Sir Ralph

As I suggested was probably the case, the WH wouldn’t have made this up and the unredacted document says it was Guiffre.

Haven’t read it. This is another opinion. You can’t ever accept anything based on facts. I’m out discussing anything with you. You still haven’t replied to the facts provided by the Government itself that Starmer quoted about the inefficiency of government. Non exec director role 😂

You have to be joking. I can’t even. That it a report caveat which explains not everything is fully due to taxes, even though half the report talks about taxes. If that’s what you’re hanging onto, for someone who professes to be of sound mind, that’s incredibly poor. I’m tapping out.

Regardless of the number of wealthy people, the stats show that the percentage / share of wealthy are moving to lower tax states, away from higher tax states. This proves that higher taxes discourages the wealthy and lower taxes attract the wealthy. That well known simple economic fact that, for some reason, continues to be debated on here.

Having looked at this apparently the California wealthy as a share within the US this has also decreased due to high taxes. So despite California being attractive what does that say about the two states with higher taxes? Florida and Texas has lower taxes but now have a greater share of the wealthy within the US. So to summarise, this confirms that higher tax = less wealthy as a share and lower tax = more wealth as a share.

You can mock but where is your evidence to the contrary? I assume you don’t have any hence the sarcastic response? I’m not a specialist in NY millionaires by any means but basic economics leads you to likely impacts so it didn’t find long to find this report.

I’m not sure why you are mentioning this specifically. It’s a report caveat which explains you can’t attribute everything to tax rises as there will always be other factors at play. However the whole report talks about the impact of taxes so it is clearly saying that it has a huge impact! Quoting this is really scrabbling around. This has happened on a few occasions now where I get baited and then provide strong evidence to the contrary. Then there’s tumbleweed….. My advice is sometimes to accept that you might not necessarily be right rather than cling onto a held position which is not supported by evidence rather than the opinion of the local rag or a you tuber. Probably a lesson for me also

I don’t know but they quote US treasury figures. So actually that Daily Post video is BS as it doesn’t consider the huge inflationary (50%) impact which completely devalues it. It has no standing as any form of evidence. Maybe Gary Economics produced it….. Ive given you guys real and fair statistics from a source which quotes the treasury and much more accurately reflects NY performance in terms of attracting / keeping the wealthy so either accept them or please provide me with contradictory statistics. Deja vu chaps

See above. Pesky evidence

Here’s some proper evidence! So as a share of millionaires NY has a lesser share of millionaires falling from 12.7% to 8.7% (a 31% decrease by share) because they have mainly moved to lower tax areas. As a result lesser tax generated. Oh dear chaps…..whoever made that video by the Daily Post is an economic illiterate. Interested in the gangs thoughts on this? https://cbcny.org/research/hidden-cost-new-yorks-shrinking-millionaire-share#:~:text=As a result%2C New York's,billions of dollars every year.

So in 15 years there has been an increase in millionaires. This is such a crude assessment: 1. How much have taxes in NY increased since then? I don’t believe these will be nearly at the level the new mayor wants and therefore the impact is clearly going to be different. 2 Inflation has increased by 50% since 2010 so people earn more. I’d bloody hope there were more millionaires by salary since 2010. 3. What is the increase in millionaires in real terms alongside what the increase in tax rises were - that’s the question.

You will only see the impact once the taxes have come in and those businesses that have decided to relocate will.

I’m happy to listen to people with left leaning views but not Gary….the bloke grates on me. Ill make sure to remind them to watch the video

Let’s see it appear mamdanis expected taxes will be notably higher than anything before

Stop listening to Gary economics. The bloke has socialist views. I assume you know he is known for being left leaning? I didn’t even watch the video. Can you remind me what credentials this guy has above some of the greater minds in this country. Being a Citibank trader really doesn’t count - two a penny. I could go down the local pub and find completely opposite views to him from another 10 traders

The WH have said in a press conference that hers is the redacted name. For them to explicitly say that and it to be incorrect would be a major major cover up, which would very quickly be shown to be so as the emails have been released. I’d be very surprised on that basis if the WH was lying. Remember the Democrats redacted the names knowing what Guiffre said about Trump.

Yes so the evidence to date doesn’t really do anything in respect of Trump. You have an email from Epstein referring to Trump and Guiffre spending some time together with no specifics but Guifree said they did meet and nothing happened and he was nice to her. That could change with the release of the new files and I don’t know if it will. However to date, based on evidence available, there doesn’t seem much of relevance to Trump so I’m not sure why everyone is getting excited…..yet. It either a cover up attempt by the WH or a smeer campaign by the Democrats

At the moment I've only seen Guiffre mentioned in relation to Trump. I havent read much though - where have the press said that these latest emails released potentially bring into question if Trump was involved with other Epstein victims, other than Guiffre? I'm not saying you are wrong but I havent seen it so it’s a genuine question

If he did anything it will come out in the wash and if this is a Prince Andrew mark 2 he desrves to be punished. The point is the victim, Victoria Guiffre is now dead but said that Trump had limited interaction with her and was only ever nice to her. How do you provide something if would be accuser is dead and said he didnt do anything in her book? If more evidence is released which categorically evidences otherwise but its going to have to be very strong if the would be accuser has said otherwise. https://www.newsweek.com/virginia-giuffre-said-donald-trump-bill-clinton-book-nobodys-girl-10917361

This. It’s not rocket science

I’m trying to be respectful but you haven’t tried to understand or can’t understand what I’ve said, even if you disagree with it.

I didn’t say that. I said the increase in minimum wage probably contributed to the increase in unemployment . I never said the minimum wage was a bad thing in principle.

Tell me where I said there should be no minimum wage. Also the minimum wage increase doesn’t impact my business.

No I would not. But I would think twice if my business was going to make cuts as a result and I might lose my job. Also do you think this may have contributed to the cost of living for people (including those on minimum wage) increasing? There is a time for increasing the minimum wage but it wasn’t then. The problem is you see everything in a very simple way (much like the government) without understanding the implications on the people you are trying to help and wider impacts such as inflationary impacts. It’s relatively predictable but if you look at everything through a socialist lens, that’s where things go wrong. Thats not a personal dig, that’s a wider point. There are lots of examples where the government has fiddled with business to help groups of people and, because they have f all idea, what they are doing, actually created worse outcomes for those people.