Boris will be OK!!

[Ken L]

1 hour ago, big_cod said:

When tax is 45% and then raised to 50% do you actually think they are going run abroad whrn they are making millions and millions here  daily it’s complete  rollicks . So Ken £450 billion spent by the party you voted for just splashed  about and your worried about  another £40-50 billion !!!!!! to reduce bills  on the most vulnerable in this society . 
 

So you obviously think these price hikes are sustainable do  you your in for one almighty shock very very soon . The public know they are being milked and it’s coming to times up . And it will not be that people’s fault it’s greed corporations stealing money .

To be liable for the 45% tax band, you need to be earning in excess of £150,000.

That's a good correlation with the top 1% of earners, because to be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK, one needs to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income - a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required.

That's handy, because we can easily show that the top one per cent pay 30 per cent of all income tax revenues.

The total UK Income Tax take is £221 billion.

30% of that is £66.3 billion.

Increasing the 45% highest tax band to 50% for the top 1% of earners, would therefore raise income tax revenue by just £7.4 billion. If we go wild and crazy and say the few that we've missed by the tax band being set at £150,000 and the top 1% threshold being £160,000, that might stretch to £10 billion a year.

What are you going to get for £10 billion a year?

It doesn't come close to the £40-50 billion that you think it would cost to reduce bills on the most vulnerable in this society, does it?

As to whether the most wealthy are going to leave if you start stealing more of their money... Yes, of course they are! I've just shown you two examples from the 2020s where exactly that has happened. Are you so thick that you think that the immutable laws of human behaviour don't apply in this country?

Edited July 19, 2022 by Ken L

[big_cod]

1 hour ago, Ken L said:

To be liable for the 45% tax band, you need to be earning in excess of £150,000.

That's a good correlation with the top 1% of earners, because to be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK, one needs to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income - a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required.

That's handy, because we can easily show that the top one per cent pay 30 per cent of all income tax revenues.

The total UK Income Tax take is £221 billion.

30% of that is £66.3 billion.

Increasing the 45% highest tax band to 50% for the top 1% of earners, would therefore raise income tax revenue by just £7.4 billion. If we go wild and crazy and say the few that we've missed by the tax band being set at £150,000 and the top 1% threshold being £160,000, that might stretch to £10 billion a year.

What are you going to get for £10 billion a year?

It doesn't come close to the £40-50 billion that you think it would cost to reduce bills on the most vulnerable in this society, does it?

As to whether the most wealthy are going to leave if you start stealing more of their money... Yes, of course they are! I've just shown you two examples from the 2020s where exactly that has happened. Are you so thick that you think that the immutable laws of human behaviour don't apply in this country?

So Ken any shortfall in compensating shareholders which the government have the right to set the price can be met with government bonds to pay the debt . Saying tax payers a fortune each year in charges .Any share you buy is a gamble same a racehorses the market goes up and down . So your money in the bank and interest rates drop it’s a gamble .So the  government set the share price to compensate they have the full right to do so .that’s stocks and shares for ya boom and bust .And if your not happy hard luck shares are gambling .

Professor Hall calculates that the average household would be £142 better off a year as a result of nationalising energy grids, and £113 better off if English water companies were publicly owned. This figure was 3 years ago it would now be substantially higher in savings for the consumer.

Price increases  by these companies have seen rises above inflation every year for  the ripped off consumer.

Edited July 19, 2022 by big_cod

[Ken L]

26 minutes ago, big_cod said:

So Ken any shortfall in compensating shareholders which the government have the right to set the price can be met with government bonds to pay the debt . Saying tax payers a fortune each year in charges .Any share you buy is a gamble same a racehorses the market goes up and down . So your money in the bank and interest rates drop it’s a gamble .So the  government set the share price to compensate they have the full right to do so .that’s stocks and shares for ya boom and bust .And if your not happy hard luck shares are gambling .

That's a word salad to disguise theft.

If I buy shares in a company, those shares are subject to market forces, but if a gangster comes in and puts a gun to my head and says "I'm taking your shares. I'll give you 1p 'compensation' for each one", that is theft.

Interesting though that in addition to a total disregard for democracy, you have no regard for property rights - just like every tin-pot dictator the world has ever seen.

Tell me, Paul, what do you think government theft of shares would do for the value of stocks traded in the City of London?

How many jobs would be lost as corporations moved their headquarters out of the UK and stopped trading their shares in the City? How many billions do you reckon that would cost the economy?

