The Politics Thread

[Lord Kangana]

If that was a sarcastic response, apologies for the syntax error (and the appalling pun), perhaps I should have said based on earnings. If it wasn't, then just all apologies, as it may take a while to find, its something I read months ago. I'll put it up as soon as, no promises on the timescale.

[superjohnmcginlay]

If that was a sarcastic response, apologies for the syntax error (and the appalling pun), perhaps I should have said based on earnings. If it wasn't, then just all apologies, as it may take a while to find, its something I read months ago. I'll put it up as soon as, no promises on the timescale.

It wasnt. Im confused as to what youre getting at now. Higher taxation based on earnings makes you richer? eh?

[Worthy4England]

If it actually came to that decision then i would use everything in my governments power to make sure that the poor got richer and nearer to equality, and to do that i would tax the rich, as i think thats what a governments job should be.

I think you might find that the "tax the rich" approach doesn't work very well either - been tried before with "super tax" in the 1970's under Labour. Strangely enough all the brainy sods earning plenty had the means to travel abroad to wherever the tax system was more equitable to them - and did.

Interestingly a Harvard (maybe Yale, can't remember now) study of American taxation policy found that, contrary to everything we're told, when taxation was higher the richer you were, the only significant difference was that more tax revenue was raised. People didn't flee the country, not do business etc etc etc. Government policy over non-doms and the like has actually driven this. It also points to an in increase in the balance of trade deficit since large tax cuts became the norm.

I'll try to find it again if anyone's that interested.

There's plenty of evidence pointing to the Brain Drain from the UK in the 1970's too.

In 1976, the top 1% in the UK contributed 11% of income tax collected, the top 5%, 25%, the top 10%, 35% and the lower 50% contributed 20%.

In 2008, the distribution is as follows top 1% pay 23%, top 5% pay 42.3%, top 10% pay 53.1% and the lower 50% will contribute 11.5%

This appears to suggest that redistribution of tax burden works pretty good on a more equitable basis (2008) as opposed to the more punitive basis in 1976.

Edit - the tax rates in 1976 were standard rate - 35%, higher rate - 83% (which could get to as high as 98% with 15% surcharge on investment income)

[Lord Kangana]

In response to Super John:

No, government policy has aimed at giving tax-breaks to the highest earning amongst us, based roughly on trickle down economic theory. The other major reason is that, they say, the super rich who we should all be so grateful to (the top 5 of who incidentally paid 0.14% of their earnings in tax last year), would up sticks and leave us to be a third world country. There is a study I've read from Harvard (or Yale, of all places) that essentially, and I'm paraphrasing here, says this theory has absolutely no basis in fact.

[superjohnmcginlay]

In response to Super John:

No, government policy has aimed at giving tax-breaks to the highest earning amongst us, based roughly on trickle down economic theory. The other major reason is that, they say, the super rich who we should all be so grateful to (the top 5 of who incidentally paid 0.14% of their earnings in tax last year), would up sticks and leave us to be a third world country. There is a study I've read from Harvard (or Yale, of all places) that essentially, and I'm paraphrasing here, says this theory has absolutely no basis in fact.

Right got you. You made it sound like "you" personal, apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick. Thought you were a complete fooking lunatic.

[Montreal Wanderer]

There's plenty of evidence pointing to the Brain Drain from the UK in the 1970's too.

In 1976, the top 1% in the UK contributed 11% of income tax collected, the top 5%, 25%, the top 10%, 35% and the lower 50% contributed 20%.

In 2008, the distribution is as follows top 1% pay 23%, top 5% pay 42.3%, top 10% pay 53.1% and the lower 50% will contribute 11.5%

This appears to suggest that redistribution of tax burden works pretty good on a more equitable basis (2008) as opposed to the more punitive basis in 1976.

