*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[OngBonga]

There are no tax laws that apply to government but don't apply to you. If you have precisely the same business portfolio as Sunak, with precisely the same profit, and precisely the same (presumably competent) accountant, you'll pay precisely the same amount of tax.

[Poopadoop]

There are no tax laws that apply to government but don't apply to you. If you have precisely the same business portfolio as Sunak, with precisely the same profit, and precisely the same (presumably competent) accountant, you'll pay precisely the same amount of tax.

Right, if only I had hit bingo on the markets, became a millionnaire, then married the daughter of a billionnaire, I too could get away with paying 22% tax. It's my fault for being such a lazy and unlucky fucker.

[Poopadoop]

There are no tax laws that apply to government but don't apply to you. If you have precisely the same business portfolio as Sunak, with precisely the same profit, and precisely the same (presumably competent) accountant, you'll pay precisely the same amount of tax.

I mean, this is quite possibly the dumbest thing you've ever said on here. The argument is that the tax doesn't unfairly favour the people who make the tax laws because it also favours the rest of the group of superrich people they belong to.

[Poopadoop]

I may not have perfectly stated what classism is in the US, but work with me a bit.
I'm a physicist, not a sociologist.

I have read a book about classism in the US, though. And it painted a very interesting picture of how the US has adapted our class issues against the backdrop of "The American Dream" that anyone can rise from any social group due to their own choices and hard work.

Which is what has been happening in the US for like 200 years. The class system didn't go away. It just got very subtle and sneaky and it's a social taboo to talk about it in just about any context.


But look at any US city, and the surrounding areas and you'll see the class lines drawn hard and fast. Impoverished neighborhoods 1 or 2 city blocks from the most wealthy neighborhoods and ne'er the twain shall meet. Utilizing public transit is a symbol of lacking wealth and people are treated differently if they're perceived to be unable to afford a car or cell phone. The stores and restaurants and public spaces people occupy are heavily segregated based on all sorts of class identifiers.



Again... I'm a physicist and not a sociologist. Classism in the US may look different to elsewhere, or not. IDK.
What I do know is that classism is yuge in the US, and even your treatment under the law is heavily swayed by both your actual and perceived status.
And yes, in the US, wealth is considered one of the biggest markers for status. This whole ethos of, "your choices determine your social class" is fundamental to the lies we say about ourselves, here.

Yeah I think we're talking at somewhat crossed purposes here. I don't disagree with anything you say really, but I'm referring to a perpetuation of a class system through bloodlines that seems (in my view at least) to be more common in the UK than in the US. Though if you add race to the mix, the US may be nearly as bad.

[Poopadoop]

It's hilarious you keep referring to Canada. We were talking about how the monarchy was to blame for class in the UK, and you keep telling me how the income gap in Canada, a constitutional monarchy, is not as wide as it is in the UK.

Why is the income gap not as wide in Canada? Don't they have as many high paying jobs as we do?

I don't expect you to understand this because you've never been to Canada, but the royal family there is essentially a nominal part of the gov't. It's more a way of maintaining ties with the UK than anything else. No-one in Canada is expected to pledge allegiance to King Chuck. We stopped being your lackey a long time ago.

And I don't "blame" the royal family for perpetuating class system, if anything it's the upper classes who want to keep the monarchy as a reactionary response to the idea of progressive socialism.

More to the point, there is very little in the way of a landed aristocracy in Canada, certainly not in the West where I am from and I've never heard of it being the case in the East of Canada either. In the UK, 30% of the land is owned by a group of 1000 people. That's enormous wealth inequality.

[Poopadoop]

So is he paying enough tax? I assume so, because it would be very bad for his political career if he wasn't. He doesn't seem like a dumbass to me. He doesn't strike me as the "no fucks given" type.

Completely missing the point. It's not a question of whether he's following the tax laws, it's a question of how and why the tax laws are weighed so heavily in favour of the super-rich that a billionnaire can pay a lower tax rate than an average schmoe.

[Poopadoop]

Also Ong, your general attitude seems to be that people get what they deserve because market forces generally reward effort and skill. While there's a grain of truth to that, it completely ignores the impact of variance. The same person can have a drastically different economic situation based on luck alone.

Further, there's an implicit assumption in this argument that market forces are a just means of determining wealth. Truth is, market forces are completely amoral. Almost no-one would argue a talented footballer contributes more to the wellbeing of society than a talented GP does, yet they make exponentially more money. The market doesn't give a fuck what you deserve really. It's just another form of variance. If you're highly skilled at kicking a ball you're worth more to the market than if you're highly skilled at diagnosing patients, playing the violin, teaching kids, or a whole shitload of other things that are actually more valuable to society as a whole.

[The Bean Counter]

I had a good look at Rishi's tax details a few weeks ago. Everything looked in order with no tax avoidance going on, albeit tax isn't my area of expertise:

1. Approx. £62k paid in income tax and NI on relevant income of £156k. i.e. 40%.
2. Approx. £58k paid on UK dividend income from £172k i.e. 33%
3. £326k paid on capital gains of £1,641k i.e. 20%

All of the rates applied are the rates all of us would pay. Capital gains obviously isn't cash in the bank, so Rishi effectively cut a cheque for £326k from his other income. If the value of those investments go down, he's due a tax rebate.

Clearly there's a debate to be had about the percentages above and the influence that Rishi has on setting those rates. I think all three are reasonable if we don't want to stifle investment, but (3) should be a progressive tax. UK companies need investment to grow, employ people that pay tax, etc, although Rishi's investment fund probably doesn't invest in UK companies..

[The Bean Counter]

My guess from the investment income is Rishi has investments worth about £20m. If he dies tomorrow, there will be £8m inheritance tax due, with £12m passed on.

[Poopadoop]

I think the jury is out on whether lower taxes on dividends and capital gains is a net benefit to the economy, as both tend to favour wealthier people and the logic thus relies on the trickle-down theory of economics, which has been more or less debunked.