Edited July 19, 2022 by Ken L

[chesters1]

Sorted it for you clod

25 minutes ago, big_cod said:

So Ken any shortfall in compensating shareholders which the government have the right to set the price can be met with government bonds to pay the debt . Saying tax payers a fortune each year in charges .Any share you buy is a gamble same a racehorses the market goes up and down . So your money in the bank and interest rates drop it’s a gamble .So the  government set the share price to compensate they have the full right to do so .that’s stocks and shares for ya boom and bust .And if your not happy hard luck shares are gambling .

Professor Hall calculates that the average household would be £142 better off a year as a result of nationalising energy grids, and £113 better off if English water companies were publicly owned. This figure was 3 years ago it would now be substantially higher in savings for the consumer.

Price increases  by these companies have seen rises above inflation every year for  the ripped off consumer.

 

[Ken L]

42 minutes ago, big_cod said:

So Ken any shortfall in compensating shareholders which the government have the right to set the price can be met with government bonds to pay the debt . Saying tax payers a fortune each year in charges .Any share you buy is a gamble same a racehorses the market goes up and down . So your money in the bank and interest rates drop it’s a gamble .So the  government set the share price to compensate they have the full right to do so .that’s stocks and shares for ya boom and bust .And if your not happy hard luck shares are gambling .

Professor Hall calculates that the average household would be £142 better off a year as a result of nationalising energy grids, and £113 better off if English water companies were publicly owned. This figure was 3 years ago it would now be substantially higher in savings for the consumer.

Price increases  by these companies have seen rises above inflation every year for  the ripped off consumer.

BTW, is that the same Professor David Hall, who is Professor of Chemical Ecology in the Agriculture, Health and Environment Department at the University of Greenwich?

Because if it is, he has no experience in economics or public policy at all, that I can see.

[chesters1]

Its clods opinion he grasps all the time ,if a mouse squeaked a word clod thought would bolster his post he would quote it

2 hours ago, big_cod said:

My new thread is doing well

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by chesters1

[big_cod]

35 minutes ago, Ken L said:

That's a word salad to disguise theft.

If I buy shares in a company, those shares are subject to market forces, but if a gangster comes in and puts a gun to my head and says "I'm taking your shares. I'll give you 1p 'compensation' for each one", that is theft.

Interesting though that in addition to a total disregard for democracy, you have no regard for property rights - just like every tin-pot dictator the world has ever seen.

Tell me, Paul, what do you think government theft of shares would do for the value of stocks traded in the City of London?

How many jobs would be lost as corporations moved their headquarters out of the UK and stopped trading their shares in the City? How many billions do you reckon that would cost the economy?

Non no jobs they earn far much far to much money , what about insider trading Ken you think that doesn’t go on on stock market daily sending shares up and down .
Put the top rate to 55% that’s an extra 20 billion a year , what about your tax that biggest in 70 years and worried about the billionaires are they worried about you don’t be stupid they couldn’t give a flying hook about you .

And your concerned about about raising £ 50 Billion hoe dare you , your pals in the tory party have just done the  best of £500 billion and who is going to pay for your brexshit billions and billions and billions  lost you  

Its called the height of hypocrisy. If you had the slightest idea about economics you wouldn’t have voted to shaft yourself financially.

Edited July 19, 2022 by big_cod

[chesters1]

Sorted

7 minutes ago, big_cod said:

I love my new thread

 

[big_cod]

2 minutes ago, chesters1 said:

Sorted

 

You keep paying  you know it makes sense . Bigger wages with brexit seriously bigger prices that’s it  dumber and definitely dumber . 

Edited July 19, 2022 by big_cod

[Ken L]

7 minutes ago, big_cod said:

Non no jobs they earn far much far to much money , what about insider trading Ken you think that doesn’t go daily sending shares up and down .
Put the top rate to 55% that’s an extra 20 billion a year , what about your tax that biggest in 70 years and worried about the billionaires are they worried about you don’t be stupid they couldn’t give a flying hook about you .

And your concerned about about raising £ 50 Billion hoe dare you , your pals in the tory party have just done the  best of £500 billion and who is going to pay for your brexshit billions and billions and billions  lost you  

Its called the height of hypocrisy.

Actually, it's closer to £15 billion, but even if it were 20, it's still nowhere near your estimate of the funds required.

After that, I can't comment, because as so often happens, I haven't got a clue WTF you're trying to say.