Mikey10
Jimmy Neighbour
So you want to keep strong defence but don’t want to pay taxes to support it?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
Just on the point of weapons. Something that isn't talked about is how nuclear weapons have effectively ended war on the scale seen in previous centuries. The war in Ukraine is a perfect example: Think of how restrained the response in the West to Russia's invasion and how restrained Russia has been in response to western military assistance being provided to Ukraine. If nuclear weapons didn't exist WW3 would be in full swing right now.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
... so far
Yes. And this conflict is by far the riskiest in terms of that. That's why those that are hawkishly anti-Russian are dangerous. Russia need to be given a route out of this by the US and allies that isn't a disaster for them. The reality remains that when faced with a conventional invasion of Japanese held territory in the Pacific in 1945 that was calculated to potentially cost the US heavily in men and equipment they chose the nuclear option which ended the conflict rapidly.
Russia is losing huge amounts of men and equipment in Ukraine fighting a constrained conventional military campaign when they have the capability to force Ukraine to surrender tomorrow.
This is not am opponent you want to back into a corner.
Mikey10
Jimmy Neighbour
The obvious and huge problem for them is that they fire a nuclear weapon and they face immediate and massive retaliation. They need to be faced down - otherwise we’re back in this situation in a few years time when they attempt to invade Moldova, the Baltic states, Poland, Finland…
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Sometimes it is that simple. I used the US as an example but more generally speaking poverty is always a policy choice in the global north. And doubly so for those countries that control their own currency like the UK and the US.
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
If someone's outlook is guided by money, what can one do?
I don't think they would face immediate and massive retaliation. They'd face immediate and massive condemnation, but Ukraine isn't a NATO member so there would be no lawful or treaty basis for western nuclear states to respond in the manner described. Both sides fear the consequences of the use of a nuclear weapon. However western analysts are most fearful of the use of tactical nuclear weapons that while wouldn't have the destructive capability of say wiping Kyiv off the map in an instant would enable a rapid destruction of Ukrainian defensive positions (bunkers, trenches and industrial civilian buildings) which are currently being taken out incrementally in grinding gludebomb attacks featuring thousands of flights and munitions. The response to the use of these weapons would be something that they've likely been going over and over and there is no obviously sound course of action that comes to at least my mind. And given the remaining reluctance to agree to Ukraine's requests to support it's invasion of Kursk and enable it to consistently strike targets in Russia, it appears to me that western military analysts can't think of a sound course of action in the case of such an escalation either...
Controlling your own currency allows you to print money which ultimately leads to devaluing your currency or inflation or both. The problem in a lot of countries is excessive day to day spending. UBI at least gets some of the money back via taxes but it still needs to come from somewhere.
UBI would fundamentally represent a huge amount of money pumped into a country's economy by the government. It would likely devalue money in and of itself as you no longer have to earn money to obtain it. It may not have the impact government's intend and in fact may actually maintain or even increase inequality and poverty due to the incalculable human factor of: give 3 people £100, one person will use the £100 to make more money, another will break even and another will tinkle it up the wall and come back asking for more. That last category of people are the issue in that UBI is only really viable if it means the huge spending on welfare and social services/care can be reduced dramatically. But the liklihood is the state will still have to find huge resources for that last category.
In the same way that the Blair government's plan to hugely increase access to higher education only really had the long term impact of devaluing the degree to the point that employers no longer see a first class degree as something even worth the paper it's written on without work experience (as they're tinkle easy to obtain compared to 20 years ago).
The more there is of anything the less valuable that thing is.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Not necessarily. Done properly taxation is the method by which you control the inflation. Ulmately this would result in a redistribution of wealth, which is why it will never catch on.
Why would it result in a redistribution of wealth? The fundamental problem people that advocate for fundamental equality run into is that people aren't equal. There are people out there that won the lottery and were broke and on benefits within a couple of years. Then on the other end you have people that have created multi million empires out of practically nothing. UBI doesn't change the human factors involved in inequality and in fact may even exacerbate them.
spurspinter1
Steve Carr
Can you explain again how ensuring that everyone has a safety net rather than just the privileged would exacerbate inequality? Does it not at least give everyone within society the same starting point?
The current inequality is a minority having all the resources and most people struggling, with UBI yeah some people will have more than others, that's a less severe kind of inequality if the baseline is people having access to what they need rather than living in poverty imo.
Maybe you're doing well at the minute and that's cool, well done, but things aren't really going too well many others, it doesn't seem like the current system is working all too well. What would you suggest for those struggling right now? Just work a bit harder?
You're answering my question by asking me a question. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to explain how UBI results in a redistribution of wealth, as I don't see how it does.
