Stupid World

[Viking01]

Interesting movements in the Conservative leadership race.

Dr David Starkey has given Kemi a rub and in a poll by Conservative Home - Kemi has a rather nice lead (out of about 1,000 people polled)

There's also the Lord Ashcroft twitter poll, 70,000 votes - Kemi out on top as well.

The issue here is that it's the MPs voting for the leader, and they seem to be allergic for voting for someone vaguely Conservative.

Still, I've got my hopes on Kemi.

Morning.

Yes, I see your horse is starting to make a delayed run up the inside. Though, of course, I realise the Guardian might not be the best "tip sheet" to indicate her current running. I won't wish her "break a leg" (good luck) as that might be mis-interpreted.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...p-culture-wars

[Edit 19.07.2022]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ace-final-four

[pete376403]

Okay, I was interested in what he had to say right up until this line:

"Cutting Taxes doesn't increase productivity"

At which point, I dismissed everything he had to say on any matter. And here is why - Let's take that argument to it's absolute logical extreme:

100% Tax on everything (which also means 0 productivity or people are enslaved), if we reduce Tax from that point, is there an increase in productivity? The answer is objectively yes.

Therefore the absolute statement of 'Cutting Taxes doesn't increase productivity" is wrong, he went on for a bit (citing Reagan) and failed to clarify or add any nuance.

He might have interesting ideas, but on fundamental Economics, he is not merely wrong - but ideologically wrong.

What does ideology have to do with it? Something is either eight or wrong - what your ideology has to do with it is irrelevant. "
Ideology is a set of beliefs that favours the interests of a group."

Also - 100% Tax on everything (which also means 0 productivity or people are enslaved) . Are you saying the slaves in the cotton fields never produced anything? Maybe they didn't get paid, but the sure produced

[TheDemonLord]

Morning.

Yes, I see your horse is starting to make a delayed run up the inside. Though, of course, I realise the Guardian might not be the best "tip sheet" to indicate her current running. I won't wish her "break a leg" (good luck) as that might be mis-interpreted.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...p-culture-wars

If you are a Conservative PM Candidate and the Guardian hates you, then you are probably the best person for the job

[TheDemonLord]

What does ideology have to do with it? Something is either eight or wrong - what your ideology has to do with it is irrelevant. "
Ideology is a set of beliefs that favours the interests of a group."

Because it is a tenant of faith amongst Left-Wing types that Tax Cuts don't work. I smelled a rat and sure enough in the debate video he confirmed he's a Labour supporter. Funny that.

For the fully nuanced position - there seems to be a tax rate where there is maximum productivity. With zero taxation, we don't get any public goods (Roads, Public infrastructure etc. etc.) and this leads to a decrease in productivity, at 100% taxation, we don't have anything (see below) and so we get zero productivity. Therefore, like any bell-curve - there is a point at which there is peak productivity.

A Tax cut to return to this point will increase productivity. This is also not to say that you can't play around with positions on that Bell Curve - there may be times when it is appropriate to exceed this in the short-term, but it should be used sparingly and with caution.

Often the data on this is a little difficult to interpret because there is a delay between a Tax Cut and the realization of the investments made (IIRC it's around 2-5 years) and this is often used by the people like in the video as 'proof', but it merely demonstrates their economic illiteracy.

You say in your reply that "Ideology is a set of beliefs that favours the interests of a group." So here's an idea - the envious educated Middle-class types (that now make up the Labour base) hate 'the rich' because they are more successful than they are and so in a moment of absolute hubris think they can spend the money of the Rich better than the Rich can.

And so in line with that set of beliefs, that definitely favours the interests of a group - we get the repeated mantra that 'Tax cuts don't work'.

To quote Maggie "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Also - 100% Tax on everything (which also means 0 productivity or people are enslaved) . Are you saying the slaves in the cotton fields never produced anything? Maybe they didn't get paid, but the sure produced

Hang on a sec... I said 100% tax... on everything - If the Government keeps everything that you hypothetically could (or would) produce and you didn't get any benefit from it, would you produce anything?

You might be able to use horrendous force and tyranny to do so, but even places like North Korea still maintain a Currency of some form and allow a degree of private ownership - because in order to maintain such an absolute tyranny over someone, requires a massive managerial overhead - and those people hypothetically would also not get to keep anything - so where is their incentive? and so-on and so-forth leading to the ultimate demise and collapse of the Civilization (AKA every Communist country before they realized that you need some form of Free Market)

Or if you want an argument that isn't in economic terms - Historically a professional, volunteer Army will out-perform a Conscript army. You can force someone to do something they don't want to do with a limited degree of success, but you will never outperform someone who does it of their own free will.

[pete376403]

Comment from that you tube: "This is my first time at Davos and I find it quite a bewildering experience, to be honest. I mean, 1500 private jets have flown in here to hear Sir David Attenborough speak about, how we‘re wrecking the planet.

And I hear people talking the language of participation and justice and equality and transparency but then, no-one raises the real issue of tax avoidance, right? And of the rich just not paying their fair share. It feels like I’m at a firefighters conference and no-one is allowed to speak about water, right?

