The Unofficial and Independent Leyton Orient Message Board
https://lofcforum.com/forum1/phpBB3/
It’s slightly easier to be all equal when everyone is poor because the economy isn’t growing and most of the people who have the means to leave
Why would they get a tax rebate? The rents receivable by an offshore company are taxable in the UK. With the usual expenses and interest offsets being allowed.LittleMate wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:27 pmAnd those houses, factories and shopping centres(!) are probably already held in overseas companies. If they have the latter they would probably be getting a tax rebate anyway. Can't give away centres, or space in centres, atm.Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 2:30 pmTheir 'money' isn't sitting in bank accounts. It's in houses and factories and shopping centres and commercial office space and businesses and other real, tangible, fixed assets that you can't just pick up and take with you to the Cayman Islands or Monaco.LittleMate wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 1:27 pm
Taxing the mega rich has been tried. It did not work; they just took their money elsewhere.
Tax them on their wealth.
If it were that easy, why was it not announced day one? Or will it be by day 100???Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:58 pmWhy would they get a tax rebate? The rents receivable by an offshore company are taxable in the UK. With the usual expenses and interest offsets being allowed.LittleMate wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:27 pmAnd those houses, factories and shopping centres(!) are probably already held in overseas companies. If they have the latter they would probably be getting a tax rebate anyway. Can't give away centres, or space in centres, atm.Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 2:30 pm
Their 'money' isn't sitting in bank accounts. It's in houses and factories and shopping centres and commercial office space and businesses and other real, tangible, fixed assets that you can't just pick up and take with you to the Cayman Islands or Monaco.
Tax them on their wealth.
An easy way to raise more tax from the rents would be to disallow an interest deduction.
The simple reason is that Labour are now a party of business and it is against their neo liberal religion to defy their paymasters.LittleMate wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 8:30 pmIf it were that easy, why was it not announced day one? Or will it be by day 100???Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:58 pmWhy would they get a tax rebate? The rents receivable by an offshore company are taxable in the UK. With the usual expenses and interest offsets being allowed.LittleMate wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:27 pm
And those houses, factories and shopping centres(!) are probably already held in overseas companies. If they have the latter they would probably be getting a tax rebate anyway. Can't give away centres, or space in centres, atm.
An easy way to raise more tax from the rents would be to disallow an interest deduction.
Where did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:33 pmIt’s slightly easier to be all equal when everyone is poor because the economy isn’t growing and most of the people who have the means to leave
But yeah, that’s where socialism leads to as well
Populism thrives under this in a nutshell, until they get into power and usually make things worse. Then want to move to an authoritarian regime.Long slender neck wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 8:50 pm Do you really expect things are so simple they can just be done on day one?
People want simple solutions to complicated problems, but its not realistic.
Didn’t say the govt’s of the 70s were socialist (hence “as well”) so straw man.Admin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:42 pmWhere did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:33 pmIt’s slightly easier to be all equal when everyone is poor because the economy isn’t growing and most of the people who have the means to leave
But yeah, that’s where socialism leads to as well
Not sure the heath government of 70-74 could be described as socialist - nor the later Wilson / Callaghan governments. The latter abandoned plans for wealth tax as unworkable.
We’ve not had a socialist government in this country since 1951. Gone well since then hasn’t it?
Is the answer Cuba?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 6:40 amDidn’t say the govt’s of the 70s were socialist (hence “as well”) so straw man.Admin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:42 pmWhere did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:33 pm
It’s slightly easier to be all equal when everyone is poor because the economy isn’t growing and most of the people who have the means to leave
But yeah, that’s where socialism leads to as well
Not sure the heath government of 70-74 could be described as socialist - nor the later Wilson / Callaghan governments. The latter abandoned plans for wealth tax as unworkable.
We’ve not had a socialist government in this country since 1951. Gone well since then hasn’t it?
You fail to quantify what “gone well” would entail but since we’re discussing growth we’ve gone from the third to second in GDP in Europe since the 1970s.
You seem to bemoan a lack of socialist governments in the UK (apologies if I’ve misread your sarcasm). So I’d ask on return to name a country who has been a socialist state since the 1970s who have had better outcomes than us?
Not sure why you've brought socialism into it then if you weren't referring to the 70's governments. My original comment just made reference to the 70's and wealth inequality since.Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 6:40 amDidn’t say the govt’s of the 70s were socialist (hence “as well”) so straw man.Admin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:42 pmWhere did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:33 pm
It’s slightly easier to be all equal when everyone is poor because the economy isn’t growing and most of the people who have the means to leave
But yeah, that’s where socialism leads to as well
Not sure the heath government of 70-74 could be described as socialist - nor the later Wilson / Callaghan governments. The latter abandoned plans for wealth tax as unworkable.
We’ve not had a socialist government in this country since 1951. Gone well since then hasn’t it?
You fail to quantify what “gone well” would entail but since we’re discussing growth we’ve gone from the third to second in GDP in Europe since the 1970s.
You seem to bemoan a lack of socialist governments in the UK (apologies if I’ve misread your sarcasm). So I’d ask on return to name a country who has been a socialist state since the 1970s who have had better outcomes than us?
Oh, have I got that one incorrect? Is the answer North Korea?Friend or faux wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:42 am Just let a load of keyboard warriors from this website run the UK economy and with the likes of Max B Gold ( and his other aliases ) offering up Cuba as a role model, Jesus wept !
