Off Topic The 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!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%
  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%

  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
It's all smoke and mirrors. As Stan said, the top 1% is misleading. The super rich have everything arranged so that they minimise their liabilities, the others are tied by their employment so at the whim of their employers

It has always been thus but makes great headlines
 
Saw this analogy before:

“Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. 
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right,"
exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill! 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.”

That's a great analogy, Taff :emoticon-0148-yes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taffvalerowdy
Saw this analogy before:

“Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

Fantastic analogy, if I couldn't afford a beer then I wouldn't be going for one.

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. 
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right,"
exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill! 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.”
 
That's part of the current Covid Inquiry.

It won't help Starmer's government, if high tax payers leave. He knows he'll fail if they do, because there aren't other sources of income apart from ordinary people's incomes, pensions, houses etc.
If they leave, they leave. They are rich enough to do what they like anyway. Who gives a ****
 
Saw this analogy before:

“Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. 
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right,"
exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill! 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.”

I doubt those who couldn't afford a pint would be going to the pub in the first place Taff. That 10th man could well own the pub and be laughing his tits off with all his money going in and offshore tax haven.
 
If they leave, they leave. They are rich enough to do what they like anyway. Who gives a ****

Starmer gives a ****. He needs to keep Deep Pocket in the UK. If there's an exodus of the most wealthy, he's either in austerity or heavily taxing middle Britain. Either way, he probably wouldn't get a second term.
 
Starmer gives a ****. He needs to keep Deep Pocket in the UK. If there's an exodus of the most wealthy, he's either in austerity or heavily taxing middle Britain. Either way, he probably wouldn't get a second term.
We have had that even with the wealthy here so what's it matter. Where have you been for the last decade Goldy?
 
Ah so if I get this right, with or without the wealthy, it's austerity and high taxes?

The economy is improving. Inflation is down but prices are high. Labour can't magic up money. They'll turn the screw on all taxpayers to pay for expenditure on public services, but if they take the piss out of the mobile wealthy with massive hikes, the golden goose will fly to America or similar
 
The economy is improving. Inflation is down but prices are high. Labour can't magic up money. They'll turn the screw on all taxpayers to pay for expenditure on public services, but if they take the piss out of the mobile wealthy with massive hikes, the golden goose will fly to America or similar
Inflation maybe down but the damage has already been done by this reckless government. They have already turned the screw to the point that the head snapped. That's even with the golden goose living here. It's the rich ****s that escape the taxing that we need to chase, it's the rich ****s that fleece the country that needs to pay the tax payers back. The country is ****ed. Just 0.001% Less corruption will be a start. I'm not a massive Starmer fan at all but a change is what's needed and it's a change we will get.
 
Inflation maybe down but the damage has already been done by this reckless government. They have already turned the screw to the point that the head snapped. That's even with the golden goose living here. It's the rich ****s that escape the taxing that we need to chase, it's the rich ****s that fleece the country that needs to pay the tax payers back. The country is ****ed. Just 0.001% Less corruption will be a start. I'm not a massive Starmer fan at all but a change is what's needed and it's a change we will get.

If you say so, but be prepared to chase the rich ****s down to the Bahamas, and have your corruption case ready
 
I doubt those who couldn't afford a pint would be going to the pub in the first place Taff. That 10th man could well own the pub and be laughing his tits off with all his money going in and offshore tax haven.
The analogy is surely no different from, and effectively equates to, the the poorest who can’t afford to pay any income tax - so the personal allowance shelters all (or part of) their income. That’s the free pint so to speak.

As for the richer guy, they lose their personal allowance between £100,000 and £125,000 - in that band of income, the effective marginal income tax rate is 60% <cheers>
 
The analogy is surely no different from, and effectively equates to, the the poorest who can’t afford to pay any income tax - so the personal allowance shelters all (or part of) their income. That’s the free pint so to speak.

As for the richer guy, they lose their personal allowance between £100,000 and £125,000 - in that band of income, the effective marginal income tax rate is 60% <cheers>
Like I say, let's say the richest one owns the boozer and is making money on all the fools and hiding his profits offshore. There's always ifs and buts with analogys to suit whatever outcome one desires.
 
Like I say, let's say the richest one owns the boozer and is making money on all the fools and hiding his profits offshore. There's always ifs and buts with analogys to suit whatever outcome one desires.
I’m not bothering voting this time - we are driving up to London on the 4th to go to Wimbledon on the 5th - having voted for both Labour and the Tories in the past, I’ve given up on them.

The analogy is solely designed to show that those with the ‘fuller’ pockets pay more than those with less - so if there are tax cuts, having paid most tax, those with fuller pockets will benefit more.

Doesn’t matter who owns the pub - although the wording does suggest that it is not the ‘rich’ guy. <ok>
 
I’m not bothering voting this time - we are driving up to London on the 4th to go to Wimbledon on the 5th - having voted for both Labour and the Tories in the past, I’ve given up on them.

The analogy is solely designed to show that those with the ‘fuller’ pockets pay more than those with less - so if there are tax cuts, having paid most tax, those with fuller pockets will benefit more.

Doesn’t matter who owns the pub - although the wording does suggest that it is not the ‘rich’ guy. <ok>
Enjoy Wimbledon
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taffvalerowdy
Great that inflation is down but I'm sick of the idiots saying we will notice a difference in our pockets. Prices haven't come down FFS. They really are pandering to the thick.
 
Great that inflation is down but I'm sick of the idiots saying we will notice a difference in our pockets. Prices haven't come down FFS. They really are pandering to the thick.
2% is the Government’s target - the ‘sweet spot’ so to speak.

Inflation at/around that level is good for the economy, jobs and gdp.

The last thing we want is a period of deflation as Japan and its so-called ‘lost decade’ demonstrates. <cheers>
 
if all the corporations and rich people all paid what they should and didnt use tax avoidance schemes then everyone might get to actually pay less tax
be handy if plasterers etc didnt do cashies but that tax avoidance scheme dosent hurt anyone does it