Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Boris says
Don't Tax the Rich,they'll move away. Answer ? tax the Poor {the Tories always do} they can't move away.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Tax the rich. They won't pay.
Tax the Poor. They can't pay.
So that just leaves the middle classes.
Can't remember who said that.
But it's true.
The rich are rich because they won't pay and can afford the accountants to make sure they don't. I often thought, considering how much some accountants charge, wether it wasn't just cheaper to pay the tax bill.
Tax the Poor. They can't pay.
So that just leaves the middle classes.
Can't remember who said that.
But it's true.
The rich are rich because they won't pay and can afford the accountants to make sure they don't. I often thought, considering how much some accountants charge, wether it wasn't just cheaper to pay the tax bill.
Is that Boris Johnson the part time Mayor and �250,000 columnist for the Daily Telegraph?
Well he would say that wouldn't he.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/15/da ilytelegraph.pressandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed =media
Well he would say that wouldn't he.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/15/da ilytelegraph.pressandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed =media
the problem with taxing the "rich" is that pretty soon you realise that the "rich" soon run out. You can tax them 95% like Wilson did but the actuall amount it rasies is very little it becomes envy tax and supresses general endeavour. So what do we call Rich? they are talking about 45% for people earning over 150k well hat won't wash the sheets in the NHS so in reality the masses have to stump up in the end. All the "tax the rich" statements bandied about by politicians are sound bites. They know that tax rises for the masses and major cost cuts in the public sector are what is needed but they can't say that.
the good old days
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2w7ALMIUy74&feat ure=related
::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2w7ALMIUy74&feat ure=related
::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
People still have this stupid Thaterite idea that running a countries finances is like balancing a families bank account.
It isn't.
When you spend more do you get more income back from taxation on generated wealth? - No
Does a countries debt have to be paid back before it retires and stops earning money? - No
spending more money now - if done sensibly may actually save us money and not require increases in taxation.
However I'm not personally convinced that cuts in VAT are sufficiently specific.
Once again I am drawn to Liberal Democrat ideas that now is the time for a massive increase in social housing.
Land is cheap, builders are unemployed and the housing problem has not gone away.
It would also go some way to slowing the house price collapse and negative equity problems.
I have to say that Tory ideas of cutting NI seem moronic.
But then VAT cuts don't benefit businesses (Tory heartland support) and NI cuts do.
Strangely I don't think cuts in employers NI will do anything at all for employment when order books are empty.
Employers will just say "thanks" and pocket the money
It isn't.
When you spend more do you get more income back from taxation on generated wealth? - No
Does a countries debt have to be paid back before it retires and stops earning money? - No
spending more money now - if done sensibly may actually save us money and not require increases in taxation.
However I'm not personally convinced that cuts in VAT are sufficiently specific.
Once again I am drawn to Liberal Democrat ideas that now is the time for a massive increase in social housing.
Land is cheap, builders are unemployed and the housing problem has not gone away.
It would also go some way to slowing the house price collapse and negative equity problems.
I have to say that Tory ideas of cutting NI seem moronic.
But then VAT cuts don't benefit businesses (Tory heartland support) and NI cuts do.
Strangely I don't think cuts in employers NI will do anything at all for employment when order books are empty.
Employers will just say "thanks" and pocket the money
By "social housing", jake, do you mean housing that is constructed at a cost to taxpayers and provided at unrealistically low rents, or more usually no charge to predominantly non-taxpayers?
Sounds like a good deal to me. Just the thing hard-pressed families struggling to pay their mortgage would like to see their increasing tax and NI spent on.
Wonder if, having paid for them, I'll be allowed to have one of these "Social Houses"? (Answers on a postcard, please).
Sounds like a good deal to me. Just the thing hard-pressed families struggling to pay their mortgage would like to see their increasing tax and NI spent on.
Wonder if, having paid for them, I'll be allowed to have one of these "Social Houses"? (Answers on a postcard, please).
jno
do you need one, New Judge? If so, I don't see why you shouldn't have as much chance of getting one as anyone else who does.
Do you actually know what you are talking about jno?
Let us assume that New Judge is a white single straight, wage or salary earning English born male.
