UKC

Labour lunacy

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25894312

Do they really think that in this day and age this wil do anything? Anything other than drive some wealthy people out of the country? A return to the politics of the 70s.

http://www.terencebunch.co.uk/articles/globalisation-the-united-states-empi...
 Phil1919 25 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

I guess its their attempt at more social equality.
 Dax H 25 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
Since losing the election labour have said that the coalition needs to borrow and spend more.
I wonder what caused the about turn.
 tmawer 25 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

I guess there is an economic debate to have, and I have no idea whether it would "do anything" in so far as raising income, however there is also a moral debate and it seems right to me that those who earn the most are taxed the highest. No idea if that's the politics of the 70's or if it would be entirely a bad thing if it were!
 MonkeyPuzzle 25 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

So 10p on the top rate of tax = the politics of the '70s? Is it not more complicated than that?
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Probably, but it was just a starting point for debate.

Does taxing high earners more bring "equality"?
 psaunders 25 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Taxing high earners less creates more inequality.

See this graph of the change in the top 1% income share since the 1970s: http://i39.tinypic.com/2q22rnm.jpg
In reply to psaunders:

It's amazing just how many people are complacent, or even proud, of what we've been doing. Interesting to see, too, where the most successful country in Europe (Germany) lies on the graph.
contrariousjim 25 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Economic equality means equal access to tax avoidance schemes irrespective of earnings, 100% inheritance tax so that everyone starts from scratch.. ..fairness, on the other hand, means that those with a greater excess of earnings above what they need should pay proportionally more in tax.
contrariousjim 25 Jan 2014
 Postmanpat 25 Jan 2014
In reply to psaunders:

> Taxing high earners less creates more inequality.

> See this graph of the change in the top 1% income share since the 1970s: http://i39.tinypic.com/2q22rnm.jpg

Are you sure that's the right one? It's not a graph and has no timeline.
 Postmanpat 25 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> Economic equality means equal access to tax avoidance schemes irrespective of earnings, 100% inheritance tax so that everyone starts from scratch.. ..fairness, on the other hand, means that those with a greater excess of earnings above what they need should pay proportionally more in tax.

Like they do you mean?
 Postmanpat 25 Jan 2014
In reply to tmawer:

> I guess there is an economic debate to have, and I have no idea whether it would "do anything" in so far as raising income, however there is also a moral debate and it seems right to me that those who earn the most are taxed the highest. No idea if that's the politics of the 70's or if it would be entirely a bad thing if it were!

So the point of raising tax revenue isn't to provide services, it's just to hurt those earning the most?
 Postmanpat 25 Jan 2014
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> It's amazing just how many people are complacent, or even proud, of what we've been doing. Interesting to see, too, where the most successful country in Europe (Germany) lies on the graph.

Possibly because Germany never had a marginal tax rate of 98%? Sine the "chart" has no starting point it doesn't tell us much about relative positions, only relative change.

Their current highest income tax rate is is listed as 45%, so not much different to the UK and lower than the US after State taxes are included. The chart could just as easily be used to show that that lower marginal income tax rates facilitates greater wealth creation and thus higher tax revenues which is presumably regarded as a good thing (unless they are used to invade foreign countries for no obvious reason etc etc).
 Timmd 25 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Possibly because Germany never had a marginal tax rate of 98%? Sine the "chart" has no starting point it doesn't tell us much about relative positions, only relative change.

> Their current highest income tax rate is is listed as 45%, so not much different to the UK and lower than the US after State taxes are included. The chart could just as easily be used to show that that lower marginal income tax rates facilitates greater wealth creation and thus higher tax revenues which is presumably regarded as a good thing (unless they are used to invade foreign countries for no obvious reason etc etc).

As I understand it, the main way Germany is different to the UK is in not having tax bands, but incremental increases in tax as people earn more. It seems more logical to me to have that kind of arrangement, rather than tax bands like we have in the UK.
Post edited at 23:14
In reply to contrariousjim:
> Economic equality means equal access to tax avoidance schemes irrespective of earnings, 100% inheritance tax so that everyone starts from scratch.

So if I earn, and save, I am not allowed to pass that on to those I love?

What a hate filled idea.
Post edited at 23:32
 Postmanpat 25 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> So if I earn, and save, I am not allowed to pass that on to those I love?

> What a hate filled idea.

That's because it's not yours. It all belongs to the benevolent State that let's you have it temporarily if you behave. It''s a form of neo feudalism.
 Fat Bumbly2 25 Jan 2014

" A return to the politics of the 70s."

Hardly - I think you will find income tax was a little higher than 50% on only very high incomes back then. Labour tried playing it your way with continuing similar policies from the Thatcher/Major years and look what all the talent you think will flee the country did to us.

Not advocating a return to 1976, but 5% on a hard to imagine salary is going to hurt them a lot less than the recent schittstorm has hurt us. This is over £150k and am I not the only one who suspects that folk think that this rate applies to the whole of their salary not the portion above that amount.

Would take more than that to make me flee the country.
Post edited at 23:53
Lusk 25 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> So if I earn, and save, I am not allowed to pass that on to those I love?



You must have mattresses down under?
 Lord_ash2000 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Lusk:

As I always say in regards to tax. It's got nothing to do with 'morals' or giving the poor a greater scence of satisfaction knowing the evil rich ha email to pay for all their crap. It's about total tax take. Taxing to high kills the economy, taxing to low brings in no money. You need to find an optimum level for that.

It's better to take a small slice of a bigger pie than a big slice of small one.
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> So if I earn, and save, I am not allowed to pass that on to those I love?

> What a hate filled idea.

Not at all. It's a love filled idea.. ..that all are equal, and the only good we can do is for the benefit of the many not the few and that we are custodians of the earth and all that it provides and not owners of it!
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> That's because it's not yours. It all belongs to the benevolent State that let's you have it temporarily if you behave. It''s a form of neo feudalism.

Well of course it's not yours. It's nobodies! The state are the representatives of all, none of whom should "own" including the state, the corporations or the private individual!
 Jon Stewart 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
> As I always say in regards to tax. It's got nothing to do with 'morals' or giving the poor a greater scence of satisfaction knowing the evil rich ha email to pay for all their crap. It's about total tax take. Taxing to high kills the economy, taxing to low brings in no money. You need to find an optimum level for that.

Exactly. I think the "people will leave the country" line is absolute shite trotted out without regard to whether it might contain even one grain of truth. But in the last UKC debate on 45% vs 50% tax rates, I ended up convinced that it was around the tipping point at which many people begin to try hard to avoid what seems like an onerous tax burden and therefore this increase might not bring much in.

It is an entirely pragmatic matter. The sense of entitlement felt by the rich to their hard earned, and the sense felt by the poor (or just not rich) that the rich should pay more because they can afford to should not be listened to. Taxes should be designed to pay for what the voters want to have provided by the state. Only the thickie right actually want to destroy schools and hospitals so only those who can afford to go private can live a decent life and have opportunities to succeed. Everyone with a handful of braincells to rub together across the political spectrum appreciates the need for good public services and a well-functioning society, so the question is the best way to raise enough tax to pay for all that stuff.

It's simply a practical problem, the emotional "you rich guys should pay more" vs "why should I pay for you feckless scroungers" needs to be ignored. It is noise.
Post edited at 01:28
 thermal_t 26 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:
> Not at all. It's a love filled idea.. ..that all are equal, and the only good we can do is for the benefit of the many not the few and that we are custodians of the earth and all that it provides and not owners of it!

Well it wouldn't work would it, everyone would just blow the vast majority of their money whilst they were alive. On the positive side it would produce a hell of a temporary kick to the economy as the elderly blew all their money.
In reply to contrariousjim:

> Not at all. It's a love filled idea.. ..that all are equal, and the only good we can do is for the benefit of the many not the few and that we are custodians of the earth and all that it provides and not owners of it!

Nonsense. Families care for each other, what I leave my child is done out of love for her. Easy way round your madcap scheme Shona/Gudrum/chambers or whatever you're calling yourself this week, is to give our kids all we own before we die, then the wouldn't need to inherit anything. No risk strategy, as my kid loves me and would see me well until I die.
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> Well of course it's not yours. It's nobodies! The state are the representatives of all, none of whom should "own" including the state, the corporations or the private individual!

Right on comrade. Property is theft!
 Phil1919 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

I guess we just need some ideas for making society more equal.
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Right on comrade. Property is theft!

No, but familial accumulation of property by "right" is theft from those who are born into different circumstances, and of course there is only a certain amount of Lithium in the world, only a certain amount of fossil fuels or uranium available, only a certain amount of food yieldable through intensive means, only a certain amount of residential property etc etc. So having these things as something you can buy, own, and then their yours, is an idea that is so lame, and self focussed (and in terms of necessity for the future untrue), that you're just pulling your pants down and sticking your arse in the air shouting "f%ck those who come after me, I don't need to gie a sh1te about you.. ..because as long as I'm comfortable who give a sh1te about you you stupid effing benefit junky that got their all through your own lack of effort, even though you haven't been born yet... ...turdus maximus!!!"
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to thermal_t:

> Well it wouldn't work would it, everyone would just blow the vast majority of their money whilst they were alive. On the positive side it would produce a hell of a temporary kick to the economy as the elderly blew all their money.

Yep, but they wouldn't need to earn as much. Money always being recycled back into the economy rather than being generationally sequestered is good for a capitalist basis for wealth redistribution too.
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> Nonsense. Families care for each other, what I leave my child is done out of love for her.

Of course they do.. ..but only in the Thatcherite individualistic sense in which love of your family mean families of islands, friends and community interaction is just ornament collecting, and no concomitant need to love anybody not in your family. Such selectivity isn't love.

> Easy way round your madcap scheme Shona/Gudrum/chambers or whatever you're calling yourself this week, is to give our kids all we own before we die, then the wouldn't need to inherit anything. No risk strategy, as my kid loves me and would see me well until I die.

Well you can legislate against that.. Indeed, we already have. Of course the rich are much better at getting around it than the poor, but the loop holes can be, and should be closed. Sorry to disappoint but I'm none of the above.
 Phil1919 26 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

Have to admit, my instincts support your arguments. Reading about landlords who have portfolios of over 100 and even 500 properties doesn't lie well with me either.
cragtaff 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat: its the politics of socialism - 'I have got nothing and I will share it with you, so you give me a share of what you have worked for, saved and grown!'

Pathetic losers! If you want equality - strive to succeed, you don't just sit back and expect to be given. Modern socialism is a product of the benefits system that allows people to make it a lifestyle choice, if you choose to have nothing, don't moan about it.

 Al Evans 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
This is obviously such a right wing thread I can't even be bothered making an argument against the OP, Tax the rich is what I say.
Or rather, tax those that can afford it.
Post edited at 09:14
In reply to contrariousjim:

Are you proposing to outlaw giving your estate to anyone both before and after death?
 Phil1919 26 Jan 2014
In reply to cragtaff:

Not as straightforward as that.
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to cragtaff:

> its the politics of socialism - 'I have got nothing and I will share it with you, so you give me a share of what you have worked for, saved and grown!'

No that's your prejudicial caricature.

> If you want equality - strive to succeed, you don't just sit back and expect to be given.

Fair enough sentiment.. ..provided everyone starts on an equal footing.
KevinD 26 Jan 2014
In reply to cragtaff:

> Pathetic losers! If you want equality - strive to succeed, you don't just sit back and expect to be given.

You are for inheritances being banned then?
 Phil1919 26 Jan 2014
In reply to cragtaff:

We need to place cooperation ahead of competition for starters.
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Turdus torquatus:

> Are you proposing to outlaw giving your estate to anyone both before and after death?

Yes. It needs to be worked out as a proper policy. I don't think it's fair for partners to get the rug puller out from under them, and some people will need some form of financial start to get on their own two feet. However, essentially yes I think inheritance should be stopped. Everyone should start from as close to the same point as possible.
 Skyfall 26 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> Everyone should start from as close to the same point as possible.

We may as well be worker bees; born with nothing, to strive essentially for the state, to die with nothing.
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Skyfall:

> We may as well be worker bees; born with nothing, to strive essentially for the state, to die with nothing.

