RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain 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.

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.

The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).

But the government tends to avoid creating money without basing it on something.

The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.

Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.

QE is dangerous and is thus used sparingly.

QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.

What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?

The tax system is designed to be redistributive and does that to an extent.

The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.

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[

jared_7 wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
By the standards of most Brits he is a lefty loon, and for me at least I'd hoped we'd reached a point wherein Corbyn and those of a similar ilk would be confined to the SWP leaving Labour to go forwards as a Social Democratic party. Sadly instead the inmates have taken over the asylum and we're going to have to waste a lot of time going at least until the next general election it seems until there's a chance for some order to return. And I don't just blame Corbyn for this, but also those in the middle ground and to the right of the Labour party who are allowing us to continue without a credible opposition to the government.

In what way is he a lunatic?

Most of what he's actually said makes sense, and he is the leader of the UK's only mainstream socialist party...

What do you define as Social Democrat?

Oh, and mods: why is language like this allowed against the left, and not against the right?

On second thoughts, don't bother. You're both rather right wing...

He wants his left wing parties to be fiscally and economically identical to the right wing parties, just more progressive on social issues. He ignores the fact this is pretty much what we've had for the last 30-40 years, where many people feel (and statistics can back up) that during this time their position in society is worse off. The middle and lower classes have been pinched, while those at the very top have seen their wealth grow exponentially.

He wants society to work for the top 10% and anyone challenging that position is, apparently, a "left wing loony".

"It is what it is, chaps; accept your lot and don't you dare complain".

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

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.

The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).

But the government tends to avoid creating money without basing it on something.

The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.

Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.

QE is dangerous and is thus used sparingly.

QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.

What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?

The tax system is designed to be redistributive and does that to an extent.

The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.

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[

If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.

If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.

It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.

UGagain wrote: 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.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

morepork wrote:

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

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:


The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).



The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.

Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.



QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.

What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?



The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.

If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.

If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.

It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.

Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote: 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.

Out of interest, do you regard Eagle as being on the left of the Labour Party, or is she a blairite? Genuine question, opinion seems split amongst people I talk to.

Sandydragon wrote:
Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote: 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.

Out of interest, do you regard Eagle as being on the left of the Labour Party, or is she a blairite? Genuine question, opinion seems split amongst people I talk to.

I think she's a repellant non-entity with no policies or principles who is on her way to an ignominious deselection.

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?

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:


The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).



The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.

Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.



QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.

What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?



The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.

If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.

If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.

It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.

Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?
Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.
Source?

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.
Simplistic waffle

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it

Zhivago wrote: I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.

The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.

The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote: I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.

I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.

The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.

The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:
If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.

If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.

It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.

Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?
Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.
Source?

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.
Simplistic waffle

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote: I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.

I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?
Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.
Source?

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.
Simplistic waffle

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it

Yes, they can simply print it. Do that too often and hyper inflation can be the result.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.

The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.

The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?
Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.
Source?

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.
Simplistic waffle

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it

Yes, they can simply print it. Do that too often and hyper inflation can be the result.

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote: I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.

I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?

Nearly all business investment is funded by bank loans these days.

There is a huge difference between rent seeking and investment.

As a keen student of Keynes and his work, you'd know that he spoke of euthanasia of the rentier.