It’s so good ❤

It never works to tax the rich. What does work is to remove their power to influence society with their money. 1) Ban foreigners owning UK property. Give them one year to sell and then confiscate the property and put it for sale on the free market. 2) Ban people from owning more than one property by taxing second property at 10% per year so they will sell or lose it over 7 years. 3) Ban people from leaving property empty for more than 3 years, just tax it at 10% per year. 4) Build 5 million new homes. Build a few more brand new cities on land where cows or crops are currently wasting the use of the land. Build some beautiful new sea side resorts. 5) 1% mortgages for first time home buyers. 6) Mortage payments at no more than 25% of ones personal income. This would massively improve the quality of life of people. 7) Imprison or strip the wealth of useless politicians who do not improve the quality of life of the citizens. Currently all politicians are absolutely useless and damaging their nations.

What about creating a tax system where to tax the superrich to the maximum, but to give the tax free option for the money that will be invested in the economy?! That will stimulate the super rich to invest rather that hoarding wealth and inflating assets prices.

1) Allowing foreigners to buy property in the UK, it just creates a shortage for the people who live there and deprives them of being able to purchase that property, which in turn forces them to rent or pay higher prices. Also we don’t need foreign capital, it just causes inflation because there’s more money chasing less goods. 2) Government should by law be forced to make sure there is adequate supply of homes to rent and/or buy. There need to be sever penalties for the political class who fail to do this, its gone on forever so far, and its time for a change. We need to basically put the rental property investor out of business by making sure there is no need for their services. 3) Taxing empty houses isn’t enough, we want them used by people who need to buy them to live in them. 4) When we need millions of new homes we need to be able to build anywhere if necessary, which would include on land currently used for cows, sheep and crops in some cases. 5) Negative equity wouldn’t really matter if mortgage payments were about 25% of income and so long as governments keep printing more and more money causing inflation, its guaranteed house prices will keep going up with inflation. @johntbaxter @zrymill 1) When buying property, foreigners invest a large amount of needed capital into the country 2) But then where would the renters live? 3) Empty property is already taxed through full council tax enforcement 4) I agree about building new homes but why are cows and crops a waste of land as you put it? 5) 1% mortgages would be good if prices always go up! What happens when they go down and owners become stuck in negative equity? 6) I totally agree about mortgage payments 7) I absolutely totally agree about many politicians intentions. The entire corrupt system requires reform and a move away from corporatism. @zrymill It never works to tax the rich. What does work is to remove their power to influence society with their money. 1) Ban foreigners owning UK property. Give them one year to sell and then confiscate the property and put it for sale on the free market. 2) Ban people from owning more than one property by taxing second property at 10% per year so they will sell or lose it over 7 years. 3) Ban people from leaving property empty for more than 3 years, just tax it at 10% per year. 4) Build 5 million new homes. Build a few more brand new cities on land where cows or crops are currently wasting the use of the land. Build some beautiful new sea side resorts. 5) 1% mortgages for first time home buyers. 6) Mortage payments at no more than 25% of ones personal income. This would massively improve the quality of life of people. 7) Imprison or strip the wealth of useless politicians who do not improve the quality of life of the citizens. Currently all politicians are absolutely useless and damaging their nations. @@johntbaxter

"schooled"? His only continual argument is tenuously predicated on consequentialism and not principle. Essentially, it's "we've got to tax the rich because poor people are struggling". Even if his assessment was right (he's not), that the rest of us should care is a non-sequitur.

Nicely put

The IEA and Gary agree on almost everything.

Eh? Gary's position is ideological too - "wealth should be taxed, just as income is". You and I might find that ideology more appealing than the IEA's ideology of shrinking that state to the size of a peanut, but let's at least be honest that it is still an ideology nonetheless.

@@tomgl6684 I suppose my point was, we are slightly beyond an ideological argument when people have amassed the amount of wealth we see at the top of society. It becomes more practical, in the sense that, it's about saving society from total collapse. But I do take your point, very hard to escape ideology when talking about distribution of wealth (or the lack of it). I think it is also worth saying, Gary makes his money on the money markets, and does describe himself as a capitalist (as far as I know)

Is being a good person ideological?

