Re Occupy the Stock Exchange
Comments
-
@Sketchley
I take a pretty utilitarian approach to things, so if it's in the greater good then I say go for it. Of course, the greater good is about more than just money. So taking your example above, if there are negative effects in allowing those millionaires to avoid tax such as an increase in inequality leading to more social issues, then that needs to be taken into account too. Obviously in your example the figures are such that a net benefit is still obvious. However, if the £1m led to greater revenues of £1.1m, but caused £0.2m worth of social problems (admittedly difficult to put a figure on) then I don't think that would be wise.
The problem as I said above is that too often this kind of bargain - tax the rich more lightly so they can invest more, creating economic growth that means everyone gets more money despite rising inequality - hasn't worked out in practice.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
@LinAllison
You might be interested in my thoughts on this that I posted a few pages back: My economic solution
It's on Facebook so you'll need to log in (if you can access it at work).Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Back to the original point - I think it's good that some anger at the system,
According to the Today program this morning, outside St Pauls there is a "ragtag and bobtail" (their words, not mine) bunch of the usual suspects protesting: Pro-Palestine, Anti Climate Change, Anti-Cuts, Pro-Dale Farm, OWS...
In other words, the usual roster of semi professional protesters drawn like moths to a flame.
Separate point: I went to Paternoster Sq one evening this week to meet some mates for a drink. I've walked through there in the day in the last couple of months, and it is a really nice, buzzing place at lunchtime.
Now it is fenced off. We were escorted from the fencing to the door of the bar we were aiming for by some security bod, presumably to ensure we weren't going to swell the protesters' numbers. There are quite a few police vans parked up in the middle of the plaza.
This is St Paul's Catherdral, FFS. I'm not remotely religious, but even I find it an affront that this bunch has chosen to camp, indefinitely according to them, outside the steps to the major cathedral in London.
Water cannon. It's the only way to be sure.
Agreed.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Gregg - what's wrong with a bit of free speech?
The right to protest?
Nowt wrong with free speech or the right to protest. Seems to me though that if (to take an example) you're strongly and genuinely Pro-Palestine, setting up camp outside the Israeli Embassy would be a more obvious protest site.
Jumping on the bandwagon of the current "in vogue" protest site make me question the sincerity of the protester.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Gregg - what's wrong with a bit of free speech?
The right to protest?
Nowt wrong with free speech or the right to protest. Seems to me though that if (to take an example) you're strongly and genuinely Pro-Palestine, setting up camp outside the Israeli Embassy would be a more obvious protest site.
Jumping on the bandwagon of the current "in vogue" protest site make me question the sincerity of the protester.
Hey c'mon, answer the whole post, not just the bits you have a convenient answer for..
You'd imagine the protesters realise they will get more exposure piggy-backing on another high profile demonstration. That's fair enough - I don't think that affects the sincerity of them.0 -
AidanR wrote:Yes, the usual hardcore are camped out - no surprise there. But when I went there on Saturday there were between one and two thousand, including some (like me) who had never been to a protest before.
In the week (Wed eve) there were as far as I could tell a great deal fewer than that - maybe 100 or so from what I could see (I admit I didn't get *that* close though).
Strip out the semi-professional bandwagon passengers, and you don't have a big group.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Gregg - what's wrong with a bit of free speech?
The right to protest?
Nowt wrong with free speech or the right to protest. Seems to me though that if (to take an example) you're strongly and genuinely Pro-Palestine, setting up camp outside the Israeli Embassy would be a more obvious protest site.
Jumping on the bandwagon of the current "in vogue" protest site make me question the sincerity of the protester.
Agreed. It dilutes the message. If there are too many causes being represented it just comes across as a big group of people shouting WE'RE A GROUP OF DISENFRANCHISED PEOPLE WHO ARE GENERALLY UPSET WITH HOW THINGS ARE RUN. Also, as soon as anarchists get involved it just spoils everything.0 -
-
Greg66 wrote:AidanR wrote:Yes, the usual hardcore are camped out - no surprise there. But when I went there on Saturday there were between one and two thousand, including some (like me) who had never been to a protest before.