Not the least reason of which was what happened when Liz Truss was in charge. The outcome was rather unpleasant results for everyone except a few people who bet on the pound taking a nosedive.

So yeah, I'd still tax him more.

[Poopadoop]

I mean judging by this graph, if CGT was an important factor in a thriving economy, we wouldn't be sucking so hard and Northern Europe and Ireland would be destitute. So yeah, you probably don't want to go nuts with it, but if you take some more of that money from the Richy Riches and use it to, I don't know, give nurses enough money to live on, it just might be better for all of us.

https://taxfoundation.org/capital-ga...n-europe-2021/

[The Bean Counter]

I think the jury is out on whether lower taxes on dividends and capital gains is a net benefit to the economy, as both tend to favour wealthier people and the logic thus relies on the trickle-down theory of economics, which has been more or less debunked.

Not the least reason of which was what happened when Liz Truss was in charge. The outcome was rather unpleasant results for everyone except a few people who bet on the pound taking a nosedive.

So yeah, I'd still tax him more.

Definitely a complex issue. It's worth remembering that if Rishi does nothing with his capital gains, he's basically paying 60% tax on it: 20% now, 40% upon death. 73% on dividends.

Corp tax is a way more effective tool for growth. Flexing the rate to encourage inward investment could be one Brexit benefit, but we don't have the government or availability of labour (skilled or otherwise) capable of making that happen right now. It's one of the reasons the Truss mini-budget was so horrendous. Far too much, too soon, without doing the numbers and realising Boris' Brexit deal is just a polished turd.

[The Bean Counter]

I mean judging by this graph, if CGT was an important factor in a thriving economy, we wouldn't be sucking so hard and Northern Europe and Ireland would be destitute. So yeah, you probably don't want to go nuts with it, but if you take some more of that money from the Richy Riches and use it to, I don't know, give nurses enough money to live on, it just might be better for all of us.

https://taxfoundation.org/capital-ga...n-europe-2021/

Maybe, or the rate might need to be that low to encourage investment after Brexit.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe, or the rate might need to be that low to encourage investment after Brexit.

Another Brexit benefit.

[OngBonga]

Completely missing the point. It's not a question of whether he's following the tax laws, it's a question of how and why the tax laws are weighed so heavily in favour of the super-rich that a billionnaire can pay a lower tax rate than an average schmoe.

Presumably the chief method of reducing tax for these people is to pay capital gains tax on most of their earnings rather than income tax. I don't have a problem with this if it's accessible to normal people, and it is. I can't pay CGT on my earnings for work, but if I buy something and sell it for a profit, such as shares in a business, I can pay CGT on that. And I bastard well would. Why the fuck would I pay 45% when I can legally pay 20%? Would you? CGT is not some elite only tax that isn't accessible to plebs like you and me. You'll pay it if you make a profit on your house. You want to pay income tax on that instead? Because that's what it seems like you're arguing in favour of.

You're paying 33% because that's entirely income tax, it's your labour, not profit on assets. This isn't some rich fucker's loophole.

[OngBonga]

If Sunak has paid 22% tax on average on all his earnings, then presumably nearly all of it is capital gains tax. That's pretty easy to believe, since he probably only needs to pay income tax on his salary as PM. If he's making a profit on an asset, it's CGT. There's nothing immoral going on here.

Thing is poop, you're smart enough to know this, but you're being blinded by waa waa fuck the Tories.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ong, you seem to equivocate moral and legal, in this convo.


I know you don't have much faith in politicians to be infallible or otherwise having inhuman powers.
Yet when it comes to economics, you're like... into that.

The invisible hand of the market will do no harm, they said.
Never mind stock market crashes based on short-sighted panic have seriously fucked shit up.

And laws had to change to put limits on what this "invisible hand" is allowed to do.

And different countries have different economic policies and laws.


I feel like you dodged the questions, here.

[OngBonga]

Ong, you seem to equivocate moral and legal, in this convo.

No, not moral and legal, but fair and legal. It's fair because the laws, in theory, apply equally to all. If there's evidence that isn't happening, we're having a different conversation.

What's moral and immoral is just a matter of opinion.

I know you don't have much faith in politicians to be infallible or otherwise having inhuman powers.
Yet when it comes to economics, you're like... into that.

It doesn't matter what socioeconomic system is in place, corrupt politicians and businessmen will always be a part of it.

I feel like you dodged the questions, here.

I haven't intended to. So feel free to pick at what you feel I missed.

[OngBonga]

Never mind stock market crashes based on short-sighted panic have seriously fucked shit up.

Panic is a human flaw, not a capitalist flaw.

I mean, when capitalism goes tits up, people go bankrupt and lose their jobs, we go into a period of economic instability and intense state borrowing. Aside from a few stockbrokers jumping out of skyscrapers, it's a financial crisis, not a humanitarian crisis, and might last a decade.

When communism goes tits up, millions starve.

Capitalism isn't perfect, and it's because of human traits like corruption, a tendency to panic, greed, incompetence, you name it. Every problem with capitalism is a human problem. We have to regulate food standards because people can't be trusted to make safe food if left to their own devices. You end up with cocaine in soda.

No other system fixes these problems. You put laws in place to deter bad actors and, ideally, apply them equally. How fairly these laws are applied is the real issue, not the economic system.

[Poopadoop]

If Sunak has paid 22% tax on average on all his earnings, then presumably nearly all of it is capital gains tax. That's pretty easy to believe, since he probably only needs to pay income tax on his salary as PM. If he's making a profit on an asset, it's CGT. There's nothing immoral going on here.

Thing is poop, you're smart enough to know this, but you're being blinded by waa waa fuck the Tories.

No, you're dodging the point like Mojo says.

The system should not be set up so that a tax that primarily affects rich people is lower than a tax that affects everyone. Of course the vast majority of Fishi's income is going to come from things other than his job; that's how being a billionnaire works.

And, again, it's not a question of whether it's legal or not. If someone passes an injust law, that doesn't make it fair. Legal is not a synonym for moral.

