Ship of Fools: Tories are evil!

Thread: Tories are evil! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022946

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

I have noticed something quite intriguing recently. Many on the political right would view those with left-wing views as wrong-headed, wooly, or just plain wrong and to be argued against at any opportunity. However, some of those on the left view right-wingers as evil and contemptible - witness the easy use of the phrase 'Tory Scum'.

Who is the more tolerant?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Well that's an easy question to answer. It's clearly the right-wingers [Big Grin]

Posted by Moominpappa (# 12044) on :

Surely a few minutes perusing the Daily Mail would answer that question! Both sides can be intolerant, and, working in an organisation where labour supporters are rare as hen's teeth, I've heard many comments about left-wingers that suggest they are 'contemptible' and 'left-wing scum' (especially when there's any form of popular, public left-wing protest in the news).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I am tolerant. The rest are just bastards.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

It's not symmetrical in that the right wingers in any debate or society are always the ones with power. That is, being conservative or reactionary is by definition to want things to stay as they are.

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's not symmetrical in that the right wingers in any debate or society are always the ones with power. That is, being conservative or reactionary is by definition to want things to stay as they are.

That's not true. There were left-wing governments in power in most of Europe throughout the late '90's and 2000's.

Or perhaps they were not left-wing enough? Not quite the people's front of judea?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

But within them there were reformers and hard liners, radicals and right-wingers - whatever you want to call them. Gorbachov was a left-winger compared to Brezhnev.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I had the misfortune to be told by two men in my congregation that I, their minister, could not be a Christian because I had voted Tory.

How is that a reasoned opinion?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I have noticed something quite intriguing recently. Many on the political right would view those with left-wing views as wrong-headed, wooly, or just plain wrong and to be argued against at any opportunity. However, some of those on the left view right-wingers as evil and contemptible - witness the easy use of the phrase 'Tory Scum'.

I'd mostly identify with the left, and I think this is a fair critique of UK political discourse. (At least in general terms - I can think of a few counter-examples.)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's not symmetrical in that the right wingers in any debate or society are always the ones with power. That is, being conservative or reactionary is by definition to want things to stay as they are.

Whether that's true or not (I'm a right-winger, and I don't have any power), it's immaterial to the issue of which side is the more tolerant when it comes to discussing the other.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I had the misfortune to be told by two men in my congregation that I, their minister, could not be a Christian because I had voted Tory.

How is that a reasoned opinion?

Seems reasonable enough to me. Did they try to exorcise you? I probably would have done.... [Devil]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I have noticed something quite intriguing recently. Many on the political right would view those with left-wing views as wrong-headed, wooly, or just plain wrong and to be argued against at any opportunity. However, some of those on the left view right-wingers as evil and contemptible - witness the easy use of the phrase 'Tory Scum'.

Who is the more tolerant?

If you've gotta ask, you won't understand the answer [Razz]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

You see that, Ian? They're not even trying to defend themselves against the charge of intolerant bigotry...

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You see that, Ian? They're not even trying to defend themselves against the charge of intolerant bigotry...

Indeed. Never has a case been more self-evident [Biased]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's not symmetrical in that the right wingers in any debate or society are always the ones with power. That is, being conservative or reactionary is by definition to want things to stay as they are.
Whether that's true or not (I'm a right-winger, and I don't have any power), it's immaterial to the issue of which side is the more tolerant when it comes to discussing the other.

You may not have any personal power yourself (practically everyone does, though, and in this society, if you are male, white, can speak and write English and have a job, you have a fair amount of power), but the right wing position in any society is that on the side of the status quo.

It's relevant to the OP because those who are seeking to change the status quo will always struggle to be heard and understood, and will tend to sound strident and aggressive, and often a bit immature and whining.

Those who represent the status quo can usually manage to sound sympathetic but regretful. 'We'd really like it if the very rich paid more tax, of course we would, but sadly they'll just all leave the country if we don't cut their rates.'

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's not symmetrical in that the right wingers in any debate or society are always the ones with power. That is, being conservative or reactionary is by definition to want things to stay as they are.

Er...no. Ever heard of the term 'liberal elite'?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You may not have any personal power yourself (practically everyone does, though, and in this society, if you are male, white, can speak and write English and have a job, you have a fair amount of power),

I'm intrigued. As a male, white, english-speaking employed person what is this power that I have?

Note that power isn't the same as privilege or wealth.

quote:
It's relevant to the OP because those who are seeking to change the status quo will always struggle to be heard and understood, and will tend to sound strident and aggressive, and often a bit immature and whining.

There's sounding a bit strident, and then there's calling everyone who disagrees with you an evil bastard who should be shot at dawn. This isn't about policies or the rationalisations for them, this is about characterising the opposition as Satan Incarnate.

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You may not have any personal power yourself (practically everyone does, though, and in this society, if you are male, white, can speak and write English and have a job, you have a fair amount of power), but the right wing position in any society is that on the side of the status quo.

It's relevant to the OP because those who are seeking to change the status quo will always struggle to be heard and understood, and will tend to sound strident and aggressive, and often a bit immature and whining.

Those who represent the status quo can usually manage to sound sympathetic but regretful. 'We'd really like it if the very rich paid more tax, of course we would, but sadly they'll just all leave the country if we don't cut their rates.'

This is nonsense. For a start, it is circular in logic - you seem to equate being in power with being conservative. Secondly - the history of 1945 - 2010 in the UK shows that left-wing governments have had their fair crack the whip and the same is true in the rest of Europe.