There was actually only one panel apart from this one, one panel hidden away in the media center that was actually about tax avoidance. I was one of the 15 participants. Something needs to change here.

I mean, 10 years ago the World economic forum asked the question, what must industry do to prevent a broad social backlash? The answer is very simple: Just stop talking about philanthropy and start talking about taxes. Taxes, taxes. We need to.

Just two days ago there was a billionaire in here - what‘s his name? - Michael Dell. And he asked a question like, name me one country where a top marginal tax rate of 70% has actually worked? And, you know, I am a historian - the US, that’s where it has actually worked, in the 1950s, during Republican President Eisenhower, the war veteran. The top marginal tax rate was 91% for the people like Michael Dell. The top estate tax for people like Michael Dell was more than 70%. I mean, this is not rocket science.

We can talk for a very long time about these stupid philanthropy schemes. We can invite Bono once more. But, come on, we‘ve got to be talking about taxes. That‘s it. Taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullshit in my opinion.

(Rutger Bregman on the Davos World Economic Forum 2019)"

[TheDemonLord]

Comment from that you tube: "This is my first time at Davos and I find it quite a bewildering experience, to be honest. I mean, 1500 private jets have flown in here to hear Sir David Attenborough speak about, how we‘re wrecking the planet.

And I hear people talking the language of participation and justice and equality and transparency but then, no-one raises the real issue of tax avoidance, right? And of the rich just not paying their fair share. It feels like I’m at a firefighters conference and no-one is allowed to speak about water, right?

There was actually only one panel apart from this one, one panel hidden away in the media center that was actually about tax avoidance. I was one of the 15 participants. Something needs to change here.

I mean, 10 years ago the World economic forum asked the question, what must industry do to prevent a broad social backlash? The answer is very simple: Just stop talking about philanthropy and start talking about taxes. Taxes, taxes. We need to.

Just two days ago there was a billionaire in here - what‘s his name? - Michael Dell. And he asked a question like, name me one country where a top marginal tax rate of 70% has actually worked? And, you know, I am a historian - the US, that’s where it has actually worked, in the 1950s, during Republican President Eisenhower, the war veteran. The top marginal tax rate was 91% for the people like Michael Dell. The top estate tax for people like Michael Dell was more than 70%. I mean, this is not rocket science.

We can talk for a very long time about these stupid philanthropy schemes. We can invite Bono once more. But, come on, we‘ve got to be talking about taxes. That‘s it. Taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullshit in my opinion.

(Rutger Bregman on the Davos World Economic Forum 2019)"

If the WEF say something, then almost always, the Opposite is True.

I don't comment or reference them much - however I will say this: If you take Klaus Schwab, both the person and his actual quotes, put them into a Movie - everyone would say "That's a super villain, when is James Bond going to come and foil his evil plan?"

However to answer the question about Tax Rates - that's simple: The barrier to moving vast sums of money around the world in the 1950s was still very high. The realization of War-time technology into the Commercial sector by the 1960s meant that those Billionaires could now move their money around and avoid the ridiculously high taxes of the Eisenhower era, hence the lowering of Income Tax from the 1960s onwards - because (as it turns out) it's better for the country if the Billionaires keep their money onshore where it is being invested into the nation.

I should make the point I'm not condoning Tax Avoidance and there are a good number of Tax Loopholes I would have no objection to being closed. Only to point out that if you appeal to people's self-interests, they are more likely to do what you want.

[Viking01]

If you are a Conservative PM Candidate and the Guardian hates you, then you are probably the best person for the job

Morning.

Well, on that basis, then Rishi should surely be "the man" ?. [ Are you still allowed to say that these days ? The man. You know, the one with male genitals ?]

The Conservatives could have saved themselves a lot of time and effort, and just asked the Guardian for their recommendation.

https://sputniknews.com/20220718/sec...097421074.html

[TheDemonLord]

Morning.

Well, on that basis, then Rishi should surely be "the man" ?. [ Are you still allowed to say that these days ? The man. You know, the one with male genitals ?]

Not really, I mean he went along with various disastrous policies advocated by the Left....

Sure, he's a Millionaire at a young age and very much a Toff - but it's on the Policies where you see the difference in dislike between Him and Kemi.

The Conservatives could have saved themselves a lot of time and effort, and just asked the Guardian for their recommendation.

https://sputniknews.com/20220718/sec...097421074.html

I mean Sunak and Truss pulling out - more because they can see they are getting Spanked in the polls by Kemi - I may even pull out my old UK address just to write to the local Conservative Minister to urge them to vote for Kemi.

[Viking01]

Not really, I mean he went along with various disastrous policies advocated by the Left....

Sure, he's a Millionaire at a young age and very much a Toff - but it's on the Policies where you see the difference in dislike between Him and Kemi.

So what are these "various disastrous policies advocated by the Left" that he endorsed ? Were these relating to Brexit, or the covid crisis ?