What is chilling is the fact financial education is not part of the curriculum in our state schools. The majority have no clue how to invest for the future, what is an asset and what is a liability. Sad really.

@ineer A "stupid decision" and an addiction based on years of having fulfilled that addiction, being marketed to by the purveyors of that addiction, and having lived in a culture where that addiction was exemplified as normal is probably a contributing factor though. Imagine if it were legal to advertise crack, get a bunch of poor people addicted to it, and then some idiot turned around and said "yeah well poor people obviously just make bad decisions totally of their own volition" - I'm not saying you're saying this, I think your viewpoint is reasonable and I'm obviously exaggerating, but you get my point: there's a reason as to why those decisions are made and people aren't always able to simply make decisions based on "free will". Also what Ryan was saying is not necessarily that people need direct economic opportunity, opportunity comes in many forms and can be invested in through public spending rather than giving directly to any one individual do with it what they wish - i.e. higher education, health and social care, social housing, third spaces, etc.

Good job! I become richer. So whose fault is it?

If we pursue intermittent energy sources like wind and solar and discourage or even punish investment in gas, that will happen. This is a green policy outcome.

And as Gary said, we're the sixth richest country in the world.

Let's be clear the only thing the iea can do to deserve credit is admit they have been a shameless force in corrupting governance to promote the interests of a small number of asset rich sociopathic vandals, then disband themselves and apologise....

He won't be invited back!

Yes Gary is a heavyweight - you cant argue with the basic fact of 'i got paid big because i was right all the time' This was still an intelligent productive discussion, big respect to the hosts and for iea for having him on. More!

I don't think Gary is in any way more insightful than mark, stevenson has one trick, shout about wealth taxes yet never explains what has happened to countries that try them.

@@davidtelford2250which countries have tried them?

It isn't because it's dire, the rich don't want to believe him because it's against the interests of the rich. Commentators don't want to believe him because they are paid to believe the opposite.

Great way to put it and you just taught me about an interesting figure in Greek mythology so thanks for that!

Nobody "in positions of power want to believe", lots of us agree with what Gary says about massive inequality and its consequences. Good on him

That infuriates me it seems s easy to predict the future if you understand inevitability look at NWO so called conspiracy theorists or the bible or history books or agent understanding f human nature every single one of these PREDICTED THE FUTURE ITS INEVITABLE the NWO and digital prison and track trace hate crime thought crime would happen because as soon as tech allows it the elites will do it photo id computer id digital finance as soon as a king a lord a Goverment can do something THEY DO IT there’s sold everything and everyone out there was always going to be a END GAME HERE.. agenda 2030 is the code word for NWO and the illiminarti plot plan if global order and everyone under north them getting screwed over. Here’s a fine example of predicting the future I invested in Nintendo in 2005 before DS and Wii gaming systems IT WAS INEVITABLE THAT WII AND DS WOULD DISRUPT THE CURRUPT OUT IF TOUCH GAMING INDUSTRY it was also inevitable that Sony and ms would never earn back the billions wasted on ps3 and x360 I told everyone this online was called weird mentally ill a fanboy a idiot I made 50k turn into 250k with my Nintendo investments Sean malstrom the biggest voice online made a million Wii DS went in to sell huge numbers fast and profit by billions ps3 lost 8 billion x360 lost 6/7 billion it was also inevitable Argentina would win the treble. Copa euro South America cups and then the World Cup it was obvious for three reasons Messi still had it marafona had died and the team manager had rid the narcassisim and romance of the past they destroyed everyone else as Argentina should do it was coming it was in the air to anyone who understands football history I made 100k on that bet. It was inevitable the resent float of ARM CPUS SRM HOLDINGS WOULD go to the moon Whitch it did it was obvious endless money printing and zero interest rates would lead to inflation super inflated prices and gold increase gold didn’t go up because of billionaires it’s went up because of money printing and inflation it was inevitable that child support and endless welfare would destroy the family unit. And female nature was weaponised by the elites to do so .. I could go on all day doing maths dat in your head or knowing the names of every celebrity or every yr in history’s kings name is considered intelligence Noooo wisdom is intelligence Covid was a scam digital id digital currency and new laws hate crime thought crime and new vaccines are and always were warned weapons of inevitability of the NWO people need to fking wake up..

