Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Two-Thirds Of Millionaires Left Britain To Avoid 50P Tax Rate


Recommended Posts

Everyone already knows this.

The point is the amount of rent paid and by whom. The state facilitates rent extraction that otherwise would not be possible, something that you have acknowledged consistently with your rants against the state.

You want the state to do the thing that you personally think are beneficial. Unfortunately so does everyone else. Everyone clearly can't have what they want and yet you are still a statist. This seems somewhat utopian.

Sorry, but can't really keep up with all these posts - I had to go out and pick up my daughter from work.

Lots of interesting questions though.

States have existed for thousands of years and for most of that time the dominant force was feudalism.

Then Capitalism evolved and the people in charge realised that if people were given freedom the wealth they generated would far exceed what they produced when they were essentially slaves.

My position on the state has been entirely consistent, I believe some form of state is inevitable so what we are trying to find is the smallest, least intrusive state that is possible, as I believe this will result in people having the most freedom.

My views on Socialism are derived entirely from studying what actually happened in the 20th Century

which seems a reasonable basis on which to form an opinion.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The things I listed as facts are facts.

Capitalism channels money to wealth creators - that's why it's called Capitalism

Socialism takes capital away from people who possess it and gives it to people who don't.

I understand why people are unhappy with the facts, because they tend to spoil the party.

No doubt food production figures have risen every year in North Korea, but the fact is, everyone is starving.

:blink:

Only fails because the psychotics who worme their way to the top do all they can to obstruct and manipulate the laws, checks and balances!

Why Marxism etc failed - utterly corrupt uber class

Link to post
Share on other sites

The things I listed as facts are facts.

Capitalism channels money to wealth creators - that's why it's called Capitalism

Socialism takes capital away from people who possess it and gives it to people who don't.

I understand why people are unhappy with the facts, because they tend to spoil the party.

No doubt food production figures have risen every year in North Korea, but the fact is, everyone is starving.

:blink:

You idiot, opinions are not facts.

Or am I the idiot for debating with a troll? Better stop...

Both left and right are required or else either path leads back to feudalism.

I'm probably right of centre not some pinko apologist but can't stand ignorant dogmatic anti-left American style tripe.

You are honoured to be the first ever poster to go on ignore for me, I honestly don't think there's any chance of me missing out on some great revelation.

What happened to your promise to post less?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You idiot, opinions are not facts.

Or am I the idiot for debating with a troll? Better stop...

Both left and right are required or else either path leads back to feudalism.

I'm probably right of centre not some pinko apologist but can't stand ignorant dogmatic anti-left American style tripe.

You are honoured to be the first ever poster to go on ignore for me, I honestly don't think there's any chance of me missing out on some great revelation.

What happened to your promise to post less?

I fell off the wagon.

And I honestly would like to know which of the facts I posted was an opinion

as far as I can see all the responses have been entirely ad hominem

no one has even attempted to actually address or refute the points I made.

This is why I said earlier it is a waste of time posting

Traktion is about the only person who actually bothers to think about and respond with a reasoned counter argument

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So landlordism and rent seeking are socialist activities?

Well as far as I remember when we had millions of council houses, people were required to pay rent

although Labour councils didn't bother collecting it in order to buy votes

hence Council Tax.

In Socialist states, where everything is owned by the state, then surely the State itself becomes the Landowner

so Socialism is no different to feudalism. Were ordinary people in the USSR any better off than they had been before Serfdom was abolished?

I own my own house, therefore I do not pay rent to anyone,

however, I have to pay council tax so even in our society the state is effectively my landlord.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans have always paid rent with or without a state

rent is the energy humans have to expend in order to defend their land

without land humans cannot survive

Monkeys do the same, as do most other living creatures

even ant colonies fight each other.

:blink:

How much energy have the majority land owners in the UK expended? Not very much at all, as the state does it for them.

Besides, just because you can 'expend energy to defend <stuff>', it doesn't mean it is right. You could argue for using energy to defend 'your' slaves too, but direct slavery has largely been rejected by civilised society.

