Jeremy Corbyn - fecked?

[thplinth]

9 minutes ago, Grim Jim said:

Money goes to money.   A bit of wealth distribution is right and fair.

Yeah fairness is something that does not apply to the rich it seems. That was my original point about progressive taxation. I have always found it weird that at certain points the government just starts shoveling an increasing share of your earnings into it's pockets. Some of the marginal rates of tax in the past have been absurd, not as mental now. Some countries (in Scandinavia I think) even had it above 100% (in the 70's maybe).

It is really quite shocking how so few people contribute such a large share of income tax. It would not take for many wealthy people to go elsewhere to really start to hurt. It is a short sighted attitude not to make taxation fair for all including the rich. But it is not a popular argument.  I posted some links on it a while back, I was quite shocked at how bad a deal taxes become for people once they start earning good money. It is just a bit of a grab really. The rich are always a small minority so it easy to get away with it. Eventually they vote with their feet and leave but you get away with for a while and then suddenly you don't...tipping point.

[aaid]

32 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Yeah fairness is something that does not apply to the rich it seems. That was my original point about progressive taxation. I have always found it weird that at certain points the government just starts shoveling an increasing share of your earnings into it's pockets. Some of the marginal rates of tax in the past have been absurd, not as mental now. Some countries (in Scandinavia I think) even had it above 100% (in the 70's maybe).

It is really quite shocking how so few people contribute such a large share of income tax. It would not take for many wealthy people to go elsewhere to really start to hurt. It is a short sighted attitude not to make taxation fair for all including the rich. But it is not a popular argument.  I posted some links on it a while back, I was quite shocked at how bad a deal taxes become for people once they start earning good money. It is just a bit of a grab really. The rich are always a small minority so it easy to get away with it. Eventually they vote with their feet and leave but you get away with for a while and then suddenly you don't...tipping point.

Its a capitalist myth that successful people make money purely on the basis of their own hard work, efforts or intelligence.

For a start, they generally need to have a suitable workforce to support their enterprise.  Who pays for that workforce to be suitably educated and skilled and for health services when they fall ill.   Then they generally need a means to supply and distribute their goods and services, traditionally that meant roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, airports, these days that also includes an extensive and efficient digital backbone.  

In order to protect their offices, factories and homes from criminals and also to provide a level of domestic stability that will allow the market to operate and for them to make money, they need the police, fire and security services.

In order to trade abroad and to protect their interests in foreign countries they need diplomatic, trade and consular assistance and protection.  Occasionally that may also mean the assistance of the military.

All of these things are provided - in the main - by the state and they all have to paid for by taxation.   The more money you make, the more use you have for these services and protections, therefore its fair that you pay a higher proportion of your incremental profits to support that.

As Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations:

Quote

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

 

[TDYER63]

38 minutes ago, thplinth said:

 Yeah fairness is something that does not apply to the rich it seems. That was my original point about progressive taxation. I have always found it weird that at certain points the government just starts shoveling an increasing share of your earnings into it's pockets. Some of the marginal rates of tax in the past have been absurd, not as mental now. Some countries (in Scandinavia I think) even had it above 100% (in the 70's maybe).

It is really quite shocking how so few people contribute such a large share of income tax. It would not take for many wealthy people to go elsewhere to really start to hurt. It is a short sighted attitude not to make taxation fair for all including the rich. But it is not a popular argument.  I posted some links on it a while back, I was quite shocked at how bad a deal taxes become for people once they start earning good money. It is just a bit of a grab really. The rich are always a small minority so it easy to get away with it. Eventually they vote with their feet and leave but you get away with for a while and then suddenly you don't...tipping point.

If I had the choice of being extremely wealthy with more than enough money to live in relative luxury despite a tax system that was 'unfair' to me, or scrabble about trying to get by on a zero hours contract job   , I think I know which unfair part of society I would rather be in. 

This is not about wanting to tax the rich out of spite. Having worked in a bank for 37 years and risen to a reasonably senior level I would be a hypocrite of the highest order to play the left wing socialist card. And I am happy to put my own money where my mouth is .

