Clegg: Tax the rich more

[Richie]

In fact, this video touches on all points made in this thread and perfectly illustrates my views

[video=youtube;4Ttbj6LAu0A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttbj6LAu0A[/video]

 

[scaramanga]

So the government dons ski masks and runs into your house to take your moneys?
That "perfectly legal way" was no doubt written by lobbyists that were hired by the wealthy to create loopholes for them to move their money. If I had boatloads of money I would use those same loopholes while they're open, but I'd still want them closed as crazy as that sounds. And that's why I agreed with rich's point earlier about simplifying the tax code in order to make it more robust. Also, you do realize that the taxes you pay go to repairing infrastructure and towards services citizens use. I think many people have forgotten why government was there in the first place. The conservative rhetoric these days (in the US) makes it seem like they're anarchists, with the big exception of defense spending. That's the one piece of the pie that no one can touch.

Again, I can't comment on taxation over in GB but taxes USED to be much higher for the wealthy in the US. I don't even care if you're earning less than $500K. And even that wouldn't bring us into the top .1% of earners. It's the people earning millions upon millions of dollars that I'm most concerned about. And stop with the "they create jobs" fantasy. Yeah, I guess they create jobs in the sense that they hire people to build them pools and 18-hole golf courses. Most of that wealth goes into savings and investments, or is funneled to offshore accounts. Greatest myth ever employed by conservatives and it's oft repeated despite the lack of evidence.

Like I stated before, the tax cuts of the past decade were never meant to be permanent. But the mentality of the common conservative is rather funny, since they often see themselves as temporarily displaced millionaires. In their fantasy, EVERYONE can win the lottery.

To cap off, I never said I was ungrateful for the contributions of the wealthy to society, but conservatives seem to treat this as a one-way street. This whole system is supposed to be cyclical, where everyone takes care of each other. Instead, we have a pyramid where the brick rolls downhill.

I'm not sure I made the metaphor very clear.

I keep my watches locked away and safe (like putting your money in sensible places via perfectly legal 'loopholes'). I don't leave them out on the street where they can be taken at will (PAYE, UK bank accounts, etc).

What I'm saying is that if you don't do anything to stop the government stealing your money then they will. It's not difficult to ensure that they don't take your money that you've worked so hard for.

I realise that there are some services that a government is absolutely required for, and I don't mind paying tax for them. What makes it theft is that they take my money for things that I've opted out of using their sub-par services for - like education, health care, etc.

 

[papaspur]

Re: your point about Apple, the reality is that by producing those goods cheaper in other countries, it enhances society by having better products be affordable on the market. As for sweatshops, this video explains far better than I could

[video=youtube;NxBzKkWo0mo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBzKkWo0mo[/video]

That guy's got some serious sunglass/goggle tan...

Hence the people jumping out of windows?
He also contradicts himself when he says that those workers are free to choose where to work, but then states that people only take those jobs because they're desperately poor and low on options. :-k

These are libertarian views, which I honestly find more tolerable than standard conservative rhetoric. Overall, he is right that there is a conundrum, but at the end of the day, it's still exploitation of those workers, with the factory owners knowing the workers don't really have many alternatives.

By the way, I appreciate that we can have a discussion about this and can keep it civil.

 

[Jurgen the German]

I'm not sure I made the metaphor very clear.

I keep my watches locked away and safe (like putting your money in sensible places via perfectly legal 'loopholes'). I don't leave them out on the street where they can be taken at will (PAYE, UK bank accounts, etc).

What I'm saying is that if you don't do anything to stop the government stealing your money then they will. It's not difficult to ensure that they don't take your money that you've worked so hard for.

I realise that there are some services that a government is absolutely required for, and I don't mind paying tax for them. What makes it theft is that they take my money for things that I've opted out of using their sub-par services for - like education, health care, etc.

I take it your fine with what Redknapp did then?

 

[Richie]

That guy's got some serious sunglass/goggle tan...

Hence the people jumping out of windows?
He also contradicts himself when he says that those workers are free to choose where to work, but then states that people only take those jobs because they're desperately poor and low on options. :-k

These are libertarian views, which I honestly find more tolerable than standard conservative rhetoric. Overall, he is right that there is a conundrum, but at the end of the day, it's still exploitation of those workers, with the factory owners knowing the workers don't really have many alternatives.

By the way, I appreciate that we can have a discussion about this and can keep it civil.

The point is that even if it voluntary in a weak sense that it is free of physical coercion, it is still mutually beneficial for both parties to have the sweat shop. As in as long as it is a step short of slavery, as long as people are voluntarily taking these jobs, then it is a good thing. Furthermore, if they are only there because the alternatives are worse, how is taking that job away helping anyone?