Statism is just slavery, hidden under a posh suit. It's time it was rejected too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which fact do you disagree with?

Capitalism has been tried and that's why we now have jet airliners, computers etc, etc and produce vast amounts of food, energy and raw materials.

This never happened before, why?

And clearly capitalism concentrates capital in the hands of wealth creating individuals

and as far as I understand it, the whole point of Socialism is to remove capital from people who have amassed it and give it to people who have failed to amass it.

If you had 10k to invest would you lend it to Bill Gates or a tramp?

The whole point of many posts on this thread is the idea that people with wealth have stolen it from the poor and that if the poor steal it back everyone will be rich.

This isn't how Capitalism works, or what has actually happened throughout history.

:blink:

Socialism without statism, is just agreeing to share things. It is state socialism which forces people to share things.

There is nothing wrong with socialism via voluntary association. It is statism - forced association - which is the problem here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The things I listed as facts are facts.

Capitalism channels money to wealth creators - that's why it's called Capitalism

Socialism takes capital away from people who possess it and gives it to people who don't.

I understand why people are unhappy with the facts, because they tend to spoil the party.

No doubt food production figures have risen every year in North Korea, but the fact is, everyone is starving.

:blink:

The type of capitalism they operate out of The City ie Big Business are destroying monsters!

They even type-cast it blatantly Supermarket/Shopping "Chain" (as in yoke-chain of slavery)

City lends money to big business to expand

Big business moves in - wipes out loads of local smaller businesses.

Big Business channels cash profits (sucked out of local economies) back to headquarters.

Headquarters returns cash investments in vast 'concentrated' sums back to City who skim off profits.

The Bankers and a few at the very top break out the Bolly!

Soon there will be no one left buying their goods - as the rest of the country implodes as a third world economy.

This is what is causing massive damage to local economies

Edited by erranta
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like death camps, secret police and slavery if that's what you mean

and neither did the millions of people who risked death in the 20th Century attempting to escape from Socialist utopias

to the evil capitalist west.

And at the end of the day if Socialism worked, I would be all for it

and so would everybody else.

:)

Statism is a form of slavery, yet you seem pretty happy with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fell off the wagon.

And I honestly would like to know which of the facts I posted was an opinion

as far as I can see all the responses have been entirely ad hominem

no one has even attempted to actually address or refute the points I made.

This is why I said earlier it is a waste of time posting

Traktion is about the only person who actually bothers to think about and respond with a reasoned counter argument

:blink:

I'm glad you at least think they're reasoned, even if we don't agree! ;)

I don't have all the answers, but I don't believe statism (of any flavour) is the peak of what civilised society can achieve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statism is a form of slavery, yet you seem pretty happy with that.

Not sure why my position causes so much anger and confusion TBH.

History shows that some form of state is inevitable

so whether I think this is a good or bad thing is irrelevant.

Given that some form of state is inevitable, the argument is then what form should this state take?

At the end of the day existence itself a form of slavery

because if you don't get up every morning and fight for food and water you will perish

and human groupings which inevitably lead to states are just a logical consequence of this fact of nature.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you at least think they're reasoned, even if we don't agree! ;)

I don't have all the answers, but I don't believe statism (of any flavour) is the peak of what civilised society can achieve.

None of us has the answer.

Feudalism lasted thousands of years

and it will probably be hundreds of years at least before the whole of humanity

finally comes up with some sort of long term, stable alternative.

IMO some form of state is inevitable and Capitalism will never be abandoned because it was the force that finally usurped Feudalism.

The ultimate solution will include Capitalism, Democracy and some level of Welfare State

but Socialism is no different to Feudalism and will therefore not be part of the answer IMO.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much energy have the majority land owners in the UK expended? Not very much at all, as the state does it for them.

Besides, just because you can 'expend energy to defend <stuff>', it doesn't mean it is right. You could argue for using energy to defend 'your' slaves too, but direct slavery has largely been rejected by civilised society.

