What do you mean by this?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
What do you mean by this?
I was told earlier in this thread that we all have to contribute to the tax take because we all benefit from a society that takes taxes.
Therefore it can't just be the poor that are affected by spending cuts, it must be everyone.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Take this to its logical conclusion (in a pure, experimental sense). In a world where every state competes to be the most favorable to businesses, countries cannot ask anything of the wealthy (constantly cowed as they are by the threat of those people upping and leaving), countries cannot protect their workers or their environment (because regulations are verboten and the corporations rule supreme) and governments exist merely as state enforcement of the dominance of the upper classes. Profits must be privatized, losses socialized (because once you go to the extent of demanding nothing at all from the wealthy, the next step is the wealthy demanding active benefits to stay - only logical), and the country becomes a commercial enterprise run for the profit of the dominant upper class and the corporations within.
In economics and political science alike, such countries are called banana republics. Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala are examples. And if you don't think the threats of violence and theft existed in countries where people were forced off their land and essentially enslaved (or outright murdered) by powerful corporations with the aid of the corrupt government and the wealthy in society, then I don't know what to tell you.
At the ultimate end of the ideology that the rich must always be appeased lies the dystopia of the rich being the absolute masters of state and society in a manner reminiscent to the rent-seeking aristocracy and nobility of yore. There isn't any moral superiority or 'health' in such an ideology.
Thankfully, we live in a more reasonable world, because societies have decided to shun the logical end states of their own professed ideologies in order to seek more-or-less equitable middle ground solutions. But I would hope nobody pretends that their ideology is an unqualified good or in any way emblematic of a 'healthy' state of being - there are dystopias at the ends of every ideology, including the nonsensical free market dogma. But the left is constantly made to remember this by a guffawing right, while the right strangely tends to forget it when it comes to themselves.
The idea of there being an incentive to work is a very good one, as is the idea of there being some (As yet unmeasured) level of inequality in society to encourage innovation. But, again, I could question your definition of those who 'cannot' work - what do you think qualifies someone as being unable to provide for themselves? Whatever qualifications you offer, I assuredly can give you an example of the DWP passing them as 'fit to work' and an example of another right winger calling even that disability as 'will not, might not, don't fancy it, etc.'. Point being, your definition of 'cannot' is utterly useless as any sort of absolute moral standard, because there will always be an ever more extreme right winger who wants to go lower than that until eventually no one qualifies as 'unable to work'.
Then there's your belief in altruism. All right wing thought is based on the Hobbesian idea of human nature - the idea that man is constantly in competition with other men, and that his very essence is greed, brutishness and a tendency to violently trample on everyone else unless kept in check by a Leviathan (the government, which enforces a lawful society by dint of its monopoly on the use of force). This contrasts with the basis of left-wing thought, which is essentially anchored in the Rousseau-ian view of human nature, which holds that all men are naturally empathetic to each other's concerns and suffering.
The right-wing's obsession with altruism always amuses me given the difference in those ideological bases. Man is a selfish animal in Hobbesian thought - yet, the right believes that he is simultaneously altruistic and good, and that his 'charity' will make up for the removal of forced redistribution and welfare programs imposed by the very government that Hobbes thought necessary to force the greedy wretches to even live peacefully in a society. 'Charity' has never, ever, *ever* reached the level of social welfare provided by the modern welfare state - yet, somehow, altruism will work this time if we cut all taxes and rely on the goodness of a man explicitly proclaimed by Hobbes to be wretched in every way.
I can imagine a clean slate in which taxation has never existed - absolutely. Somalia is one. Actually, scratch that, because even in Somalia, they pay taxes - to the local warlord, who otherwise threatens to kill them by dint of his enforced monopoly on the use of violence.
If the evil socialist taxman doesn't get his claws into your wallet to pay for social programs, the local warlord/the established government which emerges out of a competition of warlords will do the same, gouging you to pay for the armies and militias necessary to enforce the rule of law in a society governed by no ideals or creeds save for the naked threat of force being used to compel obedience. There is no escaping the taxman, friend. And he will extract his share, whatever comes.
Last edited:
Yet those places are not where businesses who have a choice choose to reside. Neither is it where people with a lot of capital choose.
Market forces (I know, sounding like a stuck record) ensure that these countries cannot compete because they do not and cannot offer what countries with some tax take can. I don't think we should be competing with those countries, but we absolutely should be with Ireland, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
I'm not suggesting a complete cessation of tax, just that the levels I currently pay are ridiculously high. That I can work until my lunch break and have earned nothing for myself or my family is just obscene.
You may find some cases that fall outside the norm - that will always be the case with any large data sets. On the whole, I think it's a decent model in terms of disability but needs tightening up in terms of unemployment and in-work benefits.
That's what everyone said when they were no longer needed to grow horses and make them run around with carts attached to their backs or when society (mostly) decided it was silly to dig up and burn ancient trees.
