Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Ha! Gabbard says she can't say much because there's a lawsuit, which I guess will last precisely long enough for this to have blown over and for people to have forgotten.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshbySaint
Nope..

I reckon The Atlantic will drip feed more tomorrow. The lies from Trump will not work. I thought The Atlantic was probably overatating the case yesterday. Today is far more serious.
 
I think this is explosive. Far more serious than yesterday.

I am starting to think this could be a Nixon moment. It is the beginning of the end for this administration.
Sadly I really don’t think it is.
They have too big a majority and they will just sweep under the carpet. Most MAGA idiots will think it’s nothing.
I know the government comes across as idiotic and crass but I think there’s something very insidious happening in the background. They are not all idiots
 
  • Like
Reactions: OddRiverOakWizards
Sadly I really don’t think it is.
They have too big a majority and they will just sweep under the carpet. Most MAGA idiots will think it’s nothing.
I know the government comes across as idiotic and crass but I think there’s something very insidious happening in the background. They are not all idiots


The best hope for the world, is that they actually are. And the evidence so far points toward idiots everywhere.

Reminds me of a boss I had years ago, who used to throw his hands up in despair and say "I'm surroundeed by c**ts!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshbySaint
Right now, Ratcliffe is explaining how foreign aid is used by China and Russia to manipulate and control populations. This is the nation that cut all foreign aid.
 
Someone earning £150 grand is already paying tax on that income. These are not the revenue sources Gary Stevenson is arguing that the government should be targeting. A tax on the assets of the rich, on second, third, and multiple homes, is not a tax on earned income, it’s a tax on wealth that otherwise contributes nothing to the economy.

Nail on head. At first glance I agreed with Os post. At first glance. Once you think about it Archer's is fairer.

Earning £150k is a good income and yes, heavily taxed. I agree to tax no more on income, but on the wealth that contributes nothing like multiple homes. There is an argument that the rich will leave, but I think that is more on income tax than other taxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChilcoSaint
Nail on head. At first glance I agreed with Os post. At first glance. Once you think about it Archer's is fairer.

Earning £150k is a good income and yes, heavily taxed. I agree to tax no more on income, but on the wealth that contributes nothing like multiple homes. There is an argument that the rich will leave, but I think that is more on income tax than other taxes.
Just to repeat once again, the rich and poor pay the exact same tax on the exact same income. The more you earn, the more the extra money you earn is taxed. There is no benefit to working hard and being poor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
Nail on head. At first glance I agreed with Os post. At first glance. Once you think about it Archer's is fairer.

Earning £150k is a good income and yes, heavily taxed. I agree to tax no more on income, but on the wealth that contributes nothing like multiple homes. There is an argument that the rich will leave, but I think that is more on income tax than other taxes.
Gary Stevenson’s main point on taxing assets is that the more things, the more houses, the more land the super-rich own, the less there is to go round. The assets of the nation are eventually priced out of the range of ordinary people. So taxing assets directly helps ordinary people because it discourages the hoarding of assets and eventually will lower property prices.
 
Not so long ago I posted a video by Trevor Noah explaining how shares aren’t taxed until they are sold as, until they are sold, they aren’t actually money. Yet the shares can be counted as money when used as collateral to borrow money to buy businesses, just as Musk did when he bought Twitter on the strength of his Tesla shares.
Surely there must be an argument for shares being taxed when they can be used in this manner, or am I just being economically naive?
With regards to the Uk economy I would happily support a 2% wealth tax on anything above £10 million and I would include the value of shares when determining wealth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ......loading......
Gary Stevenson’s main point on taxing assets is that the more things, the more houses, the more land the super-rich own, the less there is to go round. The assets of the nation are eventually priced out of the range of ordinary people. So taxing assets directly helps ordinary people because it discourages the hoarding of assets and eventually will lower property prices.

And in a funny sort of way boosts the economy as the richer will have more income to spend on services or items and on the economy rather than having to spend a wedge on another house. I know what i mean, but reading it back i havent explained it :)
 
It’s worth bearing in mind that the Spring Statement is essentially a spending review. November’s Budget is when tax raises will next be under consideration.
 
Well where are the taxes? As someone said on Question Time last week, the country needs something radical and we are getting ploddingly pedestrian policies.


The taxes come in the budget. In November. You may remember the inheritance tax uproar from the last budget, when Jeremy Clarkson and the Daily Mail allied themselves with the poor downtrodden landed gentry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: milton archer