Can you now please tell us what is chances are of ever becoming a 'Social Housing' tenant?
My answer? Nil.
do you need one, New Judge? If so, I don't see why you shouldn't have as much chance of getting one as anyone else who does.
Do you actually know what you are talking about jno?
Let us assume that New Judge is a white single straight, wage or salary earning English born male.
Can you now please tell us what is chances are of ever becoming a 'Social Housing' tenant?
My answer? Nil.
What a bizarre argument.
The point of social housing is that it's there for people who need it, not for people who want it or for people who have paid for it though tax. It's set aside for those who can't afford to get by without it - so you're less likely to require one if you're "salary earning". Quite why you'd envy someone who qualifies for one is beyond me.
It's like me complaining that I don't get offered a bed on dialysis unit.
"Think not what your country can do for you..."
The point of social housing is that it's there for people who need it, not for people who want it or for people who have paid for it though tax. It's set aside for those who can't afford to get by without it - so you're less likely to require one if you're "salary earning". Quite why you'd envy someone who qualifies for one is beyond me.
It's like me complaining that I don't get offered a bed on dialysis unit.
"Think not what your country can do for you..."
My hatred is not of taxes per se, Quinlad. It is what is done with some of the revenue.
The argument I put forward is not bizarre. What I do consider bizarre is that people think it perfectly acceptable to use taxes raised from already hard-pressed families to sustain the lifestyles of large numbers of people who simply refuse to help themselves.
Your analogy with someone in need of kidney dialysis is specious. Apart from the odd alcoholic, almost all patients needing such treatment need it because of no fault of their own. A better analogy would be with those needing A&E treatment because of drug or alcohol abuse, or because they were fighting outside the pub on Saturday night.
A large number (though not all, so please don�t jump down my throat) of people who �can�t afford to get by without it� require social housing because of their lifestyle choices. Among these are single mothers who see their ambition as free council accommodation for them and any children they see fit to have; �asylum seekers� who have chosen to come to the UK in search of riches; career unemployed who have no intention of ever trying to support themselves; workers from other EU countries who arrive here with no visible means of support.
This country will never prosper whilst huge amounts of tax revenue are spent providing housing free of charge for such people. To suggest that a way to stimulate the economy is by spending vast sums to perpetuate this truly is bizarre. It may employ a few builders, but the cost to the wider community would be ridiculously prohibitive.
The argument I put forward is not bizarre. What I do consider bizarre is that people think it perfectly acceptable to use taxes raised from already hard-pressed families to sustain the lifestyles of large numbers of people who simply refuse to help themselves.
Your analogy with someone in need of kidney dialysis is specious. Apart from the odd alcoholic, almost all patients needing such treatment need it because of no fault of their own. A better analogy would be with those needing A&E treatment because of drug or alcohol abuse, or because they were fighting outside the pub on Saturday night.
A large number (though not all, so please don�t jump down my throat) of people who �can�t afford to get by without it� require social housing because of their lifestyle choices. Among these are single mothers who see their ambition as free council accommodation for them and any children they see fit to have; �asylum seekers� who have chosen to come to the UK in search of riches; career unemployed who have no intention of ever trying to support themselves; workers from other EU countries who arrive here with no visible means of support.
This country will never prosper whilst huge amounts of tax revenue are spent providing housing free of charge for such people. To suggest that a way to stimulate the economy is by spending vast sums to perpetuate this truly is bizarre. It may employ a few builders, but the cost to the wider community would be ridiculously prohibitive.
You're right to say that a large number require social housing because of their lifestyle choices. Not all - not the majority either.
But there's the distinction between one side of the political divide and the other.
One side can handle scroungers and layabouts and asylum seekers being given free housing, if it means that the neediest people in society have somewhere to live. That's the price. Call them softies...
The other side won't stand for any underserving cases being given a home - even if that means vulnerable people in society are shafted. That's how much they want to hang on to their money.
But there's the distinction between one side of the political divide and the other.
One side can handle scroungers and layabouts and asylum seekers being given free housing, if it means that the neediest people in society have somewhere to live. That's the price. Call them softies...
The other side won't stand for any underserving cases being given a home - even if that means vulnerable people in society are shafted. That's how much they want to hang on to their money.
