|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 10, 2024 9:10:52 GMT
So just how is it paid for?🤷🏻♂️ By taxing a PM whose income is 2.2M properly .... Ah the politics of envy rears its head again. Interesting how you focus on his income, not on his tax contribution to society which was 1/2 million. 1/2 million a year contribution to society is surely something to be commended, not something to use to make him out to be of worse character than some lazy person spending most of their life on benefits because they didn’t pay attention at school and have had children that they can’t afford to support.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 10, 2024 9:18:41 GMT
Ive never spent time researching UBI, who exactly subsidises it and why? It seems to be mainly the lazy / feckless tossers who scream for it the most🤷🏻♂️, as Ive said, Ive never researched into it. So just how is it paid for & what advantages are there? It's usually proposed by folk who believe their income is such that they would be net recipients. Worldwide UBI is a twist on this though. Those in rich developed countries thinking that they are poor would likely backtrack on support for such a system when the realisation dawned that they would be net contributers, rather than recipients. Because, of course, worldwide UBI would and could not be set at a level which enabled fully funded central heated/ air conditioned houses, the latest electronic wizadry etc. etc., for all. It would be paid for by taxes, of course. Or in the case of the relatively poor in rich developed countries, a significant reduction in the level of benefits they currently enjoy. So it will never happen. The relatively rich won't vote for significant tax rises and the relatively poor won't vote to make themselves even poorer.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 10, 2024 9:36:37 GMT
We have an expert. There will not be a vote about introducing ubi. The general populace won’t have a say.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Feb 10, 2024 9:41:47 GMT
By taxing a PM whose income is 2.2M properly .... Ah the politics of envy rears its head again. Interesting how you focus on his income, not on his tax contribution to society which was 1/2 million. 1/2 million a year contribution to society is surely something to be commended, not something to use to make him out to be of worse character than some lazy person spending most of their life on benefits because they didn’t pay attention at school and have had children that they can’t afford to support. It's not really envy of people like Rishi, I used to 'earn' £700 a day at one point in my life (and make sure I paid as little tax as possible) - would I go back to that life - no way...!
Life changed a lot and as a result I see things differently now.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 10, 2024 9:47:28 GMT
UBI is a bit of an odd one for the socialists to get behind.
The idea is that complex benefits are replaced by a single payment made to all.
The onus in recent times, driven by the left, has been to replace contribution based benefits with means tested benefits. 'Give the money to those who really need it' or to quote Marx: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'
UBI flies right in the face of this. Rishi getting the same as a single mother struggling to get by on the benefit cap, or a disabled person needing expensive alterations to their house.
|
|
|
Post by on Feb 10, 2024 10:10:43 GMT
Interesting how you focus on his income, not on his tax contribution to society which was 1/2 million. 1/2 million a year contribution to society is surely something to be commended. Not really. It is productivity which is destroying the environment everyone depends on. People make more money than others will tend to (exceptions excepted) consume more and have a higher carbon footprint than those who consume less. The ideal scenario is to dampen down productivity and not reward those who make money because unless their activities are genuinely and provably low impact they are going to be high individual polluters and consumers. Everyone needs to consume and pollute less or we are all fucked.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 10, 2024 10:25:52 GMT
People have talked about taxing high wealth individuals but what about making sure multi-national corporations pay their fair share of tax. We all know these corps and individuals play games with tax regimes. So it would take the concerted effort of the major countries. As for UBI never happening. It will happen but unfortunately not until the wealthy realise that if they want to enjoy their wealth then they are going to have to provide adequate food, clothes and shelter for the mass populace. Things are going to have to get worse before this happens though. Currently the wealthy think they are going to be able to hide out in Dubai until the orbiting habitats are ready.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 10, 2024 11:03:54 GMT
People have talked about taxing high wealth individuals but what about making sure multi-national corporations pay their fair share of tax. We all know these corps and individuals play games with tax regimes. So it would take the concerted effort of the major countries. As for UBI never happening. It will happen but unfortunately not until the wealthy realise that if they want to enjoy their wealth then they are going to have to provide adequate food, clothes and shelter for the mass populace. Things are going to have to get worse before this happens though. Currently the wealthy think they are going to be able to hide out in Dubai until the orbiting habitats are ready. The problem with corporation tax is, like everything else, it operates in a market. If a 'fair share' of corporation tax is considered to be higher than it currently is such legislation would need to be imposed worldwide. Like worldwide UBI, there is no authority able to do this. Currently nations can use low rates of corporation tax as 'bait' to lure businesses to relocate there. The host country then benefits from the taxes paid by individuals working for the businesses which relocated, and the taxes related to the increased trade and resulting multiplier effect. An example of the above is Ireland. Once a poor neighbour to Britain. Now, many years after cutting its corporation tax rate to 12%, it has a per capita income well in excess of that in Britain. Much inequality as well, of course.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Feb 10, 2024 11:05:20 GMT
It's nonsense isn't it ?
The poorer nations of the world have huge populations living in true poverty (malnutrition and folks dying of preventable conditions) rather than being unable to have Sky or a summer holiday.