Statism is just slavery, hidden under a posh suit. It's time it was rejected too.

You have only got to look at what has happened in every country where the land has been stolen from those who previously owned it

and although slavery is clearly undesirable and inefficient, at the end of the day, most people would rather be slaves than starve to death.

We would really have to have an extremely long discussion about the origins of Feudalism in order to explain why it came about and then lasted for thousands of years.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

S*d it, where's the ignore button?

Never used it before, can't find it.....

You could always just stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la, la, la' loudly

:)

Seriously though, are you really not interested as to why my opinions annoy you so much?

because if you could work that out you would probably have learned something

:)

Edited by Game_Over
Link to post
Share on other sites

The type of capitalism they operate out of The City ie Big Business are destroying monsters!

They even type-cast it blatantly Supermarket/Shopping "Chain" (as in yoke-chain of slavery)

City lends money to big business to expand

Big business moves in - wipes out loads of local smaller businesses.

Big Business channels cash profits (sucked out of local economies) back to headquarters.

Headquarters returns cash investments in vast 'concentrated' sums back to City who skim off profits.

The Bankers and a few at the very top break out the Bolly!

Soon there will be no one left buying their goods - as the rest of the country implodes as a third world economy.

This is what is causing massive damage to local economies

+ Sipohing the profits abroad to eascape the taxation tht local companies have to pay

+ Using the businesses they "fund" as trading playthings - playing both sides up and down with the inside knowledeg they have of the company status - these traders don't get lucky when they short companies to ground each time the next funding comes round.

This is why we need an investment bank culture which has staff from all corners of the world - one which has no care in the world what happens to the host country as the result of their actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are confusing statism and states with sovereignty which is understandable .

Mankind has been proven over time to act somewhere between making the ultimate self sacrifice ( dying for ones family, country , or even beliefs) at one end and acting like a selfish ******* evil **** at the other.

The range is present in all humans but it reaches further in some than in others. The problem is ( and this is as a result of Darwinist 'survival of the fittest and natural section issues) is that generally in the short term (although long enough for permanent damage ) selfishness tends to be rewarded with better chances of survival .

Mankind had sought all firms of sovereignty to try and defy and temper this in order to bring lasting benefits to a greater number . Religion and other superstitions ( behave or you will go to hell) , appeals to better nature etc have all been tried .

Largely this fails unless a sovereign is appointed to enforce this because some people don't buy in and use the belief system to their advantage .

It can be a king , a church , an idea but people will generally require a sovereign to regulate themselves and provide common laws.

Most people simply argue what form is best . Some argue that none is required at all . It's an act of faith on both sides and I choose that a sovereign is best , that it will never be perfect and generally I think life under a western style capitalist democratic system is better than other alternatives whether they be tried or not.

I have no proof that I am right and neither does anyone else. I also couldn't really give a shit what most people thought because I'd defend my beliefs if I had to .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to stop posting here because it's a complete waste of time,

however, the responses to this thread really take the biscuit.

Did the 20th Century not happen? did I just imagine it ?

Capitalism has delivered untold wealth but the ruling elite have managed to corner most of that wealth.

The answer is not to destroy wealth creation, the answer is to stop the unproductive. parasitic, political classes stealing all the wealth created.

How we achieve this is clearly problematic

but the idea that a failed 19th Century ideology is the answer to the challenges of the 21st Century is absolutely ludicrous.

CAPITALISM delivers unprecedented wealth, SOCIALISM destroys wealth.

SOCIALISM is not the answer and it's so bloody depressing that the new generations haven't got the wit or imagination to at least try suggesting something that might just stand a cat in Hell's chance of working.

Please feel free to ignore this post, as none of the likely replies will add anything whatsoever to the debate.

:blink:

If capitalism is a very resent invention. Can you tell me when it was invented and by who and in which country it first took off?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are confusing statism and states with sovereignty which is understandable .