This is about who you are as a human being. Money is like a drug and for many the more they have the greedier and meaner they become. I witness it day in and day out. It honestly dismays me when I see people spending outrageous sums of money on really trivial things. By that I dont mean folk buying nice things for their home etc I meant things like paying £2000 to stay in a hotel for the night. And then complaining about the unfair tax system.  

I agree with a lot of what you say on this board  thPlinth, but you will not find a great deal of sympathy from me for taxing high earners. 

[exile]

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

It is about choice. These schools exist because they are perceived by some to be better. It is a similar argument for Catholic schools. They perform well.

I don't see the value in taking away choice and competition in education. If the state schools were better then both private and catholic schools would naturally wane. But they are not.  The post above about "Jacintha & Tarquin" is very representative of this spiteful attitude I am talking about.

Fair play if this is not SNP policy but I was talking about some SNP supporters on here. It concerns me that would bleed in the party itself over time if not already. Tax the rich tax the rich... this is the solution to all our problems.

I'm not particularly hung up about this issue and not making a party political point. And sidestepping the issue of tax (for now). And religion (indefinitely).

But I'm interested in the kind of society you'd/we'd like. It's an open question I have not thought through myself.

But: would you prefer a Scotland where the there was a two or three tier system of universities, where the top universities  were private fee-paying, and the only free universities were the ex technical colleges? Then, the rich would have the choice to pay to go to St Andrews 'because they are perceived by some to be better' and the rest would not have the choice and go to Abertay?

[thplinth]

13 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

If I had the choice of being extremely wealthy with more than enough money to live in relative luxury despite a tax system that was 'unfair' to me, or scrabble about trying to get by on a zero hours contract job   , I think I know which unfair part of society I would rather be in. 

This is not about wanting to tax the rich out of spite. Having worked in a bank for 37 years and risen to a reasonably senior level I would be a hypocrite of the highest order to play the left wing socialist card. And I am happy to put my own money where my mouth is .

This is about who you are as a human being. Money is like a drug and for many the more they have the greedier and meaner they become. I witness it day in and day out. It honestly dismays me when I see people spending outrageous sums of money on really trivial things. By that I dont mean folk buying nice things for their home etc I meant things like paying £2000 to stay in a hotel for the night. And then complaining about the unfair tax system.  

I agree with a lot of what you say on this board  thPlinth, but you will not find a great deal of sympathy from me for taxing high earners. 

But that is false choice. Why is is not possible to make taxes fair for rich and poor alike. In fact should they not be?

And that is a rather dodgy argument. You seem to be using your experience of rich people to make out they are not very nice and so I presume that justifies them getting the tax shaft.

Anyway like i say it is not a popular argument so I try not to discuss it for too long!

[thplinth]

16 minutes ago, exile said:

I'm not particularly hung up about this issue and not making a party political point. And sidestepping the issue of tax (for now). And religion (indefinitely).

But I'm interested in the kind of society you'd/we'd like. It's an open question I have not thought through myself.

But: would you prefer a Scotland where the there was a two or three tier system of universities, where the top universities  were private fee-paying, and the only free universities were the ex technical colleges? Then, the rich would have the choice to pay to go to St Andrews 'because they are perceived by some to be better' and the rest would not have the choice and go to Abertay?

It is very unfashionable these days but I still believe in free markets and competition. For those unable to pay for themselves society should help out. The two things are not incompatible. 

[exile]

7 minutes ago, thplinth said:

It is very unfashionable these days but I still believe in free markets and competition. For those unable to pay for themselves society should help out. The two things are not incompatible. 

Fine (though hardly unfashionable), but I am just curious, for anyone who supports private schools, would you apply the same logic to universities, and if not, why not?

From your answer I'd have to infer that you would support private fee-paying universities, and society (govt) would help poorer students to go to them. Just curious, as I'm not aware any political parties would be proposing that, but why not?

Edited April 8, 2017 by exile

[phart]

We don't have a free market though, the bank bailout showed that.

We're talking about "rich" but what are we even talking about? Non-defined terms.

[TDYER63]

10 minutes ago, thplinth said:

But that is false choice. Why is is not possible to make taxes fair for rich and poor alike. In fact should they not be?

