Got a spare €400m ?

VTech

madasahattersley wrote:

My dad lost his job, his house, and his mental health, while accumulating 000s of unavoidable debt a couple of years ago. Couldn't afford to raise us or even pay a minimum amount of child maintenance. If you told him (or me for that matter) face to face that actually things aren't that bad, and that because we're not living in a cardboard box in Jaipur it's not 'poverty' and things aren't that bad, while rolling along in your nice car or in your nice house then you would get a good decking.

Would you say to a man dying of AIDS with no available treatment in a hut by the side of a dirty road in Mozambique "This isn't so bad, pull yourself together. Why, in other parts of the world there are people who don't even have huts! No such thing as poverty in this country."

Your lack of understanding and blindness towards those who haven't been dealt as good a hand as you in life is quite frankly shocking, and I'm almost entirely convinced you're just a troll who has somehow been undetected for 3000 posts.

Firstly, I am genuinely sorry for the issues your family have endured.
I never said what you have mentioned above though have I ?
I mentioned "real" and "true" poverty.
What your father suffered with is severe hardship and this is something I have been involved in for 3 years now trying to work with 2 groups to get the laws changed so please, don't try to fight me as others have here when its this kind of thing I have stuck up for on this forum in MANY of my posts.
I genuinely don't thing we have true poverty in the UK because no matter what, there is somewhere to turn. I accept in mental health cases it may be different but that is down to personal circumstances and ability to do what would seem "normal" to many folk but in the UK we can go somewhere and get help at almost all times.

I have no blindness towards the issues, I want them resolved and I think there is a way but we constantly have self made problems. Third generation unemployed moaning that foreigners are taking there jobs to justify their unwillingness to work. Fat Cats paying little to no tax, corporate companies legally paying nothing.

These are huge issues and all are fixable, not even hard to fix which I find odd.

This thread is the perfect example of stupid Britain (and this isn't aimed at your reply) we moan for ages and in the end nothing is resolved. People will fight a side because of a history (anti conservative because of thatcher, anti labour because of strikes in the 80's) without looking to resolve the real issues.

Charge people and companies a fair tax and close loopholes.

Charging a fair tax stops people banking abroad.
Charging companies a fair tax makes them invest in our country.

Close loopholes does as it sats on the tin.

I think its simple, I know along will be a few arguing but I would honestly say the above to anyone face to face and if a punch on the nose is the price I pay then so be it.

nathancom

I bet you vote UKIP

VTech

nathancom wrote:

I bet you vote UKIP

Conservative for the past 7 years actually.

I detest any form of racism, abuse or social divide. I think everyone should have a fair chance in life in a home with enough food to eat, enough clothes to keep warm and enough resources to be able to laugh and smile.
I thought I had made that clear in this post and countless others I have made.

nathancom

Well if you are so wonderful, and it is all so easy to fix, and you are never wrong why not go into politics. They could even make a comedy show about it.

VTech

nathancom wrote:

Well if you are so wonderful, and it is all so easy to fix, and you are never wrong why not go into politics. They could even make a comedy show about it.

We are 8 pages in and you have not added any substance whatsoever.
It is because of people like you that I wouldn't go into politics, you would drive me mad when easy solutions exist and so many want to keep the door closed.
You are similar to a British person who hates Germans because of the war 80 years ago. Get over your arguments in the past with me and add something that benefits people reading. Its foolhardy to allow emotions of old to detract from the real issues, it clouds the mind and stops real action being made.
I see it in the work place, people who are far more clever than me achieve nothing, they hold onto the fact that they were knocked for a promotion years ago and won't let go.
When life kicks you try again, when you argue with someone try to reason.
Persisting in battle rarely results in a winner.

nathancom

Happy to debate with people with some intelligence. However, you fall outside of that camp. Isn't it time for your session in front of the mirror to share a couple of compliments.

VTech

nathancom wrote:

Happy to debate with people with some intelligence. However, you fall outside of that camp. Isn't it time for your session in front of the mirror to share a couple of compliments.

Did that this morning, looking at the newly svelte figure before me was just what I needed to go to battle to Mr nathancom :P Come on my friend, give me something to go on, add something of weight, throw me a bone at least.

pinno

FFS - put the handbags away folks. When someone resorts to personal insults, the argument is lost.

This is just a forum, why does everyone get so uppity?

Back to the OT. @madasahattersley. Answer the following:
Can you and have you always been able to:
Turn a tap on for fresh water
See your GP for an ailment
Walked home because there are streetlights to light your way
Put the bin out because it will be collected on Tuesday
Go to school?

Visit Kibera in Nairobi, then you will see true poverty.

