A Political Thread pt. 2

[dirty harry]

He doesn't come across as diplomatic but then I don't think he's trying to be. It seems to be something he thinks is a big issue that's not being addressed and tbh I felt the same with my earlier rant about wealth getting hoarded in the Boomer generation. There's definitely something going very wrong and it's very clear that the wealthy are the only ones not getting screwed over, and yet any discussion about taxing them more is immediately shut down. They are the only ones not hurting and the only ones who can shoulder more burden yet aren't ever being asked to.

Wealth inequality in general is not covered much and very often couched in terms such as it's everyone's own fault they are not wealthy and all the wealthy people fully deserve whatever they get. I've never wrapped my head around how someone says a billionaire is entitled to their billions because they worked hard but will then turn around and say your average person is acting entitled for demanding a salary increase to simply offset rising costs of living.

It's complex, by the term rich he's talking about the likes of Musk, and Bezos, he's not talking about the guy down the road in the detached 4 bed with the new car, because that guy has a salary and massive overheads.

I think he's talking about anlevel of wealth when you stop owning anything, and your Ltd just has assets etc, most people aim for full ownership of their possessions, until they reach a certain point and then ownership means taxation for no reason.

I'm interested to see where he goes with it though.

 

[ncurd]

He doesn't come across as diplomatic but then I don't think he's trying to be.

I think he's trying to get lower and middle classes to understand what's going on so they can put pressure in the polls in the right direction.

He isn't interested in negotiating with right wing parties or people who don't see wealth inequality he's trying to get natural labour voters to vote in their interests.

The issue he doesn't tackle is how we convince Labour to change tack when it comes to taxing the rich. You could vote for other parties but under FPTP you end up getting those who will always protect the wealthy due to their (until recently) pretty stable voting core. As middle classes get squeezed out more they vote become less stable. This is why Millenials just haven't drifted Tory in the way other generations did.

What's odd is wat is going on with Zoomers who are turning up pretty right wing but that appears to be a whole other conversation.

 

[dirty harry]

I think he's trying to get lower and middle classes to understand what's going on so they can put pressure in the polls in the right direction.

He isn't interested in negotiating with right wing parties or people who don't see wealth inequality he's trying to get natural labour voters to vote in their interests.

The issue he doesn't tackle is how we convince Labour to change tack when it comes to taxing the rich. You could vote for other parties but under FPTP you end up getting those who will always protect the wealthy due to their (until recently) pretty stable voting core. As middle classes get squeezed out more they vote become less stable. This is why Millenials just haven't drifted Tory in the way other generations did.

What's odd is wat is going on with Zoomers who are turning up pretty right wing but that appears to be a whole other conversation.

Ye I think the Zoomers reasoning is very much social over economic.

Doesn't he refer to Labour ar Tory 2, and austerity 2.0? Strangely he is talking directly to me, the reluctant labour voter who didn't trust them really, but wanted rid of Torys, only to get a defacto Tory government.

There's just a little voice in my head that says don't trust him, maybe partly down to how much exposure he's getting, his pages filled with bit size clips of him raging on large platforms etc, but also partly the use of his language.

I hate the term tax the rich, there are so many questions to answer, who is the rich, what are they taxed now, why should it be more, and how do you tax those without salaries or traditional income etc, and if you manage it how do you replace them when they leave?
I think it's why AOC isn't taken seriously and mocked, she blunders these phrases without detail.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

It's complex, by the term rich he's talking about the likes of Musk, and Bezos, he's not talking about the guy down the road in the detached 4 bed with the new car, because that guy has a salary and massive overheads.

I think he's talking about anlevel of wealth when you stop owning anything, and your Ltd just has assets etc, most people aim for full ownership of their possessions, until they reach a certain point and then ownership means taxation for no reason.

I'm interested to see where he goes with it though.

From the context of what he's saying, it seems to be rich means those with influence over political decision making and with quite large ownership or control of non-personal assets (ie assets for business rather than personal use). It doesn't seem to refer to those who are simply well off with a nice house and car but those who are buying up assets and hold control over political processes. It's still a big grey area but that's always the case with such things.

 

[Saintjay]

Trump getting upset China have put tariffs on the US. I don't mind him taking issue with China as some of there business practices are poor but you can't get upset if they do the same back.

I'm guessing he'll threaten anyone who imposes further tariffs on the US.

 

[ncurd]

From the context of what he's saying, it seems to be rich means those with influence over political decision making and with quite large ownership or control of non-personal assets (ie assets for business rather than personal use). It doesn't seem to refer to those who are simply well off with a nice house and car but those who are buying up assets and hold control over political processes. It's still a big grey area but that's always the case with such things.

He says several times at the end of the video what appear his slogan.

Tax Wealth not Work

Pretty simple stuff to get your head around wealth ie those who wealth on paper isn't based on debt.

 

[ncurd]

Honestly I don't think his language was that bad at all compared to other left wing commentators. Think is says way more about the kind of person dirty harry is methinks from his other postings.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Trump getting upset China have put tariffs on the US. I don't mind him taking issue with China as some of there business practices are poor but you can't get upset if they do the same back.

