Marple Stationery Supplies - Everything for the home, school and office

Author Topic: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion  (Read 29911 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #87 on: December 31, 2014, 04:16:46 PM »
You are really suggesting the state privatise and seize all privately held assets?

Of course I'm not suggesting that. The point, and I apologise for not spelling it out clearly enough for Duke, is that the entire UK budget deficit amounts to just a fraction of the personal wealth of some of our fellow citizens.  Think about it........

wheels

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1299
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #86 on: December 31, 2014, 03:41:19 PM »
Duke,

I think Dave said he was visiting family...... You want to tax people for visiting families (personally I would tax those who take fancy overseas holidays)  Thanks for confirming the right is as anti family as the left.  :P

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #85 on: December 31, 2014, 03:17:48 PM »
Bowden Guy keeps asking what personal tax rates should be, as if that might provide the answer to the UK's economic problems!  It won't, for a number of reasons.  One of them is because nowadays the difference between the haves and have-nots is nothing to do with income, it's to do with property and other capital assets.

I seem to recall that the richest 1,000 people in the UK are worth about 500 billion between them - an average of 500 million each.  The current UK annual deficit stands at just over 100 billion. So those 1,000 individuals alone could wipe out the deficit at a stroke by contributing a mere 20% of their wealth.  And you know what? They wouldn't notice the difference.

We live in a grotesquely unequal society, and tinkering with income tax rates will not change that. And sadly, neither will anything else in the foreseeable future.

As it happens, I happen to be visiting family in the USA at the moment.  It's increasingly clear to me that the Tories are being steered by Osborne towards a version of the American model of a low tax and minimal public services economy.  So if that's what we Brits want, we've got an opportunity to vote for it next May. But I won't be.

You are really suggesting the state privatise and seize all privately held assets?

Personally I'd tax all those who can afford fancy overseas holidays in the Americas.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #84 on: December 31, 2014, 07:12:03 AM »
Bowden Guy keeps asking what personal tax rates should be, as if that might provide the answer to the UK's economic problems!  It won't, for a number of reasons.  One of them is because nowadays the difference between the haves and have-nots is nothing to do with income, it's to do with property and other capital assets.

I seem to recall that the richest 1,000 people in the UK are worth about 500 billion between them - an average of 500 million each.  The current UK annual deficit stands at just over 100 billion. So those 1,000 individuals alone could wipe out the deficit at a stroke by contributing a mere 20% of their wealth.  And you know what? They wouldn't notice the difference.

We live in a grotesquely unequal society, and tinkering with income tax rates will not change that. And sadly, neither will anything else in the foreseeable future.

As it happens, I happen to be visiting family in the USA at the moment.  It's increasingly clear to me that the Tories are being steered by Osborne towards a version of the American model of a low tax and minimal public services economy.  So if that's what we Brits want, we've got an opportunity to vote for it next May. But I won't be.

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #83 on: December 30, 2014, 10:26:47 PM »
You only have to drive through Wilmslow or Hale Barns to realise that there's no shortage of people who can afford to pay more tax.

As for those electricians, IT consultants etc. many of those are paying far less tax than they should, since this government's cuts to HMRC staffing gave such a boost to the black economy.

So your whole economic argument is that you think some sparky is doing a few jobs for undisclosed cash and the only reason that you can;t tell us how much is because the HMRC have had cuts???

It's as plausible as taxing people out of their houses.

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #82 on: December 30, 2014, 10:15:38 PM »
They certainly do, and they are still at it - I heard Danny Alexander repeat it on the radio only the other day.

It's complete nonsense, of course, as Duke rightly points out.

The Labour government of 1997 - 2010 still has to bear a certain amount of responsibility, of course. For example, for their failure to regulate the banks effectively - although it has to be said that at the time the Tory opposition was claiming that regulation was too strict!

But claims that public expenditure was excessive don't really stand up to much scrutiny. The UK national debt in 2007 stood at about 35% of GDP. It's now 75% and rising, thanks to the global recession followed by the initially incompetent stewardship of G Osborne, who spent his first two years in office making things worse before he saw the light in 2012.

As for the vexed issue of taxation, it's quite simple: if we want good public services, we should be prepared to pay for them - all of us, according to our means.

As I say, nobody was prepared to shoot the goose that laid the golden egg.

