What are the voting intentions of the traditional Labour supporting remainers on here for the European elections?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'll be voting Lib Dems.
I most likely will be too
I didn't think I'd be in this situation after the promises that were never kept in 2010, when I was a student, voting for the first time.
But alas, here we are.
I have posted my vote for the Lib Dems.
I will also be voting Lib Dem for the first time, apparently so is the rest of my family. Find it encouraging that others are doing likewise.
Also Lib Dem. I can't vote Labour in European elections when Corbyn is so blatantly anti-Europe. It's sad.
I'll vote Lib Dems
SNP, however I'm not really in favour of independence if we stay in the EU. If we don't then I'm unsure.
I don't quite know the history here but didn't the lib dems more or less make a complete u-turn on who of labour and the tories they supported in the last general election?
My English flatmate told me something to that effect, and that he was quite pissed with them. Is this just a case of everyone voting anything but labour and tories and hoping for the best or is there reason to believe the lib dems are more trustworthy this time around?
My English flatmate told me something to that effect, and that he was quite pissed with them. Is this just a case of everyone voting anything but labour and tories and hoping for the best or is there reason to believe the lib dems are more trustworthy this time around?
The top 1% pays 28% of the income tax take. Source
Not the last election, but a couple back. They had promoted themselves as a liberal centrist party at a time when Labour had been in power for many years and were deeply unpopular, and the Lib Dems were polling really strongly. Then there was a hung parliament and they went into coalition with the Conservatives. This unsurprisingly really pissed off a lot of their liberal supporters.
Ordinarily I'd vote Labour but for me this Euro election is about a single issue (Brexit). Since I believe we should stay within the union I'm gonna vote for the established party that unequivocally takes that position - the Lib Dems. It's more the message that a vote for the Lib-Dems sends than it is a demonstration of newly found trust in their wider politics.
If we leave by Halloween (as we're earmarked to do) then none of these people will take up their seats for any great length of time anyway.
Are the article and the source you provide really talking about the same thing though? According to the article (which I only skimmed) 1 in 10 of the asked "billionaires and multi-millionaires from the Sunday Times Rich List" are "making plans to protect their wealth." That would be 10% of those in the top 0.00002% of the population (according to this opinion piece in the FT).
Lib Dem here too.
Can't bring myself to vote for the Lib Dems so probably the Green party
Don’t know but I thought it was a striking stat anyway. That 1% looks after a lot of people and services.
Lib Dem to send the clearest signal possible.
It's for that reason that calls to significantly increase the tax rate on the 1% amount to little more than virtue signalling.
Last edited:
I'd be more interested to know what tax % is being paid on the incomes of the elite on their total earnings, I would also like to know how much they're not paying tax on, without knowing this then the 28% into the pot means nowt.
The original article referenced the Superrich, Britain's billionnaires, not the top 1%. Most of the top 1% are just employees with seven figure salaries.
It might also be illustrative of a fairly unequal society. Top 10% of the population has 5x the wealth of the bottom 50% combined or alternatively has more wealth than 80% of the population put together. Given the current state of services in this country it certainly appears that the wealthiest among us don't look after anybody else all that well.
Maybe, but it also shows you how narrow the income tax base really is, and the risk you take by pushing these 1%ers out.
I think it is worth noting also not to conflate the 1% that pay 28% income who are the top 1% earners with the 1% wealthiest. Apparently, according to the national statistics office, in 15/16, you only had to earn a little over 100k to qualify as a top 1% earner.
My guess is the top 1% wealthiest probably pay much less tax than the top 1% earners.
Not to derail the thread further, but I do think the whole Idea of capital flight is overstated. As I have just mentioned in my post above, most of these 1% earners are really not that rich. 1% of the UK workforce is roughly 30, 000 people. Where are they all going to run to? It is only the super rich that can relocate that easily.
Also presumably, someone else will just replace them in that top earning bracket and continue to earn and pay tax.