In the week (Wed eve) there were as far as I could tell a great deal fewer than that - maybe 100 or so from what I could see (I admit I didn't get *that* close though).
Strip out the semi-professional bandwagon passengers, and you don't have a big group.
I can't camp out there - I am fortunate enough to be employed. Look at it the other way - it's the "semi-professionals" that are camping. Strip them out from Saturday's turnout and you've got over a thousand protesters left.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Gregg - what's wrong with a bit of free speech?
The right to protest?
Nowt wrong with free speech or the right to protest. Seems to me though that if (to take an example) you're strongly and genuinely Pro-Palestine, setting up camp outside the Israeli Embassy would be a more obvious protest site.
Jumping on the bandwagon of the current "in vogue" protest site make me question the sincerity of the protester.
Agreed. It dilutes the message. If there are too many causes being represented it just comes across as a big group of people shouting WE'RE A GROUP OF DISENFRANCHISED PEOPLE WHO ARE GENERALLY UPSET WITH HOW THINGS ARE RUN. Also, as soon as anarchists get involved it just spoils everything.
What's wrong with that?
At least the disenfranchised are using a legitimate way to shout that.
They are in our society too, like it or not.0 -
Disenfranchised? I think the more accurate term is "drop out".
These professional protester types (and I have met a fair few through connections down here in Bristol) are happy enough to squat in other people's property for free, to accept benefit payments for free, to cost the state in policing & eviction costs and to take wherever possible, but you have to ask the question, what is their contribution to society?0 -
andyrm wrote:Disenfranchised? I think the more accurate term is "drop out".
These professional protester types (and I have met a fair few through connections down here in Bristol) are happy enough to squat in other people's property for free, to accept benefit payments for free, to cost the state in policing & eviction costs and to take wherever possible, but you have to ask the question, what is their contribution to society?
What do you suggest they do then, rather than protest?
They are part of our society, and at least this way they are part of the wider debate. You can try to pretend they don't exist and hide them away somewhere, but that doesn't solve the problem > that brushes it under the carpet.
What would your solution be for 'drop outs'?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:What's wrong with that?
At least the disenfranchised are using a legitimate way to shout that.
They are in our society too, like it or not.
I generally support the "Occupy" movement, but its pretty bad PR to the same group who attend their protests also appearing at dale farm. It makes it very easy for 'normal' people who should be interested in "Occupy" to disregard it as pointless protesting by anti-establisment hippy anarchists.
Basically, it allows the majority population to take the line that W1 does.0 -
It could be argued they play an important role in democracy.
But let's not get bogged down by the nature of some of the protesters. The issues here go way beyond them, and that's the point.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:What's wrong with that?
At least the disenfranchised are using a legitimate way to shout that.
They are in our society too, like it or not.
I generally support the "Occupy" movement, but its pretty bad PR to the same group who attend their protests also appearing at dale farm. It makes it very easy for 'normal' people who should be interested in "Occupy" to disregard it as pointless protesting by anti-establisment hippy anarchists.
Basically, it allows the majority population to take the line that W1 does.
I get irritated and a little sad that people can hate on groups just because they're not like them. Protesters who are clearly unhappy with the establishment, but are using perfectly legal and civil means to do so (peaceful protesting...) shouldn't be villified. They're trying to make their voices heard, since no-one will listen to them in any other way.
As ever, if you create a dialogue, you'll make progress. Otherwise it'll end up as a broad centrist dictatorship, where anyone who doesn't fall into the mainstream will be persecuted. "We don't like the look of this lot. They're not pro-home-ownership and they don't like people making money. Water-cannon the lot of 'em and lock 'em up'.
That's not a democracy. Chat like this is close to being the thin-end of the wedge.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I appreciate they don't share your politics, but demanding the watercannon, or generally that they don't protest and espouse politics that you agree with is a little much.
