|
On April 09 2013 04:13 GenghisKhan wrote:Show nested quote +
Everyone agrees with that, but it's oversimplified. It depends on what you tax and how you tax it. For example, increasing income tax by 10% is not going to suddenly make business owners pack up and leave. Increasing corporation ta by 10% might.
You'd be surprised, actually. That would severely decrease the disposable income of a large proportion of the population, so some businesses' custom would suffer, and then they might leave. With economics, you can't really just look at direct or obvious effects of decisions.
I'm not so sure. Someone earning 150k (minimum amount for highest income tax band) would net £82.5k instead of 97.5k. It's more likely to decrease their capability to invest than it is to touch their disposable income (even with £40k living expenses they still have enough left over). But the way that most people invest nowdays does not really benefit the economy, so I think it would have little effect.
Edit, above is bad math. They would actually net more than that. They would go from netting 105.5k down to 90.5k.
|
Northern Ireland25216 Posts
On April 09 2013 04:19 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 04:13 GenghisKhan wrote:
Everyone agrees with that, but it's oversimplified. It depends on what you tax and how you tax it. For example, increasing income tax by 10% is not going to suddenly make business owners pack up and leave. Increasing corporation ta by 10% might.
You'd be surprised, actually. That would severely decrease the disposable income of a large proportion of the population, so some businesses' custom would suffer, and then they might leave. With economics, you can't really just look at direct or obvious effects of decisions. I'm not so sure. Someone earning 150k (minimum amount for highest income tax band) would net £82.5k instead of 97.5k. It's more likely to decrease their capability to invest than it is to touch their disposable income (even with £40k living expenses they still have enough left over). But the way that most people invest nowdays does not really benefit the economy, so I think it would have little effect.
It's a different world now, but top-band tax brackets used to be a hell of a lot higher, even in the States under Reagan than they are now and there wasn't some mass-exodus of talent to elsewhere, because of a lot of other factors keeping them staying put.
Granted the world was not as 'globalised' as nowadays and has changed in a multitude of ways, so directly comparing the world of today with then as regards taxation isn't necessarily a prudent exercise to indulge in.
|
Northern Ireland25216 Posts
On April 09 2013 04:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 04:11 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 09 2013 04:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 09 2013 03:57 Chaosvuistje wrote:On April 09 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 09 2013 03:45 Ksi wrote:On April 09 2013 03:38 HunterX11 wrote:On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote:
It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests. It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan. You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side. Or you're just a political bigot who believes whatever he sees on MSNBC... On April 09 2013 02:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Socialists and other creatures of the Left On April 09 2013 02:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Well Strawman leftist, I don't mind listening to arguments on both sides, but I have a strong dislike of hypocracy. If you're going to call people out on being a political bigot, I would hope that you would be decent enough to be better than the ones you accuse. On topic: So far I've been learning a lot on the subject from both right wing and left wing forums. I'll leave my judgement to the people that lived under her rule. Good bye to an influencial person of the 70's. Calling a socialist a socialist is not bigotry, it's identification.Now saying that all socialists want to put the heads of rich people on pikes or that all socialists are greedy powermongers who simply want to tell everyone what to do, that would be stereotyping at best and bigotry at worst. Let's please raise our level of critical thinking and reading comprehension from the horrible level of ability public and post-secondary education has given us, and start reading what is actually written. "Strawman leftist" was bad writing which I apologize for, he is a leftist using strawmen. So sadly, no. I was not being hypocritical. Don't make out that is what your posting in this thread has been like, because it's patently not. You know what you're doing so at least stand by it. That's nice. I disagree. Show nested quote +Calling someone a creature was more what I was refering to, not the socialist bit. Maybe my comprehension of english nuances is terrible but it generally doesn't come across as neutral. But I'll leave this thread before it derails even more. Ah well it is a nuance of English, the creature part was not meant pejoratively, I used it more as a synonym for creation of or member. Like, say, a "creature of the Right," would be someone on the Right who has been molded by Right-wing thinking, or simply, a "member" of the "Right" side of the spectrum.
