Forum menu
The tories doctrine prohibits them from going after the tax evaders though doesn't it?
Would that be the doctrine that keeps us in the EU, whereby we are bound by EU rules on incorporation and taxation?
JY, I think you've summed up the difference between socialism and capitalism there. Proponents of socialism argue that the state should engineer wealth redistribution from richer to poorer, fair enough.
Almost all taxation systems do this - technically they all expect teh rich to pay more that the poor the difference is in the degree to whih they wish to redistribute.
they would indeed argue that. TBH i dont care that much how we make money I only care that we actually bother to try and redistribute it because the very real affect [ not here ] is that there are people starving to death whilst a number of folk live the lives of opulent billionaires. Personally this is both indefensible and inevitable under capitalism. is the ten richest people are worth more than the bottom 50 %. Its hard to mount a defence for that IMHO.Capitalists would argue that the second-order effect of exploiting human ambition/striving/greed, whatever you want to call it, is that everyone gets richer, to a far greater extent than under socialism?
Whilst some humans are greedy and some want to kill folk that is no reason to not try to negate the effects of so called "human nature"
No one teaches their child to be greedy and not share and to eat whilst others starve. We all know its wrong its just not all of us want to do something about it
Absolute poverty is going down at a faster rate than at any time before.
[url= http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/why-2016-will-have-less-poverty-hunger-and-disease-than-any-year-in-human-history/ ]See article with graph here[/url]
The guardian article, referred to in the article, is worth a read too - [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/28/politicians-optimistic-philosophy-hope ]here[/url]
there are people starving to death whilst a number of folk live the lives of opulent billionaires. Personally this is both indefensible and inevitable under capitalism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932–33
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946–47
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine
Anybody with half a brain can read a newspaper, listen to the news or scour the internet and find multiple sources of empirical evidence that demonstrates, in the UK, the status quo is unequal and either staying that way or getting worse..
Those on here who are defending the status quo, IMO, are doing so purely out of self interest because the status quo has favored them and they want to keep it that way.
Those on here who are defending the status quo, IMO, are doing so purely out of self interest because the status quo has favored them and they want to keep it that way.
Is anyone defending the status quo?
IMHO, the VAST majority of people won't move against their own self interest.
I won't/can't defend rampant capitalism, but I do believe in a meritocracy.
Fortunately the other half of the brain allows anyone to read basic data. Inequality has not got worse and has actually declined since the crisis. That's neither defending nor attacking anything.
But the current policy mix while stopping the economy getting a lot worse does run the risk of future inequality through the uneven impact of rising asset prices
@thm - please post your empirical evidence of "Inequality has not got worse and has actually declined since the crisis".
please post your empirical evidence of "Inequality has not got worse and has actually declined since the crisis
You could always post your's that shows it did.
Done that many times and currently waiting for doc appointment so will pass. But go to the Ons website - the data is all there
HTH
http://inequalitybriefing.org/
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk
www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/OECD-Income-Inequality-UK.pd
www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R107.pdf
policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-work/poverty-in-the-uk
www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures
Static figures i.e. not declining, is a shameful situation to be in 2016...
@thm - ah the 'ole doctors excuse....me thinks you were talking rubbish with your claim...
The job of the tax system is to raise money to pay for state services. In progressive societies like ours the burden falls most heavily on those with the most, higher rates leading to accelerated tax receipts on larger amounts.
The tax system has no place or role to play in "redistribution" which is a fatally flawed concept. Those less well off gain significantly from state welfare, security including policing, fire service, welfare etc without paying for the full cost of those services.
On another topic I see Corbyn'/Livingstone's unilateral nuclear diarmament stance has attracted critism from Dan Jarvis who implied he would not stand as a Labour MP if that became Labour policy (unlikely as Unions don't support it)
Well you will be relieved/disappointed to know that I don't give a fig what you chose to believe. I just hope that the doc knows what he is doing. That IS important. But feel free to access the data I noted or even he knew you posted
Not sure that's correct Jambas as the tax system (at least in its current form) plays an very important role in redistribution. Unsurprising in a mixed, centrist and democratic society.
I studied the British tax system at uni.
In progressive societies like ours the burden falls most heavily on those with the most,
False, it's working poor who pay the most in terms of their incomes and the middle classes who pay most overall.
higher rates leading to accelerated tax receipts on larger amounts.
Leading to tax evasion, use of tax havens, emigration, zero tax investments and tax exempt investments which are generally in things only the rich can afford. No reason to pay UK tax rates if you are rich. Ask Bono, Bob and Co.
