Should the government take 10% off any savings over 50,000 pounds?

Original post by Em.-.

How is this not a troll though.. (or is it?)

No.
OP is a genuine trotskyist revolutionary, strictly no trolling.

Reply 21

londonmyst

Original post by the_queen

God prevents people from persons like you!
You are definetely a communist.
Some people have money because they saved for some reasons, others dont have because they are neglijent or less lucky. This doesnt mean they have to share each other. Shut up, man!

Do you mean protects? :confused:

Instead of prevents.

Reply 22

Em.-.

Original post by londonmyst

No.
OP is a genuine trotskyist revolutionary, strictly no trolling.

😐😐😐

Reply 23

Bio 7

That is a stupid idea.

It's embarrassing that millions of years of evolution can lead to someone creating calculus and experimenting with gravity and someone like you that thinks we should steal everyone's money.
What a failure of our species you are.

Reply 24

the_queen

20

Original post by londonmyst

Do you mean protects? :confused:

Instead of prevents.

Sure, thank you! I was furious because such stupid ideas.

Reply 25

the bear

20

a far more sensible idea is to raise the price of ciggie's to £1 each. the NHS will not waste resources on smoking diseases, and the government will still receive plenty of money.

Reply 26

1st superstar

Original post by TrotskyiteRebel

I think there are many practical solutions to help with the crisis we are facing at the moment. People are losing their jobs and many are struggling with some of their most basic needs to be met. I think it is now time for some more radical measures. People who are very well off NEED to share some of the burdens that the nation is facing. A 10% levy on savings over 30-50k seems like a reasonable step to take.
What do you think?

NO

Reply 27

1st superstar

Original post by Pyrothe9th

My mum and I have been saving for the last 12+ years skipping meals and buying the cheapest things possible to be in a better position in the future just to later hear that a self-entitled communist leech is going to take my money. Here is an idea, do your own saving through your own means rather than taking money from people whos been a bit more sensible with money, to say the least. Just keep your hands away from my money bruh.

👏👏 hitting it with the words

Reply 28

username1148663

Original post by TrotskyiteRebel

nah this isn't about communism. To me, you guys are only good for the guillotine and I make no secret of that. However, what is important atm is to think of fast and effective ways to get through this crisis. Then we'll see about the rest :wink:

Redistribution of wealth but says it isn’t anything to do with communism 👀

We will get through all of this by simply borrowing a crap load of money on the bond markets

Reply 29

username1148663

Original post by the bear

a far more sensible idea is to raise the price of ciggie's to £1 each. the NHS will not waste resources on smoking diseases, and the government will still receive plenty of money.

The government collects way more in tax of cigarettes than it costs to treat smokers

Reply 30

username1148663

Why does every generation need it explaining to them that communism doesn’t work?

Reply 31

username402722

Savings may be for various reasons and if you imposed this, I suspect people would transfer savings into other family members' names.

Reply 32

Napp

No, that is quite literally the definition of theft.

Reply 33

acelenny

12

Having savings of 50,000 does not make you very well off. I have more than that and I can tell you that thatmoney would suddenly be spent if the government decreed that it was going to take 10% of it.

Reply 34

Napp

The most amusing part of that being that anyone with a substantial amount of money ($50k not being overly substantial but still) would likely to be able to easily circumvent both this theft and any capital controls. Ergo it would be a spectacular case of the government shooting themselves in the foot - and pissing off a substantial part of the population.

Reply 35

Napp

Original post by TrotskyiteRebel

nah this isn't about communism. To me, you guys are only good for the guillotine and I make no secret of that. However, what is important atm is to think of fast and effective ways to get through this crisis. Then we'll see about the rest :wink:

By plundering and killing? Stalin, its nice to see you're back.

Reply 36

TrotskyiteRebel

OP

Original post by paul514

Redistribution of wealth but says it isn’t anything to do with communism 👀

We will get through all of this by simply borrowing a crap load of money on the bond markets

Go and read Friendman and you'll see how much emphasis he places on wealth redistribution. It's an inherent part of any society and we're doing right now, without it total anarchy would follow. So wealth distribution isn't something only to do with communism.
As I said, as a communist I was you guillotined. I want to live in a society where wage disparity doesn't exist and people have total control over the industry. So major structural change. But in this thread, i wasn't asking for any major structural change, just some emergency measures to procure enough resources to deal with a natural crisis. Some of people's most basic human rights and needs are in jeopardy and we need to do what we can right this moment.

Reply 37

TrotskyiteRebel

OP

Original post by acelenny

Having savings of 50,000 does not make you very well off. I have more than that and I can tell you that thatmoney would suddenly be spent if the government decreed that it was going to take 10% of it.

I may be wrong about this, but I thought people who have 50k+ in saving usually have an income well above 50k. Why would anyone just keep 50k cash? They are more likely to invest that in a house, but a car, stocks, etc.

Reply 38

TheMcSame

Original post by TrotskyiteRebel

I may be wrong about this, but I thought people who have 50k+ in saving usually have an income well above 50k. Why would anyone just keep 50k cash? They are more likely to invest that in a house, but a car, stocks, etc.

This entirely depends on what you'd define as savings. Pensions are savings for example, and it's certainly plausible that someone, even on a low income, would have 50k sat around in a pension pot.

Would not support this idea at all unless it was treated as a loan with a large compound, monthly interest rate (100%+). The Government should not be touching the savings of the public, if they must do so, they must be charged for the pleasure.

Reply 39

TrotskyiteRebel

OP