If you wanted all the tax revenue to spend on services, you had to let the goose do it's thing. The RIGHT thing to do was to build up reserves in order to cope with the inevitable slump. Unfortunately, the utterly incompetent chancellor and latterly the Scottish PM believed he really had put an end to boom and bust. He pretended to understand Keynesian economics but had only read half the theory, the spending part, so up went public spending on really useless services. The problem with spending in times of plenty is that not only do you lose the chance to build reserves, you also crowd out private investment. In doing so, it's a double whammy when there is a slump, the private energy isn't at a level to pull the economy through and the govt doesn't have the money to kick start the economy.

When the slump came, it was a big one and the govt should have been able to look at all the money it had in gold etc and spent it on infrastructure to give the economy an advantage whilst employing people. Instead, there was no reserves, the Labour govt had been running a deceit even in the last two years of the boom and there was debt on the books without assets. Terrible stewardship by TSpm & his bullying hatchet man - Ed Balls. In amongst the clique was the intelectually weak and rather insignificant Ed Milliband.

Simply put, the last Labour govt were guilty of creating the difficulties we have had, we cannot let these idiots back in.


if we want good public services, we should be prepared to pay for them - all of us, according to our means.

let's keep within our sustainable means, as someone once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

Bowden Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #81 on: December 30, 2014, 05:01:11 PM »
So, Dave, if they are not "paying enough" just HOW MUCH extra should they be paying, in your opinion, as a man of the Left? Somehow, I suspect you will be unwilling to commit.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #80 on: December 30, 2014, 03:58:23 PM »
So, Dave, what do you think personal tax rates should be? You obviously don't think they are too high so how much should they rise by? And,  for all those electricians, IT consultants, plumbers, accountants and other SMEs that aren't covered by PAYE - same question. Similarly, if the top 10% of income tax payers generating 55% if revenues isn't high enough, what do you think it should be? It's too easy to say "according to our means"- without figures, that "means" nothing.

You only have to drive through Wilmslow or Hale Barns to realise that there's no shortage of people who can afford to pay more tax.

As for those electricians, IT consultants etc. many of those are paying far less tax than they should, since this government's cuts to HMRC staffing gave such a boost to the black economy.

tigerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #79 on: December 30, 2014, 11:21:55 AM »
For starters, it was wrong for the richest segment of society to be given a 5% tax cut by the ConDems, whilst those at the bottom pay a massive marginal rate. My comments were mainly aimed at the massive corporations who evade tax by moving their profits around the globe. 

Bowden Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #78 on: December 30, 2014, 07:20:55 AM »
So, Dave, what do you think personal tax rates should be? You obviously don't think they are too high so how much should they rise by? And,  for all those electricians, IT consultants, plumbers, accountants and other SMEs that aren't covered by PAYE - same question. Similarly, if the top 10% of income tax payers generating 55% if revenues isn't high enough, what do you think it should be? It's too easy to say "according to our means"- without figures, that "means" nothing.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #77 on: December 30, 2014, 02:32:19 AM »
I don't think anyone claimed Labour created the crash

They certainly do, and they are still at it - I heard Danny Alexander repeat it on the radio only the other day.

It's complete nonsense, of course, as Duke rightly points out.

The Labour government of 1997 - 2010 still has to bear a certain amount of responsibility, of course. For example, for their failure to regulate the banks effectively - although it has to be said that at the time the Tory opposition was claiming that regulation was too strict!

But claims that public expenditure was excessive don't really stand up to much scrutiny. The UK national debt in 2007 stood at about 35% of GDP. It's now 75% and rising, thanks to the global recession followed by the initially incompetent stewardship of G Osborne, who spent his first two years in office making things worse before he saw the light in 2012.

As for the vexed issue of taxation, it's quite simple: if we want good public services, we should be prepared to pay for them - all of us, according to our means.

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #76 on: December 29, 2014, 07:27:27 PM »
Now that Mervyn King has officially recognised that the line peddled by the Tory/Lib coalition that Labour was responsible for the financial crash has been found to be a lie (Radio4 Today programme), perhaps we can indeed move on and discuss the kind of society that we wish to create.  I too believe, as do others on this forum, that the castigation of public services as an imposition is wrong-headed. We remain one of the richest nations on the planet so the question is about the distribution or re-distribution of wealth and how that can be achieved. Taxation is not an evil, it is the foundation of a decent society, but the system seems designed to allow those with the greatest wealth to avoid their obligations.

I don't think anyone claimed Labour created the crash, all colours, even Lib Dems would have had  similar problem, no govt would have shot the goose that laid the golden eggs. However, the other two parties would not have ran deficits in the time of plenty. The conservatives would certainly not have been artificially pumping the economy from 2005 with a load of non-jobs in a pursuit of full-employment.