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

Just to get back to the OP, I'm astonished -- given the level of invective on well known right-wing politics blogs -- that anybody should think that name-calling is the province of the left.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's not symmetrical in that the right wingers in any debate or society are always the ones with power. That is, being conservative or reactionary is by definition to want things to stay as they are.
Er...no. Ever heard of the term 'liberal elite'?

I've heard of the term. Who do you think they are? The cabinet? The Royal Family? The CEOs of the FTSE 100? The House of Lords? Newspaper owners? The 1000 richest individuals in the country?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You may not have any personal power yourself (practically everyone does, though, and in this society, if you are male, white, can speak and write English and have a job, you have a fair amount of power),
I'm intrigued. As a male, white, english-speaking employed person what is this power that I have?

Note that power isn't the same as privilege or wealth.

Privilege and wealth are forms of power. You can do things if you have money. You can do things if you have respect and influence. That's power.

Imagine you wanted to raise money for a small business, or get support to start a charity, or rally your neighbourhood to oppose a development. You would have a head start over many people, I expect. That's power.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This isn't about policies or the rationalisations for them, this is about characterising the opposition as Satan Incarnate.

This is a problem for left wingers. During Mrs Thatcher's premiership (a.k.a. the Reign of Terror) it was so transparently obvious that we were being governed by Satan Incarnate that we just fell back on saying so, and in time forgot why the lying, thieving, steal-bread-from-the-mouths-of-children, trickle-down-economics-my-arse bastards were pursuing some very dodgy policies.

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
Just to get back to the OP, I'm astonished -- given the level of invective on well known right-wing politics blogs -- that anybody should think that name-calling is the province of the left.

I think you'll fine those same blogs (e.g. Guido Fawkes) are as nasty to everyone - not a right/left thing.

I remember walking to the 2010 Tory conference in Manchester and there was a Unison demo (I think) in the plaza area outside the GMEX (or whatever they call it now). As we walked in - ordinary people - we are called, by the demonstrators who were public sector workers, "Tory scum" "Tory bastards" told to "rot in hell" "we hope you die" the IRA had it right" and similar such charming things.

Nice.

Posted by Full of Chips (# 13669) on :

In terms of UK ruling parties it is hard to argue that the terms "left" and "right" have any real meaning anymore.

"Evil" is a different matter however: Iraq, Afghanistan, cash for questions, dinner for donors, MPs expenses, the press scandal, the police scandal, the banking scandal, ...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You may not have any personal power yourself (practically everyone does, though, and in this society, if you are male, white, can speak and write English and have a job, you have a fair amount of power),
I'm intrigued. As a male, white, english-speaking employed person what is this power that I have?

For a start, you can afford to buy a computer and pay the leccy bills and post stuff about your right-wing views.

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

I don't think I would ever have thought of calling tories "evil" before the unlamented lady PM, I disliked Fred Teeth for taking us into the Common Market, but I had occasionally voted tory before and at that time might have expected to do it again. The unpleasant Thatcher changed all that : I can no longer think of them as anything but evil.
They call themselves "conservative", but the only thing they seem to want to conserve is priviledge for the rich. Their policies reek of 19th century laisser faire liberalism.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's not symmetrical in that the right wingers in any debate or society are always the ones with power. That is, being conservative or reactionary is by definition to want things to stay as they are.
Er...no. Ever heard of the term 'liberal elite'?
I've heard of the term. Who do you think they are? The cabinet? The Royal Family? The CEOs of the FTSE 100? The House of Lords? Newspaper owners? The 1000 richest individuals in the country?

Blair and Co for starters, who were in power for 10 years and...er...not conservative.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Privilege and wealth are forms of power. You can do things if you have money. You can do things if you have respect and influence. That's power.

I don't have much money though. Enough to keep a roof over my head and enjoy a couple of the finer things in life (which is what I was thinking of), but far short of enough to gain respect and influence where they matter.

quote:
Imagine you wanted to raise money for a small business, or get support to start a charity, or rally your neighbourhood to oppose a development. You would have a head start over many people, I expect. That's power.

I doubt I would, to be honest. Certainly not just because of my colour, sex and employment status.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm intrigued. As a male, white, english-speaking employed person what is this power that I have?

For a start, you can afford to buy a computer and pay the leccy bills and post stuff about your right-wing views.

That's not power. Power is being able to get people to do what you want, not being able to log on to the internet.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Having grown up as a token leftie in a very right-wing area, I can assure you that those with right-wing views are equally strident and offensive about the left.

The OP, is of course fundamentally flawed:

it sets up incomplete scenarios, ignoring those on the left who are not abusive to those on the right, and those on the right who are abusive to those on the left
it fails to acknowledge that sanctimonious and patronising dismissal of alternative opinions by essentially considering the proponents to be retarded and incapable of coherent thought doesn't count as 'tolerance'; it's not really tolerating when you dismiss something as beneath contempt or not worth engaging with, it's just a long-winded and smug way of calling someone "scum" without actually saying it
in short, like all political posturing, it cherry-picks to make a point that is no point at all, and simply stirs up a ruck to avoid talking about any actual real issue

The real answer of course is that both left and right contain intolerant arseholes as well as people of great forebearance (who may nonetheless still be arseholes, of course).

As most public politics appears to be about childish name-calling and petty point scoring this thread should do quite well, however [Snigger]

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

I'm a card carrying Tory and I wouldn't consider it a compliment to be branded "evil" or "scum." There are, I think, extremists in every party - left, right and centre. However their views are necessarily those of a minority.

Why am I a Tory? Not because I'm particularly driven by dogma or ideology but because I believe in opportunity, fairness, choice, personal responsibility and light government.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Blair and Co for starters, who were in power for 10 years and...er...not conservative.

Some of us would take issue with that.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Just as some would take issue that Cameron is a true conservative.