[pritch]

Just two days ago there was a billionaire in here - what‘s his name? - Michael Dell. And he asked a question like, name me one country where a top marginal tax rate of 70% has actually worked? And, you know, I am a historian - the US, that’s where it has actually worked, in the 1950s, during Republican President Eisenhower, the war veteran. The top marginal tax rate was 91% for the people like Michael Dell. The top estate tax for people like Michael Dell was more than 70%. I mean, this is not rocket science.

Exactly. When the top marginal tax rates were high the Yanks built cities, motorways, bridges, and put men on the moon. Now their infrastructure is crumbling. Both parties know that, both parties talk about it, but neither party has done anything about it.

The Republicans use scare tactics and tell people the government want to take 70% of their money. The current proposal is that the government will take 70% of income after you've earned ten million in any one year. Very different. Anyone who has earned ten milion in a year should start to pay some tax.

How it works now the big corporations and the billionaires don't pay tax. Warren Buffet said his secretary pays more tax than he does.

[TheDemonLord]

Exactly. When the top marginal tax rates were high the Yanks built cities, motorways, bridges, and put men on the moon. Now their infrastructure is crumbling. Both parties know that, both parties talk about it, but neither party has done anything about it.

Well... this is partially true, many of the great cities in the US were booming before the Great Depression, The Interstate system was definitely the brainchild of Eisenhower, Bridges and other big Infrastructure that was done during the Great Depression (as part of Public Works Administration) - was certainly paid for by a noticeable increase in Taxes - however, I get to counter and point to Thomas Sowell's analysis of Government Intervention and how it prolonged the Economic impact.

The Republicans use scare tactics and tell people the government want to take 70% of their money. The current proposal is that the government will take 70% of income after you've earned ten million in any one year. Very different. Anyone who has earned ten milion in a year should start to pay some tax.

That's still taking 70% of something. So hardly Scare Tactics. Besides, people also remember Bernie Sanders - it's the Millionaires and Billionaires rhetorhic, which curiously changed to 'It's the Billionaires' when it was revealed that he, himself, was a Millionaire.

How it works now the big corporations and the billionaires don't pay tax. Warren Buffet said his secretary pays more tax than he does.

This isn't the whole truth.

Big Corporations pay Tax on Net Profit, so often to avoid a big tax bill, they will re-invest that money, that Re-investment will often incur some form of Tax, but not 'Income Tax'. For example - instead of paying 70% on Net Profit, you invest in a new site for a Warehouse, paying instead a property/land tax. They are still paying Tax and furthermore (this is the bit that is omitted) that re-investment increases Money Velocity and also creates jobs etc.

The Billionaires are a different story - they DO pay tax, Elon Musk is documented as having paid the largest single tax bill in US history. But they only pay Tax on Income. And how a Billionaire lives is vastly different from you or I.

Case in point with Mr Musk - he has shares in various companies, which are worth Billions. Because these companies are new, they aren't paying dividends on the shares yet. So, on paper he is worth Billions, but he is receiving No Income - remember the 'trend' a few years ago when big CEOs would announce they were taking a $1 Salary? It wasn't purely altruistic...

So you have no taxable income but a lot of material wealth (shares), how do you live? Well most of them actually borrow money to live their lifestyles. Not at rates that You and I can dream of, but extremely low percentage loans, to cover their daily expenses - it's a Loan, it's not Income. Then, when it's time, they will liquidate some of their assets (which IS income), pay Tax on that (See the example of Mr Musk), pay off their debts and start the process anew.

So yes, they do infact pay Tax - when they make an Income. They don't make an income every year, so often you can have the scenario where 'they pay less tax than their secretary' - but this is only partially true. Once they sell their shares, they do pay tax. A lot of tax. In fact the top 1% of income earners pay nearly 40% of all income Tax.

[Viking01]

....

So yes, they do in fact pay Tax - when they make an Income. They don't make an income every year, so often you can have the scenario where 'they pay less tax than their secretary' - but this is only partially true. Once they sell their shares, they do pay tax. A lot of tax. In fact the top 1% of income earners pay nearly 40% of all income Tax.

https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/56597.htm

Amazon and Bezos

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...0bn-more-taxes
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ower-antitrust

[TheDemonLord]

https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/56597.htm

Amazon and Bezos

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...0bn-more-taxes
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ower-antitrust

I mean, this only serves to prove my point - if you look at the actual detail.

Their wealth increased, but not their income.

If and when they sell their shares, they will pay Tax on them - just as Elon Musk did ($11 Billion Dollars IIRC).

[Viking01]

I mean, this only serves to prove my point - if you look at the actual detail.

Their wealth increased, but not their income.

If and when they sell their shares, they will pay Tax on them - just as Elon Musk did ($11 Billion Dollars IIRC).

You are quite correct on all points. Stock options and favourable tax legislation are indeed wondrous things.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/10/i...ill/index.html

[mashman]

OMG, a Conservative is going to win the Conservative leadership race, become PM, and serve more Conservative policy... and people will celebrate ...