Taxation is a way of raising revenue to pay for essentials where there is market failure. It's not a tool for punishing the hardest-working or successful.

Bowden Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #75 on: December 29, 2014, 05:33:12 PM »
I agree. Taxation is fundamental to a fair society, funding things that the market cannot, or chooses not to, deliver. Now,  tigerman, could  you please explain to me how the top 10% contributing 55% of total income tax revenues is not "fair".

I would also be very intetested in finding out what you believe future tax rates should actually be to ensure things are "fairer".

tigerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #74 on: December 29, 2014, 01:31:31 PM »
Now that Mervyn King has officially recognised that the line peddled by the Tory/Lib coalition that Labour was responsible for the financial crash has been found to be a lie (Radio4 Today programme), perhaps we can indeed move on and discuss the kind of society that we wish to create.  I too believe, as do others on this forum, that the castigation of public services as an imposition is wrong-headed. We remain one of the richest nations on the planet so the question is about the distribution or re-distribution of wealth and how that can be achieved. Taxation is not an evil, it is the foundation of a decent society, but the system seems designed to allow those with the greatest wealth to avoid their obligations. 

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion
« Reply #73 on: December 24, 2014, 04:28:53 PM »
Bowden Guy, thank you for a diplomacy which does you credit and in the dark hours of the night I was only too aware that you are absolutely right, that I had swooped to Duke’s level and that an apology is in order.


Oi, stoop to your own level, mine is just fine.

Duke’s comment from a while ago about people from the Heatons that may well have been said with his tongue in his cheek but the patronising attitude of Duke brings back memories about a small minority from Marple who I dealt with during the Thatcher years who found it inconceivable that they should be on the dole and treated the Benefit Office staff as if was the Benefit Office and not Thatcher who were responsible for them being out of work.   Such arrogance is not forgotten and sadly may bring out the worst in others born in other areas of Stockport thinking that Duke is an official spokesman for Marple when he is nothing of the sort.

My comment was a little tongue in cheek but given that I lived in Heaton Moor, I think I can make a little joke. I do think that Labour voters tend to be a little less aware of the issues in economics and stats show they tend to be more likely to be racist, poorly educated and low-achievers. i grew up in the south and although my Father was a good socialist, in an area that adapted well from 1970's Labour to Thatcher's conservatives, in an area with an enterprising culture, you didn't get too many Labour voters.

Simone statesYou wouldn’t forget so readily if you had lived in Marple during the Thatcher years, lost your job or left school/university and after a couple years sunk into a despair that no matter how hard you tried that the future in the north of England offered nothing other than a life on benefits or worthless job schemes. Thatcher was the mother of the professional benefit claimants. Pre-Thatcher there was always a small number of work-shy malingers but there was a job for everyone willing to work (with the shortfall in required labour being made up by immigrants). If you did not work without good reason you were looked upon by all in society, rich or poor, as a parasitic malingerer.  The Thatcher years spawned a whole new psychology about unemployment: it was impossible to get an unskilled job because Britain’s manufacturing base had been undermined by a government which rightly or wrongly said ‘No more subsidisation of inefficient British industry, pay unemployment benefits instead, raise unemployment levels to effectively destroy the unions which had been holding the economy to ransom and import goods which can be produced more cheaply and shipped from the other side of the world’.

It wasn't just Thatcher that said we can't carry on subsidising and nationalising, it was the IMF.

Furthermore, there are plenty jobs about, nobody who tries hard needs to spend a life in the dole.

An unfortunate result was that a lifetime on benefits became a norm so when the Tories were eventually kicked out and the economy began to recover life on benefits was seen by some no longer as the norm but as a right and we still have a legacy of people who scream when Polish people who aim to do nothing but work hard for a living come to fill the hotel and catering and agricultural jobs (paying British taxes while they are here) because the local unemployed now say that they will not take the jobs because the hours are too long and that they are better off on benefits.

You see there is a bit of blame game, Britain became uncompetitive pre-Thatcher and that was the fault of the workers / management. Rather than blame Thatcher, maybe those who lost their jobs should have looked at themselves and took a little self-responsibility.

If Poles are taking jobs in a nation of non-polish speakers, I think it says more about those being pushed out than the immigrants or government.

Anyway, Seasons Greetings and for those on the left of the discussion, I hope the State brings you everything you think you are entitled to.