UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Ostroeuropa]

If we adopted Labours platform we'd still be spending less than around half of successful European countries on public spending, and we'd still have lower tax rates than most of them.

And all of those countries have high debts and deficits. When exactly are these debts supposed to be paid? Or are we ok with more and more of the annual government spending going towards paying interest on loans?

The Corbyn manifesto is fully costed dude, we know where the money is coming from. Taxes. The figures are right there, and nobody has debunked them. They just keep spamming "HOW YOU GONNA PAY FOR IT?!"

We've told you. At length. In the manifesto. Is what you mean; "Can we simply the math enough so that a Tory voter can understand it?"?

Probably not, I don't understand the figures either, but economists say they check out. but I can simplify the concept for you;
Tax the rich.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng ... de-details

The deficit we're talking is a negligible figure compared to the overall spending ambitions of the Labour Party, which again, put us in the midst of European nations in terms of expenditure and taxation, not as some far left dystopia.

[Souseiseki]

you will get bullied into it anyway once you learn that you are note singapore and your genius plan to try become a tax haven except just a little bit shitter than all the other tax havens will not work. you're not a tax haven, you're a money laundering haven. and you just fucked up your ability to effectively launder money. so good job there. another galaxy brain move from england.

Why can't we become a tax haven?

because you have nothing material to offer over the other tax havens other than EU membership which you just sacrificed

[Salandriagado]

If we adopted Labours platform we'd still be spending less than around half of successful European countries on public spending, and we'd still have lower tax rates than most of them.

And all of those countries have high debts and deficits. When exactly are these debts supposed to be paid?

Never, because paying off all government debt is always stupid.

Or are we ok with more and more of the annual government spending going towards paying interest on loans?

In absolute terms? Yes.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Why can't we become a tax haven?

because you have nothing material to offer over the other tax havens other than EU membership which you just sacrificed

Also the inconvenient fact that a few dozen million "slaves" ahem denizens will probably have to die before England becomes an actual tax haven.

[Salandriagado]

The 2020 EU Tax Evasion law.
While the UK remains in the EU, that legislation will become part of UK law.

Pretty sure repealing that will be a priority for a conservative government.

That requires them to successfully negotiate an exit deal first. Given that they've utterly failed to do that in the last three years, what exactly makes you think that they'll manage it in a month?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Why can't we become a tax haven?

because you have nothing material to offer over the other tax havens other than EU membership which you just sacrificed

perhaps we could try and beat Singapore and Liechtenstein by reducing taxes and public spending even to below their levels.

[Ostroeuropa]

because you have nothing material to offer over the other tax havens other than EU membership which you just sacrificed

Also the inconvenient fact that a few dozen million "slaves" ahem denizens will probably have to die before England becomes an actual tax haven.

Plenty of tax havens are pretty socialistic with regards to their treatment of the poor in their country in order to prevent socialists taking power. We have too large a population for that to be viable.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

because you have nothing material to offer over the other tax havens other than EU membership which you just sacrificed

perhaps we could try and beat Singapore and Liechtenstein by reducing taxes and public spending even to below their levels.

Because losing a few dozen million out of the population and being reduced to a third world country is nothing right?

[Salandriagado]

So yes you admit that you're more of a parasite on society than the welfare system.

What does the welfare system contribute again?

A positive return. That is: every pound spent on welfare makes the government more than a pound in resulting increased taxes (broadly, because benefit recipients spend it on necessaries, boosting the economy). Unlike, say, literally anything that effectively gives money to the rich.

[Ostroeuropa]

because you have nothing material to offer over the other tax havens other than EU membership which you just sacrificed

perhaps we could try and beat Singapore and Liechtenstein by reducing taxes and public spending even to below their levels.

And how do you propose to stop people voting against that?

[Salandriagado]

And all of those countries have high debts and deficits. When exactly are these debts supposed to be paid? Or are we ok with more and more of the annual government spending going towards paying interest on loans?

The Corbyn manifesto is fully costed dude, we know where the money is coming from. Taxes. The figures are right there, and nobody has debunked them. They just keep spamming "HOW YOU GONNA PAY FOR IT?!"

We've told you. At length. In the manifesto. Is what you mean; "Can we simply the math enough so that a Tory voter can understand it?"?

Probably not, I don't understand the figures either, but economists say they check out. but I can simplify the concept for you;
Tax the rich.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng ... de-details

The deficit we're talking is a negligible figure compared to the overall spending ambitions of the Labour Party, which again, put us in the midst of European nations in terms of expenditure and taxation, not as some far left dystopia.

Minor point, but there are some rather optimistic assumptions in the Labour manifesto. Less so than the Tory promises, but still more than none. It's not a big deal, because nobody actually believes all manifesto pledges will, or even are intended to, be implemented.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

What does the welfare system contribute again?

A positive return. That is: every pound spent on welfare makes the government more than a pound in resulting increased taxes (broadly, because benefit recipients spend it on necessaries, boosting the economy). Unlike, say, literally anything that effectively gives money to the rich.

You are talking with a guy who's never had to make <£800/month go around. It's useless.