I'm not attacking Sunak personally. If I were him I'd take advantage of the system too. I'm saying the laws are unjust because they favour the wealthy. They make it so wealthy people can easily acquire more wealth while the rest of us are stuck where we are.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"If someone passes an unjust law, that doesn't make it fair."

Pretty much this.

I mean, when asking how things should be, if your answer is, "everything's fine" that's an answer, I guess.
Doesn't feel like it's your authentic answer, though.
Is it really?

I'm not willing to put forward a number and say X% is the max anyone in a company can earn above the lowest paid member of the company. I'm not willing to say that's anything but a nonsensical system to deal with this, either. So I can respect that it might not be clear what I'm expecting of you in this conversation.

I'm just asking what you feel are pros and cons about what I see as a runaway situation... and a dangerous one at that.


The fact of increasing wealth inequality world-wide is indisputable. I hope we can at least agree that this is / has been happening for a long time, now. It is true that the worst of it is happening in the US, and maybe that gives me a more intimate sense of how rampant it has been.

To me, this seems like a very dangerous situation to allow the society to get into.
A bit of wealth inequality is good. Too much is too much.
But how much is too much?

And what are the consequences in human hardship and loss of individual freedoms if too much happens?
I don't know the answer, here, but historically, widespread wealth inequality has lead to widespread famine and ultimately political revolutions. Seems pretty steep a price to pay for "this is just human economics in action and nothing can be done about it" mentality.

[OngBonga]

Right, so you're both apparently arguing that we should scrap CGT and replace it with a higher rate of income tax, because in both of your opinions CGT is "unjust".

You're both utterly insane.

The system should not be set up so that a tax that primarily affects rich people is lower than a tax that affects everyone.

Thankfully you're not in control of tax affairs. The UK is not unique in offering a lower rate of tax for making profit from assets rather than work, and there's a very good reason we (and pretty much every other country) do this. Because it would totally fuck the economy if we started claiming more money from people who have already paid 45% tax on their work income and are paying an extra 20% on their asset profits. People just wouldn't invest their money in the same volume.

And, again, it's not a question of whether it's legal or not. If someone passes an injust law, that doesn't make it fair. Legal is not a synonym for moral.

Yeah I'm just going to point out that CGT is not a new tax that Sunak and his cronies passed so they could pay less tax. They didn't pass an "unjust law", they're exploiting already established ones. Fair ones at that.

If people start having to pay 45% tax when they sell their house, I'll point them in your direction.

I'm not attacking Sunak personally. If I were him I'd take advantage of the system too. I'm saying the laws are unjust because they favour the wealthy. They make it so wealthy people can easily acquire more wealth while the rest of us are stuck where we are.

This is completely untrue. You have access to CGT. If you start making money trading crypto, then you pay less tax on that because it's capital gains, not income. And that's completely reasonable. You didn't work to earn that money. You waited. Your asset appreciated in value, and when you sold it and made that profit, you paid tax. Not 45% income tax, 20% CGT. This is normal, healthy tax policy.

CGT is not immoral. It's a tax on profit, as opposed a tax on work. People who pay it are likely already paying a higher rate of income tax than you are.

[OngBonga]

I'm just asking what you feel are pros and cons about what I see as a runaway situation... and a dangerous one at that.

Well I thought I answered your concern about a "runaway situation", and that is that I don't agree it is a runaway situation. It can't be. I compared it to a tide. Not a perfect analogy because tides are predictable, maybe El Nino / La Nina cycle is a better analogy. It's a cycle, that is the important thing to take.

The fact of increasing wealth inequality world-wide is indisputable.

I can dispute whether this is a bad thing or not though. You'll have to tell me why it's increasing for me to answer that. If it's increasing because there are more higher paid jobs than before, and more lower paid jobs, with the same amount of middle paid jobs, then why is this a bad thing? All that happened is more jobs.

To me, this seems like a very dangerous situation to allow the society to get into.
A bit of wealth inequality is good. Too much is too much.
But how much is too much?

I'm not qualified to answer this and neither are you and poop. But I can have faith in the system that when it gets "too much", a reversing trend is inevitable, and it's market forces that make it happen, not conscious human policy. The economy is dynamic, constantly adapting to the changing landscape.

You can close the income gap by creating more average paid jobs. The more people who earn the average, the lower the wage gap. That's what a wage gap tells us. It tells us that the economy is unbalanced, there are lots of low paid jobs and lots of high paid jobs. That balance is not controlled by people. You can't just create middle paid jobs out of thin air, you have to invest to create those jobs. And to invest, you need capital.

CGT is categorically not immoral.

[OngBonga]

When you complain about the wage gap in a civilised country with no real poverty, you're actually both complaining that the economy is unbalanced, rather than unfair. You just don't realise that's what you're arguing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Right, so you're both apparently arguing that we should scrap CGT and replace it with a higher rate of income tax, because in both of your opinions CGT is "unjust".

I said no such thing.
My agreement was with a general statement, not an indictment of any specific policy.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well I thought I answered your concern about a "runaway situation", and that is that I don't agree it is a runaway situation. It can't be. I compared it to a tide. Not a perfect analogy because tides are predictable, maybe El Nino / La Nina cycle is a better analogy. It's a cycle, that is the important thing to take.

Look at whatever metrics you like. I googled a few sources just to make sure I wasn't parroting outdated info.
No matter what I clicked on, the conclusions were the same. An ever greater fraction of the world's total wealth is held by an ever shrinking percentage of humans. The trend is heading in that way.

You say it's a tide. The tide has turned, historically, on famine and bloodshed.
Is that what you're saying is just unavoidable, so why even think about ways it might be thwarted or at least softened?

I can dispute whether this is a bad thing or not though. You'll have to tell me why it's increasing for me to answer that. If it's increasing because there are more higher paid jobs than before, and more lower paid jobs, with the same amount of middle paid jobs, then why is this a bad thing? All that happened is more jobs.