The tax system has no place or role to play in "redistribution" which is a fatally flawed concept.
Flawed in which way? You live in France remember.
Corbyn'/Livingstone's unilateral nuclear disarmament stance has attracted critism from Dan Jarvis who implied he would not stand as a Labour MP if that became Labour policy (unlikely as Unions don't support it)
Agree. So all the more surprising/damaging is the leaderships determination to push this through? I can only assume its based on their dogmatic adherence to their principles.
I do believe in a meritocracy.
Unfortunately those in power of whatever persuasion don't appear to share our beliefs. John Major appeared to be the last man at the top who believed in it but he was also hamstrung by vested interests.
To those who say we have one there is a one word answer "interns". The expanded version is that only rich kids can afford to be interns the rest have to grab a job, any job that pays. Hence the movers and shakers and opinion formers have the top jobs in media and other areas sewn up. The breadth of vision narrows because like the upper classes in the early nineteenth century it is all an in-bred mess.
To those who say we have one there is a one word answer "interns". The expanded version is that only rich kids can afford to be interns the rest have to grab a job, any job that pays. Hence the movers and shakers and opinion formers have the top jobs in media and other areas sewn up. The breadth of vision narrows because like the upper classes in the early nineteenth century it is all an in-bred mess
But the red princes of the left are battling for the downtrodden person in the street surely? Why else would Seb Corbyn be John McDonnells chief of staff?
Fortunately the other half of the brain allows anyone to read basic data. Inequality has not got worse and has actually declined since the crisis. That's neither defending nor attacking anything.
Depending on which page you look, of course:
[i]The ratio between incomes at the 90th and 10th percentiles fell from 4.4 to 3.8 between 1990 and 2013–14, but the share of income going to the top 1% rose from 5.7% to 8.3%.
• In the years before the recession, inequality was still rising among working households. This was driven by growing inequality in the employment income of such households. Since 2007–08, falls in inequality within this group have not been driven primarily by trends in household employment income, but by the fact that lower-income working households get more support from in-work benefits. In 2013–14, benefits made up nearly 60% of net household income in the bottom decile of the household earnings distribution and around a third in the second decile.
Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2015
• Recent falls in inequality are likely to prove temporary. Stronger earnings growth and the Conservatives’ planned income tax cuts would do most for incomes towards the top of the distribution, while planned benefit cuts will hit low-income households (both in and out of work) hardest.[/i]
DrJ so just abolish the top 1% then. Find out who they are and tell them to leave the country. Income inequality addressed, job done. Just the minor inconvenience of having to raise everyone else's taxes by 30% to make up for the lost tax revenues (top 1% pay 27% of personal taxes and that doesnt even count the VAT and stamp duty). The vast mJority of the 1% have no real necessity to live in the Uk, they could move themselves and their mostly management jobs easily.
As for "defending the status quo out of self interest" I fail to see how the system has worked for me financially as I've paid in multiples of what I or my family will ever get out. I chose to particpate as on balance I think its for the greater social good of a great nation. As Ive said before if taxes went up a lot I'd leave, based on my age and the fact Labour have zero chance of winning in 2020 I'll most likley be here till retirement
But the red princes of the left are battling for the downtrodden person in the street surely? Why else would Seb Corbyn be John McDonnells chief of staff?
Are they bollocks. Maybe the old-guard (Healey and his generation) did. The current bunch don't give a monkeys as long as their cabal is doing all right. We need a decent war with conscription to remind them we all matter, not just the Westminster village.
(top 1% pay 27% of personal taxes and that doesnt even count the VAT and stamp duty)
The poor pay a high percentage of their income in VAT which is a non-progressive tax that hits the poor hardest.
The rich tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on things that don't carry VAT (which is at a much higher rate than stamp duty). If you buy a chalet in Chamnoix you'll pay frais de notaire in France.
A poor person spends a high proportion of their income on goods and services on things that are heavily taxed. Pay for a haircut and you'll pay VAT and indirectly all the taxes the self-employed person who cuts your hair pays before they can recover a wage. Buy petrol to get to work and you'll pay fuel taxes, VAT and again contribute to the taxes paid by the whole supply chain. And that having already had NI and tax deducted from the money you are spending at source.
Edit; my solution is to do like the Americans, if you live abroad you pay the difference in tax between what you pay abroad and what you would pay in the US to the American tax man - or give up your American nationality.
Inequality has not got worse and has actually declined since the crisis.