I will add that cultural relativism is flawed but in terms of the ratio between top earners and the lowest paid, in the UK it is 17 to 1. In the seventies, it was 6 to 1. The gap is too big and relative to the gross wealth of this country, some sink areas and urban areas are in a dreadful condition. Some elderly people are having to choose between heating and food - there is something wrong with that and there is something fundamentally wrong with a so called 'developed nation' to have problems like that.
This is where it comes full circle. There is not enough money in the pot to re-invest in every single sector of our society from schools to roads, from education to industry. I firmly believe it is due to a taxation system that is regressive, coupled with short-termism and a growing number of people who do not pay enough taxes and sometimes none at all.
There is not and has never been a fair distribution of wealth in the UK.

keef66

pinarello001 wrote:

FFS - put the handbags away folks. When someone resorts to personal insults, the argument is lost.

This is just a forum, why does everyone get so uppity?

Back to the OT. @madasahattersley. Answer the following:
Can you and have you always been able to:
Turn a tap on for fresh water
See your GP for an ailment
Walked home because there are streetlights to light your way
Put the bin out because it will be collected on Tuesday
Go to school?

Visit Kibera in Nairobi, then you will see true poverty.

I will add that cultural relativism is flawed but in terms of the ratio between top earners and the lowest paid, in the UK it is 17 to 1. In the seventies, it was 6 to 1. The gap is too big and relative to the gross wealth of this country, some sink areas and urban areas are in a dreadful condition. Some elderly people are having to choose between heating and food - there is something wrong with that and there is something fundamentally wrong with a so called 'developed nation' to have problems like that.
This is where it comes full circle. There is not enough money in the pot to re-invest in every single sector of our society from schools to roads, from education to industry. I firmly believe it is due to a taxation system that is regressive, coupled with short-termism and a growing number of people who do not pay enough taxes and sometimes none at all.
There is not and has never been a fair distribution of wealth in the UK.

Well said that man.

I do sometimes struggle to get an appointment with a doctor though...

nathancom

Stevo 666 wrote:

OK, I'll take some of these points individually.

nathancom wrote:

That isn't really logical, it would mean that at any point in history, in any country we have the best socio-economic system in place otherwise there would be another one in place. That clearly isn't true as there have been some very poor socio-economic systems in place with much scope for improvement, eg the implementation of communism in USSR.

Glad you agree that Soviet style communism was a disaster. Short term these systems can come in when tipping points are reached, but they don't tend to stand the test of time. Over the longer term, capitalism, or marcantilism as it was a few hundred years ago, has done. The success of capitalism is what allows you and me to sit in comfort and argue the merits of it over the internet - in some countries which have the more redistributive systems you disappear for complaining. Even in China, which is socially communist, the government has had to resort to capitalism to keep themselves in power. And look how they have improved.

Socially progressive states such as the Scandinavians have managed to maintain civil liberties whilst creating fairer tax systems than our own. China has resorted to private ownership but state involvement in economic activities is still high. It is much more managed capitalism or dirigisme. In truth free market radicalism is a very Anglo-Saxon view of how to run an economy and one we have tried to impose across the world (and has been taken up by oligarchs and thieves across the world). There are viable alternatives in play to Tea party style capitalism

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

I think that what all economic systems suffer from is the disruptive influence of the inequitable distribution of wealth combined with the propensity of money to follow money, ie the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As the divide widens the rich have to wield their political power, derived from their economic power, to prevent social disorder chaotically redistributing wealth. However, eventually, either through a diminution of their economic power, or by the the gap between rich and poor growing too large, revolution does take place and wealth is redistributed, eg France in 1790s.

Revolution is highly unlikely to happen here - poverty and suffering in late 18th century France is not comparable to 21st Century UK. When was the last revolution of that sort in a first world country?

Lots of people and companies do get rich in the current system but why is that bad? People need have the chance to do better for themselves without the prospect of the state taking it all off them - if that happens, the incentive to work hard and do well fades away. Under the highly redistributive system you seem to be promoting, why would an entrepreneur take risks and work hard if they're going to get the money confiscated and they end up no better off than someone who takes a totally undemanding job - or does not work at all? The problem with socialist systems is that logically lots of people will take that view and the wealth creators do not become wealth creators. If everyone is taking it easy expecting other people to work hard and pay large amounts of tax, the system collapses when there is nobody to work hard and pay the tax. Human nature - you need the incentives for success for everyone else to benefit.

Also dispute that the poor get poorer - the benefits system and other 'safety nets' like the minimum wage have become more generous in recent years. That's why the tax bill keeps going up for people who work hard.

