowed out the middle class.

Another is productivity and wage stagnation. For context, the median salary would be £51k had things steadily increased from 2008 levels of growth.

Rich Dad, Poor Dad is a v good book that explains spending habits of middle class v the rich.



The purpose of a tax is to raise revenue…

Wealth taxes aren’t a new idea, Labour looked into in the 1970s. France implemented this under Hollande and raised not a lot of money. Why? There’s a lot of admin involved in determining ‘wealth’ i.e. the sum of one’s assets

In the v narrow example you used, the problem isn’t ‘hoarding’. In fact, the Welsh government clamped down on 2nd home ownership and this hasn’t had the desired impact. That is, making houses more affordable for local residents. This is because the values of the houses are still too high. The fundamental issue is that demand exceeds supply and house building has not kept up with population growth. House building targets that aren’t being met are based on net migration of 300k. All in all, the housing deficit is well over £1m and a disproportionate of social housing is going to non-UK citizens - on housing in particular, immigration needs to be addressed and ‘the left’ parties have not accepted this. Hence, working class voters across Europe and the USA have opted for anti-immigration parties who tend to be to the right. Years of QE have also made credit abundant and cheap which has inflated the values of property.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but wealth taxes is a fundamentally dumb policy. Particularly when the people targeted (the top 10%) make up c. 60% of all tax revenue.

Yeah labour in the 70’s had something like an 80% high rate tax and a super tax on assets at 98% - went really well that did

 

[mmttww]

hardcore lefties are trying to groom students outside colleges. Grown men stood outside a college.

Weird.

You don't think using that word is a bit grim? Might be worth posting where you're lifting this from because your comment in isolation is a bit mad.

 

[LarryGrayson]

You don't think using that word is a bit grim? Might be worth posting where you're lifting this from because your comment in isolation is a bit mad.

this guy

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Yeah labour in the 70’s had something like an 80% high rate tax and a super tax on assets at 98% - went really well that did

Exactly. One thing Gary Stevenson omits is when talking about this tax regime is that most of the ‘loopholes’ have been closed e.g. benefits in kind were tax-free and companies could give interest free loans to executives and so on.

A wealth tax is based on bad economics and A-level logic.

Anyone who watches this will see that Gary Stevenson is a grifter who can’t actually defend his ideas v well.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Exactly. One thing Gary Stevenson omits is when talking about this tax regime is that most of the ‘loopholes’ have been closed e.g. benefits in kind were tax-free and companies could give interest free loans to executives and so on.

A wealth tax is based on bad economics and A-level logic.

Anyone who watches this will see that Gary Stevenson is a grifter who can’t actually defend his ideas v well.

Hard watch with that insufferable goon in the middle

 

[Nick]

You don't think using that word is a bit grim? Might be worth posting where you're lifting this from because your comment in isolation is a bit mad.

Don't act like it's offensive. Christ.

I'm not lifting it from anywhere.

 

[TomRad85]

Exactly. One thing Gary Stevenson omits is when talking about this tax regime is that most of the ‘loopholes’ have been closed e.g. benefits in kind were tax-free and companies could give interest free loans to executives and so on.

A wealth tax is based on bad economics and A-level logic.

Anyone who watches this will see that Gary Stevenson is a grifter who can’t actually defend his ideas v well.

Why does he move about so much and constantly look like he's about to cry? It's all a performance.

 

[Grendel]

Exactly. One thing Gary Stevenson omits is when talking about this tax regime is that most of the ‘loopholes’ have been closed e.g. benefits in kind were tax-free and companies could give interest free loans to executives and so on.

A wealth tax is based on bad economics and A-level logic.

Anyone who watches this will see that Gary Stevenson is a grifter who can’t actually defend his ideas v well.

The Labour government in the late 70’s was an example of socialism in a free world of capitalism. A total fuck up.

 

[SBAndy]

The purpose of a tax is to raise revenue…

Wealth taxes aren’t a new idea, Labour looked into in the 1970s. France implemented this under Hollande and raised not a lot of money. Why? There’s a lot of admin involved in determining ‘wealth’ i.e. the sum of one’s assets

In the v narrow example you used, the problem isn’t ‘hoarding’. In fact, the Welsh government clamped down on 2nd home ownership and this hasn’t had the desired impact. That is, making houses more affordable for local residents. This is because the values of the houses are still too high. The fundamental issue is that demand exceeds supply and house building has not kept up with population growth. House building targets that aren’t being met are based on net migration of 300k. All in all, the housing deficit is well over £1m and a disproportionate of social housing is going to non-UK citizens - on housing in particular, immigration needs to be addressed and ‘the left’ parties have not accepted this. Hence, working class voters across Europe and the USA have opted for anti-immigration parties who tend to be to the right. Years of QE have also made credit abundant and cheap which has inflated the values of property.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but wealth taxes is a fundamentally dumb policy. Particularly when the people targeted (the top 10%) make up c. 60% of all tax revenue.