He's wrong though. Things aren't getting worse because inequality is increasing, inequality is increasing because things are getting worse. Because our government prevents market function, the planning system prevents building and investment, the tax system prevents investment, we import millions of immigrants to keep the cost of labour down at the cost of capital investment etc etc. Notice Gary doesn't actually give any real solutions to the structural problems.

He doesn't have to explain it - they would just prefer it wasn't brought up when they start talking about Laffer Curves.

@@tomgl6684 Fair enough, but I'm not suggesting they don't understand -- just that they're so accustomed to ignoring those ideas in typical discussions that when Gary launches in, they can't hide their unease in having to face the facts

The iea are very much part of the problem.

apart from the thumb he's got stuck up his own arse.

Did we watch the same debate? Pie in the sky wealth tax nonsense backed up by interruption and bad faith argument gets a thumbs down from me.

Agreed. Mark just rambled on the same points of low tax and small state, over and over and over again.

@@samuel5742 cant be that bad faith considering the chancellor has suggested tax rises and a higher burden on the wealthy, on the Sophie Ridge Show this morning. All Gary’s points.

@@darthmonkey74 Forgive me Mr Healey but just because the chancellor paid lip service to this fellow's ideas does not mean that his method of discourse was not substandard.

@jf2176 A bit like stealing can eh - except that there's a law against that.

And with a loud and authoritative tone that is impenetrable. A debating technique that is learned rather than coincidental I discovered some years ago.

Yes the presenter didn't ask Mark to say something nice about the other point of view

Sadly, sounding credible and being an economist are mutually exclusive. The old adage "those who can, do, those who can't, teach" is pretty damning of teachers, but it's accurate about economists. If you really know what you're talking about, someone is probably paying you to keep what you know to yourself.

​@@johnbehan1526So you're saying that Gary doesn't know what he's talking about despite the fact that he has accumulated millions of pounds betting on the markets and predicting economic trends.

@@Matt-ou7tuentirely the opposite. You've either got the wrong end of the stick about what I've written, or there's some attempt at ironic humour here that has sailed over my head

Not rocket science is it. Makes you wonder why they refuse to see it.

Yeah, I wonder where else I've heard Liz Truss' soundbite about growing the pie so often over the last couple years?

And that went really well didn’t it?😂

LOL

😂

Are you being sarcastic?

IEA is running the country, but they're criticizing the low interest rate policy of the government?

They dont run the country at all . Politicians do , yes and we vote them in every time

What about creating a tax system where to tax the superrich to the maximum, but to give the tax free option for the money that will be invested in the economy?! That will stimulate the super rich to invest rather that hoarding wealth and inflating assets prices.

I would imagine they are not getting it because they are funded by the 1%

@@silviupadure2555I don’t think that would work because there investment is just another form of asset which means more money to the rich. Wealth tax and wealth caps are the only way to solve this issue.

The reality is actually more horrifying than you suggest. The people propagating these 'bad faith' tropes are well aware of the flaws in their arguments, but nonetheless use them to maintain a degree of public uncertainty and give ammunition to those who already wanted to align themselves in this direction. Until we expose these people for the charlatan's they are, progress will be difficult.

@@craigrees7939 I agree. It's a form of manufactured consent to maintain the status quo for a deeply embedded entitled establishment.