Proportionally speaking I reckon that's likely very true which, as you say, is why the opinions of 10% of those questioned from the Sunday Times Rich List shouldn't be conflated with the opinions of the top 1% of income tax payers.
I do wonder how steeply the pay curve rises once you've hit that magic 100k lower threshold though. At that wage you pay around 28k income tax. For the sums to add up the top 1% need to be paying an average of 230k tax. For that to happen the mean annual wage among the top 1% of income tax payers would be around £550k (granted I did some fag packet maths so I could be wrong).
Last edited:
Yeah but politicians always conflate higher salaries with wealth. Because it is easy to pretend someone earning 80k is better off than some “poor” pensioner with 800k in their house.
Haven't checked your numbers, but I would agree with the overall idea that there will be some of the top earners paying millions in tax, i.e. contributing the equivalent of thousands of average earners. For this reason, I personally think the income tax burden of top earners in the UK isn't unfair already. It is the really wealthy, but whose annual income is low (and frankly irrelevant), who get off lightly. My preference would be to introduce a wealth tax.
I guess the point is that these people are paying that much because they receive that much - with the obvious debate being on whether such remuneration is itself equitable and whether further taxation would unduly burden such potentially lavish lifestyles. In principle I agree with you on the wealth tax vs income tax thing (though I have spent absolutely no time researching how such a tax might be implemented, nor how easy it would be to sidestep).
Does that word have any meaning any more?
When the effect of the proposal is to reduce the overall tax take, then it does.
Also, those high top rates in the graph correspond with the 1st and 2nd World Wars, and then into the cold war.
Yeah, that's a whole other debate regarding what people can earn versus what they should earn. I presume, however, these high earners are somehow contributing to society, be it with what they do to earn that much or via taxes. On the other hand, just being wealthy and hoarding wealth isn't a net contribution to society.
Regarding wealth tax, there has been a lot of discussion of Elizabeth Warren's proposal in the USA. Pundits are split. But until it is implemented somewhere, we would never know how effective it could be.
The rates reduced drastically in the early 80s, pre-Gorbachev, when the Cold War was in one of its warmest phases (early Reagan/Thatcher, Star Wars, Afghanistan).
And would you look at that total coincidence!
Edit - also for the war hypothesis, Iraq doesn't seem to have had much effect at all.
Last edited:
The rates reduced drastically in the early 80s, pre-Gorbachev, when the Cold War was in one of its warmest phases (early Reagan/Thatcher, Star Wars, Afghanistan).
And would you look at that total coincidence!
And in Britain, after the rates were reduced in the '80s, the tax take from the rich nearly doubled.
The goal should always be to find the rates that optimise the overall tax take imo.
Based on what? Marr called him a lying toe rag and Farage stuck his fingers in his ears and said "la, la, la, I'm not listening".
I saw it as it happened.
I thought his line of attack, ignoring the questions, painting himself as a victim, attacking Marr, and talking about his one topic (Brexit) worked.
Unlike Ben Shapiro, he is actually skilled at deflecting an interview and winning it.
If that's winning an interview, what's losing one look like? Mind you, I am biased, I know that every single word that comes out of his mouth about Brexit is a barefaced lie.
Again, Ben Shapiro is an example of someone who tried to attack the interviewer and failed - laughably.
They clip shown of Farage was the second part of the interview. The first part was about Brexit, in which he basically lied through his teeth about, among other things, WTO rules and claiming that the 15% of UK trade with Europe, (really so low?) is pretty much irrelevant in the great scheme of things. Also, although his assertion that the UK only produces 2% of global CO2, maybe correct, although I'm inclined not to believe a word he says, the impact of Global Warming has provided thousands of job opportunities around the World, rather than causing people to lose their jobs.
He's a fecking liar and he peddles a narrative that only his deluded supporters would lap up. The fact that the Brexit party has so much support so quickly, just goes to show what your average little Englander believes.