I agree that people should see the benefits of their labour but tell me honestly, do you think that the massive leap in CEO pay in the last 20 years is indicative of their greater worth in the modern world or that a economic elite has started to play the system and fleece publicly run companies. We are in the age of crony capitalism where the value of companies is being sucked dry by a ruling class at the top. Hand in hand with this, business has come to be seen as existing outside of society, as being simply a collection of individuals working to generate profit in a variety of markets. However, people spend large parts of their life working in companies and members of society interact with a large variety of companies every day so surely it is time for companies to work to improve both the lives of their workforces and the societies they operate in (beyond some relatively meaningless CSR initiatives)

I do not think individuals create value in society, I believe they do so as part of a collective, however maverick they are. As such I feel that the collective should benefit and their would be a variety of mechanisms to encourage this beyond bonus and SIP schemes.

Stevo 666 wrote:

nathancom wrote:

We need economic systems that continually recycle wealth, ie tax systems that prevent the accumulation of too much wealth as this prevents 1) the divisions becoming too pronounced between rich and poor and 2) the rich wielding too much economic power, to subvert political institutions to their own will. I would say we also need open economic systems that encourage wealth creation, but ones that encourage communal wealth creation not individual wealth as the individual is never solely responsible for the creation of value that leads to economic gain. (I would hold up companies like Mondragon and John Lewis and models that we should encourage across our economies).

How do you encourage wealth creation without giving those people and companies that create the wealth adequate reward? Sorry, goes against human nature and for that reason will not work.
- See my France example above.
- Have a look at the UK in the 1970's - pretty redistributive with nationalised industries, company tax rates at 50% and personal tax rates at 83% (98% if you were living off investment income). The results - the decline of many industries as labour politians proved to be incredibly bad business managers (British Leyland anyone?), unions thinking they ran the country and strikes being the norm, power cuts, inflation at 26%, massive 'brain drain' and the ultimate humiliation of Dennis Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bail out :evil: Note the link between stupidly high tax rates and needing a bail out....The UK then was the Greece of the 1970s - economic basket case. Why? Redistributive socialist policies. Some people don't learn.

See above re incentives and human nature - prevent people from having the chance of accumulating and you remove the incentives to create the wealth in the first place.

- I think it was Churchill who said that in capitalism the rewards are dividend unevenly, but with socialism the misery is equally distributed. Name some countries that has the redistributive policies you describe and is doing well on a national and individual level.

- John Lewis is just a partnership, albeit a pretty good one. Not fundamentally different from firms of accountants, lawyers, or investment banks were back in the 80's.

I think you fail to realise the debt you owe to the socialist thread in British political thought in the last century. Without it, and with unfettered capitalism you would be living in some sort of Ayn Rand kind of world and you would be on the wrong side of the line. We have generally had and still largely have redistributive tax systems because there is a clear necessity to alleviate the pooling of capital. Without it, you end up with an plutocracy/kleptocracy such as is seen in modern Russia. For my own part I am very thankful to live in a Western capitalist democracy because I believe it provides the best life for its citizens but this is based on the integration of socialist and capitalist economic doctrines.

I think you overstate your French position. It has a comparable GDP per capita to the UK and a similar outlook for the next 20 years.
John Lewis is different from a partnership as the individuals are not self employed, it is much more similar to a Mondragon style Co-operative and it is sad that we haven't followed the Mondragon model in this country more

VTech

@nathancom, Finally

I actually think the main issue could be that it isn't just the UK with massive divides but we lack the ability to manage whereas others seem to do far better than us.
We need input of funds, regurgitating the same cash doesn't help, we need investment from outside to grow the economy, pay for some of the bills etc. High tax doesn't allow for this and with a system that is either this or that we are buggered.
I could start a business in the USA and work a deal with the IRS to pay a set level (a piece of the pie is better than no pie) but in the UK you can't. it is either this or that !

The main car makers pay NOTHING, NOTHING !!!
Peugeot got £400,000,000.00 and people think they are great, we paid for the workers to get jobs, we should of instead offered Peugeot a tax deal where they invested and we cut them a break but we are so stupid we can't figure that out as a country.

I have a feeling we both agree on this subject but along the lines the past has interupted.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

@Stevo.

You use words like re-distribution and confiscation without mentioning Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany.
All countries that have mixed economies and have a very high standard of living. High wage/High cost societies. Businesses, entrepreneurs exist in these countries and pay their fair share of taxes. Investment in every facet of Scandinavian life is high.
China? How can you cite China as a system that works? Internally, they have fundamental humanitarian issues. Externally, they are sucking up resources like there is no tomorrow with no moral ethic. They are happy to work alongside Mugabe and other despots.
God knows what the real environmental cost both internally and externally are being wreaked.

Detail an alternative? I have:
Close all tax loopholes
Close all tax havens
Stop the idiotic Non-dom status of individuals. If you have a British passport, regardless of how long you stay in the UK, you should contribute and be taxable on any income derived from activities domestically.