You're not wrong, and you clearly know that the nuances are there to be taken either way. Hell it's how Rush Limbaugh and his equivalents on the left operate, they create an incredibly biased tone, but one that is close to impossible to 'prove' the bias in, if they get called on it they simply claim that are misinterpreted.
You're a pretty smart guy, a poster I disagree with on almost anything you stick here mind but whose posts are usually worthy of response. Alas I really couldn't be bothered because it'll descend into standard left vs right mudslinging. You can post in a more neutral tone without losing any of the points you seek to make, which would stimulate better discussion. That's my opinion, take it or leave it.
|
|
|
On April 09 2013 03:52 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 09 2013 03:45 Ksi wrote:On April 09 2013 03:38 HunterX11 wrote:On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote:
It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests. It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan. You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side. Or you're just a political bigot who believes whatever he sees on MSNBC... Point essentially made regarding about the biased/partisan political media in the States if ever one was needed.
English media is almost as bad, it's just our complete morons write for newspapers instead of making TV news shows,
|
On April 09 2013 04:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 03:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 09 2013 03:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 09 2013 03:45 Ksi wrote:On April 09 2013 03:38 HunterX11 wrote:On April 09 2013 03:23 Ksi wrote:
It's quite interesting to see the differences between America's narrative about Reagan after his death and Brit's reactions to Thatcher's death. They both pretty much harmed the exact same people, but our lower class has throngs of people who put Reagan below only Jesus. I envy you Brits for having a populace that is at the very least aware of their own self interests. It's actually a pretty good argument for the monarchy. Thatcher was never head of state, so loving or hating her is less about patriotism than it is for Reagan. You do have a point there, but I think it was only true back in the 80's. In today's political climate, only one side of our political spectrum uses the argument that hating on the President is somehow unpatriotic. The American right actually believes that the senators filibustering every bill, the congressmen yelling "you lie" at Obama at the state of the union, and all the other blanket hatred of our current president is actually their patriotic duty. Only they genuinely and truly believe that they represent the only "real" America. To them, they're literally fighting the anti-christ, and Republican Jesus is on their side. Or you're just a political bigot who believes whatever he sees on MSNBC... Point essentially made regarding about the biased/partisan political media in the States if ever one was needed. English media is almost as bad, it's just our complete morons write for newspapers instead of making TV news shows,
You should just be glad that you don't have anywhere from 35 to 70% of your voting population using those shit newspapers as their only source of news (or the only news that they "trust").
|
On April 09 2013 04:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 03:49 nunez wrote:On April 09 2013 02:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:
(also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now) the notion that social democratic countries in europe bar germany is crashing and burning is so stupid it is almost provoking, but maybe that was your intent all along. Very well, every social democratic country in Europe bar Germany that did not engage in social welfare and tax and banking reforms in the mid-1990s are currently crashing and burning. Those countries that did engage in sensible reform would be the Scandinavian countries, who experienced on a much smaller scale the very problems the Eurozone is facing now. And guess what: they made doing business easier in their countries, they broadened the tax base, they made parts of their welfare systems means-tested, and they crafted their welfare programs in general so as to actually get people back to Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, they're already crashed and burned. Greece is electing large numbers of neo-Nazis for Chrissakes. France is teetering, much of its banking system wrapped up in debts from the above countries. That's the elephant in the room, what will happen to France if the southern Euro countries fully go belly-up. Eastern Europe is stagnant, minus countries like Estonia that told Keynesians to screw off and find themselves in fine shape. Germany cannot (or rather, will not) hand out money forever. The Eurozone is fucked and not even heaven on Earth, Scandinavia, will emerge unscathed. But it will emerge less scathed because of reforms that tightened up the social welfare system probably about the time you stopped shitting in diapers. You probably would not have been happy about them at the time.