I'm guessing he'll threaten anyone who imposes further tariffs on the US.

A tariff on china makes sense. The fact they don't really pay their labor is an externality that needs to be brought into the market.

However that's not why he is doing it? He's doing it cause he's big mad.

 

[ncurd]

A tariff on china makes sense. The fact they don't really pay their labor is an externality that needs to be brought into the market.

However that's not why he is doing it? He's doing it cause he's big mad.

Yeah targeted tariff on countries who business practices are genuinely bad and constantly infringes on your IP is not a bad thing.

It's just most of these tariffs are not about that.

 

[McTallshort]

It's complex, by the term rich he's talking about the likes of Musk, and Bezos, he's not talking about the guy down the road in the detached 4 bed with the new car, because that guy has a salary and massive overheads.

I think he's talking about anlevel of wealth when you stop owning anything, and your Ltd just has assets etc, most people aim for full ownership of their possessions, until they reach a certain point and then ownership means taxation for no reason.

I'm interested to see where he goes with it though.

Watch his interview with Piers Morgan

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I just aboutngot to the same point while driving,

That about sums you up.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Tax Wealth not Work

Pretty simple stuff to get your head around wealth ie those who wealth on paper isn't based on debt.

The main way to tax wealth is to reform council tax. It really shouldn't be based on 1991 values anymore.

Sadly otherwise wealth taxes are shown to raise FA. And the very wealthy end up leaving the UK and move to lower tax jurisdictions. This is what the whole non doms change this month is about.

 

[McTallshort]

The main way to tax wealth is to reform council tax. It really shouldn't be based on 1991 values anymore.

Sadly otherwise wealth taxes are shown to raise FA. And the very wealthy end up leaving the UK and move to lower tax jurisdictions. This is what the whole non doms change this month is about.

Yeah they can't do that if their assets are in the UK. He does address this in one of his videos

 

[ncurd]

The main way to tax wealth is to reform council tax. It really shouldn't be based on 1991 values anymore.

Sadly otherwise wealth taxes are shown to raise FA. And the very wealthy end up leaving the UK and move to lower tax jurisdictions. This is what the whole non doms change this month is about.

Yeah I'm saying he's right, Tallshort pointed it my way.

I think it was pretty good explainer of the issues and how we got here and history. In terms of solutions its a devoid of detail (that video) but I don't think thats a bad thing.

And yeah this was the kind of thing people thought may happen with Labours line on "no taxes on working people" problem is landlords think they are working people (for those out there that was a joke, many landlords do jobs as well as being owners of property).

 

[Weldit]

Trump tariffs latest: Trump threatens extra 50% tariff on China unless it drops retaliatory levy

Turmoil caused by Donald Trump's tariffs continues - but the president urges people not to be "weak" or "stupid".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[dirty harry]

He says several times at the end of the video what appear his slogan.

Tax Wealth not Work

Pretty simple stuff to get your head around wealth ie those who wealth on paper isn't based on debt.

I havnt got that far, but that's where it gets merky for me, inheritance tax I get, that's probably a topic all of itself, but how do you tax wealth when those with the type of wealth worth taxing have the means to move that wealth elsewhere?

Globalisation has allowed for money to move a long way, nationalities are for sale etc...

 

[dirty harry]

Yeah I'm saying he's right, Tallshort pointed it my way.

I think it was pretty good explainer of the issues and how we got here and history. In terms of solutions its a devoid of detail (that video) but I don't think thats a bad thing.

And yeah this was the kind of thing people thought may happen with Labours line on "no taxes on working people" problem is landlords think they are working people (for those out there that was a joke, many landlords do jobs as well as being owners of property).

I've never understood the negativity towards landlords, massive conglomerates are hoovering up properties left right and centre, and little old Bob who has a rental flat who is 2 months missed rent away from collapse as a lot of us small landlords are is the monster!

 

[ncurd]

I've never understood the negativity towards landlords, massive conglomerates are hoovering up properties left right and centre, and little old Bob who has a rental flat who is 2 months missed rent away from collapse as a lot of us small landlords are is the monster!

Well you've taken stock out the housing market driving up prices for your own wealth gain trapping people into the rental system rather than them being able to build affordable deposits for thier own property whilst they pay off someone elses mortgage. Which explains half your nonsense from you yesterday (if true I don't believe any crap you say).

You are right though which why taxes based on assets works those with tons of assets get taxed massively and those without them get taxed relatively small. And the whole point is to discourage to accumulation of said assests.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

One of the major issues with Trumps plan to force nations to the table and sign new deals is he has previously shown (and by extension so have many Republicans) that the USA simply won't honour any deals if it feels it's not in their interest any more.

Why try signing a deal with a country that now has a track record of reneging on them?

 

[Bada-Bing!]

If you're going to watch someone who has something to say in reforming tax then watch Dan Niedle. He's the one who caught Zahawi. Haven't watched the above video but it needs someone who has worked in tax and knows it inside out.

Of course it's very political at the top and no chancellor is going to be very popular, including this one. They are trying to appease too many stakeholders and trying to reduce a national debt that will always be there.