It was going so well that after little more than a term going back to the country to seek a larger majority and they lost - never to be seen again judging by your comment. Based on that, socialism as a popular concept has been dead in the UK for 70+ years. Quite sad really.Admin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:42 pmWhere did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:33 pmIt’s slightly easier to be all equal when everyone is poor because the economy isn’t growing and most of the people who have the means to leave
But yeah, that’s where socialism leads to as well
Not sure the heath government of 70-74 could be described as socialist - nor the later Wilson / Callaghan governments. The latter abandoned plans for wealth tax as unworkable.
We’ve not had a socialist government in this country since 1951. Gone well since then hasn’t it?
It is sad and just as sad that neo liberal capitalism will bring down liberal democracy and leave us with a brutal and ugly fascism.LittleMate wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:09 amIt was going so well that after little more than a term going back to the country to seek a larger majority and they lost - never to be seen again judging by your comment. Based on that, socialism as a popular concept has been dead in the UK for 70+ years. Quite sad really.Admin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:42 pmWhere did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:33 pm
It’s slightly easier to be all equal when everyone is poor because the economy isn’t growing and most of the people who have the means to leave
But yeah, that’s where socialism leads to as well
Not sure the heath government of 70-74 could be described as socialist - nor the later Wilson / Callaghan governments. The latter abandoned plans for wealth tax as unworkable.
We’ve not had a socialist government in this country since 1951. Gone well since then hasn’t it?
Ah dear old Teresa MayLittleMate wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:09 amIt was going so well that after little more than a term going back to the country to seek a larger majority and they lost - never to be seen again judging by your comment. Based on that, socialism as a popular concept has been dead in the UK for 70+ years. Quite sad really.Admin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:42 pmWhere did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:33 pm
It’s slightly easier to be all equal when everyone is poor because the economy isn’t growing and most of the people who have the means to leave
But yeah, that’s where socialism leads to as well
Not sure the heath government of 70-74 could be described as socialist - nor the later Wilson / Callaghan governments. The latter abandoned plans for wealth tax as unworkable.
We’ve not had a socialist government in this country since 1951. Gone well since then hasn’t it?
Thanks - I'm aware of that. Remind you again it wasn't me who brought socialism into this discussion.LittleMate wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:09 amIt was going so well that after little more than a term going back to the country to seek a larger majority and they lost - never to be seen again judging by your comment. Based on that, socialism as a popular concept has been dead in the UK for 70+ years. Quite sad really.Admin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:42 pmWhere did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 6:33 pm
It’s slightly easier to be all equal when everyone is poor because the economy isn’t growing and most of the people who have the means to leave
But yeah, that’s where socialism leads to as well
Not sure the heath government of 70-74 could be described as socialist - nor the later Wilson / Callaghan governments. The latter abandoned plans for wealth tax as unworkable.
We’ve not had a socialist government in this country since 1951. Gone well since then hasn’t it?
I didn't bring up socialism either!Admin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:57 amThanks - I'm aware of that. Remind you again it wasn't me who brought socialism into this discussion.LittleMate wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:09 amIt was going so well that after little more than a term going back to the country to seek a larger majority and they lost - never to be seen again judging by your comment. Based on that, socialism as a popular concept has been dead in the UK for 70+ years. Quite sad really.Admin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:42 pm
Where did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?
Not sure the heath government of 70-74 could be described as socialist - nor the later Wilson / Callaghan governments. The latter abandoned plans for wealth tax as unworkable.
We’ve not had a socialist government in this country since 1951. Gone well since then hasn’t it?
I'd understand the withering dismissal of socialism (which in reality in this country at best would be a very mild form of democratic socialism such as offered by Corbyn in 2017) if it was the cause of the current skip-fire we're in. But it isn't is it?
Er, no.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 9:14 amIs the answer Cuba?Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 6:40 amDidn’t say the govt’s of the 70s were socialist (hence “as well”) so straw man.Admin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 10:42 pm
Where did I say everyone was equal? And was everyone poor in the 70s?
Not sure the heath government of 70-74 could be described as socialist - nor the later Wilson / Callaghan governments. The latter abandoned plans for wealth tax as unworkable.
We’ve not had a socialist government in this country since 1951. Gone well since then hasn’t it?
You fail to quantify what “gone well” would entail but since we’re discussing growth we’ve gone from the third to second in GDP in Europe since the 1970s.
You seem to bemoan a lack of socialist governments in the UK (apologies if I’ve misread your sarcasm). So I’d ask on return to name a country who has been a socialist state since the 1970s who have had better outcomes than us?
This broken model you are so desperate to repair delivered the current bin fire.LittleMate wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 12:52 pmI didn't bring up socialism either!Admin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:57 amThanks - I'm aware of that. Remind you again it wasn't me who brought socialism into this discussion.LittleMate wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:09 am
It was going so well that after little more than a term going back to the country to seek a larger majority and they lost - never to be seen again judging by your comment. Based on that, socialism as a popular concept has been dead in the UK for 70+ years. Quite sad really.
I'd understand the withering dismissal of socialism (which in reality in this country at best would be a very mild form of democratic socialism such as offered by Corbyn in 2017) if it was the cause of the current skip-fire we're in. But it isn't is it?
The UK definitely needs something different to what's on offer - that is in the direction away from the one its heading in and more towards a caring society. If that's socialism then so be it - but how to achieve it without crippling society in the process is the issue for me. Idle comments like tax the billionaires and corporations is far too simple an approach to be successful. I think we have to start by accepting we have to repair the existing broken model rather than smashing it and trying to build a new one. The power to achieve that can only be achieved right now by being within the labour party. If it could be achieved in any other way then there would be an alternate mass leftist movement. The simple fact is that right now the support for such a party does not exist - which is why the more extreme elements shelter within the labour movement. What they need is a charismatic figure who can carry the argument with persuasion. They have yet to appear.