• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

MartyFunkhouser said:
Yep and there will always be options for rich people looking to avoid paying more tax, its nothing new

Yes we need to get better at creating wealth here, but then people try to block development and changes of industry by claiming net zero is a fad, so even a move into new job creation in future proofed industries can't work because the same people cry about it.

Governments can rarely win in this situations, in times of need you either tax the poor or the rich, probably on balance right that the richest just pay a slither more than pushing the poorer classes into deeper poverty. Not ideal but here we are
Click to expand...

In what way are businesses based around green energy and net zero being blocked? I assume you are not arguing in favour of building nuclear power plants here. Whats some examples relative to other new enterprise?
 
robp135 said:
In what way are businesses based around green energy and net zero being blocked? I assume you are not arguing in favour of building nuclear power plants here. Whats some examples relative to other new enterprise?
Click to expand...

When I say blocked I mean by political discourse and the fact that other parties seemingly don't want to move forward with it. Future proofing jobs is a key element to the future and something we have been ok but not great at as a country. Plans for parties to heavily tax the renewable sector just because they hate the idea of it, or they are pandering to their electorate.

Ironically the ever seemingly "unpopular" Sadiq Khan done a tremendous job making London an AI hub which from hosting some of their conferences and seeing their international budgets I can only assume is going great guns. I would not be against nuclear at all, why not have both? There is not a finite amount of resources left, I would prefer we plan for the future than listen to barstool preachers calling Net Zero a con
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
When I say blocked I mean by political discourse and the fact that other parties seemingly don't want to move forward with it. Future proofing jobs is a key element to the future and something we have been ok but not great at as a country. Ironically the ever seemingly "unpopular" Sadiq Khan done a tremendous job making London an AI hub which from hosting some of their conferences and seeing their international budgets I can only assume is going great guns. I would not be against nuclear at all, why not have both? There is not a finite amount of resources left, I would prefer we plan for the future than listen to barstool preachers calling Net Zero a con
Click to expand...

None of the parties saying that have been anywhere near power though so I don’t see why it would have prevented economic growth around net zero development the past 7 years.

Nothing going to make net zero timelines more unrealistic than AI at this point either.
 
robp135 said:
None of the parties saying that have been anywhere near power though so I don’t see why it would have prevented economic growth around net zero development the past 7 years.

Nothing going to make net zero timelines more unrealistic than AI at this point either.
Click to expand...
There absolutely has to be synergy between the two in the future, how thats found, we won't solve on a football forum, but thats just the reality, the two have to coexist
 
Last edited:
MartyFunkhouser said:
There absolutely has to be synergy between the two in the future, how thats found we won't solve on a football forum, but thats just the reality
Click to expand...

The issue with green and net zero policy is that so many of the “experts” push lowering consumption. That was unrealistic prior to AI being top of everyones mind. It’s even more unrealistic now.

Even someone like myself that does not believe climate change is going to cause the world to end in the next 20 years still has to accept we will run out of oil eventually. Plus as a country the UK doesn’t have much to start with. Got to invest in reliable sources that create a high amount of energy.
 
robp135 said:
Believing that we need wealthy people in the country to be paying high amounts of tax does not equate to a blanket support of Capitalism.

The top 1% pay over 25% of income tax. The top 20% pay over 75%. You do need these people.
Click to expand...

IMO, the system is designed to 'need' them -or at least convince people we need them. Much like the general myth of trickle-down economics. I'm sure there are graphs and spreadsheets which someone might provide to show me how 'it works' and 'is working', but a wander around most major cities will show you it isn't. Tangibly. The eye-test. I could expound further on my theories regarding corporate tax stuff and what not, but there's little point. I think people either agree on one perspective or another.
 
thfcsteff said:
IMO, the system is designed to 'need' them -or at least convince people we need them. Much like the general myth of trickle-down economics. I'm sure there are graphs and spreadsheets which someone might provide to show me how 'it works' and 'is working', but a wander around most major cities will show you it isn't. Tangibly. The eye-test. I could expound further on my theories regarding corporate tax stuff and what not, but there's little point. I think people either agree on one perspective or another.
Click to expand...

I do not really understand why trickle down economics continues to be referenced. I have not suggested anything which references it or promoted one economic policy over another. And not implied that trickle works or does not work.

I have just said that collecting less tax is a bad thing.

My primary view on taxes is that low income earners should pay less and in many cases no income tax as its a zero sum gain most of the time.
 
Last edited:
robp135 said:
I do not really understand why trickle down economics continues to be referenced. I have not suggested anything which references it or promoted one economic policy over another or that implied that trickle works or does not work.

I have just said that collecting less tax is a bad thing.

My primary view on taxes is that low income earners should pay less and in many cases no income tax as its a zero sum gain most of the time.
Click to expand...

My comments about trickle down economics have absolutely nothing to do with you or anything you said Rob.
They are views I have long held. The 'someone' was, indeed, 'anyone', generally.
 
I have a suggestion. Let all the billionaires go to an island and build bunkers. Luxury of course. Let's call it billionaires island (catchy). When they are all ensconced in their luxury pads let's turn off their Internet and leave. And then take their money and pay for brick.
 
Do you guys see the billionnaires distinctly from the businesses they own? You could stick em all on an island but then you’d find we live in a world short of the best ideas.
 
I like to think I'm a reasonable person..

Baleforce said:
I don’t think reasonable people are concerned about immigration.
Click to expand...

I'm concerned about it

Baleforce said:
I think they are concerned by political corruption, corporate tax avoidance and the reduction in public services.
Click to expand...

Yep, agreed

Baleforce said:
Reasonable people are not tricked into thinking downtrodden minorities are the enemy.
Click to expand...

No resonable person thinks that, just idiots
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back