Not nothing.. ..but rather a care for the world you leave behind, a name recorded in history not because you were born with it, but because you made it, added value with it, educated your children according to it. The state need not be big, but be the representatives of the inhabitants of that "world".
 psaunders 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

1) It quite clearly is a graph.
2) It is not a time series, that's why it doesn't have a 'timeline'.

The end-points used for the calculation are 1975-1979 and 2004-2008. The spread of dates is due to the the limited availability of income data.
 Ridge 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

> " A return to the politics of the 70s."

> Hardly - I think you will find income tax was a little higher than 50% on only very high incomes back then. Labour tried playing it your way with continuing similar policies from the Thatcher/Major years and look what all the talent you think will flee the country did to us.

> Not advocating a return to 1976, but 5% on a hard to imagine salary is going to hurt them a lot less than the recent schittstorm has hurt us. This is over £150k and am I not the only one who suspects that folk think that this rate applies to the whole of their salary not the portion above that amount.

^^^This.

Are we seriously expected to believe the entire nation's talent will flee over an extra 5p in the pound on earnings over 150k? 'Flounce off like spoilt children', might be better than 'Flee' in this case.


> Would take more than that to make me flee the country.

Ditto. We're all in this together, after all.
 wintertree 26 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> educated your children according to it

You should definitely ban that before money. If you're worried about people having unequal help in life, parents who educate their children well are doing more for them than an inheritance ever will.

 Phil1919 26 Jan 2014
In reply to wintertree:

If the parents teach their children to cooperate and other virtues, sounds ideal. Better than giving them a load of unearned income.
 Simon4 26 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> The state are the representatives of all, none of whom should "own" including the state, the corporations or the private individual!

The authoritarian monopolist un-challengable big state is not the representative of all, it is the property of the producer interests that control it, the luddite, anti-democratic, self-serving union power-brokers, along with the very well rewarded and untouchable Guardianista quagocracy. In practice it is controlled and owned by the Bob Crows and Len McCluskeys of this world, as anyone who has ever tried to contest a gross abuse power or total failure in function due to a state bureaucracy like the BBC, the NHS or a local council knows full well. The response is invariably that of the arrogant complacent untouchable apparatchik, "delay, deny, defend".

This desperate cheap piece of rabble rousing populism by the ideally named Balls is as economically illiterate as it is malevolent and spiteful. The current top rate of income tax is greater than that for all of 39 days of the 13 years of Labour government. Nor will tax increases be remotely limited to "the rich", it just does not raise enough, indeed the increase from 45% to 50% (as against the rate of 40% for the period of Labour government), actually loses money, even not allowing for the very substantial changes of behaviour that it causes. Those who imagine that the "tax, borrow, spend and squander" party will be able to satisfy their limitless need for other people's money from "the rich" are utterly delusional, the tax for everybody will be perpetually hiked in an utterly self-defeating manner.

Across the channel we have a dire warning of what will happen to Britain if Balls and Miliband creep home due to their client state payroll vote and postal vote fraud. Hollande, whose "policies" are virtually identical to those of Balls and Miliband is the least popular French president ever in the 5th republic and the target of universal contempt and derision, both due to his economic and policy failures and the bedroom farce of his private life.

If, heaven forbid, the sixth form debating society president Miliband were ever to get to be prime minister, we would have Hollande in Britain, probably without the mild entertainment of the French bedroom farce.

 Sir Chasm 26 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim: Yeah, yeah, your parents won't leave you anything and you won't leave your kids anything. Or is it do as you say, not as you do?

contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> You should definitely ban that before money. If you're worried about people having unequal help in life, parents who educate their children well are doing more for them than an inheritance ever will.

I'm not advocating a "brave new world"!.. ..we could genetically engineer everyone to be identical clones at birth as well. Well no, but the sequestration of money across generations is an inequality easy to resolve, and the provision of education should have the ideal of bringing values, knowledge and skills to all.
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Simon4:

> The authoritarian monopolist un-challengable big state is not the representative of all, it is the property of the producer interests that control it, the luddite, anti-democratic, self-serving union power-brokers, along with the very well rewarded and untouchable Guardianista quagocracy. In practice it is controlled and owned by the Bob Crows and Len McCluskeys of this world, as anyone who has ever tried to contest a gross abuse power or total failure in function due to a state bureaucracy like the BBC, the NHS or a local council knows full well. The response is invariably that of the arrogant complacent untouchable apparatchik, "delay, deny, defend".

Deary me.. ..you've been tossing off to Dacre again. The unions are emaciated, the guardian has a tiny readership, and neither exert anything like the power of the burden of right wing media and corporations who don't even need lobbyists given they have elected politicians as there representatives.
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to psaunders:

> 1) It quite clearly is a graph.

> 2) It is not a time series, that's why it doesn't have a 'timeline'.

> The end-points used for the calculation are 1975-1979 and 2004-2008. The spread of dates is due to the the limited availability of income data.

Where does it say that?
 Jon Stewart 26 Jan 2014
In reply to cragtaff:
> its the politics of socialism - 'I have got nothing and I will share it with you, so you give me a share of what you have worked for, saved and grown!'

> Pathetic losers! If you want equality - strive to succeed, you don't just sit back and expect to be given. Modern socialism is a product of the benefits system that allows people to make it a lifestyle choice, if you choose to have nothing, don't moan about it.

Do you honestly believe this utter guff?

People are born into different circumstances, and their lives are profoundly affected by those circumstances. People who are rich did not get there through hard work alone, they got there through hard work and being born with opportunity. A tiny minority of people manage to start with very little opportunity and work hard to get much further up the ladder. Those who are poor are poor because they failed to overcome the odds stacked against them.

At what point in your thickie-right view of things does someone become responsible for finding themselves at the bottom of the pile? When they are born into a poor, chaotic family with no values for education and working hard? When they are 16? Can you honestly not see that where you are born has a profound influence on your opportunity in life, and that those on the left believe that that opportunity should be shared more equally?

Your view of the world is completely twisted. People do not have equal opportunity to succeed, and those who end up rich do not do so because they are better people. That view is blatantly incorrect, and it is repulsively self-serving.
Post edited at 12:00
 Jon Stewart 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Simon4:

> This desperate cheap piece of rabble rousing populism by the ideally named Balls is as economically illiterate as it is malevolent and spiteful.

It isn't significant enough to be economically illiterate. And you don't know the Laffer curve any better than Balls, or what the behavioural response will be - whether the effect will be positive or negative. To pretend you do is empty grandstanding. If he proposed 60% you'd have a point, but a change from 45% to 50% is just symbolic "look, lefties, we'll tax the rich".

And as for "spiteful and malevolent" that's just emotional, meaningless tosh that is 100% substance free.

You've just used this pointless, tiny tweak of policy as just an excuse for you to drone on about Guardianistas again. Things would be hardly any different under Labour, you're just being a tribalist dullard.
 JdotP 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

My main comment regards the economic effect of the tax rise. To my mind, what we really need to see for a sustainable long-term economic recovery is new businesses starting, based on the production of goods and services rather than gambling on the stock market. It seems inconceivable that this relatively minor tax rise will persuade entrepreneurs starting new businesses to locate elsewhere. Surely factors like transport links, availability of skilled labour etc will be the key factors?

> Do they really think that in this day and age this wil do anything?

Also, it will help reduce the budget deposit, which you may be aware is quite a big problem at the moment.
 psaunders 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

In the paper from which I have extracted the graph: Piketty, Saez & Stantcheva (2011), "Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities"
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to psaunders:

> In the paper from which I have extracted the graph: Piketty, Saez & Stantcheva (2011), "Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities"

Any chance you could link the points so that we could see the graph? Which points will you be linking?
 crayefish 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Once again politics has become about winning votes, not doing the best for the country. Tories do the unpopular thing while sorting out the economy while labour wins votes with poor economic but popular decisions and the cycle repeats.
 Al Evans 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Jon. I will no longer just vote for you, but actually work on your campaign, You are about the only person talking any sense on this thread.
 Jon Stewart 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Al Evans:

I'm afraid a few years in the civil service seeing what ministers do (mainly spin) was enough to put me off ever doing anything remotely connected with politics ever again. I'm afraid my campaign doesn't extend much further than UKC
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to JdotP:

> My main comment regards the economic effect of the tax rise. To my mind, what we really need to see for a sustainable long-term economic recovery is new businesses starting, based on the production of goods and services rather than gambling on the stock market. It seems inconceivable that this relatively minor tax rise will persuade entrepreneurs starting new businesses to locate elsewhere. Surely factors like transport links, availability of skilled labour etc will be the key factors?

It's regarded by some as a bellwether signal indicating the UK's attitude to tax, regulation etc. Nobody is seriously suggesting that this change alone means investment will cease and half the population will bugger off to the Cayman Islands nBut symbols matter.


> Also, it will help reduce the budget deposit, which you may be aware is quite a big problem at the moment.

Not necessarily. It might result in less tax revenue and a bigger deficit.

 Jon Stewart 26 Jan 2014
In reply to crayefish:

> Once again politics has become about winning votes, not doing the best for the country. Tories do the unpopular thing while sorting out the economy while labour wins votes with poor economic but popular decisions and the cycle repeats.

God, they've really had you there haven't they? The economic policies are between Labour and Tory are hardly any different. We didn't have 10 years of growth and then a crash because of Labour, we had that because of the world. We're not reigning in public spending now because the Tories are in, we're doing that because we just had a crash. The only difference is the silly little bits around the edges: when you're making modest savings, do you bang on about scroungers until everyone believes you and take it off the welfare bill without regard to the disabled, or do you make an effort to try and protect the vulnerable? Do you allow people with the most money to cream off the best education or do you try to support people who have the talent but not the funds. Do you flog the profitable bits of the NHS off to your mates, or do you prioritise keeping a consistent service for all? It's only in these details that there is any difference between the parties.
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> God, they've really had you there haven't they? The economic policies are between Labour and Tory are hardly any different. We didn't have 10 years of growth and then a crash because of Labour, we had that because of the world. We're not reigning in public spending now because the Tories are in, we're doing that because we just had a crash. The only difference is the silly little bits around the edges: when you're making modest savings, do you bang on about scroungers until everyone believes you and take it off the welfare bill without regard to the disabled, or do you make an effort to try and protect the vulnerable? Do you allow people with the most money to cream off the best education or do you try to support people who have the talent but not the funds. Do you flog the profitable bits of the NHS off to your mates, or do you prioritise keeping a consistent service for all? It's only in these details that there is any difference between the parties.

It's partly true in terms economic policy that they're all the same. They're all capitalists, "Thatcher's children".

But in social policy they are not and these are not "the silly bits around the edges". Labour gave up on the "underclass" and simply bribed them to keep quiet thus increasing it's size. The Conservatives believe in the importance of people working and making it the economically rational thing to do. Just as Thatcher won the economic argument they're are increasing signs that Labour is coming to recognise the problems they have caused and accepting that the welfare system needs fundamental rethinking.
 Jon Stewart 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> But in social policy they are not and these are not "the silly bits around the edges".

They are in terms of the assertion I responded to about Labour crashing the economy and the Tories sorting it out.

> Labour gave up on the "underclass" and simply bribed them to keep quiet thus increasing it's size. The Conservatives believe in the importance of people working and making it the economically rational thing to do. Just as Thatcher won the economic argument they're are increasing signs that Labour is coming to recognise the problems they have caused and accepting that the welfare system needs fundamental rethinking.

What a bizarre view of the world. You see the Tories fundamentally rethinking the welfare system so that it always pays to work. That, of course, is common sense and consensus. Do you honestly believe that the policy under Labour was deliberately to create a mess with multiple sweet-spots where you were better off on benefits? Of course not, it was just well-intentioned but ineffective policy with unintended consequences.

The idea that there is fundamental rethink going on is a joke. DWP have wanted something along the lines of Universal Credit for decades, they're not thick! What the Tories are doing is just snipping away at benefits for people who won't vote by for them (justified politically by the dishonest and stomach turning "scroungers" rhetoric that has been tragically lapped up) while the department tries to "make hay" by getting some sensible reforms implemented now they're free of the last lot.

