Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[ealingfox]

57 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Except there are now massive problems with this in Sweden and the tide is beginning to turn against such a strong welfare state. Parts of Malmo are really struggling. Particularly as a lot of immigrants are getting trapped in poverty and the effect this is having on the city; the Nordic countries really aren't places you want to be if you're in a minority or a woman in fact. The functioning of their system relies on a homogenous population and a strong shared culture. 

 

Eh? The Scandinavian countries are lauded for their gender equality and regularly top objective lists of the best places in the world to be a woman. The rest of your post had some merit but I suspect you've made that last bit there up.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-the-best-and-worst-countries-for-gender-equality/

 

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/03/daily-chart-0

 

 

[Innovindil]

19 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m always getting my left and rights mixed up, that’s why I voted leave, stupid Russians.

RUSSIANS HACK EMOJIS TO THROW BREXIT REFERENDUM INTO CHAOS. 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

43 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Whatabout-ism alert! I really don't know why you do this!!

 

The fact that some Labour politicians are also using tax avoidance schemes really doesn't change anything though does it. It's not even fake news. It's irrelevant news!

 

Check out this algorthym:

 

1. Rich donors make sizable contributions to the Conservative Party 
2. Conservative Party turns a blind eye to tax avoidance
3. Rich donors avoid paying tax.
4. Goto Step 1

Ironically, asking King Herod to babysit is exactly appropriate!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check out this algorthym:

 

1. Rich Union Barrons make huge donations to labour sometimes against the wish of the union members. All union members pay for this crap.

2. Rich Union Barrons and Momentum bully moderate labour politicians out of party

3. Rich Union Barrons and Corbyn chose a dangerous far left lunatic to replace moderate

4. Go to step 1

 

38 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

OK now you've just gone off on one!

 

For future reference I don't hold any socialist beliefs. I don't think I do anyway.

 

Just because I think that the Government should make it harder for people to avoid tax, doesn't mean I want "a far left socialist government".

 

Insisting that people pay their tax isn't really a right- or left-wing belief. It's one thing that we should really all agree upon.

 

 

If you want to vote for a far left government with a far left front bench I would say you must be pretty socialist

 

19 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Let's take this back to the start. You lot reckon the UK government being in debt is a massive problem that needs fixing urgently.

 

Your way of doing that is to cut cut cut with little regard for the effects on society.

 

Other people are suggesting we might be able to achieve the desired outcome with fewer negative effects on society by a combination of slightly increased taxes on the wealthy and increased spending in various targeted areas such as infrastructure which we think will not only boost the economy in the short term but also provide long term advantages thus returning the initial investment many times over.

 

Your response to that is to say that we can't increase tax because wealthy people will just abandon their lives, businesses and careers and move abroad. I've provided you reputable sources that show that not to be the case but you've refused to believe them.

 

We've then started talking about the Laffer curve and established that we don't actually know where the optimal point of taxation is. Too low taxes and you don't maximise the take, too high and you push it away. The question is now - where are we on the curve? Too high or too low? To make the case for us being too low, I've provided examples of countries where taxation is higher and the take is also higher. You've provided examples of countries with low tax, but also lower tax take, and questionable societies, which for me doesn't really make a good case for lower taxes at all.

 

Now, after all that, you're saying you think "we have a pretty good balance", and there's no problem after all! Then what was the point of all this?! 

 

:pearsonblowingcheeksoutgif*100:

I have never said that there is anything wrong. Labour voters and the left are the ones that think cuts are wrong, and the country is falling apart and the world is about to end with all poor people dying and the rich stepping over them. Its complete drivel.

 

I have said we can not afford to keep spending what we are. We are approaching £2 trillion debt and paying £50 billion per year in Interest payments. It has to stop.

 

The public sector can be cut as there are many inefficiencies, whether the cuts have been made in the correct places is debateable but they had to be made.

 

We can not borrow more money and expect borrowing rates to remain low, we also can not increase tax and expect to keep high employment and business growth.

 

My view is Britain is just fine, we are on a trajectory to better things and we should maintain this course. Eventually pay rises and more money will come. Its only the Guardian readers spreading doom.

 

 

[leicsmac]

14 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

How do you overcome the problem of the free rider?

 

Not to say that capitalism doesn't have such a problem, more that it's of more significant detriment to the functioning of the system and thus human welfare in  a socialist/communist/centrally allocative system.

 

It's a conundrum for sure.

 

One solution I might offer is that resource and land gathering technology, all automated, advances to the point where there is so much of both that the effect of people using them for free is mitigated - not exactly a Star Trek economy where everything is replicated so that it's effectively infinite in quantity, but close. At that point, present economic models would likely become obsolete.

