Enough is Enough

[ks.234]

Of course they haven’t because they’ve been close to zero.

Which circles back to the question of whether interest rates actually control inflation?

 

[Finnegan]

https://twitter.com/sukisangh/status/1559670828509298689

Atmosphere seemed pretty electric. Attendees stated it reminded them of the early days of Corbyn’s campaign. If Jeremy comes to the long overdue conclusion that Labour is a dead-end and throws his lot in with Mick Lynch et al, could be the start of something promising.

 

[ks.234]

5. Tax the rich.

How will they classify rich and what should the tax be? I can’t find any figures to back up this demand.

There is no need to tax the rich to enable spending on social justice. Tax does not fund anything.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

'Spending' in these terms ought to be re-framed as 'investment'. The only reason it isn't, is ideological.

 

[Seeker_UK]

'Spending' in these terms ought to be re-framed as 'investment'. The only reason it isn't, is ideological.

So, the demand to tax the rich (more) is also ideological?

 

[Seanm]

They used to be about saving, prudence, self-reliance etc etc, yet they are absolutely battering all but the super-rich. The vast majority of home owners aren’t rich, they are just folk like me in working class or middle class areas who are either paying a mortgage or have paid it off. The value of the house is academic as it can’t be cashed-in. I own my very modest house outright. The only benefits that brings, and they are huge ones, is I don’t need to pay a mortgage and I can’t be evicted. That’s it. I can’t spend the value. It is very wrong to crusade against home-owners, the overwhelming majority of us are anything but super-rich. FWIW I suspect the Tories ongoing catastrophic economic mismanagement will actually force a lot of people to remortgage to evade bankruptcy.

Again I genuinely don’t understand the Tories (and their Republican counterparts) ongoing success. Their visceral racism, nationalism and other vindictive culture wars seems like remarkably thin gruel to justify the absolute collapse of living standards for all but the super-rich. Even the most transphobic white nationalist will be reluctant to remortgage their house just so the Tories can send brown people to concentration camps 4000 miles away, surely? Do racists really value their racism that highly?

The Conservatives are about the defence of privilege and hierarchy and always have been: sometimes they’ve dressed that up with talk about prudence, sometimes entrepreneurialism, sometimes outright sadism and racism but that all has always been in the service of privilege so there’s no point getting nostalgic.

Right now the section of the hoi polloi that share in that privilege are primarily homeowners. Owning your own home, especially outright, insulates you massively from the Conservatives’ divisive and incompetent economic policies, providing a relatively secure vantage point from which to enjoy all the racism, scrounger-bashing, Brexit etc., which might otherwise seem a bit too costly and scary.

This is the current Conservative mix, IMO: I’m just pointing it out, not waging war. I’m lucky enough to own my own home too - and I do mean lucky.

 

[klfrs]

So, the demand to tax the rich (more) is also ideological?

Ideologues against the ideological was bound to happen.

 

[Nick_G]

They used to be about saving, prudence, self-reliance etc etc, yet they are absolutely battering all but the super-rich. The vast majority of home owners aren’t rich, they are just folk like me in working class or middle class areas who are either paying a mortgage or have paid it off. The value of the house is academic as it can’t be cashed-in. I own my very modest house outright. The only benefits that brings, and they are huge ones, is I don’t need to pay a mortgage and I can’t be evicted. That’s it. I can’t spend the value. It is very wrong to crusade against home-owners, the overwhelming majority of us are anything but super-rich. FWIW I suspect the Tories ongoing catastrophic economic mismanagement will actually force a lot of people to remortgage to evade bankruptcy.

Again I genuinely don’t understand the Tories (and their Republican counterparts) ongoing success. Their visceral racism, nationalism and other vindictive culture wars seems like remarkably thin gruel to justify the absolute collapse of living standards for all but the super-rich. Even the most transphobic white nationalist will be reluctant to remortgage their house just so the Tories can send brown people to concentration camps 4000 miles away, surely? Do racists really value their racism that highly?

