Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
thecrashingisles

Guardian V Telegraph Bunfight Over 50% Tax Rate

Recommended Posts

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100089687/dont-worry-adele-the-telegraphs-got-your-back

The singer Adele seems to have upset the Guardian with this comment in an interview:

“I’m mortified to have to pay 50 per cent!”, she said. “[While] I use the NHS, I can’t use public transport any more. Trains are always late, most state schools are shit, and I’ve gotta give you, like, four million quid – are you having a laugh? When I got my tax bill in from [her album] 19, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire.”

Best comment:

Do you know why Adele has incorrect opinions and doesn't realise she's supposed to keep them to herself? Working class! Born to a teenage single mum, grew up in Tottenham and West Norwood. Never went to uni. How would she possibly know she's supposed to have fashionable left wing opinions when there's media about?

Guardian thread here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2011/may/25/adele-tax-grievances

Edited by thecrashingisles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty of stuff about the Guardian's moves to make it 'tax efficient'. They really should not be throwing stones.

But the Guardian has a moral imperative to be 'tax efficient'. Every pound they give to Polly Toynbee instead of the government helps those in need where it matters most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about her.

Usual bullsh1t from mega rich.

She seems happy to ignore the millions she gets to keep as a wealth transfer from the poor who buy her sh1t.

Silly b1nt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This puts the Guardianistas in a bit of a dilemma, doesn't it? On the one hand we have a pop singer whose audience is almost entirely women and whose feminist credentials are thus impeccable. Yet on the other, she comes out with political views that are more aligned with Thatcher's than Toynbee's. Of course they'll just ignore the contradiction, just as they do whenever they publish 'Don't let's be beastly to the Muslims' type stories shortly before Muslims stone to death an unmarried mother in the name of their religion.

Edited by The Ayatollah Buggeri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about her.

Usual bullsh1t from mega rich.

She seems happy to ignore the millions she gets to keep as a wealth transfer from the poor who buy her sh1t.

Silly b1nt.

The poor voluntarily buy her stuff, clearly they don't think it's sh1t.

On the other hand the poor also get robbed to keep the likes of Peter Mandelson in the style to which they have become accustomed, and they don't even get a CD for it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now then, which newspaper changed its corporate status to avoid a tax bill on the sale of its interest in a well-known web-site?

Hint: It wasn't the telegraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poor voluntarily buy her stuff, clearly they don't think it's sh1t.

On the other hand the poor also get robbed to keep the likes of Peter Mandelson in the style to which they have become accustomed, and they don't even get a CD for it...

The pricing structure, her income and the income of the people buying her records is extant given the tax rates which obtain.

She's making the mistake of thinking that her 'income' is the 100% figure, which it isn't. It's the figure net of tax.

If one changes the tax structure, then that in turn changes everything else. Quite probably most of the people buying her records wouldn't have the money to do so and her income would drop.

If for instance all her customers paid enough tax so we didn't have a deficit and were repaying back the debt, were fully contributing to pensions, were fully funding services, her income might only be 27p.

She's rich - she needs to get over fat cockney self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pricing structure, her income and the income of the people buying her records is extant given the tax rates which obtain.

She's making the mistake of thinking that her 'income' is the 100% figure, which it isn't. It's the figure net of tax.

If one changes the tax structure, then that in turn changes everything else. Quite probably most of the people buying her records wouldn't have the money to do so and her income would drop.

If for instance all her customers paid enough tax so we didn't have a deficit and were repaying back the debt, were fully contributing to pensions, were fully funding services, her income might only be 27p.

She's rich - she needs to get over fat cockney self.

Nah, she's right.

Taxes are theft.

Theft is never good value for money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100089687/dont-worry-adele-the-telegraphs-got-your-back

The singer Adele seems to have upset the Guardian with this comment in an interview:

Best comment:

And she has a damn good point, tbh.

IMO, as long as she isn't restricting access to resources needed by others, why should she have to pay so much tax? If she was buying up half of the UK's BTLs (although maybe she is for all I know?), I'd have less sympathy. As it stands, it just sounds like she's getting picked on for being rich.

Ask yourself this: If a mob had to go around to her house to collect the 4 million, would it seem as fair then? The state hides such a morally defunct situation, under a gloss of spin. It does't make it any less morally defunct though.