What IT is, is more and more monies are being controlled by a smaller and smaller percentage of humans.

Why it is...? IDK. I'm a physicist, not a sociologist.
That doesn't mean I can't recognize a problem and explore why my naive understanding is naive and maybe become a bit less naive.

I'm not qualified to answer this and neither are you and poop.

As I've said many times. At least we agree on that. We're all boneheads, here. It's never stopped us from having conversations before, though.

I'm not expecting us to solve the world's economy, here.
Doesn't mean we can't share our perspectives and try to learn a bit about it, or at least each other.

[OngBonga]

Ok fair enough. Poop was clearly arguing that CGT is "unjust" and you apparently agreed.

As a general comment I agree with him. Unjust laws aren't fair. I definitely do not agree that CGT is unjust or unfair, which is what he was implying.

[OngBonga]

An ever greater fraction of the world's total wealth is held by an ever shrinking percentage of humans.

Wouldn't this happen if higher paid job creation outpaced lower paid job creation? Wouldn't this be a symptom of an advancing society? Why is this automatically assumed to be a bad thing?

You say it's a tide. The tide has turned, historically, on famine and bloodshed.
Is that what you're saying is just unavoidable, so why even think about ways it might be thwarted or at least softened?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. I'm not comparing economics with famine and war. Economics is a system, and it's influenced by each and every one of us. I improved the economy simply by getting a job, and if I quit I hurt the economy. In the most negligible way, of course, but it's these actions times 50 million, it's the working and spending habits of these people, these are the forces that drives economics in a (mostly) free market like the UK.

Tax policy is also a powerful market force. That's why it would be insane to bring CGT in line with IT. Because it would result in a massive loss of high paying jobs as capital disappeared from the UK. Poop would be happy though, because that brings down the wage gap. Closing this gap isn't necessarily a good thing.

What IT is, is more and more monies are being controlled by a smaller and smaller percentage of humans.

If it's corruption, that's the problem and would be the same problem in any other system. You're not picking at capitalism, here, you're picking at human nature.

If it's not corruption, then it's subject to market forces and it can't go on forever because eventually the purchasing power of regular people is so small that rich people are no longer able to profit off them. That's when the tide turns.

[OngBonga]

Well, the tide should turn long before then, but that's when the tide must turn if it hasn't already.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're not picking at capitalism, here, you're picking at human nature.

ding ding ding

Exacatically.

Is it corruption to seek wealth, though?
Is it corruption to seek to use the power your wealth has afforded you to affect changes you see as beneficial to the world?

Is it always corruption to want to protect your wealth, as you increase it, and to use that wealth to better the world, as you see it?


IDK. Seems like a stretch.

[OngBonga]

Is it corruption to seek wealth, though?

I don't think so. It's instinctive. It's natural to seek a better standard of living. The problem is that when people improve their standard of living, they still want to improve it further. Whether it's dynasty or power or status or just a desire to own expensive things, people are naturally motivated to seek further wealth. Capitalism doesn't create this desire, it caters for it and provides a civil framework for it to happen.

It's corruption to use your wealth to gain unfair advantages over others. The problem here is defining "unfair". We try to do it with law. That doesn't stop some people from breaking the law and getting away with it, and it doesn't stop others from acting immorally within the law. There's no solution to this other than to catch more offenders and close legal loopholes when they're discovered. This becomes a conversation about crime prevention rather than economics.

[Poopadoop]

This is completely untrue. You have access to CGT.

You're right. All me and the vast majority of the country is missing is £1bn in spare change to invest and make bigly profits with. And they never will have anything close to that because they're paying for things the gov't should be paying for, but won't because they're too busy lining their own pockets.

Out of interest, have you heard how much Fishi's wife was making out of her non-dom status? Do you understand when and why that exemption was introduced? I'm gonna give you a wild hint here: It wasn't to benefit the poor.

[Poopadoop]

But I can have faith in the system that when it gets "too much", a reversing trend is inevitable, and it's market forces that make it happen, not conscious human policy. The economy is dynamic, constantly adapting to the changing landscape.

Ah, the "invisible hand of the market" argument. Let's just remove all regulations on finance then and let the system correct itself. Worked out great for the housing market in 2008.

Fun fact: Canada strongly regulates its housing market, with strict rules on what kinds of mortgages can be bought and sold. They never had a housing crash in 2008. Go figure.

[Poopadoop]

Wouldn't this happen if higher paid job creation outpaced lower paid job creation? Wouldn't this be a symptom of an advancing society? Why is this automatically assumed to be a bad thing?

The other possibility is that both the top and bottom of the labour market are being stretched in opposite directions. Bank CEOs now make wayyyyy more relative to 20 years ago, whereas (e.g.,) nurses have taken a 30% real-terms pay cut since 2010.

Btw, have you noticed half the country is on strike? That's not a sign of a healthy system. People are pissed that there are too many people making a shitload of money while they get poorer. It's hard to argue that's a good thing overall.

[Poopadoop]

Cliffs for people outside the UK: A person who moves to the UK from another country can make a one-off payment to the UK gov't (something like £30k) to claim non-domicile status. This means whatever money they make overseas does not get taxed.

The law was introduced in 1799 to let wealthy officials of the British Empire protect their foreign assets from war taxes. It's still on the books, so apparently the invisible hand of the market has not seen fit to repeal it anytime in the last 224 years.

Fishi Sunak's wife claimed non-dom status when she moved here from India. She has saved millions of pounds she would have had to pay in tax without non-dom status, the last several years. It became public knowledge when he became PM. His wife removed her non-dom status, but the gov't left the law on the books.

Labour is promising to ax it when they win the next election, which should allow the gov't to raise ~ £30bn a year.

[OngBonga]

You're right. All me and the vast majority of the country is missing is £1bn in spare change to invest and make bigly profits with.

You're missing a really important point about capital gains. The profit generated is the product of risk. When you work, there's no "risk", you get paid every month so long as you turn up and do your job. You buy an asset, such as a business, you could lose everything.

