The Great Art Debate

[Lord Kangana]

Maybe you've missed the point of the above dialogue, but tell me, the point of making life easier for Lord Dyson would benefit who exactly? I don't see you getting het up about the 10% tax which is directly affecting far, far more people, and in a way that doesn't mean they have to scale back the footage of their yacht.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Maybe you've missed the point of the above dialogue, but tell me, the point of making life easier for Lord Dyson would benefit who exactly? I don't see you getting het up about the 10% tax which is directly affecting far, far more people, and in a way that doesn't mean they have to scale back the footage of their yacht.

Well, Lord Dyson, for a start, who, despite having the temerity to be wealthy, is still a person, after all, with a reasonable claim to the fruits of his own skills, labour and even luck.

If we make it more attractive for Dyson to push on and make his next million, rather than decide not to bother, then that's good for our economy.

If Dyson stays in the country rather than relocating to Switzerland and paying tax into foreign coffers, that's good for British people too.

It's good for people to see Dyson getting rich, in Britain, and aspire to achieve similar.

[TANGODANCER]

Keep checking this thread and wondering when any art is going to come into it. Should have been "The Inland Revenue Thread.

[Bruno]

I really love colouring in.

[Lord Kangana]

Maybe you've missed the point of the above dialogue, but tell me, the point of making life easier for Lord Dyson would benefit who exactly? I don't see you getting het up about the 10% tax which is directly affecting far, far more people, and in a way that doesn't mean they have to scale back the footage of their yacht.

Well, Lord Dyson, for a start, who, despite having the temerity to be wealthy, is still a person, after all, with a reasonable claim to the fruits of his own skills, labour and even luck.

If we make it more attractive for Dyson to push on and make his next million, rather than decide not to bother, then that's good for our economy.

If Dyson stays in the country rather than relocating to Switzerland and paying tax into foreign coffers, that's good for British people too.

It's good for people to see Dyson getting rich, in Britain, and aspire to achieve similar.

And the 50% tax is an impedement to ambition and wealth in what way?

[Hoboh]

Why don't we have our own version of the French revolution?
Top all the top knobbers then see what happens next

[Worthy4England]

I'm still mystified as to why everyone earning over £150k is allegedly responsible for wealth creation almost to the exclusivity of people earning £149k and below. It's clearly a bollocks statement, from some people who clearly know bollocks all.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And the 50% tax is an impedement to ambition and wealth in what way?

It makes earning money less rewarding, and when something is less rewarding, people do less of it.

I'm still mystified as to why everyone earning over £150k is allegedly responsible for wealth creation almost to the exclusivity of people earning £149k and below. It's clearly a bollocks statement, from some people who clearly know bollocks all.

Agreed - now where has that particular statement been made?

[William the White]

Why don't we have our own version of the French revolution?
Top all the top knobbers then see what happens next

On planet hoboh, children, life is simple, but there's never any shortage of fun...

[Lord Kangana]

We had our own crap watered down version once already. So very British. Hobo's idea sounds more like fun.

[Prufrock]

Maybe you've missed the point of the above dialogue, but tell me, the point of making life easier for Lord Dyson would benefit who exactly? I don't see you getting het up about the 10% tax which is directly affecting far, far more people, and in a way that doesn't mean they have to scale back the footage of their yacht.

Well, Lord Dyson, for a start, who, despite having the temerity to be wealthy, is still a person, after all, with a reasonable claim to the fruits of his own skills, labour and even luck.

If we make it more attractive for Dyson to push on and make his next million, rather than decide not to bother, then that's good for our economy.

If Dyson stays in the country rather than relocating to Switzerland and paying tax into foreign coffers, that's good for British people too.

It's good for people to see Dyson getting rich, in Britain, and aspire to achieve similar.

Who makes him his millions though? Your working man, who gets paid the lowest wage possible according to the market, while Mr Dyson creams off the profits. Then recession comes, who gets hard? Is it Mr Dyson? The fact spending amongst the rich is up would suggest not, no, it's your working man again, on the breadline close to losing his job. Poverty is perhaps the wrong word here, I have used it, and so have others, it may not be poverty, but the working man's standard of life is suffering far more than the rich mans. How is that fair, or good for society?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Who makes him his millions though? Your working man, who gets paid the lowest wage possible according to the market, while Mr Dyson creams off the profits. Then recession comes, who gets hard? Is it Mr Dyson? The fact spending amongst the rich is up would suggest not, no, it's your working man again, on the breadline close to losing his job. Poverty is perhaps the wrong word here, I have used it, and so have others, it may not be poverty, but the working man's standard of life is suffering far more than the rich mans. How is that fair, or good for society?

What do you mean by 'make' the millions though? Isn't the key money-making bit, i.e. the bit that only very few people can do, the inventing part? And don't markets work both ways - isn't the wage the highest wage according to the market too?

And if we're not talking about poverty and its alleviation, is it really obvious and self-evidently fair that one man should improve another man's standard of life without asking anything in return?

[Lord Kangana]

That last sentence should answer your own question. To be successful in an enlightened Western European Social Democracy costs. Its only right that those who gain most from it should contribute most back. This isn't the Sudan, or Zimbabwe or a thousand other places in the world. We have social safety nets and the rule of law, universal healthcare and suffrage. It might be a thin veneer at times, but this contributes immeasurably to being successful.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

To be successful in an enlightened Western European Social Democracy costs. Its only right that those who gain most from it should contribute most back.

Which, as already established, is what would happen with a flat rate of income tax.

This isn't the Sudan, or Zimbabwe or a thousand other places in the world. We have social safety nets and the rule of law, universal healthcare and suffrage. It might be a thin veneer at times, but this contributes immeasurably to being successful.

With the slight exception of preferring the Singaporean health model to ours, I agree that safety nets, the rule of law, universal health care coverage and universal suffrage are highly desirable and crucial to prosperity.

[Prufrock]

To be successful in an enlightened Western European Social Democracy costs. Its only right that those who gain most from it should contribute most back.

Which, as already established, is what would happen with a flat rate of income tax.

This isn't the Sudan, or Zimbabwe or a thousand other places in the world. We have social safety nets and the rule of law, universal healthcare and suffrage. It might be a thin veneer at times, but this contributes immeasurably to being successful.

With the slight exception of preferring the Singaporean health model to ours, I agree that safety nets, the rule of law, universal health care coverage and universal suffrage are highly desirable and crucial to prosperity.

They don't contribute more, they contribute the same. They pay more but they have more money, and work and live in a system that is geared solely towards making them more money, and allowing them to keep more money.

You talk about inventing, I worked at Baxi over the summer, and they have a department for inventing, your top brass certainly don't work in there, nor to the people who do get paid the top whack. My uncle works in vehicle manufacture, you think the CEO invented cars? The CEO is undoubtedly more intelligent than my uncle, but is the gap, the gulf, in pay proportionate? Is the work he does more valuable to society? I don't think so. Yet the chiefs get paid more, and then take home hefty bonuses. Spending amongst the rich is up, and bonuses in the city are still massive. Come recession, who is getting hit? It isn't the rich man. My uncle isn't in poverty, but to suggest the massive dip in quality of life he has suffered, due to cut hours, and then only getting work every other week, and then every third week isn't important is insensitive, and distanced at best.

Law, healthcare etc cost, and whilst people living on the breadline struggle, genuinley struggle, to keep their heads above water, those with massive incomes aren't even feeling it. You go tell the factory workers, the postmen, the builders, that this system is fair. Why should those already suffering from mistakes made in a system, mistakes that weren't theirs, be the ones who suffer when the consequences of those mistakes are dolled out, how is that 'fair'?

[Worthy4England]

And the 50% tax is an impedement to ambition and wealth in what way?

It makes earning money less rewarding, and when something is less rewarding, people do less of it.

I'm still mystified as to why everyone earning over £150k is allegedly responsible for wealth creation almost to the exclusivity of people earning £149k and below. It's clearly a bollocks statement, from some people who clearly know bollocks all.

Agreed - now where has that particular statement been made?

Behind the news reporting, it's rather inherent.

In repeated conversations I have had with the country’s wealth creators — the individuals who are essential for a sustained economic recovery — they have been universally angered by the decision to increase taxation rates. They say it penalises success and attacks those who generate profit and employment.

The reporting would have you believe that the world will stop spinning. Fairly sure I could find other quotes in a similar vein.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So....... art. A fella buys painting for £12k, now worth £100million after being identified as one of Da Vinci's via fingerprint comparison.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 872019.ece














Wonder how much tax he'll pay on that capital gain.

[Worthy4England]

If he gives me the painting, I'll gladly pay it.

[CAPSLOCK]

Maybe you've missed the point of the above dialogue, but tell me, the point of making life easier for Lord Dyson would benefit who exactly? I don't see you getting het up about the 10% tax which is directly affecting far, far more people, and in a way that doesn't mean they have to scale back the footage of their yacht.

Well, Lord Dyson, for a start, who, despite having the temerity to be wealthy, is still a person, after all, with a reasonable claim to the fruits of his own skills, labour and even luck.

If we make it more attractive for Dyson to push on and make his next million, rather than decide not to bother, then that's good for our economy.

If Dyson stays in the country rather than relocating to Switzerland and paying tax into foreign coffers, that's good for British people too.

It's good for people to see Dyson getting rich, in Britain, and aspire to achieve similar.

Who makes him his millions though? Your working man, who gets paid the lowest wage possible according to the market, while Mr Dyson creams off the profits. Then recession comes, who gets hard? Is it Mr Dyson? The fact spending amongst the rich is up would suggest not, no, it's your working man again, on the breadline close to losing his job. Poverty is perhaps the wrong word here, I have used it, and so have others, it may not be poverty, but the working man's standard of life is suffering far more than the rich mans. How is that fair, or good for society?

And if Mr Dyson hadn't done his inventing, what then for these hard working down trodden meatheads?

[Prufrock]

Maybe you've missed the point of the above dialogue, but tell me, the point of making life easier for Lord Dyson would benefit who exactly? I don't see you getting het up about the 10% tax which is directly affecting far, far more people, and in a way that doesn't mean they have to scale back the footage of their yacht.

Well, Lord Dyson, for a start, who, despite having the temerity to be wealthy, is still a person, after all, with a reasonable claim to the fruits of his own skills, labour and even luck.

If we make it more attractive for Dyson to push on and make his next million, rather than decide not to bother, then that's good for our economy.

If Dyson stays in the country rather than relocating to Switzerland and paying tax into foreign coffers, that's good for British people too.

It's good for people to see Dyson getting rich, in Britain, and aspire to achieve similar.

Who makes him his millions though? Your working man, who gets paid the lowest wage possible according to the market, while Mr Dyson creams off the profits. Then recession comes, who gets hard? Is it Mr Dyson? The fact spending amongst the rich is up would suggest not, no, it's your working man again, on the breadline close to losing his job. Poverty is perhaps the wrong word here, I have used it, and so have others, it may not be poverty, but the working man's standard of life is suffering far more than the rich mans. How is that fair, or good for society?

And if Mr Dyson hadn't done his inventing, what then for these hard working down trodden meatheads?

They'd be making something else. However if they didn't do their working, what then for Mr Dyson? He'd be stuck making three hoovers a week scraping a living. Yeah he did some inventing, and deserves reward for it. Does he deserve as much as he has got though?