Who's going to tell those countries they cannot grow their nation's wealth and aspire to the life we have in the west.
The best we can hope to see in reality is a national living wage rather than a minimum hourly rate ... wouldn't hold your breathe for that to be honest.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 10, 2024 11:15:55 GMT
I think the problem is that people are detached. True poverty is a long way away. OK, it's shown on the tv but many decades of that can leave people desentisised. And then, people are constantly told by angry people, how poor they are. It's no surprise really, that they believe it.
What struck me when I came face to face with it was two things. First, the sheer scale of it. The numbers of people involved. And then, that they were nowhere near as unhappy as I'd expected them to be.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 10, 2024 11:30:12 GMT
Ireland has had eu money poured into it since the 80’s. In fact until they let the Eastern European states in, Ireland was the biggest recipient of eu subsidies for 20years. Benefits by any other name. The point is if a high percentage of people in a society like Uk can’t afford to eat or heat a house then that society is uncerstainable and will collapse. We are beginning to see this. Look at the rise of street crime in London. What’s the point of having a Rolex if you can’t wear it in public? This deterioration will just increase, whilst wealthy people will be insulated from the worst of decline at the start, their wealth won’t protect them for ever. We have a generation who are growing up knowing that they are likely to never be able to buy a house or have the quality of life that future generations have benefitted from. This is the first generation that have faced this situation. What about the next generation or the one after that, do you think that they will put up with being told they can’t have any kind of life because the rich old fucks have stolen all the wealth and used all the resources?
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Feb 10, 2024 11:56:33 GMT
Like most things, property ownership is cyclical. The current generation of people who cannot afford to buy a house aren't the first. This is no different to the 50's and 60's when the proliferation of council houses satisfied the need. In that generation, there were people who made sacrifices to buy a house. Many had minimal furniture, did not have foreign (or maybe any) holidays, did not have a late model car each, or even one between them. When they were given the opportunity to purchase houses, then they were able to slow down or prevent those estates from becoming sink estates. These are the people who cared for their children, and still do to some extent through support such as gifts towards deposits and childcare for grandchildren or great grandchildren. Sadly, a lot of this support has only created a sense of entitlement in the current generation who cannot live without a very expensive mobile phone, Netflix subscriptions, top branded clothing and footwear, costly takeaway food, the latest lease car each, at least one luxury foreign holiday a year, plus some short breaks. When house purchase is considered it has to be equipped with all mod cons. For those on benefits, there is an army of organisations who exist on charitable donations and public government grants to navigate them through all the complicated schemes that universal credit was supposed to eradicate. Such Benefit claimants can end up significantly better off when all additional support such as housing benefit, council tax relief and other fringe exemptions such a TV licences than low earners or retired people with moderate pensions to supplement the state pension who end up paying income tax. The poor are not always the ones who claim to be.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Feb 10, 2024 12:04:58 GMT
Like most things, property ownership is cyclical. The current generation of people who cannot afford to buy a house aren't the first. This is no different to the 50's and 60's when the proliferation of council houses satisfied the need. In that generation, there were people who made sacrifices to buy a house. Many had minimal furniture, did not have foreign (or maybe any) holidays, did not have a late model car each, or even one between them. When they were given the opportunity to purchase houses, then they were able to slow down or prevent those estates from becoming sink estates. These are the people who cared for their children, and still do to some extent through support such as gifts towards deposits and childcare for grandchildren or great grandchildren. Sadly, a lot of this support has only created a sense of entitlement in the current generation who cannot live without a very expensive mobile phone, Netflix subscriptions, top branded clothing and footwear, costly takeaway food, the latest lease car each, at least one luxury foreign holiday a year, plus some short breaks. When house purchase is considered it has to be equipped with all mod cons. For those on benefits, there is an army of organisations who exist on charitable donations and public government grants to navigate them through all the complicated schemes that universal credit was supposed to eradicate. Such Benefit claimants can end up significantly better off when all additional support such as housing benefit, council tax relief and other fringe exemptions such a TV licences than low earners or retired people with moderate pensions to supplement the state pension who end up paying income tax. The poor are not always the ones who claim to be. I'll just pick out one point for the moment.
Just who gets a free TV licence? err not benefit claimants unless they are over 80.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 10, 2024 12:06:45 GMT
I’d suggest the world has changed a lot since the 50and 60’s. Wealth isn’t cyclical it’s pyramidical, this is inherent within the systems of distribution used on this planet at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 10, 2024 13:28:15 GMT
There's a shortage of housing,for sure. Visit the vast majority of countries in the world, try to buy a house. You'll be disappointed.The majority of governments, sensibly in my opinion, consider the housing needs of their people to outweigh the importance of investment vehicles for foreigners.
I'd buy a house and move to Indonesia, if I could. It isn't allowed. The best I could hope for would be to lease a place. Even then, there would be a minimum lease price requirement, the requirement to employ a full time Indonesian, set up a limited company and purchase an expensive visa.
The minimum lease price is around 4 times average rent.
|
|