There is a massive, massive different between profit and income. You seem to think they should be treated the same. They absolutely 100% should not be treated the same. The only reason you think they should is because you hate rich people. That's a you problem.

Your points about non-dom status are much stronger than your argument against CGT.

Hiding your wealth in another country to avoid tax altogether, there's obviously no economic benefit to this. A lower tax rate for capital gains, in theory that stimulates the economy. They are at completely different ends of the spectrum.

[Poopadoop]

There is a massive, massive different between profit and income. You seem to think they should be treated the same. They absolutely 100% should not be treated the same.

Your argument seems to be that the law is set up to reward those how take risks with their spare wealth. That's not true at all: The law doesn't care if you take a risk or not to earn money. It rewards you for having extra money beyond what you need to live, and using that money to make even more money.

If Fishi bought £1bn worth of gov't bonds, he would taking zero risk and still making a profit that is taxed at a lower rate than your or my job income. If he put £1bn in a savings account at NatWest, he'd pay less on the interest than you or I pay on our tax income, again with zero risk. The risk is immaterial to the amount of tax taken on the profits.

The only "risk" he is taking by investing in other things than bonds and savings accounts is that he could have potentially made even more money with some other investment portfolio. He's not at risk of going broke, and his chance of losing money on his entire portfolio of investments (assuming they're balanced and he isn't just betting the house on red) is essentially zero. Is an investment portfolio more "risky" than gov't bonds and a Natwest savings account? Sure, but even if some black swan event occurred and he lost 5% of his wealth, so what? He'd still be a billionnaire and have all the ivory back scratchers he wants. His risk of being noticeably worse off is about as close to zero as it can be.

I guarantee you billionnaires do not lie awake at night worrying they might go broke because they invested their money instead of hiding it under the mattress.

And if CGT were higher, Fishi would still invest his money, just more of the profits would go to benefit society as a whole through taxes rather than to him personally. Socialism ftw.

The only reason you think they should is because you hate rich people. That's a you problem.

It's bemusing how you keep going reductio ad bananum by ascribing a completely different motivation to my arguments than the one I actually put forth, which is to aim for a more fair and equitable society. You tried a similar tack before with the 'waaa waaa fuck the Tories' line, which I ignored since I never said that either. It's like you're trying to make this about me rather than about my arguments. It's not working, and it's not going to work.

[Poopadoop]

I mean, you can make an economic argument that CGT should be relatively low for people who are actually taking a risk, like a person who invests their life savings in a business startup. But to say it should be low even for people who are already wealthy and are just trying to be more wealthy is indefensible. The former might be discouraged from investing by a high CGT, the latter won't.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ong: gov't isn't economics
Also ong: the gov't incentivizes economic risk-taking

So the gov't has a policy that incentivizes risk-taking with lower taxes?
Doesn't that mitigate the risk of the wealthy with tax dollars from the less wealthy?

Seems like the poor get saddled with the risk whether they like it or not.

[OngBonga]

Government influences economics with policy. It doesn't create it and control it, the government is not analogous to the economy. It's just tax is a powerful influence.

Risk taking is just a part of business. It's not like you're deciding whether to leg it across the road or wait for the red light. It's more like if you don't leg it, the opportunity might be lost. Risk in the business sense is not the same as risk in the sport sense. You don't want risk in sport, avoid skiing. No loss to anyone, right? It's not like skiing is how we earn our living and trade, is it? It's not like skiing props up our very existence as a species. Economics does.

The risk is that even if you have a great idea, someone else is very probably already doing it better. Even if you work extra hard, someone else is working harder. You're always in competition, and if you're outcompeted, you lose, and so do your employees. We could attempt to disincentivise being outcompeted, but that seems a bit too ruthless, even for balls out capitalism. And if CGT is too high, then being outcompeted by global rivals is inevitable.

We're in competition with other countries who set their own tax rates. We have to take into account those rates, provide a competitive economic environment for rich wankers to invest and create jobs. I know we all seem to hate rich wankers, but it was a rich wanker that created the company I work for. Rich wankers are an important part of a thriving economy. And just because CGT brings the % down, people who are paying it are still paying more tax in £ terms.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, but what the hell does this woke lefty know?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-b1081352.html

[Poopadoop]

Rishi Sunak failing the Turing test.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GWIheeFTzX0

[Poopadoop]

Looks like Braverman is about to become the third senior Tory minister in as many months to have to resign in scandal because Fishi is too weak to give them the sack.


Yeah, that promise to have a government with "integrity, accountability, and professionalism" is ageing really well.

[The Bean Counter]

As much as I hate the Tory government and particularly Braverman, I really don't care about this speeding thing.

[Poopadoop]

As much as I hate the Tory government and particularly Braverman, I really don't care about this speeding thing.

Well, apparently she tried to get a special one-to-one course set up just for her so she wouldn't have to mix with the commoners, but yeah doesn't seem like the worst thing ever.

Latest is she's also had some shady dealings going on in Rwanda.

Rumour is she was bad-mouthing Fishi at the Nat-C conference, and he's trying to sink her by leaking all these scandals. Stay tuned I guess.

[OngBonga]

Well, apparently she tried to get a special one-to-one course set up just for her so she wouldn't have to mix with the commoners, but yeah doesn't seem like the worst thing ever.

I mean if you were a semi-famous Tory politician you probably wouldn't want to mix with "commoners" in such a setting either. I appreciate you're completely incapable of showing the remotest shred of sympathy for people you don't like, but that's a you fault.

Can you imagine being on one of those speeding courses with a Tory MP? It would be fucking hilarious for everyone except the Tory MP.

[Poopadoop]

I appreciate you're completely incapable of showing the remotest shred of sympathy for people you don't like, but that's a you fault.

Reductio ad bananum. That's a you fault.


Of course it's going to be embarrassing for her to sit in a speed awareness class, just like it's embarrassing for everyone else, but in her case even more so because she's the person in charge of law and order in this country.