You don't just give the Tories the benefit of the doubt, you present a fantasy world in which they're transforming society for the better, with true intentions. Give it a rest! All they want is to save a few bob and get reelected, a child could see that.
Post edited at 16:53
 diagro 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

If labour get elected, socialism will ruin this country. I really hope Scotland leaves the Uk, honestly, all these pro-socialists should go and live in Scotland in 20 years time - it'll be a financial wreck .
 Jon Stewart 26 Jan 2014
In reply to diagro:

What the hell have Labour got to do with socialism? Were you around for the last couple of decades?
 diagro 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Increasing taxation on the wealthy, to fund the bloated public sector? The public sector should be cut drastically. The BBC should be privatised, lets face it, they've been harbouring pedophiles for the last 40 years, at the cost of tax payers.
 Jon Stewart 26 Jan 2014
In reply to diagro:

> Increasing taxation on the wealthy, to fund the bloated public sector? The public sector should be cut drastically. The BBC should be privatised, lets face it, they've been harbouring pedophiles for the last 40 years, at the cost of tax payers.

Yeah. I remember when Labour introduced the pro-peado policy.
 Al Evans 26 Jan 2014
In reply to diagro:

Jesus Christ, labour saved about 90% of the country with the NHS and concern for the welfare of all, the tories are Toadying to the remaining 10% or less, the problem is that they have all the media and influence in their pockets and people like you, unless you are rich fail to see through it.
 Rob Exile Ward 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

'The Conservatives believe in the importance of people working' ...well unless they inherit wealth of course, in which case it's perfectly OK not to have a job...

Unlike Jon, I think some (a few) Tories actually do believe they are trying to build a better, fairer, more sustainable society. Like IDS for example, may be even Jeremy Hunt and who knows, Michael Gove? (No, scratch that last one.)

Trouble is, they are as remote from the majority of the electorate as those WW1 officers were who were surprised when they saw privates bathing that the 'working class had such white skins.' Let's not forget that our beloved Chancellor, with his finger on the financial pulse, managed to think that his £10K week's ski holiday was comparable to a cleaner's monthly salary - when it was in fact equal to what a part time cleaner earned in a year. No idea.
 wintertree 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Perhaps now is an opportune moment to post this old Spitting Image clip. How prophetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyDBsMi7WE8&
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> They are in terms of the assertion I responded to about Labour crashing the economy and the Tories sorting it out.

> What a bizarre view of the world. You see the Tories fundamentally rethinking the welfare system so that it always pays to work. That, of course, is common sense and consensus. Do you honestly believe that the policy under Labour was deliberately to create a mess with multiple sweet-spots where you were better off on benefits? Of course not, it was just well-intentioned but ineffective policy with unintended consequences.


Exactly!! It was as foolish and self defeating as bailing out British Leyland etc in the 1970s to "save jobs"and,of course, win votes. It's destructive short termism. Beveridge himself could and did predict the consequences of such policies but the Labour party chose to ignore the obvious.


> The idea that there is fundamental rethink going on is a joke. DWP have wanted something along the lines of Universal Credit for decades, they're not thick! What the Tories are doing is just snipping away at benefits for people who won't vote by for them (justified politically by the dishonest and stomach turning "scroungers" rhetoric that has been tragically lapped up) while the department tries to "make hay" by getting some sensible reforms implemented now they're free of the last lot.

Yes, and both parties knew the unions needed controlling for 20 years before it was done.

You've have entirely missed the tension within the Conservative party. He may be thick etc but IDS has a messianic belief in the potential for his reforms to improve peoples' lives by making work the rational option. The education reforms are designed to make people unemployable, particularly when competing for jobs against better educated and motivated immigrants. Osborne, as you suggest, seems more interested in reducing the deficit and winning votes, hence his rhetoric (which IDS hates)

However, as you have noted above, the Labour party plays just the same rhetorical games in headlining populist but mad policies and demonising certains sections of society.

> You don't just give the Tories the benefit of the doubt, you present a fantasy world in which they're transforming society for the better, with true intentions. Give it a rest! All they want is to save a few bob and get reelected, a child could see that.

Your view is irredeemably jaundiced by your personal prejudices. I'm not pretending the Conservative party is full of saints but nor, as so many believe, is it full of devils. They simply have a view that the system should be reformed to enable people to realise their potential and minimise their dependence on the State.

Just as the "left" could only see the negative side of letting British Leyland stand or fall on its own merits they can only see the negative-the pain and disruption caused by the transition, of welfare reform.
 diagro 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Al Evans:

Actually, England is a naturally conservative country. Without Scotland and Wales, do you think Labour would be number 1 at the moment in the polls? Labour didn't save anything. They can't do economics, because they're socialists. They believed we weren't going to have a recession again, they spent the money, plus more in the good times, and left none over for the bad times. Labour put extra pressure on the NHS, immigration rose under them - from the EU and the rest of the world, it was 450,000 some years, now that's pressure on the NHS. They left Britain in a bad position when the recession came, thus, cuts needed to be made, in particular to the NHS. You can't effectively spend your way out of a recession. Lets not forget good old Gordon, he sold a high percentage of our gold reserves at the lowest price, fair enough he wanted to diversify our assets - but you don't make such a big sale public!
 elsewhere 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
> Do they really think that in this day and age this wil do anything? Anything other than drive some wealthy people out of the country? A return to the politics of the 70s.

Have you forgotten that we had this tax just a few years ago and the sky didn't fall in?
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Al Evans:

He'd need be an independent or perhaps a green, because I don't think the main three would have him.
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

> Have you forgotten that we had this tax just a few years ago and the sky didn't fall in?

Well the Tories claimed it did.. ..or rather that it was counter productive.. ..which it wasn't, it was just that everyone brought their accounting forward to avoid it, so it wasn't ever in all practicality implemented.
 diagro 26 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

Basic economics. If you're not taxed as much, you're more likely to have a bigger disposal income, buy more goods, and pay VAT. At the same time, you're stimulating the economy. I'm slightly upset, that they decided to not knock down the 40% to 30%, to help middle class families.
KevinD 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But in social policy they are not and these are not "the silly bits around the edges". Labour gave up on the "underclass" and simply bribed them to keep quiet thus increasing it's size. The Conservatives believe in the importance of people working and making it the economically rational thing to do.

The give up on people and put them on benefits is being 'Thatcher's children'. As a cursory look at unemployment figures would show.


 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to dissonance:

>

> The give up on people and put them on benefits is being 'Thatcher's children'. As a cursory look at unemployment figures would show.

So take more than a cursory look.
KevinD 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So take more than a cursory look.

Ok, so care to explain the subtle rise in incapacity benefit under the tories in the 80-90s?
Lots of people get sick quick?
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> Ok, so care to explain the subtle rise in incapacity benefit under the tories in the 80-90s?

> Lots of people get sick quick?

No, the long overdue and avoided restructuring and productivity improvements in the manufacturing sector took place resulting in high levels of unemployment disguised as incapacity.
Politics overriding common sense. Care to explain why long term dependency has been encouraged rather than reversed ever since?
KevinD 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Politics overriding common sense. Care to explain why long term dependency has been encouraged rather than reversed ever since?

Why do I need to do that?
it is you who is suggesting that one party has a particular stance, which isnt really supported by the facts.
 Rob Exile Ward 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

'Care to explain why long term dependency has been encouraged rather than reversed ever since? '

Care to identify a single policy or implementation where that has been a conscious objective?
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'Care to explain why long term dependency has been encouraged rather than reversed ever since? '

> Care to identify a single policy or implementation where that has been a conscious objective?

Yes, the policy of not effectively addressing the problem. Or is it your belief that the all those people in the 80's got sick and stayed sick, maybe traumatised by the end of boom and bust?
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> Why do I need to do that?

> it is you who is suggesting that one party has a particular stance, which isnt really supported by the facts.

Ah, that old game…..
 john arran 26 Jan 2014
It's a sad world where dog-eat-dog is accepted as being a reasonable - or even laudable - template for society. It was Thatcher who was responsible for launching us down this road, somehow managing to convince even the Yorkshire Terriers that, rather than objecting to the unmerited privileged status of Great Danes and Old English Sheepdogs, rather they should learn to enjoy kicking sand in the faces of chihuahuas.

 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to john arran:

> It's a sad world where dog-eat-dog is accepted as being a reasonable - or even laudable - template for society.
.
Lucky that's not way of things in the UK then.

 john arran 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Lucky that's not way of things in the UK then.

Yes, apparently a lot of the other Yorkshire Terriers would appear to agree with you.

 paul mitchell 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Jobs and investment have already left for China.

Tax is a realistic way to reboot this country,with job training and Keynesian public works investment.
Such a clichéd excuse,the desertion of the capitalists abroad.Yawn.

Money is sitting in accounts,doing nothing,in amounts greater than the owners can spend.

A minimum wage low skill economy is not going to sort out the UK.
Henry Ford said he paid his workers enough so that they could afford the cars they made.We are going backwards at a rate of knots.
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Labour gave up on the "underclass" and simply bribed them to keep quiet thus increasing it's size.

I disagree here, the Nu-Labour crowd give up on the very people it was meant to represent, the honest working man and woman. Instead it created and nurtured a new voter base. Guilt ridden middle class people working in non-productive professions, and the underclass, benefits dependent, and tried to increase its voter base by throwing the doors to the county open.

Labour betrayed the working class, just as surely as Shona/Gudrun/Chambers/contrariousjim's communist system would.
In reply to paul mitchell:

> Jobs and investment have already left for China.

> Tax is a realistic way to reboot this country,with job training and Keynesian public works investment.

Do you not see the fundamental irony of what you have just said?
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to paul mitchell:


> Money is sitting in accounts,doing nothing,in amounts greater than the owners can spend.

No it's not.Of the big five bans only HSBC has bigger deposits than loans. i.e.. the deposits are lent out.

> A minimum wage low skill economy is not going to sort out the UK.
>
How do you propose that we make competitively priced products if we pay higher wages than the competition?
 ColdWill 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

What is most amazing is that the Labour government almost won the last election, even with Brown in charge. People just couldn't bring themselves to vote for the Conservatives. Could you imagine where we would be if Brown had won the last election?

We have an good Health Service, a respected Police force, a strong Armed Forces and a generous Welfare system, maybe we can't afford all these things.

How much will 5% more on those earning 150k bring in, probably not enough.
 Timmd 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
> So if I earn, and save, I am not allowed to pass that on to those I love?

> What a hate filled idea.

Why is it hate filled?

For the record, I'm very grateful that my parents were/are allowed to pass what they've saved and worked for on to me, but if you think that a meritocracy is a good thing, why is not having any inheritance being allowable, a bad thing?

If there was some kind of Ideal World where there wasn't any inheritance which took place, there could be a situation where there's equally excellent health care and education and life chances for all, and what people achieve in life is truly just down to their own efforts. It could almost be seen as being hate filled 'against' that kind of society, to want to have inheritance being allowed to happen.

That's the angle people are coming from, I gather, when they talk about it being fairest to have no inheritance. Don't assume I think the picture I've painted above will happen if we don't have inheritance, by the way. More, I'm interested in why you think it's hate filled.
Post edited at 21:56
In reply to Timmd:

> Why is it hate filled?

> For the record, I'm very grateful that my parents were/are allowed to pass what they've saved and worked for on to me, but if you think that a meritocracy is a good thing, why is not having any inheritance being allowable, a bad thing?

I would have guessed that.

> If there was some kind of Ideal World where there wasn't any inheritance which took place, there could be a situation where there's equally excellent health care and education and life chances for all, and what people achieve in life is truly just down to their own efforts. It could almost be seen as being hate filled 'against' that kind of society, to want to have inheritance being allowed to happen.

Hate filled to be against some imaginary utopia? LOL!!

> That's the angle people are coming from, I gather, when they talk about it being fairest to have no inheritance. Don't assume I think the picture I've painted above will happen if we don't have inheritance, by the way. More, I'm interested in why you think it's hate filled.