 

However this could well be a ways into the future, which means that until then we're likely better off using the competitive models we have and taking the chance that everything doesn't go tits up before we arrive at that plateau.

Edited 21 November 2017 by leicsmac

[Kopfkino]

13 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Eh? The Scandinavian countries are lauded for their gender equality and regularly top objective lists of the best places in the world to be a woman. The rest of your post had some merit but I suspect you've made that last bit there up.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-the-best-and-worst-countries-for-gender-equality/

 

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/03/daily-chart-0

 

 

 

Okay yeah that was a little disingenuous to say. You are correct. But there is a distinct diffuculty for women to climb to the top, there's a whole paper by a couple of Swedish academics that studies why the US, UK, Germany, and France, are far better for having women executives and managers, particularly in the private sector. But yeah fair, certainly isn't a bad place to be a woman. 

[Fox Ulike]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Is every single counter point you don't want to talk about now just going to be shouted down with Whatabout-ism alert, exclamation points and funny faces? I think it's more than fair to mention that a party you think I should vote for to end tax avoidance is one that is actively engaging in tax avoidance right up to the person who would be walking into Downing Street in charge of ending it.

 

Rich donors give money to the Tories for many reasons, some see them as pro-business, some do it for status, some do it because they think their investments are safer, some rich donors also give money to Labour, I'm sure you know who Richard Branson and Alan Sugar are, do they do that because they want to tax dodge? I can assure you no one gives money to a party because they can tax dodge, as I've said before, if a rich donor wants to move his money to a bank account somewhere else in the World they will do whoever runs the country, conspiracy theories add nothing to the debate and you have brought this down to such a simplistic level it belongs in the comments section of a piece on The Canary.

 

The bolded bit is just complete nonsense, the Tories have done more to combat this than any government in our lifetimes, we now collect 93 pence in the pound, one of the smallest tax gaps in the World. The top rate of tax is higher than it was for the vast majority of time it was under Labour.

 

More to go sure and that's why 26,000 people are working in this, but they have been far better at it than the last Labour government and I'm certain they'll be better than it than a front bench whom struggle to book a train seat.

 

Pointing out that Labour politicians are using tax avoidance schemes isn't a counter-point to anything!! I'm against tax avoidance. I genuinely don't know why you think this would change my view? I'm still against it regardless of who is doing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Four hours ago you were telling me that "the wealthiest generally do [move abroad] when these sort of tax policies are introduced are just make alternative arrangements with their finances"

 

Are you now telling me that most people pay their taxes, and that there's not a problem with Tax avoidance? 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Pointing out that Labour politicians are using tax avoidance schemes isn't a counter-point to anything!! I'm against tax avoidance. I genuinely don't know why you think this would change my view? I'm still against it regardless of who is doing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Four hours ago you were telling me that "the wealthiest generally do [move abroad] when these sort of tax policies are introduced are just make alternative arrangements with their finances"

 

Are you now telling me that most people pay their taxes, and that there's not a problem with Tax avoidance? 

Troll obvious.

[Fox Ulike]

56 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

If you want to vote for a far left government with a far left front bench I would say you must be pretty socialist

 

 

 

 

 

 

In an ideal world i'd vote for Lib Dems. But in this world I would vote Labour. For two main reasons:

 

• I want the Govt to stop selling bombs to Saudi Arabia to use in Yemen.
• I want rich people to pay their fair share of tax.

 

In the real world I'd like to think my views would be considered fairly down-the-middle. Apolitical even. But on this forum anyone with even remotely moderate views is considered a raving leftie who wants to steal the bread out of your mouth to feed criminals and layabouts.  

[Fox Ulike]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

How is it irrelevant, when your solution is to vote Labour? 

Vote Green Party then Strokesy

[Fox Ulike]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Troll obvious.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Vote Green Party then Strokesy

Don’t like the colour.

[Guest MattP]

Speaking of the Green Party and economics, any excuse to post this again.

 

Actually quite a bit in there on higher taxes reducing the base take as well.

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

28 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Pointing out that Labour politicians are using tax avoidance schemes isn't a counter-point to anything!! I'm against tax avoidance. I genuinely don't know why you think this would change my view? I'm still against it regardless of who is doing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Four hours ago you were telling me that "the wealthiest generally do [move abroad] when these sort of tax policies are introduced are just make alternative arrangements with their finances"

 

Are you now telling me that most people pay their taxes, and that there's not a problem with Tax avoidance? 

