Will the Unions bring everyone to their knees?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

giving money directly... so we're on handouts now? bit leap.

what do you think the mid and higher earners do with their money? all those cars, building work, holidays, iphones etc just appear do they? they dont go to the supermarket, hairdressers, pubs or restaurants? where is this absurd notion that only one group of people spend their money coming from?

Ahem. That's trickle down economics, something that you said a moment ago is a myth invented by those who oppose it.

[Thunder Bolt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

it absolutly is a myth, only brought up by people saying how bad it is.

The Trickle down theory is that people who are the lowest earners start to be better off. Is anyone better off in the last ten years? Rees-Mogg has increased his value by over 14million. etc.
I don't see any working class people better off, unless you know better.

[Thunder Bolt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Many on here genuinely think people at lower pay ranges should be earning a lot more. Obviously this would have to come from somewhere. Do you think it should come from higher earners earning less or paying more tax. Do you think corporation tax should be increased.

I stated earlier the railway companies made over £500 millions profit. That is coming from the public paying sky high fares. Surely the workers contributing to those profits should have some reward?

[Neville's Breakfast]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

giving money directly... so we're on handouts now? bit leap.

what do you think the mid and higher earners do with their money? all those cars, building work, holidays, iphones etc just appear do they? they dont go to the supermarket, hairdressers, pubs or restaurants? where is this absurd notion that only one group of people spend their money coming from?

I don’t think that’s quite right. People on lower incomes do spend/consume a greater proportion of their income whereas higher earners save/invest. Cutting taxes for low earners is a tool used to stimulate demand in the economy.If you need to stimulate investment then cut taxes for higher earners and/or raise interest rates. Thats all fine. It’s just that the problem at the moment is not insufficient demand. Quite the reverse hence we have inflation so economically the Government would not be trying to increase earnings of the lower paid. Trickle down economics is a term used by Ronald Reagan although he probably got it from somewhere.

[amexer]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Here, I'll disagree. Although the notion of tax cuts should be nipped in the bud, for the simple reason that we can't afford them, the key issue with taxation is that the burden should shift away from taxation of labour, and towards the taxation of assets and certain forms of consumption: conspicuous, anti-social, anti-environmental.
We need labour, it's what produces value, and it is also what's required to stop destroying and denigrating what provides value (ie our life-support machine). Go after assets. Amongst other things, go after the City of London, and all the tax havens and dodgy jurisdictions it facilitates. Introduce a land value tax. Increase inheritance tax Increase capital gains tax. Increase taxes on second (and third, and fourth, ...) properties. And so on

I've dispensed this advice on multiple occasions: read ch 17 of Capital and Ideology by Thomas Piketty.

Thanks One person has come up with how extra money should be raised. Interesting opinion. If down this route I think far more assets moved abroad and far less rented property available
I would still like to know where money is coming from as nobody has suggested a higher tax band for big earners or increase in corporation tax

[pb21]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's hyperbole in the context you used it in. No argument was demolished. The nature of debating is one person has an opinion and another person has a different opinion. They get discussed and debated and you're welcome to champion whoever you thought won but to suggest someone was "demolished" is ridiculous and lowers the tone of the discussion.

Personally, I would prefer both sides debate like adults without trying to grandstand. That's best left for PMQs, this is the real world and impacts real people. People trying to travel, go to work, put money into the economy by enjoying days out, etc.



If that's your opinion, sure. Personally, I've not seen any interviews so far where anyone has been humiliated. Some people are making points I thoroughly disagree with, both in content and intention. But I wouldn't argue anyone has been humiliated for stating their opinion and justifying it. I'm welcome to review any video I haven't so far seen.

It sounds like you haven't seen the interviews with Lynch where the interviewer doesn't put their opinion or argument across, but rather attempts to character assassinate, directly or indirectly.

It is these instances, and there have been a few, where he has quite succinctly demoloshied (other adjectives, or is it verbs, I'm probably illiterate, are in the dictionary) the other person.

[beorhthelm]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ahem. That's trickle down economics, something that you said a moment ago is a myth invented by those who oppose it.

its just basic economics, money circulates, from Alice to Bob to Eve, regardless if they earn 50k, 10k or 31.2k. some companies get involved along the way, employ people to make things, provide service, pay some executives and shareholders, who buy things and so on. the notion of trickle-down economics was about tax cuts, not stated as a formal economic theory and been re-appropriated in various meme like forms.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t think that’s quite right. People on lower incomes do spend/consume a greater proportion of their income whereas higher earners save/invest. Cutting taxes for low earners is a tool used to stimulate demand in the economy.If you need to stimulate investment then cut taxes for higher earners and/or raise interest rates. Thats all fine. It’s just that the problem at the moment is not insufficient demand. Quite the reverse hence we have inflation so economically the Government would not be trying to increase earnings of the lower paid. Trickle down economics is a term used by Ronald Reagan although he probably got it from somewhere.

now thats getting into a lot more nuance. someone on lower income might spend greater proportion of income, assuming some level of saving which many dont, the mid and higher earner is still be spending more. Alice has 31k after tax and savings, Bob has 10k, Eve has 20k. who do you reckon spends the most money?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t think that’s quite right. People on lower incomes do spend/consume a greater proportion of their income whereas higher earners save/invest. Cutting taxes for low earners is a tool used to stimulate demand in the economy.If you need to stimulate investment then cut taxes for higher earners and/or raise interest rates. Thats all fine. It’s just that the problem at the moment is not insufficient demand. Quite the reverse hence we have inflation so economically the Government would not be trying to increase earnings of the lower paid. Trickle down economics is a term used by Ronald Reagan although he probably got it from somewhere.

It was coined by Will Rogers, in mockery, in the 1930s. Without any hint of irony, Reagan appropriated it as if it were a real phenomenon.

In a wider context, my initial awareness of the RMT strike came fully loaded with my prejudices against union leaders, an expectation there was no just cause, and a depressing sense that all Johnson needed to do was raise one eyebrow and express his condolences to the poor inconvenienced general public, and then usher in some new union laws, and another 3 million voters would flock to his plushly upholstered bosom, come next election time.

Instead, as @Thunder Bolt's post above, and many others attest, and my own research shows, this is a just cause, and the leadership is measured and informed. From a bloke called 'Mick', too. Who would have thought?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

its just basic economics, money circulates, from Alice to Bob to Eve, regardless if they earn 50k, 10k or 31.2k. some companies get involved along the way, employ people to make things, provide service, pay some executives and shareholders, who buy things and so on. the notion of trickle-down economics was about tax cuts, not stated as a formal economic theory and been re-appropriated in various meme like forms.

Yes, but we all understand what is meant by it, and many on the right still believe in it, whereas everone else things it doesn't work. It may be a meme but it isn't a 'myth' invoked only by those who 'oppose it'.

Let me keep this simple, since you don't appear to like long sentences. Do you support the idea of selective tax cuts for the rich as a means of making the poor better off?

[Uh_huh_him]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

giving money directly... so we're on handouts now? bit leap.

what do you think the mid and higher earners do with their money? all those cars, building work, holidays, iphones etc just appear do they? they dont go to the supermarket, hairdressers, pubs or restaurants? where is this absurd notion that only one group of people spend their money coming from?

You.
I have no problem with high earners. Our society should be set up to make as many of them as possible.
Instead of making the super-rich, richer, at the expense of those with the least.

That's the whole point.