Because it denies us the natural right to want to, and to do, the best by our children. It's anti-family, anti-sense, and anti-social. You have benefited by your parents labour, do you not want your kids to enjoy the same? Or would you rather Kim Jong Shona decides what happens to your money?

 diagro 26 Jan 2014
In reply to ColdWill:

Estimated an EXTRA £1 Billion a year, which is absolutely NOTHING. Why don't we cut welfare, to just scraping it standards. Welfare should be the final solution before the street, it shouldn't be a lifestyle choice -(if you think it's not, why don't you watch "Benefit street", they call it "payday" when they get their handout from the taxpayer, disgusting).
 1poundSOCKS 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob: What's a natural right?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Good question! I withdraw that statement, and use "The right to".
Jim C 26 Jan 2014
In reply to diagro:

> Actually, England is a naturally conservative country. Without Scotland and Wales, do you think Labour would be number 1 at the moment in the polls?

My home town has certainly suffered from 50 years of a Labour,( Scotland) this is why I am bemused that the conservatives support the 'Better Together' with a yes vote , they could remove a huge number of Labour seats giving them a chance of winning outright.

Jim C 26 Jan 2014
In reply to diagro:

Labour didn't save anything. They can't do economics, .... they spent the money, plus more in the good times, and left none over for the bad times.

But you forgot that the Conservatives said as an election pledge that they would MATCH Labour spending.
( but of course the electorate did not believe them, they knew they were lying)
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> Labour didn't save anything. They can't do economics, .... they spent the money, plus more in the good times, and left none over for the bad times.

> But you forgot that the Conservatives said as an election pledge that they would MATCH Labour spending.

> ( but of course the electorate did not believe them, they knew they were lying)

Which election are you referring to?
 Jack 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
> I would have guessed that.

> Hate filled to be against some imaginary utopia? LOL!!

> Because it denies us the natural right to want to, and to do, the best by our children. It's anti-family, anti-sense, and anti-social. You have benefited by your parents labour, do you not want your kids to enjoy the same? Or would you rather Kim Jong Shona decides what happens to your money?

The benefit the ordinary person gets from their parents labour when they inherit their '"estate" is a drop in the ocean compared to what the top 1% will be passing on when they die.

Your average person will inherit the proceeds of a house sale, whereas the top 1% will be passing on millions, billions even. It's just not in the same league. Tax inheritance at 100% and your average person (once the policy is fully worked out and the resultant income is used for the benefit of the whole of society) will stand to gain more than they lose. Everyone then has the same opportunity, the economy has more money moving around it (why save to pass on when there is no need?)

To do the best by your children, you teach them to be considerate members of society and not just to live life looking out for themselves. We have evolved to work together, not just in family groups. Perhaps if the focus was on society and not "me and my kids" things might get better for all of us.

A utopian ideal, probably - they'd never allow it.
Post edited at 23:00
 Sir Chasm 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Jack: Ooh, another who won't accept any inheritance from his parents and won't leave anything to his kids. With all the people that feel that way we don't actually need any legislation, because you're going to leave your money to HMG anyway.

Jim C 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
Are you saying you don't know?

But that would mean you were arguing without knowing all the facts.

So in reality you do know.
( because the latter cannot possibly be true)
 Postmanpat 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:
> Are you saying you don't know?

> But that would mean you were arguing without knowing all the facts.

> So in reality you do know.

> ( because the latter cannot possibly be true)

Well, I wasn't arguing with you but being familiar with your penchant for citing fantasy "facts" I thought I'd check.

How would I know which election you are referring to? It can't be 2010 because they'd abandoned that pledge in 2008 so I am wondering which one it could be. There have been an awful lot of them.

So which one are you thinking of?
Post edited at 23:55
contrariousjim 26 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> Labour didn't save anything. They can't do economics, .... they spent the money, plus more in the good times, and left none over for the bad times.

> But you forgot that the Conservatives said as an election pledge that they would MATCH Labour spending.

And the twits couldn't stop harping on about needing more deregulation of the banks too.
 diagro 26 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Labour is the party of the idealist, whereas the Conservatives are the party of realists .
 RomTheBear 27 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:


> Do they really think that in this day and age this wil do anything? Anything other than drive some wealthy people out of the country? A return to the politics of the 70s.


Income taxes are higher in many other successful countries. List of countries where the income tax can reach more than 50%:

US : 56.9%
Canada : 54.75%
Belgium : 55%
Sweden : 57%
Netherlands: 52%

Higher income taxes don't hurt businesses, they hurt mainly people with very high income, which is a completely different thing. We would be better off having lower corporation taxes and lower NI rates to create jobs and have a higher income tax.
Jim C 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Well, I wasn't arguing with you but being familiar with your penchant for citing fantasy "facts" I thought I'd check.

> How would I know which election you are referring to? It can't be 2010 because they'd abandoned that pledge in 2008 so I am wondering which one it could be. There have been an awful lot of them.

> So which one are you thinking of

Please list the 'fantasy facts' I have cited?
You have made the accusation, so now please back it up.

If you don't remember it ( I remember it well)
Google 'conservatives will match labour spending plans'


contrariousjim 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Ooh, another who won't accept any inheritance from his parents and won't leave anything to his kids. With all the people that feel that way we don't actually need any legislation, because you're going to leave your money to HMG anyway.

Of course anyone who advocates it would want to see it as part of a systemic policy, not a one off act of charity against the greedy grain. So you can't swallow it unless there's some futile sacrifice involved in the context of a contemporary and iniquitously unequal system?! Giving up a potential advantage in an unequal system is not the same as giving up an advantage in one designed to be equal, where one's own effort can be a source of self confidence no matter what aspect of society you come from. Personally, I'd like to see my brother get a break, and would be happy, whatever spare cash might be around goes his way. Not sure it should go to "the state" either.. ..personally I'd like to see other novel ideas take hold, such as systemic credit unionisation on our high streets and money filtered through local government to be lent to small business, and other worthwhile community needs.
 aln 27 Jan 2014
In reply to diagro:

> Labour is the party of the idealist, whereas the Conservatives are the party of realists .

Aren't they both these days a loaď of people enjoying a decent lifestyle and debating with each other for fun?
 icnoble 27 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

100% inheritance tax, you clearly have not thought this through.

If I knew any wealth I had at my death were to be taxed at 100% I would spend it before I died. If I needed long term nursing care then the taxpayer would have to foot the bill. I am coming up to retirement, my wife and I have both worked hard and saved hard for our old age. I do not want to be dependent on the state. I have therefore saved the tax payer my health care (ie, nursing home fees). So why should my children not benefit from any money that is left.

Another scenario. I have built up a small business over my lifetime employing say a dozen staff. Assuming my wife has died and I am the sole owner of the business, ie the bulk of my wealth. I have 2 children who want to take over the business. When I die the business will be subject to 100% inheritance tax. Result, no business no jobs.
contrariousjim 27 Jan 2014
In reply to icnoble:

> If I knew any wealth I had at my death were to be taxed at 100% I would spend it before I died.

You clearly haven't thought this through. You seem to believe that spending it is like flushing it down the loo.

> If I needed long term nursing care then the taxpayer would have to foot the bill.

That would be you spending it and thus more on VAT, and helping to grow businesses, supporting employment, commensurately increasing their business tax takes and the income tax of those earning.

> I am coming up to retirement, my wife and I have both worked hard and saved hard for our old age. I do not want to be dependent on the state. I have therefore saved the tax payer my health care (ie, nursing home fees). So why should my children not benefit from any money that is left.

Good for you. Though I doubt you'll have worked any harder than the avg punter of my generation, and yet, through economic fortune you've lived at a time that has benefited you exceptionally well. Only because of that, and not so much your hard work, are you in the position to pay for what you think you should be paying for. My generation is unlikely to see that chance no matter how hard they work.

> Another scenario. I have built up a small business over my lifetime employing say a dozen staff. Assuming my wife has died and I am the sole owner of the business, ie the bulk of my wealth. I have 2 children who want to take over the business. When I die the business will be subject to 100% inheritance tax. Result, no business no jobs.

A law is not an ideal expressed in simple terms on an internet forum. Of course, there are good reasons for safeguards. For example in this case, custodianship moves to a sponsor, e.g. shared ownership by staff and children. The point it, the idea is a start point for equality, not an end articulation of a resultant law!
 Timmd 27 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
> Hate filled to be against some imaginary utopia? LOL!!

If you think a meritocracy is a something to aim for, couldn't it be argued that people inheriting money and assets goes against this?

I'm asking you to try a thought experiment. Where being against inheritance isn't hate filled, in being against the family and people wanting to do the best for their children, but it's about being against something which undermines the basis of a meritocracy. Essentially, it's another point of view on the world. Even if you don't agree with it, can you see where people are coming from who think like this, without seeing them as being hate filled...that they're people who just think differently to you, who might actually be full of good intentions rather than hate?

> Because it denies us the natural right to want to, and to do, the best by our children. It's anti-family, anti-sense, and anti-social. You have benefited by your parents labour, do you not want your kids to enjoy the same? Or would you rather Kim Jong Shona decides what happens to your money?

See my writing just above. Human nature being what it is, anywhere where inheritance wasn't allowed would still have wealth and assets going to the children of people who have them, so no I don't, but in principle, can you see that people who are against inheritance, aren't necessarily hate filled, or anti-family come to that, or anti-social, that it's more they just have a different point of view to you?
Post edited at 01:10
In reply to RomTheBear:

Where did you get your figures from?

In California the combined income tax brackets (state and federal together) are about 42.5-43.3%, but they don't have VAT on top of it.
In reply to Timmd:
> If you think a meritocracy is a something to aim for, couldn't it be argued that people inheriting money and assets goes against this?

It could, but this "meritocracy" will never happen, so why waste time and energy on it?

> I'm asking you to try a thought experiment. Where being against inheritance isn't hate filled, in being against the family and people wanting to do the best for their children, but it's about being against something which undermines the basis of a meritocracy.

Nonsense, it's the politics of envy.

> Essentially, it's another point of view on the world. Even if you don't agree with it, can you see where people are coming from who think like this, without seeing them as being hate filled...that they're people who just think differently to you, who might actually be full of good intentions rather than hate?

If their "good intentions" which I doubt are anything of the sort, were to come to pass, it would directly and negatively, affect me and my family, I don;t like people want to do bad to my family.
Post edited at 01:14
 icnoble 27 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> Good for you. Though I doubt you'll have worked any harder than the avg punter of my generation, and yet, through economic fortune you've lived at a time that has benefited you exceptionally well. Only because of that, and not so much your hard work, are you in the position to pay for what you think you should be paying for. My generation is unlikely to see that chance no matter how hard they work.

Actually my wife and I have both worked extremely hard. I am in a low paid job and have not progressed career wise due to serious health issues. Looking back I should gone on the long term sick, more fool me. My wife works in the health service, in a highly stressful job with long hours. Pay wise she has never been paid above the basic rate of tax. But you are correct, we are in a position
to pay for what i think we should pay for, ie long term health care. But you have got me thinking, more fool us, retire now, and spend the savings on yearly long climbing holidays and let the younger generation pay for our old age.
 Timmd 27 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
> It could, but this "meritocracy" will never happen, so why waste time and energy on it?

Why have you put meritocracy in quotes, if in theory, each person would start from the same point, making progress by their own merit (or lack of)?

> Nonsense, it's the politics of envy.

> If their "good intentions" which I doubt are anything of the sort, were to come to pass, it would directly and negatively, affect me and my family, I don;t like people want to do bad to my family.

Neither do I. Which is why you see it as the politics of envy, I suppose?

Interesting, thanks for responding.

It was my Dad actually, who after a few glasses of wine loudly wondered (having come from a pretty poor family) whether inheritance was such a great thing, or whether any money which might be inheritance couldn't be better off going into improving schools and other things which would be for the greater good, rather than the good of just a few. In part, I'm guessing, because he feels like he's done pretty well for himself given where he started from (without that being bitter I should add).

Ta.
Post edited at 01:26
 diagro 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Timmd:

you're dad has the choice to give his money away, if he pleases. But IH tax is a good thing imo
In reply to Timmd:

> Why have you put meritocracy in quotes, if in theory, each person would start from the same point, making progress by their own merit (or lack of)?

So everybody would get the same nutrition, the same education, the same parenting, the same genetic history, the same...

Either your being silly, or you live in la la land.



> It was my Dad actually, who after a few glasses of wine loudly wondered (having come from a pretty poor family) whether inheritance was such a great thing, or whether any money which might be inheritance couldn't be better off going into improving schools and other things which would be for the greater good, rather than the good of just a few. In part, I'm guessing, because he feels like he's done pretty well for himself given where he started from (without that being bitter I should add).