As for the fencing - presumably that's police-heavy handiness rather than peaceful protesters.
Have a go at the guys who stir up trouble, but the vast majority of people in the occupy' movement want to keep it peaceful.
OK - I have a j-o-b to do that I have to fit around this interesting discourse, so I don't always have the time or inclination to address everything.
The watercannon was a flippant comment.
As someone else has explained, it sounds like the fencing is to keep the protesters out of Paternoster Sq. So I guess the escort was to stop us setting up camp inside the perimeter.
AFAIK, none of the bobtails are causing trouble. My point was about bandwagonning.
Happy now?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:andyrm wrote:Disenfranchised? I think the more accurate term is "drop out".
These professional protester types (and I have met a fair few through connections down here in Bristol) are happy enough to squat in other people's property for free, to accept benefit payments for free, to cost the state in policing & eviction costs and to take wherever possible, but you have to ask the question, what is their contribution to society?
What do you suggest they do then, rather than protest?
They are part of our society, and at least this way they are part of the wider debate. You can try to pretend they don't exist and hide them away somewhere, but that doesn't solve the problem > that brushes it under the carpet.
What would your solution be for 'drop outs'?
That they get a job and contribute? At least then they have some legitimacy to complain. In many respects it makes them no better than the bankers they scapegoat. Scroungers are as much a part of the problem as tax evaders.
I have no problem with people protesting and getting things changed. I have a problem with people scrounging off the state so they can do nothing but whinge about how life is so unfair.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
They are part of our society
I would counter that they are not part of our society. To be part of a society, you need to be contributing something for the overall good of that society. Given that they do not contribute financially or socially, where is their input? And as a rule the anarchist press always talks about separating themselves from "society" as they see it. Fine, if you don't want to be part of our society with the bonuses of it, don't claim benefits, don't break into and squat in houses illegally and don't run up our tax bills through costs arising through your own actions.
Personally I would make them all work in Tesco's
0 -
W1 wrote:I have no problem with people protesting and getting things changed. I have a problem with people scrounging off the state so they can do nothing but whinge about how life is so unfair.
You're quite happy to assume that the people protesting are jobless hippies scrounging off the state or spoiled brat teenagers to devalue what they're actually protesting about.0 -
jds_1981 wrote:W1 wrote:We're all tax avoiders (at it's broadest definition) because we will all happily take advantage of tax savings where possible.
c2w, pensions, ISAs, etc?
Yes, and the rest.
I know what you're going to say - those are tax avoidance that are "intended". The complaint is against those who use "loopholes". But I don't buy this whole "spirit" of the law argument, it's absurd. The law needs to be clear enough so that you don't need to trawl Hansard to understand why the law was brought in. If there are loopholes, that is not the fault of the people who use them.
All the above are avoiding tax. There is a tax efficient and a non tax efficient option. To use the tax efficient option is to avoid tax - there can be no dispute about that. And we all do it, which makes bleating about "tax avoidance" somewhat hypocritical. Still, as long as "other" pay more tax, that will be "fair".0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:I have no problem with people protesting and getting things changed. I have a problem with people scrounging off the state so they can do nothing but whinge about how life is so unfair.
You're quite happy to assume that the people protesting are jobless hippies scrounging off the state or spoiled brat teenagers to devalue what they're actually protesting about.
If that's the case, don't you think it devalues what they're protesting about? It's laughable for people who live off the hard work of others to complain about other people's wealth or income.
Do you think the majority have full time jobs and just camp out at nights or on weekends? That the "professional protesters" have a form of income from work? Or do you think, one way or another, they're being funded by someone else?0 -
Quite a few of them probably arenotsoblue wrote:You're quite happy to assume that the people protesting are jobless hippies scrounging off the state or spoiled brat teenagers to devalue what they're actually protesting about.