In terms of the current system "not working", it is easy to say that the system "isn't working" but to say that something "isn't working" you've got to define what success is, i.e. "what good looks like" and i find that those that argue that the current system isn't working have a very confused list of success items. For example, eradication of poverty. The reality is that real poverty as it used to be known in this country has effectively been eradicated. They've had to change the definition of poverty in order to monitor life at the bottom end of society and so we have new metrics such as "in-work poverty". You could have a family in the UK where both parents work, run a car, rent reasonable accommodation, have food on the table and sky TV and they are part of the poverty statistics in this country. The idea that most people in the UK that are classed as living in poverty ARE actually living in poverty would probably be seen as some sort of sick joke by someone in a slum in Mumbai for example.
So is the goal of the "system" to enable even those at the bottom to live a comfortable existence? You then need to define what that existence looks like, I.e. what standard of living is it acceptable to ask other people to pay for (which is a question of the current benefits system and will remain a question in setting the payout threshold in any UBI system).
What tends to happen with people that believe the current system isn't working is that you then get this success factor thrown in of "equality". Which is basically saying that the goal of the system should be to ensure equality. It usually involves varying degrees of taking wealth off of those that have accumulated it to give to people that didn't manage to. To be honest this already happens to quite a significant extent in the current system. In fact, changes to tax thresholds have meant that vast swathes of the work force have recently been taken out of income tax liability altogether and well over 50% of the UK government's tax-take currently comes from a tiny selection of wealthy individuals and large corporates. Ironically this also gives those individuals and corporates the kind of significant lobbying power and policy influence that those that advocate for "fair/progressive" taxation find infuriating....
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I was not really meaning that but can see how it came across like that. I meant I don't want my taxes paying for the social stuff.
Should be no child support whatsoever, education and health care are free. So child support is paying to feed and clothing other people's children.
As for defence, we have spent more then Europe on defence for decades to help keep them safe, not that was recognised during brecht negotiations. Pretty much like America has kept Europe safe but get flimflam for doing so.
spurspinter1
Steve Carr
I will come back to this when I've got time as I need to stop procrastinating but I think you may have got me mixed up with Rorschach, so you're answering someone else's questions in answer to the questions that i have asked you. I'm talking about giving everyone a fair chance and eradicating needless human suffering, if happy with how it is going then fair enough I guess!
People aren't making up being stuck between the choice between heating or food, perhaps you're well isolated from anyone who has to make that kind of choice which is your prerogative I guess but pretending that a problem doesn't exist isn't the same as solving a problem.
I may well have got you mixed up with someone else - apologies.
However while not disagreeing that there are people out there making hard choices you've got to look at the underlying causes of that, which may not be down to the "system".
During the recent pay disputes there were examples brought up time and time again of "nurses or junior doctors having to use food banks". Now there may well be nurses out there having to use food banks, but it's perfectly possible to organise your life on a nurse's salary so that you don't have to use a food bank.
I used to live in a shared accommodation with a young lady who got kicked out as she kept missing her rent. She was earning a fair whack but had a compulsive shopping habit and had to enter into an IVA with a range of banks and credit card companies which left her with just a few hundred pounds a month after her debt repayments.
Is that the system's fault, her fault, or a bit of both?
As @Kompakted mentioned there's already a redistribution of wealth, the top 10% of earners pay 60% of all income tax in the UK. How much more should they pay?
There's a different question I think that if you want good public services then taxes need to go up across the board, not just on high earners.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
No smart high earner pays anything but nominal income tax. Its why reform of things like capital gain is urgently needed
spurspinter1
Steve Carr
If she was earning enough to live on and was happy and fulfilled by the work she was doing, then it's not really a matter of UBI - It's pure speculation on my part but perhaps she was spending out of her means to plug a gap caused by disconnection from meaningful work. It's not always as simple as - High salary = Content life - It sounds like an avoidance/ addiction thing more than anything but obviously I know very little of that situation.
The UBI would kick in if let's say she lost her job, rather than potentially becoming homeless and spiralling with guilt / poor mental health/ no work life balance, that safety net is there. Do you feel comfortable saying she doesn't deserve it because she made some bad decisions along the way?
As for the nurses, them lot should be absolutely raking it in, in one shift they do more work than many a yuppie trust fund baby fudge$rs will ever do in their life, they're asking to keep up with cost of living. It's easy enough to make a miscalculation and come up short for a month. Nobody should have to regularly use foodbanks though for sure, that's a sign things aren't going great.
No worries on the mix up, there's worse posters to be mixed up with than @Rorschach - He seems a lot more balanced and knowledgeable on this stuff than I am although It looks like we're on the same "side" on this particular topic