What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?
johnhemming2 wrote:The Rolling Stones left for France. The Beatles incorporated a lot of their income and also spent time abroad. Lots of people organised income to turn into capital gains (as did the Beatles).
The important question, therefore, is how much tax was raised compared to a lower marginal rate.
I don't know the answer to that.
I don't either, but I do know that I couldn't give a flying fanny how many rich people flee the UK in response to policies designed to decrease inequality. I would simply pass a law limiting property ownership within the UK by people residing, or companies registered, abroad.
I'm sick of people being suckered by this bluff. Let them go. Good fuc*ing riddance.
johnhemming2 wrote:The problem is that your primary objective is procrustean and mine is maximising tax revenues in order to fund public services.
Our priorities are different.
So, judging by your "procrustean" slur, you regard the current obscene disparities of wealth and power as merely the "natural order of things" and that BAU on such terms is therefore fine, acceptable, inevitable and, even, "natural"...yes?
In which case, screw you and screw the people for whom odious little toads like you are apologists.
This is perfect. Journalist asks all 4 candidates a very simple, straight question. The three cardboard cutouts compete with each other to give the most meaningless and evasive answer, for no obvious reason. Corbyn just answers the question.
Kendall, Burnham and Cooper are archetypal examples of why normal people absolutely f*****g despise most politicians. They don't even pretend to answer questions these days. Their first instinct is to somehow get through any interview without saying anything of substance at all.
The underlying reason? The cardboard cutouts don't actually stand for anything at all. All they are trying to do is win the leadership election while saying as little as possible that actually means anything.
Well said.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Little John wrote:In which case, screw you and screw the people for whom odious little toads like you are apologists.
It is a question of what the primary objective is. If it is to raise taxes to provide good quality public services such as the NHS so there is a welfare state that provides a safety net then I agree.
If, however, that is not the priority then I disagree.
I am not saying that everything is perfect today. I am saying, however, that tax policy should be about funding the state rather than punishing people for being either more successful or lucky than others.
Little John wrote:In which case, screw you and screw the people for whom odious little toads like you are apologists.
It is a question of what the primary objective is. If it is to raise taxes to provide good quality public services such as the NHS so there is a welfare state that provides a safety net then I agree.
If, however, that is not the priority then I disagree.
I am not saying that everything is perfect today. I am saying, however, that tax policy should be about funding the state rather than punishing people for being either more successful or lucky than others.
So, to summarise your position, you are, indeed, completely comfortable with the obscene disparities of wealth and power that exist in this world and any amount of obfuscatory bullshit of, which your last post is a typical example, does not disguise that.
In which case, to repeat, screw you and screw the people for whom odious little toads like you are apologists.
If you tried to understand what I am saying then you would know that what you are saying in wrong. In particular I am worried about unemployment and particularly youth unemployment.
At the same time, however, I see no public policy benefit in attacking the Elton Johns and Paul McCartneys of this world and taxing them until they only have an income of 4 * the minimum wage.
johnhemming2 wrote:If you tried to understand what I am saying then you would know that what you are saying in wrong. In particular I am worried about unemployment and particularly youth unemployment.
At the same time, however, I see no public policy benefit in attacking the Elton Johns and Paul McCartneys of this world and taxing them until they only have an income of 4 * the minimum wage.
You can say you are "worried' till the cows come home. However, since you are clearly unprepared to face up to or present any actual proposals for doing anything about it, in other words to deal with any of the underlying disparities of power and wealth that underlie these issues, your professed "worries" amount to precisely shit.
To attempt to give an impression of "feeling the pain" of the poor and dispossessed, whilst simultaneously refusing to countenance a single measure which would actually make a significant material difference to their circumstances, is the very definition of an apologist for BUA.
johnhemming2 wrote:
At the same time, however, I see no public policy benefit in attacking the Elton Johns and Paul McCartneys of this world and taxing them until they only have an income of 4 * the minimum wage.
I see a great deal of public benefit in a society where income differences were limited to a factor of four. Why should some people be much much richer than others?
Actually, I think the income of Elton John and Paul McCartney should be no more than the minimum wage at all. Their job doesn't involve cleaning the loo, it's just singing and playing the piano and doing stuff that lots of us do for a hobby. They can get their kicks from the adulation of fans.
johnhemming2 wrote:
At the same time, however, I see no public policy benefit in attacking the Elton Johns and Paul McCartneys of this world and taxing them until they only have an income of 4 * the minimum wage.
I see a great deal of public benefit in a society where income differences were limited to a factor of four. Why should some people be much much richer than others?
Actually, I think the income of Elton John and Paul McCartney should be no more than the minimum wage at all. Their job doesn't involve cleaning the loo, it's just singing and playing the piano and doing stuff that lots of us do for a hobby. They can get their kicks from the adulation of fans.
Agreed. And that's coming from a musician.
While you're at it, no one in sport should get paid at all, let alone the minimum wage. Oh, go on then.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
biffvernon wrote:I see a great deal of public benefit in a society where income differences were limited to a factor of four. Why should some people be much much richer than others?
The question additionally is who decides what everyone gets paid. The Market economy has a large number of people whose rate of pay is not determined centrally.
It is, of course, possible to have a command economy where everything is determined centrally and the party cadres don't earn more than 4 times the minimum wage, but have access to special shops that sell goods produced by non-command economies.
Little John wrote:present any actual proposals for doing anything about it,
I have made lots of proposals in the past, but you can do your own research on this.
biffvernon wrote:I see a great deal of public benefit in a society where income differences were limited to a factor of four. Why should some people be much much richer than others?
The question additionally is who decides what everyone gets paid. The Market economy has a large number of people whose rate of pay is not determined centrally.
It is, of course, possible to have a command economy where everything is determined centrally and the party cadres don't earn more than 4 times the minimum wage, but have access to special shops that sell goods produced by non-command economies.
Little John wrote:present any actual proposals for doing anything about it,
I have made lots of proposals in the past, but you can do your own research on this.
Bullshit. You have chosen to come here on this forum and argue your position which is the diametrically opposing position to one of actually doing anything. But, then, expect us to accept you being all coy about what you claim to have or have not done in the past.
In the absence of you explaining yourself in the here and now, anyone reading your posts on this forum over the last week or two is fully entitled to conclude you are full of shit.
I've just read that and all you are saying is that it should be made easier in terms of tax incentives for people to work part time. You make no mention of any lower limit to what they can earn. In the absence of that, what you have said amounts to precisely diddly-shit. It matters not one jot if people are set "free" to work part time if their earnings for such work are not guaranteed to meet their basic living costs.
Is that it? Is that a typical example of your proposed action to deal with the obscene disparities between the rich and poor in this broken world?