Its a strange metric by which we can all be worse off yet fewer of us in poverty and one being able to argue inequality has declined. Its one of this that is both true and yet nowhere near the while picture. you know this though it just you choose to only look at the base figure rather than the rational...again AS like in your presentation of the facts. its also pretty clear with the reduction of top rate tax and the reduction of benefits [ including in work benefits] that whatever the causes of this it is not government polices in our "progressive system" to argue otherwise is to play lose and fast with the facts.
The job of the tax system is to raise money to pay for state services. In progressive societies like ours the burden falls most heavily on those with the most, higher rates leading to accelerated tax receipts on larger amounts.The tax system has no place or role to play in "redistribution" which is a fatally flawed concept. Those less well off gain significantly from state welfare, security including policing, fire service, welfare etc without paying for the full cost of those services.
It takes remarkable skill to contradict oneself so much in just two paragraphs
Chapeau
😆
Some of your posts really are works of art.
Out of interest why is it fatally flawed concept to argue for/strife for fairness?
The vast mJority of the 1% have no real necessity to live in the Uk, they could move themselves and their mostly management jobs easily.
#JAMBYFACT or source please.
As I see it - we should be doing our up most to reduce poverty and inequality for the kindness of all. If you choose to refute the majority of empirical research and numerous journal articles, as you appear to be doing @thm, you are creating a certain discourse which is putting obstacles in the way of proggress. Why you would not want to do your up most to reduce poverty and inequality is beyond me....
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
Something about a camel going through the eye of a needle and rich men getting to heaven too, which makes every rich Christian a hypocrite.
As I see it - we should be doing our up most to reduce poverty and inequality for the kindness of all.
True
If you choose to refute the majority of empirical research and numerous journal articles, as you appear to be doing @thm (not the case, but never mind) you are creating a certain discourse which is putting obstacles in the way of progress
On the contrary, if you ignore the facts then you simple make distracting froth that doesn't help anyone.
Why you would not want to do your up most to reduce poverty and inequality is beyond me....
Indeed why would you?
2am in Paris but always time for another Labour Party diamond 8) Guardian reportining Alison McGowan will resign live on BBC TV today (Sunday) from her advisory role after being branded part of a "right wing clicque" by McDonnell
Ah I hadn't clicked. @THM is a troll.
If one has a considered read of what @THM writes it soon becomes apparent it doesn't make sense - it's all smoke and mirrors with no clear point. Furthermore, if you cross reference back to @THM previous posts, placing the posts in their context, there's continual contradictions to what @THM writes.
Your right, hard data doesn't make sense. Much better to stick to mis-informed headlines. But do go and read your own links on inequality, they are quite informative, especially the ones with updated information.
Clear point - your points (sic) can be easily falsified by the data you choose to post. Odd that, normally you would choose data that supports not contradicts your view. Or better still, form a view based on hard data not the other way round.
Cappuccinos to go!
Still all this is a distraction from the real point, which is we are lacking an effective opposition at the moment, which is poor for the democratic process. They need to sort out the shambles quickly but it is getting worse.
I think that is why people (myself included) voted Corbyn: Because there hasn't been an opposition for years. Tories telling Labour banking deregulation didn't go far enough, voting through Iraq war, happy with NHS privatisation etc, then Labour unable to oppose as they had moral foundation to oppose what the Tories were doing.
I think that is why people (myself included) voted Corbyn: Because there hasn't been an opposition for years.
That went well. 😆
So far so good. Yvette Cooper? Would vote Corbyn again tomorrow and I'm willing to give him a chance- lets see his policies.
Disclaimer: I was waiting right til the end for Millinand to come good as well!
The poor pay a high percentage of their income in VAT which is a non-progressive tax that hits the poor hardest.
@Edukator I'm anough of an anorak to have done my own calculations and I do not think thats true at all. There is no VAT on rent (or mortgage) or food and a reduced rate on utilities. If you are a low earner these are the majority if your expenses, plus any benefits younreceive are totally tax free. I can't say I agree on your rich / VAT point either. When I look back at my own spending the vast majority attracted VAT and I'm spending money which has already been taxed at 65% plus (when you add employers natuonal insurance). So total tax take per £1 was in region of 75%. Effectively it was only savings that didn't attract sales taxes as money spent abroad generally attracts that countries sales taxes.
The US and the Phillipines are the onky two countries in the world which have that "living abroad" tax system. Also you only pay Federal taxes which are low 15%-25% from memory.