I actually had this exact debate with my girlfriend (a feminist, ugh) about Iceland outlawing strip clubs. Their argument is that a womans body shouldn't be for sale, I argue that it isn't for the government to decide. On top of that, there are only two reasons why a woman would work in a strip club. Either a) she wants to despite having other options or b) she doesn't want to but the other options are worse. In both these scenarios, taking the job away is to the detriment of the woman working there.

I am actually somewhat new to Libertarianism, but after listening to a lot of Milton Freidman I'm converted. I don't agree with everything he says, but he has won me over on a number of issues including drug legalisation.

 

[scaramanga]

I take it your fine with what Redknapp did then?

What Redknapp was accused of doing was evasion, not avoidance. Not OK with that at all.

 

[scaramanga]

Hence the people jumping out of windows?

Can't be bothered to watch the video, but if you're referring to the people committing suicide in that factory in China, it's a massive misunderstanding of statistics.

When looked at in even minor detail, the suicide rate at that factory is lower than across pretty much all of the UK and certainly much lower than all those Scandi lemmings.

If you weren't referring to that then sorry - at least you've learned an interesting fact

 

[NW5pur]

What makes it theft is that they take my money for things that I've opted out of using their sub-par services for - like education, health care, etc.

No offence but I find this type of view very self centred and simplistic. You get to vote in an election ‎and choose the government you think will best spend the tax revenues and I’m afraid that’s ‎it, it will never be perfect for everyone but you don’t get to pick and choose what your individual tax is spent on or how much tax you actually ‎pay dependent on your needs and nor should you.

Apart from the monstrous administrative burden that would place on government (obviously costing ‎ridiculous amounts of money), there’s also the fact that we live in a civilised generally speaking ‎compassionate society where we actually indirectly benefit from services that we may not directly ‎benefit from - very simplistic example, I don’t have a car at the moment, don’t really need one, but I ‎can see how roads help the country function so I’m more than happy for my tax to be spent on road ‎maintenance; I also have private healthcare, but I’m more than happy to contribute to public healthcare ‎because a healthy compassionate society is a better society to live in, I also like the idea that if I ‎were to lose my job and private healthcare I wouldn’t have to sell my house to pay for treatment if I ‎fell ill because I hadn’t contributed to public healthcare; I also don’t mind paying for education even ‎though I don’t have kids because I happen to think education’s quite important to a civilised ‎developed society and understand not everyone can afford private schools! the list could go on and ‎on….‎

 

[Richie]

I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Personally I see no problem with a business owner shifting his income from a paid salary to a monthly dividend to save on the tax bill. It's not fiddling your taxes, it's being smart within the confines of the law. If you are earning the kind of amount that makes it worthwhile, you are going to be a net contributor to the country even while minimising the tax bill.

I think people are generally happy to pay tax, but when government gets too big they see tax money spent on things like public sector pensions that are completely unrealistic in the current market and beyond anything anyone could attain in the private sector they have a right to feel they are taken for a ride. And then to have unions going on strike over it, it's absurd.

 

[Gordinho]

The problem with that is that the business is failing for a reason. Banks are more complicated, but in terms of British Leyland the taxpaying public are deciding not to spend their money on British Leyland cars for whatever reason, there is no way Governement should use the tax it takes from us and bail them out. If people want their money going to a certain company then they will give it themselves by buying their products, and that will be reflected in the balance sheet. If consumers aren't doing that it means they don't want the product a company is selling, so the governement bailing them out isn't going to help. British Leyland went through £11bn of taxpayer money in the '70s and '80s and still went bust.

The governement shouldn't be in the business of protecting jobs that don't offer value, which is what they do when they bail out a business. It's better for those thousands to be on benefits (which should be very limited, IMO) than have the governement paying their salaries in bailouts.

I think it's more to do with preventing an area falling into a depression from which there'll be no short term escape so costing the tax payer more in the long run than any desire to prop up a failling business just for the sake of it. Shut down any large industry and you shut down a supply chain to it as well, possibly doubling the job losses. That's just my take on why it's sometimes easier to subsidise an ailing industry rather than let it go belly up.

 

[Gordinho]

(Can't edit my post above for some reason)

I'm not arguing for or against the above point but I think it's what happens in reality.

 

[spursman17]

Lovely rant. I will take a break from impregnating random women and doing meth to weigh in with my opinion.

Although I'm sure there are similarities with taxation between GB and the US, I can't comment on GB tax policy.
First off, we've had tax decreases in the past decade. The Bush tax cuts effectively lowered taxes for all incomes and were set to expire almost two years ago. Funding not one war but TWO while lowering taxes

I've heard your argument hundreds of times now. It's not the small business owner that I have a problem with. I work with my dad at his small business (he runs a machine shop) so I know of the value we have/had to the community. Truth is, there's a large divide between small business and big business. But to think that business owners got to where they are on their own hard work and that the middle class owe them a debt of gratitude is absurd. There are of course a few exceptions to that, especially in the digital age, but much of this success comes off the backs of hard-working minimum-wage laborers that don't have as many opportunities and weren't as privileged as the business owner.