The greater good, run and controlled by the government? Seriously?



 Sir Chasm 27 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim: Well jimbo, as it would be electoral suicide no party is going to advocate 100% inheritance tax. So you'll have to lead by example and convince people, if you thought it was a good idea. Of course you won't, it can safely go in the same box as Shona's communism and Chamber’s world socialism, labelled "never going to happen, so I can suggest any old tripe".

contrariousjim 27 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> So everybody would get the same nutrition, the same education, the same parenting, the same genetic history, the same...

We already screen for genetic diseases, and people on the whole do not want babies with genetic diseases like Downs. So should we go back to a time when we don't screen for genetic diseases? No one is advocating a "brave new world". They are advocating a basic degree of economic fairness, and the prevention of the sequestration of wealth which affords people grossly unequal chances during early adult life. We also already try to bring everyone up to basic competences in education, and that trend is being supported by all the main political parties. However, we also need the variety of the individual, numerous different perspectives, different psychological attitudes etc etc But there needs to be a much more efficient redistribution of wealth between the top 5%, and even more so the top 1%, and while it is fair for people to earn commensurate with the value they produce (not that that happens) it isn't fair on society that some people start their independent lives with so much more than others irrespective of their individuality. Love, is not limited to those for whom animalistic bonds exist, but love does not see such boundaries as creed, colour, poverty, disease etc and wants to act to afford all the best possible!
contrariousjim 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Well jimbo, as it would be electoral suicide no party is going to advocate 100% inheritance tax. So you'll have to lead by example and convince people, if you thought it was a good idea. Of course you won't, it can safely go in the same box as Shona's communism and Chamber’s world socialism, labelled "never going to happen, so I can suggest any old tripe".

Happy for it to start at a lower % with a lower threshold. We have to start somewhere! What you mean is of course that people are really too selfish to contemplate actually helping others distal to themselves.
 Sir Chasm 27 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim: Just do it, jimbo. Lead by example and stop whining about other people's flaws.

In reply to stroppygob: From the Spectator (on the right, but once you get past the slant I think the points made are relevent)

" Ed Balls said he’d restore the top rate of income tax to 52 per cent. And why? Because it plays to Ed Miliband’s self-defeating and vindictive class war agenda. George Osborne cut the top rate to 45 per cent (which, when you add National Insurance, makes a 47 per cent top rate). The result? After the cut, the tax haul from the richest 1 per cent surged to a record high – they earn 13 per cent of the income but now pay 30 per cent of income tax collected. That’s what I call a fair share.

So under a Conservative Chancellor, Britain’s tax system is fairer than at any point in our history. Never have the lower-paid 50 per cent paid a lower share (now it’s just 9.7 per cent of income tax). Compare this to the top 0.1 per cent – yes, 0.1 per cent – who pay 14.1 per cent of the income tax. This is a ratio that ought to warm the heart of the most ardent redistributionist. (And it makes you wonder what would happen if the rate was restored to 40 per cent, which the CEBR believes would solicit the biggest tax windfall from the bet-paid). In pushing the rate back up to 52pc, Balls knows he’d raise less cash and had the tax burden less fairly-shared.

As JFK said (below), the ‘paradoxical truth’ is that lower rates mean higher yields. Balls knows that there is zero economic evidence to suggest that upping the 50p rate collects a penny of extra revenue: Osborne lowered it to get extra revenue. So Balls is, again, deceiving us when he says (as he did today):

‘For the next parliament the next Labour government will reverse this government’s top rate tax cut, so we can finish the job of getting the deficit down and do it fairly.’
Raising the top rate has nothing to do with deficit reduction – it’ll slow the process. But that’s a price Balls thinks is worth paying, to fund his little class war. You can choose, in politics. Do you tax for revenue – that is, for fair results? Or tax just to snarl at the people you think your target voters will dislike? On this, at least, Ed Balls has let us know which side he is on.



 Postmanpat 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> Please list the 'fantasy facts' I have cited?

> You have made the accusation, so now please back it up.


Sure. There was the claim that there were no talk of drilling for shale gas south of London, then there was the odd claim that power companies were producing dodgy accounts by splitting their different divisions (which I picked you up on but you ignored). There were also some odd factual claims about Thatcher (but that may have been Jim Fraser.)

> If you don't remember it ( I remember it well)

> Google 'conservatives will match labour spending plans'

Nope, if you're talking about 2010 all I see is the pledge to match Labour spending being abandoned in 2008, two years before the election which rather suggests it wasn't an election pledge. Happy to be shown your evidence.
KevinD 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Ah, that old game…..

Nope its a perfectly simple question. I aint a fan of new labour (or of old Labour particularly) so have feel absolutely no need to defend them.
As it happens I think they found it easier to ignore.
However when we look at what is being implemented by the Tories currently we have something rather expensive and badly designed which doesnt distibguish between the actually ill and those who got shunted onto that benefit. Hence all the appeals the gov are losing.
KevinD 27 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> In California the combined income tax brackets (state and federal together) are about 42.5-43.3%, but they don't have VAT on top of it.

California has sales taxes, which is State plus county plus any special district taxes.
US sales taxes are horrendously complex, hence why they are rarely quoted with them.
 Postmanpat 27 Jan 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> Nope its a perfectly simple question. I aint a fan of new labour (or of old Labour particularly) so have feel absolutely no need to defend them.

> As it happens I think they found it easier to ignore.

> However when we look at what is being implemented by the Tories currently we have something rather expensive and badly designed which doesnt distibguish between the actually ill and those who got shunted onto that benefit. Hence all the appeals the gov are losing.

So basically choosing to ignore something is the same as trying to address it, albeit inadequately?

Incidentally, care to clarify what proportion of ATOS decisions are successfully challenged?
 RomTheBear 27 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> Where did you get your figures from?

> In California the combined income tax brackets (state and federal together) are about 42.5-43.3%, but they don't have VAT on top of it.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/selected-federal-rates-2012-2013
http://taxfoundation.org/article_ns/state-individual-income-tax-rates-2000-...

Max federal income tax rate is 39.6% + state rate of 13.3% that makes a 52.9% income tax rate, then you add the local tax rate which varies from 0 to 3%, and you get 55.9%, which is the maximum tax based on income you can get in the US.
KevinD 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So basically choosing to ignore something is the same as trying to address it, albeit inadequately?

If it punishes people who are entitled and doesnt actually provide useful alternatives then yes.

> Incidentally, care to clarify what proportion of ATOS decisions are successfully challenged?

Latest figures are difficult to find.
Islington council give 45% across London (its 90& for the cases they support directly but that is likely to be biased by them only chosing cases they believe in).

https://www.islington.gov.uk/islington/news-events/news-releases/2013/10/Pa...
 Postmanpat 27 Jan 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> If it punishes people who are entitled and doesnt actually provide useful alternatives then yes.

So, really Labour supporters should be supporting IDS for doing the same thing as the previous administration?

> Latest figures are difficult to find.

> Islington council give 45% across London (its 90& for the cases they support directly but that is likely to be biased by them only chosing cases they believe in).

>
I'll repeat the question , "care to explain what proportion of ATOS decisions are successfully challenged?" Hint: this is not the question you attempted to answer but I'm sure you can since you raised the issue.
contrariousjim 27 Jan 2014
 Cuthbert 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

Who is winning the battle of the links?
 RomTheBear 27 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> Probably, but it was just a starting point for debate.

> Does taxing high earners more bring "equality"?

I think it's not about equality, it's about taxing the right thing.
I don't really see the point of taxing sales (VAT) and taxing business (coporate tax), when what we need is more sales and more businesses.

Where I don't agree with labour is that if we put income tax up we should lower business rates or VAT at the same time so as to create more demand and attract more investment.

Unfortunately we are stuck between the Tory trying to defend the income of very high earners to please their own electorate, and labour trying to tax the hell out of everything to please their own electorate as well. As a result reasonable and stimulating tax policy is probably not going to happen in this country for a long while.
 Postmanpat 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Saor Alba:

> Who is winning the battle of the links?

You mean who is making an effort to find some facts about the subject? Both of us I think. You should try it
 Mike Stretford 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:


> But in social policy they are not and these are not "the silly bits around the edges". Labour gave up on the "underclass" and simply bribed them to keep quiet thus increasing it's size. The Conservatives believe in the importance of people working and making it the economically rational thing to do. Just as Thatcher won the economic argument they're are increasing signs that Labour is coming to recognise the problems they have caused and accepting that the welfare system needs fundamental rethinking.

Uncharacteristically partisan!

Jon's point was there is a broad consensus in economic and social policy and he is right. New Labour and the Conservatives clearly had the same aim, to get people working, any difference has been down to how much carrot/stick. Labour didn't give up on the underclass.... the underclass did not respond in the way that the dominant faction of the labour party expected them to.

IDS has come into government at a time when their is increased public concern over benefits.... with different timing it could have been Frank Fields opportunity.

 crayefish 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

The reason there isn't much difference between the parties is that Labour have FINALLY realised that you can't spend your way out of everything and that the Conservative approach might not be all bad after all.

I never said that the economic crash was Labour's fault... just they made the effects worse as they have no understanding of the difference between debt and deficit. Debt is fine and often needed for growth... deficit to the scale that the previous Labour government amassed it over the years is unmanageable.
 Cuthbert 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

No. I mean who is posting the most links.
 Postmanpat 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

> IDS has come into government at a time when their is increased public concern over benefits.... with different timing it could have been Frank Fields opportunity.
>
It was Frank Field's opportunity but Gordon Brown fired him for "thinking the unthinkable". That is the difference.
 Mike Stretford 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It was Frank Field's opportunity but Gordon Brown fired him for "thinking the unthinkable". That is the difference.

Well no I don't think that is the difference, the difference is the timing. This is something you usually acknowledge and actually point out when people are going on about Thatcher. I think IDS would have been 'moved on' if he had entered government then.

Since then we have been through a boom with plenty of job oppurtunities. That cuased the tipping point in public opinion which is were we are now, both parties are talking about getting tough on benefits. Of course Labour are having to send 2 different messages out, to loyalists and potential voters, as the Tories have to on some issues (eg Europe).
Post edited at 12:09
KevinD 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So, really Labour supporters should be supporting IDS for doing the same thing as the previous administration?

What f*cking up? I guess some might. Others would hate him if he managed to cure cancer and world hunger.
Since I dont feel a need to support one side or another i dont have that problem though.

> I'll repeat the question , "care to explain what proportion of ATOS decisions are successfully challenged?" Hint: this is not the question you attempted to answer but I'm sure you can since you raised the issue.

sorry misread. the express gives it as 1 in 5, although that is an old stat.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/379841/Rise-in-Atos-rulings-overturned-by-...

Tricky though since as the 878000 figure (confusing normal churn with response to the policy) which was thrown around shows the actual data is hard to find.
KevinD 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> No. I mean who is posting the most links.

You seem to be missing the point of adding links. It helps when discussing most subjects.
Although admittedly depends on the link eg this http://xkcd.com/ whilst excellent is unlikely to add to the debate.
 Postmanpat 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Papillon:

> Well no I don't think that is the difference, the difference is the timing. This is something you usually acknowledge and actually point out when people are going on about Thatcher. I think IDS would have been 'moved on' if he had entered government then.

> Since then we have been through a boom with plenty of job oppurtunities. That cuased the tipping point in public opinion which is were we are now, both parties are talking about getting tough on benefits. Of course Labour are having to send 2 different messages out, to loyalists and potential voters, as the Tories have to on some issues (eg Europe).

The timing probably helped, as it did Thatcher, but was not the catalyst. Suntan man basically let Brown block reform for internal political reasons and at heart Brown was a tax and spend centraliser. It's "In place of Strife" all over again. Everybody knows the problem but doesn't have the balls to address it in the face of the "uncaring bastard" smears of the real conservatives.
 Postmanpat 27 Jan 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> Tricky though since as the 878000 figure (confusing normal churn with response to the policy) which was thrown around shows the actual data is hard to find.

Well, I'm shocked and surprised you didn't know before commenting!