JY personal experience, as I've posted before I know dozens of people at Stan Chart who left the UK (for Dubai, HK and Singapore) when taxes went to 50% - all of them top 1%-ers I think I am the only one who came back too. A number of hedge funds moved their high earning traders to Switzerland (eg Brevan Howard). A big chunk of the top 1% are now independently wealthy often with non-dom status. High earners have very high levels of locational flexibility. You saw this clearly in France with the abortive move to put taxes up to 66% (footballers where excluded 😯 ) with the significant number who left France, some of the richest just going the 200 miles to Belgium. Look at sportspeople like Hamilton and Murray, they are not UK resident for tax purposes. They have a choice and they opt out.
I don't count things like unemployments benefits as redistributive - for me they are a service, I see you and tmh seem to and thats fare enough.
Clear point - your points (sic) can be easily falsified by the data you choose to post. Odd that, normally you would choose data that supports not contradicts your view. Or better still, form a view based on hard data not the other way round.
[i]Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2015
• Recent falls in inequality are likely to prove temporary. Stronger earnings growth and the Conservatives’ planned income tax cuts would do most for incomes towards the top of the distribution, while planned benefit cuts will hit low-income households (both in and out of work) hardest.[/i]
Why dont you then rather than just being patronising ?your points (sic) can be easily falsified by the data you choose to post
It cannot really we know poverty is declining because ogf the method used [ we are all a bit worse of since the recession so less of us appear to be in poverty]and not because of govt policy. Its still a BS sophist argument now delivered with added patronising.
2am in Paris
Wow dude you party on - RESPECT its what I would be doing at 2 am in Paris and no mistake.
@cfk, I think Milliband (and Gordon Brown) is / was a very earnest and decent man. No shame at all I'd say in sticking with him. He just wasn't electable as a leader (unlike his brother imo) and his left leaning policies where rejected by the voters in 2015
Wow dude you party on - RESPECT its what I would be doing at 2 am in Paris and no mistake.
Bit daft I posted that really, I mean reading uk political news at 2am and then posting on here. Loser with a capital L 😳
'm anough of an anorak to have done my own calculations and I do not think thats true at all
Well given the esteem you are held on this forum that will be that matter sorted then 🙄
JY personal experience
I refer you to the point i made earlier in this post
I don't count things like unemployments benefits as redistributive - for me they are a service
Paid for by the better off and given to the less well off
Is it any wonder your word is held the way it is?
Junky post up your own calculations then, say someone on say £20k receiving £5k benefits/tax credits and someone on £50k and another on say £100k - note these should be adjusted for higher levels of discretionary spending plus some savings inc pension as income goes up. Those are the calcs I did. These numbers are in your favour as £100k you still get a tax free personal allowance and are below the 45% tax band
It cannot really we know poverty is declining because ogf the method used [ we are all a bit worse of since the recession so less of us appear to be in poverty]
Doesn't this just prove what Thatcher said about those who harp on about inequality - 'they would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich'
In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that those who rely on arguing about inequality only do so because they have already lost the primary economic argument: that it is more important to concentrate effort on creating wealth than redistributing what we have already got (ie. growing the pyramid rather than squashing the pyramid)
In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that those who rely on arguing about inequality only do so because they have already lost the primary economic argument
Unsurprising. However, I would suggest that those ignoring the issue of inequality are simply focusing on their own near term benefit and neglecting the wider influence of inequality on society. Of course this is not only immoral but also short sighted as ultimately it is perceived inequality that drives profound change, not calculation of median income relative to the previous century.
Much evidence for this, e.g. http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/19/how-economic-inequality-is-literally-making-us-sick/
simply focusing on their own near term benefit
Except they're clearly not - as proven by the absolute (rather than relative) poverty figures over the decades (and perhaps most crucially to this debate, those under the 'ultra right wing' Blair years)
Edit: Most agree that neither absolute or relative measures are perfect - but it's clear that what [b]really[/b] matters to most people is whether poor people are actually better off than they were five, ten or twenty years ago, their ability to pay the bills and buy food, rather than the differential between them and the yacht owners.
Except they're clearly not - as proven by the absolute (rather than relative) poverty figures over the decades
I think you missed the point.
but it's clear that what really matters to most people is whether poor people are actually better off than they were five, ten or twenty years ago, not the differential between them and the yacht owners.
And your evidence for that assertion is ... ?
Because the logic of your argument is founded in envy
That if I get a (real terms) 20% pay rise, and you only get a 10% pay rise, then you are somehow worse off than you were before.
.
Because the logic of your argument is founded in envy
No, it's founded on a sense of justice.
That if I get a (real terms) 20% pay rise, and you only get a 10% pay rise, then you are somehow worse off than you were before.
If we do identical work, I will be better off financially but I may be unhappier.