[ETA - Tony and his cronies did away with vast swathes of the UK constitution, taxed the middle classes until the pips squeaked and spent taxpayers' money like the credit crunch was never gonna happen. None of which is traditionally conservative behaviour.]

[ 29. March 2012, 13:15: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Blair and Co for starters, who were in power for 10 years and...er...not conservative.
Some of us would take issue with that.

Agreed - Blair was a Young Conservative as a student...

Basically, whereas the political barometer was once centered quite effectively, with One Nation Tories on one side (centre-right), and a centre-left Labour Party, we now suffer under a political system where the centreline has moved quite a way to the right, with it almost looking like...

-----(Centre)---Labour--BBC--Liberal---------Tory.

As opposed to

Militant-----Labour--BBC-Liberal-(centre)----Tory.

Sadly with the Beeb almost being live Pravda or RT rather than calling the govt to account...

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Disagree with that analysis - 'liberal' for me = centre-left, which is where Blair etc were

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I've been thinking "what is 'evil' in this context?" for a while. I think otyetsfoma provides that standard leftist view of what 'evil' means here:

quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
the only thing they seem to want to conserve is priviledge for the rich.

So is evil to be defined as enacting policies that benefit the party's own social group (the rich, in this case) at the expense of the others (the poor, in this case)? And if so, why is the traditional leftist desire to enact policies that benefit their own social group (the poor) at the expense of the others (the rich) any different?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm intrigued. As a male, white, english-speaking employed person what is this power that I have?

For a start, you can afford to buy a computer and pay the leccy bills and post stuff about your right-wing views.
That's not power. Power is being able to get people to do what you want, not being able to log on to the internet.

That shows how out of touch you are with 'the underclass' - without computer access, you get higher bills, cannot sign petitions, know what is going on in the world apart from the capitalist media.

Influence is part of power - it is one way of getting people to do things.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Psalm 146: 7-9 seems to say because advantaging the poor is God's agenda.

Jengie

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Back to the issue (for once) I can confidently state that, based on what I have seen of people with different political views, the correlation between evil and political viewpoint is pretty much the same, across the spectrum. Despite what Marvin states however, members of the Conservative Party generally have more power, usually through wealth rather than income, and are better able to make other peoples' lives a misery, and are often able to make themselves better off into the bargain.

It is that which drives the left into (sometimes) apopleptic rage, as they recognise the relative impotence of their own position. What baffles many of us on the left (OK, me for a start) is that anyone who is not well-heeled is ever taken in by the trickle-down theories of wealth distribution! FFS, in any commercial enterprise (and the fee-earning parts of the public service too) the value of your work is higher than the amount you are paid! If this were a reasonable margin and transparent then fair enough but it is often neither of those things.

So there we are; the Tories are not evil per se, just skilled at a form of it which is the basis of our economic system.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I dunno; similar feelings of impotence and apoplectic rage were felt by many a SME-owner I know at being (as they perceived it) taxed to the hilt and strangled by red tape by Blair, Brown and Co.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Despite what Marvin states however, members of the Conservative Party generally have more power, usually through wealth rather than income, and are better able to make other peoples' lives a misery, and are often able to make themselves better off into the bargain.

I think you've got that backwards. They're seeking to make themselves better off, yes - but then, aren't we all? And if that means someone else has to be worse off, then that's just a (unfortunate?) side effect - but then, isn't that true of us all as well?

I seriously doubt that any of them deliberately seek out Bond Villain-like to make other people's lives a misery, with making themselves better off as a nice side-effect.

quote:
FFS, in any commercial enterprise (and the fee-earning parts of the public service too) the value of your work is higher than the amount you are paid!

Of course it is. If it wasn't then they wouldn't want to pay me to do it, and my job wouldn't exist.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I dunno; similar feelings of impotence and apoplectic rage were felt by many a SME-owner I know at being (as they perceived it) taxed to the hilt and strangled by red tape by Blair, Brown and Co.

I'm not accusing you Matt, but many SME-owners could feel right at home in UKIP, feeling that Labour is stillpro-union, Tories are pro-big business and that the Lib Dems are still a bunch of hairy sandal-wearers (which as we now know, is untrue, as they all wear suits and are as venal as anybody else at Westminster).

On Marvin's remark about the 'side-efect' of making oneself better off; it's a lot easier for those nearer the top of the pile to do that and make other's lives a misery. Just to be sure could I try for a year just to see how much of a bastard it would make me!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On Marvin's remark about the 'side-efect' of making oneself better off; it's a lot easier for those nearer the top of the pile to do that and make other's lives a misery.

That is true regardless of the political leanings of those at the top of the pile. All that changes is who suffers, and you can't really blame anyone for trying to ensure that it's not them. You certainly can't call them evil for doing so.

quote:
Just to be sure could I try for a year just to see how much of a bastard it would make me!

Aw, Hell yeah. I'd love to have the chance to get my hands on some real wealth and power. Trouble is, I'd be having so much fun living it up like a fucking king I'd probably forget all about that "deliberately making everyone else's life a living hell" thing. And I call myself a Tory [Disappointed]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

I saw the OP as being more about the asymmetry - the suggestion being that the Right see the Left as stupid - deficient in intellect - whereas the Left see the Right as heartless - deficient in compassion.

We're all human, and self-interest distorts our perception of what is reasonable and sensible and appropriate.

Seems to me that it is not a good thing when one ceases to see those one disagrees with politically as well-meaning fellow human beings whose different temperament and life-experiences have led them to a different sense of what is just, and start seeing them as willing minions of the Evil One.

Given that the gap between "heartless" and "evil" is narrower than that between "stupid" and "evil", the Left is going to be in more danger of confusing left-right with good-evil than the Right is.

