My point earlier was but why expect some people to pay more tax as a percentage of what they earn? It's just a tax grab. If you want an example of fairness, we have a shining example here in the deputy pm using loopholes to avoid stamp duty. Snout firmly in the trough!
Proving my point that the wealthier you are, the more you'll do to avoid paying your fair share. Those who would rather spend money paying large amounts of money to dodge tax rather than aid the country they supposedly reside in... tells you a lot about the world we live. When we run out of resource and climate wars are fought, they'll try and use their wealth and power to be alright jack.
I have no problem with us wanting to achieve net zero but due to our CO2 output levels, there is no need for us to do this at extreme pace. Eventually yes, electricity prices could reduce through sustainable clean energy but we also have to look at the cost to get there and current technology. Solar in the UK is unreliable at best, same with wind power. I am in favour of fossil fuels until we have more reliable means of power generation. Ultimate aim is a breakthrough in nuclear fusion, advancements in artificial photosynthesis systems for fuel production, doing more with a guaranteed energy source eg tidal. I'm in the camp that more R&D need to go into these rather than throw money at unreliable energy sources. Take this one with a huge pinch of salt but if the whistleblowers like Steven Greer are indeed revealing the truth, then all this energy debate has already been solved with the development of zero point energy. Imagine if these ultra black book projects are keeping from the rest of humanity technology that would end all poverty within a generation. Imagine all the hundreds of billions being spent needlessly if this tech does exist. Mind boggling.
Well you didn't answer my questions, so I presume you wouldn't tax wealth. Especially wealth that's propping up rich freeloaders.... Norway has high tax levels and a strong economy and welfare state. All their oil and gas money went in a sovereign wealth fund. We could just start there because they're not in the slightest a Socialist country. Or just keep repeating the same old tired economic nonsense that's got us in this mess on the first place. There's a hole in the economy and it's filling the pockets of those who already have more than enough (I don't care about those on £50k or even those on £1m to be honest.) Small money really.
For the greedy man, there is never enough. I'm not sure of the sound economics of devising an economy that actively relies on the feelings and actions of an extreme minority of very wealthy people. But here we are.
The cynic in me wonders if the increasing bias exhibited by Sky’s political reporters is a direct instruction from the right wing American owners.
Wealth Concentration in the UK Top 1% of households hold 10% of wealth. Top 10% hold 41% of total household wealth. Top 50% of households collectively hold 91% of the wealth . The thresholds: Top 10%: wealth at least £1,200,500 Top 1%: wealth at least £3,121,500
50 Richest Families In 2024, the 50 richest UK families collectively own more wealth than the poorest half of the population (over 34 million people) .
Of course it is. As I said a bit ago on here, if you're very wealthy (and greedy) and you feel like you're going to be taxed more, you're going to fund organisations and individuals who will do your bidding for you. It's no coincidence that despite inequality going through the roof in many western countries that the push isn't really leftwards into Socialism, but rightwards into the far right and Fascism. The world is littered with examples at the moment. So when you read the comments on here from the usual suspects about "Communism and Socialsm" being a threat, you can only roll your eyes and wonder what planet they are on.
I shouldn't quote myself but when you read these numbers and then hear the whining about more tax.... I can only assume we've got some actual billionaires on the board or some temporarily embarrassed ones.
Not the same thing you seem to think. Imagine you are offered a job paying you £1000 per day. Now imagine you are offered a job paying you £1000 per day, but they deduct expenses - £100 admin fee, £100 training expenses, £200 health insurance, £200 redundancy protection, and a £200 worker solidarity fee - is the job still as appealing as it was? If you’d do it for the former but not the latter, you can perhaps understand how taxes change behaviours.
Not on PAYE It’s taken at source. Sure I use salary sacrifice to make tax efficient pension contributions, and I’m considering buying my next car the same way, but I still pay an obscene amount of tax each month and could make the majority of my take home not bothering and taking an easier job at a lower salary.
It's a ridiculous example you're trying to outline. Particularly as a super rich persons take home, percentage wise, is often higher than the base norm salary. If you earn a gagillion pounds a day, pay obscene amounts to lawyers, accountants and financial advisors that could have gone to improve the fabric of society instead, and at the end of it, you have a gagillion pounds, less your professional fees. At the end of the day it comes down to this. Are you greedy and selfish, or not?
It's funny, I had options to dodge tax during my business career before retiring at 48. As I say, you're either selfish and greedy, or not.
The "But China" argument is one of the most disingenuous out there when it comes to green policy. China spent $1.9 Trillion on clean energy schemes in 2024 (around 39% of total global spend). Their net zero plan is one of the most ambitious on the planet, but it's critical to think of where they started and what that looks like logistically. They won't even reach peak carbon emissions until 2030 due to the previous infrastructure being built on fossil fuels and ongoing projects producing more. With a population that large the future pipeline is critical and can't just be scrapped. As they incorporate nuclear and renewables over time the fossil fuels will be phased out with the aim of net zero by 2060. Which is a ridiculously quick turnaround. To make a difference globally we all need to do our part and from our starting point net zero is much further along. What we can do is innovate new technologies to improve and further the global change. Just because it's perceived that China is producing vast emissions compared to our reductions does not excuse inaction. It's whataboutism without taking time to study what's actually happening globally. Innovations like pump storage hydro combined with our renewables is what will get us there. And in doing so help build the blueprints for less developed nations to follow suit quicker. It's funny that so many on the British right want us to be global leaders but when you suggest something like this it's suddenly "NO, NOT LIKE THAT!!"
It’s like their desire for free speech. But only the speech they like. Or raising the flags. But only the flags they shag. Sorry, like.