meanwhile,the us and the slightly less conservative uk are burning and crashing.At least theres some of us still doing well,you cant really say the same.
|
Northern Ireland25216 Posts
On April 09 2013 04:41 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 04:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 09 2013 03:49 nunez wrote:On April 09 2013 02:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:
(also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now) the notion that social democratic countries in europe bar germany is crashing and burning is so stupid it is almost provoking, but maybe that was your intent all along. Very well, every social democratic country in Europe bar Germany that did not engage in social welfare and tax and banking reforms in the mid-1990s are currently crashing and burning. Those countries that did engage in sensible reform would be the Scandinavian countries, who experienced on a much smaller scale the very problems the Eurozone is facing now. And guess what: they made doing business easier in their countries, they broadened the tax base, they made parts of their welfare systems means-tested, and they crafted their welfare programs in general so as to actually get people back to Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, they're already crashed and burned. Greece is electing large numbers of neo-Nazis for Chrissakes. France is teetering, much of its banking system wrapped up in debts from the above countries. That's the elephant in the room, what will happen to France if the southern Euro countries fully go belly-up. Eastern Europe is stagnant, minus countries like Estonia that told Keynesians to screw off and find themselves in fine shape. Germany cannot (or rather, will not) hand out money forever. The Eurozone is fucked and not even heaven on Earth, Scandinavia, will emerge unscathed. But it will emerge less scathed because of reforms that tightened up the social welfare system probably about the time you stopped shitting in diapers. You probably would not have been happy about them at the time. meanwhile,the us and the slightly less conservative uk are burning and crashing.At least theres some of us still doing well,you cant really say the same.
Incidentally, speaking of the Scandanavian countries, what welfare reforms did your governments bring in that were referenced here?
I find it rather strange that the countries that are regarded as the most left-wing in Europe would be the ones that aren't suffering as badly in this straightened economic climate. Off the top of my head iirc, Sweden's economy is 60% composed of activities that are state-run, be it welfare recipients, public servants or publicly-funded infrastructure works.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this idea that leftists are statists is pretty much missing the point. socially minded politics doesn't have to accept and support inefficient government. instead, figure out how to do things better, but for a broad based public welfare.
|
Northern Ireland25216 Posts
On April 09 2013 04:51 oneofthem wrote:
this idea that leftists are statists is pretty much missing the point. socially minded politics doesn't have to accept and support inefficient government. instead, figure out how to do things better, but for a broad based public welfare.
Exactly. Most non-idiots of the left have as much of a problem with inefficient spending, with the onset of a dependency culture etc as any on the right do. In fact, some of may get more annoyed, because these are the sticks that are frequently used to beat the entirety of left-wing politics.
|
|
|
It's kind of sad how many people are using this as a place to rile and hate on her even more, family's of ex-miners especially (like they have some basis to complain on).
But RIP she was the best PM we had in a while before and since.
|
The sign that Glasgow is a shithole ?
User was warned for this post
|
Why does Scotland hate her?
|
Having a family member myself who is 87, My condolences to her family.
Never paid to much attention to British politics.. Seems like the House of Commons was just a bunch of drunks yelling at each other.
|
theirs a big differences between the south of england and the rest of country more like
|
On April 09 2013 05:14 fcgog wrote:theirs a big differences between the south of england and the rest of country more like
there's a big difference between London and the rest of the country more like.
|
On April 09 2013 05:09 mdb wrote:
Why does Scotland hate her?
Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed.
Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
|
The Mogwai Song really became reality. Hilarious : D
|
United States42653 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:27 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Because she completely destroyed pretty much all industry and manufacturing in the north of England and Scotland, making entire communities unemployed. Something the British economy has still to this day not recovered from.
If those industries had been productive then they could have supported themselves and would never have ended up in the hands of the state. The industries died on their own, all Thatcher did was bury the corpses because after a decade of decomposition they were weighing heavily upon the rest of society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
