Sir Ralph

Brilliant - so no answer to anything. This is a complete cop out. It’s getting ridiculous now. I’ve given you the chance to call me out and show what a pleb I am but you can’t even do that. The question about Starmer therefore remains unanswered as there isn’t a reasonable response to it

Live in London and the South East. Already have the highest cost of living in the country. Aspired to do the right thing. We are after you. The message is don’t aspire or succeed cause we will just take it off you, one way or another to pay for our failure #the socialist way https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/mansion-tax-risks-punishing-homeowners-opinion-5HjdMj5_2/ https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rachel-reeves-london-homes-property-uturn-income-tax-manifesto-b1258149.html

Point where I have not answered a question. You don’t want to answer this because nobody has so far.

You still haven’t answered why Starmers facts about the inefficiency of the public sector are incorrect. Any thoughts on why those government figures are incorrect yet? We have a different view I agree but saying the socialist left are not influencing the Labour Party is completely wrong. You need welfare I agree but it’s gone too far. encouraging people to be reliant on benefits and paying people to have more children than they responsibly have (when the tax payers making the tax contributions for this can’t sometime afford the same the same number of children) isn’t the way a decent society operates. I agree with the cabinet on the reductions they proposed so even they know it needs to happen https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-shake-up-to-welfare-system-in-a-generation-to-get-britain-working The rest of my post is correct. Celebrating shiteness. To be fair this is a good policy shift which the Tories didn’t introduce and could have. Well done to the government on this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c231x8rj1zpo

Exactly we all know it and it’s been played out before over the welfare bill. This is one of the reasons why they can’t come up with a coherent budget, placating the socialist left of their party. I thought they had maybe got rid of that mad lot but they were hiding. I’ll look forward to some of the gang trying to now argue that the left wing element of the Labour Party haven’t called the shots on the previous budget (and therefore this one). Some people think the Goverment has “saved the day” by getting less shite growth forecasts than expected which has meant the budget deficit they have helped to create is just not as terrible as previously expected. One of the main reasons for the budget deficit is due to the downgrade in productivity of business (nothing to do with the previous budget at all!!). They are the types of people that, if Saints were expected to finish 24th this season, might say it’s a success finishing 23rd. You don’t deserve congratulations for getting into a less (but nonetheless) shite position that you had helped create. 😂

So you think it is a u-turn?

I agree that the Johnson and Truss governments (latter in particular) had their bad moments. Truss was terrible for a very short period, due to the speed of her policies changes, before she got the push. Most of them got pushed when they had messed up. These lot have acheived 1.5 years of consistent rubbish. They are record breakers in the crap olympics. I would like Streeting to be PM but unfortunately a significant portion of his party is socialist so his hands would be tied.

You know things are getting desperate when the “gang” are making a point that it’s a success that the government haven’t publicly u-turned on a matter within the budget. They must be sat in No 10 patting themselves on the back for not fing up publicly. Sets a new low bar for measuring success! Who is worse Sport Republic or this Government?

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.