Do you want to discuss boring politics? (16 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.