Just because you can empathise with someone's position doesn't mean you have to be ok with their efforts to weasal their way out of it.

Can you imagine being on one of those speeding courses with a Tory MP? It would be fucking hilarious for everyone except the Tory MP.

Maybe she should have thought of that before she sped. Or, maybe she should have realised it'd be easier to just take the points on her license and the whole thing would have been forgotten.

What she shouldn't have done is ask someone who works for her to try to make a special arrangement for her to have a 1-1 class. For one, it's not their fucking job to sort out her personal problems. For another, it's not appropriate for her to ask for special treatment just because she's a cabinet minister.

I think it says something about her that the civil servant she asked to do her a solid not only refused point-blank to do it, but reported her to the cabinet office for it. That's even more embarrassing for her. Poor kid.

[Poopadoop]

Also, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for someone who's stated dream is to watch a plane take off to Rwanda full of refugees. Yeah, uh, no.

[OngBonga]

Of course it's going to be embarrassing for her to sit in a speed awareness class, just like it's embarrassing for everyone else...

It's not the embarrassment that I give a fuck about. It's the fact she's a sitting duck, she has a massive fucking target on her head and the kind of twats who go to these classes and get bored out of their brains being patronised about speed awareness will gleefully take the chance to make her day absolute hell.

Just because you can empathise with someone's position doesn't mean you have to be ok with their efforts to weasal their way out of it.

I'm ok with it because I'm honest enough to admit that in her position I'd do exactly the same. This is assuming I'm a hated politician, of course. I don't think you're stopping to think what this course will actually entail for her.

Just ask yourself if you'd feel exactly the same about this if it were a Labour politician, who was faced with the prospect of being mocked and harassed by the general public in an intimidating classroom that they can't just walk away from. I'd certainly feel the same. I'd have to really hate someone to get any pleasure from them having to go through such an ordeal.

Also, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for someone who's stated dream is to watch a plane take off to Rwanda full of refugees. Yeah, uh, no.

Thank you for proving my point which you banana'd me for. It's political to you.

[Poopadoop]

It's not the embarrassment that I give a fuck about. It's the fact she's a sitting duck, she has a massive fucking target on her head and the kind of twats who go to these classes and get bored out of their brains being patronised about speed awareness will gleefully take the chance to make her day absolute hell.

I could argue, with just as much evidence, that everyone on the course would treat her with nothing but respect for taking her medicine like a grown up. The truth is probably somewhere in-between the two extremes.

Either way it's irrelevant to the bigger issue of whether her actions were defensible or not. You don't get to say "well worst case scenario she'd get bullied for four hours - ergo it's fine she asked her underling to sort out some special treatment for her." That won't hold up in court. A prisoner doesn't get excused for digging a tunnel out of jail just because you can understand why they would do it. The rules are the rules and they apply to everyone, even gov't ministers.

I'm ok with it because I'm honest enough to admit that in her position I'd do exactly the same. This is assuming I'm a hated politician, of course. I don't think you're stopping to think what this course will actually entail for her.

You'd ask one of your underlings to sort out a special 1-1 course for your personal fuckup speeding fine? If so, then you'd be an entitled cunt too.

I can believe that you'd just take the 3 points on your license rather than take the course. But she had that option from the beginning and only took it after her underling refused to sort out a 1-1 course.

Just ask yourself if you'd feel exactly the same about this if it were a Labour politician, who was faced with the prospect of being mocked and harassed by the general public in an intimidating classroom that they can't just walk away from. I'd certainly feel the same. I'd have to really hate someone to get any pleasure from them having to go through such an ordeal.

This is just another attempt to reductio ad bananum me with an implicit argument that I'm a hypocrite. Seriously, can you really not see how lame this is?

Sure I'd feel different if it was someone I respected, but the problem is someone I respected wouldn't try this dodge. Keir Starmer is not going to ask a minion to sort out some fuckup he had in his personal life, for example.

But let's say he did. I'd still say it was wrong. Or let's say my grandma did it. I'd still say she was wrong. So your argument is not only irrelevant, it's incorrect.

It's political to you.

Ok, this is really getting silly. I'm going to change the name of this tactic to reductio ad ong because it's becoming your go-to invalid form of argument.

What you're trying to do is turn this into a debate about me when it's an argument about the actions of another person. If you think it's fine what she did then explain why and leave it at that. Pretending you have some special insight into what motivates my argument, and then trying to use it to discredit my argument, is weak sauce.

[OngBonga]

I could argue, with just as much evidence, that everyone on the course would treat her with nothing but respect for taking her medicine like a grown up. The truth is probably somewhere in-between the two extremes.

The average is between the two extremes. Only, getting respect doesn't counter the negativity. Would you like to be called an arsehole and then have someone else say they have respect for you? Or would you just prefer everyone leaves you alone?

Either way it's irrelevant to the bigger issue of whether her actions were defensible or not. You don't get to say "well worst case scenario she'd get bullied for four hours - ergo it's fine she asked her underling to sort out some special treatment for her." That won't hold up in court.

I'm glad you're using the word "bullied" because that basically is what it amounts to. And if someone is legitimately concerned about bullying, and I do believe a Tory MP would have such concerns in this setting, then I do believe that attempting to find a solution amounts to defensible behaviour. idk about her speeding, that might or might not be defensible. 90 on a motorway? No problem. 45 in a 30? Nope. The latter isn't defensible. But that's not what we're debating here, we're talking about her trying to avoid being bullied.

A prisoner doesn't get excused for digging a tunnel out of jail just because you can understand why they would do it.

A prisoner has the right to be kept separate from inmates if he is in danger. It's called solitary confinement, nobody wants it because it sucks more than being scared for your safety out in the yard, but we're talking about years here, not a day. This is a poor example. A prisoner has presumably committed such a serious crime that he needs to be removed from society. These speeding classes are not "prison". They aren't necessary, a fine and points or ban is a sufficient deterrent. If a driving offence is so serious that we should not give due consideration to the prospect of the offender being bullied or afraid of their wellbeing, then the offender should go to prison. And people do go to prison for speeding. Try going 150 down the motorway if a Ferrari and upload the footage to youtube. They'll make an example out of you.