As for the "Henry Ford Argument - well if she didn't give her money to others, to buy her music, then she wouldn't get paid" argument, it's as pointless as the broken windows fallacy demonstrates. She would be better off sitting on her ample ****, than going round in circles for nothing.

Taxation should always be a last resort*. There are very few situations in which there isn't a perfectly good free market alternative, which doesn't revolve around gun waving by people in smart suits.

* Maybe a LVT, but there are even ways to avoid that if we made the effort. It is so very lazy to validate the government's authority to apply violence so recklessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

If for instance all her customers paid enough tax so we didn't have a deficit and were repaying back the debt, were fully contributing to pensions, were fully funding services, her income might only be 27p.

...

We wouldn't even have a deficit if people hadn't robbed the future generations in the first place. As if robbing the current rich wasn't enough... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We wouldn't even have a deficit if people hadn't robbed the future generations in the first place. As if robbing the current rich wasn't enough... <_<

it's fair enough !

Governments aren't just a big room full of people, they have special magical powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have often likened broadcast spectra to land. That it should be taxed. Given her overly beneficial income from the usage of such spectra, should she not have to pay tax to do so? Just because it is collected via the normal means does not mean she should not pay for that infrastructure and public property.

Nah.

Someone getting a benefit doesn't automatically mean they owe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have often likened broadcast spectra to land. That it should be taxed. Given her overly beneficial income from the usage of such spectra, should she not have to pay tax to do so? Just because it is collected via the normal means does not mean she should not pay for that infrastructure and public property.

Well, Geoism considers air waves in the same way as land. AFAIK, the government already sells licences for radio bands and it is illegal to broadcast said bands without one. The licence cost will be like paying rental to the government, in keeping with the principles of Geoism.

Ofc, Internet broadcasts are a different thing, as you can have as many as you need, with the bandwidth used paid by the customer.

EDIT: To add, commercial stations would pay for this via advertising, of which they attract by playing music from people like Adele. It opens a can of worms regarding copyright/IP etc, but sticking to the tax paid to society for the use of radio waves, there is a mechanism here already.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's rich - she needs to get over fat cockney self.

Don't start with the 'cockney' crap. You don't like her, that's your right, but that's derogatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, she's right.

Taxes are theft.

Theft is never good value for money!

Gimmie your money.

Why?

Or I'll break your legs!

Oddly enough a large number of people are conditioned into accepting this kind of extortion, just by looking at this thread too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of the money taken from her goes back out in payments to council employees, those on benefits, employees in subsidised industries etc, who then use that money to buy her album. In a way she is kinda subsidising her own record sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There do exist taxes. However, is it right that someone who uses and benefits so much from a public good pays the same as everyone else. You argue for a Poll Tax whereas I had you down as a Land Tax type?

I'm not sure I follow. The radio companies benefit from here being a good singer, which brings in listeners, which brings in advertising, which pays for the rental of the radio waves. That she is paid more or less for her music seems fine to me (and in line with georgist principles) - the taxation on the radio waves is only to compensate others for not being able to use them*.

* Whether she is played more or less than others very much depends on the demands of the listeners too. They will only stay tuned in, if they like what they here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of the money taken from her goes back out in payments to council employees, those on benefits, employees in subsidised industries etc, who then use that money to buy her album. In a way she is kinda subsidising her own record sales.

You could make the same argument about any money that she spends or invests in the economy. It's all cyclical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimmie your money.

Why?

Or I'll break your legs!

Oddly enough a large number of people are conditioned into accepting this kind of extortion, just by looking at this thread too!

Unfortunately so, but IMO people have to realise this before anything will change.

I know that Injin favours a collapse, followed by a rebuild on firming foundations, but I don't think that will work either. People have to admit that there is a problem before they can go about fixing it. Right now, if the government vanished tomorrow, after years of indoctrinating violence into the general public, how do we suppose the general public would act? I would very much expect to continue in how they have been educated - by using violence to get what they want.

For me, we have to collectively realise this. People have to un-educate themselves of what has been ground into them since birth. Only then can things change and the apparatus of the state can start being dismantled. Otherwise, we will just repeat the same cycle as history has shown many times.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of the money taken from her goes back out in payments to council employees, those on benefits, employees in subsidised industries etc, who then use that money to buy her album. In a way she is kinda subsidising her own record sales.

Why is it in her interest to do that? She may as well just keep hold of the money and spend some time relaxing instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.