Most people do infact pay their taxes, and the UK in comparison to some countries does not have a massive problem with Tax avoidance. Again it is all sound bytes about the nasty rich to suit spiteful left wing agendas, many do pay all their taxes, they pay a lot, they also make considerable charitable donations and volunteer but of course the Guardian wont get a sensationalist enough headline out of that! There is a lot of bile spouted by the left and a vast amount of unnecessary hate I have never called anyone scum, nor would I but I have been called such by Labour voters and thick and any number of things. Ever consider that if we start to bastardise the rich it might make their goodwill dry up, it will make them stop putting £50 a week in the food bank donations and then when we actually do need it like when someone like Corbyn right royally ****s up the nation and we need charitable donations the goodwill from those who can will have gone.

 

21 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

 

In an ideal world i'd vote for Lib Dems. But in this world I would vote Labour. For two main reasons:

 

• I want the Govt to stop selling bombs to Saudi Arabia to use in Yemen.
• I want rich people to pay their fair share of tax.

 

In the real world I'd like to think my views would be considered fairly down-the-middle. Apolitical even. But on this forum anyone with even remotely moderate views is considered a raving leftie who wants to steal the bread out of your mouth to feed criminals and layabouts.  

So Labour instead want us to be friends with Terrorists in other countries not sure how that will help, especially when the terrorists labour want us to deal with are poorer that the Saudis!

 

Rich people arguably do pay their fair share of tax, what is a fair share? There is already a much higher rate for wealthy people, the majority do pay up, a minority don't. Of course 1% of 1 million income is a lot more the 1% of 20k! They also buy big cars and petrol adding (VAT) revenue and they have property (stamp duty) and go out for meals VAT, buy clothes VAT. Who decides what is the fair share and who gives someone the moral station to decide that?

 

Moderate views are considered moderate but fact is Corbyn and Labour have a front bench of hard-line lefties, if you want hard-line lefties to run the country then you must be one!

Edited 21 November 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Fox Ulike]

4 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Most people do infact pay their taxes, and the UK in comparison to some countries does not have a massive problem with Tax avoidance. Again it is all sound bytes about the nasty rich, many do pay all their taxes, they pay a lot, they also make considerable charitable donations and volunteer but of course the Guardian wont get a sensationalist enough headline out of that!

 

So Labour instead want us to be friends with Terrorists in other countries not sure how that will help, especially when the terrorists labour want us to deal with are poorer that the Saudis!

 

Rich people arguably do pay their fair share of tax, what is a fair share? There is already a much higher rate for wealthy people, the majority do pay up, a minority don't. Of course 1% of 1 million income is a lot more the 1% of 20k! They also buy big cars and petrol adding (VAT) revenue and they have property (stamp duty) and go out for meals VAT, buy clothes VAT. Who decides what is the fair share and who gives someone the moral station to decide that?

 

Moderate views are considered moderate but fact is Corbyn and Labour have a front bench of hard-line lefties, if you want hard-line lefties to run the country then you must be one!

Well OK. it would be interesting to see exactly how much tax is paid and how much syphoned offshore. If it's a small problem then it should be easy enough to solve...

 

Being friends with terrorists sounds like a much better idea than bombing Yemen. I don't think it's just "hard-line lefties" like me who think like that. A lot of right-wing people object to the bombing of civilian populations too. 

 

Which terrorist friends are you referring to?

 

 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

 

So Labour instead want us to be friends with Terrorists in other countries not sure how that will help, especially when the terrorists labour want us to deal with are poorer that the Saudis!

 

I think we've discussed this before, but being buddy buddy with the Saudis just because they're rich and in spite of their grotesque human rights record (could easily call them terrorists themselves depending on definition) isn't the most convincing argument to keep being buddy buddy with them.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

Let's take this back to the start. You lot reckon the UK government being in debt is a massive problem that needs fixing urgently.

 

Your way of doing that is to cut cut cut with little regard for the effects on society.

 

Other people are suggesting we might be able to achieve the desired outcome with fewer negative effects on society by a combination of slightly increased taxes on the wealthy and increased spending in various targeted areas such as infrastructure which we think will not only boost the economy in the short term but also provide long term advantages thus returning the initial investment many times over.

 

Your response to that is to say that we can't increase tax because wealthy people will just abandon their lives, businesses and careers and move abroad. I've provided you reputable sources that show that not to be the case but you've refused to believe them.

 

We've then started talking about the Laffer curve and established that we don't actually know where the optimal point of taxation is. Too low taxes and you don't maximise the take, too high and you push it away. The question is now - where are we on the curve? Too high or too low? To make the case for us being too low, I've provided examples of countries where taxation is higher and the take is also higher. You've provided examples of countries with low tax, but also lower tax take, and questionable societies, which for me doesn't really make a good case for lower taxes at all.

 

Now, after all that, you're saying you think "we have a pretty good balance", and there's no problem after all! Then what was the point of all this?! 

 

:pearsonblowingcheeksoutgif*100:

A very well written response

 

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

1) No, we reckon the debt could become a massive problem and want the government to take steps (like it has been doing) to get towards a more balanced budget. 

 

2) False, for all the bleating and "the sky is falling" reporting, the vast majority of cuts have been absorbed excellently. Excessively spending on public services is daft, the NHS is a blackhole for cash, you can throw as much as you want at it, it will always take more. What I don't want to see is the government spaffing money away on vanity projects just so we can say "look! That train is ours!". Anyone that wants a return to the days of British rail is a melon, for all the ranting about it being in foreign hands, it's provided much better services than it ever did when nationalised, and the vast majority of money it makes goes back into the system. 

 

3) Which is what we all want, but done wisely. Labour isn't just proposing infrastructure investments are they?

 

About the tax takes, I have no idea. It seems odd to want to raise them when the recepts are still rising mind. 

Not a well written response.

 

Cuts have been "absorbed excellently"?

 

 

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think we've discussed this before, but being buddy buddy with the Saudis just because they're rich and in spite of their grotesque human rights record (could easily call them terrorists themselves depending on definition) isn't the most convincing argument to keep being buddy buddy with them.

I think its the influence they hold as well in the middle east, they can unleash Salafist terrorism anywhere they want in huge numbers, that's probably why we are so close to them as well.

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

A very well written response

 

Not a well written response.

 

Cuts have been "absorbed excellently"?

 

 

Can't you just post a guardian link instead of this horridly screenshotted mess? 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

12 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Well OK. it would be interesting to see exactly how much tax is paid and how much syphoned offshore. If it's a small problem then it should be easy enough to solve...

 

Being friends with terrorists sounds like a much better idea than bombing Yemen. I don't think it's just "hard-line lefties" like me who think like that. A lot of right-wing people object to the bombing of civilian populations too. 

 

Which terrorist friends are you referring to?

 

 

No I agree we need to stop supporting those who bomb places. The problem is given the amount Labour and the Tories want to and are spending its quite difficult to make enough money to fund a spending splurge if you stop trading with all countries with dubious records on human rights, starting wars etc.

 

Corbyn refers to Iran and Palestine as our friends, along with Russia all of the South America Socialist states

 

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think we've discussed this before, but being buddy buddy with the Saudis just because they're rich and in spite of their grotesque human rights record (could easily call them terrorists themselves depending on definition) isn't the most convincing argument to keep being buddy buddy with them.

Your are correct. We have a morale dilemma here then. Do we stop trading with the Saudis losing however much income which we then have to cut from our own budget or do we go on taking their money so that we can spend it on good things back home. Its a difficult one but we cant spend the money and stop trading with them! I suppose the left solution is to ramp up borrowing as we will just trade with all the nice countries lots and that  will cover the shortfall. Then present a study by a left wing academic who is by no means biased!

[Guest Foxin_mad]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Can't you just post a guardian link instead of this horridly screenshotted mess? 

Of course what those graphs don't show is population growth during those periods mainly due to Labours immigration stance, the ageing population etc. etc. As Fuchs said their is a graph to support any argument

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Your are correct. We have a morale dilemma here then. Do we stop trading with the Saudis losing however much income which we then have to cut from our own budget or do we go on taking their money so that we can spend it on good things back home. Its a difficult one but we cant spend the money and stop trading with them! I suppose the left solution is to ramp up borrowing as we will just trade with all the nice countries lots and that  will cover the shortfall. Then present a study by a left wing academic who is by no means biased!

5

It's a difficult one, for sure. But the way I see it if someone doesn't choose to make a stand then these countries will continue to oppress, terrorise and generally treat people in their own and other countries like dirt because they know that the bigger nations value money over lives.

 

 

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think its the influence they hold as well in the middle east, they can unleash Salafist terrorism anywhere they want in huge numbers, that's probably why we are so close to them as well.

All the more reason to make a stand and stop being influenced by what is essentially international blackmail, then.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's a difficult one, for sure. But the way I see it if someone doesn't choose to make a stand then these countries will continue to oppress, terrorise and generally treat people in their own and other countries like dirt because they know that the bigger nations value money over lives.

 

 

All the more reason to make a stand and stop being influenced by what is essentially international blackmail, then.

Again sadly I think Britain standing on its own this would have no impact and all it would do is impact us and make us poorer. If there was a global agreement to stop trade with the Saudis that would have much more impact and would be supportable. For instance if BAE Stops selling equipment to the Saudis I am sure currently the Americans or French will step in instead of us.

 

This is really the place where we are at now, if we want to change things that are a problem on a global scale then we need to have some international action on these issues otherwise it will not have the desired impact.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All the more reason to make a stand and stop being influenced by what is essentially international blackmail, then.

All well and good saying that but do you think people will tolerate it if British people start being murdered that could have been avoided with their intel?

 

The money we'll lose from this as well is huge, it will run into billions will have to be cut from public services, you'll also need to be honest where that will come in and then the public can decide whether they want to follow you or not.

 

I genuinely don't know which side to fall on, I'd probably keep the relationship with have at this point of time in the World. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Again sadly I think Britain standing on its own this would have no impact and all it would do is impact us and make us poorer. If there was a global agreement to stop trade with the Saudis that would have much more impact and would be supportable. For instance if BAE Stops selling equipment to the Saudis I am sure currently the Americans or French will step in instead of us.

 

This is really the place where we are at now, if we want to change things that are a problem on a global scale then we need to have some international action on these issues otherwise it will not have the desired impact.

Can't disagree there - any action would have to be multilateral as the UK doesn't have enough clout on its own. But that's not to say that it shouldn't happen.

 

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

All well and good saying that but do you think people will tolerate it if British people start being murdered that could have been avoided with their intel?

 

The money we'll lose from this as well is huge, it will run into billions will have to be cut from public services, you'll also need to be honest where that will come in and then the public can decide whether they want to follow you or not.

 

I genuinely don't know which side to fall on, I'd probably keep the relationship with have at this point of time in the World. 

Fair enough - the citizens of the UK will happily place the security of their own lives over the welfare of lives in various countries that trade with it - I understand that sentiment. Also agree that the monetary loss would have to be carefully detailed.

 

Thing is though...at what point, what human rights travesty, do you say enough is enough? And is there any real difference between somewhere like Saudi (perceived to be an ally) and somewhere like China or Venezuela (perceived somewhat less so) in such things that can give people a reason to claim the moral high ground by saying dealing with one is somehow better than dealing with the other?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

Most people do infact pay their taxes, and the UK in comparison to some countries does not have a massive problem with Tax avoidance. Again it is all sound bytes about the nasty rich to suit spiteful left wing agendas, many do pay all their taxes, they pay a lot, they also make considerable charitable donations and volunteer but of course the Guardian wont get a sensationalist enough headline out of that! There is a lot of bile spouted by the left and a vast amount of unnecessary hate I have never called anyone scum, nor would I but I have been called such by Labour voters and thick and any number of things. Ever consider that if we start to bastardise the rich it might make their goodwill dry up, it will make them stop putting £50 a week in the food bank donations and then when we actually do need it like when someone like Corbyn right royally ****s up the nation and we need charitable donations the goodwill from those who can will have gone.

 

So Labour instead want us to be friends with Terrorists in other countries not sure how that will help, especially when the terrorists labour want us to deal with are poorer that the Saudis!

 

Rich people arguably do pay their fair share of tax, what is a fair share? There is already a much higher rate for wealthy people, the majority do pay up, a minority don't. Of course 1% of 1 million income is a lot more the 1% of 20k! They also buy big cars and petrol adding (VAT) revenue and they have property (stamp duty) and go out for meals VAT, buy clothes VAT. Who decides what is the fair share and who gives someone the moral station to decide that?

 

Moderate views are considered moderate but fact is Corbyn and Labour have a front bench of hard-line lefties, if you want hard-line lefties to run the country then you must be one!

 UK has no problems with tax avoidance?

 

Almost 40% of corporate investments channelled away from authorities and into tax havens travel through the UK or the Netherlands, according to a study of the ownership structures of 98m firms.

The two EU states are way ahead of the rest of the world in terms of being a preferred option for corporations who want to exploit tax havens to protect their investments.

The Netherlands was a conduit for 23% of corporate investments that ended in a tax haven, a team of researchers at the University of Amsterdam concluded. The UK accounted for 14%, ahead of Switzerland (6%), Singapore (2%) and Ireland (1%).

Every year multinationals avoid paying £38bn-£158bn in taxes in the EU using tax havens. In the US, tax evasion by multinational corporations via offshore jurisdictions is estimated to be at least $130bn (£99bn) a year.

The researchers reported that there were 24 so-called “sink” offshore financial centres where foreign capital was ultimately stored, safe from the tax authorities.

Of those, 18 are said to have a current or past dependence to the UK, such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the British  Virgin Islands and Jersey.