What's May up to? General election 08/06/2017

[Obelix]

I've read it. There isn't much in the way of people or profits in merely brokering securities. Unless you mean in speculation which isn't the same as brokerage.

[unbeliever]

I've read it. There isn't much in the way of people or profits in merely brokering securities. Unless you mean in speculation which isn't the same as brokerage.

 

Not directly. But all economic activity which contributes to the value of the economy overall has value which ultimately feeds through to jobs.

[Obelix]

Not directly.

 

Good. Since you've acknowledged the point raised perhaps we can move on now your thoroughly derailed the thread.

[unbeliever]

Good. Since you've acknowledged the point raised perhaps we can move on now your thoroughly derailed the thread.

 

I never claimed it was direct. Straw man.

[Obelix]

Yes ive noticed you do raise a lot of strawmen. Please stop it.

[Hairyloon]

But the shares are ultimately shares in real companies.

But that does not create employment.

And moving their ownership around is economically useful. Without it, the economy would be smaller and everybody would be worse off.

That used to be the case, when investments were actually invested by people in people and projects. Those days are long gone: most of the investments are made by money for money's sake.

The human element has gone and the markets are driven by the Love of Money.

[Mister M]

My opinion on this is as valuable and as worthless as everyone else's. I have only ever been impressed by two politicians: One is Jacob Rees Mogg. He has an almost total recall of government policy, history, facts and figures and never seems flustered or confused. And Frank Field, who, to me at least, was genuine.

 

I think Ruth Davidson and Andy Burnham are likeable. I liked Vince Cable when he was around. And the late Charles Kennedy was a good egg.

 

Otherwise.....meh.

 

I did used to think that Ruth Davidson was likeable until recently, when she supported Osborne's final gift to the country, the 'child tax credit rape clause.' Surely one of the most jarring and obnoxious policies you could think of, irrespective of your political allegiance.

[El Cid]

The human element has gone and the markets are driven by the Love of Money.

 

I invest in shares, and my pension fund, am I a bad person?

[biotechpete]

Now you see I promised so despite your own attitude I shall try to explain this without being insulting.

 

Every time the rich make money it gets taxed. That tax money pays for our public services.

Every time rich spend money they spend it on goods and services which poorer people are paid to provide.

Every time the rich invest money in order to gain more, they employ people in the process.

 

Anybody who has a job in the private sector needs the rich, anybody who consumes government services needs the rich, and anybody who works for the government needs the rich.

Do try not to hate them. You need them in order to live.

 

Now the only way a decent society can function is with progressive taxation. So I want the rich to pay lots of tax too. But if you're setting tax policy out of resentment and jealousy then you'll drive them away, or deter them from doing all the rich people things that your exchequer and your economy need them to do.

They'll be fine by the way. They'll just leave or retire. But you'll lose jobs and tax revenue like you wouldn't believe and everybody else will suffer like you've never seen.

 

Please read this thoroughly and think seriously about it before you run around advocating all this "pipe squeak" rubbish as you'll achieve the exact opposite of your goals.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, but one thing I just don't get about this is that if the rich people are making money, and all the signs are that the wealth of the UK and indeed the world is being more and more concentrated in the top 1%, then how is everyone else better off?

 

I get that the supply of money isn't finite, but then more money means inflation, which means everyone is poorer. In that sense those with the least end up even poorer than those with the most. At every crisis, it seems the gap between the top 1% and everyone else gets bigger, but perhaps that's just a coincidence.

[MamboNo5]

I did used to think that Ruth Davidson was likeable until recently, when she supported Osborne's final gift to the country, the 'child tax credit rape clause.' Surely one of the most jarring and obnoxious policies you could think of, irrespective of your political allegiance.

 

What, capping the benefit to two children unless subsequent children are conceived during a rape?

 

Where did Davidson say she supports women having to discuss private matters with staff at the DWP?

 

I think you are misrepresenting her stance on an issue always likely to provoke hostility. If tax credits are to be capped at two children how would you enforce it?

 

It's fine if you don't think there should be a cap. That is the easy answer though. It would be easy for her to say that herself. But what if she agrees there should be a cap, barring children resulting from rape and other exceptional circumstances? How can you describe and enforce such a policy without angering someone? I'd wager, not easily.

Edited April 20, 2017 by MamboNo5