Leave rich alone

MR CLEGG’S proposed tax raid on the income of millionaires will not even dent the national debt.

It is conceived from the same hate and jealousy which characterise many politicians of his political persuasion. The debt, a legacy of overspending by the previous Labour administration and currently fuelled by their extravagant public service contracts, is just too big for the tax raid to matter.

Even if ALL the wealth of ALL the millionaires in Britain was taken by Mr Clegg, the national debt would still be a colossal £430,000,000,000. If that’s too much to contemplate, think of it as more than £16,000 debt for each household in Britain – about the average take-home pay for a year.

If Labour is really serious about paying off their national debt, they will have to try harder to explain where they are going to get the money from. So I ask all the local politicians how they propose to pay off the Labour national debt and await their response with bated breath.

Mr Fee Newport

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:53pm Thu 20 Feb 14

whatintheworld says...

those poor rich folks eh.

if we could all accept a minimum wage of - say - £1 an hour, just imagine how much more money businesses would have in their pockets. they could open up more stores - create new jobs!

the idea that you need to leave the rich alone because they're the wealth creators is complete nonsense. - what happened to "we're all in it together"?!
those poor rich folks eh. if we could all accept a minimum wage of - say - £1 an hour, just imagine how much more money businesses would have in their pockets. they could open up more stores - create new jobs! the idea that you need to leave the rich alone because they're the wealth creators is complete nonsense. - what happened to "we're all in it together"?! whatintheworld

8:19pm Thu 20 Feb 14

scraptheWAG says...

did you know under labour they doubled the national debt yes debt that built up for hundreds of years was doubled in ten!!
did you know under labour they doubled the national debt yes debt that built up for hundreds of years was doubled in ten!! scraptheWAG

12:41pm Fri 21 Feb 14

varteg1 says...

Don't you just love Mr F Lee?


We have a national debt which is self created by US the general public because we WANT and DEMAND the likes of the NHS, communal education, roads, rails all of which have to be funded from taxation.

We seem reluctant to tax the rich, and we court the poor by claiming to reduce their taxes, which is done by a few pennies off income tax whilst we raise VAT, fuel duty , and all the rest of it.
The wealth of the nation is generated by entrepreneurial endeavour, but that does not mean those that create the wealth have a right to keep what they generate.

Taking Lee's argument a bit further, we would dismantle the NHS, put all schooling on a pay per lesson basis, stop paying wages to the 'undeserving' and issue food and fuel vouchers instead.

Why should anyone subscribe to a system that favours one sector of the state, at the moment there is a unbalance in the economy, one that favours the top few percent, and the argument that taxing the wealthy would not dent the economy is basically true, but it isd not takingv it out of their wage packet that is necessary, it is increasing the tax take across the board of what the very rich control as they manipulate the fiscal system, I suggest Mr Lee is looking at solely the matter of 'take home pay' which to me demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the system actually works.

Labour and Tory alike, have weapons to hand that could eradicate our perceived national debt, but in general terms, they fail to use these means to the end, they prefer, in order to get re elected every now and again to falsely declare it's all the fault of the last administration. The truth is, by misspending our taxes on utterly worthless enterprise, they construct mountains of debt for the state, where they should be cutting projects that are capital based, and at the end of the day show no real return to our nation.

We need new roads, and full maintenance of the existing road networks, we need a massive social house building programme, we need less war involvement, we need need need things that actually BENEFIT ALL, not remove tax burdens from stinking rich people who in themselves actually contribute little when examined closely.

