clifftaylor
Absolutely retired!
It's kind of what Empires do, really - Britain was hardly unique.
Corbyn sceptics, what do you think of him now (part II)?
- Thread starter richardg
- Start date
It's kind of what Empires do, really - Britain was hardly unique.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
The kind of things some would class as "‘Robin Hood’ taxes or similar student/militant class-warrior language" are the bits that really matter as far as I'm concerned! They make Labour more credible not less... it's just a case of to whom... Above EVERYTHING else to me is the ethos of people before profits.
As far as companies wanting to leave if they are not allowed to exploit tax loop holes etc well I'd take radical action.... We can't stop say Nissan and Honda from moving their factories to Poland/wherever but we could make it clear that we will ban the sale of Nissan and Honda cars in the UK in retaliation if they do! They don't like it up 'em Mr Mainwaring! The companies remaining would then take a much bigger share of the UK market and be happy bunnies no doubt. The current deliberate tax loop holes are an abhorrence and must end. "Steal a little and they put you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Bob Dylan.
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
Taken on a long historical perspective, no we weren't unique. But what most of the jingoistic dummies who support Brexit on grounds of 'Sovereignty' etc., fail to recognise, is that the height of the British Empire coincided with not only appalling exploitation and cultural vandalism in India etc, but also the worst poverty, deprivation and dehumanisation here at home.
https://pastinthepresent.net/2014/1...els-in-the-shabby-back-streets-of-manchester/
The height of Britain's power is not some 'Golden Age' to be looked back on.. but an era of Capitalist Dominance during which Capital impoverished and exploited the poor and defenceless both here at home and in the countries we 'conquered'.
Those days are gone.. thank f**k.. But the grasping classes are all lined up waiting for their next 'kerchinng' moment.. and it doesn't include most of us..
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Totally agree, and it seems to me that not much has changed. While we don't have the same absolute levels of poverty experienced by the poor in Engel's Manchester of 19th century, we do have the same relative poverty. We have a vast and growing gap between the rich and the poor, and that ever growing income of the highest earners comes at the same time as we have zero hours contracts for many, reduced public services, and wages that have been stagnated for years for the majority of ordinary earners.
The fabulous wealth of the few is not manna handed down from above, it is taken from the many below
TPA
Trade: Tiger Paw
That's an interesting concept. If the population had a standard of living 5 x better than any other nation, the best health, education and social services system but we also had to live with 10 people who were trillionnaires would we be comfortable with the situation. Or we would be more comfortable to have the 10th best standard of living and not a single millionaire, ie, it was a fairer society?
jackbarron
Chelsea, London
This is just another distraction.
The government should properly fund the welfare and health services. The Tories don't. They have cut a huge amount of money to them in real terms and don't care if people suffer or die.
I look forward to the day the Tories are thrown out via an election or strife.
Jack
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I think there needs to be a fundamental, and literally global rethink on taxation. I believe a fairer solution would be to tax, at a marginal level, every financial transaction. Whether buying a house, or a newspaper; paying in to a pension or receiving a pension payment; moving funds offshore, bringing funds onshore, buying a company, selling a sandwich; whatever and whenever money moves or changes hands, the state takes a slice. If it were universal, the slice would only need to be tiny, and the way a country could increase its tax take would be to foster an environment where more transactions took place.
It doesn't work unless everybody buys in to it, from the Cayman Islands to Canada, the UK to Uruguay. Which means it won't happen in my lifetime, alas. Just not enough grown ups to go around.
It doesn't work unless everybody buys in to it, from the Cayman Islands to Canada, the UK to Uruguay. Which means it won't happen in my lifetime, alas. Just not enough grown ups to go around.
droodzilla
pfm Member
Probably the former (especially if the trillionnaires were determined by lottery. But that's not the choice facing us.
Another hypothetical - again, not a choice we really face although it's a little too close for comfort:
https://www.utilitarianism.com/nu/omelas.pdf
Essentially: Is it morally justifiable to degrade and torture an entirely innocent child (a "scapegoat") if everyone else gets to live a charmed life?
It's interesting to think about and compare with the current divisions in our society.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Yes and no.
One of the central problems in the UK is wrt real property ownership and exploitation. To the point where the *HMRC* rent buildings which are owned by an 'offshore' company.