But that says nothing about the degree to which the virtue of tolerance (or lack of it) is exercised by any individual on either side.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

In Britain the Left has traditionally thought of the Tories as the Stupid Party.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In Britain the Left has traditionally thought of the Tories as the Stupid Party.

Really?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Well, Francs Maude's advice on stockng up petrol was more than stupid. It was dangerous.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, Francs Maude's advice on stockng up petrol was more than stupid. It was dangerous.

Pfft. What's dangerous is decanting petrol in your kitchen, while the oven's on. I think the link between the poor lady's accident and Francis Maude's ill-advised comment a few days ago is tenuous at best.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, Francs Maude's advice on stockng up petrol was more than stupid. It was dangerous.
Pfft. What's dangerous is decanting petrol in your kitchen, while the oven's on. I think the link between the poor lady's accident and Francis Maude's ill-advised comment a few days ago is tenuous at best.

There is no doubt that this poor woman is a strong candidate for nomination in the Darwin Awards.

However, it should not be overlooked that the ONLY reason for her doing such an incredibly daft thing in the first place was because of the Tories' scaremongering and especially Francis Maude's spectacularly crass "advice".

Had the Tories not generated a fuel crisis (where there was none before), the woman's daughter would have been able to get petrol for her car and the woman wouldn't have been stockpiling petrol in unsuitable conditions.

It really is a simple case of cause and effect...

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

How has this thread got so far without mentioning the Magnificat? Can one of the Tory supporters tell me a single thing the current government or the mastermind who fundamentally distorted British politics, possibly irrecoverably, has ever done to scatter the proud, build up the lowly, or send the rich away empty? The rich get filled with ever tastier morsels, the poor get what they have ripped away from them in the name of "efficiency" and/or "reform", and just about every socially divisive cliche going gets as much support as it can possibly have.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
However, it should not be overlooked that the ONLY reason for her doing such an incredibly daft thing in the first place was because of the Tories' scaremongering and especially Francis Maude's spectacularly crass "advice"... It really is a simple case of cause and effect...

Yes, you're right. If Maude hadn't said what he did then the accident almost certainly wouldn't have happened. But that can't make Maude morally responsible, can it? If we follow this path, then no politician would ever be able to give any advice to the public for fear of one person taking it the wrong way and injuring / killing themselves.

Think of it the other way with the government. If they'd said nothing and the strike had gone ahead, I'm sure there'd be a story of someone who came to harm as a result of running out of fuel. Then some people would seek to pin blame on the government for NOT advising people to stock up on fuel.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
However, it should not be overlooked that the ONLY reason for her doing such an incredibly daft thing in the first place was because of the Tories' scaremongering and especially Francis Maude's spectacularly crass "advice".

Crassness aside, he was advising people to do something that was potentially illegal.

Back to the crassness, he obviously lives in a world where 'all right thinking people' have a garage.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
How has this thread got so far without mentioning the Magnificat? Can one of the Tory supporters tell me a single thing the current government or the mastermind who fundamentally distorted British politics, possibly irrecoverably, has ever done to scatter the proud, build up the lowly, or send the rich away empty? The rich get filled with ever tastier morsels, the poor get what they have ripped away from them in the name of "efficiency" and/or "reform", and just about every socially divisive cliche going gets as much support as it can possibly have.

It's a basic principle of Tory thinking (I use "thinking" somewhat loosely) that you incentivise the rich by giving them more money, and incentivise the poor by giving them less. I would imagine they'd claim it Stands To Reason.

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
How has this thread got so far without mentioning the Magnificat? Can one of the Tory supporters tell me a single thing the current government or the mastermind who fundamentally distorted British politics, possibly irrecoverably, has ever done to scatter the proud, build up the lowly, or send the rich away empty? The rich get filled with ever tastier morsels, the poor get what they have ripped away from them in the name of "efficiency" and/or "reform", and just about every socially divisive cliche going gets as much support as it can possibly have.

You miss a fairly fundamental point of the Magnificat. It is GOD who does those things. I suspect he doesn't need any help.

But seriously - this is exactly what I was saying. Look at the likes of Ken Clarke, David Davies, Norman Tebbit and many others talk passionately about the poor. The difference is that the do not believe the state is the answer, but often the problem. You may think them wrong - but they are not evil. Just see it differently.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

With reference to Mr Tebbitt, he has spent much of the last decade pointing out that Hitler's political party had "Socialist" in the title, in a rather fatuous attempt to both argue that Hitler wasn't "right"-wing and to imply that Socialists are a bit like Hitler.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Tony and his cronies [...] taxed the middle classes until the pips squeaked

Is that true, though? (Genuine question - I was still in primary school when Blair won his first election.)

My sources say that under the Labour Government the basic rate of income tax fell from 23% to 20%, the higher rate remained constant at 40%, and although NI went up, it didn't go up by very much. Blair and his mates also created ISAs, which give the middle classes tax-free savings.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
you incentivise the rich by giving them more money, and incentivise the poor by giving them less.

That sounds heartless. But giving people financial incentives to do what you don't want them to do - that sounds stupid.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
you incentivise the rich by giving them more money, and incentivise the poor by giving them less.
That sounds heartless. But giving people financial incentives to do what you don't want them to do - that sounds stupid.

Best wishes,

Russ

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, so I'll give you a concrete example of what I meant.

When unemployed or disabled people are seen to be becoming dependent on the welfare benefits they receive, the Tory response is to cut or limit those benefits.

When the very rich (people earning over £150000 p.a.) are seen to be avoiding paying their taxes, the Tory response is to cut their taxes.

