Interesting read. Sadly the power of the Tory PR machine is more than that of those wanting to get the truth to the average voter :-(
David Cameron tells porkies about Britain's national debt » Spectator Blogs
David Cameron tells porkies about Britain’s national debt
-------------------
Me: So a week ago you complain about the poor not getting enough benefits, now the debt is the problem... You can't have both. And right now you have a system leaning much more towards welfare. There is no austerity, spending has risen by the government over the last few years. If you want the debt reduced, reduce welfare (and contrary to guardian bullshit the rich DO NOT have enough to pay off britains debts, they might be able to pay for half-1 years spending)
-------------------
Actually you can Peter. A one off tax of 20% on the richest 10% would pay off the national deficit 4 times over and we'd still have cash to spend on the poorest in society. The only reason why we don't do this is because the richest 10% are selfish. Please research your argument before posting ignorant rubbish.
@Adrian- things must be really bad if the Spectator is criticising Cameron... That is the most Tory "newspaper" in the UK.
-------------------
Me: I believe you are talking about something like this:
A 20% wealth tax on the mega rich would raise up to £800bn
So with this system, you do a one off tax of 20% of 10%, OK, so for 4 years you have covered the deficit, great. But you aren't even taxing income any more, but wealth. Even if you take away all wealth from the rich your deficit is covered for 20 years... And despite their being monopolistic and uncapitalist rich people in society who I'd like taxed as much as you, that 10% has a lot of people who invest their wealth correctly.
And in this example I've ignored how much GDP would fall if you do this, the implications would be insane. I'm not saying all rich people are great, but I suggest you watch this video (it's for the US but the UK is the same)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
-------------------
The redistribution of wealth and increase in job creation would benefit the economy in real terms, increasing GDP directly by boosting productivity. The expenditure on luxury goods will likely be reduced, but how much use is an Armani sweater to the greater society anyway?
The rich will spend less, the poor will spend more. Robin Hood at his best
-------------------
Me: You didn't watch the video did you? Here it is written down:
iowahawk: Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
iowahawk: Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day
iowahawk.typepad.com
-------------------
Me: You are trying to solve major problems with temporary wealth taxes, what happens where theres no wealth left?
5 hours ago · Like
-------------------
Me: Also, you talk about luxury goods, the entire UK luxury goods market is 6.5bn (source:
https://www.ledburyresearch.com/news/archive/uk-luxury-goods-sales-seen-up-10-on-tourism-boom ), you really think that sort of money will impact the 1111bn pound national debt?
-------------------
"No wealth left"? How naive...
Your argument about the luxury goods expenditure being irrelevant proves my point.
-------------------
Me: "No wealth left" - you understand the scale of things you are talking about?
The top 10% is anyone earning over 50k (source:
Income in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
You are talking about taking away the WEALTH of everyone earning over 50k, that doesn't mean 10k of their earnings that year... That means forcing them to pay 60k for a 300k house they are living in (HOW do they do that exactly? you will destory the housing market), handing over 20% of their pensions & savings, everything. How many times do you think you could do this, and how would it impact the UK economy?
-------------------
You can't run out of wealth when the central bank is owned by the government (see quantitive easing). Furthermore, the 20% could be recovered via a deferred payment scheme for those who cannot pay outright.
It's true that QE can have a negative effect on pensions, but that's only because of the way the Tories are using the funds.
Let's look at the alternative: George Osborne's triple dip recession. You haven't a leg to stand on
Double blow to hopes of avoiding triple dip - Telegraph
-------------------
Me: If you really think wealth = money in the economy (in a paper non-backed money economy) then I rest my case.
-------------------
Me: Btw it's not either this or that - either LabLibCon - I personally think personal responsiblity needs to come back to Britain, huge cuts to almost everything government funded. Since 13 years of labour almost everyone is dependant on the government, the economy will never recover this way. Independent people, emotionally, economically, create wealth and a good economy, not a nanny state and lots of people trying to decide which socialist party to choose out of the 3.
-------------------
In regards to QE, if you really think money in the economy has no effect on wealth, then you need to go back to school.
There is a reason why all governments in the world are using it.
Haha @ "which socialist party". We are not living in the medieval age. We, as a society, have a collective responsibility to look after the weak, despite the selfish people
-------------------
Me: I am forced to have an obligation by the government. You are correct in that. It's not my choice, I'm not free. I'm not happy in a non-free society, you can be that's your choice. Also, I have no idea about your background, but I've got my own business, built from scratch, and I've created jobs. I'd probably have created more jobs if I wasn't taxed to ridiculous amount which are spent on the "poor". Who now instead of having a job I create sit at home. That's 1 less job in the economy, 1 more on welfare. The government doesn't have money. It takes from somewhere and gives it to someone else. It doesn't create jobs, it takes money from 1 potential job and creates one that probably isn't efficient. What do you do?
-------------------
I'm proud to live in a society where education, health, crime fighting, legal protection, housing, fire fighting and food is provided to those who need it. And I don't care if you aren't
I'm am a Financial Consultant, which is irrelevant to you in any case.
