General News

[Tommy G]

40 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Is going after employers for more NI in the budget a good idea also?
Surely the self employed still trying to get back on their feet won’t welcome this and I fear this could lead to wide spread redundancy within those larger corporations who are all about the bottom line, could be another own goal.

Course it isn't. If you had a budget of x% for payrises for staff next year that will just be cut by the amount they change the Ers NI rate. They expect business to ''thrive'' and want to attract investment to the country, then don't do daft stuff like this. 

 

Ers NI increases will have a direct impact on privtae sector earnings if it goes up - fact.  

[leicsmac]

On the above topics...

 

... is there any proof "in the field" (as it were) that a laissez-faire low tax economy does anything other than establish and stratify inequality in terms of wealth, power and social class?

 

Singapore, maybe? I'm not sure.

Edited 15 October 2024 by leicsmac

[SecretPro]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

On the above topics...

 

... is there any proof "in the field" (as it were) that a laissez-faire low tax economy does anything other than establish and stratify inequality in terms of wealth, power and social class?

 

Singapore, maybe? I'm not sure.

Doesn't matter which party is in Government anymore, they all follow the usual Neoliberalism route which means just more of the same, a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor and an economy built on only making the already wealthy even wealthier (and that's it's sole purpose). It doesn't work, it has never worked and the inner workings of economic Neoliberalism are borderline criminal.

 

For those that haven't read it, read it. It confirms everything you already thought but to see the reality spelled out is pretty horrifying.

 

Edited 15 October 2024 by SecretPro

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Doesn't matter which party is in Government anymore, they all follow the usual Neoliberalism route which means just more of the same, a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor and an economy built on only making the already wealthy even wealthier (and that's it's sole purpose). It doesn't work, it has never worked and the inner workings of economic Neoliberalism are borderline criminal.

 

For those that haven't read it, read it. It confirms everything you already thought but to see the reality spelled out is pretty horrifying.

 

Not sure that's the case all over the world, but certainly in a lot of places, it would seem.

 

With respect to the bolded, I guess that comes down to one's definition of "working". No doubt the social Darwinists love it and think it's working fine - as misguided as that obviously is.

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

The longer people whine about having to pay tax on their luxury product the funnier it continues to get. Suck it up, buttercups, your boo-hoos change nothing.

It’s the middle classes that are the funniest. Dude you are an administrator on £175k with a 12% pension, company car and a bonus of ‘up to £20k depending on performance.’ You are nothing special and a total b1tch like the rest of the 99% of the planet entirely dependant on the whims of your employer. If the proposed rises will make a material effect on your life, you’re even more of a b1tch. 
And if you do consider yourself to be something special, as Ilya Somin said ‘the right of every man is to vote with their feet’ 

[SecretPro]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not sure that's the case all over the world, but certainly in a lot of places, it would seem.

 

With respect to the bolded, I guess that comes down to one's definition of "working". No doubt the social Darwinists love it and think it's working fine - as misguided as that obviously is.

Yes, I meant really the western world and in particular the big 'financial powerhouses'.

 

And yes, my definition of working is 'working for the common person' rather than the lizard elite.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Yes, I meant really the western world and in particular the big 'financial powerhouses'.

 

And yes, my definition of working is 'working for the common person' rather than the lizard elite.

Well, yeah.

 

And not only is working for the common person more morally square, it's incredibly utilitarian from the point of view of future survival of civilisation and the biosphere too.

[Tommy G]

22 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

It’s the middle classes that are the funniest. Dude you are an administrator on £175k with a 12% pension, company car and a bonus of ‘up to £20k depending on performance.’ You are nothing special and a total b1tch like the rest of the 99% of the planet entirely dependant on the whims of your employer. If the proposed rises will make a material effect on your life, you’re even more of a b1tch. 
And if you do consider yourself to be something special, as Ilya Somin said ‘the right of every man is to vote with their feet’ 

I think the point is any proposed rises in Ers NI will not hit ''the middle class administrator on £175K'' whatever that means, but the majority of people in the £20K-£60K bracket.

