On 5 Apr 2015 at 12:56pm Rich and Callous wrote:
Watching Murnahan interviewing Osborne this morning and Osborne refuses to rule out further tax cuts for the rich.So there we have it,vote Tory or Tory/UKIP/Lib Dem coalition or any combination of the above and you will get cuts to the disabled and their carers allowances,cuts to working families benefits, charges for a doctor`s visits,and heaven knows what else in the Tory plans to cut £10 billion from the budget.Meanwhile they will be ladling out even more money to their supporters the already bloated rich.It`s you choice.It could n`t be clearer.what kind of country do you want?
On 5 Apr 2015 at 1:20pm Vote Labour wrote:
Meanwhile 7 out of 10 teachers are regularly seeing kids coming to school hungry,and more than half are seeing kids with inadequate footwear.Yes indeed ,what kind of country do we want?we are the sixth richest country in the world,it`s shameful.
On 5 Apr 2015 at 1:27pm Apalling Tory Newman wrote:
Who cares!Not me!
On 5 Apr 2015 at 2:16pm Mark wrote:
I've mentioned this before and I'm sorry to be repetitive but I think it's very telling that there are now beggars in Cliffe High St regularly. This would have unthinkable 10 years ago. People sitting on the pavement in the rain with hats in front of them. This is tory Britain.
On 5 Apr 2015 at 6:29pm lewes resident wrote:
beggars in cliffe high street? one and it's the same girl , probably got more money than me. she can still afford to smoke though. nothing to do with tory Britain , it's lazy Britain.
On 5 Apr 2015 at 6:35pm townie wrote:
Wakey wakey Mark, it's a lifestyle choice and they probably earn a lot more than my £22k a year.
Giving money to street beggars is a status symbol for many people. If you want to help them, give them food.
On 5 Apr 2015 at 7:36pm mark wrote:
Because of where I live I walk along CHS at least once/day. There are 4 regulars (if you include the lady) and I'll admit that she's questionable. Seems odd that the "life-style choice" is suddenly so popular. Also odd that everyone isn't at it with those kind of earnings! Where do you get your figures?
On 5 Apr 2015 at 7:38pm Clifford wrote:
Yes, all this begging and working zero hour contracts and as an unpaid 'volunteer', it's just a fashion. People are doing it for a laugh. They're all rolling in money really. And don't get me going about the so-called 'disabled'... That's right, isn't it, Townie?
On 5 Apr 2015 at 8:02pm Metatron wrote:
The other week I was collecting for Alzheimer's in the Cliffe and can I say, the guy begging with the guitar took way more money than I did. I suggest you spend 10 mins on observation then make up your minds. However go to Brighton to see lots of examples of people that really need our help, Which crap political party is going to sort it.......
None of the above!
On 5 Apr 2015 at 8:05pm The Colonel wrote:
Why do all the beggers have smart phones? ( I'm not joking they actually do )
It is well known that the Big Issue sellers come down from Croydon everyday, ( I didn't believe when I was told it until I sat near on a train up to watch England at Wembley a few months back.
I'm sure that kids are going to school hungry with dodgy shoes but their parents will have all the latest gadgets, smoke 50 a day and have lottery tickets coming out of every pocket.
On 5 Apr 2015 at 9:01pm Lewes resident as well wrote:
For a start if someone is playing an instrument they are not begging, they are busking. Admittedly not brilliantly but its not begging. I have worked with the homeless so have some insight into it and people who are genuinely homeless are chaotic and often very unwell. Its not a choice many people would make with a sound mind. Since the asylums were closed in the 80s the streets are rife with people with mental health conditions or drug and alcohol problems. What we need as a society is some compassion for these people. More funding to help projects to get them off the street by dealing with whatever issues they have. This might be through the NHS and private hostels and treatment centres. Homelessness is a very scary thing and people on the streets have my compassion and love. The easy way to block that funding is to encourage people into believing things like 'lifestyle choice' and 'they have smart phones' and 'they earn 22k' the latter example particularly is complete rubbish as any sensible person would realise that but some gullible people would believe this sort of thing and that's worrying.
