Conservative party/opposition watch

[Stumuz2]

Taxation is demanding money with menaces, yes.

And you think that is wrong, yes? You think you shouldn't have to pay any taxes, right?

Involuntary taxes (demands backed by threats) should be kept to absolute minimum. Probably about 5%

Do you agree that taxation is a morally acceptable way of raising funds to run a country? Do you also agree that some of those funds should be used to provide free education up to the age of 18, and fund a functioning NHS? If so, why are you describing this process as "demanding money with menaces"? Why can't you just accept that taxation is necessary and justified? If there weren't menaces, then you wouldn't pay it, would you?

Voluntary taxes (consumption taxes) should be used for public goods.
70% tax on super yachts, £20 on a bottle of whiskey etc. If you don't want to, or can't afford to pay, you don't.

Oh dear. This is the same argument you already lost once. It seems we have to go through it again.

I didn't lose it. You resorted to abuse. You are an abuser. You were deleted. 'nuff said.

[UndercoverElephant]

Taxation is demanding money with menaces, yes.

And you think that is wrong, yes? You think you shouldn't have to pay any taxes, right?

Involuntary taxes (demands backed by threats) should be kept to absolute minimum. Probably about 5%

How did you arrive at the figure of 5%?

Do you believe the same tax rate (5%) should apply to everybody, even people earning millions (eg. professional footballers)?

Voluntary taxes (consumption taxes) should be used for public goods.
70% tax on super yachts, £20 on a bottle of whiskey etc. If you don't want to, or can't afford to pay, you don't.

Let me make sure I have understood this. You think there should be a tax of 70% on super yachts, but that it should be voluntary?

The whole idea of "voluntary taxes" is preposterous. Almost nobody would pay them, making them pointless. Which means you are saying you want to shrink the state to less than one fifth of its current size, because that's the only way the books could be balanced. That would just about fund the armed forces and the HMRC itself. We can forget the NHS and state education.

I am not misrepresenting your position. You are an (economic) right wing extremist who deeply resents having to pay taxes in order to fund a modern western state. You think every penny you earn should stay yours, and f**k everybody else. You can afford private healthcare and private education for your children, and you resent being forced to pay taxes to fund the NHS and state schools, which educate and care for people who can't afford those things. You haven't actually spelled this out, but it is logically implied by your argument and you haven't denied it either.

Oh dear. This is the same argument you already lost once. It seems we have to go through it again.

I didn't lose it. You resorted to abuse. You are an abuser. You were deleted. 'nuff said.

No, you aren't going to get away with that. I predicted that when I asked you to explain the details of the alleged hypocrisy, you would not be able to answer. Once again, you have failed to do so, and you've done it with another textbook example of a whataboutism. ("What about that nasty name you called me in a previous argument?") Well, what about it? What has it got to do with the question you can't answer about my alleged hypocrisy? Nothing.

I will ask again: why are you accusing me of hypocrisy? What is the actual hypocrisy?

Now...if I had complained about paying taxes, maybe you'd have a point. But I didn't. I consider paying taxes to be an acceptable price to pay to live in an morally acceptable form of society. The only person complaining about paying taxes in this discussion is you.

[Catweazle]

An 80s pop tune summed it up. "If all the rich men in the world divided up their money amongst themselves, there wouldn't be enough to go around...."

[UndercoverElephant]

An 80s pop tune summed it up. "If all the rich men in the world divided up their money amongst themselves, there wouldn't be enough to go around...."

I had to look that quote up, because I did not recognise it and I know the lyrics to a lot of 80s pop tunes. It actually comes from a 1938 novel by Christina Stead called "House of All Nations".

[Catweazle]

"Money" by Paul Hardcastle, around the 3 minute mark.

[Mark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Vzgqk60TE

[UndercoverElephant]

"Money" by Paul Hardcastle, around the 3 minute mark.

A bit obscure! I had not heard that track before - and it consists largely of quotes taken from elsewhere. I remember "19", of course.

[Stumuz2]

How did you arrive at the figure of 5%?

Do you believe the same tax rate (5%) should apply to everybody, even people earning millions (eg. professional footballers)?

It is pointless replying to 80% of your reply, it's just the usual stuff of making thing up and abuse.

Back to the central point.

Man goes into a bank and tells the cashier,
" Put the money from the till in the bag or I will shoot"

Man collects his wages after digging ditches all week. Man goes up to him and says'
" put all your wages from Monday to thursday morning in the bag or i will send you to prison"

Morally. What's the difference?

