Politics, politics, politics

[the dza]

Those threats are very different to threats of violence/theft.

"Do what I want or I will walk away" is not a threat of physical harm - it's not nearly like the one I mentioned.

In a healthy world countries should be competing for businesses and wealthy individuals to take up residence and taxation should be a part of that equation.


I understand, of course, that there is a need for those of us who can to provide for those who cannot (I stress cannot as an absolute, it may never be confused with will not, might not, don't fancy it, etc). I absolutely believe though, that the incentive to work must be kept at a premium and there needs to be a significant gap between working life and not working life to ensure that incentive remains.

I also believe heavily in altruism and the positive effect it has on society. None of that, however justifies me giving away half of everything I earn to the tax man - it's just preposterous.

Imagine a clean slate, imagine taxation has never existed and the socialist ratchet has yet to get its filthy claws into my wallet. Then try to imagine a working, sensible tax system. I'll bet giving away half of one's earnings, money I could otherwise be spending on my son, is not in that system - it's just ridiculous.

A non-violent way for people without economic clout to negotiate with those with all the power is collective bargaining, but you are against that. When the lower orders threaten to withdraw their labour it's extortion, when rich individuals or big companies threaten to withdraw their money, that's just good business.

You would pay less tax if those above you in the economic food chain paid their fair share, rather than hoard all their wealth off-shore. Why don't we start there and then fix the rest afterwards? The right wingers prefer to start on those with the least money first, then the state and then...never touch the wealthy.

 

[scaramanga]

A non-violent way for people without economic clout to negotiate with those with all the power is collective bargaining, but you are against that. When the lower orders threaten to withdraw their labour it's extortion, when rich individuals or big companies threaten to withdraw their money, that's just good business.

If those businesses collude in the way the workshy do it's illegal. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen, but we have a mechanism to stop it as much as possible.

Any individual has the right to withdraw their labour, just as any business has the right to withdraw their employment. It's the collusion that's wrong.

You would pay less tax if those above you in the economic food chain paid their fair share, rather than hoard all their wealth off-shore. Why don't we start there and then fix the rest afterwards? The right wingers prefer to start on those with the least money first, then the state and then...never touch the wealthy.

How much do you think that would shrink my tax bill by?

Last estimate I can find is that tax evasion totalled £4.4Bn per year. As a proportion of the £644Bn tax take (same year) that's 0.68%. How much do you think it would cost to go after all of that money? By definition, it's the money that HMRC is unable to prove is involved in evasion.

As with all cost-cutting exercises, let's start by trimming a small amount from the biggest numbers - that would make a massive difference in no time.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Clem Attlee was Britain's greatest prime minister of the 20th century and would have to rank in the short list of the greatest of all time, even Thatcher (the protector of fascist war criminals) admitted as much. He had clear ideas, he communicated them to the people and then he carried them out. No spin, no sell-outs.

 

[scaramanga]

Clem Attlee was Britain's greatest prime minister of the 20th century and would have to rank in the short list of the greatest of all time, even Thatcher (the protector of fascist war criminals) admitted as much. He had clear ideas, he communicated them to the people and then he carried them out. No spin, no sell-outs.

He was certainly the best at selling ideas and convincing the public/other MPs.

Unfortunately the ideas he propagated were dangerous and downright stupid.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

He was certainly the best at selling ideas and convincing the public/other MPs.

Unfortunately the ideas he propagated were dangerous and downright stupid.

Yeah right, the NHS is dangerous and stupid. As I've said before, Scara, these comments cannot be serious and have to be click bait. You're worse than Talk Sport

 

[scaramanga]

Yeah right, the NHS is dangerous and stupid. As I've said before, Scara, these comments cannot be serious and have to be click bait. You're worse than Talk Sport

The NHS has been ruinous to this country. It's the worst part of the socialist ratchet and will only ever go on sucking more and more from the economy until it implodes.

When it finally does, the country won't be ready for it as anything that could have gone into creating and providing an functioning private service will have been spent on keeping Labour types quiet at election time.

 

[the dza]

If those businesses collude in the way the workshy do it's illegal. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen, but we have a mechanism to stop it as much as possible.