 

That makes them a ''b1tch'' per your definition. Odd

[Tommy G]

The Sara Sharif murder case is appalling, what horrible people exist. 

[JonnyBoy]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

It’s the middle classes that are the funniest. Dude you are an administrator on £175k with a 12% pension, company car and a bonus of ‘up to £20k depending on performance.’ You are nothing special and a total b1tch like the rest of the 99% of the planet entirely dependant on the whims of your employer. If the proposed rises will make a material effect on your life, you’re even more of a b1tch. 
And if you do consider yourself to be something special, as Ilya Somin said ‘the right of every man is to vote with their feet’ 

bloody'ell that doesn't read bitter 🤣

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

The longer people whine about having to pay tax on their luxury product the funnier it continues to get. Suck it up, buttercups, your boo-hoos change nothing.

See, you don't actually care that it isn't going to make any money do you?  You want it becuase you like the idea of kids being forced out of the private system and into the state system, even though that means less cash to go around.

 

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

That is frustrating and damning of badly thought out policy, even if the overall rationale behind it, are in my opinion correct both morally and in terms of giving opportunity. It’s not the policy of envy, I personally support the idea behind the policy and would’ve hated to go to private school. Policy of envy is just a political tagline to taint the left. 

You are right - they could just be idiots who cannot add up or dismissed the idea that lots of middle class people cannot suck up a 20% increase.  I hadn't thought of that despite all the evidence so far provided in the 104 days or wherever we are.  

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

On the above topics...

 

... is there any proof "in the field" (as it were) that a laissez-faire low tax economy does anything other than establish and stratify inequality in terms of wealth, power and social class?

 

Singapore, maybe? I'm not sure.

You would have to find a low tax economy to study I guess.  The UK certainly isn't one.

[Jon the Hat]

10 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

The Sara Sharif murder case is appalling, what horrible people exist. 

Awful beyond words.  Somehow knowing the street where she lived pretty well makes it worse.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You would have to find a low tax economy to study I guess.  The UK certainly isn't one.

I think the US qualifies there (or certain parts of it), as does parts of Asia and (perhaps) the Middle East emerging economies.

 

I certainly think there's enough evidence to make a correlation between low tax environments and overall inequality.

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I think the US qualifies there (or certain parts of it), as does parts of Asia and (perhaps) the Middle East emerging economies.

 

I certainly think there's enough evidence to make a correlation between low tax environments and overall inequality.

Possibly, although if you strip out the superrich tech bros etc, the US probably has more of a problem with lack of welfare provision to be honest.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Possibly, although if you strip out the superrich tech bros etc, the US probably has more of a problem with lack of welfare provision to be honest.

Agreed.

 

Which, I would posit, in most civilised countries is paid for mostly by taxation.

[Lionator]

42 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

See, you don't actually care that it isn't going to make any money do you?  You want it becuase you like the idea of kids being forced out of the private system and into the state system, even though that means less cash to go around.

 

You are right - they could just be idiots who cannot add up or dismissed the idea that lots of middle class people cannot suck up a 20% increase.  I hadn't thought of that despite all the evidence so far provided in the 104 days or wherever we are.  

Or that all policy is fed into a treasury/bank of England algorithm that essentially ends up dictating all policy. For example, it was all very funny but was it Truss’s policy that was bad or was it that it didn’t align with the way that the way that the BOE arbitrarily thinks that we should run the country and its finances? Any radical policy gets instantly sabotaged in this respect and the status quo stays in place. 

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, SecretPro said:

Doesn't matter which party is in Government anymore, they all follow the usual Neoliberalism route which means just more of the same, a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor and an economy built on only making the already wealthy even wealthier (and that's it's sole purpose). It doesn't work, it has never worked and the inner workings of economic Neoliberalism are borderline criminal.