If you get you head around this one, we may go on to voluntary and involuntary taxes which you don't believe exist. (today i will not be paying the taxes on cuban cigars as i don't smoke)

[UndercoverElephant]

How did you arrive at the figure of 5%?

Do you believe the same tax rate (5%) should apply to everybody, even people earning millions (eg. professional footballers)?

It is pointless replying to 80% of your reply, it's just the usual stuff of making thing up and abuse.

There's no abuse. The reason you cannot reply is that your argument is a pile of shit, and you cannot back up your claims. You have now twice accused me of hypocrisy and then been unable to explain why you made the accusation. You have also claimed that compulsory taxation should be reduced to 5% of income with apparently no concern for the fact that this would utterly destroy the modern state we will live in and return us to something resembling the 18th century.

Back to the central point.

Man goes into a bank and tells the cashier,
" Put the money from the till in the bag or I will shoot"

Man collects his wages after digging ditches all week. Man goes up to him and says'
" put all your wages from Monday to thursday morning in the bag or i will send you to prison"

Morally. What's the difference?

The fact that you even have to ask this question -- that you think this is some sort of argument-winning question -- just confirms that you are as deranged as Liz Truss. The answer is obvious. In the first case, it is an armed robbery carried out by a criminal who wants to steal money for himself. In the second case, it is a tax collector working on behalf of a government which which takes money to run the country you live in. The moral difference is that in the first case the action is entirely selfish, illegal and completely impossible to morally justify, and in the second case the action is necessary for the common good of all of the people in the UK and therefore not only legal and morally justified but morally required. It would be immoral of the government not to collect taxes in order to run the country and grossly irresponsible to rely on voluntary contributions.

Why any intelligent person would struggle to understand this is beyond me. The cognitive process is about on a par with Gollum: "It's mine! My preciousssssss!"

If you get you head around this one, we may go on to voluntary and involuntary taxes which you don't believe exist. (today i will not be paying the taxes on cuban cigars as i don't smoke)

Yes, please do explain who is going to pay these voluntary taxes. Not you presumably, given that your entire argument consists of "I HATE PAYING TAXES so it is morally wrong."

[Stumuz2]

Fine. You don't answer.

End of debate.

[UndercoverElephant]

Fine. You don't answer.

End of debate.

You think I didn't answer the question "What is the moral difference between [armed robbery] and [income taxes]?"

What do you think this is, if it is not a clear, direct answer to that question?

The moral difference is that in the first case the action is entirely selfish, illegal and completely impossible to morally justify, and in the second case the action is necessary for the common good of all of the people in the UK and therefore not only legal and morally justified but morally required. It would be immoral of the government not to collect taxes in order to run the country and grossly irresponsible to rely on voluntary contributions.

[Mark]

Interesting that UE directly answers the Qs posed to him....
Stumuz2, on the other hand just muddies the waters when challenged and then goes off on tangents...
In this 'post truth' world, not dissimilar to the debating styles of 'the Donald' and of course BoJo....

[UndercoverElephant]

Interesting that UE directly answers the Qs posed to him....
Stumuz2, on the other hand just muddies the waters when challenged and then goes off on tangents...
In this 'post truth' world, not dissimilar to the debating styles of 'the Donald' and of course BoJo....

The extraordinary thing is that Stumuz2 truly believed that his question about morality was difficult to answer. What is the moral difference between armed robbery and government collecting taxes (the compulsory sort)? This is not exactly degree level philosophy we are talking about here. I'm guessing if you asked 100 random people on the street, at least 80 of them would have been able to provide the obvious answer, and most of the 20 others would be stupid/uneducated. He also does not appear to have thought through the consequences -- it's not that he actively wants to see the NHS and state education system completely destroyed, but that he hasn't got past "I earned this money and the government has no moral right to take any of it." For him, it really is that simple. What happens to public services "isn't his problem" . His problem is he doesn't want to pay income tax, and after that his brain stops functioning.

If we're really lucky, the likes of stumuz2 will get together with Truss, Kwarteng, Farage and the right wing of the tory party and create a new party of the economic extreme right. Could keep the tories out government for 20 years.

[Potemkin Villager]

...........stumuz2 will get together with Truss, Kwarteng, Farage and the right wing of the tory party ......

You might wonder what they all have in common?

[UndercoverElephant]

...........stumuz2 will get together with Truss, Kwarteng, Farage and the right wing of the tory party ......

You might wonder what they all have in common?

They all believe Margaret Thatcher didn't go far enough down the "there is no such thing as society" route.