Any individual has the right to withdraw their labour, just as any business has the right to withdraw their employment. It's the collusion that's wrong.


How much do you think that would shrink my tax bill by?

Last estimate I can find is that tax evasion totalled £4.4Bn per year. As a proportion of the £644Bn tax take (same year) that's 0.68%. How much do you think it would cost to go after all of that money? By definition, it's the money that HMRC is unable to prove is involved in evasion.

As with all cost-cutting exercises, let's start by trimming a small amount from the biggest numbers - that would make a massive difference in no time.

An individual (who isn't rich) has no power. The only way they make big business listen is to act collectively. A corporation has massive power compared to an individual worker. The collectivism of those individuals is just a counter-balance to the power of big business. A cartel of corporations isn't a counter-balance to anything, merely a monopoly and concentration of power which is why there are supposed to be rules against that.

I wouldn't just look at tax evaded either. If businesses paid a real living wage, then there would be no tax credits, no housing benefit, so that government expenditure would no longer apply. But business says "We can't pay that!" whilst more money than ever, both in absolute terms and as a ratio to the lowest paid, flows to the top. That is the essence of wealth inequality and why it's a problem; it's not the politics of envy, it is a problem that breaks our economic system and forces people in the middle, like yourself, to pay more and more and more, whilst businesses and low earners become more and more dependent on the state subsidies to low wages.

Some argue that you could cut away all the benefits anyway, all tax credits and housing benefit. Have no minimum wage. Let the market sort it out. However, if that happens, in the interim of the market putting things right (if that can even happen), banks would go bust (from people defaulting on their mortgages, especially landlords), many businesses would go bust (lower wages unable to offset the fact that nobody could afford their products in the immediate aftermath of all that money being sucked from the pockets of low-end consumers), and there would be many homeless (no government help for renters who can't pay rent or people who lose their jobs). Which is why no government can do this, because then you would get mass civil unrest and violence.

The biggest corporations and the very wealthiest individuals are the ones who can afford to lose money, so that is where it needs to start. Wealth inequality needs to subside a bit for our economy to start working properly again and that can only come from the the top having less, so that the bottom and middle have more.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

The NHS has been ruinous to this country. It's the worst part of the socialist ratchet and will only ever go on sucking more and more from the economy until it implodes.

When it finally does, the country won't be ready for it as anything that could have gone into creating and providing an functioning private service will have been spent on keeping Labour types quiet at election time.

Yep private health works so efficiently in other places doesn't it? Have you any idea how much Americans pay for their crappy health care? The measure of a society is how we care for our sick, our elderly,our disabled and our disadvantaged, not how we look after our millionaires.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

An individual (who isn't rich) has no power. The only way they make big business listen is to act collectively. A corporation has massive power compared to an individual worker. The collectivism of those individuals is just a counter-balance to the power of big business. A cartel of corporations isn't a counter-balance to anything, merely a monopoly and concentration of power which is why there are supposed to be rules against that.

I wouldn't just look at tax evaded either. If businesses paid a real living wage, then there would be no tax credits, no housing benefit, so that government expenditure would no longer apply. But business says "We can't pay that!" whilst more money than ever, both in absolute terms and as a ratio to the lowest paid, flows to the top. That is the essence of wealth inequality and why it's a problem; it's not the politics of envy, it is a problem that breaks our economic system and forces people in the middle, like yourself, to pay more and more and more, whilst businesses and low earners become more and more dependent on the state subsidies to low wages.

Some argue that you could cut away all the benefits anyway, all tax credits and housing benefit. Have no minimum wage. Let the market sort it out. However, if that happens, in the interim of the market putting things right (if that can even happen), banks would go bust (from people defaulting on their mortgages, especially landlords), many businesses would go bust (lower wages unable to offset the fact that nobody could afford their products in the immediate aftermath of all that money being sucked from the pockets of low-end consumers), and there would be many homeless (no government help for renters who can't pay rent or people who lose their jobs). Which is why no government can do this, because then you would get mass civil unrest and violence.

The biggest corporations and the very wealthiest individuals are the ones who can afford to lose money, so that is where it needs to start. Wealth inequality needs to subside a bit for our economy to start working properly again and that can only come from the the top having less, so that the bottom and middle have more.