Actually part of the scandal is that the numbers are so opaque. It seems to be impossible to get the figures for the total number of tests, total number of appeals, and the success rate of appeals for a consistent timeframe. Best I can estimate is between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 but either way it's too high and I wouldn't put any money on it.
KevinD 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Well, I'm shocked and surprised you didn't know before commenting!

Considering my original comment was with reference to how many appeals are being lost by the government I am not completely sure why you feel I need perfect figures? Bearing in mind if I did I would be the one person in the country who does have them.
Mirror reckons 1 in 5, Guardian gives 30% for the ESA.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/22/disabled-benefits-claimants-...

> Actually part of the scandal is that the numbers are so opaque.

not really. What do you expect?



 Postmanpat 27 Jan 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> Considering my original comment was with reference to how many appeals are being lost by the government I am not completely sure why you feel I need perfect figures? Bearing in mind if I did I would be the one person in the country who does have them.

>
Because without the contact the number of appeals being lost is meaningless. If there were one appeal and it won then that would be a 100% success ratio. Disgraceful!
If there were 10 million decisions and 100,000 successful appeals, then 1%, quite low.
> not really. What do you expect?

What i expect and what I hope for are not the same.
KevinD 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Because without the contact the number of appeals being lost is meaningless.

There are rough figures which can be used.
Considering that, despite some media reports to the contrary, we wouldnt be expecting 10 million decisions then we arent going to be in the 1%.
We also know that there wasnt just 1 appeal as we also know how many appeals there were (well last year anyway plus we know the number are/was increasing). Even assuming a bias for only selecting ones likely to be successful, 40% loss is pretty poor.


> What i expect and what I hope for are not the same.

Its going to be an increasing problem though. The FOI was pretty limited at the best of times but with increased privatisation unless the contracts are written to override commercial confidentiality going to have even more difficulty getting the facts.
 Postmanpat 27 Jan 2014
In reply to dissonance:

> There are rough figures which can be used.

> Considering that, despite some media reports to the contrary, we wouldnt be expecting 10 million decisions then we arent going to be in the 1%.

> We also know that there wasnt just 1 appeal as we also know how many appeals there were (well last year anyway plus we know the number are/was increasing). Even assuming a bias for only selecting ones likely to be successful, 40% loss is pretty poor.

I'm not going to defend the process and there are some pretty grim cases reported (just like the DM's "scrounger rhetoric"?) but if the number is actually more like in 1 in 20 it is very different to the image given by the 40% often quoted and requires a different solution to rectify it.

> Its going to be an increasing problem though. The FOI was pretty limited at the best of times but with increased privatisation unless the contracts are written to override commercial confidentiality going to have even more difficulty getting the facts.

Yup.
 Banned User 77 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Exactly. I think the "people will leave the country" line is absolute shite trotted out without regard to whether it might contain even one grain of truth. But in the last UKC debate on 45% vs 50% tax rates, I ended up convinced that it was around the tipping point at which many people begin to try hard to avoid what seems like an onerous tax burden and therefore this increase might not bring much in.

Its an extreme version but that has happened in France and a few US states who brought in millionaires tax.

But yes, I think the only people who win are accountants who get paid to avoid these taxes.
 DNS 27 Jan 2014
In reply to IainRUK:


I'd concur that very few would leave the country as a result - but it is possible a few would choose not to be tax resident here. The numbers will be trivial.

The more significant issue, in my view, is the tipping point which Jon refers to. In response to a similar thread a while ago, I put my hand up as someone who was affected by the 50% (52% including NI) rate when it was in force.

I'm on PAYE, so my scope is limited compared to those in self or other employment; but even I managed to structure my affairs for the entire period the 50% rate was in force to avoid it completely. I actually paid less tax whilst the rate was in force than when either the 40% or 45% rates were the highest in force. I have paid most tax whilst the rate has been 45%.

Why? It's simple. Paying 47% including NI - and the same would go for 49% - my view is: I can afford it, I may not like it, but I'll pay. At least I'm keeping more than half.

Charge me 52% - so take more than half of my next pound in direct taxation - and my attitude changes completely. Net result, lower tax take.

Ball's plan would start earliest tax year 2016/17. That's more than enough notice for higher earners than me to get the accounting profession geared up. The man's very clever - I've met him and he's frighteningly bright - but this is all politics not economics.



 Al Evans 27 Jan 2014
In reply to DNS:

I'm afraid to say I despise you and your attitude to tax and its evasion, the government sets the tax rates, the government we all get to vote for in a democracy like the UK, Abide by your democratically set tax rates, or piss off out of the country.
 Duncan Bourne 27 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

in case anyone has forgotten the rate was 60% under Thatcher and 80% under Heath & Wilson before that.
 MG 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Al Evans:

Where to - Spain?

Have you ever had an ISA or pension? If so why is that not tax 'evasion' in your eyes?
 Postmanpat 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Al Evans:

> I'm afraid to say I despise you and your attitude to tax and its evasion, the government sets the tax rates, the government we all get to vote for in a democracy like the UK, Abide by your democratically set tax rates, or piss off out of the country.

He is. IT's his duty to abide by the democratically voted laws of the land, not to interpret them so as to maximise his tax rate.
 Timmd 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> in case anyone has forgotten the rate was 60% under Thatcher and 80% under Heath & Wilson before that.

That changes the political slant on taxes a little bit.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> in case anyone has forgotten the rate was 60% under Thatcher and 80% under Heath & Wilson before that.

So labour put taxes up to 80%, and Mrs T brought them down to 60%. Good for her.
 Duncan Bourne 27 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Churchill (con) banged it up to 98% but we can blame the war for that. Heath (con) brought it down to 75% and Wilson (lab) bumped it up to 80% before Thatcher (con) dropped it to 60%
 Duncan Bourne 27 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

1842 – Sir Robert Peel reintroduced income tax, having promised he wouldn’t before the general election. The measure was temporary – and still is, technically. The tax lapses at the end of each financial year and Parliament has to impose it again with an annual Finance Act.

1913 - The top rate stayed low until Britain started to prepare for war with Germany. In 1913 it was 8.3 per cent on income over £5,000 a year (£384,000 today). By 1918 those earning more than £10,000 a year were paying 52.5 per cent.

1930 - The rich were hoping for tax cuts after World War One but were destined to remain, in the words of Winston Churchill, “stranded on the peaks of taxation to which they have been carried by the flood”. Top rate: 60 per cent on income over £50,000 (£2.47m). By 1938 top earners were paying 72.5 per cent as another war loomed.

1941-45 – The effective top rate reaches 98 per cent for those earning more than £20,000 (£673,000 in current value). It’s a historic high, but seen as a necessary evil in the struggle against Nazi Germany. Uniquely, the extra tax paid by people who saw their personal allowances lowered during the war was recorded. Post-war credit certificates were issued and many taxpayers were repaid by 1973.
 wynaptomos 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> He is. IT's his duty to abide by the democratically voted laws of the land, not to interpret them so as to maximise his tax rate.

don't give me that nonsense. Everyone with half a brain cell on a salary knows what tax they are liable to pay. It's only if you want to avoid paying what you should, that you would 'interpret' it differently.
 Postmanpat 27 Jan 2014
In reply to wynaptomos:

> don't give me that nonsense. Everyone with half a brain cell on a salary knows what tax they are liable to pay. It's only if you want to avoid paying what you should, that you would 'interpret' it differently.

Maybe you should become a tax accountant if you find it so simple. There's nothing moral about paying the maximum tax possible. It just encourages the buggers.do you buy duty free?
contrariousjim 27 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Maybe you should become a tax accountant if you find it so simple. There's nothing moral about paying the maximum tax possible.

There's everything moral about conforming with the spirit of the law.
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> There's everything moral about conforming with the spirit of the law.

The spirit of tax law is not some moral crusade. It "“consists of plucking the goose so as to obtain the most feathers with the least hissing.”(Colbert)

You must be joking if you think that the volumes of complex tax law requiring battalions of accountants to interpret them have some "spirit" to them aside from being so complex as to invite exploitation.
 BnB 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

The warning that thousands of big earners will choose to depart the UK is a poor exposition of the real threat: that mobile high earners (= highly productive, high tax payers, surely a good thing) will choose not to COME to the UK. In the banking and oil and gas industries, wages are habitually in excess of £150,000. Sending a message to highly-prized (American, Norwegian, German) Geologists who could help us squeeze more hydrocarbons out of dwindling N Sea reserves that they are a tax cow is a disastrous policy when the same jobs are available in Norway, Denmark, Holland and elsewhere. The benefits of dropping corporation tax to encourage inward investment by giant multinationals (which works, at least in so far as encouraging employment) are lost if the message to senior management is that high earners are to be vilified. Relocation decisions are made by top earners, remember.
 DNS 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Al Evans:

I love you too Al, but you're on dodgy ground with the 'leave the country' line. Not much point in having a discussion unless there is more than one point of view though is there?

Maybe you missed the 'I'm on PAYE' bit - I have never 'evaded' a penny in tax in my life. My 'avoidance' consisted of very substantial pension contributions, use of ISAs and VCTs. Not complicated, most certainly not illegal, just the same common sense measures that any taxpayer has access to.

A number on the left are too busy looking for demons to be rational about taxation, in my view. The precise audience Balls is appealing to.

If successive governments would ensure that everyone (and that means the plumbers as well as the bankers) were fairly assessed on every penny earned, I suspect that would make a hole in the deficit.
 ByEek 28 Jan 2014
In reply to BnB:
You make a fair point, but the 50p tax band is nothing new. Didn't the last labour government introduce it? Did it have the effect of sending the rich away in droves? Absolutely not. If you earn £150k+ a year, avoiding the 50p tax rate is really not that difficult.

This is simply a load of rhetoric to appease their core vote.
Post edited at 08:04
 Duncan Bourne 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> There's nothing moral about paying the maximum tax possible. It just encourages the buggers.do you buy duty free?

No body wants to part with more money than they have to, I agree, but would you not agree that part of the reason we live in a country with a reasonably effective infrastructure is down to the fact that we pay taxes for the delivery of such services?
 BnB 28 Jan 2014
In reply to ByEek:

It certainly is an appeal to voters, yes.

Did the 50% rate deter highly productive taxpayers from coming to the UK. It most certainly did.

How do I know? I run an international headhunting firm moving high earners around the world. I would hope that makes me adequately qualified to comment on their economic migration patterns.

The worry is that in an expanding and increasingly attractive economy, the threat of high taxation deters investment and inward migration.

I would go so far as to say that with this policy announcement, Labour has set our recovery back. Nice work, Ed and Ed.
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> No body wants to part with more money than they have to, I agree, but would you not agree that part of the reason we live in a country with a reasonably effective infrastructure is down to the fact that we pay taxes for the delivery of such services?

1) Yes, but that's a personal view. Others may differ and there is nothing immoral about disagreeing as long as they pay the tax the law requires of them.

2) Part of the reason we waste money on foreign ventures and domestic white elephants and things people disagree with is also because we pay taxes. Since we can't pick and choose what our money is spent on the rational and perfectly moral thing to do is minimise the tax we pay, within the law.
 ByEek 28 Jan 2014
In reply to BnB:

> How do I know? I run an international headhunting firm moving high earners around the world. I would hope that makes me adequately qualified to comment on their economic migration patterns.

Not really. Like me, you have a blinkered view of a very narrow section of the economy at large. My point is that I refuse to believe that high earners of this variety are genuinely something special. I am a software developer. It is a skilled job but anyone can learn those skills and with a bit of experience, the standard salary for a skilled developer in the UK is between £30k and £50k. So just exactly what amazingly unique skills (that no one else can learn or obtain) does someone on £150k have?
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to ByEek:

> Not really. Like me, you have a blinkered view of a very narrow section of the economy at large. >

But it's the narrow section of the economy which is impacted by a 50% tax rate! It may be true that anyone can became a senior oil engineer or investment banker but they can't do it at 6 months notice.
 BnB 28 Jan 2014
In reply to ByEek:

> So just exactly what amazingly unique skills (that no one else can learn or obtain) does someone on £150k have?

The ability to extract gas from the North Sea. Or would you rather buy it from Ukraine?

