Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Keith, who thinks that 3.5m is acceptable?
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
accepting the way forward is drastic cuts will end up with over 4 million on the dole thats reality
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Keith I'm beginning to think you're on a constant wind up. Have a look at places like Greece and ask yourself why they're in so much trouble, then tell me why we'll be any different in 5 years if we keep borrowing money.
Of course you can always explain the alternative to less borrowing, I'm keen to hear a solution to our problems because no politician has one.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
no wind up david reality!!!!!!
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Well dodged again Keith.
I repeat, what do you propose we do to reduce our £trillion debt or are you happy that we can carry on servicing it?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
David i'm with you on the problem, how we solve it is where we may differ, whilst fully accepting the problem is there
putting over 4 million on the dole do you know the cost?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
OK we're making progress, we've agreed there is a problem.
Whats your solution?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Round and round in circles Keith - your enthusiasm for putting people on the dole is disturbing allied to your refusal to address the need to rebalance the economy boosting the private sector to get growth.
The base line is that if you are spending too much money as the government is you have to cut your spending and the longer you delay doing that the worse your problem gets. There is no alternative.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
I'm leaving this now, I've no wish to be seen to be ganging up and bullying.
The worrying thing is the end result is the people complaining now are the ones who ultimately will suffer most, just ask the Greeks and the Spanish
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
1-Unearned income = swinging tax rate
2-Job-creating investment = less swinging tax rate (on and off the job training essential)
3-Companies earning by trading in the Sterling Economy, but for tax reasons based elsewhere pay a VAT premium rate, VAT+20% (say)
4-ALL property-tax due irrespective of the present 'niceties'.
5-Unemployment benefit to become asset-citizen-allowance. [NOT lazy people forced into labour, but a method of ensuring that there is employment and training readily available for all, and a skilled and trained workforce available to society and industry]
I think it only right that I offer only one handful at a time.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Whats unearned income?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
unpaid overtime.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Eh? How can you tax it if its unpaid?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
exactly david.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"This little piggy went to market, this little piggy...."
http://www.investorwords.com/5141/unearned_income.htmlIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Still unclear Tom, that refers to unearned income from investments and property which infers people have taken a risk. Do you propose underwriting losses or just taxing profits?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that link says it all, i have always taken those to be unearned income whether it is risk based or not.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
"What Alexander suggests is economic suicide, pure theft and belongs in broken Mickey Mouse dictatorships. Totally bonkers, the kind of thing that should be restricted to student common-room debating and then forgotten about in the real world"
Barry is clearly stating that the super-rich in the UK, who have each private assets of at least £100 million, in many cases hundreds of millions of pounds, and in some cases over £1 billion, should be allowed to keep all this "wealth", and continue adding to it!
He then goes on to try to make people believe that the business people in Britain, who he claims to be speaking for, are all included in this category! That they all are super-rich.
The fact is, many business people in Britain, people who own a business, and have entrepreneurial skills, are NOT in the super-rich category.
Barry is NOT talking for them, he is only talking for the super-rich who have no skills other than hoarding the Country's money in private assets.
People with entrepreneurial skills, trying to run a factory or business, would probably agree with me that our economy has gone bezirk owing to the wealth-hoarding of the super-rich, who Barry is trying to associate with business owners, many of whom probably earn no more than tens of thousands of pounds a year in personal income once all expenses are paid!
These people have obviously no connection to the super-rich.
In fact many business people have gone bankrupt, and are going bankrupt, and will continue to do so, because in many cases they end up earning only thousands of pounds a year, and then end up in debt!
In fact a Wealth-Redistribution Law would be as much to the benefit of the poor as to many of the people running a business, as it would allow normal people to do their everyday shopping and purchase items which they need, which is what businesses rely on!
It would allow the Government, Central and Local, to have the funds to start training courses and introduce the unemployed to employment opportunities, and to create production where other people have closed the factories down and transferred production to India and China.
What Barry writes, comparing business people with skills to the super-rich whose only skill is to hoard the Country's wealth, is a complete deception of economic reality.
I would suggest that many business people in Britain would laugh at Barry's comparisons!
He doesn't speak for them, but only for the wealth-hoarders!
Barry, what these wealth-hoarders do is theft, to use your definition, and it is utterly surprising that you compare them to business people with skills.
Do you actually have any idea how many companies and firms in Britain have gone bankrupt? How many people with skills have been driven into bankruptcy while others hoard and amass wealth in the hundreds of millions of pounds each?
You are NOT talking for business people!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
this wealth distribution lark seems to be catching on
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander all that you prove is that you know nothing about how the economy works or anything about what you talk about.
All the entrepreneurs you refer to would love their small businesses to be huge successes, tomorrow's Microsoft and become 'super-rich'. Its called aspiration and without it people will not invest, will not take risks. Why bother if what you make risks getting confiscated. Microsoft, Apple etc were all small businesses once.
Of course people want to keep their own assets and property, why on earth should they not? Why should people not want to increase their assets however much they have? Good for them because to do that they will to invest money in existing businesses or start new enterprises - all of which add to employment and growth providing jobs. Maybe they spend it too, good - because that means money is being spent in shops, good are being produced to feed that demand and in so doing jobs are produced....
Wealth redistribution as you suggest would be stealing the assets from people to give to to others who sit on their backsides doing nothing. We have enough problems now with a tax system doing just that - rewarding people for doing nothing while taking it off those who work. Doing it on the scale you suggest is plain bonkers and it is wrong and impractical on so many level, immoral and dangerous.
Absolute rubbish Alexander - there are just not the words to describe how demented your confiscatory ideas are and the complete disaster they would be for any economy. It would be an end to inward investment, dictatorial government, an end to aspiration and a country destined for third world status.