You consistently and spectacularly miss the point every time this is raised.

1. Tax can raise revenue and also address societal issues. Smoking, for example, is heavily taxed because of the negative impact on the wider economy - a means of discouraging a certain behaviour via taxation.
2. Wealth inequality in the 1970s (from data I can find) pales into insignificance when set against wealth inequality now.
3. Of course the problem is fucking hoarding. The top 4 wealthiest families in the UK hold over £100bn.
4. You have assumed that I think this is a silver bullet and solves everything. Yes, I concede that alongside this you need other policies to be working.
5. You also assume that we’ve not been holding General Elections for the past 25 years, merely referenda on immigration.

 

[Captain Dart]

hardcore lefties are trying to groom students outside colleges. Grown men stood outside a college.

Weird.

Student recruitment into hard left organisation has always happened.
When I was at Uni the student union presidents were in the IMG or SWP, I don't suppose much has changed except possibly the names of the radical groups. MI6 will have dossiers on the individuals I have no doubt.

 

[Nick]

Student recruitment into hard left organisation has always happened.
When I was at Uni the student union presidents were in the IMG or SWP, I don't suppose much has changed except possibly the names of the radical groups. MI6 will have dossiers on the individuals I have no doubt.

Adults waiting outside the gate? Encouraging kids to skip lessons?

It's not uni, it's 16 year olds

 

[SBAndy]

Adults waiting outside the gate? Encouraging kids to skip lessons?

It's not uni, it's 16 year olds

Where am I seeing this?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Nearly everyone in the country wants the wealthiest to pay more. If you can find a wealth tax that will generate significant revenue (and not lead to an exodus of the very richest) then I’d be all for it. Out of interest and from what you’ve read, what would your proposal be and how much would it generate ? (I’m not being funny about that by the way, just trying to understand how much it would help our current predicament)

It’s so hard to find a clear picture on wealth inequality which takes into account asset values, inflation, changing demographics, population increases etc etc. We all know the very richest have got a lot wealthier though and at least partly due to population increase of a number of low paid migrants and more on welfare, I’d imagine there’s likely been an increase in the number of poorest

As I’ve said before, all I’m seeing is the majority of normal working people paying more and getting less for their public services. Unless we can show we have a semblance of control over public spending (welfare/pensions are forecast to balloon), we will continue to pay more for debt and unless we grow significantly, the situation will continue to spiral. If the government/left continues to ignore this problem any wealth tax will likely be a drop in the ocean.

Ps nobody knows for sure about the potential exodus of non doms and apparently we won’t do until self assessments are submitted in a year or twos time

And part of the spending more and getting less for services is down to increase levels of the use of private companies in public sector areas. If part of what you pay has to go into someone else's pocket as profit, is it any surprise that you get less for your money?

And that's without taking into account the profit motive resulting in cut corners and cheaper alternatives in provision of those services, which is then masked as 'efficiency'.

Of course nationalised and council run services had problems, but it's pretty obvious why increasing the amount of private companies won't improve the situation either.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Billionaires/multi-millionaires don’t get rich by earning an income. It’s all in assets and the wealth is in many cases ‘paper value’. For example, Elon funds his lifestyle by taking loans out with his shares as collateral. The idea of taxing ‘assets’ continuously is pretty pernicious and generally doesn’t have the desired effects (see countries that have wealth taxes or Wales’ taxes on 2nd homes).
Wealth inequality isn’t in of itself a bad thing, like anything, too much of it is a bad thing.

The economic model needs remodelling. Mass migration has coincided with GDP per capita declining, this is something the ‘New Left’ has completely neglected - old trade unionists were against ‘freedom of movement’. Thats one issue.

Historians/economists will look at quantitive easing very unkindly. The asset boom has meant house prices have stayed above inflation and wage increases which has (and still) hollowed out the middle class.

Another is productivity and wage stagnation. For context, the median salary would be £51k had things steadily increased from 2008 levels of growth.

Rich Dad, Poor Dad is a v good book that explains spending habits of middle class v the rich.



The purpose of a tax is to raise revenue…

Wealth taxes aren’t a new idea, Labour looked into in the 1970s. France implemented this under Hollande and raised not a lot of money. Why? There’s a lot of admin involved in determining ‘wealth’ i.e. the sum of one’s assets

In the v narrow example you used, the problem isn’t ‘hoarding’. In fact, the Welsh government clamped down on 2nd home ownership and this hasn’t had the desired impact. That is, making houses more affordable for local residents. This is because the values of the houses are still too high. The fundamental issue is that demand exceeds supply and house building has not kept up with population growth. House building targets that aren’t being met are based on net migration of 300k. All in all, the housing deficit is well over £1m and a disproportionate of social housing is going to non-UK citizens - on housing in particular, immigration needs to be addressed and ‘the left’ parties have not accepted this. Hence, working class voters across Europe and the USA have opted for anti-immigration parties who tend to be to the right. Years of QE have also made credit abundant and cheap which has inflated the values of property.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but wealth taxes is a fundamentally dumb policy. Particularly when the people targeted (the top 10%) make up c. 60% of all tax revenue.