Automation and development not only create competing, alternative industries, but also create a freedom of time and wealth that creates its own industries. I don't pretend to know what people will want to do with their time and money over the next few decades (I'd be a very rich man if I did) but just like the motel and diner business in the early 1900s or the green energy business in the last two decades, people will spend their money somehow. There will always be inventive new ways for people to spend that money.
I don't think your description is at all accurate. I've never met a single proponent of that opinion. There's certainly a natural drive to compete, to better one's lot whether or not that is at the expense of others. I don't know anyone that believes in the attributes you've described.
I'm not sure I explained that properly.
The thought experiment I was trying to lead you along was to come up with a taxation system (forgetting all you know about current taxation levels) and see what kind of contribution that would lead me to have to make to society. I don't believe any sane person would decide that I should surrender half of everything I earn.
We do all benefit from a population that isn't largely destitute, has a base level of healthcare,education and security, yes. I'd take that as a given. You might disagree.
However, if government cuts (in the name of lowering taxes for everybody) effect schools, hospitals, in and out of work benefits, and other local services, then this will hurt the poorest because the poorest do not have the luxury of private healthcare, education or the cushion of high savings/investments.
So again, if you want lower taxes via government cuts, then it is at the expense of the poorer people in society (many of them employed). And again, this is the bottom line of right-wing economics.
In my opinion, your taxes would be lower if corporations and the extremely wealthy saw more of their wealth end up in the pockets of the lowest paid, which means no need for government subsidies like housing benefit and tax credits, resulting in a lower tax burden for people in the middle.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Those countries cannot offer what Ireland, Hong Kong and Singapore can because they are not entrepots geostrategically situated at the confluence of sea trade lanes. However, for those within those countries, including existing corporations, elites and the wealthy, I doubt they would have wanted to move anywhere else when the going was good, because the level of power they enjoyed was unprecedented compared to what they would get elsewhere.
It's a natural sort of fact that people will take as much as they are able - and the more they get, the more they seek. If such policies were enacted in a strategically situated or otherwise fairly large nation (like the UK, for example), I'd wager you'd see the same horrible cruelties and abuse of the lower orders that you would see in Guatemala or elsewhere - and 'market forces' wouldn't give a damn because it a) wouldn't impinge on profit levels - might actually improve them across the board, and b) would actually offer the elites in charge of the corporations in said country a very luxurious, powerful life - more powerful than they would have had in a more egalitarian state.
Governments cannot trust the free hand of the market - it is devoid of ethics or morality, and exists only to seek profits wherever and however possible, in the shortest time possible, and at the lowest cost possible. All sorts of horrible externalities are ignored, and all sorts of societal and human impacts are forgotten. When harnessed, such a thing is eminently useful in increasing standards of living and global wealth up to a certain point - but it must never, *ever* be allowed anything like a free reign, because that way lies the dystopian end of that ideology.
No doubt you're chafing under the taxes you pay - I understand and can empathize with that to a certain extent, even if I'm not particularly bothered by the fact that the taxes I pay take up a huge proportion of my own income as well. But the point I was making was that you approached the idea of racing to the bottom to attract rich people and corporations as an objectively 'healthy' thing for society - my point was that it definitely was not anything of the sort. It leads to a terrible dystopia, the same way as a classless society does. But while the left is forced to see the flaws of their creed, the right tries its hardest to avoid seeing its own ideological endpoints - from my experience.
Again, not exactly my point. You say that provisions must be made for those who 'cannot' work - what is your definition of 'cannot'? Because, again, the work of the Tories over the past half decade has been to continually narrow the scope of who 'cannot' work. There is no objective standard to determine the ability of a person to work, just ideologically influenced preferences. But most of us (actually, I'd wager all of us) are biased in the sense that we will passively accept the creep of such standards in *our* direction even if it goes further than what we hold to be reasonable - for you, for example, I'd wager you wouldn't kick up much of a fuss if the classification of those unable to work was shrunk to a point that went past what you thought reasonable, but you *definitely* would if it were expanded. Ditto for me - I wouldn't really be as miffed if the standards were lowered past what I thought reasonable (to the point where 'I have pink hair' is a reason not to work, for example), as I would if I saw them being *raised* an equivalent amount.
There is no objectively good standard for who can and cannot work. Pretending otherwise is useless.
Eh. That's an argument by itself (which is why I took it out), but I suspect we're in a radically different age judging by the profiles of the jobs soon to be automated - we are progressively moving further and further up the chain in terms of white-collar jobs being susceptible to automation, and I think we have reached our capacity as a species to compete with machines that can process mathematical functions and data millions of times more effectively than we can, with no errors on their part whatsoever. Some people will not ever be able to work in the increasingly technical, shrinking marketplace that has resulted, and we have not yet adapted as a society to that coming change.