On 5 Apr 2015 at 9:33pm Paul Newman wrote:
The story of the 20th century is not one in which the economic triumph of the Soviet Union eclipsed the Free world. It is obvious that the State taking money and choice away will, at some point, impoverish us all. Taxes at high income levels are ‘dynamic ‘ i.e. they alter behaviour so as to avoid them. So we can see from logic as well as facts , that a boundary must exist beyond which tax rises lose money. This boundary does exist and its position is constantly mapped and revised .
Take the 50p rate:
The revenue it would supposedly produce was £3.5 billion but after adjusting for changes in behaviour it produced about £100m ( close to nothing ). This is right on the Laffer curve and obviously damaging distortions remain the down side. I daresay the Conservative Party are thinking about maximising revenue without harming growth.
Of course for the militant left hurting the rich is its own reward and for some it may fill an emotional need Shakepeare described so well in Othello
‘It must not be: if Cassio do remain,
He hath a daily beauty in his life
That makes me ugly; ‘
Iago
Who knows, anyhoo this is a link to an IFS discussion on the top rate. I quoted their tentative conclusion without comment but it won`t be too far off
Check it out here »
On 5 Apr 2015 at 9:39pm Paul Newman wrote:
Lewes Resident - The picture you draw looks right to me, the problem is your solution seems to be the usual one ...spend more money.
Do you have any evidence that throwing cash at"projects " will improve the situation in any real way or that nothing can be done without "More money".
On 5 Apr 2015 at 9:41pm Paul Newman wrote:
PS Sorry that sounds callous doesn`t it , I thought you made the
emotional and moral case really well..and yet ...
On 5 Apr 2015 at 10:26pm Mark wrote:
Yup. It sounds callous and greedy and brimming with spite.
On 6 Apr 2015 at 8:27am Mark wrote:
Certainly clear in this thread where the ugly attitudes lie. I found the Iago quote quite disturbing. The only reassuring thing for me is that PNs attitudes have got to be so marginal as to be completely irrelevant. The Laffer Curve is still American junk economics.
On 6 Apr 2015 at 10:14am Paul Newman wrote:
If you followed the link it would show you that the Laffer curve is a concept used by the Institute of Fiscal Studies for one
If you are disturbed by Othello I`d steer clear of Lear .An old deluded man tortured to madness allowed one glimpse of truth finally dying of sheer grief as he holds the lifeless Cordelia in his arms . ....... few laughs there
On 6 Apr 2015 at 11:36am skeptical green wrote:
Much as it pains me to say but PN is right about the efficacy of the 50p tax rate- it won't bring in much. There are too few people earning at those levels who do not have efficient ways of sheltering their wealth from tax. At the top end there are family trusts to hold investments, wheezes like assets such as houses being owned by corporate bodies and made available for their use etc. Those who find themselves just into this newer top rate will be able to reorganise their affairs to avoid it. Taxing land, removing many tax reliefs which benefit the rich, dealing with fake non-doms, imposing sales taxes on businesses which operate here but pretend to be based elsewhere for tax purposes and reforming capital gains tax are much better options to redistribute wealth.
On 6 Apr 2015 at 11:55am Lewes resident as well wrote:
The causes of homelessness are complex and involve social as well as personal and economic and political ones. If you were sincere in your asking if there was another way that didn't involve 'chucking money at it' then I suppose there is which is going down the avenue of self help groups and the church and these bodies do a huge amount of work to help feed and clothe homeless people but I would say that on its own is not enough. Many homeless people need a lot of help from NHS bodies and social/care workers which all costs money. in country's without a welfare state these people die in the streets. The only people who die in the streets in this country are people so far gone that they refuse all help. I would ask you never to look at a homeless person and think 'scrounger' or 'lifestyle choice'. imagine it might be your own son or daughter or even you potentially one day and ask yourself 'how can this person be helped' if it costs money to turn him/her from a street drinker into a salaried employer with a roof over their head then I would say it is money well spent.
On 6 Apr 2015 at 12:22pm Brother`s Keeper wrote:
Money very well spent.As is money spent on our schoolkid`s education and welfare and our health service.God bless and save our welfare state from the Tory wreckers.