[Souseiseki]

because you have nothing material to offer over the other tax havens other than EU membership which you just sacrificed

perhaps we could try and beat Singapore and Liechtenstein by reducing taxes and public spending even to below their levels.

no. that's not even remotely a feasible option for a middle sized regional power to take.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

perhaps we could try and beat Singapore and Liechtenstein by reducing taxes and public spending even to below their levels.

And how do you propose to stop people voting against that?

The "solution" is obvious.

[Salandriagado]

A positive return. That is: every pound spent on welfare makes the government more than a pound in resulting increased taxes (broadly, because benefit recipients spend it on necessaries, boosting the economy). Unlike, say, literally anything that effectively gives money to the rich.

You are talking with a guy who's never had to make <£800/month go around. It's useless.

That's why I'm speaking his language: we should do this because it makes a profit.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Let's ship anybody with more than £100 million in assets to St. Helena to farm pepper. <.>
I bet this idea is more popular than making rUK a third world nation with no government.

[Souseiseki]

So yes you admit that you're more of a parasite on society than the welfare system.

What does the welfare system contribute again?

the first welfare state was created by conservatives to try avoid bleeding support to socialists. all arguments about morality and benefit to society aside, one of the biggest values of the welfare state is that it stops you having legions of poor, hungry and angry people questioning why they're giving 50% of their pittance to you.

perhaps we could try and beat Singapore and Liechtenstein by reducing taxes and public spending even to below their levels.

And how do you propose to stop people voting against that?

lie to them. you can get them to believe almost any bullshit if you try hard enough.

[Heloin]

Let's ship anybody with more than £100 million in assets to St. Helena to farm pepper. <.>
I bet this idea is more popular than making rUK a third world nation with no government.

It'd be mighty rude to the three people already living on St. Helena to do that to them.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

You are talking with a guy who's never had to make <£800/month go around. It's useless.

That's why I'm speaking his language: we should do this because it makes a profit.

Perhaps a societal profit, not an individual one.

[Heloin]

That's why I'm speaking his language: we should do this because it makes a profit.

Perhaps a societal profit, not an individual one.

You make more money living in a stable society then a failed one. Unless you want to argue that the Congo is a capitalistic paradise on Earth.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Let's ship anybody with more than £100 million in assets to St. Helena to farm pepper. <.>
I bet this idea is more popular than making rUK a third world nation with no government.

It'd be mighty rude to the three people already living on St. Helena to do that to them.

We can make them farm foremen.

[Ostroeuropa]

perhaps we could try and beat Singapore and Liechtenstein by reducing taxes and public spending even to below their levels.

no. that's not even remotely a feasible option for a middle sized regional power to take.

Let's try this:

How many bankers does it take to run a tax haven?
What is their income?

Okay.

Now imagine they spend it. All of it.

How many people can they support doing so?

Like if you live in a village with a 1% tax rate and all the worlds shiftless parasites move their money to your village to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, and you have 5 bankers running that bank, and they each earn 30 million pounds...

That's viable.

Because it's a village with 5000 people in it. And the bankers can parade around asking everyone in that village to do a thing for them to get some of that money. The bankers personelle staff is about 50 dudes each, just on their private butlers and security and shit like that. Then you need someone to make the beaches nice, clean the windows, and so on.

Now imagine it's the same 5 bankers, the same 150 million pounds, and a population of 69 million people.

If those bankers just keep spending money and spend it fast enough and demand enough varied products then yes, all 69 million people remain employed... for two pounds a year each, give or take.

Fundamentally the number of personelle it takes to run a tax haven doesn't scale. The number of people it takes to hide your money on an island nation is the same it takes to hide your money in china.

The difference is, in china, those people hiding the money cannot single handedly keep an economy afloat by spending their income on their personal lives being ones of luxury.

The size of a UK tax haven wouldn't mean we all suddenly become bankers. The same number of bankers would be doing it, and they'd have to support *millions of people each* for it to make any kind of sense. Maybe you can get it to work by hiring half the population as security against the other half

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Now imagine it's the same 5 bankers, the same 150 million pounds, and a population of 69 million people.

If those bankers just keep spending money and spend it fast enough and demand enough varied products then yes, all 69 million people remain employed... for two pounds a year each, give or take.

Just bring back chattel slavery at that stage.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Now imagine it's the same 5 bankers, the same 150 million pounds, and a population of 69 million people.

If those bankers just keep spending money and spend it fast enough and demand enough varied products then yes, all 69 million people remain employed... for two pounds a year each, give or take.

Just bring back chattel slavery at that stage.

That might be a little extreme.

[Ostroeuropa]

Now imagine it's the same 5 bankers, the same 150 million pounds, and a population of 69 million people.

If those bankers just keep spending money and spend it fast enough and demand enough varied products then yes, all 69 million people remain employed... for two pounds a year each, give or take.

Just bring back chattel slavery at that stage.

The ratio's were discussing here are even less feasible than chattel slavery.

You didn't have a ratio of one slavemaster to every one million slaves from eating him alive.