RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:
Id much rather that we stopped bashing the rich, who contribute the lions share of the taxes the Treasury uses to fund services and benefits to everyone else, and concentrate on how best to make Britain more of a meritocracy, i.e. make social advancement easier.

You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Id much rather that we stopped bashing the rich, who contribute the lions share of the taxes the Treasury uses to fund services and benefits to everyone else, and concentrate on how best to make Britain more of a meritocracy, i.e. make social advancement easier.

You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

HMRC would disagree with you.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: That's a very interesting allegation. I very much doubt that Insp Knacker is at any stage going to want to have a trial in which they argue about whether a battle bus visit is local or national expenditure. I'd be astonished if the Labour Party was accounting for such thing as local expenditure as well.

I'll spare your astonishment. It seems they are just as culpable. I suspect that rules need to be clarified.

http://order-order.com/2016/05/16/labou ... -spending/

there's no culpability. expenditure like that clearly isn't local. If you wheel in lots of National politicians then it's part of the national campaign, even if the local MP is there as well. The only question I'd have is whether there are big posters with the local candidate on them with national slogans on. That would seem to me to be local campaigning so it would be accounted for locally.

Given the current discussions over battle buses, I'd suggest that some clarity is required.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Id much rather that we stopped bashing the rich, who contribute the lions share of the taxes the Treasury uses to fund services and benefits to everyone else, and concentrate on how best to make Britain more of a meritocracy, i.e. make social advancement easier.

You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

HMRC would disagree with you.

It's not altogether new thinking that the rich take money out of the system, Aristotle used to bang on about accrual of wealth such money wasn't invested back into the wider economy just to date how long such thinking has been around. And actually the German economy has typically been much better than ours at making wealth available to new business starts ups and manufacturing, and they've realised some benefits on the back of that.

As to whether the rich pay their share, well that's going to depend on how one frames the question, but the actual answer is probably yes and no, or it depends.

The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

looooong nec meeting.

The death threats, the rape threats and the actual brick through a window are beyond pathetic.

Digby wrote:The death threats, the rape threats and the actual brick through a window are beyond pathetic.

Idiots on both sides it seems. Let the police investigate criminality and once prosecuted those responsible should be expelled.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Id much rather that we stopped bashing the rich, who contribute the lions share of the taxes the Treasury uses to fund services and benefits to everyone else, and concentrate on how best to make Britain more of a meritocracy, i.e. make social advancement easier.

You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

HMRC would disagree with you.

It is a fact that taxes are paid with money that the government has issued.

It is simple arithmetic that the rich get rich by having greater income than expenditure.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:
You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

HMRC would disagree with you.

It's not altogether new thinking that the rich take money out of the system, Aristotle used to bang on about accrual of wealth such money wasn't invested back into the wider economy just to date how long such thinking has been around. And actually the German economy has typically been much better than ours at making wealth available to new business starts ups and manufacturing, and they've realised some benefits on the back of that.

As to whether the rich pay their share, well that's going to depend on how one frames the question, but the actual answer is probably yes and no, or it depends.

It has nothing to do with Aristotle. It is simple arithmetic.

Or the notion of a 'fair share' could be completely spurious and based on misinformation as to what taxation is actually for.

It's become a mockery of democracy.
I'm torn on the use of this faux-democracy. If we had a referendum on Murderous Punishment......the morons would pass that as well.

I now accept that we cannot trust the rural voter.......but we must retain democracy among the informed people.
I'm reaching the opinion that we should gerrymander the hell out of our societies. There are so many blonde haired, pretty boys sitting on the rightwing benches who represent all the home counties of rural bullsh*t, self interested, NIMBY, w*nkers .
.....and because they're psychopathic/Sociopathic narcissist megalomaniacs, they're also terrified of being caught.

kk67 wrote:It's become a mockery of democracy.
I'm torn on the use of this faux-democracy. If we had a referendum on Murderous Punishment......the morons would pass that as well.

I now accept that we cannot trust the rural voter.......but we must retain democracy among the informed people.
I'm reaching the opinion that we should gerrymander the hell out of our societies. There are so many blonde haired, pretty boys sitting on the rightwing benches who represent all the home counties of rural bullsh*t, self interested, NIMBY, w*nkers .
.....and because they're psychopathic/Sociopathic narcissist megalomaniacs, they're also terrified of being caught.