This has to be backed up with an international code where individuals cannot use off shore bank accounts. I would have the Swiss and the Cayman Islands for example open up. No longer should countries be allowed to harbour the activities of individuals or corporations.
The elite do not pay enough tax. I am not asking to stifle hard work or enterprise, I am asking those who should pay, pay.
Whilst we in the west sit in relative affluence and our standards of living on the whole go up, millions, nay billions of people exist in poverty or are trapped in sweat shops making cheap and nasty crap for companies like Peacocks and Matalan. There is a global price for the extravagent lifestyles of the west and the rise of the super rich.
The current system of capitalism is unchecked, inbalanced, exploitative and environmentally, it is an apocalypse waiting to happen.

Busy day today. Anyhow (cracks knuckles)...

Scandies (also@Nathancom) - have a read http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel Bit more capitalist than you give them credit for and it would seem they suffered when they went too 'tax and spend'. Most importantly they're a tough and enterprising bunch - looks to me like their succes is almost despite the over-large state sector and not because of it. Also you can discount Norway as effectively it's a gulf oil state but with colder weather. And their tax rates aren't that much higher than ours (top tax rates used as an example, a bit simplistic but a guide...)

Denmark
Companies 24% (22% in 2016)
Individuals 51%

Finland
Companies 24.5%
Individuals 51%

Norway
Companies 28%
Individuals 46.8%

Sweden
Companies 22%
Individuals 57%

UK
Companies 23% (21% later this year, 20% next year)
Individuals 45%

China - never said it was great, they went capitalist economically as they realised communism couldn't get them out of being a poor agricultural based country, and if they didn't eventually poor living standards and totalitarianism would not last. But clearly did it in a cack-handed way and at great cost eg the environment.

Your alternative?
- Closing loopholes - they've been trying to do it for decades all over the world. Impossible - but helps keep me in a job
- Close all tax havens - How? Invade? Won't happen. These are sovereign states who are free to choose their own tax policies and see their way of getting a slice of the pie by offering competitive tax rates.
- Non-doms - you don't understand the set up. Non-doms are taxed on their UK income, plus foreign income they remit to the UK.
- Offshore bank accounts - it's a free society, you can park your money where you want. You could only really stop that in a dictatorship. Won't happen.

Your point that those that should pay don't pay enough - disagree. The facts:
Individuals - the top 1% pay 30% of income tax in the UK.
Companies - FTSE 100 companies contribute £77 billion in total tax in 2012 - over 14% of all UK tax reciepts.
That's a lot of tax...

You would think that there is no socialist part to the economy the way you talk - there is. And I'm not necessarily against it - as Nathancom say, some things that have come from socialism have done good - but in small doses What we disagree on is what constitutes 'small'. and I guess we will have to agree to disagree...

d87francis

@Stevo 666 - those differences in top tax rates are huge at those sort of salaries, and look at the combined earnings of the top 1% in the UK - they account for far more than 30% of total taxable income of UK earners.

I do not understand why there is such approval on this thread for capitalism, a system that perpetuates exploitation, coercion, suffering, imperialism, war, slavery, racist/sexist/genderist/abeist divides whilst benefiting a minority at the expense of the many.

Your continued defence of capitalism as a political and economic system seems to rest on a notion that a better means of organising simply doesn't exist as it would have emerged by now. Well better for who I ask you? The overwhelming majority on this planet would benefit from an economic system that distributes resources more fairly and a political system that grants everybody a say an all aspects of life, not just the privileged. Not some shoddy representative democracy - the likes of which fail capitalism and state socialism alike, power ultimately corrupts; but some form of direct democracy - give people the autonomy to control their own communities.

The truth is, remaining internationally competitive should not be promoted at the expense of the welfare of the inhabitants of the country. Not that we should head towards isolationism, well perhaps isolation from others promoting a neo-liberal agenda, but we should at least seek to re-prioritise towards a more caring form of capitalism where the welfare of all is more important than GDP and productivity. We are the seventh richest nation on the planet, we have the resources to let everyone prosper, yet don't. And the saddest thing is that most would support restructuring society to eradicate poverty, but a wealthy elite hold all of the political and social capital and thus prevent us from doing so.

"Take pride in the fact that, despite our financial and economic anxieties, we are still able to do the most civilised thing in the world: put the welfare of the sick in front of every other consideration." - Aneurin Bevan 1948

I would personally take things further and feel that such defences of even more socially democratic forms of capitalism are skewed, and that capitalism in all it's guises always exacerbates social problems of the most abhorrent nature. But the overarching theme of my argument is if we are to keep capitalism, rather than flogging a dead horse, we shall have to move away from this plutocratic neo-liberal free-market form of oppression.