Having fifty room mansions and yachts in Monte Carlo, simply soak up wealth in themselves the produce nothing, nor, when examined do the vast majority of the wealthy, they exist simply to spend wealth that others generate. I am all for re investment of generated wealth, but add the caveat that in generating the wealth that accrues from those investments, due concern has to be taken to ensure those that actually do the work, be it in manufacturing, or the service industry, get justifiably rewarded for their efforts and that those without work, the sick,and retired are, as a consequence taken into account when the wealth is divvied up.
Either that, or we shut up shop and let the whole place go to the dogs, a scenario I am sure Mr Lee would not relish, but which is a certain outcome of his obvious right wing philosophy.
Don't you just love Mr F Lee? We have a national debt which is self created by US the general public because we WANT and DEMAND the likes of the NHS, communal education, roads, rails all of which have to be funded from taxation. We seem reluctant to tax the rich, and we court the poor by claiming to reduce their taxes, which is done by a few pennies off income tax whilst we raise VAT, fuel duty , and all the rest of it. The wealth of the nation is generated by entrepreneurial endeavour, but that does not mean those that create the wealth have a right to keep what they generate. Taking Lee's argument a bit further, we would dismantle the NHS, put all schooling on a pay per lesson basis, stop paying wages to the 'undeserving' and issue food and fuel vouchers instead. Why should anyone subscribe to a system that favours one sector of the state, at the moment there is a unbalance in the economy, one that favours the top few percent, and the argument that taxing the wealthy would not dent the economy is basically true, but it isd not takingv it out of their wage packet that is necessary, it is increasing the tax take across the board of what the very rich control as they manipulate the fiscal system, I suggest Mr Lee is looking at solely the matter of 'take home pay' which to me demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the system actually works. Labour and Tory alike, have weapons to hand that could eradicate our perceived national debt, but in general terms, they fail to use these means to the end, they prefer, in order to get re elected every now and again to falsely declare it's all the fault of the last administration. The truth is, by misspending our taxes on utterly worthless enterprise, they construct mountains of debt for the state, where they should be cutting projects that are capital based, and at the end of the day show no real return to our nation. We need new roads, and full maintenance of the existing road networks, we need a massive social house building programme, we need less war involvement, we need need need things that actually BENEFIT ALL, not remove tax burdens from stinking rich people who in themselves actually contribute little when examined closely. Having fifty room mansions and yachts in Monte Carlo, simply soak up wealth in themselves the produce nothing, nor, when examined do the vast majority of the wealthy, they exist simply to spend wealth that others generate. I am all for re investment of generated wealth, but add the caveat that in generating the wealth that accrues from those investments, due concern has to be taken to ensure those that actually do the work, be it in manufacturing, or the service industry, get justifiably rewarded for their efforts and that those without work, the sick,and retired are, as a consequence taken into account when the wealth is divvied up. Either that, or we shut up shop and let the whole place go to the dogs, a scenario I am sure Mr Lee would not relish, but which is a certain outcome of his obvious right wing philosophy. varteg1

10:09pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Spinflight says...

Taxes are too high across the board as it is, proposing tax increases for one group or another is merely divisive.

The real issue is tax avoidance, whether that be with criminal intent or the entirely legal ways that huge conglomerates such as Google and Ebay send their taxes to Ireland or Switzerland where rates are far lower.

Income tax, national insurance and VAT make up the bulk of all tax paid, frankly if they lowered the first two they would still get their slice from VAT and company profits as people decide how to spend their own money....

We need a flat tax rate and hugely simplified tax regulations, no loopholes and no possibility of merely hiring an expensive lawyer to get out of it.

Also those of us who do poorly paid jobs should be taken out of tax entirely, let the companies who employ us pay the taxes on their profits if they refuse to up wages. Why should a hospital cleaner or someone on a minimum wage zero hour contract give up the money they need to survive so that the government can waste it for them?

Give people their own money back into their pockets and the economy will grow.


www.ukipnewport.com
Taxes are too high across the board as it is, proposing tax increases for one group or another is merely divisive. The real issue is tax avoidance, whether that be with criminal intent or the entirely legal ways that huge conglomerates such as Google and Ebay send their taxes to Ireland or Switzerland where rates are far lower. Income tax, national insurance and VAT make up the bulk of all tax paid, frankly if they lowered the first two they would still get their slice from VAT and company profits as people decide how to spend their own money.... We need a flat tax rate and hugely simplified tax regulations, no loopholes and no possibility of merely hiring an expensive lawyer to get out of it. Also those of us who do poorly paid jobs should be taken out of tax entirely, let the companies who employ us pay the taxes on their profits if they refuse to up wages. Why should a hospital cleaner or someone on a minimum wage zero hour contract give up the money they need to survive so that the government can waste it for them? Give people their own money back into their pockets and the economy will grow. www.ukipnewport.com Spinflight

1:49pm Sat 22 Feb 14

pwlldu says...