Huh? I don't quite get you, sorry. What I'm describing is one of the cornerstones of conservative thought - the idea of a man as a competitive being actively taking advantage of others in an anarchic resource-scarce environment and thus needing a powerful hand of law and order to restrain him from visiting violence or oppression onto his fellow man. The concept of altruism in such an environment (given those theoretical antecedents about the nature of man himself) is thus laughable, and (in my mind) a cheap excuse to hide the fact that what conservatives tend to want is for precisely the sort of dog-eat-dog, 'I've got mine, Jack' environment that Hobbes describes - *sans* the violence, because the ideal of private property brings with it a need for law and order.
Oh, okay. Sorry, I got side-tracked. Anyway, I don't know your economic circumstances, your income levels or your stake of ownership in society (in terms of property, owned businesses et al) and I don't wish to know them - but I suspect that, if I did, I'd definitely argue for tax levels at or somewhat higher than the boundary that you would be comfortable with, because I'm starting from a baseline that involves many more services being assured to citizens in a society (as a right) than you are. The key is, I wouldn't actually consider the relatively high starting level of taxes as much of a burden, because I envision all the social services provided as a safety net that prevents people from falling too low in a society, just as high tax rates perhaps prevent some people from rising too high. That's an unfortunate tradeoff, but one I'm willing to make - the alternative (high social services with low taxation for high earners) is only possible in a resource-rich country, or in an imperial nation growing rich off of someone else.
Robspur12
John Lacy
If it is insurance based there are a whole range of exclusions which are picked up by the NHS.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
This is naïve in the extreme. What you are really saying is that you want to see the dismantling of the state. See I said you were a closet Trot!
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Right wing neo-liberal economics is predicated on their extremist nut job fundy Christianity. It holds that the wealthy have been blessed by GHod and are therefore more worthy than the poor. I dunno, it seems to contradict my reading of the New Testament. However, this serves as the 'moral basis' for rewarding the rich with government largesse and ignoring the needs of the poor. It has pretty much turned into a caste system over there.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
No - he's a libertarian.
There are two key spectrums relating to political identity: pro-state vs anti-state, and equality vs inequality.
At the extremes:
Pro-state + equality = communism
Anti-state + equality = anarchist
Pro-state + inequality = fascism
Anti-state + inequality = libertarian
This is sort of a graphical representation of it
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Classic Marxism holds the view that after the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state will be will wither away. So I still hold the view that he is a crypto-Trot.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
But that's the transition from communism to anarchism. Anarchism is a utopian ideal and not really related to the chaotic association of the term anarchy
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
Was caught up today in some respect as I was on Waterloo Bridge when it all kicked off, pure panic and never known fear like it once you hear gunshots and see so many armed units.
Its a strange one when I sit and reflect, yesterday Westminster paid respects to martin mcguinness and today we pay respects to victims of terrorism, can't get that out my head for some reason
Its a strange one when I sit and reflect, yesterday Westminster paid respects to martin mcguinness and today we pay respects to victims of terrorism, can't get that out my head for some reason
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
Bit of a weird one really, i work in a Govt building by St James park and it was business as usual really.
As callous as it sounds, it's part of being in a huge city.
Obviously my condolences go out to anyone affected by such a cowardly attack.
But on the same note, fudge em, business as usual.
(I hope the sentiment in that is accurately received)
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
No from socialism to communism.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Just heard the news. My thoughts go out to everybody affected by these bastards!
PochettinoPochettinoPochettino
Serge Aurier
Make sure you check in on Facebook as "safe"!
But, thoughts are with those that have actually been affected.
Last edited:
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
Yeh the "safe" bit from people who were not even in London, wow
#prayforlondon SICK AND TIRED OF THIS flimflam hashtags & vigils! The government has brought it on themselves. A tougher stance needs to be taken to root out these evil people. Their ideology is so backwards and not compatible with the western world. Thank GHod we are an island, if not it would be much much worse.
The muslim imams etc need to step up their game and root out these people in the mosques. Not enough is being done, do they even care?? The Nazi were a minority and look what happened there! the so called peaceful majority arent doing enough to stop this from happening!
The muslim imams etc need to step up their game and root out these people in the mosques. Not enough is being done, do they even care?? The Nazi were a minority and look what happened there! the so called peaceful majority arent doing enough to stop this from happening!
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
I don't want to be branded Trump but this is the key point, Saudi Arabia is the head of the Islamic faith and there is not enough visual or verbal action taken by them to denounce killing in the name of. Mosques are run directly out of Saudi and there needs to be an internal campaign about anti hate because unfortunately Mosques are the first breeding ground for some (not all) of this, especially those in outer London.
There also needs to be a bigger deal made of hate preaching, its rife here in the UK, you don't even have to look that hard for it.
I am not in agreement that as part of a multicultural society and a major city that its is what it is and now a way of life, thats not my view at all, if I went to Saudi and was hate preaching I would expect one in the head