General politics discussion thread

[Happ Hazzard]

Let's hope so. Because no banks = no welfare state.

[Bashar]

Let's hope so. Because no banks = no welfare state.

 

This is somewhat of an exaggeration.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Bashar

[Happ Hazzard]

Let's hope so. Because no banks = no welfare state.

 

This is somewhat of an exaggeration.

Can't see why. Because taxing average citizens over 50% isn't a viable option.

 

Maybe this is what the socialists want? Because the one thing that would cause a revolution in this country is the welfare state collapsing.

[Bashar]

Let's hope so. Because no banks = no welfare state.

 

This is somewhat of an exaggeration.

Can't see why. Because taxing average citizens over 50% isn't a viable option.

 

How do you get to the conclusion that the loss of tax revenue from the banks would necessitate 'taxing average citizens over 50%'?

[Happ Hazzard]

Let's hope so. Because no banks = no welfare state.

 

This is somewhat of an exaggeration.

Can't see why. Because taxing average citizens over 50% isn't a viable option.

 

How do you get to the conclusion that the loss of tax revenue from the banks would necessitate 'taxing average citizens over 50%'?

How else are you going to keep the welfare state running without revenue from the financial sector?

[Bashar]

Let's hope so. Because no banks = no welfare state.

 

This is somewhat of an exaggeration.

Can't see why. Because taxing average citizens over 50% isn't a viable option.

 

How do you get to the conclusion that the loss of tax revenue from the banks would necessitate 'taxing average citizens over 50%'?

How else are you going to keep the welfare state running without revenue from the financial sector?

 

How much revenue do you think comes from the financial sector?

[Kiffy]

Yeah Imagine if we lost the 128 million in tax barclays just paid, whole place'd collapse!

It's not like hsbc would stop operating here, it's talking about relocating it's head quarters for tax purposes, which would lose some jobs in the city but it certainly would not remove the welfare state or change normal tax to 50% or anything like it.

And if you think it would, you're probably a moron with no understanding of what's happening.

[Happ Hazzard]

Who do you think pays the majority of tax in this country?

 

Financial sector contributes about 40% of all tax revenue as best I can tell.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Happ Hazzard

[Loki]

 

Your best is a fairly low standard, you berk.

 

The most generous percentage that I can find, the one touted by the City of London itself (which is hardly likely to downplay its own importance) puts the financial sector's total tax contribution for 2009/10 at 11.2% of total government tax receipts.

 

Here's the PWC report they commissioned, which you will of course not read.

 

http://217.154.230.218/NR/rdonlyres/68F49A...FinalForWeb.pdf

 

And of course tax income is only about 35% of the government's total yearly income, so the financial sector contributes perhaps 4% of GDP.

 

The financial sectors is undoubtedly a major, if not THE major contributor of tax revenue, but the tax-profit ratio is stunningly low (hence people's anger). Your argument is, as always, mere hot air.

[Happ Hazzard]

Fair enough, I must have miscalculated. It's still a fair whack though. Especially when we already spend more on benefits than we get in tax revenue. It's an unhealthy way to run a country.

 

Can you get rid of that fake quote in your sig please. I'm not the one dropping C and F bombs in a supposedly adult discussion thread.

[Bashar]

Who do you think pays the majority of tax in this country?

 

Financial sector contributes about 40% of all tax revenue as best I can tell.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

[Loki]

Not until you prove you are able. And besides, it's a direct quote from you with absolutely no amendments, just taken out of context. It's Daily Mail reportage, you should be proud.

[Happ Hazzard]

Who do you think pays the majority of tax in this country?

 

Financial sector contributes about 40% of all tax revenue as best I can tell.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

Is that supposed to be the "serious discussion" that this thread is reknowned for?

[Happ Hazzard]

Not until you prove you are able. And besides, it's a direct quote from you with absolutely no amendments, just taken out of context. It's Daily Mail reportage, you should be proud.

Prove to who? You? Who made you the judge of what a sensible discussion is? What you mean of course, is someone who embraces liberalism and falls into line with the rest of the sheep. Well sorry, that isn't going to happen, ever. It's people not wanting to have to think for themselves that's got this country into the state that it's in. Keep on convincing yourself that being liberal makes you superior.

[Bashar]

Especially when we already spend more on benefits than we get in tax revenue.

 

Er.........the financial sector's total tax contribution of