Specifically, your "rich employ people" statement is partially true. Sure, they hire people but they also fire people. I understand that downsizing is necessary in a recession but the fact of the matter is that even when the rich were presented with lower taxes, the economy didn't boom as certain economists predicted. All that led to was greater savings for the rich. Many corporations are sitting on mountains of cash but don't want to spend it in this volatile market. Just because the money is there doesn't mean the incentive is there as well. Again, this is based on evidence from the past administration. My qualm is with large corporations who fight at every turn to maximize their profits, even to the detriment of their employees and their customers. For an example of this, read up on large agriculture. They still receive government subsidies, treat their workers (and livestock) like brick and are not hesitant to sell consumers a substandard product.

When it comes to the other end of the spectrum, I'm actually in agreement with you, for the most part. Taxing low-income families won't solve any problems. First off, there are actually many single parents who do get two or three jobs to try to raise their children. Was it wise to have children in the first place on a low-income? No, of course not but at least they try to make ends meet. For the actual do-nothings who contribute nothing to society, there obviously aren't many solutions. The nature of work in the 21st century has increased the requirements for job attainment as more monotonous, low-skill labor is being performed by robots and computers. But you're right, these people are basically incorrigible and will be stuck in their ways.

Also, are you comparing yourself to a slave in your last statement? You know that if you really don't like it, you can get up and leave. I don't think slaves had such a luxury and I find that comparison abhorrent.

Why the fudge should I get up and leave?

For a start I was born here in the UK, came from a very average financial background, went to a brick school but worked to attend university to which I now have a professional job. I have worked since 15. I used to get up at 5.30am as a kid to do a paper round and work as hard to this current day. I pay my taxes and in doing so I have every right to comment on costs to society by people who do not CONTRIBUTE.

I know countless people who have no drive, provide little to the economy yet know every trick under the book to reel in what they can while people out there are working countless hours to be stung on tax.

If you are telling me 'society' is efficient in its spending then to be totally honest you haven't a clue.

From working in both public and private sectors money is thrown away on a daily basis.

The whole modern culture of today is fudged. Marriage numbers steadily falling on yearly basis, less commitment and less family security to bring kids up in this forever growing cruel World.

You joke however much you want with your "impregnating random women and doing meth" comment. People out there are doing so on a daily basis and people like me and you will be picking up the tab.

As for large corporations if you don't want that lifestyle then like I said take risk and start your own business.

Take the big businesses out of London and the UK would be a shadow of its current self. They may play a hard game but whether you like it or not they employ in mass numbers, provide an income for many families and consumer spending as a result benefits this country.

 

[southstand1882]

Why the fudge should I get up and leave?

For a start I was born here in the UK, came from a very average financial background, went to a brick school but worked to attend university to which I now have a professional job. I have worked since 15. I used to get up at 5.30am as a kid to do a paper round and work as hard to this current day. I pay my taxes and in doing so I have every right to comment on costs to society by people who do not CONTRIBUTE.

I know countless people who have no drive, provide little to the economy yet know every trick under the book to reel in what they can while people out there are working countless hours to be stung on tax.

If you are telling me 'society' is efficient in its spending then to be totally honest you haven't a clue.

From working in both public and private sectors money is thrown away on a daily basis.

The whole modern culture of today is fudged. Marriage numbers steadily falling on yearly basis, less commitment and less family security to bring kids up in this forever growing cruel World.

You joke however much you want with your "impregnating random women and doing meth" comment. People out there are doing so on a daily basis and people like me and you will be picking up the tab.

As for large corporations if you don't want that lifestyle then like I said take risk and start your own business.

Take the big businesses out of London and the UK would be a shadow of its current self. They may play a hard game but whether you like it or not they employ in mass numbers, provide an income for many families and consumer spending as a result benefits this country.

Great post =D>

 

[papaspur]

Why the fudge should I get up and leave?

For a start I was born here in the UK, came from a very average financial background, went to a brick school but worked to attend university to which I now have a professional job. I have worked since 15. I used to get up at 5.30am as a kid to do a paper round and work as hard to this current day. I pay my taxes and in doing so I have every right to comment on costs to society by people who do not CONTRIBUTE.