The ability to concentrate the world's financial transactions in the UK, rather than Frankfurt or New York.
 RomTheBear 28 Jan 2014
In reply to BnB:

> It certainly is an appeal to voters, yes.

Some voters.

> Did the 50% rate deter highly productive taxpayers from coming to the UK. It most certainly did.

Is there any evidence of this ? I think that current immigration rules and visa requirement are much more of an obstacle for high earners to come to the UK than -10 or 10% in income tax.
Especially when you have comparable level of taxation all around the world, including the states.
 Duncan Bourne 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

I quite agree, I don't like to see my taxes going on big bonuses for RBS execs for instantance, but I also recognise that they go to pay for a lot of useful stuff which i am perfectly willing to help finance.

It seems to me though that the key factor in any tax rate is not how high or how low it is but how easy or not it is to avoid paying it. You can set it where you like but having the will to enforce it is the key
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> It seems to me though that the key factor in any tax rate is not how high or how low it is but how easy or not it is to avoid paying it. You can set it where you like but having the will to enforce it is the key

But Al seems to be complaining about people using the regulations put in place specifically to allow people to reduce their tax.
 RomTheBear 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But it's the narrow section of the economy which is impacted by a 50% tax rate! It may be true that anyone can became a senior oil engineer or investment banker but they can't do it at 6 months notice.

Do you think that a senior oil engineer is going to choose the country where he wants to work based on a few percentage point of income tax ?
I think that overall business opportunities, quality of life, infrastructure, quality of public services, and visa requirements are much more important deciding factors.
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Do you think that a senior oil engineer is going to choose the country where he wants to work based on a few percentage point of income tax ?

>
At the margin, yes. All the other things also count but getting people to move countries can be very hard.

But as I said yesterday, this whole debate is really a bit of charade. The tax change is probably roughly revenue neutral and, by itself, is not going to cause mass defection from or to the UK.

Labour is using the announcement to pick up votes from the disillusioned left whilst desperately proclaiming they are "the party of business".

The Tories used the cut to keep the more free market wing of their party and foreign investors on board whilst desperately proclaiming "we're all in it together".

The risk to both politically is that they alienate more than they placate.

The longer term risk is that Milliband succumbs to the need to realign himself with his left wing and follows up with policies that do serious harm to business investment.
Post edited at 09:05
 BnB 28 Jan 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Do you think that a senior oil engineer is going to choose the country where he wants to work based on a few percentage point of income tax ?

> I think that overall business opportunities, quality of life, infrastructure, quality of public services, and visa requirements are much more important deciding factors.

Check your sums. When the 50% rate was introduced, it wasn't a few percentage points, it was a tax hike of 25% (albeit on marginal earnings).

The other factors are all important but money talks. ABerdeen is unattractive enough next to Copenhagen or the Hague without us making it harder!!
Post edited at 09:05
contrariousjim 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
>
> [...]
>
> 1) Yes, but that's a personal view. Others may differ and there is nothing immoral about disagreeing as long as they pay the tax the law requires of them.
>
> 2) Part of the reason we waste money on foreign ventures and domestic white elephants and things people disagree with is also because we pay taxes. Since we can't pick and choose what our money is spent on the rational and perfectly moral thing to do is minimise the tax we pay, within the law.

We can't pick and choose the what the money is spent on project to project, but we can by virtue of the democratic devices available. Its not as if tax is being minimised for other purposes benificent for society. So, yes, there is a moral element to this.
 BnB 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> At the margin, yes. All the other things also count but getting people to move countries can be very hard.

Believe me, it's a bloody nightmare. And Labour has just exacerbated those difficulties for my business.... unless you're talking about persuading talent to leave.
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> We can't pick and choose the what the money is spent on project to project, but we can by virtue of the democratic devices available. Its not as if tax is being minimised for other purposes benificent for society. So, yes, there is a moral element to this.

We can't choose through "democratic devices" in any effective way. Iraq war anyone?

How do you know if tax is being minimised for other purposes beneficent for society? It may be given to save the children or it may be spent on a house extension. They both benefit society, quite probably more than State spending.

Just because you seem to think that the State has some especially beneficent way of spending our money doesn't make it true, or immoral to disagree.

 RomTheBear 28 Jan 2014
In reply to BnB:

> Check your sums. When the 50% rate was introduced, it wasn't a few percentage points, it was a tax hike of 25% (albeit on marginal earnings).

?
Current top rate is 45%, proposal is to put it at 50%.


> The other factors are all important but money talks. ABerdeen is unattractive enough next to Copenhagen or the Hague without us making it harder!!

Here you go, Denmark top income tax rate is 51.56%, in the Netherlands it's 52%. Still, they are very attractive places, as you say it yourself.
You are just reinforcing my point that income tax rate in itself in not much of a deciding factor.
 MG 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

You seem very glass half empty about government in general. You presumably recognise there are some functions better done at a societal rather than individual level?
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:
> You seem very glass half empty about government in general. You presumably recognise there are some functions better done at a societal rather than individual level?

Of course.

But it's not really about what I think. It's about the right to hold a view and reflect it, within the law.
Post edited at 09:27
 BnB 28 Jan 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:
> ?

> Current top rate is 45%, proposal is to put it at 50%.

> Here you go, Denmark top income tax rate is 51.56%, in the Netherlands it's 52%. Still, they are very attractive places, as you say it yourself.

> You are just reinforcing my point that income tax rate in itself in not much of a deciding factor.


Respect to you for doing some research. Nor did I ever deny the decision making matrix was complicated. But I'm afraid I'm doing nothing of the sort. Both have preferential tax rates for workers in the Petrochemical industries. For example in the NL it is a 30% tax break bringing the effective rate down to 35%!!!!

And if the UK top rate in 2009 was 40%, by how much did Labour increase it to achieve a rate of 50%?
Post edited at 09:29
 MG 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

So it's basically a discussion of what. government should provide. The UK is fairly typical of rich countries in terms of what government provides yet you seem convinced it should be doing less.
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

> So it's basically a discussion of what. government should provide. The UK is fairly typical of rich countries in terms of what government provides yet you seem convinced it should be doing less.

That's a different issue.

I am simply making the point that there is no moral imperative to believe State spending is necessarily a good thing and therefore there is no moral imperative to finance it beyond the legal requirements of the State in which one is a citizen.
 MG 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

I got that.

I was commenting more on the general thrust of your posts across most threads.
 The New NickB 28 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

I have no problem with the 50% rate in fact it should probably be brought in for people earning over £100k not just over £150k, what I cannot understand is why this government have not reversed the loss of personal allowance at £100k, in fact I don't understand why it was brought it. It seems fundamentally unfair to me.
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

> I got that.

> I was commenting more on the general thrust of your posts across most threads.

One for a different thread, but I'm too busy completing my tax return
 MG 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

The government does mine for me. Much easier
 MG 28 Jan 2014
In reply to The New NickB:

You don't think that might lead to "tax breaks for millionaires" headlines straight away?
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to The New NickB:

> I have no problem with the 50% rate in fact it should probably be brought in for people earning over £100k not just over £150k, what I cannot understand is why this government have not reversed the loss of personal allowance at £100k, in fact I don't understand why it was brought it.

In order to finance the rise in the minimum tax threshold. i.e..to help the poor. "we're all in this together"…...
contrariousjim 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to contrariousjim)
>
> [...]
>
> We can't choose through "democratic devices" in any effective way. Iraq war anyone?

Well yes. And people like me on the Left or Oborne futher right bemoan the post modern trends that are undermining our current democratic devices, and yes I think that needs to change, but the point, even on Iraq was that the wish of a great many of our populace was nevertheless fulfilled within the context of that government choice.

> How do you know if tax is being minimised for other purposes beneficent for society? It may be given to save the children or it may be spent on a house extension. They both benefit society, quite probably more than State spending. Just because you seem to think that the State has some especially beneficent way of spending our money doesn't make it true, or immoral to disagree.

Put it this way.. ..what that is spent by the state isn't at least nominally for the benefit of society. It may not be the benefit you'd argue for, e.g. Iraq war, but the activity of the state is far more directly orientated toward the health of society than the private individual building his extension.
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:
> Well yes. And people like me on the Left or Oborne futher right bemoan the post modern trends that are undermining our current democratic devices, and yes I think that needs to change, but the point, even on Iraq was that the wish of a great many of our populace was nevertheless fulfilled within the context of that government choice.

So, democracy enables us to give carte blanche to pursue its own spending choices for five years
and we have chosen a) to accept, possible reluctantly its choices, b) to abide by the legal duty to pay our taxes to finance them.
Why should we do more of either a or b?

> Put it this way.. ..what that is spent by the state isn't at least nominally for the benefit of society. It may not be the benefit you'd argue for, e.g. Iraq war, but the activity of the state is far more directly orientated toward the health of society than the private individual building his extension.

That's purely a matter of opinion. You can argue the toss as to whether employing half dozen builders and buying building materials does more for society than employing half a dozen street naming operatives or financing council bureaucrats on overseas trips. I think you'd struggle to make a moral case.
Post edited at 10:06
 MG 28 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

but the activity of the state is far more directly orientated toward the health of society than the private individual building his extension.

Why do you say that - it's not at all obvious to me state spending is always "far more oriented toward the health of society"? Note the extension gives tradesmen work, provides accommodation for family or business etc. etc,
 The New NickB 28 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

Not if coupled with fairer 50% tax for £100k+, but this lot only really care about the super rich, not the wealthy.
 MG 28 Jan 2014
In reply to The New NickB:

> Not if coupled with fairer 50% tax for £100k+,

I doubt that would help (cf the recent furore about MPs' pay, proposals that were cost neutral).

contrariousjim 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So, democracy enables us to give carte blanche to pursue its own spending choices for five years
> and we have chosen a) to accept, possible reluctantly its choices, b) to abide by the legal duty to pay our taxes to finance them.
> Why should we do more of either a or b?

No. There is local and central government. Both of which can be approached through your representatives on issues of importance to you. We have a media too, which is quite capable of perverting democratic decision making, and occasionally, shock horror, not with a corporatist agenda. We can also demonstrate, and be involved in debates where and when they happen, and utilise campaigning organisations to help make that voice heard. You pay your taxes and accept, with the caveats outlined, reluctantly the democratic mandate because *yours* is not the only voice, and because *yours* is not the only agenda. Wannabe anarchist!

> That's purely a matter of opinion. You can argue the toss as to whether employing half dozen builders and buying building materials does more for society than employing half a dozen street naming operatives or financing council bureaucrats on overseas trips. I think you'd struggle to make a moral case.

Your talking side-effects, not intentionality.. ..and that is the point!
contrariousjim 28 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to contrariousjim)
>
> but the activity of the state is far more directly orientated toward the health of society than the private individual building his extension.
>
> Why do you say that - it's not at all obvious to me state spending is always "far more oriented toward the health of society"? Note the extension gives tradesmen work, provides accommodation for family or business etc. etc,

You can't be moral by virtue of unintended consequences.
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

Like i said, in practical terms you cant do much so you simply accept what the democratic process has decided and abide by the laws.
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> You can't be moral by virtue of unintended consequences.

But you can be immoral?

And how do you know the person building his extension isn't very aware of the positive consequences of his actions?
contrariousjim 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But you can be immoral?

Once you become aware of negative consequences and then continue despite your knowledge of them, then yes.

> And how do you know the person building his extension isn't very aware of the positive consequences of his actions?

It might be something you become aware of, but it is not the intentional reason you do it. I've heard plenty of people talking about and then building extentions. I've yet to hear anyone articulate that a reason to do it is anything other than for the directly intended personal/familial advantages short and long term of doing so.
contrariousjim 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to contrariousjim)
>
> Like i said, in practical terms you cant do much so you simply accept what the democratic process has decided and abide by the laws.

Well I don't tend to accept whatever happens election to election. I campaign, write letters, engage in debate etc etc
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> Once you become aware of negative consequences and then continue despite your knowledge of them, then yes.

But it cannot be moral when you become aware of the positive consequences of your actions?


> It might be something you become aware of, but it is not the intentional

So, as a matter of interest, which jobs would you consider "moral"

 Sandstonier 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat: So what,s the relationship between marginal rates of tax and economic growth?Very little a s far as I can see. Britain in the 50's experienced higher rates of growth in the fifties and sixties alongside much higher marginal rates of tax. Redistribution seemed to be the key to prosperity.

contrariousjim 28 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But it cannot be moral when you become aware of the positive consequences of your actions?

