It's socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us
Discussion
otolith said:
His job is not to stir up debate, his job is to confirm the pre-existing opinions of the Guardian readership, giving them a warm glow of righteous indignation over their morning muesli.
Precisely. It is no different to the "gor blimey" articles of the Daily Mail, the economic and political drivel in the Mirror, etc, etc. They all spend most of their time feeding their readers the particular flavour of prejudicial tosh that they know their readership likes. There is no attempt to inform them, no attempt to encourage them to challenge their preconceptions. Read them for entertainment if you like, but you better have your bulls
t filter cranked up if you're going to try to learn anything from the experience.The original article is just a lazy rehashing of a bunch of clichés that have been doing the rounds for years. As well add being wrong about most things, it's also dull; we've heard it all before many, many times.
And it also doesn't propose any solutions. It's easy to point out a long list of things that are f
ked. When they are the result of genuinely difficult problems (like international tax arrangements, like imbalances in the housing market, like social welfare) just pointing out the problems is completely facile. Housing benefit is paid to landlords. No st? The banking crisis was am expensive mess. No st? Etc, etc, etcPrawnboy said:
XM5ER said:
Prawnboy said:
XM5ER said:
Prawnboy said:
why can you not try to work to improve everyone's lot?
Because they are not my responsibility as I am not theirs.how far should one's circle extend?
you?
your family?
your friends?
work collegues?
friends of your family?
friends of your friends?
neighbours?
street?
village/town?
vonuber said:
Eh was looking for some thoughtful discussion / critiques; my mistake.
Why would anyone seriously bother critiquing such an idiotic article? Almost every single line is bks, it would take all week to correct all the drivel. Lets just start with one of his initial basic 'facts'.Article said:
...
More than £1tn of public money was poured into the banks following the financial collapse.
...
Really? Thats obviously bMore than £1tn of public money was poured into the banks following the financial collapse.
...
ks though isn't it? Whats the national debt again? The real number is £123bn according to, oh look, The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-...
You seriously expect 'thoughtful discussion' of this crap?
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 2nd September 16:03
Randy Winkman said:
lamboman100 said:
The very poor and very rich get relatively undertaxed and overspent. Everyone else in between gets squeezed until they scream.
C'est la vie.
Ain't that the truth. And it's getting worse because we are the ones that are too busy getting on with things to do much about it. C'est la vie.
that's not a bell curve, more a blooming cliff
from a commercial perspective, there are vanishingly few companies who don't pay the 'intended' rate of tax and NIC contributions. Those that don't pay a 'morally correct' rate of tax are generally bona fide multinationals, and as such it is their right under tax laws to pay tax in whatever jurisdiction suits them, and they do...
were it not for the rich, uk plc would go bust that quick.......
Randy Winkman said:
lamboman100 said:
The very poor and very rich get relatively undertaxed and overspent. Everyone else in between gets squeezed until they scream.
C'est la vie.
Ain't that the truth. And it's getting worse because we are the ones that are too busy getting on with things to do much about it. C'est la vie.
http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2012/12/Screen-S...
fblm said:
Randy Winkman said:
lamboman100 said:
The very poor and very rich get relatively undertaxed and overspent. Everyone else in between gets squeezed until they scream.
C'est la vie.
Ain't that the truth. And it's getting worse because we are the ones that are too busy getting on with things to do much about it. C'est la vie.
http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2012/12/Screen-S...
Greg_D said:
fblm said:
Randy Winkman said:
lamboman100 said:
The very poor and very rich get relatively undertaxed and overspent. Everyone else in between gets squeezed until they scream.
C'est la vie.
Ain't that the truth. And it's getting worse because we are the ones that are too busy getting on with things to do much about it. C'est la vie.
http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2012/12/Screen-S...
otolith said:
That is an inevitable consequence of means tested benefits. It's an artefact of our welfare system, not our tax system.
This, the fact that they are given so much by the government that work isn't worth doing doesn't alter the fact that they are paying the square root of eff all tax (ESPECIALLY if you take into account their benefits) your diagram effectively reinforces my point. Sort out the benefits system, the tax system is already broken...
Now if what you are saying is that certain benefits should be tapered in line with earnings i feel we would, broadly, be in agreement. The fact that there is currently a cap on how many hours you can effectively work has precisely no bearing on an individuals tax receipts.
Let's not start the conversation about the inequitable distribution of benefits across the income spectrum...