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
you incentivise the rich by giving them more money, and incentivise the poor by giving them less.
That sounds heartless. But giving people financial incentives to do what you don't want them to do - that sounds stupid.

Best wishes,

Russ
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, so I'll give you a concrete example of what I meant.

When unemployed or disabled people are seen to be becoming dependent on the welfare benefits they receive, the Tory response is to cut or limit those benefits.

When the very rich (people earning over £150000 p.a.) are seen to be avoiding paying their taxes, the Tory response is to cut their taxes.

If more revenue can be collected by reducing the tax rate, then surely that makes sense. When the top 1% of earners currently pay 28% of all income tax, it is a pretty progressive tax system anyway.

You forget to mention the lifting of the personal tax allowance which pulls a further 1 million or so people out of taxation altogether, which will rise again next year (and the year after).

Besides, there is a qualitative difference between not giving someone money, and not taking as much of their own money off someone. You are comparing apples and oranges

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Indeed.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In Britain the Left has traditionally thought of the Tories as the Stupid Party.

Since the eighties at least I've thought of the Tories as the greedy and selfish party. While it's true that 'Tim, nice but dim' is at home there he only joined for Britain's best middle-class dating agency. Labour on the other hand has always had a few shining stars, a lot of honest plodders and a sure aim for its own feet.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
When the top 1% of earners currently pay 28% of all income tax, it is a pretty progressive tax system anyway.

Just a thought ....

What %age of income does this top 1% of earners receive?

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
When the top 1% of earners currently pay 28% of all income tax, it is a pretty progressive tax system anyway.

Just a thought ....

What %age of income does this top 1% of earners receive?

I am trying to find the link, but according to the ONS, the top 1% earn 12.4% of the national income.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
When the top 1% of earners currently pay 28% of all income tax, it is a pretty progressive tax system anyway.

Just a thought ....

What %age of income does this top 1% of earners receive?
I am trying to find the link, but according to the ONS, the top 1% earn 12.4% of the national income.

Put that way, it looks fair and progressive.

The top 1% own 21% of the wealth. Wealth is taxed at a lower rate, if at all.

On top of which, someone on £10k will no longer pay income tax at all, but £10k is still below the full-time minimum wage.

This graph is revealing. From 0% tax/NI below the threshold, it ramps up really very quickly, then tails off. You would anticipate a fair and progressive tax regime to have a much smoother transition between zero and lots, and there's certainly an argument to be had to integrate NI into the income tax system.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Note that the top 1% of wage earners is not the same as the richest 1%. Mostly because the wealthiest slightly-more-than-1% tend not to get paid wages, or if they do, its a small part of the money available to them.

So the top 1% of wage earners are quite likely to be spread out among the top 5% or so in terms of all sources of income. And what's more only half the population earn money anyway, so make that 10%.

Also (& this next idea is a bit of thinking aloud but it sounds plausible) lots of people earn different amounts through their lives. Nothing at all for the first 15-25 years, then rising till middle age, then falling again, until it often goes away (as an aside that's one difference between traditional working-class communities and middle-class ones - unskilled manual workers tend to get their peak earnings in their 20s or 30s, skilled craft workers often in their 40s or 50s, but white-collar workers often continue to increase their real incomes until retirement. It is also the case that women's earned income on average peaks earlier than men's)

Anyway, lets say people only get their highest wages for about half their lives (seems a rather conservative estimate to me) That might mean that that maybe 10% of wage-earners are part of that top 5% at some time in their lives. The person who is getting 150,000 a year now is not going to be the same as the one who got that wage (or equivalent) ten years ago or will in ten years time.

So its quite possible that maybe 20% of the whole population are either in the top 1% of wage-earners, or have a family member who is, maybe only briefly, at some time in their lives. And it also means we all know people in that bracket even if we never get there at all ourselves.

As to who they are - they are probably who you think they are. Mostly managers in large companies. Quite a lot of doctors and dentists. "Self employed" people who choose to take some of their money as wages. Some lawyers and accountants, especially those who provide services to big business.

On top of that there will be a handful of writers and artists and musicians and sportsmen (& it will be sports men - the largest group by far is likely to be professional footballers who might make up about 2 or 3% of this wage bracket) A rather larger handful of contractors and "consultants" who do technical work for large companies. (I've known a few contract computer programmers who get into this bracket, but they are likely mostly to be more at the handwaving mangagement consultancy or PR end of things)

Despite newspaper stories about plumbers or taxi drivers getting these sort of wages there are going to be very few of them. I think people who bore deep tunnels can earn that kind of money and its probably possible for those who erect tower cranes to. A London black cab driver who owned their own car might do it if they worked at night all night could consistently get four or five good fares an hour - which sounds unlikely.

If you want a tax to take money from the rich you have to tax property, not income.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
taking as much of their own money off someone

Genuine question - as I have no idea how to start googling the answer - how much does market wage take account of the fact that someone has to pay tax? If an employer knew that you didn't have to [ay 20% tax, would this mean (in rather simplistic terms) that the taxable bit of your income would is inflated because of the need to pay tax?

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Note that the top 1% of wage earners is not the same as the richest 1%. Mostly because the wealthiest slightly-more-than-1% tend not to get paid wages, or if they do, its a small part of the money available to them.

Just to make one point. This is the top 1% of those who pay income tax - whether that is on investments, savings, wages etc.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Note that the top 1% of wage earners is not the same as the richest 1%. Mostly because the wealthiest slightly-more-than-1% tend not to get paid wages, or if they do, its a small part of the money available to them.

Just to make one point. This is the top 1% of those who pay income tax - whether that is on investments, savings, wages etc.

