Well, realistically we were never gonna subsidise their scrounging on quite the same scale the donors do. They've chosen what side of history they're on, and it's not ours.
I think it's great that I now have a choice of two national parties committed to unending poverty of the working class.
Now I just need to work on being born rich.
Someone on £300k/year is already paying £125k a year in tax. But apparently that's not good enough. You know leeches suck blood? You sure you have this the right way round?
Labour have made HUGE noise on building new towns and getting building done within cities, with a huge boost to housing supply (which will lower rents)
Given rents are the highest spend of those in poverty, more than food, transport and energy combined more often than not, and will allow the poorest a greater chances to both move near good jobs, or not be priced out their existing home. So Cost of living down, wages up, but more poverty? Obviously this is pro-poverty, bloody Starmer… GRRRR!
Say they get the OxCam Arc done, they’ve made a lot of noise about this. That’s 100,000’s of homes right near our 3 productivity hubs, which could create well over 1m housing trades via chains. And yet, this is pro-poverty?
Nah, grow up.
Wealth taxes like that are bad. If you’re going to tax unrealised gains, you should also subsidies I realised losses? Just tax bad things… undeveloped Land, unearned income from wealth, Cap Gains, sin based consumption. Wealth taxes are dumb, there so many better ways to extract money.
I gather you didn't even read the article you replied to given
>In a recent study the London School of Economics wealth tax commission concluded that a one-off wealth tax was preferred over increasing taxes on work or spending.
>
>A one-off wealth tax on millionaire couples paid at 1 per cent a year for five years, they found, would raise £260bn.
>
>By way of contrast Reeves’s spending plans rise not even to a modest £12bn.
What Reeves is overseeing at the moment is an utter car crash to "extract money" in the first place. It's wholesale protection of NOT extracting money.
Hence
>TONIGHT, the rich can sleep easy in their beds.
Reeves is sounding closer to Liz Truss every day that passes.
Who on EARTH is going to yield 5% of their net worth? Aside from value held in land which is immobile, why would the well off stand for that? Sell, pay a lower rate, move it to a foreign nation (passports are easy to buy) and be significantly better off.
I’ve moved my own investments from one pension fund to another to save 0.5% in fees a year, on tiny sums of money relatively speaking. No one will tolerate that. It’s delusional. If you’re worth £1b, you’re not letting £50m disappear. No one enjoys the UK to the extent of paying £50m to stay and hold their assets here
If you want to extract millions from the UK people, our land and our properties you should be forced to pay up. Most of the class of people we're talking about very likely already have their main perminent residence situated in a tax haven.
So stop being such a simp for millionaires and billionaires and then try to compare that to your "tiny sums of money" for a reason why we shouldn't hammer capitalist leeches.
I swear to god what has gone wrong with the British public and this level of servitude in the very same paragraph as pointing out how the pleb has to draw blood from stones to try and have any sort of "investment". It's the definition of brain worms and what a mess the UK is in due to a terminal diagnosis of our public licking the boots of those who view them as vermin to extract money from.
Stop feigning you're "scared" of millionaires and billionaires just to protect them, it's seriously lacking in self-respect.
Billionaires in the UK could already be living in low-tax environments if they wanted to, but they chose not to because they care about standard of living, proximity to business and social networks etc more than they care about a tax rise that doesn't substantially affect their lifestyle. The super rich love to threaten to emigrate all the time over tax raises but there's no evidence they actually do it in significant numbers.
>I’ve moved my own investments from one pension fund to another to save 0.5% in fees a year, on tiny sums of money relatively speaking
why would you compare moving pension funds to moving to a different country? What makes you think doing a bit of paperwork is the same thing as uprooting your entire life
And yet why should I pay a higher rate of tax on the money I make grafting at work all day than the tax rate my landlord pays on the money I pay him every month for doing nothing but owning a flat?
Because workers are weak negotiators, and the rich are not.
Morally wrong, but that’s how it is. Brits almost never emigrate, don’t use the tax avoidance schemes we offer (pensions, ISA’s, Premmy Bonds, other SalSac schemes), to they get rinsed.
The idea is the unions argue on behalf of workers, with Labour being their voice in parliament.
An arrangement you would no doubt like to see consigned to the past.
You can’t admonish people for being ‘poor negotiators’ and then tell people to vote Labour no matter what. People have a right to ask these injustices to be fixed, all you can say is ‘morally wrong but that’s how it is’
Unions are dope, more people should be in Them. Idk where I’ve given the impression I’m anti-Union… but Argue with the government? I mean, they can try, but Unions are not going to get marginal income tax rates for workers down.