One of the great ironies of capitalism is that every employer wants workers, other than their own to earn more money. It's another contradiction of capitalism. The extremist neo-liberals completely disregard contracting domestic demand, due to falling wage share and the deflationary impact of this and also cutting back welfare.

 

[scaramanga]

An individual (who isn't rich) has no power. The only way they make big business listen is to act collectively. A corporation has massive power compared to an individual worker. The collectivism of those individuals is just a counter-balance to the power of big business. A cartel of corporations isn't a counter-balance to anything, merely a monopoly and concentration of power which is why there are supposed to be rules against that.

Market forces already balance the perceived imbalance of power.

Employers need employees every bit as much as employees need an employer. Just because any individual employee is replaceable with another similar one, it doesn't mean that employers can afford to lose staff. The more "bad" an employer is, the more staff will look for alternative employment and become demoralised. The more "good" an employer is, and the easier it becomes to recruit and retain good staff.

I wouldn't just look at tax evaded either. If businesses paid a real living wage, then there would be no tax credits, no housing benefit, so that government expenditure would no longer apply. But business says "We can't pay that!" whilst more money than ever, both in absolute terms and as a ratio to the lowest paid, flows to the top. That is the essence of wealth inequality and why it's a problem; it's not the politics of envy, it is a problem that breaks our economic system and forces people in the middle, like yourself, to pay more and more and more, whilst businesses and low earners become more and more dependent on the state subsidies to low wages.

The flip side of that view is that if the government hadn't been throwing all of our money at benefits, living costs would be kept low and they wouldn't need to throw our money at benefits or tax businesses with a minimum wage.

And complaining about inequality is all about envy. There are perfectly valid methods of raising the bottom up and the top more - these are consistently rejected because they increase the gap despite improving life for the worst off. That answer to improving life for those at the bottom is not dragging the top down.

I don't earn nearly as much as the highest earners in this country - do I whinge like a little bitch that I don't have a G450? Or that I don't have a garage full of supercars? I earn what I earn - that's enough for me and should be enough for anyone.

Some argue that you could cut away all the benefits anyway, all tax credits and housing benefit. Have no minimum wage. Let the market sort it out. However, if that happens, in the interim of the market putting things right (if that can even happen), banks would go bust (from people defaulting on their mortgages, especially landlords), many businesses would go bust (lower wages unable to offset the fact that nobody could afford their products in the immediate aftermath of all that money being sucked from the pockets of low-end consumers), and there would be many homeless (no government help for renters who can't pay rent or people who lose their jobs). Which is why no government can do this, because then you would get mass civil unrest and violence.

I don't think anyone is advocating for removing all benefits immediately. I'd be happy if we could start with explaining the socialist ratchet to the public and educating them on the fact that increasing spending every year is not the answer to a prosperous country. Holding spending still would be good, we can reduce it gradually.

Of course there's some low hanging fruit that can be immediately picked, like council houses for life, union subsidies, stadia for East London Pikeys, etc.

The biggest corporations and the very wealthiest individuals are the ones who can afford to lose money, so that is where it needs to start. Wealth inequality needs to subside a bit for our economy to start working properly again and that can only come from the the top having less, so that the bottom and middle have more.

Or, as this is a global economy and the country isn't a zero sum, closed loop we could all earn more and forget about irrelevant gaps.

Nobody can afford to lose money - that's a ridiculous suggestion. I'd argue from direct experience that directors' pay is far harder earned than that of a labourer or barman. Why should one lose what they have worked so hard to earn disproportionately to the others?

 

[scaramanga]

One of the great ironies of capitalism is that every employer wants workers, other than their own to earn more money. It's another contradiction of capitalism. The extremist neo-liberals completely disregard contracting domestic demand, due to falling wage share and the deflationary impact of this and also cutting back welfare.

Inflation is far more damaging to most businesses than deflation - certainly in the labour-heavy sectors that make up most of the UK economy.

 

[scaramanga]

Yep private health works so efficiently in other places doesn't it? Have you any idea how much Americans pay for their crappy health care? The measure of a society is how we care for our sick, our elderly,our disabled and our disadvantaged, not how we look after our millionaires.

