Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
Shami Chakrabarti, "When we say that everything should have a technological or private sector solution, just remember the Post Office and Fujitsu" Laura Kuenssberg, "A lot of your Labour colleagues say in private they are worried about the budget" SC, "I hope the Chancellor Rachel Reeves will take this... show more
88,404 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 10
Th country needs an Attlee type Labour Gov not a Wilson one. I just wonder if this lot have the guts to be radical enough to meet the challenge we find ourselves in. They must move to make tax on unearned income in line with tax on work. The SM is a no brainer too.
Corporations only have a workforce because the state funds education. They only get their staff treated when ill or injured if we have a functioning NHS. We need a state to pump prime the private sector to allow everyone to prosper. Taxes build civilisation.
100% the wealthiest in society should pay more tax a lot more to help society
Why, just why are the richest of us the meanest, they threaten to leave our country, why do they believe that they have the honour of paying a decent tax, how much money do they really need? What please tell me does a multi millionaire need that’s so important? Pure greed!
SC is a knowledgeable lady we should all listen intently too...
Of course they should. The Tories looked after the rich over the last 14 years. It’s their turn to pay.
Fujitsu admitting liability for its Horizon system failure in front HOC, should require Fujitsu to pay ALL compensation to those wronged sub post masters, the tax payer should not pay anything
The wealthiest corporations make money out out workers!
@sisgen20 In post WW2 years everyone in Britain was poor yet the Govt started the NHS. Now only greed stops this being continued. Starmer & Reeves & Streeting along with most of the cabinet are Tory rather than Labour.
Okay, but this annoys me. The scandal bit in the Post Office scandal wasn't the technology - it was the people that ignored the flaws in the technology to cover their own backs.
![“Everything is difficult. If you’re going to do something important it’s going to take you a decade or more to have an impact. You might as well pick something you care about. Pick the really big thing. It’s always bothered me when I talked to entrepreneurs and they tell me about the thing they're working on and I ask: What do you *really* want to do? And they say well the big thing I want to do is actually this [other idea] But in their mind it’s a little too ambitious, it’s a little too difficult, they need more capital…. You should just go for that now. You might as well work on the thing that will have a major impact if it works.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2028838804652494999/amplify_video_thumb/2028837372796731392/img/J2Nhj_829T3vwmke.jpg)
![SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2012558948130501004/amplify_video_thumb/2012557570549088256/img/tvspEgv_CJZyLczl.jpg)