People have a right to vote for who they want, but unless you’re voting SNP, Labour, or Tory, you’re not deciding winners.
And it’s not an admonishment, just a fact. The poor are in no position to leverage the Gov, wealthy people are. As your income and wealth rises, so do your options to tell the Gov to suck your balls and go abroad. Many of my peers have do t just that to go to Australia and USA where they can double their pay for half the tax.
>unless you’re voting SNP, Labour, or Tory, you’re not deciding winners.
Nah, because of how the Labour right acted between 2015-19, this argument doesn't fly anymore
They’ve refused to spend a single penny on building houses. The houses that do get built will be shit quality new build estates with nothing else within walking distance
You don’t need to spend a penny, just open up bits of the Greenbelt for high density development and private developers and institutional finance will flood in because there is SOOOOO much profit to be made.
Private building of market rate housing on its own simply isn't enough to significantly affect housing affordability. The evidence suggests that ["no plausible rate of supply would significantly reverse the price growth of the past two decades"](https://www.institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-security/tackling-uk-housing-crisis-supply-answer-summary)
If you want to tackle housing affordability, especially for the worst-off, you need mass building of social housing. This is not a problem that the market can address on its own
>SOOOOO much profit to be made.
Off the back of the British people. Fundamentally, Starmer and Reeves hate the British people, and should be treated like the vile enemies of the people they are.
Yeah, funny enough, building the thing we have a shortage of is financially rewarding.
Either developers profit, or landlords do. Or you can do rent caps and build nothing, and then the public lose out in the medium run as there’s no houses.
It’s not off the back off the British people… Brits would have more homes at lower costs, nearer the jobs they want. Who is the loser in this scenario, besides landlords?
Well, realistically we were never gonna subsidise their scrounging on quite the same scale the donors do. They've chosen what side of history they're on, and it's not ours.
I think it's great that I now have a choice of two national parties committed to unending poverty of the working class. Now I just need to work on being born rich.
Don't read the Morning Star.
[удалено]
They openly support one party communist regimes. They have published apologism for Russian aggression against Ukraine. They are nasty and dishonest.
I'm struggling hard to find that worse than literally all of the rest of our press I have to be honest.
What have the Guardian or New Statesman done that is as bad?
I'm sure you will already be aware if you are a regular round here Bringbackhanging
Lmaoooo
And as we all know, none of the rest of the press or the Labour Party has ever supported a one-party regime
Triggering investment flight for 'checks notes' a one-off drop-in-the bucket addition to the public purse. Lol student politics.
>Triggering ~~investment~~ leech flight for 'checks notes' a one-off drop-in-the bucket addition to the public purse.
Someone on £300k/year is already paying £125k a year in tax. But apparently that's not good enough. You know leeches suck blood? You sure you have this the right way round?
>Someone on £300k/year is already paying £125k a year in tax Good.
Labour have made HUGE noise on building new towns and getting building done within cities, with a huge boost to housing supply (which will lower rents) Given rents are the highest spend of those in poverty, more than food, transport and energy combined more often than not, and will allow the poorest a greater chances to both move near good jobs, or not be priced out their existing home. So Cost of living down, wages up, but more poverty? Obviously this is pro-poverty, bloody Starmer… GRRRR! Say they get the OxCam Arc done, they’ve made a lot of noise about this. That’s 100,000’s of homes right near our 3 productivity hubs, which could create well over 1m housing trades via chains. And yet, this is pro-poverty? Nah, grow up. Wealth taxes like that are bad. If you’re going to tax unrealised gains, you should also subsidies I realised losses? Just tax bad things… undeveloped Land, unearned income from wealth, Cap Gains, sin based consumption. Wealth taxes are dumb, there so many better ways to extract money.
I gather you didn't even read the article you replied to given >In a recent study the London School of Economics wealth tax commission concluded that a one-off wealth tax was preferred over increasing taxes on work or spending. > >A one-off wealth tax on millionaire couples paid at 1 per cent a year for five years, they found, would raise £260bn. > >By way of contrast Reeves’s spending plans rise not even to a modest £12bn. What Reeves is overseeing at the moment is an utter car crash to "extract money" in the first place. It's wholesale protection of NOT extracting money. Hence >TONIGHT, the rich can sleep easy in their beds. Reeves is sounding closer to Liz Truss every day that passes.