It works pretty well in Germany and Belgium - they're both further along the private healthcare line than we are.

I'd rather see a publicly funded, privately provided healthcare system - that would balance the need for universal healthcare with the need to eliminate waste from the entire sector. Obviously anyone paying for their own healthcare should have the full amount rebated from HMRC as they are reducing the burden on the system.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

It works pretty well in Germany and Belgium - they're both further along the private healthcare line than we are.

I'd rather see a publicly funded, privately provided healthcare system - that would balance the need for universal healthcare with the need to eliminate waste from the entire sector. Obviously anyone paying for their own healthcare should have the full amount rebated from HMRC as they are reducing the burden on the system.

Nope, I would still make them pay. if they have private health care they may well still be relying on an NHS surgeon in an emergency, such as a heart attack etc.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Inflation is far more damaging to most businesses than deflation - certainly in the labour-heavy sectors that make up most of the UK economy.

It's causing a drag on domestic demand.

 

[the dza]

Market forces already balance the perceived imbalance of power.

Employers need employees every bit as much as employees need an employer. Just because any individual employee is replaceable with another similar one, it doesn't mean that employers can afford to lose staff. The more "bad" an employer is, the more staff will look for alternative employment and become demoralised. The more "good" an employer is, and the easier it becomes to recruit and retain good staff.


The flip side of that view is that if the government hadn't been throwing all of our money at benefits, living costs would be kept low and they wouldn't need to throw our money at benefits or tax businesses with a minimum wage.

And complaining about inequality is all about envy. There are perfectly valid methods of raising the bottom up and the top more - these are consistently rejected because they increase the gap despite improving life for the worst off. That answer to improving life for those at the bottom is not dragging the top down.

I don't earn nearly as much as the highest earners in this country - do I whinge like a little bitch that I don't have a G450? Or that I don't have a garage full of supercars? I earn what I earn - that's enough for me and should be enough for anyone.


I don't think anyone is advocating for removing all benefits immediately. I'd be happy if we could start with explaining the socialist ratchet to the public and educating them on the fact that increasing spending every year is not the answer to a prosperous country. Holding spending still would be good, we can reduce it gradually.

Of course there's some low hanging fruit that can be immediately picked, like council houses for life, union subsidies, stadia for East London Pikeys, etc.


Or, as this is a global economy and the country isn't a zero sum, closed loop we could all earn more and forget about irrelevant gaps.

Nobody can afford to lose money - that's a ridiculous suggestion. I'd argue from direct experience that directors' pay is far harder earned than that of a labourer or barman. Why should one lose what they have worked so hard to earn disproportionately to the others?

Basically Scara, you want lower taxes at the expense of the poor and not the rich. This is right-wing economics in a nutshell.

 

[scaramanga]

Nope, I would still make them pay. if they have private health care they may well still be relying on an NHS surgeon in an emergency, such as a heart attack etc.

And they would still be contributing to the NHS, they'd just get a refund for the amount they're saving the NHS

 

[scaramanga]

It's causing a drag on domestic demand.

And increases international demand.

 

[scaramanga]

Basically Scara, you want lower taxes at the expense of the poor and not the rich. This is right-wing economics in a nutshell.

Nope. I want to see lower taxes for everyone.

 

[the dza]

Nope. I want to see lower taxes for everyone.

Isn't this the doctrine of Donald Trump?

How can taxes be made lower for everyone but not at the expense of those at the lower end of the economic scale? Government cuts impact poorer people but not the rich, so if government cuts are the answer to lower taxes, then you still want lower taxes at the expense of the poor.

We may have the opportunity to see this really in action, should Trump's budget pass.

 

[scaramanga]

Isn't this the doctrine of Donald Trump?

How can taxes be made lower for everyone but not at the expense of those at the lower end of the economic scale? Government cuts impact poorer people but not the rich, so if government cuts are the answer to lower taxes, then you still want lower taxes at the expense of the poor.

We may have the opportunity to see this really in action, should Trump's budget pass.

I thought we all benefited from public services and therefore all had to contribute? Can't have it both ways.