Economic terrorists

I find it extremely ignorant to think of Singapore and Hong kong as similar let alone the same. Hong kong is a hell hole for people not in the 10% of the pop. You have elderly living in makeshift homes built out of sheaths of metal and young people not being able to afford the tiniest apartments even with good salaries. Singapore on the other hand, IS a good place to live. They have one of the highest home ownership rates, and the majority of housing is PUBLIC housing. Also, land and property aren't owned indefinitely. After 99 years, it gets returned back to the government. This prevents land accumulation and gaining wealth by just owning property and sitting on your ass waiting for the property prices to rise so u can sell yours. It also leads to better use of land since it's a liability to just own and not do anything with it for long periods of time. This is just one example. The healthcare system is also a great example of very pragmatic policies combining both competitive markets and good government regulations to provide the best service, for the majority of people, for as cheap as possible. The UK would be much better off if it learned a thing of two from Singapore, but the political system/situation would never allow that unfortunately.

Mark Littlewood and IEA are free market fundamentalists and when their warped ideas make contact with reality Kwasi Kwarteng's budget happens... it's all dogma, bluster and has no actual basis in reality, which is why Gary was able to disprove most of it here with absolute ease...

Absolutely and water and the rolling stock rail companies which do nothing apparently.

And BT and the Royal Mail and please let’s get the NHS and its staff paid and funded correctly!

The government was intervening through the artificially low interest rates. That's part of the problem. And yes when the government tries to manipulate prices or interest rates, that will naturally create imbalances.

@@andrewgeissinger5242 you're totally wrong but its funny how we both diagnose the same problem but have totally different ways of solving it.

The government is not only complicit in this but directly involved. Asking them to fix the problem would be like asking a lion to stop eating wildebeest. We need to destroy the current systems of democratic republics and install a system of party moderated direct democracy with highly vetted auditing for the financial affairs of parliamentary officials.

Last I heard, he's quite a heavy smoker...

Likes young guys.

its so irritating. And clicking his pen. Such poor hosting

@Guttural Tuttle You calling me ignorant and a loser? For caring about inequality, which is something that ultimately at a certain point leads to societal collapse. Surely only an ignorant loser would, throw about childish statements like that!

The have a newer, better, improved version called Fewdalism. Specifically designed to benefit the few...

@@marcconaghan1522 you sound daft Thatcher paid lip service to capitalism no serious capitalist would subsidizes industries

Exactly. Mark wants to reduce the debt, but doesn''t seem to realise this means reducing the amount of bonds in existence, which can only happen by taxing the bondholders i.e the rich. He hasn't joined the dots at all.

@Guttural Tuttle lol fragile

He is being out classed by Gary, Littlewood is not for the poor or struggling, he likes it just the way it is.

Exactly

Why did he say he was in favour of a land tax then? If I recall he was the only one who proposed actual policies? Please reference IEA output that made you come to this conclusion.

​@@nialltube2245 It's insane how people can listen and watch this and think Gary came out as the victor here. Mark was clearly the reasonable person and has good ideas. Implementing them isn't easy. He isn't the prime minister.

​@@AtlasofInfo Absolutely insane.. Who'd believe a guy that was right 13 years in a row, right, Atlasofinfo?

the recent market dip really shows that most people might not fully understand the financial factors at play. But don't worry, there's always room to learn and grow our financial knowledge!"

I have learned from past experience that basing market judgements and decisions solely on rumors and hearsay can lead to detrimental results. In 2020, I fell victim to such a situation and was left holding worthless positions in the market. To overcome this, I sought the assistance of a professional advisor and made significant changes to my portfolio. Over the past two years, I have worked with this advisor and have seen a growth of 750k in my portfolio, demonstrating that profitable opportunities can be found in both bullish and bearish market conditions, it is a matter of strategic investment approach.

True, we’re only just an information away from amassing wealth, I know alot of folks that made fortunes from the Dotcom crash as well as the 08’ crash and I’ve been looking into similar opportunities in this present market, could this coach that guides yo help ?

thank you so much for this tip! Finding your coach was a breeze and I was really impressed with all the research I did on his credentials before scheduling a call. It's clear from he résumé that he's extremely knowledgeable and skilled, and I'm so excited to have the chance to talk to him.

Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

And an enormous number of low wage temporary migrant workers . About a third of Singapore’s three-million-strong labour force is non-resident with almost 90% of this comprising of low-wage temporary migrant workers holding work permits or S-passes.[1] These workers are concentrated in industrial sectors such as construction, shipbuilding and repair, and conservancy and household work where they make up almost the entire labour force.