I think the main draw for tax revenues should be when money is transferred from one entity to another. Trouble is you have so many loopholes of different types of organisations that can avoid that by being allowed to be tax free, like certain trusts, charities etc.

If you want to fix that then we have to admit we can't allow anyone to have tax-free status because of those abuses. I don't like the idea of taxing charities but when you've got private schools with huge fees being listed as 'charities' then it has to stop. Similar with IHT. It should be taxed as income on the recipient.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You consistently and spectacularly miss the point every time this is raised.

1. Tax can raise revenue and also address societal issues. Smoking, for example, is heavily taxed because of the negative impact on the wider economy - a means of discouraging a certain behaviour via taxation.
2. Wealth inequality in the 1970s (from data I can find) pales into insignificance when set against wealth inequality now.
3. Of course the problem is fucking hoarding. The top 4 wealthiest families in the UK hold over £100bn.
4. You have assumed that I think this is a silver bullet and solves everything. Yes, I concede that alongside this you need other policies to be working.
5. You also assume that we’ve not been holding General Elections for the past 25 years, merely referenda on immigration.

Rich people basing themselves in the UK is a net positive. Again, the top 10% of taxpayers account for 60-70% of our tax revenues.

If the ‘wealthy’ are paying a higher and higher percentage of tax revenues, the issue isn’t the

Why has wealth inequality grown?

1) we’ve hollowed out our manufacturing base and outsourced these jobs to countries like China
2) mass immigration has impacted GDP per capita and wage growth
3) QE and other policy decisions have led to an asset boom so higher %s
4) high inflation (particularly food and energy) is further

What you propose doesn’t fix any of these issues. With respect, it’s a pipe dream of the left and there’s real life examples that show this.

Look at Poland who is an outlier in the EU. Kept its manufacturing base, immigration low and is experiencing strong growth.

 

[mmttww]

Make the threshold for paying income tax the same as the Living Wage. Increase the first rate from 20% - it's come down from 25% when I started working as a cheap vote winner - and use the Green New Deal and house building to give us a short, medium and long term boost in skilled manufacturing jobs.

Sell the new technology and infrastructure that we design and build to other countries to keep wages here higher for more people, raising how much tax you get from a bigger slice or the workforce. Reckon that would make a good start on sorting a lot of things that affect a lot of people. Fixed it!

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Make the threshold for paying income tax the same as the Living Wage. Increase the first rate from 20% - it's come down from 25% when I started working as a cheap vote winner - and use the Green New Deal and house building to give us a short, medium and long term boost in skilled manufacturing jobs.

Sell the new technology and infrastructure that we design and build to other countries to keep wages here higher for more people, raising how much tax you get from a bigger slice or the workforce. Reckon that would make a good start on sorting a lot of things that affect a lot of people. Fixed it!

Damn, you just wrote the next Green Party manifesto in 2 paragraphs!

 

[SBT]

It's not uni, it's 16 year olds

So people of voting age then?

 

[Nick]

So people of voting age then?

I'm not shocked you want to justify it.

It's not even like it was people there to give a talk or lectures, it was blokes stood by the school gates approaching kids to get them to join them.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I'm not shocked you want to justify it.

It's not even like it was people there to give a talk or lectures, it was blokes stood by the school gates approaching kids to get them to join them.

Sorry where was this?

 

[SBT]

I'm not shocked you want to justify it.

It's not even like it was people there to give a talk or lectures, it was blokes stood by the school gates approaching kids to get them to join them.

I must admit I don’t know the legal specifics of political canvassing aimed at kids (some specifics of what exactly you saw and where would help) but if they’re 16 then they’re eligible to vote in our next election, so claiming they’re being “groomed” sounds like pretty dubious spin to me (I know you hate that)

 

[Nick]

I must admit I don’t know the legal specifics of political canvassing aimed at kids (some specifics of what exactly you saw and where would help) but if they’re 16 then they’re eligible to vote in our next election, so claiming they’re being “groomed” sounds like pretty dubious spin to me (I know you hate that)

It's not really spin to say a grown man stood outside a college gate trying to talk to kids and get them to join him is trying to groom them.

 

[SBAndy]

Willing to vouch for Nick on this and suggest it’s a bit weird.

 

[Nick]

It's the standing at the gates approaching kids that I find weird. Obviously some on here think that's ok but I'm not surprised.

If it was somebody arranging a talk or something at a college then that's a bit different.

 

[mmttww]

you just wrote the next Green Party manifesto...