You don't pay income tax on investments.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

You do on the income from them (eg: dividends)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

At a lesser rate than income tax.

Let's face it. Income - what someone who *works* for a living makes - is taxed more highly and steeply than living off investments. Those at the very top pay less tax proportionally than those at low and middle incomes because they can arrange their "pay" as they see fit. Cutting the 50p tax band back to 45p is regressive, as is the shrinking of the 20p tax band so that more people fall into the 40p band.

I wouldn't call this evil as such, but it's not good...

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

... and we haven't even mentioned National Insurance yet.

National Insurance is, of course, a fiction created to make low- and middle-earners think they're paying less tax than they actually do. In reality, government income from NI isn't strictly ring-fenced to pay for the NHS, pensions, or anything in particular.

At present, the NI rate of low- and middle-earners is 12%, while the rate for higher earners is just 14%.

The thresholds are different from those for Income Tax, but if you say they're roughly the same, then above the zero-threshold, the combined rates for IT and NI are 32% for low- and middle earners and 44% for higher earners.

Rather different from the 20% and 40% for those groups that we're told they pay in "tax".

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
... and we haven't even mentioned National Insurance yet.

National Insurance is, of course, a fiction created to make low- and middle-earners think they're paying less tax than they actually do. In reality, government income from NI isn't strictly ring-fenced to pay for the NHS, pensions, or anything in particular.

At present, the NI rate of low- and middle-earners is 12%, while the rate for higher earners is just 14%.

The thresholds are different from those for Income Tax, but if you say they're roughly the same, then above the zero-threshold, the combined rates for IT and NI are 32% for low- and middle earners and 44% for higher earners.

Rather different from the 20% and 40% for those groups that we're told they pay in "tax".

Sorry, that should have been "32% for low- and middle earners and 54% for higher earners".

Though if you're self-employed, you pay the princely sum of £2.50 a week NI contributions, plue 9% of your taxable profits over about £7000. And we know how good the self-employed are at "arranging" their taxable profits....

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Besides, there is a qualitative difference between not giving someone money, and not taking as much of their own money off someone. You are comparing apples and oranges

Well

quote:
From Dr Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics;
Just to be clear, you can, if you choose, make moral arguments to the effect that it’s wrong to seize the rightful earnings of the wealthy for other purposes; I would disagree, and argue that the real immorality is letting so many of our fellow citizens suffer. But that’s all a different kind of discourse. What the right is claiming is that there’s a straight economic, not moral, argument for low taxes on the rich, that going back to Herbert-Hoover-level taxes at the top makes everyone richer.

Now, he's writing in an American context but the arguments parallel this side of the pond too.

AFZ

Posted by Clergy Grandaughter (# 15928) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
How has this thread got so far without mentioning the Magnificat? Can one of the Tory supporters tell me a single thing the current government or the mastermind who fundamentally distorted British politics, possibly irrecoverably, has ever done to scatter the proud, build up the lowly, or send the rich away empty? The rich get filled with ever tastier morsels, the poor get what they have ripped away from them in the name of "efficiency" and/or "reform", and just about every socially divisive cliche going gets as much support as it can possibly have.

Thank goodness - I was beginning to think that I was on the wrong site and that there was not a Christian involved in this discussion!

[ 07. April 2012, 14:14: Message edited by: Clergy Grandaughter ]

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

I think the fundamental difference is whether it is up to the individual will or the collective will to decide what is a moral use of money. It is a sliding scale rather than an absolute, but those on the left would favour the latter, those on the right the former.Neither are evil, but different answers to the same problem.

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

A question no one seems to ask is: Who gets the benefit of taxation?. The Tory press have (as long as I can remember) implied that taxation was to benefit theinept and inefficient, the scroungers and the work-shy i.e. the poor.That is nonsense - it is not the poor that fit that description, but the wealthy. They get the benefit of taxation because it provides all the circumstances for them to preserve and increase their wealth: the infrastructure, the monetary system and their legal protection. Even the pittance that goes towards "welfare" preserves for them that priceless benefit to capitalists the "flexible labour market".

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

Ken is quite right that the richest people are not necessarily the highest earners and that taxation should really be increased on capital wealth and reduced on income (at all levels!).

What is alarming more than the avoidance of tax by individuals is the avoidance by multinationals using various offshore jurisdictions to pay next to no tax on absolutely massive profits. Some of the worst villains here are reported to be companies like Apple, Google and Amazon. The other villain is the Irish tax system which enables these anti-social companies to get away with it. The losses to the Exchequer are of the order of tens of billions of pounds.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I think the fundamental difference is whether it is up to the individual will or the collective will to decide what is a moral use of money. It is a sliding scale rather than an absolute, but those on the left would favour the latter, those on the right the former.Neither are evil, but different answers to the same problem.

This is absolutely central to the argument. But so is the question: what should government do when it leaves it up to the individual to make moral use of their money, and they don't? Does it stand back and say, "What a shame. You spent your money on another yacht instead of supporting the poor and the sick. But hey, never mind, it's your money. Sorry, poor sick people, nothing we can do." Or does it say, "You have failed in your moral duty. It is a duty. So we're going to do it for you. Give us yer cash."

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I think the fundamental difference is whether it is up to the individual will or the collective will to decide what is a moral use of money. It is a sliding scale rather than an absolute, but those on the left would favour the latter, those on the right the former.Neither are evil, but different answers to the same problem.
This is absolutely central to the argument. But so is the question: what should government do when it leaves it up to the individual to make moral use of their money, and they don't? Does it stand back and say, "What a shame. You spent your money on another yacht instead of supporting the poor and the sick. But hey, never mind, it's your money. Sorry, poor sick people, nothing we can do." Or does it say, "You have failed in your moral duty. It is a duty. So we're going to do it for you. Give us yer cash."