Those who 'own wealth' have to do so by some mechanism or other. And as has been discussed elsewhere, what this is based upon varies. So we could choose to limit ownership of property to people who *reside in the UK* or can satisfy some other tests which mean they have to declare their full income and wealth and thus pay tax here like the rest.
We're going to have to deal with the damage our disfunctional property arrangements have been doing anyway. As things stand it is also the main reason housing costs so much.
Similar rules could be applied for those companies who wish to *trade* here.
No system will be perfect. But it isn't beyond the wits of man to ensure that if the rich wish to make a prifit from the UK they have to accept some rules in return. Some will accept that, others not. But the ones who refuse are likely to be the ones who insist on tax dodging - leaving gaps in the market for others who accept not dodging, etc. Quite simply, if someone is tax dodging *now*, then we haven't actually lost anything over that if they booger off and cease being a burden on the rest of us. i.e. we haven't lost more tax. And those who stay 'in' will pay the tax, and work by the same rules as the rest of us.
Similarly the 'private limited partnerships' etc could be legally converted at the wave of an act of parliament into companies that have to declare all the relevant info or be taken over.
The advantage to the owner of real property is that it is, physically real and has useful value which stems from that. The disadvantage for them is that a house or a factory building can't be physically shifted to another company with the wave of a pen without anyone noticing.
So the argument that we can't do everything doesn't mean we can't do anything.
In some way, if the economy tanks because brexit is the last straw, that can be an *opportunity* to make useful changes which suit ordinary people, not an excuse for the rich to gain more power.
Personally I expect another crash anyway. 'Austerity' hasn't fixed any of the real problems, and *private* debts have become large again, spent on consumables rather than invested.
I agree, though, that tactically, it would be best if we can to wait until the wheels drop off with May still 'in charge' (sic).
Merry Xmas.
misterdog
Not the canine kind
Or go back to the beginning of civilisation, Greece,Egypt all had a 'class' based society.
Communism was supposed to create a level playing field, and look how well that turned out.
The theory may look fine,but the reality is that you cannot have the street sweeper having the same lifestyle as the leader of the country.
HairyHaggis
<((((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸.•´¯`•...¸><((((º>¸.
but there is absolutely nothing that supports that position a priori. it is an empirical fact simply because of dominant (domineering?) human behaviour.
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
it's too bad you brits don't have an evangelical wing of the labour party with a TV preacher like jim bakker on the media side. this could have been big.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Ask me again when we have a standard of living 5 x better than any other nation, [and] the best health, education and social services system.
While I recognise the argument, I think the truth is that the more trillionaires we have, the further we get from any genuine aspiration to raise standards of living or the quality of health, education and social services.
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
photoshop not necessary when you get right with god.
clifftaylor
Absolutely retired!
Maybe not, and I don't think that everyone getting paid the same is going to work - but the street sweeper should be paid a decent wage, because it's an important job. Some people get paid obscenly large amounts of money for doing "jobs" that contribute nothing to anyone, really. I worked in a hospital (until last Tuesday), and the cleaning staff, for example, are paid sh** money.
If we, as a society don't think that the people who clean hospitals or feed the patients, or remove the waste aren't worth a proper wage, we're f*cked.
misterdog
Not the canine kind
I never said they weren't but if you cherry pick one group of people (a link in the chain of society) and promote their lifestyle. Then the next link up the chain, say teachers, will say why did I spend x years on a teacher training course and the stress of teaching a bunch of unruly children when my lifestyle is only on a par with the hospital cleaners/street sweepers.
So you have to promote their lifestyle in the same way. And so on up the chain.
The trick is how to reduce the cream off the top of the chain by 10/20% to allow that to trickle down.
The top say 5/10% of income earners are both smart enough and wealthy enough to circumnavigate
any legislative change.
Thinking that any politician can either outsmart them or persuade them into believing that they are worth, less than they have, is hopeful at least.
There is always someone prepared to offer a 'safer financial' haven for the wealthy, Isle of Man,Jersey or Ireland for examples on our doorstep.
From the Jersey taxation policy website.
So to assume that voting JC in will transform society by getting the rich to fund it is a slightly flawed argument in my opinion.
Cav
pfm Member
The first priority will be to ensure huge corporations pay appropriate tax (I am sure I have said this before) and then to address avoidance by high-wealth individuals.