Johnny Bognor

Errrr. I was agreeing with you. The tories quoting the IMF is no different to a Saintsweb lefty posting an article from the Guardian. I was first to point out that QE can damage the poor. It does benefit the rich, so at least we agree on something OK, let's get back to the original point being made. I was quoting an article that tries to explain why the rich have gotten richer, which seems to suggest that it is more about the performance of their investments (whatever they might be) as opposed to specific tory policy. You can get into the details of specific investment vehicles, but the billionaires (many who have moved here) made their money outside of the UK, prior to moving here. How the **** is that the fault of the tories? But in them moving here, it shows that the gap has widened. I was merely suggesting that in them moving here, the poor haven't got poorer. The gap, which is a statistic, has got bigger. I was also asking the question as to whether them being here is desirable or not. No-one has answered that. Could it be that they know I am talking sense, but it is at odds with their political bias? I also suggested that if they were taxed, they'll bugger off, leaving the poor here to stay poor. Is this not a rational assumption? I, personally, would rather look at ways in which this wealth can be unlocked (I have been on record before on this matter), with a carrot as opposed to a stick, to inject their wealth into our economy. I would rather that than them to **** off somewhere else. But to see this straightforward point of view, you need to take a centralist stance and put aside your envy-laced reading glasses.

... and I didn't vote at all. I will however go to the polling booth this election, as people have fought and died for my right to vote. However, I dont have to and won't vote for any of the parties on offer on my ballot sheet. I will spoil my paper, as that is my right. If enough people spoilt their ballot papers, it would be hard for the political parties to ignore. It's far better to do that, than not to vote at all.

Who funds the IMF? Therein lies your answer. The same applies to all media, newspapers etc. I did laugh when Boris called Andrew Marr a BBC lefty yesterday. Andrew seemed to take it quite well, although he did struggle with his apology to Cameron. So you think that government borrowing doesnt benefit the rich?

I'm voting Johnny Bognor, so it's water off a ducks back

Singapore was their example, having the highest wealth gap in the world. They used it to help prove that the rich-poor divide causes higher rates of imprisonment. They didn't use Singapore when it didn't suit their argument that the rich-poor gap causes higher teenage pregnancies. So have a word with your nutjob mate...

When people tell me about research, I will look at who is paying for it / funding it or what their political leaning is, and I can pretty much tell you the outcome. They will have just bothered to do some research to "prove" their hypothesis. Oh and there was me thinking that was the thrust of their theory LMFAO

This spirit level book is a ****ing joke... Singapore has the largest rich poor-divide on the imprisonment chart. As it has the 2nd largest imprisonment rate, it thus proves that "the wider the gap, the more people are in prison" LOL In about 30 secs, with virtually no effort at all, I found a few countries that shows the opposite. Now, let's take the teenage birth rates graph, remembering that Singapore has the largest wealth gap (according to the imprisonment chart). Oh hang on, wait a minute, where's Singpore? They haven't included one of the countries with the largest gaps between rich and poor. Why is this? Oh, could it be that Singapore happens to have one of the lowest teenage birth rates in the world??? There was me thinking that the rich poor gap is responsible for higher teenage pregnancy rates. If this bunch of jokers want to be taken seriously, they can't just pick and choose the examples to suit their own agenda and pass this off as research. However, look at their back grounds, they have no legitimacy at all.

So the super rich who live here don't spend anything? Really??? Tell me, what do they eat? Where do they dine out? How do they get about? Do they do up their own properties (not buying anything from B&Q)? Where do they park their yatchs? What do they do if they need a new outift? That's even more ridiculous than my ascertation that communism is about equality LOL Just look at the calibre of people, a finer bunch of nutjobs, you'll never meet. I picked a chart at random. It was the imprisonment chart. Let's conveniently choose some countries, that they conveniently chose not to include and compare them to the UK Lets compare the Czech Republic and Hong Kong to the UK. Incarcination Rate (prisoners per 100,000 population) Czech Rep = 163 UK = 148 Hong Kong = 126 Rich Poor Gap (Ratio of income or expenditure, share of top 10% to lowest 10%) Czech Rep = 5.3% UK = 13.8% Hong Kong = 17.8% This quick back of a fag packet caluclation shows that, the wider the gap between rich and poor, the lower the imprisonment rates. **** me, I should write a book.

Yes, if there was international collaboration, that would be a different argument. But many lefties, just want them taxed as it seems like an easy source of revenue. Without global standardised tax rates for the super rich, it is better to have them here, rather than not. There is a difference with the likes of Amazon, Google and Starbucks in that they are operating here, whilst avoiding tax. This is wrong and I would like to see more done in this area. To me, there is a difference between simply living here and having full scale operations here.

hahaha What about the question? Is it better to have wealthy people move here and in doing so spend money here or is it better for them to not come and spend it elsewhere? On the one hand the rich poor gap would close, but Would the poor be better off?