As I said above - it is a sliding scale rather than an absolute, but if what you say is the case, then the answer is the collective will.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

I see a basic asymmetry here.

The basis of Toryism is not a desire to see greater inequality of wealth for its own sake. If Tories hated and wanted to punish the poor in the way that some on the left seem to hate and want to punish the rich, then yes that would be evil. Envy and hatred are not good.

But there is no evil in seeking the rising tide that will float all boats. In teaching a man to fish. In valuing individual freedom and dignity and privacy over the invasive the institutionalised the corrupt and the bureaucratic State.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

But there is no evil in seeking the rising tide that will float all boats. In teaching a man to fish. In valuing individual freedom and dignity and privacy over the invasive the institutionalised the corrupt and the bureaucratic State.

Best wishes,

Russ

Well that's all well and good if you think that's what they really believe. But when they cut taxes for the high earners and cut benefits for the low earners, all to protect the bonuses of the bankers then you start to wonder.
(and is it possible for a rising tide to float boats that have holes in them anyway?)

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

The fundamental issue you are missing is that those on the right make a distinction between money the state has to spend and money that private individuals have to spend. The idea that benefits are cut to preserve bankers bonuses is the worst sort of juvenile conspiracy bullshit.

I will admit that cutting the 50p to 45p was a PR disaster, but that is all it was. It hasn't lost the treasury any income - and objectively made sense - but it looked bad.

But your reply sums up the problem - you assume that the Tories are somehow rubbing their hands with glee at selling off the NHS, cutting benefits and destroying education. All of which is obviously crap. We are talking about different philosophical approaches to roughly the same thing - reduced benefit dependency, a better education system and a better health service. You may not like the approach of the right, but it is not 'evil'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Well that's all well and good if you think that's what they really believe.

It is.

But don't feel you have to take our word for it - please do continue telling us what it is we truly believe if it'll make you feel better.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Well that's all well and good if you think that's what they really believe.
It is.

But don't feel you have to take our word for it - please do continue telling us what it is we truly believe if it'll make you feel better.

I judge what people believe by their actions, not their rhetoric. And I judge their actions by the consequences they lead to - intentional or otherwise. I used to believe in the Thatcherite "trickledown effect", until it became clear that it wasn't happening.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But don't feel you have to take our word for it - please do continue telling us what it is we truly believe if it'll make you feel better.

I'm not one of these people who believe that the primary goal of grass roots Tories is to send the poor to the salt mines. But there are points at which rational people begin to find it impossible to give Tory governments the benefit of the doubt, and end up having to decide between charges of outright evil, corruption, and stupidity and some of the things this coalition are doing is shoving me in that direction. I speak as someone who has been known to vote Conservative so please don't see this as knee-jerk Tory-bashing.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I'll wait and see if George Osborne takes any action about the millionaire tax avoiders that 'shock' the chancellor. Poor sap, doesn't he realise that it's evasion that's illegal? Avoidance is like interest; once it gets above a certain point it's an abomination.

The article mentions that it could be crocodile tears. I prefer to think his response will be in line with the family fortune, ie, to paper over the problem.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Just as some would take issue that Cameron is a true conservative.

[ETA - Tony and his cronies did away with vast swathes of the UK constitution, taxed the middle classes until the pips squeaked and spent taxpayers' money like the credit crunch was never gonna happen. None of which is traditionally conservative behaviour.]

Doing away with large swathes of the UK constitution? I'd call that conservative. Just ask Thatcher.

Spent taxpayers money like the credit crunch was never gonna happen? Sure Thatcher did it by selling assets. But that's Conservative again. And if we look across the pond, the Republicans quite simply spend more than the Democrats.

And squeezing the middle class until the pips squeak while allowing the rich to make out like bandits? Conservative again.

Blair was a Young Conservative who defected to the Labour Party, apparently for a Human Rights Lawyer. And is an excellent case study in why a reflexive knee jerk to the centre is a bad idea.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

But there is no evil in seeking the rising tide that will float all boats. In teaching a man to fish. In valuing individual freedom and dignity and privacy over the invasive the institutionalised the corrupt and the bureaucratic State.

Best wishes,

Russ
Well that's all well and good if you think that's what they really believe. But when they cut taxes for the high earners and cut benefits for the low earners, all to protect the bonuses of the bankers then you start to wonder.
(and is it possible for a rising tide to float boats that have holes in them anyway?)

Oh, I believe they believe it. And do their best to continue to believe it irrespective of what the facts actually show. And this is my problem with the right wing. That no man is an island.

And then there are the examples. I hear from the right wing how "inefficient" the single most financially efficient healthcare system in the world is. That being the NHS. I hear about the magic pixie dust of the free market and how this will improve efficiency. And then look at the murderous inefficiency of the US Ilness Intervention system. I hear about the evils of Government Bureaucracy - then compare the NHS bureaucracy to that of an insurance model with each insurance company having its own overlapping bureaucracy. And separate bureacuratic models for each possible choice is [i]necessary[i] with competition. It's simply less bureaucratically efficient at this level. (Not that choice is always bad, merely that it's not an unqualified good and a large one off incident where the person choosing is a layman is not the best time to prioritise choice).

I believe the pro-corporate right wing supporters believe what they believe. And have a good point that the weakest companies fail in a way that is a catastrophe if it happens to a government. However I believe also that they don't look too hard at evidence or consequences.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll wait and see if George Osborne takes any action about the millionaire tax avoiders that 'shock' the chancellor. Poor sap, doesn't he realise that it's evasion that's illegal? Avoidance is like interest; once it gets above a certain point it's an abomination.