 

For those that haven't read it, read it. It confirms everything you already thought but to see the reality spelled out is pretty horrifying.

 

I am probably of the opinion that neo-liberalism is the least worst way of running the country and economy. However it has to be heavily checked. Exploitation of our insecurities is cooked into every little orifice of this society and that stems from the early 80’s when this rogue way of running the system became dominant. It’s sickening but what’s the alternative? 

[Zear0]

6 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Or that all policy is fed into a treasury/bank of England algorithm that essentially ends up dictating all policy. For example, it was all very funny but was it Truss’s policy that was bad or was it that it didn’t align with the way that the way that the BOE arbitrarily thinks that we should run the country and its finances? Any radical policy gets instantly sabotaged in this respect and the status quo stays in place. 

The former.

[Daggers]

50 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

See, you don't actually care that it isn't going to make any money do you?  You want it becuase you like the idea of kids being forced out of the private system and into the state system, even though that means less cash to go around.

 

Oh, you got me. That's exactly what I think and no mistake.

 

 

 

 

[Tommy G]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

On the above topics...

 

... is there any proof "in the field" (as it were) that a laissez-faire low tax economy does anything other than establish and stratify inequality in terms of wealth, power and social class?

 

Singapore, maybe? I'm not sure.

For a nation to try and tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Tommy G said:

For a nation to try and tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle 

I think there's evidence of that too.

 

But I'm asking if there's any evidence that opposite is true right now and I'd like to know.

[davieG]

There's no more money it's just moved around depending on the nature of the current government. The poor will stay poor or get poorer, the rich will stay rich  or get richer and the rest will continue to tread water the pace of which will depend on how high the water level is. Of course they'll be exception where a number of people will move up or down within those admittedly crude divisions.

 

Seems to me in my lifetime anyway it's always been like that.

[SecretPro]

59 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I am probably of the opinion that neo-liberalism is the least worst way of running the country and economy. However it has to be heavily checked. Exploitation of our insecurities is cooked into every little orifice of this society and that stems from the early 80’s when this rogue way of running the system became dominant. It’s sickening but what’s the alternative? 

I think the most shocking thing which quickly becomes apparent from the book is that it does testify to the fact that Neoliberasim isn't a choice of Government, it's the choice of a small number of conglomerates and billionaires who basically lobby the Government into neoliberalist policy through a series of lies and manipulation (and backhanders or vested interests). Some of these 'thinktank' organisations at the heart of pushing Neoliberalism are now held at the heart of everything we do and Governments and the Media hold them up as the authority on a given subject, where the reality is the 'thinktank' was literally set up with the goal of pushing neoliberalist policy and lobbying Governements - such as the Institute of Economic Affairs - which are often quoted on BBC news and similar with 'factual' economic information (the names usually sound very official and authoritative but the reality is they are just an extreme lobbying group and everything they say is contrived to push neoliberal economic policy for the benefit of those behind the thinktank). The same mysterious thinktanks are at the heart of Climate Change denial, so we are being screwed twice over.

 

The book does a good job of linking all these 'institutes' and 'thinktanks' back to a very small number of neo-liberal billionaires and corporates.

In the end, it isn't Governments making fiscal policy at all...it's a couple of Billionaires hiding behind thinktanks. It's frightening.

Edited 15 October 2024 by SecretPro

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, davieG said:

There's no more money it's just moved around depending on the nature of the current government. The poor will stay poor or get poorer, the rich will stay rich  or get richer and the rest will continue to tread water the pace of which will depend on how high the water level is. Of course they'll be exception where a number of people will move up or down within those admittedly crude divisions.

 

Seems to me in my lifetime anyway it's always been like that.

Thing is though, that system cannot, will not, sustain itself in the long or even the short term. Consequences both natural and artificial will see to that.

 

So either we pick a new system, or we simply allow the gates to open to Very Bad Things to happen to everyone, including those rich people.