I haven't read it, but communism which is as close to equality as you will get, isn't very popular with the people that live under it. So much so, that it only flourishes under totalitarian regimes, where people are forced to endure it. everyone bangs on about non doms. So, envy aside, would you rather the wealthy move here, putting some of their money into our economy, or would you rather they ****ed off and spent it elsewhere? it might make you feel better, but you wouldn't be better off

Yes, and the gap between the rich and the middle classes is widening too. This is because the super rich are able to tap into higher yielding investments, where mere mortals can't. Nevertheless, government borrowing makes whoever is doing the lending richer. Ultimately, it is those who own the wealth that are in a position to lend it.

Nail. Hit. Head. Only a third of Britain's billionaires were actually born british. The super rich have come here, in their droves, bringing their wealth (often earned elsewhare) with them. This in itself creates a bigger gap between rich and poor. I know, why don't we tax the **** out of them, they'll **** off, meaning the gap between rich and poor will get smaller. Problem solved. Oh wait a minute. Will the poor be any better off? A better policy, would be to see how we could get them to spend more of their wealth, which was earned elsewhere, in the UK. This would stimulate demand, grow the economy, reducing the need for Government borrowing. But we can't do that, because the laws of envy won't allow it.

I expected better from you Pap. The rich are buying government bonds. It is a fact. They get a much higher return on them than many other investment vehicles. Government borrowing globally has soared. The rich are earning off the back of it. "In a paper on household wealth over the past decade, economist Edward Wolff at New York University found that wealth inequality rose sharply from 2007 to 2010 and has remained largely unchanged since then. One reason: The wealthiest 1 percent put three-quarters of their savings into investment assets. By contrast, the middle class had 63 percent of their assets tied up in their homes, with home equity accounting for about a third since they have large mortgage debt. Wolff found "striking differences in returns by wealth class." The top 1 percent earned an average annual return of 5.91 percent between 2010 and 2013—far more than the 3.27 percent earned by the middle three quartiles. And that was due mainly to having more exposure to the stock market. While stocks played a role, the paper says that bonds may be the real secret to the better investment gains of the rich. "Wealthy families might be able to earn 6 percent on their bond portfolio (e.g., by investing in foreign markets or in high-return convertible bonds) while the rest of the population might earn 3 percent only, and that differential might have increased over time," the paper said." Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102196033 I know it concerns the US, but it won't be much different here. The rich are getting richer off of governments borrowing more money. So it is ironic when leftie parties want to increase borrowing, when all they are doing is making the global rich, even richer.

It all ends up there anyway. It doesn't just stay circling on the public sector indefinitely.

Agreed. The problem is that politics is now a legitimate career option. All the while this is the case, you will get the Camerons, Osbournes, Cleggs, Millibands and Balls of this world making a nice living out of telling people what they want to hear, whether or not they believe it. Harriet Harman went to the same fee paying school as Osbourne. Milliband and Boris went to the same primary school. I could go on.... Although the tories get knocked for the number privately educated MP's, 40% of Liberal Democrat MP's were privately educated. 20% of Labour MP's went to fee paying schools. When you consider that only 7% of the population went to fee paying schools, none of the parties are respresentative of the nation as a whole. Vote: Johnny Bognor's Revolutionary Party

If the government tax people more, to then spend it, it doesn't create more demand. If those people were left to spend it anyway, the demand would be there anyway. By cutting spending, the need for tax increases reduces, thus leaving people with more money to spend anyway, which stimulates demand. Applying your logic, means that increasing taxation sucks demand out of the economy, because those who are taxed, have less to spend?? Ironically, increased borrowing, just makes the rich richer. Who do you think governments borrow money off of???

The problem is that the Tories won't say much, because they don't want to come across as harsh, whilst Labour won't say too much because they want to come across as financially responsible.

maybe that is their master plan. Increase spending, run up debt and then **** off leaving us in the crap.

I did LOL at Scargills Socialist Labour mainfesto launch (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32384397) which makes the communist party look like a load of right wingers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32405165) By comparison, these chaps talk sense... http://www.loonyparty.com/about/policy-proposals/

Cheers for clearing that up. I can stop banging on about it now

It was a serious proposal. You pay CGT on the gain in investment property when you make it, but you don't pay it on other assets. There are a significant number of people who have pulled out of property and have made gains in the classic car market, net of tax. I believe that applying CGT to all capital gains is fair, as it's unfair to tax some gains and not others. I beleive, if it could be implemented, it wouldn't meet with much opposition. If people are trading on ebay, buying and selling goods for a profit, this should be taxed. I know retailers who are struggling to compete with online, as there is not a level playing field. They have to take more risk and pay more tax. I cannot see this as fair. How about doing away with car tax and implementing a higher levy on fuel? This would be fair. The more you drive or the more you burn (with gas guzzling cars), the more you pay. It is much harder to avoid, reduces administration and the costs of DVLA. Increasing revenue and reducing cost at the same time. Again, without abandoning common sense, it is hard to disagree with it (and I drive a lot and own gas guzzling cars). Surely people in the Labour party can see that there are many ways to increase the tax take, in a fair manner, whilst reducing costs too?