But hey who knows what could happen, the internet has irrevocably changed the manner in which knowledge is disseminated and broken down the old orthodoxies and hegemons of mainstream media and discourse. We are so early into its inception that who knows what profound impact the internet could have on challenging the traditional power structures of the elite. If Paul Mason from Newsnight is anything to go by we are already living in revolutionary times because of it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh4goAL_vRw With the decimation of old orthodoxies of knowledge and information through the breakthroughs in technology, essentially a horizontalisation of the dissemination of knowledge, you might learn that there have in fact been other ideologies present for centuries that could solve our problems. Systems such as anarchy have been stymied, ridiculed, othered and prisoned by the ruling elite for years, yet are seeing a popular resurgence correlating with the rise of social media and online discourse. Horizontalisation is having all sorts of effects on society from democratising television production to offering public scrutiny of companies and institutions, why do you think international governments are so keen to regulate and control the internet? Funny that, that in a paradigm of free-market dogma, those that extol such ideologies are so keen to regulate perhaps the most free-market, open, accessible entity known to human existence.

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

Your point that those that should pay don't pay enough - disagree. The facts:
Individuals - the top 1% pay 30% of income tax in the UK.

Is this really so? It seems to fly in the face of the argument I often hear as to why it isn't worth increasing taxes on the rich - ie that there aren't enough of them for it to make a difference. Ultimately, if you want more tax revenue, you increase taxes on the middle classes. If the top 1% are paying 30% of income tax then it suggests that any increase in what they pay would certainly make a useful difference.

bernithebiker

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Your point that those that should pay don't pay enough - disagree. The facts:
Individuals - the top 1% pay 30% of income tax in the UK.

Is this really so? It seems to fly in the face of the argument I often hear as to why it isn't worth increasing taxes on the rich - ie that there aren't enough of them for it to make a difference. Ultimately, if you want more tax revenue, you increase taxes on the middle classes. If the top 1% are paying 30% of income tax then it suggests that any increase in what they pay would certainly make a useful difference.

Maybe, but the danger is that if you squeeze them too hard, they'll leg it elsewhere, France being a prime example.

Hollande came into power saying 'I hate the rich' and promptly put a 75% tax into place. (On top of 15% social charges). This kind of punitive taxation pisses people off, and MANY have left France. Net result? The overall tax take in this area will now be lower. Duh!

Plus, many of these people (not all) are the movers and shakers, those that start businesses, invent things, employ people. So not only have you lost their tax, but that of all their employees too.

VTech

bernithebiker wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Your point that those that should pay don't pay enough - disagree. The facts:
Individuals - the top 1% pay 30% of income tax in the UK.

Is this really so? It seems to fly in the face of the argument I often hear as to why it isn't worth increasing taxes on the rich - ie that there aren't enough of them for it to make a difference. Ultimately, if you want more tax revenue, you increase taxes on the middle classes. If the top 1% are paying 30% of income tax then it suggests that any increase in what they pay would certainly make a useful difference.

Maybe, but the danger is that if you squeeze them too hard, they'll leg it elsewhere, France being a prime example.

Hollande came into power saying 'I hate the rich' and promptly put a 75% tax into place. (On top of 15% social charges). This kind of punitive taxation pisses people off, and MANY have left France. Net result? The overall tax take in this area will now be lower. Duh!

Plus, many of these people (not all) are the movers and shakers, those that start businesses, invent things, employ people. So not only have you lost their tax, but that of all their employees too.

Nothing to add.

bernithebiker

It's very interesting that in Hollande's much anticipated press conference yesterday, the penny finally seems to have dropped, (took 18 months, but hey), and he's veering towards the right, thereby creating divisions within his party.

However, IMHO he's an incompetent buffoon, so I very much doubt he'll be able to sort France out.

The whole Julie Gayet affair thing is hilarious though, especially the way, the government is trying to gloss over it.

I mean if this turned up on your doorstep, would you shag it?

rolf_f

bernithebiker wrote:

Maybe, but the danger is that if you squeeze them too hard, they'll leg it elsewhere, France being a prime example.

I appreciate that but it is a slightly different point - first you look at the basic numbers and then you look at additional consequences.

Personally, I'm not so convinced. I reckon you might lose the sort of people who would move around anyway (and who will probably bugger off as soon as they find somewhere else that looks cheaper irrespective of what you do at home) but most people, especially the rich, probably live where they do because they like it. Losing additional surplus income may well piss people off but the great thing about being rich is you can afford to live where you want without really taking cost of living into account. Still, people do react wierdly.....

bernithebiker wrote:

I mean if this turned up on your doorstep, would you shag it?

He has power. As Vtech will tell you, plenty of chicks dig that......

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Maybe, but the danger is that if you squeeze them too hard, they'll leg it elsewhere, France being a prime example.

I appreciate that but it is a slightly different point - first you look at the basic numbers and then you look at additional consequences.