However I'd love to hear how they would do things better: it's all very well moaning but if you haven't got a viable alternative, well... "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:I have no problem with people protesting and getting things changed. I have a problem with people scrounging off the state so they can do nothing but whinge about how life is so unfair.
You're quite happy to assume that the people protesting are jobless hippies scrounging off the state or spoiled brat teenagers to devalue what they're actually protesting about.
If that's the case, don't you think it devalues what they're protesting about? It's laughable for people who live off the hard work of others to complain about other people's wealth or income.
Do you think the majority have full time jobs and just camp out at nights or on weekends? That the "professional protesters" have a form of income from work? Or do you think, one way or another, they're being funded by someone else?
You may be shocked to hear that I have always 'paid my way' and worked yet plan to attend more protests.
You may also want to consider the fact that the cost of tax evasion by the rich dwarfs the amount claimed illegally in welfare payments. If we spent at least as much cracking down on tax evasion as we do on 'scroungers' this would be a step in the right direction."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:snip...
You may also want to consider the fact that the cost of tax evasion by the rich dwarfs the amount claimed illegally in welfare payments.
....snip.
Proof & source of this please?--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Sketchley wrote:MaxwellBygraves wrote:snip...
You may also want to consider the fact that the cost of tax evasion by the rich dwarfs the amount claimed illegally in welfare payments.
....snip.
Proof & source of this please?
A number of sources for you:
http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion ... ud/a378274
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010 ... realities/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7326911.stm
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/measuring-tax-gaps.pdf"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:I have no problem with people protesting and getting things changed. I have a problem with people scrounging off the state so they can do nothing but whinge about how life is so unfair.
You're quite happy to assume that the people protesting are jobless hippies scrounging off the state or spoiled brat teenagers to devalue what they're actually protesting about.
If that's the case, don't you think it devalues what they're protesting about? It's laughable for people who live off the hard work of others to complain about other people's wealth or income.
Do you think the majority have full time jobs and just camp out at nights or on weekends? That the "professional protesters" have a form of income from work? Or do you think, one way or another, they're being funded by someone else?
You may be shocked to hear that I have always 'paid my way' and worked yet plan to attend more protests.
You may also want to consider the fact that the cost of tax evasion by the rich dwarfs the amount claimed illegally in welfare payments. If we spent at least as much cracking down on tax evasion as we do on 'scroungers' this would be a step in the right direction.
Excellent, I hope you have a jolly time. I have also attended protests and I would never wish to have the right to protest prevented- I find the restrictions on protests at Parliament square unacceptable.
What I object to is people who contribute nothing bleating about those who are paying for them to have the time to sit around in tents all day.
Please let us not confuse tax evasion and tax avoidance. I have no problem with tax evaders being tackled as well as benefit fraudsters. But it should be both groups.0 -
W1 wrote:
Not at all, I'm all for people arranging their tax affairs to reduce the amount they have to pay (although I never joined the C2W scheme as it appeared too much like a great big dodgy evasion scheme set up by HMRC with clarity like mud).FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
@W1
To equate highly aggressive tax avoidance schemes with ISAs is utterly absurd. To define tax avoidance this broadly strips it of all meaning. You can't say that the law should be perfect, because it never has been, never will be and never could have been. There will always be unintended effects but there's a big difference between someone taking Entrepreneurs' Relief and not reinvesting it (their right, though the intention of the relief is [at least partially] to encourage reinvestment) and a team of sharp minds working out complicated ways to subvert a piece of legislation so they can sell this cunning wheeze to wealth folk. Somewhere in the middle definitions will get a bit hazy. So what? Welcome to the world.
The tax evasion vs benefit fraud thing... well let's face it, they're trying to tackle both. Good on them.
Protesters - don't tar them all with the same brush to suit your prejudices. Last Saturday I met tons of people with jobs. One agreeable Liverpudlian chap I was talking to was planning on camping, but only 'til Thursday because that was how much time he could take off work. Yes, he cared enough about an issue that instead of going on holiday he was protesting.Bike lover and part-time cyclist.0