And that is a rather dodgy argument. You seem to be using your experience of rich people to make out they are not very nice and so I presume that justifies them getting the tax shaft.

Anyway like i say it is not a popular argument so I try not to discuss it for too long!

There are plenty of ways for rich people to keep their tax payments to a minimum. A good accountant can see to that. 

I didnt say rich people werent nice people. I said that money is like a drug and it brings out the worst in many. 

As you say, its not a popular subject and unfortunately its not a very fair world ☹️

 

[thplinth]

I think we are all approaching the subject from different angles.

If you want a great explanation of why markets provide the best solution in allocating resources or services or a product (like education say) and why to work best they must be as free as possible to make their own prices have a read of Part I of Thomas Sowells Basic Economics. It is not at all technical, very accessible.

Every time you go against the market setting the price then economic problems start to accrue. And yes it has to be truly free with real competition. I realize that is quite rare. It is not that I like free markets (I really don't) they are just the best (and probably only realistic) solution we have. 

Meddling in these markets is usually done with good intentions but invariably they reduce the markets degree of freedom. 

For example the NHS will always have problems with funding because it is free. The demand will just continue to outstrip it. (Yes yes aging society etc also) 

None of that is incompatible with looking after the needy in society. it is just a different framework for organizing our resources the most efficiently.

Sowell was a huge Marxist by the way in early life.

[thplinth]

28 minutes ago, phart said:

We don't have a free market though, the bank bailout showed that.

We're talking about "rich" but what are we even talking about? Non-defined terms.

I suspect anyone paying higher rate tax. The tamb has a very low threshold for classifying someone as 'rich'.

[TDYER63]

22 minutes ago, phart said:

We don't have a free market though, the bank bailout showed that.

We're talking about "rich" but what are we even talking about? Non-defined terms.

My definition of 'rich' on these posts is someone who is earning enough money after the 'unfair ' tax to lead a life of relative luxury , based on UK definition of luxury. 

 

 

 

 

[TDYER63]

4 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I suspect anyone paying higher rate tax. The tamb has a very low threshold for classifying someone as 'rich'.

?

I remember a couple of years ago someone was wanting help with a tap they were trying to fit to their kitchen or something . They put up a picture of the tap and it cost £800. The board went into meltdown, the poor guy back peddling saying his tap didnt cost that much it was a picture of a tap that had similar fittings. 

 

[exile]

3 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

?

I remember a couple of years ago someone was wanting help with a tap they were trying to fit to their kitchen or something . They put up a picture of the tap and it cost £800. The board went into meltdown, the poor guy back peddling saying his tap didnt cost that much it was a picture of a tap that had similar fittings. 

 

And what about smaller things...croissants?  Even between supermarkets could be 20p to 80p, and in a cafe could be similar discrepancies but £1.20 and upwards, for the same thing...

[aaid]

15 minutes ago, thplinth said:

If you want a great explanation of why markets provide the best solution in allocating resources or services or a product (like education say) and why to work best they must be as free as possible to make their own prices have a read of Part I of Thomas Sowells Basic Economics. It is not at all technical, very accessible.

That depends on whether you view education as a product or service or as a fundamental human right.  The history of education in Scotland tends to suggest that it's generally viewed as the latter.

If you look back to the not so distant past when the Scottish state education system could be rightly considered as world leading there was no free market element.   I'm not an educationalist and don't have any insight as to why it went wrong, I suspect there are numerous reasons but the lack of a market isn't one of them. 

Part of the reason that the NHS in Scotland is outperforming the rest of the U.K. Is because the Scottish Government - Lab/Lib coalition to be fair to them - abolished the ridiculous artificial internal market. 

The "free" market is generally not the best model for the provision of universal public services.

 

[TDYER63]

2 minutes ago, exile said:

And what about smaller things...croissants?  Even between supermarkets could be 20p to 80p, and in a cafe could be similar discrepancies but £1.20 and upwards, for the same thing...

Croissant? What is wrong with a soda scone ? Get that foreign nonsense tae fook. 

[aaid]

10 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

?

