Re: Duke Fame to run as Marple Councillor?

[Dave]

By 'he', I assume Duke's near-libellous comment refers to Ed Miliband, and not his brother who is no longer an MP. 

I still don't understand why the personal wealth of politicians is such a source of fascination to Duke and others.  If it is Ed we are talking about, I only know what we can all read on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet, but there's no evidence that he has 'such wealth' at all.  As I said earlier, in all probability he lives somewhere in North London, in a house no grander than some of ours, but because of where it is it's now worth over a million.  To Bowden Guy that apparently makes him a multi-millionaire, but in reality that is no big deal nowadays in London.  He doesn't just have an MP's salary - as Leader of the Opposition he also has a further salary for doing that.   

So he's well paid, but probably not 'wealthy' in the way that the term is usually applied.  So let's get over it, and maybe hear a bit less of the politics of envy - or even the politics of evny!      

[Duke Fame]

I may be wrong but didn't the Miliband family use a tax avoidance scheme to minimise inheritance tax on their father's estate? Isn't that correct Wheels and Dave?

He did indeed and I wonder how he has such wealth yet only ever having a MP's salary. corruption is not what it once was.

[Bowden Guy]

I may be wrong but didn't the Miliband family use a tax avoidance scheme to minimise inheritance tax on their father's estate? Isn't that correct Wheels and Dave?

[Duke Fame]

I'm not sure why it should matter, but for the record, the Eds (Miliband and Balls) are not multi-millionaires, unless by that you mean that because they are unfortunate enough to live in London their houses are now worth more than a million. 

You need to stop reading the Daily Mail, wheels.  As Duke would say, 'it's teh politics of evny wheels and it's no more palitable than the politics of greed.'   

When all you have is to pick up on a typo or two, it may be time to admit defeat.

[wheels]

No Dave its about the politics of deceit they practice the pretending that we are all in this together that they too are suffering like many in society. At least the Tories make it clear they are greedy self serving ba.....ds

[Dave]

God help us all if the Eds, both of whom are multi millionaire also took over.

I'm not sure why it should matter, but for the record, the Eds (Miliband and Balls) are not multi-millionaires, unless by that you mean that because they are unfortunate enough to live in London their houses are now worth more than a million. 

You need to stop reading the Daily Mail, wheels.  As Duke would say, 'it's teh politics of evny wheels and it's no more palitable than the politics of greed.'   

[Duke Fame]

I'm really confused now!  If, as Bowden Guy suggests, reducing the top rate of tax means that 'those people' end up paying more, then according to Duke's argument, if they are paying more they will think they are being ripped off and go elsewhere.  So in order to retain these valued members of society in the UK, perhaps we should increase their taxes, not reduce them? 

However, Duke and Bowden Guy can amuse themselves with their convoluted verbal gymnastics for as long as they like, proving that the slick investment bankers, hedge-fund traders and dealers in dodgy derivatives who caused the 2008 crash and the ensuing recession should get a tax cut in order to encourage them to stay in the UK.  The reality is, the best thing we could do is double their tax in the hope that they will leave.  But I suspect that wouldn't work, because their fellow millionaire friend Osborne wants the UK (well, London actually) to carry on being an unregulated offshore speculators' playground, where these guys can carry on playing their boys games with billions of pounds of other peoples' money, until they cause another collapse and we have to bail them out again. 

Steptoe is right, though - we are just pub bores who like a good argument, and we will probably never agree on this or anything else!  Tell you what, though, Duke - your lot will be annihilated at next week's local elections, and probably at the general election in 2015, and the main reason for that is quite simple.  It's not that people disgaree with their policies - on the contrary, opinion polls show that the objective to reduce the deficit by, for example, getting the benefits bill under control, has broad public suppprt.   No, the reason your lot will be thrown out is quite simple: incompetence.  I think it was Bill Clinton who coined the phrase 'it's the economy, stupid'!  Osborne stood up in Parliament three years ago and promised to revitalise manufacturing (remember 'the march of the makers   ) and to balance the books by 2015-16.  He has indisputably failed to do either of those things.  So we've had the pain (and there's more to come,) but not the gain, and Osborne, who once wanted so much to be Tory leader, now never will.  Who's the next leader of the opposition - Theresa May or Michael Gove?  Or even Boris Johnson..............   

There is no my lot, I'm sort of close to an Orange book liberal / free market type but I don't agree enough with any party. I was led to belive the Labour party had even got it right in 2001 but little did I know that Gordon Brown was going to discard Ken Clarke's approach quite so dramatically and go mental (with Ed Ball's help), throw the economics books out the window and claim he invented alchemy.

You can bemoan bankers all you like it will not help the economy. The bust happened under TSpm's watch and it was in small part down to TSpm's changes that it went without detection but nevertheless, TSpm spent all those tax windfalls in his phoney boom and still managed to create a deficit even before the crash. That's why i say that Brown is the olnly chancellor to ever spend his way out of a boom, that takes some doing and the height of incompetence. Some people really want to listen to his henchman now Mr Ed  "LIBOR - no we weren't involved" Balls, Balls was involved in every step of Brown's mismanagment and he pretends he's got the answer. Of course, I agree, 'it's the economy, stupid' but we can't go back to Ed Balls, he was a by-word for incompetence.