Taxation and thining outside the box.... One area of taxation, that seems to have eluded all political parties, is the classic car market. Although it is a small market, over the last 5 years, investors are making massive tax free profits. You pay captial gains tax on property and on shares, so why is it not applied to the classic car market? There are people who have bought cars for £10,000's selling them for £100,000's, with no CGT. This to me seems to be an easy area to raise taxation, which would be deemed as fair by most, but has been missed completely. Take the 911 Carrera 2.7 RS for example. These have gone up from £65k in 2004 to £450k now. That is an increase of nearly 650%. Totally Tax free. That to me is neither right or fair. Another area for considering taxation, is the growth in ebay shops. There is a big difference between people flogging off their own tat and traders who are buying and selling goods for a profit, as a business. Many people running these are private individuals who are paying no corporation tax, are not collecting VAT and are not paying the business rates paid by traditional retailers. This to me does not seem fair and actually damages our retail industry. This is not a dig at you VFTT, but as you run an ebay business, what are your thoughts on this? Would taxing ebay shops be fair? Or even workable?

What we do know is that debt-to-income ratios stayed below 100% for 10 years after the late 80's recession, so the 30mph limit wasn't breached for a considerable amount of time. Throughout the noughties they rose again and again, something actively encouraged by Brown with his no more boom and bust mantra. It was clear that the banks were lending far too much money. In some cases 7 times salary on mortgages. In the early nineties, you would be hard pressed to borrow 3 times your salary. There were no 100% mortgages available in the early 90's. It was a disaster waiting to happen. Anyone with half a brain cell could see it. Of course they ebb and flow with the economic cycle, but moving up and down between 80% and 100% is sustainable. Moving around between 140% and 170% is not sustainable. Agree with Help-to-Buy and that it perpetuates the problem, but the damaging impact of the mansion tax will help offset it IMO, the best way of getting out of debt is to earn more. This applies to the nation as well as individuals. The nation needs to earn more by creating more and exporting more. This is the best long term route out of the predicament we find ourselves in. There is far more to be done here. Otherwise we will plod on for decades, tinkering with government spending here, tinkering with taxes there. As I have said before, unfortunately political parties have no long term plan, because the chances are they won't be around long enough to execute it. The use of the word austerity is a problem, when the cutting of the defecit is described as "austerity measures". This implies that cutting the defecit is something negative. "Living within your means" measures is a far more accurate way of describing the cuts. It is about balance. There are cuts that can be made and investments that can be made, whilst reducing the defecit overall. It is not an either / or argument. It is about priority. Take spending on the fire service. There is a 40% reduction in incidents over the last 10 years, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to reduce the fire service budget by 10% or 20%. We give aid to india, who invest in nuclear weapons and have a space programme. I am not advocating cutting all foreign aid, but in the case of India, that is money that could be saved or better invested elsewhere. I do understand how it works, but with the creation of money, comes the creation of debt. But creating more money, whether that be the banks lending more or the BOE printing more money, is not a simple solution, as some seem to think it is. More money rushing into the system creates asset bubbles, very much like the housing boom of the noughties. Too much money chasing too few goods creates inflation, which also has its problems. Haven't we learned from our mistakes of the past? The long term solution is not to create more money (although QE is a useful tool in the short term), but to create more wealth. Real wealth. Which will come through innovation and creativity.

Are you suggesting that debt-to-income ratios in the 1980's were at 170%? No, of course not. The 'acceleration' may have been similar from a small base, as you point out. But you can't just pass off "albeit from a small base" as a throw away line. It is very significant. Due to the small base, debt-to-income ratios were still generally below 100% throughout the 1980's. I don't know about you, but most economists would tell you that Debt to income ratios of So the acceleration of the ratio in the 1980's is is a very different proposition to acceleration levels in the 2000's, where the ratios were already north of 130%. (I know that you know that, but understand that you have to put up a good fight for the lefties on the forum) To put this into laymans terms for readers of this thread, Shurlock is trying to say that accelerating from 40mph to 50mph in a 30 mph limit, is no different to accelerating from 20mph to 30mph in a 30mph limit. During Brown's debt fueled boom, they reached a peak of 170%... It would be funny that so many people fell for his "prudent" bull****, if it wasn't for the fact that household debt is as big a problem as national debt. It's even funnier that people (who clearly possess some intellect) try to defend it Household debt did fall to 140% a couple of years ago from the Brown peak of 170%. So things are better, but it is still clearly a problem. The OBR may claim that borrowing will go up due to the government having to live within its means (please stop using the word austerity, because living within your means is no bad thing), but can you not see that even the use of the word austerity will help fuel increased debt (as the connotations of austerity is that living within your means is a bad thing)?? It is this attitude that got us into the mess in the first place!!!