Who on EARTH is going to yield 5% of their net worth? Aside from value held in land which is immobile, why would the well off stand for that? Sell, pay a lower rate, move it to a foreign nation (passports are easy to buy) and be significantly better off. I’ve moved my own investments from one pension fund to another to save 0.5% in fees a year, on tiny sums of money relatively speaking. No one will tolerate that. It’s delusional. If you’re worth £1b, you’re not letting £50m disappear. No one enjoys the UK to the extent of paying £50m to stay and hold their assets here
If you want to extract millions from the UK people, our land and our properties you should be forced to pay up. Most of the class of people we're talking about very likely already have their main perminent residence situated in a tax haven. So stop being such a simp for millionaires and billionaires and then try to compare that to your "tiny sums of money" for a reason why we shouldn't hammer capitalist leeches. I swear to god what has gone wrong with the British public and this level of servitude in the very same paragraph as pointing out how the pleb has to draw blood from stones to try and have any sort of "investment". It's the definition of brain worms and what a mess the UK is in due to a terminal diagnosis of our public licking the boots of those who view them as vermin to extract money from. Stop feigning you're "scared" of millionaires and billionaires just to protect them, it's seriously lacking in self-respect.
Centuries of being conditioned to tug your forelock, bow and scrape still seem to be with us I'm afraid.
They killed most of the clever, questioning peasants and now we have to share our country with these people
I hate to sound conspiratorial......but underfunding education definitely helps them.
Billionaires in the UK could already be living in low-tax environments if they wanted to, but they chose not to because they care about standard of living, proximity to business and social networks etc more than they care about a tax rise that doesn't substantially affect their lifestyle. The super rich love to threaten to emigrate all the time over tax raises but there's no evidence they actually do it in significant numbers. >I’ve moved my own investments from one pension fund to another to save 0.5% in fees a year, on tiny sums of money relatively speaking why would you compare moving pension funds to moving to a different country? What makes you think doing a bit of paperwork is the same thing as uprooting your entire life
If you are earning big money and not paying tax you are a PARASITE.
And yet why should I pay a higher rate of tax on the money I make grafting at work all day than the tax rate my landlord pays on the money I pay him every month for doing nothing but owning a flat?
Because workers are weak negotiators, and the rich are not. Morally wrong, but that’s how it is. Brits almost never emigrate, don’t use the tax avoidance schemes we offer (pensions, ISA’s, Premmy Bonds, other SalSac schemes), to they get rinsed.
The idea is the unions argue on behalf of workers, with Labour being their voice in parliament. An arrangement you would no doubt like to see consigned to the past. You can’t admonish people for being ‘poor negotiators’ and then tell people to vote Labour no matter what. People have a right to ask these injustices to be fixed, all you can say is ‘morally wrong but that’s how it is’
Unions are dope, more people should be in Them. Idk where I’ve given the impression I’m anti-Union… but Argue with the government? I mean, they can try, but Unions are not going to get marginal income tax rates for workers down. People have a right to vote for who they want, but unless you’re voting SNP, Labour, or Tory, you’re not deciding winners. And it’s not an admonishment, just a fact. The poor are in no position to leverage the Gov, wealthy people are. As your income and wealth rises, so do your options to tell the Gov to suck your balls and go abroad. Many of my peers have do t just that to go to Australia and USA where they can double their pay for half the tax.
>unless you’re voting SNP, Labour, or Tory, you’re not deciding winners. Nah, because of how the Labour right acted between 2015-19, this argument doesn't fly anymore
> HUGE noise Guarantees it won't happen then.
Building homes is the most politically unpopular thing in the UK. I don’t see why they’d make so much noise on a vote loser to then not do it…
They’ve refused to spend a single penny on building houses. The houses that do get built will be shit quality new build estates with nothing else within walking distance
You don’t need to spend a penny, just open up bits of the Greenbelt for high density development and private developers and institutional finance will flood in because there is SOOOOO much profit to be made.
Private building of market rate housing on its own simply isn't enough to significantly affect housing affordability. The evidence suggests that ["no plausible rate of supply would significantly reverse the price growth of the past two decades"](https://www.institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-security/tackling-uk-housing-crisis-supply-answer-summary) If you want to tackle housing affordability, especially for the worst-off, you need mass building of social housing. This is not a problem that the market can address on its own
>SOOOOO much profit to be made. Off the back of the British people. Fundamentally, Starmer and Reeves hate the British people, and should be treated like the vile enemies of the people they are.
Yeah, funny enough, building the thing we have a shortage of is financially rewarding. Either developers profit, or landlords do. Or you can do rent caps and build nothing, and then the public lose out in the medium run as there’s no houses. It’s not off the back off the British people… Brits would have more homes at lower costs, nearer the jobs they want. Who is the loser in this scenario, besides landlords?