Topic: OFFICIAL July 4th draad.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU started this discussion 1 year ago #119,137
Hello fora. Please tell us how you are celebrating the birth of the greatest country the world has ever known.
EUropeans are not allowed in here unless they talk about what a grate country America is.
EUropeans are not allowed in here unless they talk about what a grate country America is.
Bonkers !x.Yyk8rhHs joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #1,307,101
I voted Labour
Bonkers !x.Yyk8rhHs double-posted this 1 year ago, 49 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,102
America is grate USA, freedom fries whatever
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,104
@OP
Thanks for making this topic about the UK General Election, man! It's good that you're taking an interest in foreign politics!
@1,307,101 (Bonkers !x.Yyk8rhHs)
Me too!
Thanks for making this topic about the UK General Election, man! It's good that you're taking an interest in foreign politics!
@1,307,101 (Bonkers !x.Yyk8rhHs)
Me too!
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 22 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,105
Genocidal maniacs
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,113
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,114
@previous (E)
You already pay like twice as much in taxes as Americans. Labour might make that 2.2x? 😱😱😱
You already pay like twice as much in taxes as Americans. Labour might make that 2.2x? 😱😱😱
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,115
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yup, especially if you've somehow managed to do well for yourself and have savings/own property/have any kind of assets, i.e. you are not "working class" by Starmer's own definition.
Yup, especially if you've somehow managed to do well for yourself and have savings/own property/have any kind of assets, i.e. you are not "working class" by Starmer's own definition.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,116
@previous (E)
Seems to make sense to me that people with more money would pay more in taxes than people with less money.
Seems to make sense to me that people with more money would pay more in taxes than people with less money.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 29 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,117
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Seems to make sense to me that people with more money would pay more in taxes than people with less money.
Let me clarify what Starmer means by "working person", using his own words (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UCxIFkSD0Y)
"Working people are... people who earn a living, rely on public services, and don't really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble... don't have money in the bank."
There are a LOT of people who do not fall into this category, not just the super rich, and not even just people who are moderately well off. In fact it's anybody who does a little bit better than average, and has managed to save.
Also, I have to say in general a system based on this notion is fundamentally broken, because where is the incentive for anybody to do well for themselves and become wealthy, if it just means having to give away more and more of that wealth to the government? It might be OK if you had a say in what your tax contribution gets used for, but you don't.
> Seems to make sense to me that people with more money would pay more in taxes than people with less money.
Let me clarify what Starmer means by "working person", using his own words (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UCxIFkSD0Y)
"Working people are... people who earn a living, rely on public services, and don't really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble... don't have money in the bank."
There are a LOT of people who do not fall into this category, not just the super rich, and not even just people who are moderately well off. In fact it's anybody who does a little bit better than average, and has managed to save.
Also, I have to say in general a system based on this notion is fundamentally broken, because where is the incentive for anybody to do well for themselves and become wealthy, if it just means having to give away more and more of that wealth to the government? It might be OK if you had a say in what your tax contribution gets used for, but you don't.
(Edited 11 minutes later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,119
@previous (E)
If you earn 20k, and you pay 1k. And if you earn 100k, and you pay 20k. The person who earned 20k still only has 19k and you have 80k.
If you earn 20k, and you pay 1k. And if you earn 100k, and you pay 20k. The person who earned 20k still only has 19k and you have 80k.
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,120
@OP
Fourth of July, you surely mean? :^)
Fourth of July, you surely mean? :^)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 25 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,125
@1,307,119 (F)
> If you earn 20k, and you pay 1k. And if you earn 100k, and you pay 20k. The person who earned 20k still only has 19k and you have 80k.
Right. However, firstly, nobody pays 5% tax - that's almost Utopian. The difference is more like 20% vs. 40%. (As Thatcher said, "They'd rather the poor were poorer.") Secondly, in the sort of Robin Hood system that is the dream of Labour, the person with the extra 61k in the bank would very likely not be eligible for all kinds of public services that the person without automatically has access to, regardless of how much extra hard work they put in to earn it. Thirdly, the person with the extra 61k can expect to be subjected to all sorts of other egalitarian tax, so that their savings are reduced further. I ask again, where is the incentive to be the person who earns 100k? And if, eventually, nobody wants to be that person, who is going to fund the economy? In the end everybody loses.
> If you earn 20k, and you pay 1k. And if you earn 100k, and you pay 20k. The person who earned 20k still only has 19k and you have 80k.
Right. However, firstly, nobody pays 5% tax - that's almost Utopian. The difference is more like 20% vs. 40%. (As Thatcher said, "They'd rather the poor were poorer.") Secondly, in the sort of Robin Hood system that is the dream of Labour, the person with the extra 61k in the bank would very likely not be eligible for all kinds of public services that the person without automatically has access to, regardless of how much extra hard work they put in to earn it. Thirdly, the person with the extra 61k can expect to be subjected to all sorts of other egalitarian tax, so that their savings are reduced further. I ask again, where is the incentive to be the person who earns 100k? And if, eventually, nobody wants to be that person, who is going to fund the economy? In the end everybody loses.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 23 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,130
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,131
@previous (H)
> The one earning more, despite all that, STILL has a better life. That's the point.
Very debatable. For one thing, in most cases the one earning more spends more of their life working than the one sitting on their ass watching daytime TV and drawing benefits.
> The one earning more, despite all that, STILL has a better life. That's the point.
Very debatable. For one thing, in most cases the one earning more spends more of their life working than the one sitting on their ass watching daytime TV and drawing benefits.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 36 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,151
Keep voting in Tories and Labour and act surprised when nothing changes.Or give the LibDems a chance if you are ready for the next era.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 54 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,174
@1,307,125 (E)
Poor 61k earner, they have to factor VAT on their private school fees and also they don't get a council house :(
Poor 61k earner, they have to factor VAT on their private school fees and also they don't get a council house :(
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 32 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,187
fuck america
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,229
@1,307,131 (E)
Poor people with no purpose or goal are not leading happy, fulfilling lives. They would rather have a good job like you.
Poor people with no purpose or goal are not leading happy, fulfilling lives. They would rather have a good job like you.
Anonymous J replied with this 1 year ago, 22 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,307,245
fuck america
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 4 months later, 4 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,036
@1,307,113 (E)
> > I voted Labour
> Hope you'll enjoy being taxed to death.
With all the excitement over the USMurcan election, I almost forgot... totally called this.
Chancellor says Budget will raise taxes by £40bn: https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/czj734j3pn4o
> > I voted Labour
> Hope you'll enjoy being taxed to death.
With all the excitement over the USMurcan election, I almost forgot... totally called this.
Chancellor says Budget will raise taxes by £40bn: https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/czj734j3pn4o
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 4 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,075
USA is a-ok