Greg_D said:
otolith said:
That is an inevitable consequence of means tested benefits. It's an artefact of our welfare system, not our tax system.
This, the fact that they are given so much by the government that work isn't worth doing doesn't alter the fact that they are paying the square root of eff all tax (ESPECIALLY if you take into account their benefits) your diagram effectively reinforces my point. Sort out the benefits system, the tax system is already broken...
Now if what you are saying is that certain benefits should be tapered in line with earnings i feel we would, broadly, be in agreement. The fact that there is currently a cap on how many hours you can effectively work has precisely no bearing on an individuals tax receipts.
Let's not start the conversation about the inequitable distribution of benefits across the income spectrum...
Prawnboy said:
why can you not try to work to improve everyone's lot?
...
I don't necessarily believe the current system works against this. I'm not a massive believer in basing things like "poverty" on some arbitrary %age of a national earnings stat....
I think everyone's lot has improved. Almost certainly too much so across the board hence the slight problem we have with our national finances.
What OJ and his ilk get fixated on is how relatively well off they are, or the "poor" are compared to others. At a national level I don't see that as healthy in the way shouty articles such as his use it. There is always someone better off than you. This is what I was getting at.
Prawnboy said:
...
if the blatant, legally allowed, but morally wrong tax avoidance schemes were cracked down upon and more money came into the exchequer a case could be made for further cutting corporation tax in order to increase investment, and boost employment. Surely striving for the best possible solutions is more worthy of human society than the life st except it line.
Whose moral code? Who sets it?if the blatant, legally allowed, but morally wrong tax avoidance schemes were cracked down upon and more money came into the exchequer a case could be made for further cutting corporation tax in order to increase investment, and boost employment. Surely striving for the best possible solutions is more worthy of human society than the life s
t except it line.There is legal, and there is not legal. That's the only distinction that really matters in society IMO, as everything else is purely subjective. Differing shades of grey.
You also need to check out the laffer curve. Punitive taxation does not necessarily result in higher overall income. Indeed you should look into statistics on the overall tax take of the country. Its more aligned to GDP than it is pissing about around the edges thinking a coffee shop is or isn't paying enough of one type of tax.
Instead of the drivel spouted in the article, why not focus all the angst on improving our GDP. Perhaps by even lowering company taxation and encouraging businesses to grow here?
Prawnboy said:
...
It's not jealousy to point out that moving your profits out of the countries they are created in via accounting tricks is not beneficial to the society you are operating in.
...
They are following the law. Wanting someone penalised for doing nothing wrong, other than maximising their profits, strikes me as a bit odd. It's not jealousy to point out that moving your profits out of the countries they are created in via accounting tricks is not beneficial to the society you are operating in.
...
Do you have an ISA? If I don't, am I justified in feeling that you need whacking harder with the tax mallet because you're using legal vehicles to reduce your tax?
Prawnboy said:
...
It is also not jealousy to point out that the bank bail-out is the opposite of capitalist ideals.
This I don't disagree with you on. I think the first few should have been let go. My view is that the pain would have been worse initially but the recovery would have been better and more sustainable.It is also not jealousy to point out that the bank bail-out is the opposite of capitalist ideals.
I also believe that the reasons for not letting those first few go to the wall were uber-political along constituency grounds rather than any genuine fear of melt down. But I suspect we'll never really know.
Either way, the amounts actually lost in the melee thus far are small when compared to the benefit the sector has brought to the country over the last few decades. And if the govt could be trusted to make a decent fist of it, they should remain that way. Big "if" though.
Prawnboy said:
...
things can be better all round, and a form of well regulated free market capitalism seems to be the best way at the moment. But as we have recently found out it is neither well regulated or truly free market capitalist....
The million dollar question, however, is how do you achieve that when pushing against the inexorable vagaries of human nature? things can be better all round, and a form of well regulated free market capitalism seems to be the best way at the moment. But as we have recently found out it is neither well regulated or truly free market capitalist....
Prawnboy said:
It's not jealousy to point out that moving your profits out of the countries they are created in via accounting tricks is not beneficial to the society you are operating in.
Calculating profit in the manner approved by HMRC is hardly a trick. In any case the primary purpose of an organisation is not to pay tax, merely providing members of that society with what they want is a benefit to society. Society is not the same as the government.My local library doesn't pay tax, does that mean it is of no benefit to society?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff