| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... 13:58 - May 9 with 106001 views | hubble |
..posted by a good friend of mine on Facebook, thought I'd share it on here. He's a former professional footballer (briefly for Birmingham City) and a former copper, working mainly out of Camden police station. He grew up in Kilburn/Queens Park. He's now a writer (among other things).
Worth a read I think, hope you enjoy, whether you agree with him or not, even when he veers off-topic...
"Thoughts of the Week (part 1)
Let’s start with a subheading. ‘Dear, oh dear Diane Abbot!’
In the upcoming General Election campaign and apart from the ‘Leader’ (no, not Gary Glitter) no one is more important for the Labour Party campaign than the Shadow Home Secretary. Why’s this? You ask.
The reason is obvious: Theresa May —the strong woman, Ms subtle, but steely - was the former Home Secretary. A position which she used to inflict near terminal ravages of the nation’s police forces. Under her auspices we saw numbers cut, benefits cut and police stations closed willy-nilly to cash in, short-term, on the booming (especially in London) property market.
The short-sightedness of this policy is astounding. No matter the so-called austerity budget (which only seems to apply to the working classes, while the privileged elite continue to live the life of Riley) the question must be asked as to what will happen when there’s some serious social unrest — and you can feel it stirring. Remember 2011 when the riots broke out? We had anarchy and nihilism on the streets and the police force didn’t cope with it at all. Instead we had a grand mopping up campaign. Suddenly all those poor silly students who had been demonised as hard-core criminals after they smashed the windows of the Tory HQ — and received ridiculously harsh prison sentences for what were in the main first offences - were kicked out of the pokey and replaced by the new batch of rioters. The Criminal Justice system ground to a halt, the prison’s overflowed. The courts were as ram-jam packed as a back-in-the-day David Rodigan dance. In response what did the great Theresa May do? She further decimated the police force. She did the same to the prison service. The vaunted Border Force, our first defence, is comically short of manpower and morale as they attempt to hire staff on Mickey-Mouse contracts. Labour should be slaughtering Theresa May on what she’s done. Instead we got that car crash of an interview on LBC.
To be honest I resisted calls to listen to it for a time. Some of my more right-leaning pals were raving about it, but I thought they were overreacting due to a general contempt for the Hackney MP. I was wrong. When I actually got round to listening to it I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. It was stunningly incompetent, mind-blowingly nonsensical, embarrassing and shocking. Is this the Shadow Home Secretary who’s going to lead the challenge to Theresa May’s record? She should have stood down immediately and if not the great leader should have forced her hand, no matter past rendezvous in the sack. Of course it didn’t happen and Labour under Jeremy Corbyn has no hope in this election. What a shame it all is because there are loads of issues that they should be taking the government to task on. Just look at that bumbling Tommy Cooper impersonator of a Foreign Secretary, a million miles removed from a serious statesman: Mr Retraction — an embarrassment to the nation.
I’m voting Labour in the coming election, but not for Jeremy, more for the thought of the millions of people who are going to suffer under the coming five years of Tory rule: the working men and women who haven’t seen their wages rise, in real terms, for the last thirty years, while the fat cats, sharks and speculators are minted; the students starting out life saddled with debt; the millions who’ll never be able to afford a home; and in honour of the National Health Service, soon to be dismantled further, but remaining the brightest light in the nation’s modern history. What a rotten, unfair and unbalanced society we’ve become.
|  |
| |  |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:39 - May 11 with 3639 views | R_from_afar |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:48 - May 11 by Hunterhoop |
What are you then? Pray tell. 
On the Corbyn, McDonnell front, they have made a number of direct quotes and appearances concerning the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria, which I don't think are acceptable. I am pro-Palestinian, but I don't condone violence or support Hamas. I think there is a line on many of the topics mentioned above, which both crossed.
On Abbot, I just can't stand her. She is a proven racist, hypocrite and she is simply not up to the job in terms of intellect and competence. And yet she combines this by managing to be extremely condescending. There are others in the Labour party I have time for, but these three....no. |
But for the sake of balance, you need to remember that it's the UK which is currently supplying vast quantities of arms to the Saudis, for them to dump on Yemen.
In addition, on the same day that the Tories are ramping up the fear, uncertainty and doubt over Labour's ability to fund its plans, May has (to quote The Metro) "vowed to increase defence spending by at least 0.5% above inflation every year over the next parliament" and will "spend 2% of GDP on defence".
I'm sure the "only just managings," "hard working families", "northern powerhouse", insert cliché here really appreciate that.
RFA |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:42 - May 11 with 3636 views | MrSheen |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:39 - May 11 by R_from_afar |
But for the sake of balance, you need to remember that it's the UK which is currently supplying vast quantities of arms to the Saudis, for them to dump on Yemen.
In addition, on the same day that the Tories are ramping up the fear, uncertainty and doubt over Labour's ability to fund its plans, May has (to quote The Metro) "vowed to increase defence spending by at least 0.5% above inflation every year over the next parliament" and will "spend 2% of GDP on defence".
I'm sure the "only just managings," "hard working families", "northern powerhouse", insert cliché here really appreciate that.
RFA |
As it is already 1.98% of GDP, it's not the most dramatic target. At least one of the leaked Labour manifestos had the same commitment. [Post edited 11 May 2017 14:50]
|  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 15:21 - May 11 with 3610 views | Hunterhoop |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:39 - May 11 by R_from_afar |
But for the sake of balance, you need to remember that it's the UK which is currently supplying vast quantities of arms to the Saudis, for them to dump on Yemen.
In addition, on the same day that the Tories are ramping up the fear, uncertainty and doubt over Labour's ability to fund its plans, May has (to quote The Metro) "vowed to increase defence spending by at least 0.5% above inflation every year over the next parliament" and will "spend 2% of GDP on defence".
I'm sure the "only just managings," "hard working families", "northern powerhouse", insert cliché here really appreciate that.
RFA |
Completely with you on our arms sales to the Saudis. I thought May's brown nosing to them (twice) since her becomming PM was cringeworthy and unprincipled. Just not sure it was relevant to the qn I was asked and answer I was giving.
Brighton, agree. Think we're saying the same thing. Corp Tax increase is necessary, in my view, but it's not an open door to funding everything. There's a balance to be achieved before jobs (not profits) are moved elsewhere, which then harms the population and income tax revenues. That's why it requires nous and negotiation. |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 15:42 - May 11 with 3575 views | R_from_afar |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:42 - May 11 by MrSheen |
As it is already 1.98% of GDP, it's not the most dramatic target. At least one of the leaked Labour manifestos had the same commitment. [Post edited 11 May 2017 14:50]
|
Thanks for that input, now I am disappointed in both parties on the defence spending front. We keep hearing these asseverations about the need for austerity and cuts yet we are happy to spend £46bn per year on arms. It's a completely disproportionate amount for a country of our size and circumstances.
RFA | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 17:05 - May 11 with 3531 views | essextaxiboy |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 15:42 - May 11 by R_from_afar |
Thanks for that input, now I am disappointed in both parties on the defence spending front. We keep hearing these asseverations about the need for austerity and cuts yet we are happy to spend £46bn per year on arms. It's a completely disproportionate amount for a country of our size and circumstances.
RFA |
2% of GDP is what all NATO countries committed to . It should be proportionate that is the point .
Germany include some dubious costs in their total and still dont make it . Dont forget that some of that money is spent with UK arms companies so comes back to us .It also provides employment , not sure if things like forces pensions are included
If you equate every missile cost with what you could do in the NHS say, you will never justify it . Its a cost we have to bear IMO |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 17:44 - May 11 with 3487 views | MrSheen |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 15:42 - May 11 by R_from_afar |
Thanks for that input, now I am disappointed in both parties on the defence spending front. We keep hearing these asseverations about the need for austerity and cuts yet we are happy to spend £46bn per year on arms. It's a completely disproportionate amount for a country of our size and circumstances.
RFA |
Last word I could find on it...
http://niagriffith.org.uk/2017/02/labour-committed-to-spend-at-least-2-gdp-on-de | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 22:35 - May 11 with 3409 views | BillericayR |
If we stop selling arms what happens to those working in these industries?
Make them unemployed, more state handouts required, let's tax more, businesses close and move to pastures new, more unemployed.
Will we never learn?
If we do not sell then there are plenty who will and we lose all influence. |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 09:56 - May 12 with 3331 views | robith |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 22:35 - May 11 by BillericayR |
If we stop selling arms what happens to those working in these industries?
Make them unemployed, more state handouts required, let's tax more, businesses close and move to pastures new, more unemployed.
Will we never learn?
If we do not sell then there are plenty who will and we lose all influence. |
1. I don't think we should stop making arms - merely that we shouldn't sell them to authoritarian regimes using them to massacre civilians
2. We can't stop selling arms and by proxy stop our complicity in the deaths of hundreds of civilians because a few people would lose their jobs is a moral equivalency that leaves me stone cold
3. What influence have we exerted over Saudi Arabia beyond "please keep buying our bombs for your war crimes"? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:16 - May 12 with 3313 views | QPR_John |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 09:56 - May 12 by robith |
1. I don't think we should stop making arms - merely that we shouldn't sell them to authoritarian regimes using them to massacre civilians
2. We can't stop selling arms and by proxy stop our complicity in the deaths of hundreds of civilians because a few people would lose their jobs is a moral equivalency that leaves me stone cold
3. What influence have we exerted over Saudi Arabia beyond "please keep buying our bombs for your war crimes"? |
"2. We can't stop selling arms and by proxy stop our complicity in the deaths of hundreds of civilians because a few people would lose their jobs is a moral equivalency that leaves me stone cold "
Is it a price worth paying? [Post edited 12 May 2017 10:17]
| | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:49 - May 12 with 3283 views | smegma |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 22:35 - May 11 by BillericayR |
If we stop selling arms what happens to those working in these industries?
Make them unemployed, more state handouts required, let's tax more, businesses close and move to pastures new, more unemployed.
Will we never learn?
If we do not sell then there are plenty who will and we lose all influence. |
Well Maggie shut most industries yet people still voted for her. It could be another cunning plan. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:51 - May 12 with 3281 views | johncharles |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:27 - May 11 by Brightonhoop |
Largely agree Hunter but I dont buy into the idea Big Business will 'leave.'
Who on earth is going to walk away from a several Billion pound business selling to the UK population? Amazon took £6.3 Billion profits from sales to UK online shoppers in 2016. I just cannot envisage them or anyone else walking away from such a lucrative market due a tax hike. If the loop holes were closed and they paid a genuine 20% on UK sales that would generate around £1.2 Billion for the Exchequor alone, instead they got away with paying around £12 Million in tax last year. That imho is where the problem lays.
Interesting thread, and amazingly largely peaceful so far. [Post edited 11 May 2017 14:29]
|
If Amazon and Starbucks did leave there be plenty of entrepreneurs to take their place. Just look at the figures quoted.
We don't need them, they need us. [Post edited 12 May 2017 10:52]
|  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 11:07 - May 12 with 3273 views | QPR_Jim |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:51 - May 12 by johncharles |
If Amazon and Starbucks did leave there be plenty of entrepreneurs to take their place. Just look at the figures quoted.
We don't need them, they need us. [Post edited 12 May 2017 10:52]
|
I do love the irony that quite a few people I know who were pro leave called any suggestion that leaving the single market would cost us jobs "project fear" these people are now telling me that raising taxes would cause companies to leave. |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:53 - May 12 with 3218 views | TacticalR |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 13:57 - May 10 by FDC |
I've not actually read any of his books, but follow his blog fairly regularly. I met him once and found him quite irritating in person, but try to put that to one side!
Was it you on here that said a while ago that you were part of a reading group at uni that included China Mieville? I was chatting to a friend recently about the 'new weird' genre (following the death of Mark Fisher and his last book The Weird and The Eerie), and she recommend his book The City and The City. I really liked the sound of the premise, but found the writing style difficult to get on with.
I did end up getting into Jeff VanderMeer's 'Southern Reach' trilogy, also described as 'new weird', instead, which is superb. |
I wasn't at university with China Miéville, I was in a Capital reading group with him, which took place at the LSE. I heard about it from a friend of mine who was a student there. When I joined they were on Volume 2, so I went through Volumes 2 and 3 with them. I was working so I had to read the book at weekends and in the evenings.
China was in the SWP at the time. He was very talented and seemed to be able to pick things up instantaneously. That's why I was a bit disappointed with the form of his attack on the Liberals in 2010:
http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/forum/54913
The reading group was pretty mixed. One guy in the group was a Greek Economics professor at the LSE who was offended that Marx was rude about Adam Smith - I think he was expecting a polite academic treatise and didn't realise that Marx had actually done Adam Smith the great compliment of actually understanding him.
Another attendee was Professor Alan Freeman who later went to work for Livingstone at the GLA Economic Unit. Whatever his political associations he was expert in explaining the historical controversies about Capital (particularly the numerous Marxists who have not understood Marx and so decided to 'correct' him).
I hadn't realised how long ago all this was, but I checked some of my old documents and it was at the end of the 1990s. One big difference between then and now is that the economic and social crisis is much more obvious today. Perhaps that's why some excellent works written from a Marxist viewpoint are now emerging e.g.
Andrew Kliman, The Failure of Capitalist Production - Underlying Causes of the Great Recession (2011)
Tony Norfield, The City - London and the Global Power of Finance (2016)
Michael Roberts, The Long Depression (2016) |  |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 13:30 - May 12 with 3191 views | FDC |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:53 - May 12 by TacticalR |
I wasn't at university with China Miéville, I was in a Capital reading group with him, which took place at the LSE. I heard about it from a friend of mine who was a student there. When I joined they were on Volume 2, so I went through Volumes 2 and 3 with them. I was working so I had to read the book at weekends and in the evenings.
China was in the SWP at the time. He was very talented and seemed to be able to pick things up instantaneously. That's why I was a bit disappointed with the form of his attack on the Liberals in 2010:
http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/forum/54913
The reading group was pretty mixed. One guy in the group was a Greek Economics professor at the LSE who was offended that Marx was rude about Adam Smith - I think he was expecting a polite academic treatise and didn't realise that Marx had actually done Adam Smith the great compliment of actually understanding him.
Another attendee was Professor Alan Freeman who later went to work for Livingstone at the GLA Economic Unit. Whatever his political associations he was expert in explaining the historical controversies about Capital (particularly the numerous Marxists who have not understood Marx and so decided to 'correct' him).
I hadn't realised how long ago all this was, but I checked some of my old documents and it was at the end of the 1990s. One big difference between then and now is that the economic and social crisis is much more obvious today. Perhaps that's why some excellent works written from a Marxist viewpoint are now emerging e.g.
Andrew Kliman, The Failure of Capitalist Production - Underlying Causes of the Great Recession (2011)
Tony Norfield, The City - London and the Global Power of Finance (2016)
Michael Roberts, The Long Depression (2016) |
I've just ordered Michael Roberts' book after listening to him on the Novara podcast last week. Glad it's good. |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 15:03 - May 12 with 3146 views | MrSheen |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:53 - May 12 by TacticalR |
I wasn't at university with China Miéville, I was in a Capital reading group with him, which took place at the LSE. I heard about it from a friend of mine who was a student there. When I joined they were on Volume 2, so I went through Volumes 2 and 3 with them. I was working so I had to read the book at weekends and in the evenings.
China was in the SWP at the time. He was very talented and seemed to be able to pick things up instantaneously. That's why I was a bit disappointed with the form of his attack on the Liberals in 2010:
http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/forum/54913
The reading group was pretty mixed. One guy in the group was a Greek Economics professor at the LSE who was offended that Marx was rude about Adam Smith - I think he was expecting a polite academic treatise and didn't realise that Marx had actually done Adam Smith the great compliment of actually understanding him.
Another attendee was Professor Alan Freeman who later went to work for Livingstone at the GLA Economic Unit. Whatever his political associations he was expert in explaining the historical controversies about Capital (particularly the numerous Marxists who have not understood Marx and so decided to 'correct' him).
I hadn't realised how long ago all this was, but I checked some of my old documents and it was at the end of the 1990s. One big difference between then and now is that the economic and social crisis is much more obvious today. Perhaps that's why some excellent works written from a Marxist viewpoint are now emerging e.g.
Andrew Kliman, The Failure of Capitalist Production - Underlying Causes of the Great Recession (2011)
Tony Norfield, The City - London and the Global Power of Finance (2016)
Michael Roberts, The Long Depression (2016) |
Inherent tendency of capitalism towards overproduction? Not 'arf!
 | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 15:29 - May 12 with 3125 views | johncharles |
The increase in defence spending will be paid for by the pegging back of the state pension. | |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 20:40 - May 13 with 2913 views | BillericayR |
I see the Guardian is asking for contributions.
Perhaps they hope that Corbyn will nationalise it!
Let's bring back red-robbo.
He might even know how much 10000 extra police will cost!
After 5 years we will be run by the IMF, like 1976, or the next government will be left a note that no more money is in the coffers, like 2010. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 09:22 - May 14 with 2824 views | hubble |
The Guardian is left wing in the same way that Blair is - in other words, not at all. It's 'liberal', yes, definitely pro establishment, with the occasional dissenting voice. The reason they're asking for contributions is that AFAIK they're haemorrhaging money and they don't want to go for the paywall option. Adblocker is affecting them badly, as it is all those who rely on advertising income. I have suggested they accept micropayments. I think this is the way of the future - micropayments are like tips that you give for anything you like. Advertising in its current format is on the way out It think. | |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:39 - May 14 with 2743 views | johncharles |
The last line in that thread sums it up,
"The Guardian is not a Labour supporting newspaper, that's why they hate him" [Post edited 14 May 2017 12:40]
| |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 19:10 - May 14 with 2685 views | SimonJames |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:42 - May 11 by Hunterhoop |
But then you're taxing freedom of choice. What right does a govt has to determine what should and shouldn't be taxed higher or lower. If you reduce freedoms, especially where no direct harm is caused to anyone (ie. moderate drinking of alcohol, choice of car to purchase, etc), then you are lowering living standards. Personal freedom of choice is hugely important in my view, and it is not, and never was, the purpose of govt to dicate things.
Of course Income Tax and Corp Tax are imprecise, but they are (supposedly) proportionate taxes against what you receive to live your life (and make your choices) and what the state needs to provide for the whole society and those less fortunate. It's still the best approach.
Ideally, if you wanted to truly tax lifestyle, without impacting freedom, and in a way that was proportionate to what one "has", so as to support those who "have not", then we need to find a way to tax assets.
A "Mansion Tax" was a half cut approach to this. It was stupid, imprecise and targeting the wrong sort of wealth given it's value can change significantly and it can't be released into exchangeable wealth easily.
Really, it's assets such as stocks, shares, property portfolios, ltd company holdings, etc, which need to be taxed at an individual level somewhere.
Someone earning a couple of hundred grand isn't "rich" per se. Someone earning less, but with £millions in stocks, and shares, a property portfolio is. They are earning money off their money, able to release that wealth in exchange for good and services as and when they need/want to, and can manage these assets in such a way to avoid tax.
Having a more up to date income tax system that better reflects the variety of income earnt by the population, and which contributes a greater amount to govt, given our pubic spending deficit on key state services (NHS, Pensions, Welfare), coupled with a complex, nuanced way of taxing assets, would be the fairest and more appropriate way to tax people.
Taxing choice and freedoms is a slippery slope in terms of civilians liberty, govt control, maintaining a world with a variety of different types of employment, which all impact standard of living immensely, in my opinion. |
The precedent for taxing some goods and services, whilst favouring others has already been set. Standard Rate VAT on most goods, but zero rated for things like kid's clothes, and tariffs on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol.
By cutting direct taxes, people have more money on their pocket to choose where to spend it. I'm just advocating a higher level of VAT to generate revenue for the fiscal system. And extra tariffs on certain goods (e.g sugar) will help alleviate subsequent costs to society (e.g. the explosion in cases of Type 2 diabetes) that we all end up having to pay for.
Complete freedom of choice is a great concept, but if people choose, for example, to lead unhealthy lifestyles, why should my taxes be spent on paying for their subsequent healthcare (rather than my kids' education or my mother's MS)? Instead charge them upfront in the form of higher sales taxes and tariffs, and then they are making their own provisions to clean up their future health mess.
Furthermore, the rate of consumption in the 1st World continues to rise, despite the over population of the World. It's unsustainable in the long term and the government of today, or a near future generation needs to take responsibility for reigning back people's consumption.
With regards to directly taxing assets, it's difficult to find a fair justification for that.
In the first instance, an asset is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. How do you justify charging people tax for somebody else's valuation of their assets?
If you bought a house cheap and lived in it for 30 years, and in the meantime the area you live in became highly sought after, should you be taxed just because your house is now worth a small fortune? Or, for example, if I'd invested £10K in Franklin Templeton Investments back in 1992, it would be worth about £6.5M now. Does that mean I should be penalised for making a really good investment? If that's the case, then the government should pay for some of my losses if I make a bad investment. Likewise, people who win the lottery should immediately have some of their winnings taken from them in the form of an asset tax. (After all, they've done absolutely nothing to deserve their riches).
The main reason people invest is to acquire income earning assets to enable them to work less or retire. Are you saying they should be penalised for making good investments? External investors are vital for the growth of many start ups and small businesses. Should we discourage investors and thereby limit funding sources for businesses?
A big motivation for people setting up their own company is to have better control over their own financial future. Many of them work 80-100 hours a week for years, making great sacrifices in their personal lives. When they finally make their fortune should they have to pay part of the value of the assets they have created? Isn't it enough to tax them on the income that's generated rather than the asset value itself? What about if they made all that sacrifice so they could leave their kids with a better life.. should their efforts be sabotaged by taxing the assets they created?
If I have £50M stuffed into a mattress, am I benefiting from that in any way (other than having a very hard and uncomfortable mattress)? It's not earning any interest. But once it gets spent, that's when you can tax it. |  |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 00:16 - May 15 with 2595 views | LazyFan |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 13:30 - May 12 by FDC |
I've just ordered Michael Roberts' book after listening to him on the Novara podcast last week. Glad it's good. |
By mere coincidence Roberts is a non-participating QPR fan.
He watched our greatest team in the seventies.
Check out his blog, where he provides economic updates and views well ahead of the mainstream media.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |  |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 16:13 - May 17 with 2434 views | SimonJames |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 19:10 - May 14 by SimonJames |
The precedent for taxing some goods and services, whilst favouring others has already been set. Standard Rate VAT on most goods, but zero rated for things like kid's clothes, and tariffs on cigarettes, alcohol and petrol.
By cutting direct taxes, people have more money on their pocket to choose where to spend it. I'm just advocating a higher level of VAT to generate revenue for the fiscal system. And extra tariffs on certain goods (e.g sugar) will help alleviate subsequent costs to society (e.g. the explosion in cases of Type 2 diabetes) that we all end up having to pay for.
Complete freedom of choice is a great concept, but if people choose, for example, to lead unhealthy lifestyles, why should my taxes be spent on paying for their subsequent healthcare (rather than my kids' education or my mother's MS)? Instead charge them upfront in the form of higher sales taxes and tariffs, and then they are making their own provisions to clean up their future health mess.
Furthermore, the rate of consumption in the 1st World continues to rise, despite the over population of the World. It's unsustainable in the long term and the government of today, or a near future generation needs to take responsibility for reigning back people's consumption.
With regards to directly taxing assets, it's difficult to find a fair justification for that.
In the first instance, an asset is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. How do you justify charging people tax for somebody else's valuation of their assets?
If you bought a house cheap and lived in it for 30 years, and in the meantime the area you live in became highly sought after, should you be taxed just because your house is now worth a small fortune? Or, for example, if I'd invested £10K in Franklin Templeton Investments back in 1992, it would be worth about £6.5M now. Does that mean I should be penalised for making a really good investment? If that's the case, then the government should pay for some of my losses if I make a bad investment. Likewise, people who win the lottery should immediately have some of their winnings taken from them in the form of an asset tax. (After all, they've done absolutely nothing to deserve their riches).
The main reason people invest is to acquire income earning assets to enable them to work less or retire. Are you saying they should be penalised for making good investments? External investors are vital for the growth of many start ups and small businesses. Should we discourage investors and thereby limit funding sources for businesses?
A big motivation for people setting up their own company is to have better control over their own financial future. Many of them work 80-100 hours a week for years, making great sacrifices in their personal lives. When they finally make their fortune should they have to pay part of the value of the assets they have created? Isn't it enough to tax them on the income that's generated rather than the asset value itself? What about if they made all that sacrifice so they could leave their kids with a better life.. should their efforts be sabotaged by taxing the assets they created?
If I have £50M stuffed into a mattress, am I benefiting from that in any way (other than having a very hard and uncomfortable mattress)? It's not earning any interest. But once it gets spent, that's when you can tax it. |
I didn't realise that 9 US States, including Washington, don't have income tax (Florida has had it since 1855)
https://smartasset.com/taxes/states-with-no-income-tax | |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 17:57 - May 17 with 2345 views | essextaxiboy |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 00:16 - May 15 by LazyFan |
By mere coincidence Roberts is a non-participating QPR fan.
He watched our greatest team in the seventies.
Check out his blog, where he provides economic updates and views well ahead of the mainstream media.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
Honest question ... Whats a "non participating " fan ? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