Mankind has been proven over time to act somewhere between making the ultimate self sacrifice ( dying for ones family, country , or even beliefs) at one end and acting like a selfish ******* evil **** at the other.

The range is present in all humans but it reaches further in some than in others. The problem is ( and this is as a result of Darwinist 'survival of the fittest and natural section issues) is that generally in the short term (although long enough for permanent damage ) selfishness tends to be rewarded with better chances of survival .

Mankind had sought all firms of sovereignty to try and defy and temper this in order to bring lasting benefits to a greater number . Religion and other superstitions ( behave or you will go to hell) , appeals to better nature etc have all been tried .

Largely this fails unless a sovereign is appointed to enforce this because some people don't buy in and use the belief system to their advantage .

It can be a king , a church , an idea but people will generally require a sovereign to regulate themselves and provide common laws.

Most people simply argue what form is best . Some argue that none is required at all . It's an act of faith on both sides and I choose that a sovereign is best , that it will never be perfect and generally I think life under a western style capitalist democratic system is better than other alternatives whether they be tried or not.

I have no proof that I am right and neither does anyone else. I also couldn't really give a shit what most people thought because I'd defend my beliefs if I had to .

Perhaps the dilema is that humans within a group will increase their chances of survival by co-operation within the group

but the group as a whole increases its chances of survival by out competing other groups for scarce resources.

Therefore humans are capable of co-operation at one level and entirely destructive behaviour at another.

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If capitalism is a very resent invention. Can you tell me when it was invented and by who and in which country it first took off?

Not sure anyone could give you a definitive answer to that question TBH

Coins are thousands of years old, but I would say capitalism did not really start up until the invention of fractional reserve banking which was started by Goldsmiths I believe. I understand that Jews were the originators in Europe as Christians were not allowed to lend money and charge interest. This is why Goldman Sachs are so hated on this forum.

Greece and Rome never had an industrial revolution, probably because they had slaves

and the industrial revolution which followed on from the agricultural revolution was probably caused by the shortage of labour following the Black Death.

In the past I have had people here insisting that the State is only a few hundred years old, so this discussion could also run and run.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I have read plenty of gush from the blatantly jealous who want anybody better off then them to leave the country.

There has been no shortage of pedants who cannot handle a counter intuitive idea and so retreat into the detail.

The reason for increasing the tax rate was to increase the tax take. There has been no evidence forthcoming that this has worked and the indications are quite the opposite.

This means that either the instigators were plain stupid or they were manipulating the base instincts of voters. No prizes.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I have read plenty of gush from the blatantly jealous who want anybody better off then them to leave the country.

I hear even more gush from people who are very well-off saying that they are going to leave the country if they are not allowed to be even more well-off for no extra work.

There has been no shortage of pedants who cannot handle a counter intuitive idea and so retreat into the detail.

The detail is important.

The idea that increases in tax rates end up decreasing the tax take is not particularly counter intuitive. However, this argument appears to be rolled out *whenever* tax hikes are suggested, with no supporting evidence as to what tax rate maximises revenue. And it is certainly not invoked when it comes to the marginal rates of taxation faced by benefits claimants going to work.

The reason for increasing the tax rate was to increase the tax take. There has been no evidence forthcoming that this has worked and the indications are quite the opposite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17465733

According to HMRC, the extra tax raised was about £1 billion.

To which I would add, tax shifting means that if we had kept that rate we'd expect that figure to rise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

According to HMRC, the extra tax raised was about £1 billion.

To which I would add, tax shifting means that if we had kept that rate we'd expect that figure to rise.

At what cost though? What will next years tax take be? Will it deter new investment? Will in encourage others to relocate?

I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but I don't think it is a simple calculation.

[Personally, I'd suggest that unless the social contract is voluntary*, it is all theft either way though. Therefore, debating how much should be taken and where the loot should be spent, is a moot point; it shouldn't be taken in the first place.

* NOTE: Before anyone says it, threatening someone until they relocate is hardly 'voluntary' either.]

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.

  • 433 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.