So? The problem is building rate compared to population growth, Singapore builds more per capita. France builds 4x more housing per capita than the UK

Exactly.

Yeah it’s all relative, so his best mate probably made £1m so like all Tory scum he thinks he’s hard done by.

It's like you've not listened to anything Stevenson has said: whilst Littlewood (and multi-millionaire Stevenson himself, to an even greater extent) have unarguably done well, both of their interests are more similar to that of the part-time minimum wage retail worker than the those of the Duke of Westminster.

He is a slipery, devious kleptocratic fraudster advising the kleptocratic oligarchy!

I think that's true on both accounts. He said nothing that isn't economics orthodoxy. And yes, he is paid to advance free market ideas, and most of that money comes from the wealthier people.

@splen borg The disturbing thing to me is that I can see from ( red tie ) his body language that he 100% knows that what Gary is saying is correct. It is as if his job is to muddy to the water and make sure to distract from the fact that wealth inequality is the root issue that needs addressing.

@@farhiyadirir8497 they all know what Gary is saying is right. Their job is to obfuscate and make sure such concepts are never implemented as this would adversely impact on their billionaire funders.

I wanted to understand the other side of the coin but had a very hard time after suggesting that "enterprise spirit" would save the UK. Taxing the rich sounds hard. But i suspect not as hard if we do nothing. Its not the poor agaisnt the rich its the poor and the rich agaisnt chaos.

Possibly because neither has one eye on career advancement.

we don;t need more homes just less people

@@garethwilliams4467 🙄

@@lynnevenables7193 Let me guess, immigration is ok, as long as it doesn't live near you?

@@garethwilliams4467 why do immigrants scare you so much, they don’t scare me, the government does though.

@@lynnevenables7193 well .. .they swamp public services, education and cheaper housing. All while not bein a net contributor when their benefits are taken into account. Also, they swell the population of this green and pleasant land ... reducing my quality of life with traffic, pollution, parking, building etc .... why would I want any of that

they would never allow someone like Gary to be a politician he's too honest and has no interest in pandering to parliament

Oh, how I'd love to see him as the shadow chancellor, taking that fraudster Sunak apart in the commons!

He would fail, and you would say you'd never supported him.

Gary didn't go to Oxford so tough luck joining the rich kid's club sorry parliament.

@@googane7755 He literally did go to Oxford, you utter berk and he is, by his own admission, really quite rich. Nice job showing off that chip on your shoulder.

but whose money are you going to spend. And don't say everyone pays a fiar share, becasue the poor never do. You just take it from those that have it, they end up paying for those that can't pay their way, Then when those that have paid the most like the NHS .. they can't. Becasue its full of obese alcoholics or drug addicts that don't pay

Hi@@garethwilliams4467 - thanks for the reply. Yes, the people with the most money have benefited most from society so it's reasonable for them to pay more back. Lots of wealthy people ask the state to tax them more because they see the benefit of it. Some people do take more out of the system than they put in, but it's not a good situation to be in and I don't think most people would choose to be poor and reliant on the state. The principle of the NHS being free for all regardless is about human dignity and the right to health care - this is something of great value and I'm happy to pay taxes to uphold the principle. Societies that don't have universal health care are much less pleasant places to live.

@@alextilley8323 wrong 1) The people with most money have given society the most - ie creating jobs etc, and if you look at highe earners such as footballers they take very littel but pay a massive amount of tax, they are where they are due to an incredible work ethic and ability. 90% of people in this country have a similar education and background. 2) Only the virtue signallers asked to be taxed - and don't mean it. There is nothing to stop a wealthy person who wants to give their money away starting a charity or walking down the street handing out money - if they mean it. 3) Lots of people who take out more that they put in LOVE doing so, due to laziness and mental make up, being reliant on the state is great - becasue we live in a world without individual responsibility and the state can make you rich in the UK eg, satellite TV, guaranteeed housing, nerw boiler, mobile phones go to the benefit class in this country. 4) You have no right to helath care - why should you ? If you can't provide it for yourself and without good reason, to take it from me is morally bereft. Why should I pay for your hospital treatment if you're not a net contributor to the UK. 5) It's only your perspective that the UK is great place to live becasue of it's largesse. I much preferef the USA - very little sense of entitlement, people payed their way and took responsibility. Much better for the health of a society. I'm betting you taker out of the system more than you put in.