Yep.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

So, the demand to tax the rich (more) is also ideological?

It may be, but it's a different ideology, and a more inclusive one, IMHO.

 

[Ponty]

None of those figures. The simple reality is anyone in those categories is very clearly voting against their interests by voting Conservative. Basically if you are not employing dodgy accountants to find tax loopholes or shlepping vast amounts of money around offshore tax havens you a) have nothing to worry about from progressive politics, and b) are unquestionably the current ‘mark’ in the Tories scam. You are voting directly against your best interests by voting for an oligarch kleptocracy. You get all of the routing in declining living standards, collapsing state infrastructure etc, but are way too downmarket to be included in any of the party’s grift.

OK, so back to their plan to ‘tax the rich’, what does that mean, how do they plan to do it and how much will it raise? These basic questions appear to have no answers beneath the usual rhetoric. The only realistic option this type of agenda has outside of a protest group is the Labour Party and note there are 2 labour MP’s associated. How many more will join before Sir K reins them in?

 

[droodzilla]

Can't have Labour MPs sticking up for working people.

Sir Keir needs to "rein them in" pronto!

 

[Seeker_UK]

It may be, but it's a different ideology, and a more inclusive one, IMHO.

But, as you yourself acknowledge, taxation isn't a necessary part of redistribution of wealth. The other elements of EiE seem to promote "inclusivity" and equality but taxation is merely totemic, not essential for achieving the movements ends beyond being seem to clobber those outside EiE who have more wealth.

 

[ks.234]

So, the demand to tax the rich (more) is also ideological?

The false assumption that tax funds spending is ideological. If you follow that logic and want social justice, then taxing the rich is your only logical option

 

[ks.234]

It may be, but it's a different ideology, and a more inclusive one, IMHO.

The current ideology that many people seem to prefer, is explicitly exclusive.

 

[ks.234]

But, as you yourself acknowledge, taxation isn't a necessary part of redistribution of wealth. The other elements of EiE seem to promote "inclusivity" and equality but taxation is merely totemic, not essential for achieving the movements ends beyond being seem to clobber those outside EiE who have more wealth.

If you believe that tax does fund government spending, then raising tax is the only sustainable way to increase spending.

 

[Seanm]

So, the demand to tax the rich (more) is also ideological?

Who pays how much tax, whatever its specific function, is always an ideological matter. That’s fine!

 

[ks.234]

Surprising how many people are ideologically wedded to the idea that tax does fund government spending, despite the overwhelming evidence that it does not.

 

[Seeker_UK]

If you believe that tax does fund government spending, then raising tax is the only sustainable way to increase spending.

The false assumption that tax funds spending is ideological.

I've moved on from that. My point is based firmly on the assumption that position holds true.

If you follow that logic and want social justice, then taxing the rich is your only logical option

So why is taxing the rich the only "logical option" to pursue social justice? What you actually need is more equitable distribution of wealth and resource (spending) which, if we assume your view is correct, nothing to do with who gets taxed and how much they pay.

"5. Tax the rich" when enacted becomes nothing more than being a tokenistic gesture that something's being done.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Let's not forget that to effect change without a revolution, you have to work from within the existing system. So if you want to engineer a move towards MMT-style thinking on taxation and spending, you have to start by talking to those who think differently, and ease them round to your way of thinking. So don't spook the natives by talk of MMT-type stuff, start the conversation from a place they understand (taxing and spending), get them listening and effect change within the existing ideology, then take it from there.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Let's not forget that to effect change without a revolution, you have to work from within the existing system. So if you want to engineer a move towards MMT-style thinking on taxation and spending, you have to start by talking to those who think differently, and ease them round to your way of thinking. So don't spook the natives by talk of MMT-type stuff, start the conversation from a place they understand (taxing and spending), get them listening and effect change within the existing ideology, then take it from there.

That's my confusion. If MMT means the population (across all incomes) gets what it needs w/out a need to tax until the pips squeak, how is that going going to spook them. That would surely be a vote winner?