You'd ask one of your underlings to sort out a special 1-1 course for your personal fuckup speeding fine? If so, then you'd be an entitled cunt too.

I'd want to find a solution for sure. Maybe being male I'm more capable of turning up to one of these classes and waiting for it to get out of hand so I can justifiably leave. If I were female I'd be much more inclined to want to avoid the situation altogether, especially if I were a fragile little lamb.

I can believe that you'd just take the 3 points on your license rather than take the course.

Not all points are equal. She might have previous, which would mean these points are a ban. For some people (not her) having any points on your license is a big problem for your work and might mean getting fired. I'm not sure what motivated her to not take the points. You're right, in most cases you'd think it's the obvious solution. Not sure why she didn't.

If she was caught drunk behind the wheel I'd have a great deal less sympathy. With speeding, most cases are bullshit, like getting trapped at 35 as you transition from a 40 to a 30, with arsehole cops catching you with their radar from behind a bush. Most speeding offences are people getting caught by scammer cops when they were driving perfectly safely. It's a huge money maker for them. So I sympathise with nearly everyone who gets caught speeding. It's just the wankers driving like idiots I don't feel sorry for. No idea if she was driving like an idiot, I doubt it.

Sure I'd feel different if it was someone I respected, but the problem is someone I respected wouldn't try this dodge.

I'm impressed you have so much faith in the Labour party. I think it's misguided faith though.

It's not that I want to accuse you of being a hypocrite, it's that I want you to appreciate that you view these matters through a political lens. Not everyone is equal to you. That's a contradiction in your ideology that perhaps you should be aware of.

But let's say he did. I'd still say it was wrong. Or let's say my grandma did it. I'd still say she was wrong. So your argument is not only irrelevant, it's incorrect.

You'd be a lot more sympathetic to the bullying Starmer would face. That was the point I was making. You'd find it much more distasteful since the nature of the bullying would be right wing on left wing, as opposed to vice versa.

[Poopadoop]

A bunch of hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the question at hand

Sure, whatever.

Let me make it simple for you: Why didn't she just phone the DVLA herself and ask if it was possible to arrange a 1-1 course? Why did she try to get someone who works for her to sort out her mess, when it's clearly not a part of their job?

That's the real issue here.

[OngBonga]

So your problem is the manner in which she delegated her task?

Is that really worth giving a shit about?

[Poopadoop]

So your problem is the manner in which she delegated her task?

Is that really worth giving a shit about?

Yes. Glad you finally got that after I only said it about ten times.

Maybe if you read what I say instead of trying to find ways to make it about me, you'd have figured that out sooner.

[Poopadoop]

Meanwhile, Brexit is killing the British fruit industry.

[OngBonga]

It just seems completely absurd that your problem isn't that she tried to dodge the class, just the way she went about it. What a waste of emotional energy. You need a hobby.

[Poopadoop]

What a waste of emotional energy.

Says the guy who spent a dozen posts trying to make up my motivation and outlining various scenarios a Tory minister might experience in a speed awareness class lol.

[Poopadoop]

Immigration up post-Brexit.

It's like everything they promised Brexit would be, we're getting the exact opposite. If I was a purple-faced Tory/Brexit voter, I'd be having a full-on anueyrism by now.

https://news.sky.com/story/net-migra...-2022-12888478

[OngBonga]

Says the guy who spent a dozen posts trying to make up my motivation and outlining various scenarios a Tory minister might experience in a speed awareness class lol.

This is your world poop, forgive me for not realising it quicker...

Tory MP - I don't want to do speed awareness course because fuck the commoners.

Poop - No worries.

Tory MP - Yeah but I'll delegate the task of trying to weasel out of it.

Poop - Fuck no.

[Poopadoop]

This is your world poop, forgive me for not realising it quicker...

Tory MP - I don't want to do speed awareness course because fuck the commoners.

Poop - No worries.

Tory MP - Yeah but I'll delegate the task of trying to weasel out of it.

Poop - Fuck no.

Back to reductio ad bananum now I see. Wow, that showed me.

[Poopadoop]

This is just too funny. Cliffs: Blojo's been under investigation for lying to parliament about breaking lockdown rules, allegedly (and factually according to the evidence) hosting parties at Downing Street during lockdown.

He's hired a lawyer who the taxpayer is paying for. He turned over all his diaries and whatsapp messages to the guy. But, since the lawyer actually works for the civil service and not Blojo, when he saw all the evidence of parties on the materials Blojo gave to him, he was duty bound to turn them over to the cops. So he did.

Now Blojo's been bushwhacked at the airport by a reporter. It takes him about five minutes to even manage a full sentence, but even when he doesn't manage to spullter out an answer, it's super lame.

[Poopadoop]

p.s. Oh, and now he's fired his lawyers for doing their duty under the law, and hired other ones from the civil service, who the taxpayers are still paying for.

Britain Trump.


The new allegations are that he hosted parties at his grace and favour country retreat Chequers. His sister went on the news to say that she'd been to his parties and all the rules were followed. A Tory MP also claimed to have gone to the parties and that his children had played with Boris'.

Problem is, the rules were you couldn't have gatherings that weren't necessary for work. lol. So both his sister and one of his political allies have basically confirmed that he broke the law. lmfao.

[The Bean Counter]

Seems reasonable to me for Cruella to ask if a 1-2-1 is possible. Forget the embarrassment factor, I want somebody that's supposed to be working day and night running the country to have to do this in their own time. Not 9-5 Monday-Friday.

It also seems reasonable and more efficient for that person to ask their assistant to ask the question of the authorities, rather than ring the DVLA themselves during working hours. It's the same reason why CEOs don't book their own flight tickets or buy their own lunch and often have their assistants manage most of their personal life.