Hi @@garethwilliams4467 sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree about this. Have a good day.

@@garethwilliams4467 you’re actually wrong on who creates jobs, it’s demand that does that, where there’s no demand, there’s no job, no tax. What happens then? I think tax wealth, invest in the country, create jobs, tax and the country ticks over!

Mark Littlewood's internal struggle between the position he's come from and the postion he's being taken to is like a grubby child being dragged kicking and struggling into a bath.

Looks like Scotland is set to run that social experiment on our doorstep. It's going to interesting to see how that progresses and how much effort is invested in sabotaging it from south of the border.

Indeed. Your point is explicated very well in the book "The Spirit Level" by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, which has Lots of empirical evidence showing the more unequal a society is, the more social problems a society has.

Exactly the UK is heading to becoming more like South Africa, were wealthy people live in estates with gates and private security to protect them from the poor.

Cuba😱corruption, extreme poverty, state control. A good place to live if you take all your asset wealth with you. Obviously is you were a Cuban native you would have no asset wealth

Honestly your opinion is so privileged. You have no idea what life is like under Communist dictatorship.

Tax stagnant wealth.

@@henrydemonfreid1985 examples?

​@@kayedal-haddad9294 As you say. Land. Multiple houses / cars / other assets. Tax Wealth.

​@jf2176 range rovers too!

Relying on the whims of an old super rich guy seems a very haphazard way to manage society though. How many libraries can you use?

Yes….. that’s why we taxed the spit out of wealth and built these amazing countries……. Then the wealthy reversed it.

Sin is a Christian concept.

@@Frohicky1 Are you sure about that?

@@Waltzhybrid92 Well given you have offered no conflicting evidence, I'd say the statement stands.

@@Frohicky1 the concept of sin is a means of social control and it appears in all religions ie drinking alcohol is a sin for Muslims, killing a cow is a sin to a Hindu.

Poor people are amongst the most greedy.

Yes mate, these people know that they're getting an easy ride at the moment, the government is filled with these sort of people and they belong to a class of people of this wealth bracket. Privately educated, vast wealth within the family, knowledgeable about how to set up businesses and avoid as much tax as possible and very well connected with the multi national corps who they give tax breaks to and will be working for once they leave the gov. These people aren't going to introduce rules that will hurt their own pocket and hamper their careers once they leave office.

That’s cos he thinks he’s in this ‘rich’ group! So many people (Tory voters) think they’re in the club, you’re not, unless you’re making tens of millions a year you are not in the club and you’re not who Gary is talking about. These aspirational types identify up not down, they don’t realise they’re siding with the wrong team

Less middle class than uk per capita it a shit system

Indeed. Your point is well explicated in a book called "The Spirit Level" by Richard Wilkiinson and Kate Picket. I recommend it.

@@fidomusic Cheers, I’ll seek it out.

Littlewood's job is to not notice, although he does briefly speak in favour of a Land Value Tax, different from a property tax of course. In the US, like most countries, they have 1 to 2% annual property tax, so a $100 million flat in NYC would pay between 1 and 2 million dollars a year tax and there's no council tax paid by renters.

what's wrong with protecting the wealthy ? HAve you ever stopped to ask yourself how the wealthy get wealthy ?

@@garethwilliams4467 Have you ever asked yourself how we pay for a functioning NHS and public services.

@@garethwilliams4467 did you listen to and understand this video?