The fact that you mention bankers shows that you really want a super tax to penalise rather than raise money. As the country can't cope on hte income it generates now, why do you think it will be better off with less?  Whilst you are taxing bankers, you are also taxing successful businesses, inventors, footballers too. what have they done to bring the country down? Nothing but be successdul and excel at what they do. That is the problem with the left, they hate achievement, they hate those who break out of their place. Labour need the working class to be needy so they can demand benefits etc so they get the votes, I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said something along the lines of a government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul forever. It's teh politics of evny Dave and it's no more palitable than the politics of greed.

[wheels]

It will all be OK when the Eds take over in 2015.

Just like it was OK when the Gordon took over.

God help us all if the Eds, both of whom are multi millionaire also took over. Long live the Coalition, I don't mind a which just so long as its a coalition.

[Duke Fame]

It will all be OK when the Eds take over in 2015.

Dave will get his wish

[Bowden Guy]

It will all be OK when the Eds take over in 2015.

[Dave]

The key issue is whether bringing down the tax rate increases the total revenue from those people,

It's human nature, when people think they are being ripped off, they go elsewhere.

I'm really confused now!  If, as Bowden Guy suggests, reducing the top rate of tax means that 'those people' end up paying more, then according to Duke's argument, if they are paying more they will think they are being ripped off and go elsewhere.  So in order to retain these valued members of society in the UK, perhaps we should increase their taxes, not reduce them? 

However, Duke and Bowden Guy can amuse themselves with their convoluted verbal gymnastics for as long as they like, proving that the slick investment bankers, hedge-fund traders and dealers in dodgy derivatives who caused the 2008 crash and the ensuing recession should get a tax cut in order to encourage them to stay in the UK.  The reality is, the best thing we could do is double their tax in the hope that they will leave.  But I suspect that wouldn't work, because their fellow millionaire friend Osborne wants the UK (well, London actually) to carry on being an unregulated offshore speculators' playground, where these guys can carry on playing their boys games with billions of pounds of other peoples' money, until they cause another collapse and we have to bail them out again. 

Steptoe is right, though - we are just pub bores who like a good argument, and we will probably never agree on this or anything else!  Tell you what, though, Duke - your lot will be annihilated at next week's local elections, and probably at the general election in 2015, and the main reason for that is quite simple.  It's not that people disgaree with their policies - on the contrary, opinion polls show that the objective to reduce the deficit by, for example, getting the benefits bill under control, has broad public suppprt.   No, the reason your lot will be thrown out is quite simple: incompetence.  I think it was Bill Clinton who coined the phrase 'it's the economy, stupid'!  Osborne stood up in Parliament three years ago and promised to revitalise manufacturing (remember 'the march of the makers   ) and to balance the books by 2015-16.  He has indisputably failed to do either of those things.  So we've had the pain (and there's more to come,) but not the gain, and Osborne, who once wanted so much to be Tory leader, now never will.  Who's the next leader of the opposition - Theresa May or Michael Gove?  Or even Boris Johnson..............   

[Duke Fame]

Yes, thanks for reminding us, Duke.  The Lawson Boom, which caused the 1990 recession and led ultimately to Black Wednesday in 1992.  See http://econ.economicshelp.org/2008/01/lawson-boom-of-late-1980s.html

However, that is an answer to a different question.  Bowden Guy wrote 
...thereby suggesting that top-rate taxpayers enjoying a reduction in the rate to 45% could nevertheless find themselves paying more tax.  I asked how that would work - but I haven't had an answer yet. 

Aww Dave, do you remember TSpm saying how he'd beaten the cycle of boom & bust?

In answer to you question, I suspect you know but let's play. Research suggests that the optimal tax rate is 40-45% if you want to raise the most treasury income. If you want to make a political point at the expense of the economy, you would stick the tax rate at a level that punishes wealth rather than raises income. Remember when those great socialists John Lennon, Donavan etc stayed out of the country in the 70's? Who was better off with our 84% tax rates?

It's human nature, when people think they are being ripped off, they go elsewhere.

[Bowden Guy]

Sorry, in my last post I meant to say that remuneration can be delayed into later years. Sometimes I hate my IPad!

[Duke Fame]

It's ages since I've been on the forum...and it's like I've never been away.  Same old same old from the vocal few...I'd hate to get stuck in a pub with you lot.  

PS...will DF stand...no chance, because he's all talk.

You certainly know how to turn my buttons.

Are you going to vote for me?

[Steptoe and Son]

It's ages since I've been on the forum...and it's like I've never been away.  Same old same old from the vocal few...I'd hate to get stuck in a pub with you lot.  

PS...will DF stand...no chance, because he's all talk.