Personally, I'm not so convinced. I reckon you might lose the sort of people who would move around anyway (and who will probably bugger off as soon as they find somewhere else that looks cheaper irrespective of what you do at home) but most people, especially the rich, probably live where they do because they like it. Losing additional surplus income may well wee-wee people off but the great thing about being rich is you can afford to live where you want without really taking cost of living into account. Still, people do react wierdly.....

bernithebiker wrote:

I mean if this turned up on your doorstep, would you shag it?

He has power. As Vtech will tell you, plenty of chicks dig that......

Rolf, see my post a few pages back. The number of French people living in London now is in the region of 300,000 - 400,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf, see my post a few pages back. The number of French people living in London now is in the region of 300,000 - 400,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930

Ahh, but to be fair then, you need to account for the overall balance - there's lots of Brits abroad and lots of Europeans over here and the reasons are complex (eg those in the article were not necessarily the rich).

And of course, for example, I could never go to France and work there since logically, my skills base is Public sector and the French Public sector is effectively closed shop to all but the French themselves. So there maybe an imbalance but it isn't necessarily because of the conditions we generate - rather it might be because of how the other country is being run.

I read that article and see lots of people making vague complaints about how their country is run. I am sure if they stayed long enough over here they would become equally disillusioned. Classic grass greener on the other side - only it takes a while to realise it.

bernithebiker

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf, see my post a few pages back. The number of French people living in London now is in the region of 300,000 - 400,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930

Absolutely, and it's a disaster for France that the government refuses to acknowledge, and that will take years, if not decades to put right (to attract those people back again).

Rolf, in France now, it's got to the point where if you're well off you face handing the vast majority of that over to the state in tax. There are new, huge capital gains taxes, the famous wealth tax (up to 3% of everything you own, every year, which was doubled exceptionally in 2012), the 75% tax band, etc. etc. MORE THAN 100% tax is quite possible and frequent.

So you have a choice; Stay and see the hard-earned* wealth of several generations whittled away, or leave. Trust me, many are packing up.

We would too, were it not our kids being at exam stage at school.

*in some cases!

Stevo_666

d87francis wrote:

@Stevo 666 - those differences in top tax rates are huge at those sort of salaries, and look at the combined earnings of the top 1% in the UK - they account for far more than 30% of total taxable income of UK earners..

As I said a few pages back - Labour tried putting up the top tax rate and the impact was negligible because human nature took over and people reacted against it.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf
There seems to be some sort of aceptance of higher rates in the Nordics that doesn't work here.

d87francis wrote:

I do not understand why there is such approval on this thread for capitalism, a system that perpetuates exploitation, coercion, suffering, imperialism, war, slavery, racist/sexist/genderist/abeist divides whilst benefiting a minority at the expense of the many.

Your continued defence of capitalism as a political and economic system seems to rest on a notion that a better means of organising simply doesn't exist as it would have emerged by now. Well better for who I ask you? The overwhelming majority on this planet would benefit from an economic system that distributes resources more fairly and a political system that grants everybody a say an all aspects of life, not just the privileged. Not some shoddy representative democracy - the likes of which fail capitalism and state socialism alike, power ultimately corrupts; but some form of direct democracy - give people the autonomy to control their own communities.

The truth is, remaining internationally competitive should not be promoted at the expense of the welfare of the inhabitants of the country. Not that we should head towards isolationism, well perhaps isolation from others promoting a neo-liberal agenda, but we should at least seek to re-prioritise towards a more caring form of capitalism where the welfare of all is more important than GDP and productivity. We are the seventh richest nation on the planet, we have the resources to let everyone prosper, yet don't. And the saddest thing is that most would support restructuring society to eradicate poverty, but a wealthy elite hold all of the political and social capital and thus prevent us from doing so.

"Take pride in the fact that, despite our financial and economic anxieties, we are still able to do the most civilised thing in the world: put the welfare of the sick in front of every other consideration." - Aneurin Bevan 1948

I would personally take things further and feel that such defences of even more socially democratic forms of capitalism are skewed, and that capitalism in all it's guises always exacerbates social problems of the most abhorrent nature. But the overarching theme of my argument is if we are to keep capitalism, rather than flogging a dead horse, we shall have to move away from this plutocratic neo-liberal free-market form of oppression.