@@maxclive2138 of course. sounded like the usual drivel - what do you think I don't understand ? Who pays for these services ? Usually the people who aren't using them, we need to tax more lower end people to use these services, I would suggest at the point of use. No more parasite culture

@@garethwilliams4467 Hallelujah this makes perfect sense from the perspective of the uber wealthy and hat doffing Daily Mail reader. I wish the cons would just admit this instead of coning everyone that they care about public services and those that use them. Their next manifesto should include abolishing the NHS, ending mass free education and charging everyone to use roads and even more to use public transport. Hell why not go the whole hog and bring back the workhouse.

If you get more tax revenue out of companies, they will have less money to reinvest, who pays corporation tax? Investors in lower returns, workers in lower wages, and consumers in higher prices. So I would argue there is a loss when you tax corporations.

@@ProWhitaker Revenue? We're talking about profits mate. Why would workers get paid less if corporations reinvest in internal growth to avoid paying corporation taxes? Investors will still see a return. Although it's possible they will see higher returns investing in companies that do not meet the thresholds for cooperation tax which could see more investment in small companies which is far more preferable if you ask me. So no, I still don't see a down side in taxing corporations.

Also, although investors would not receive as high dividends if a corporation reinvests rather than posting profits, the value of the stock would improve because reinvesting in internal growth obviously means higher growth down the line so that logic is also faulty. Short term investors might want to realise short term gains but overall that's bad for the economy as short term investors generally create more volatility than long term investors.

@@HopeIsFleeting so are you saying that if corporation tax was higher that would incentivise companies to reduce there net income, eg increasing CapEx, but the unseen is that with higher taxes it would disincentive growth. www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-growth-plan-2022-factsheet-on-corporation-tax/corporation-tax-rise-cancellation-factsheet

@@ProWhitaker First of all, of course the government is going to try and justify decreases in corporation tax. If they couldn't justify their policies they wouldn't be able to get them passed. Second, what effect do you think increases in capital expenditure has on the growth/value of a corperation (generally speaking)?

Gary for Chancellor!

I live in Tokyo Prefecture (not the city) and what you say is spot on. Inheritance tax here is far higher than in the UK and I think that helps. When I told my American friend how much rent we pay for our two bedroom apartment she said, "Stay in Japan". Australia might be even worse than the UK; rents and property prices there are astronomical.

His opponent was the winner here. Gary is ego. Even his last prediction is daft. It's already messed up and we don't need him to predict the glaringly obvious.

You could think of both world wars as sudo revolutions. The elite had to empower the workers or the Germans would have invaded & taken their assets off them. That motivated them to run the economy more fairly & pay a proper share. It would be interesting to see how the books balance once the actual destructive losses of fighting the war are set aside.

Government steal half your income when you earn & spend in Australia

Littlewood's point is that an income tax (and moreso, National Insurance) acts as a deterrent for the activity it is applied to, i.e. deriving an income from working.

@@cowbutt6 You... didn't grasp what I wrote, did you?

@@tomgl6684 Well, the original point apparently went over your head. Regardless of the intent of alcohol/tobacco vs. income taxes, the effect of all three is to discourage the taxed activities. But whilst we'd ostensibly like people to reduce the amount they smoke and drink (actually, governments probably fear a day when no-one smokes or drinks, as that becomes another hole in their budget to fill), we would instead like people *to* work - which then begs the question of why we're taxing it (answer: because it's easy).

@@cowbutt6 No, it really isn't. If you drink or smoke, the effect of putting a tax is you consume less of them. If a tax on income is increased then what will the vast majority of people do? Not work for a living? Swap an average wage of £30,000 for benefits because taxing 20% of everything over £13k just upsets them so much? Or will they, actually, still try to find a job that pays them as much as possible for the work they enjoy, or at least tolerate? About the only sensible thing you've said is about national insurance. I fully agree, it should be something absorbed into general taxation.

@@tomgl6684 If you listen to what Stevenson says, both in this debate, and in many of his other videos, you'll know that you don't have to earn an income from work in order to have the means necessary to afford to live. Taxing income discourages working in favour of early retirement and living off passive income, whether as a shareholder or a landlord.

This kind of comment is totally unacceptable on the Internet.