The article mentions that it could be crocodile tears. I prefer to think his response will be in line with the family fortune, ie, to paper over the problem.

It would appear that a lot of these high earners pay lower levels of income tax because they give a substantial part of their income to charity. As such a charity would have to be bona fide to qualify for the relief I would have thought this a laudable form of tax avoidance. Others are offsetting past losses which is really just a method of smoothing the taxable income. One can only assume that George Osbourne's surprise at this arises from an ignorance of how the tax system works.

[ 11. April 2012, 16:21: Message edited by: aumbry ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It would appear that a lot of these high earners pay lower levels of income tax because they give a substantial part of their income to charity. As such a charity would have to be bona fide to qualify for the relief I would have thought this a laudable form of tax avoidance.

That depends what you mean by 'bona fide'. Independent schools are considered charity. So are a certain style of vanity project. "Patrons of the arts" - paying their money to the local opera house in exchange for status and a free box rather than letting the government make sure it gets to those they'd keep out of sight and out of mind.

Sometimes it is laudible. Sometimes it's just a tax dodge.

quote:
Others are offsetting past losses which is really just a method of smoothing the taxable income. One can only assume that George Osbourne's surprise at this arises from an ignorance of how the tax system works.

What this means is that the chancellor, despite being both a millionaire and in charge of the treasury doesn't know how the rich pay taxes. That's simple incompetence.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It would appear that a lot of these high earners pay lower levels of income tax because they give a substantial part of their income to charity. As such a charity would have to be bona fide to qualify for the relief I would have thought this a laudable form of tax avoidance.
That depends what you mean by 'bona fide'. Independent schools are considered charity. So are a certain style of vanity project. "Patrons of the arts" - paying their money to the local opera house in exchange for status and a free box rather than letting the government make sure it gets to those they'd keep out of sight and out of mind.

Sometimes it is laudible. Sometimes it's just a tax dodge.

According to your measure it is a tax dodge if you don't approve of the charity. You show a wilful ignorance of arts philanthropy, a donation to a theatre or opera house which gleaned a box would be a donation for consideration and would not qualify for exemption from income tax. Most people who make substantial donations to the arts do so no doubt for the kudos but also because they believe it enriches the cultural landscape which of course is why these things have charitable status. If they didn't either the state would have to step in and pay or it wouldn't happen. Those that support private and state schools do so in the hope of preserving the few facets of the education system that have not been enfeebled by your sort of leftwing ideology.

[ 12. April 2012, 09:36: Message edited by: aumbry ]

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And then there are the examples. I hear from the right wing how "inefficient" the single most financially efficient healthcare system in the world is. That being the NHS. I hear about the magic pixie dust of the free market and how this will improve efficiency. And then look at the murderous inefficiency of the US Ilness Intervention system. I hear about the evils of Government Bureaucracy - then compare the NHS bureaucracy to that of an insurance model with each insurance company having its own overlapping bureaucracy. And separate bureacuratic models for each possible choice is [i]necessary[i] with competition. It's simply less bureaucratically efficient at this level. (Not that choice is always bad, merely that it's not an unqualified good and a large one off incident where the person choosing is a layman is not the best time to prioritise choice).

This is the kind of thing I had in mind, for the record. As I said, I don't subscribe to any particular political party yet when I try to look at the facts here, I can't find a credible argument in favour of the changes, nor credible evidence in support of the charge that the current system is in need of radical overhaul. The choice then appears to be between a government that is really lying (not just massaging the truth a bit), or a government that is stupid (not just a bit mistaken about something).

On the question of tax avoidance, there are a lot of grey areas but I'd have thought relief for charitable donations wasn't one of them provided the charities are legit. I'm far more concerned about off-shoring and the creative use of companies to wash profit figures (or whatever it is people do, I'm no expert). There's a moral difference between avoidance and evasion but drawing the line between fair and cheating requires a bit of thought.

I work in software and I remember the fuss about IR35, which for the uninitiated closed a tax loophole preventing IT contractors from using limited companies to take their fees, then paying themselves a minimum wage and taking money out as dividends - depending on the tax scheme at the time, this dodged national insurance and some income tax. That was to my mind, tax evasion in the moral sense, an attempt to avoid paying legitimate tax on your earners. On the other hand the solution meant that contractors and small companies who had high costs for training, administration, travel and the like, were being taxed on them yet having to compete with larger companies who could claim relief.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In Britain the Left has traditionally thought of the Tories as the Stupid Party.

I think the line comes from John Stuart Mill when he was standing for Parliament as a Liberal c 1866, and his later gloss on it is interesting: IIRC he said that he didn't mean that Conservatives were generally stupid, but rather that stupid people tended to be Conservatives.
I suspect that, understood in that sense and notwithstanding the presence of lots of stupid people in other parties, it is still true.

[ 12. April 2012, 15:43: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Mill is an interesting figure. In the United States, conservatives are divided among those who completely reject Mill and those who, in their way, embrace him wholeheartedly. I'm with the former.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In Britain the Left has traditionally thought of the Tories as the Stupid Party.
I think the line comes from John Stuart Mill when he was standing for Parliament as a Liberal c 1866, and his later gloss on it is interesting: IIRC he said that he didn't mean that Conservatives were generally stupid, but rather that stupid people tended to be Conservatives.
I suspect that, understood in that sense and notwithstanding the presence of lots of stupid people in other parties, it is still true.

As I understand it, Liberals in 1866 were closer to modern Conservatives than Conservatives of that time were. Would Mill now be standing in the Conservative interest!?!

No ideology has the corner on stupidity, evil or greed. Some however are better equipped to do harm.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0