But hey who knows what could happen, the internet has irrevocably changed the manner in which knowledge is disseminated and broken down the old orthodoxies and hegemons of mainstream media and discourse. We are so early into its inception that who knows what profound impact the internet could have on challenging the traditional power structures of the elite. If Paul Mason from Newsnight is anything to go by we are already living in revolutionary times because of it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh4goAL_vRw With the decimation of old orthodoxies of knowledge and information through the breakthroughs in technology, essentially a horizontalisation of the dissemination of knowledge, you might learn that there have in fact been other ideologies present for centuries that could solve our problems. Systems such as anarchy have been stymied, ridiculed, othered and prisoned by the ruling elite for years, yet are seeing a popular resurgence correlating with the rise of social media and online discourse. Horizontalisation is having all sorts of effects on society from democratising television production to offering public scrutiny of companies and institutions, why do you think international governments are so keen to regulate and control the internet? Funny that, that in a paradigm of free-market dogma, those that extol such ideologies are so keen to regulate perhaps the most free-market, open, accessible entity known to human existence.

I've already said it's not a perfect system but in the absence of evidence to the contrary it's the best we've got. That's why it's here and has been for a long time, even if socialism does try to poke it's nose in from time to time - what happens then is people see what it entails and vote it out, or the money runs out (labour in the late 70's and the latter part of the last decade).

Name somewhere that has your favoured system in place.

What you talk about above is your perceived problems with what we have but never have I seen anyone with your type of view spell out in details how they would do things - including tax, corporate governance, linits on personal freedom to achieve their aims etc. Do you want to try?

It was mentioned before that this collective 'beehive type society' just won't work as it goes against human nature - we're belligerent ape descendents not insects which I why I said your sort of set up will never work. In any event, if a system did benefit most of the population, they could vote for it and probably would out of self interest. That's never happened because most people don't agree with the view of people like you, Pinno and Nathancom (thankfully ). And people are capable of deciding forthemsleves before you try the line that they are being hoodwinked, people are not that stupid - ironically the same people youthink your ideas will help are the ones you will say are not capabile of working out what's best for themselves.

rolf_f

bernithebiker wrote:

Rolf, in France now, it's got to the point where if you're well off you face handing the vast majority of that over to the state in tax. There are new, huge capital gains taxes, the famous wealth tax (up to 3% of everything you own, every year, which was doubled exceptionally in 2012), the 75% tax band, etc. etc. MORE THAN 100% tax is quite possible and frequent.

75% seems blatently excessive. But surely Frances economy has to implode catastrophically at some point anyway. I struggle to see how it hasn't done so already. I guess these taxes are just there to try to stave off the inevitable - and perhaps more about votes than economics?

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf, see my post a few pages back. The number of French people living in London now is in the region of 300,000 - 400,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930

Ahh, but to be fair then, you need to account for the overall balance - there's lots of Brits abroad and lots of Europeans over here and the reasons are complex (eg those in the article were not necessarily the rich).

And of course, for example, I could never go to France and work there since logically, my skills base is Public sector and the French Public sector is effectively closed shop to all but the French themselves. So there maybe an imbalance but it isn't necessarily because of the conditions we generate - rather it might be because of how the other country is being run.

I read that article and see lots of people making vague complaints about how their country is run. I am sure if they stayed long enough over here they would become equally disillusioned. Classic grass greener on the other side - only it takes a while to realise it.

Rolf, the reasons given by in the article and the anecdotal evidence I have are consitent - the main reasons are better opportunities here, it's so hard to run a business in France with the red tape and anti-business policies and/or they are getting taxed to hell. Like Bernie and I said, France loses a lot of revenue from 400,00 people over here paying no tax in France.

Similar things happened in the corporate world a few years ago in the UK when the Inland Revenue made the rules on foreign profits punitive - several major companies like WPP, UBM, Shire relocated abroad as a result and the Govt had to change the rules to stem the flow and lure some back - in the end, the right response.

Like I said before - capital is mobile and Governments need to take that into account before they go for simplistic and vindictive 'soak the rich' tax policies.

As you say - France's future is not looking good as they haven't taken this into account.

bernithebiker

Rolf F wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Rolf, in France now, it's got to the point where if you're well off you face handing the vast majority of that over to the state in tax. There are new, huge capital gains taxes, the famous wealth tax (up to 3% of everything you own, every year, which was doubled exceptionally in 2012), the 75% tax band, etc. etc. MORE THAN 100% tax is quite possible and frequent.

75% seems blatently excessive. But surely Frances economy has to implode catastrophically at some point anyway. I struggle to see how it hasn't done so already. I guess these taxes are just there to try to stave off the inevitable - and perhaps more about votes than economics?

Yes, France is in dire straits and it's going to get worse before it gets better. But it's a big country and like trying to kill a whale with toothpicks, it'll take quite a while.

And yes, that 75% thing was done blatantly as a vote winner. The 'hate the rich' thing goes down very well with the electorate until the boss shuts down the factory, says "right, I'm off, last one out turn off the lights", then the workers are left thinking, "hmmm, maybe that wasn't such a good idea".

Hopefully one of them will step up to the plate and restart the business, but it'd be a brave person to take on the taxes, the red tape, and the despisal* of your your fellow countrymen.