People who are affected by negative consequences do so involuntarily, but those who get a benefit by definition do so without cost and usually by virtue of mutuality. If the main driver to act is an overall "good" then that is moral, but claiming externalities as moral drivers, when they plainly aren't motivational, does not make an act moral. In contrast, awareness of negative consequences demands re-analysis and inclusion of such consequences in decision making. Positive consequences can be free riders and not part of decision making process, negative consequences must be part of decision making process.

> So, as a matter of interest, which jobs would you consider "moral"

Any job which sets our to avoid doing harm while providing a service for others which is broadly valuable.
 MG 28 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

We weren't talking about morality but what is most beneficial for society. "Government is good" doesn't have that great a track record, nor does unbridled libertarianism. The trick is to find the balance and
you won't do that if you start from the position that individuals are always bad and government always wonderful.
 Postmanpat 28 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:
> People who are affected by negative consequences do so involuntarily, but those who get a benefit by definition do so without cost and usually by virtue of mutuality. If the main driver to act is an overall "good" then that is moral, but claiming externalities as moral drivers, when they plainly aren't motivational, does not make an act moral.

It doesn't take Milton Friedman to work out that if you have paid someone to do a job or to supply materials you have benefitted the supplier and are therefore "doing good". It therefore has moral implications.

Just as you acknowledge that any job that sets out to avoid doing harm while providing a service is valuable so is each private sector transaction. Is it your argument that for some reason a transaction in the public sector is more "valuable"?


> Any job which sets our to avoid doing harm while providing a service for others which is broadly valuable.

Is"valuable" the same as moral?
Post edited at 15:55
In reply to Al Evans:

> I'm afraid to say I despise you and your attitude to tax and its evasion, the government sets the tax rates, the government we all get to vote for in a democracy like the UK, Abide by your democratically set tax rates, or piss off out of the country.

I'm struggling to reconcile this with what you wrote on another thread:

kids grown up (though I send them all money monthly to lessen Spanish inheritance tax, which is punative)
contrariousjim 29 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

> We weren't talking about morality but what is most beneficial for society. "Government is good" doesn't have that great a track record, nor does unbridled libertarianism. The trick is to find the balance and
you won't do that if you start from the position that individuals are always bad and government always wonderful.

We were talking morality (PMP brought up the word and I pursued it) and particularly what you set out to do, intentions, and not the projected morality envisaged with the benefit of hindsight. I don't take the view that government is always wonderful, but I do take the view that the intentional activity by the vast majority of the state involves a direct orientation towards doing the best for society. The activity of private enteprise might achieve benefits, some of them obvious, but most of them side effects, positive riders, rather than the motivation to act.
 MG 29 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

but most of them side effects, positive riders, rather than the motivation to act.

So what? If the effect is a better society surely that is a good thing?
contrariousjim 29 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It doesn't take Milton Friedman to work out that if you have paid someone to do a job or to supply materials you have benefitted the supplier and are therefore "doing good". It therefore has moral implications.
> Just as you acknowledge that any job that sets out to avoid doing harm while providing a service is valuable so is each private sector transaction. Is it your argument that for some reason a transaction in the public sector is more "valuable"?
> Is"valuable" the same as moral?

I'm not really surprised, but it seems that your idea of "good", and thus morality too by proxy, appears to be orientated about the "good" you see in economic transactions. Just because two parties agree to transact, doesn't mean that something "good" has happened. And again, your talking about the analysis of positive riders, side effects, and not intentional reasons for action, the reason for doing what you do. You can be whatever economist you like, but it doesn't change that fact knowing there might be some positive consequences, doesn't make those positive consequences the reason for acting.

Re: valuable, I'd just meant some broad attribution about what society broadly regards as morally "good"
contrariousjim 29 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

> but most of them side effects, positive riders, rather than the motivation to act.
> So what? If the effect is a better society surely that is a good thing?

But is it a benefit? Sure having work is good, but what about the environmental consequences of the concrete, the loss of green space, the contribution to a rise in house prices etc etc. I'm far from convinced with the benefit of hindsight that it is overall "good". A situational ethical approach of this kind involves consideration of all predictable consequences and externalities. The point it that in the basic capitalist transaction, there is no need to consider those externalities, or have them reflected in some way.
 MG 29 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

You could raise all the same concerns (probably more so) about most government activity.
contrariousjim 29 Jan 2014
In reply to MG:

> You could raise all the same concerns (probably more so) about most government activity.

One can, and we do, and because of the nature of the debate, usually in advance of action / implementation, and thus that there is at least an attempt at a situational ethical approach, however distorted it might be by particular biases.
 Postmanpat 29 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> And again, your talking about the analysis of positive riders, side effects, and not intentional reasons for action, the reason for doing what you do. You can be whatever economist you like, but it doesn't change that fact knowing there might be some positive consequences, doesn't make those positive consequences the reason for acting.

Just as you acknowledge that any job that sets out to avoid doing harm while providing a service is valuable so is each private sector transaction. Is it your argument that for some reason a transaction in the public sector is more "valuable"?


 Postmanpat 29 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:
> But is it a benefit? Sure having work is good, but what about the environmental consequences of the concrete, the loss of green space, the contribution to a rise in house prices etc etc. I'm far from convinced with the benefit of hindsight that it is overall "good". A situational ethical approach of this kind involves consideration of all predictable consequences and externalities. The point it that in the basic capitalist transaction, there is no need to consider those externalities, or have them reflected in some way.

As MG says, the same is true of State activities.

If a nationalised industry builds a factory is that a "better thing" either morally or in terms of the benefits to society than the private entity building the same factory?
Ditto for a hospital?
Post edited at 09:54
contrariousjim 29 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Just as you acknowledge that any job that sets out to avoid doing harm while providing a service [that is broadly regarded as valuable] so is each private sector transaction.

Changed that for you so it accords with my thinking, and my answer of the edited form is: no its not.

> Is it your argument that for some reason a transaction in the public sector is more "valuable"?

By virtue of retrospective analysis of its character one would have to say, yes it is. For example, much though it's a well worn story to portray the financial crisis in the UK a function of government over spending or even sometimes excess personal indebtedness, the main reason was the global behaviour of large banks, and a monotonous attiude to money that was not only a-moral, but immoral, because the consequences could have been foreseen, and even more extra-ordinary because the behaviour was so all consuming even basic safeguards like due diligence were thrown out the window.
 Postmanpat 29 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> Changed that for you so it accords with my thinking, and my answer of the edited form is: no its not.

Simply because or "intent" ? Suppose the real intent of a public sector project was to get a seedy politician reelected?

> By virtue of retrospective analysis of its character one would have to say, yes it is. For example, much though it's a well worn story to portray the financial crisis in the UK a function of government over spending or even sometimes excess personal indebtedness, the main reason was the global behaviour of large banks, and a monotonous attiude to money that was not only a-moral, but immoral, because the consequences could have been foreseen, and even more extra-ordinary because the behaviour was so all consuming even basic safeguards like due diligence were thrown out the window.

You're not comparing like with like. You are avoiding the question. You're simply saying that because the activity went wrong it is not "valuable" and the example that you choose happens to be (a very biased analysis of) a private sector activity.
contrariousjim 29 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> You're not comparing like with like. You are avoiding the question. You're simply saying that because the activity went wrong it is not "valuable" and the example that you choose happens to be (a very biased analysis of) a private sector activity.

Very biased? Really? How extensive were the financial transaction involved from top to bottom. To have such a global effect the overall transactions involved must have been pretty extensive, so I can't see that it's biased. Furthermore, because it appears clear that the answer is regulation, and implicitly that un-regulated banking of this kind is inherently prone to such problematic behaviour. And that's the point too.. ..you're also not comparing like with like.. ..private transactions do not occur in a bubble, they occur within the necessary environment of coercive and regulatory laws.. ..which if you were right would simply not be necessary.. ..but they are.
 Postmanpat 29 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> Very biased? Really? How extensive were the financial transaction involved from top to bottom.

That was an aside that one can argue the toss on elsewhere. Please answer the central question.
 Cuthbert 29 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

You started posting on this thread on Saturday night. Since then you have been expending a lot of effort writing and replying to complex posts. I don't know why but I find that quite amusing.

Feel free to ignore me.
 Postmanpat 29 Jan 2014
In reply to Saor Alba:

> You started posting on this thread on Saturday night. Since then you have been expending a lot of effort writing and replying to complex posts. I don't know why but I find that quite amusing.

>
Neither do I!

contrariousjim 29 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> That was an aside that one can argue the toss on elsewhere. Please answer the central question.

I refer you to my previous answer. It is the answer to your central question.
 Postmanpat 29 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:
> I refer you to my previous answer. It is the answer to your central question.

For reasons I pointed out it doesn't answer the question. It avoids the question by taking an example which shows (in your analysis) the private sector failing.

Where on earth do you get the idea that I don't believe in the rule of law? I consider it one of the central underpinnings to any successful society.

So can you please clarify.

Take my example of factories and hospitals maybe.
Post edited at 11:24
contrariousjim 29 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> For reasons I pointed out it doesn't answer the question. It avoids the question by taking an example which shows (in your analysis) the private sector failing. So can you please clarify.

My example is an example of the inherent need to externally regulate the activity of the private sector, and even despite that regulation the inherent revelations of pathways to avoid checks and balances and deliberate lack of consideration of consequential thinking.
contrariousjim 29 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Take my example of factories and hospitals maybe.

What example of hospitals? The new RLH on a PFI contract in which having consulted clinicians and medically orientated architects chose to ignore the preferred designs, cut costs by producing their own A+E design, which is a problem in terms of patient management / flow.. ..the things it was supposed to being built to facilitate, but hey, they saved a few squids.
 Postmanpat 29 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> What example of hospitals?

Earlier post.

If a nationalised industry builds a factory is that a "better thing" either morally or in terms of the benefits to society than the private entity building the same factory?
Ditto for a hospital?
 Sandstonier 29 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat: Keep pumping away brother.

contrariousjim 29 Jan 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> If a nationalised industry builds a factory is that a "better thing" either morally or in terms of the benefits to society than the private entity building the same factory?
> Ditto for a hospital?

If they build the same factory, then by definition of the word same the factory will neither be better or worse. Of course the reality, is that the same factory, hospital, train, will not be the same depending on who built it, which was my point about the PFI hospital in London. Edinburgh is another case in point.
 Postmanpat 29 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> If they build the same factory, then by definition of the word same the factory will neither be better or worse. Of course the reality, is that the same factory, hospital, train, will not be the same depending on who built it, which was my point about the PFI hospital in London. Edinburgh is another case in point.


So is your position is not that that there is anything inherently "wrong" or "less valuable" with a private factory or hospital, simply that in practical terms you personally don't believe they can do "job" as well?
 MG 29 Jan 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

And you don't come across public projects that are less than perfectly thought through? Millenium Dome? Edinburgh Tram?
 jkarran 29 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

It's hardly a return to the 70s is it. 45% up to 50% on income over £150k is hardly punitive nor do you have to look as far back as the 70s for the last time it was tried, try 2010. That said, I doubt it's an effective way of increasing the tax take though given few of the relatively few people earning that sort of money will choose to take it all in such a readily taxable form.

jk
 Jon Stewart 30 Jan 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Ken Clarke, some clever, sensible comedian woman, a random Libdem man (talking sense) and a bunch of pricks discussing this on QT now.

The two compelling arguments are:

- a rise in the top rate sends the wrong signal to some investors, e.g. multinationals choosing where to invest and high earners deciding when to retire

- 50% income tax? Pathetic political gesture: what we need to do is actually tax wealth (by new taxes e.g. mansion tax and cracking down on avoidance)
contrariousjim 05 Feb 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Simply because or "intent"?

Yes, because it sets out lines of behaviour that subvert the baseness of the wealthy:
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean.html
 Postmanpat 05 Feb 2014
In reply to contrariousjim:

> Yes, because it sets out lines of behaviour that subvert the baseness of the wealthy:


What are you replying to? What about replying to my last question or are you experiencing some sort of time warp?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...