Is this what you accept as political, Eugene..?

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:
You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

HMRC would disagree with you.

It's not altogether new thinking that the rich take money out of the system, Aristotle used to bang on about accrual of wealth such money wasn't invested back into the wider economy just to date how long such thinking has been around. And actually the German economy has typically been much better than ours at making wealth available to new business starts ups and manufacturing, and they've realised some benefits on the back of that.

As to whether the rich pay their share, well that's going to depend on how one frames the question, but the actual answer is probably yes and no, or it depends.

Quite. What is fair? The fact is that the top earners pay a sizeable proportion of HMRCs income.

I'm going to say this,.......this is rugby.

Well, the NEC has ruled that Corbyn doesn't need to be nominated, but will automatically be on the paper as the incumbent.

The battle for the Labour Party begins. May must be cursing the fix term parliaments, this is a prime time for a snap election.

Sandydragon wrote:Well, the NEC has ruled that Corbyn doesn't need to be nominated, but will automatically be on the paper as the incumbent.

The battle for the Labour Party begins. May must be cursing the fix term parliaments, this is a prime time for a snap election.

If May wants an election she'll get it. Even if Labour refused to support sufficient votes to over ride the existing fixed term act then May can either repeal the act or just circumvent by saying this is a special situation with the Brexit vote and a new mandate is needed.

Tricky one as May probably wants a mandate, and knows she'll win, but also wants to get on with negotiations and also likely doesn't want a crapfest public debate over what Brexit means.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

Is ownership of property VAT exempt in any circumstance?

kk67 wrote:

kk67 wrote:It's become a mockery of democracy.
I'm torn on the use of this faux-democracy. If we had a referendum on Murderous Punishment......the morons would pass that as well.

I now accept that we cannot trust the rural voter.......but we must retain democracy among the informed people.
I'm reaching the opinion that we should gerrymander the hell out of our societies. There are so many blonde haired, pretty boys sitting on the rightwing benches who represent all the home counties of rural bullsh*t, self interested, NIMBY, w*nkers .
.....and because they're psychopathic/Sociopathic narcissist megalomaniacs, they're also terrified of being caught.

Is this what you accept as political, Eugene..?

Let me delete this post, you B*stard....!!
Where's my ban..?

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

Is ownership of property VAT exempt in any circumstance?

VAT is a sales tax.

i'm not sure we have any ownership taxes in the UK. There are disposal taxes - Capital Gains, Inheritance, property purchases (Stamp duty as it's known) etc - and obviously income taxes but I can't think of ownership taxes.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

You entire premise of "fairness' is based on the spurious assumption that the government requires tax 'income' to spend and therefore tax is a 'contribution' to the operation of the state.

It is an entirely false notion. The government creates the money that pays the taxes.

Pretending otherwise is futile.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

Is ownership of property VAT exempt in any circumstance?

Why VAT? If it's a home then other taxes apply, plus stuff life stamp duty. If a business then corporation tax applies. Are poorer people banned from owning property? Of course not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

Is ownership of property VAT exempt in any circumstance?

VAT is a sales tax.

i'm not sure we have any ownership taxes in the UK. There are disposal taxes - Capital Gains, Inheritance, property purchases (Stamp duty as it's known) etc - and obviously income taxes but I can't think of ownership taxes.

Council tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

You entire premise of "fairness' is based on the spurious assumption that the government requires tax 'income' to spend and therefore tax is a 'contribution' to the operation of the state.

It is an entirely false notion. The government creates the money that pays the taxes.

Pretending otherwise is futile.

The government creates the money we use in a physical form. But the government tends to avoid creating money without basing it on something. QE is dangerous and is thus used sparingly.

The tax system is designed to be redistributive and does that to an extent. The net effect for people is the rich pay a considerable percentage of the nations taxes, proper people pay less, with a high proportion of homes receiving more back than they pay in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eagle was widely derided for not putting forward any policies at her campaign launch, but really I think everybody knows the kind of things she stands for, and she was wise not to mention any of them. Indeed, given the makeup of the electorate, the whole thrust of her campaign should be to try to stop people remembering what she represents, and ideally who she is.

Frankie Boyle

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-the-poor

Probably the Grauniad's best columnist these days.