*is that a word?!

VTech

Maybe we have to take a look at the dreaded USA government and IRS system which as I said many posts ago, allow negotiation with corperates to aid there ability to remain within the USA and build new factories etc etc.

Here we just have a this or that approach, no middle ground as such.

Wouldn't that be a start ? after all, the USA are crawling out of the issues we have although of course in drastic trouble in many other areas.

pinno

Churchill may have said that "in capitalism the rewards are dividend unevenly, but with socialism the misery is equally distributed" but he also said that "a society must be judged on how it treats it's weakest".
In that respect, we fail miserably as a society run by the Neo-Liberalists and Neo-cons with their proliferation of bureaucracy.

Whilst the Neo-Libs and Neo-Cons sell us all the propaganda of 'choice' and 'freedom', it is only a propaganda that materialises for the few - the rest are left chewing the dust.
Having read Milton Freidman's Capitalism and Freedom at least 5 times, it is a theory that sounds good but in practice but has many flaws. We see Freidman's free market ideology in practice. A good example is the research into Cancer Cures - no-one wants to take on the causes and tackle the prevention, there is no profit in it.
Tackling the causes of cancer would mean a painful shift in the way we live and a compromise to our over materialistic existences.
To say it is human nature because we are beligerent apes is huge statement. As hunter gatherers, it was in our interest to co-habit and co-exist or we would not survive the dangers of life. The bush people of the Kalahari managed to exist harmoniously for centuries until outside influences all but destroyed their simbiotic ways.
A research institute placed rats one by one into a rat cage, 1 m cubed. At 13 rats, thay all started fighting spontaneously. 12 was fine but beyond that, things started to uncharacteristically change. Maybe, there is too many of us scrapping for too few resources and we have lost our heads, becoming greedy and selfish so it is easy to write the ills of capitlasim as 'human nature'.
At the Vtechs and the berniebikers and the Stevo's:
Are we consuming resources at an unsustainable rate?
Is it driven by capitalism gone stupid?
Are the super rich too rich?
Should one individual be worth £1bn+ when there are 1000's of individuals living on the absolute breadline?
Are the super rich there by the virtue of their exploitative activities?
Will the unsustainable consumption of resourses lead to the downfall of mankind?
If yes, is it then in all of our interest to curb the obscene excesses of the mega rich?

Stevo_666

Pinno,

Cooperation and competition both exist in society - but what is being suggested as the 'cure' for capitalism goes too far to one end for it to be workable. You only have to look at regimes where this sort of egalitarianism was/is enforced (communist regimes) to see that people try and find ways to compete and buck the system - they were/are unsustainable.

As to whether we are using up the earth's resources too fast - absolutely. I'm a natural tightwad who doesn't feel comfortable with conspicuous consumption myself and I do actually make an effort to live within my means/recycle/re-use etc. As to the reasons - the super-rich are so tiny in number that their excesses aren't the root cause: the elephant in the room is the simple fact that there are way too many people on the planet. If we don't fix that ourselves then it will get fixed for us by the 'four horsemen'.

VTech

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno,

Cooperation and competition both exist in society - but what is being suggested as the 'cure' for capitalism goes too far to one end for it to be workable. You only have to look at regimes where this sort of egalitarianism was/is enforced (communist regimes) to see that people try and find ways to compete and buck the system - they were/are unsustainable.

As to whether we are using up the earth's resources too fast - absolutely. I'm a natural tightwad who doesn't feel comfortable with conspicuous consumption myself and I do actually make an effort to live within my means/recycle/re-use etc. As to the reasons - the super-rich are so tiny in number that their excesses aren't the root cause: the elephant in the room is the simple fact that there are way too many people on the planet. If we don't fix that ourselves then it will get fixed for us by the 'four horsemen'.

The odd thing is, I actually strongly believe that humanity is doomed due to over breeding and people living too long. The cure of so many ills is actually incredibly counter productive.
Having said that, my mother who died of pancreatic cancer a week before Xmas was an example of how two faced humans are as I would have given anything for her to have been cured.

rolf_f

VTech wrote:

Having said that, my mother who died of pancreatic cancer a week before Xmas was an example of how two faced humans are as I would have given anything for her to have been cured.

No, that's not really being two faced - that's being human. People living longer isn't necessarily a problem - or rather it shouldn't be. Obviously, whilst life expectation increases it is a form of population growth but it's self limiting (at least in the West) as so far the maximum possible life man can attain doesn't seem to increase - just the numbers of people who get that far.

Of course, there are all sorts of problems re working life, economics, the lack of concern people have for their pensions etc that will make a lot of affluent people today have utterly miserable old ages but that problem isn't in the scale of overpopulation as a whole. Be glad you are alive today. This might be as good as it gets!