I remember a couple of years ago someone was wanting help with a tap they were trying to fit to their kitchen or something . They put up a picture of the tap and it cost £800. The board went into meltdown, the poor guy back peddling saying his tap didnt cost that much it was a picture of a tap that had similar fittings. 

 

I know replica sportswear is expensive these days but £800 for a tap is extortionate. 

[Goozay]

43 minutes ago, aaid said:

That depends on whether you view education as a product or service or as a fundamental human right.  The history of education in Scotland tends to suggest that it's generally viewed as the latter.

If you look back to the not so distant past when the Scottish state education system could be rightly considered as world leading there was no free market element.   I'm not an educationalist and don't have any insight as to why it went wrong, I suspect there are numerous reasons but the lack of a market isn't one of them. 

Part of the reason that the NHS in Scotland is outperforming the rest of the U.K. Is because the Scottish Government - Lab/Lib coalition to be fair to them - abolished the ridiculous artificial internal market. 

The "free" market is generally not the best model for the provision of universal public services.

 

I agree with this.

The free market is fine for distributing breakfast cereals and barber shops, but pretty useless when it comes to The Fire Service (random examples).

Free market principles haven't provided greater customer service or a more cost efficient product when introduced to public transport or electricity and gas supply - just helped line the pockets of big business.

As for public schools - they shouldn't be seen as charities. They are not providing relief to society's impoverished.

[Flure]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

I know replica sportswear is expensive these days but £800 for a tap is extortionate. 

The scene is a Glasgow court and a witness (a ned) is being questioned by a rather plummy mouthed Advocate Depute (AD)
AD 'You say you went to your friend's house that night. Why did you go there?'
WITNESS 'Tae get a tap.'
AD 'Is your friend a plumber?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
AD 'Are you a plumber?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
The witness is a bit bewildered by this line of questioning and the AD realises it, but notices that the court police officer is rubbing his fingers of one hand together in the universal gesture of money. Daylight apparently dawns on the AD and he changes his line of questioning accordingly.
AD 'So you went to the house to borrow money?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
AD 'Ah. You went to the house to lend money?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
In exasperation the AD says, 'You told the court you went to your friend's house for a tap. What kind of a tap was it?'

WITNESS 'A Sellic tap.'

[Orraloon]

[TDYER63]

31 minutes ago, Flure said:

The scene is a Glasgow court and a witness (a ned) is being questioned by a rather plummy mouthed Advocate Depute (AD)
AD 'You say you went to your friend's house that night. Why did you go there?'
WITNESS 'Tae get a tap.'
AD 'Is your friend a plumber?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
AD 'Are you a plumber?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
The witness is a bit bewildered by this line of questioning and the AD realises it, but notices that the court police officer is rubbing his fingers of one hand together in the universal gesture of money. Daylight apparently dawns on the AD and he changes his line of questioning accordingly.
AD 'So you went to the house to borrow money?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
AD 'Ah. You went to the house to lend money?'
WITNESS 'Naw.'
In exasperation the AD says, 'You told the court you went to your friend's house for a tap. What kind of a tap was it?'

WITNESS 'A Sellic tap.'

And pray tell me Lord Flure of Flure Towers, what sentence did you bestow on the poor Sellic fan ???

Flure you need to get some new jokes. That Sellic fan must be older than Oor Wullie by now. 

[Flure]

Just now, TDYER63 said:

And pray tell me Lord Flure of Flure Towers, what sentence did you bestow on the poor Sellic fan ???

Flure you need to get some new jokes. That Sellic fan must be older than Oor Wullie by now. 

You keep your Wullie oot e this.

And it's my neighbor that's the judge. Not me.

[TDYER63]

10 minutes ago, Flure said:

You keep your Wullie oot e this.

And it's my neighbor that's the judge. Not me.

Were you struck off for plagiarising every joke in the D C Thomson  comic book?   

[TDYER63]

28 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Dont encourage him

[Flure]

1 hour ago, TDYER63 said:

Were you struck off for plagiarising every joke in the D C Thomson  comic book?   

People say I am a wanton plagiarist. Their words not mine.