On 6 Apr 2015 at 12:57pm Southover Queen wrote:
It's also about being seen to do the right thing. Reducing taxes for the very rich send completely the wrong message to everyone, including those bumping along the bottom. It's especially so if those bumping along the bottom are simultaneously targeted as "scroungers" and "cheats", as often exemplified on this forum.
There are so many examples of where fixing a problem early will probably save someone from disaster later on. Illiteracy rates in prison are something like 50% (or more, depending on who's measuring) while it's one in five of the general population. While I'm not suggesting that there's a direct correlation, one can't help feeling that poor educational attainment might make it more likely that someone ends up in prison. So if you think that it's better that someone doesn't end up in prison (and cost £100k to warehouse) then presumably it's a good idea to spend a bit more to prevent that while they're young?
That's the utilitarian argument, but sometimes it seems that people would rather impose harsh punishment than try to stop someone coming off the rails in the first place.
On 6 Apr 2015 at 6:01pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Southover Queen: Surely there should be an upper limit to income tax; just as there is on national insurance contributions?
Once one has earnt,say £40-50 thousand pounds, surely one has paid a "fair" contribution to the state in order to run public services and help out the genuinely poor?
After all, the more money the "rich" have, the more they can spend and provide jobs for others.
On 6 Apr 2015 at 6:34pm Mark wrote:
Pn, I'm reasonably familiar with King Lear but thanks anyway. It wasn't the actual work I words that I found disturbing. It was the suggestion that someone these days could hold such Marie Antoinette attitudes. But it matters not. It's easily turned on its head. I can just arbitrarily announce that Pn favours inequality because he ddespises the underprivileged. Bish Bosh. Dust off my hands. Job done. The Laffer Curve has no application as it is necessarily unquantifiable. It was always just junk Reagonomics. The report just uses it to create a catchy headline and obviously makes no attempt to apply it.
On 6 Apr 2015 at 8:49pm Southover Queen wrote:
Sussex Jim said: "Surely there should be an upper limit to income tax; just as there is on national insurance contributions?"
Why? And why on earth do you think £40-£50k should be the ceiling? At current accommodation prices in London, £40k pa barely pays the rent.
As Mark says, you're quoting the "trickle-down" justification for huge inequalities. It doesn't work. I'll link to the Wikipedia article.
And who are the "genuinely poor"???
My suggestion is that we fund policies which intervene in situations where poverty is responsible for setting people on a bad path which will lead to far more expense. I gave an example of active intervention and support for families where children are failing in the education system, and suggesting that intervening early might prevent someone ending up in prison. That's a pretty simplistic example: there are plenty of others where spending a small amount, through local authorities, might prevent a far more serious problem developing in the future. Can you agree that it's a good idea to finance that?
Check it out here »
On 6 Apr 2015 at 9:29pm Celine wrote:
I'm waiting for Paul Newman to ask the rich to support the country and pay an equivalent contribution from their wealth that the rest of us do from our earnings. I'm sick of the ' well top rates of tax don't work because the rich know how to avoid it' what a b****y joke! PAY YOUR TAXES!
On 6 Apr 2015 at 9:45pm Kentish Kim wrote:
I agree. If I earn 24k a year and pay just shy of 4k in tax then someone who earns 1 million a year should pay at least 600k on tax. That still leaves them with 400k in earnings a year which is more than I can earn in about 16 years! We all pay into this system and the filthy rich need to be taxed the way they have been for hundreds of years! They have been getting away with paying nothing since that terrible women and her cult of greed got into power. Something has got to change!
On 7 Apr 2015 at 11:00am Mark wrote:
All the complex arguments notwithstandanding, it just seems a bit thin. The argument presented from on high is that: "You must pay your taxes and we must pay ours at just an ever so slightly higher rate. This may seem inequitable but, oh dear, I'm afraid that nothing can possibly be done about this situation because, were we to contribute more, it simply wouldn't work. No additional tax would be raised. And many high earners, not me of course but others, simply wouldn't pay it."
On 7 Apr 2015 at 12:05pm KentKim'sKousin wrote:
I don't think they rich bugguers paid income tax afore 1799 Blame them Froggies again - 'twas fer the Napolionical wars !
On 9 Apr 2015 at 7:04am Slightly disturbed wrote:
by a picture of burning crosses and the last poster KKK !!!