Still, if we can use this to finally get rid of Cruella, let's ham this up as much as possible.

[OngBonga]

Back to reductio ad bananum now I see. Wow, that showed me.

You keep throwing that term around like it means something, but I can't quite figure out what, because it clearly doesn't mean making assumptions about your position, since you literally corrected me to make it clear that was your viewpoint on this matter.

[Poopadoop]

You keep throwing that term around like it means something, but I can't quite figure out what, because it clearly doesn't mean making assumptions about your position, since you literally corrected me to make it clear that was your viewpoint on this matter.

Reductio ad bananum: A form of invalid argument in which the interlocutor changes what the other person said into something they didn't say, then argues with that.

[Poopadoop]

Seems reasonable to me for Cruella to ask if a 1-2-1 is possible. Forget the embarrassment factor, I want somebody that's supposed to be working day and night running the country to have to do this in their own time. Not 9-5 Monday-Friday.

It also seems reasonable and more efficient for that person to ask their assistant to ask the question of the authorities, rather than ring the DVLA themselves during working hours. It's the same reason why CEOs don't book their own flight tickets or buy their own lunch and often have their assistants manage most of their personal life.

If it's a business where the PA is happy to sort out the CEO's personal life, that's fine. This is the civil service where the roles are clearly delineated. The person in question knew it wasn't their duty to sort out Cruella's speeding ticket, hence the complaint.

Even if you work in a big company, if you hate your boss enough to narc on them for asking you to do something that isn't your job, chances are HR would at least be having a word with them.

The fact this went public from the cabinet office suggests someone there has the knife out for Cruella.

Still, if we can use this to finally get rid of Cruella, let's ham this up as much as possible.

Fishi's already quashed the idea of investigating it, so that seems unlikely.

[OngBonga]

So your problem is the manner in which she delegated her task?

Is that really worth giving a shit about?

Yes. Glad you finally got that after I only said it about ten times.

I mean I'm failing to see where I'm making any kind of significant changes to your argument. I'm just paraphrasing.

[Poopadoop]

I mean I'm failing to see where I'm making any kind of significant changes to your argument. I'm just paraphrasing.

It doesn't matter, let's move on.

[Poopadoop]

A fighter jet just flew over my house at about 200 feet. Are we at war?

Or has the HO been monitoring my posts about Cruella, and that's a warning?

[Poopadoop]

Another one just flew over. Heading south, there must be a dinghy in the channel.

[The Bean Counter]

If it's a business where the PA is happy to sort out the CEO's personal life, that's fine. This is the civil service where the roles are clearly delineated. The person in question knew it wasn't their duty to sort out Cruella's speeding ticket, hence the complaint.

Even if you work in a big company, if you hate your boss enough to narc on them for asking you to do something that isn't your job, chances are HR would at least be having a word with them.

The fact this went public from the cabinet office suggests someone there has the knife out for Cruella.





Fishi's already quashed the idea of investigating it, so that seems unlikely.

That task would be covered under "and any other ad hoc tasks required by the CEO"...

You've just reminded me about working in public sector-type jobs. I'm not saying this this is the same thing, but the amount of "that's not in my job description" types used to be ridiculous. They were usually the same people that complained about being overlooked for promotion, or the ones that were let go when cuts were required.

Agree that if cruella was well-respected and liked this wouldn't have seen the light of day.

[Poopadoop]

That task would be covered under "and any other ad hoc tasks required by the CEO"....

I'm not an employment lawyer but I think implicit in that statement are that the tasks are work-related. Otherwise the boss could make you do whatever they want - wash their car, shine their socks, babysit their kids, etc., and you couldn't say boo b/c it falls under 'ad hoc'.

Nah, you can't just make someone your bitch 'cause they work under you imo.

It's different if someone's job actually entails doing personal tasks, like a PA. But, if Cruella has such a person, she obviously asked someone else and not the PA to do it.

You've just reminded me about working in public sector-type jobs. I'm not saying this this is the same thing, but the amount of "that's not in my job description" types used to be ridiculous. They were usually the same people that complained about being overlooked for promotion, or the ones that were let go when cuts were required.

There's people at work, always junior, who've tried this on as well, but the contract actually says something to the effect of 'you have to do what your Head of Dept. says,' and since the HoD is giving them work tasks that have just suddenly sprung up and which someone has to do, the complainer has to do it.

If the HoD was being brutally unfair in distributing workload though, there'd be an intervention from above. If they asked you to sort their speeding ticket, they would definitely be in shit.

Agree that if cruella was well-respected and liked this wouldn't have seen the light of day.

Heh, I mean not only does someone who works for her have to hate her guts enough to report her rather than just say 'no sorry i won't', but then someone at the cabinet office has to hate her enough to make it public.

Hard to believe she could be that unpopular isn't it.

[Poopadoop]

The Tories have officially jumped the shark: taking their own inquiry to court to block access to information. Fishi's gov't of transparency in action.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2349774.html

[Poopadoop]

Don't know if you heard but there is a marking and assessment boycott going on in UK universities. Anyone who's in the union (i.e., about 50% of staff) has been refusing to mark any exams, final year projects, etc., for about the past four weeks. Among the grievances is a real-terms cut in pay around 15% since 2009, and some other things like hiring on zero-hour contracts, etc..

The upshot of this boycott is that students won't be able to graduate or progress into their next year because their marks aren't in. Our College has responded by making up some emergency regulations to sidestep the rules and allow students to graduate without marks, which the departments are resisting for obvious reasons (similar things going on at other unis from what I hear). In psychology, the British Psychological Society is threatening to pull the accreditation of any course that engages in slippery practices to graduate students.

Meanwhile no signs of budging between the universities and the union. Things getting pretty tense, something's going to have to give here soon...

[Poopadoop]

In other news, Goddamnit Marina Purkiss is gorgeous.

https://twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/st...61327527256067