Thanks to Labour Banks ruled and became unregulated plunged us into two un winnable wars. Labour reduced the unemployment figures by putting millions onto disabillity benefit which cost the country more. Job centre staff was encouraged claiments to try and go on them benefits to help reduce their numbers on the books. Anyone who put down various conditions that stop them to work, that point they were asked to check out disabillity benefits. In the long run this policy it back fired.
Thanks to Labour Banks ruled and became unregulated plunged us into two un winnable wars. Labour reduced the unemployment figures by putting millions onto disabillity benefit which cost the country more. Job centre staff was encouraged claiments to try and go on them benefits to help reduce their numbers on the books. Anyone who put down various conditions that stop them to work, that point they were asked to check out disabillity benefits. In the long run this policy it back fired. pwlldu

8:38pm Sat 22 Feb 14

blackandamber says...

Just look across the channel to see what taxing the rich does. London is now the fifth biggest city in France by virtue of the number of French people living in London.
Just look across the channel to see what taxing the rich does. London is now the fifth biggest city in France by virtue of the number of French people living in London. blackandamber

5:29pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Llanmartinangel says...

blackandamber wrote:
Just look across the channel to see what taxing the rich does. London is now the fifth biggest city in France by virtue of the number of French people living in London.
That's true isn't it. Within 3 months of Hollande winning power pledging penal taxes for millionaires they'd mostly all legged it with their money. Now instead of 50% of a rich guys dosh France gets zip. Socialism in action. Good huh? Not.
[quote][p][bold]blackandamber[/bold] wrote: Just look across the channel to see what taxing the rich does. London is now the fifth biggest city in France by virtue of the number of French people living in London.[/p][/quote]That's true isn't it. Within 3 months of Hollande winning power pledging penal taxes for millionaires they'd mostly all legged it with their money. Now instead of 50% of a rich guys dosh France gets zip. Socialism in action. Good huh? Not. Llanmartinangel

8:02pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Bobevans says...

The better approach rather then Cleggs daft mansion tax is to replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone on £1M would then pay assuming it is 3% £30,000 , Someone on say £10,000 would pay £300
The better approach rather then Cleggs daft mansion tax is to replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone on £1M would then pay assuming it is 3% £30,000 , Someone on say £10,000 would pay £300 Bobevans

8:06pm Sun 23 Feb 14

endthelies says...

pwlldu wrote:
Thanks to Labour Banks ruled and became unregulated plunged us into two un winnable wars. Labour reduced the unemployment figures by putting millions onto disabillity benefit which cost the country more. Job centre staff was encouraged claiments to try and go on them benefits to help reduce their numbers on the books. Anyone who put down various conditions that stop them to work, that point they were asked to check out disabillity benefits. In the long run this policy it back fired.
Actually, it was a Mrs Thatcher who placed people onto sickness benefits to disguise the number of people she made unemployed when she closed the pits. Google it and you'll find I'm correct.
[quote][p][bold]pwlldu[/bold] wrote: Thanks to Labour Banks ruled and became unregulated plunged us into two un winnable wars. Labour reduced the unemployment figures by putting millions onto disabillity benefit which cost the country more. Job centre staff was encouraged claiments to try and go on them benefits to help reduce their numbers on the books. Anyone who put down various conditions that stop them to work, that point they were asked to check out disabillity benefits. In the long run this policy it back fired.[/p][/quote]Actually, it was a Mrs Thatcher who placed people onto sickness benefits to disguise the number of people she made unemployed when she closed the pits. Google it and you'll find I'm correct. endthelies

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree