rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 7,905
good input!And to think many here believe a Labour Gov't are going to be our saviours !!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10
- Thread starter Rdodge30
- Start date
Barnet Seagull
Luxury Player
UBI is why a broader tax scope is required. If you tax the entire economy, you're taxing financial institutions and speculators more heavily as they move vast sums around. What you also will see is more long term ism in the markets and lower volatility, both of which are fundamentally good for the economy. You also see additional costs associated with increased processing, so simpler becomes cheaper. Anyway, back to the football.
Agree with almost everything, but not on the idea of winding down all other taxes. We need to find a way in this country of taxing wealth (as in accumulated wealth, not income) to try and equalise society.
In your response you said you viewed the hypothetical scenario as “show me someone with real problems”. Judging people like this is exactly what UBI doesn’t do.
And that's why it would cost well over £500billion a year.
Barnet Seagull
Luxury Player
I'm with you. APT does this over time but it's a long game. I've considered this a lot. Wealth does get taxed as part of any transaction as it moves around e.g. interest, capital gains, inheritance etc. But the whole point of APT is that it is a neutral and not punitive tax to individuals. It doesn't have the scope to hit accrued personal wealth which is a limitation for those who want full equity but this could take place preceding full implementation if desired.
Philosophically, if APT is set at a level which provides an acceptable UBI and decent public services, it matters a lot less. The incentive to gain and keep individual wealth needs to remain.
Put simply, if UBI is £16k a year, for most people that won't be enough money to pay for anything more than the very basics. You will need to provide your labour and top it up. If taxes are small and linear, the link between work and money is stronger, I.e. what you earn, you keep. There is less resentment and arguably more incentive to work. Being able to grow wealth and keep it I think is a good thing.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 10,810
Labour still have some way to go rooting out the antisemites. Great progress has been made, but recent events haven’t been a good look.
First real error so far from Starmer in my view with his initial comments and inaction - not that it changes my voting intentions, before the usual mob swoop in. Labour or bust.
Labour have to be hardline over antisemitism. This needs to go away once and for all.
First real error so far from Starmer in my view with his initial comments and inaction - not that it changes my voting intentions, before the usual mob swoop in. Labour or bust.
Labour have to be hardline over antisemitism. This needs to go away once and for all.
Does that mean kicking out party members/candidates for criticism of the Israeli government as well as being antisemitic?
It seems that the first comment by the clown of Rochdale was an absurd slur relating to the astonishingly unpopular Israeli government but he then backed it up with something more serious.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 10,810
No it doesn’t mean that. It means not using antisemitic slurs at all - it’s really very simple.
It doesn’t matter how fair and objective an opinion is if it comes from a place of racial or religious intolerance and is preceded by open hate.
They’ve done well getting lots of the antisemites out since Corbyn, but they need to be absolutely zero tolerance. Starmer fumbled it at first, and it can’t happen again.
Labour suspends parliamentary candidate Graham Jones over 'unacceptable' Israel comments
The row comes after the party was forced to disown its Rochdale by-election candidate Azhar Ali over alleged "antisemitic" comments.
news.sky.com
These idiots are Undoing the good work SKS has done in rooting out the some of the scum bags in his party
Good that these individuals have been stood down, and shows the party are taking this seriously IMHO
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,720
I'm not sure the words 'fair and objective' can go hand in hand with racial or religious intolerance.
But you have accidentally given a summary of the problem. Folk with fair and objective opinions are being accused of racial or religious intolerance and open hate.
I've seen a few reports of the reasons why Labour have expelled people. And they have often been expelled for no good reason. They dared attack the Israeli government's foreign policy.
Thousands of kids are dead. And folk desperately try to silence concerns with claims of anti-semitism ( a strange phrase given that Arabs are semitic) in folk hostile to these actions.
This is becoming like when a black person says they have been criticised because of their race, or a gay person because of their sexuality or a white person because they are 'white working class'. No, you are just wrong. That was why.
Fair and objective opinions should be reasoned with, regardless of where they come from, real or, often in the current situation, contrived as a buffer.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
This Graham Jones chap sounds like a right charmer.
I don’t really see why they need to TBH, this will be a bit of a weird vote now (Galloway probably wins) but come election time it’s likely with a proper candidate (and the vetting process will be in overdrive) then Labour would be red hot favourites to take it back.
What this does show is the Daily Mail, having sat on this until he couldn’t be replaced on the ballot, are bricking it about the election and will deploy every dirty trick in the book.
Labour suspends parliamentary candidate Graham Jones over 'unacceptable' Israel comments
The row comes after the party was forced to disown its Rochdale by-election candidate Azhar Ali over alleged "antisemitic" comments.
These idiots are Undoing the good work SKS has done in rooting out the some of the scum bags in his party
Cants see the issue with what Graham Jones said.
Allowing UK citizens to go and fight for a genocidal army that upholds Apartheid state shouldn't be lawful.
Starmer can put his feet up now - no chance he won't win.