I know countless people who have no drive, provide little to the economy yet know every trick under the book to reel in what they can while people out there are working countless hours to be stung on tax. True dat

If you are telling me 'society' is efficient in its spending then to be totally honest you haven't a clue. I'm not

From working in both public and private sectors money is thrown away on a daily basis. Also true

The whole modern culture of today is fudged. Marriage numbers steadily falling on yearly basis, less commitment and less family security to bring kids up in this forever growing cruel World. yup

You joke however much you want with your "impregnating random women and doing meth" comment. People out there are doing so on a daily basis and people like me and you will be picking up the tab. yup

As for large corporations if you don't want that lifestyle then like I said take risk and start your own business. As I mentioned, I work with my dad at the business he started. I'm just saying, large corporations get many benefits over smaller businesses. They have political sway, we don't.

Take the big businesses out of London and the UK would be a shadow of its current self. They may play a hard game but whether you like it or not they employ in mass numbers, provide an income for many families and consumer spending as a result benefits this country.

Assume much?
Methinks you need to re-read my post? I honestly don't understand how you've gotten some of that stuff out of my post.

 

[papaspur]

In fact, this video touches on all points made in this thread and perfectly illustrates my views

[video=youtube;4Ttbj6LAu0A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttbj6LAu0A[/video]

Just watched this and overall, I agree with the points he made, especially towards the end.

The beginning was assuming that there is a steady demand for workers, but I think that notion needs to be updated for the 21st century. Too many people waiting to be employed without the correct skill sets, or unwilling to do menial labor while illegal immigrants pick those jobs up readily and for lower than minimum wage. Automation/robotics have also taken up a lot of menial/repetitive labor, further lessening the value of the laborer. Adam Smith's pin factory doesn't need workers in it anymore.

Where I disagree is that he said the particular politician in office doesn't matter. Republicans and Democrats vary widely in their approach to big business. I rarely hear conservatives calling for the arrests of the top executives at the financials for fudging the economy up. It was the Republican party that was responsible for nearly letting our debts go unpaid when we approached the debt ceiling, and again last summer after our credit rating dropped. Completely irresponsible behavior from ONE party.

Do Democrats behave immorally too? Of course they do, just not on the same scale as Republicans. Does Obama have rich donors and backers in Wall St? Yes, but not nearly as much as Romney & Co. Just look at how much money goes into their Super PACs and where it comes from.

We elect the officials who we "hope" will push their agendas and act on their platform. I honestly think there's a few politicians who will act in the favor of their voters, but it's a small minority. Government does need a restructuring. That's why I keep going on about large corporations. They're too connected to government, which is a flaw of the system itself.

 

[Richie]

Milton Freidman explained it perfectly. It's not that you need to get the right people in government, you need to make it beneficial for the wrong people to do the right thing.

In politics, just as everywhere else, people will do what is beneficial for them. Sometimes that means doing the wrong thing for the electorate, and both sides are equally guilty of that. You pick up on two pro-democrat points, I have no doubt Republicans point towards unfunded programs like Obamacare which America cannot afford among other things I am unaware of due to not being an American.

 

[Richie]

We elect the officials who we "hope" will push their agendas and act on their platform. I honestly think there's a few politicians who will act in the favor of their voters, but it's a small minority. Government does need a restructuring. That's why I keep going on about large corporations. They're too connected to government, which is a flaw of the system itself.

I'd agree with you, business is too involved with government. But the answer is absolutely NOT more regulation which you were advocating in previous posts. Regulation is what gets businesses involved in politics in the first place.

 

[papaspur]

Milton Freidman explained it perfectly. It's not that you need to get the right people in government, you need to make it beneficial for the wrong people to do the right thing.

In politics, just as everywhere else, people will do what is beneficial for them. Sometimes that means doing the wrong thing for the electorate, and both sides are equally guilty of that. You pick up on two pro-democrat points, I have no doubt Republicans point towards unfunded programs like Obamacare which America cannot afford among other things I am unaware of due to not being an American.

I think people need to stop talking about what we can't afford when we have giant entitlement programs and the largest defense spending that dwarfs all the other nations' spending. Can't even take care of our own citizens...
There is a difference between parties. Like I said, I just happen to believe one is the lesser of two evils, generally speaking. I'm sure there are certain Republicans that would do better than certain Democrats, but Republican policies side more with the wealthy/large corporation. Republicans are not libertarians, they just work under the guise of "small government".

 

[papaspur]

I'd agree with you, business is too involved with government. But the answer is absolutely NOT more regulation which you were advocating in previous posts. Regulation is what gets businesses involved in politics in the first place.

As I've mentioned, the problem with regulation is that it's a broken system. We have regulation right now like the SEC, but we need stronger, more robust regulation. However, the SEC is virtually toothless in combating large-scale malpractice. The system needs to be overhauled. The banks only get a slap on the wrist, pay a relatively small fine and move on. What's even worse though is that there isn't very strong public outrage about it. The Occupy protests brought some attention, but I honestly believe too many people are apathetic about these sorts of things possibly because they don't want to challenge the status quo.

Tell me how things like the LIBOR scandal happened. Surely, it wasn't because of too much regulation?