Edit - the tax rates in 1976 were standard rate - 35%, higher rate - 83% (which could get to as high as 98% with 15% surcharge on investment income)

My father was a professional engineer and considered well-to-do, but not rich. Late in life he did make over GBP5000 per annum as an industrial consultant. For each pound he made over 5000 he paid 19 and 6 (97.5%) in income tax (thank you Harold Wilson). Where was his incentive to be more productive? While I would be hesitant to categorize myself as part of the brain drain, I certainly bailed out of the country and made my life elsewhere. I do not regret the decision other than I don't see a lot of BWFC. I am glad the tax rates are now less punitive and, if it is true that half the people provide just over 10% of the tax revenue, I'm not sure why there is so much complaining about the rich, because I 'd bet that lower half consume well over 50% of the government service expenditures.

[Lord Kangana]

Fookin Nora :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 315453.ece

I always thought politics was a corrupt old game, but this is whole nother level, rotten borough stuff.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Fookin Nora :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 315453.ece

I always thought politics was a corrupt old game, but this is whole nother level, rotten borough stuff.

This is not news - the Illinois Democratic machine has been corrupt for most of my life - Daley stole the election for Kennedy in 1960 (not that I minded) and they've been pulling stunts ever since. No surprise here.

[Lord Kangana]

Still doesn't make it right.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Still doesn't make it right.

No, emphatically it makes it wrong - just not surprising.

[Lord Kangana]

So then, what does everyone think of a deportation request based on being "not conducive to the public good"? (we already know what you think Hobo ) And his treatment at the hands of the police is hardly progress from the days of the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7773727.stm

I could have put this into the de Menezes thread, but this is emerging as a political issue, and surely we are heading down a slippery slope of doing away with key tenets of habeas corpus, aren't we?

[Verbal]

WTF? Canada's leader dissolves parliament to delay a no-confidence vote. WUT!

[Prufrock]

So then, what does everyone think of a deportation request based on being "not conducive to the public good"? (we already know what you think Hobo ) And his treatment at the hands of the police is hardly progress from the days of the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7773727.stm

I could have put this into the de Menezes thread, but this is emerging as a political issue, and surely we are heading down a slippery slope of doing away with key tenets of habeas corpus, aren't we?

Well firstly regarding the habeas corpus thing. The police must take the consequences of their actions, but if they genuinly beleived he was a terrorist and crucially that there were other bombs questioning him could prevent going off, i wont be too MORALLY judgemental. Nevertheless they must be held accountable.

As for the man himself, why do they want to deport him, is he an illegal immigrant, or are they just deciding that because they thouht he might have been guilty, they want rid?

[Lord Kangana]

As far as I understand, thats the shaky basis for the attempt to deport he isn't "conducive to the public good". Feck, if are any of us, when you really think about it? The last few weeks has confirmed to me (beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt) that this counrty is going rapidly backwards both politically and economically.

[Hoboh]

If it actually came to that decision then i would use everything in my governments power to make sure that the poor got richer and nearer to equality, and to do that i would tax the rich, as i think thats what a governments job should be.

I think you might find that the "tax the rich" approach doesn't work very well either - been tried before with "super tax" in the 1970's under Labour. Strangely enough all the brainy sods earning plenty had the means to travel abroad to wherever the tax system was more equitable to them - and did.

Interestingly a Harvard (maybe Yale, can't remember now) study of American taxation policy found that, contrary to everything we're told, when taxation was higher the richer you were, the only significant difference was that more tax revenue was raised. People didn't flee the country, not do business etc etc etc. Government policy over non-doms and the like has actually driven this. It also points to an in increase in the balance of trade deficit since large tax cuts became the norm.

I'll try to find it again if anyone's that interested.

There's plenty of evidence pointing to the Brain Drain from the UK in the 1970's too.

In 1976, the top 1% in the UK contributed 11% of income tax collected, the top 5%, 25%, the top 10%, 35% and the lower 50% contributed 20%.

