Comments by "" (@lonevoice) on "Financial Times" channel.

@chrisjones6351 What? We had a veto and many of the policies were originally suggested by the UK!
16
@D C That's right. In the UK we seem to want something for nothing. The UK is already below average amongst successful OECD countries for its tax burden. The US is lower but has largely private healthcare. The real problem with a skewed wealth distribution is that it is economically inefficient. The wealthy can only spend so much each year and any surpluses tend to go into assets like property and shares, with increased demand pushing up prices. This then has a negative effect on the economy, particularly from higher rental costs.
14
Sean Downey Hardly greed, just common sense. A wealth tax can only realistically be applied to the wealthy and that as a minimum would be family's with net assets over about £1 million. The problem that the UK has at present is that there is a inefficiently skewed distribution of wealth. The wealthy are unable to spend enough. They always have a surprise of income and that surplus tends to go into the purchase of assets such as shares and property and the increasing amounts being diverted here tends to push up prices. Working people then have to pay increasingly higher rents and their disposable income then gets drained with a knock on effect in a downward spiral on the working economy for jobs and business.
6
Sean Downey Explain. How is it immoral? That doesn't make any sense. Also, net worth isn't a guess, its a valuation done on a basis defined by tax law.
2
I watched this in full. It was pathetic and devoid of facts. Johnson spouted more misinformation and seemed to concentrate on maligning Corbyn, whereas Corbyn was far too timid and failed to challenge Johnson on much of the garbage that uttered by Johnson. Robinson was fairly hopeless in bringing any semblance of a proper discussion of facts to this so called debate.
2
@D C How is that? The UK is below average amongst successful OECD countries for tax burden compared with GDP. The US is lower but they don't have a properly funded health service. Perhaps you prefer a dog eat dog society where those who are not capable of holding down a job are just left to rot, but many of us expect a level of decency in our society.
1
@D C Complete nonsense. Why should society pay you anything? If you don't want to take part in society then perhaps you should be excluded. Your selfish me, me, me only attitude is grotesque and the insurance based system that you refer to only works by excluding a proportion of the population.
1
@D C In some towns, industry has disappeared and some families may be stuck in their council houses with no houses available in other nearby towns. Perhaps it would be nice if one of them was able to take your job then you might be able to appreciate reality.
1
@D C Utter crap
1
@D C If you don't understand these issues what's the point in posting nonsense? Even your assumption here is hopelessly flawed.
1