In 2008, the distribution is as follows top 1% pay 23%, top 5% pay 42.3%, top 10% pay 53.1% and the lower 50% will contribute 11.5%

This appears to suggest that redistribution of tax burden works pretty good on a more equitable basis (2008) as opposed to the more punitive basis in 1976.

Edit - the tax rates in 1976 were standard rate - 35%, higher rate - 83% (which could get to as high as 98% with 15% surcharge on investment income)

Could that not be a reflection on more people moving into the higher percentages?

It ain't the income tax thats unfair its the bloody council tax that hits the poorer or low income elderly harder and don't get me started on charges for nursing homes that made people have to destroy a life times work of paying for their home after paying tax and NI contributions for all their working lives only to see it whipped from under their feet!!!
As my father says "what ever happend to Labours promise of care from cradle to the grave?"

[Hoboh]

As far as I understand, thats the shaky basis for the attempt to deport he isn't "conducive to the public good". Feck, if are any of us, when you really think about it? The last few weeks has confirmed to me (beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt) that this counrty is going rapidly backwards both politically and economically.

Without getting into a right royal row and getting painted as racisist and bizare again, perhaps the Police or even more likely the spooks have something which they might not be ready to reveal that may hinder ongoing intelligence gathering, after all the guy can be linked to the jailed bloke and maybe it may from a security point be in our (the publics) best interest if he was not here?
He might be a bagman or whatever?

[Lord Kangana]

The only question I ask Hobo, is if it was you, would you complain? Because if they are under no obligation to make public any evidence, indeed prove anything, what is to stop it happening to any of us?

You must have heard of Pastor Niemoller? Have we learned nothing as human beings?

[Hoboh]

The only question I ask Hobo, is if it was you, would you complain? Because if they are under no obligation to make public any evidence, indeed prove anything, what is to stop it happening to any of us?

You must have heard of Pastor Niemoller? Have we learned nothing as human beings?

No I wouldn't, you are right, but the point is it Dosen't happen to just anyone. Yes mistakes do get made in all walks of life and areas but how much ground should be given for these people to invade?
Being democratic does not mean accepting acts of terror as a price for that stand, democracy is a fable any way, most major desicions and things that affect our lifes are done behind closed doors, European Constitution anyone?
All I'm getting at is protection and safety of many outweigh the same for the very minority few and the number is not that vast.
If we started deporting 20,000 suspected terrorists every year, then it would be seen as a joke and would be very questionable, 20-30 it would proberbly be about right for our security.


In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Chilling if we were all Nazis not sensible people.
These are matters of the past that none should forget but the world has moved on.

[Lord Kangana]

And who is in charge of these decisions Hobo? Is it you, because it certainly isn't me or anyone I know, so when you use the word "sensible" how would you know? How do you know that the guy in charge of these decisions isn't Gary Megsons brother, and you and me will wake up one day in a cell together with one way tickets to Timbucktu? Or held indefinitely in the cells at the 'Bok until such time as they change managers?

[Hoboh]

And who is in charge of these decisions Hobo? Is it you, because it certainly isn't me or anyone I know, so when you use the word "sensible" how would you know? How do you know that the guy in charge of these decisions isn't Gary Megsons brother, and you and me will wake up one day in a cell together with one way tickets to Timbucktu? Or held indefinitely in the cells at the 'Bok until such time as they change managers?

I can think of worse things than sharing a cell with you, Megson for instance

Seriously we vote "these people" into power, if anyone tried to change that all hell would break loose there are safety nets IMO the law and human rights are too slanted.

Views about freedoms and law etc etc are valid only when you have a stable sociaty, imagine the oil taps were turned off here or in the US, how long would it be before everyone was screaming to shoot looters etc etc? If parts of sociaty are allowed to break down and fester protected by laws then these laws are not going to work, they should be to protect the stability of sociaty not the anachists and terrorists.
Anyway I'd better shut up before someone demands I get put up against the wall

Whoops my spelling is getting terrible, never will make a speed typist lol. Better stick to telling Gary how to do his job.