Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Social Gospel
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ken: That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.
Are you having a laugh, ken? Every single Socialist economic policy I've heard put forward on this board has ultimately been propped up by "tax the rich". People have called for a 90% top rate of income tax. People have called for property taxes that would only be paid by those in expensive properties. Are you seriously trying to tell me these things aren't about taking more from the rich to fund programmes for the poor? I mean, why call a proposal the "Robin Hood Tax" if not to evoke echoes of "rob the rich and give to the poor"?
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by seekingsister: quote: Originally posted by ken: That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.
At the very least, it means that part of my income is going towards funding what the government of the day thinks is important, rather than what I think is important.
Tell me about it. Mind you, it's the Tories who currently want me to fund the ability to, as Leon Rosselson observes, poison the earth and turn children to dust. Perhaps we should encourage right wing pro-genocidal nukers to practice what they preach and require Trident be funded from voluntary donation?
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ken: That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: quote: Originally posted by ken: That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.
Are you having a laugh, ken? Every single Socialist economic policy I've heard put forward on this board has ultimately been propped up by "tax the rich". People have called for a 90% top rate of income tax. People have called for property taxes that would only be paid by those in expensive properties. Are you seriously trying to tell me these things aren't about taking more from the rich to fund programmes for the poor? I mean, why call a proposal the "Robin Hood Tax" if not to evoke echoes of "rob the rich and give to the poor"?
At the moment the peak rate of effective taxation is on benefit recipients who are moving into work. Typically they lose more than a pound of benefits for every pound they earh in wages.
There aren't many socialists who advocate taxes of over 100%, which is what happens when JSA, housing benefit, council tax subsidy, cheap gas and electricity tariffs, free school meals and the additional benefits for children are withdrawn.
That's a consequence of a disjointed and means-tested welfare system, which isn't socialism.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I suppose an appeal to enlightened self interest is of no use whatsoever?
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: I suppose an appeal to enlightened self interest is of no use whatsoever?
Picketty is very interesting because he can't be easily dismissed. Of course, the defense has now moved from 'growth will sort out inequality' to 'inequality never mattered anyway'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Well, I wish you would all figure out a definition of Socialist. If only Socialists are truly Christian, then we have to know what Socialism is before we can know how to define Christianity. JC tells us we can't be Christian if we oppose the Robin Hood Tax. Ken tells us the Robin Hood Tax isn't true Socialism. Damn, I sure wish one of the ecumenical councils would have put something about taxes in one of the creeds instead of wasting time with all that nonsense about the Trinity and what not.
-------------------- Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible. -Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sioni Sais: There aren't many socialists who advocate taxes of over 100%, which is what happens when JSA, housing benefit, council tax subsidy, cheap gas and electricity tariffs, free school meals and the additional benefits for children are withdrawn.
There is a difference between taking something from someone and ceasing to give something to someone.
Consider two scenarios: (a) Every week my brother buys a chocolate bar, but then I take it off him and eat it myself. (b) I have been giving my brother a chocolate bar every week, but now I have decided I would rather keep it for myself. Are the two scenarios morally identical?
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by chris stiles: quote: Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: I suppose an appeal to enlightened self interest is of no use whatsoever?
Picketty is very interesting because he can't be easily dismissed. Of course, the defense has now moved from 'growth will sort out inequality' to 'inequality never mattered anyway'.
I'll have to look at the book but he does seem to concentrate on the wealth/GDP ratio, and I'm not sure GDP is a valid measure of anything beyond how active an economy is.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ken: That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.
Indeed, it's more like tax and spend. We'll tax the rich and give the money to people with less by giving them an unworked-for wage and higher benefits so they don't need to work in the first place - all courtesy of the people who have studied hard to get where they are, do a vital job within the economy and give 50% of what they earn in taxes.
-------------------- "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Beeswax Altar: Well, I wish you would all figure out a definition of Socialist. If only Socialists are truly Christian, then we have to know what Socialism is before we can know how to define Christianity. JC tells us we can't be Christian if we oppose the Robin Hood Tax. Ken tells us the Robin Hood Tax isn't true Socialism. Damn, I sure wish one of the ecumenical councils would have put something about taxes in one of the creeds instead of wasting time with all that nonsense about the Trinity and what not.
Surely the People's Popular Front of Judea should be consulted over any definitions, but do we exclude those splitters from the Judean People's Popular Front?
-------------------- "The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: quote: Originally posted by ken: That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.
Indeed, it's more like tax and spend. We'll tax the rich and give the money to people with less by giving them an unworked-for wage and higher benefits so they don't need to work in the first place - all courtesy of the people who have studied hard to get where they are, do a vital job within the economy and give 50% of what they earn in taxes.
So tell me again why, as a society, we subsidise big business's labour costs so they can pay their executives more?
If you actually want work to pay, the first thing you do is raise the minimum wage. That'd both increase the tax take and the decrease in-work benefits.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: quote: Originally posted by ken: That's your mistake right there. Someone told you socialism was about forcing the rich to give to the poor and you believed them.
Indeed, it's more like tax and spend. We'll tax the rich and give the money to people with less by giving them an unworked-for wage and higher benefits so they don't need to work in the first place - all courtesy of the people who have studied hard to get where they are, do a vital job within the economy and give 50% of what they earn in taxes.
So tell me again why, as a society, we subsidise big business's labour costs so they can pay their executives more?
If you actually want work to pay, the first thing you do is raise the minimum wage. That'd both increase the tax take and the decrease in-work benefits.
Ah, let's see:
Raise the minimum wage = higher employment costs for the private sector.
Increase the tax take = the poorer people pay more tax and the government gets an increase.
Decrease in-work benefits = so as your wage goes up, your tax credits go down, your tax bill goes up, leaving you with the same income at the end of the week, or even less.
Employer loses. Employee loses. Government wins because it has more tax to spend
Yes, that's socialism - tax and spend.
-------------------- "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
An Immodest Proposal: A Global Tax on the Superrich
quote: “As inequalities widen, the social fabric of our societies is both stretched and strained,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proclaimed in February on the World Day of Social Justice. Without taking a position on the post-2015 agenda, he added, “There is nothing inevitable about inequality.”
A little inequality promotes growth by encouraging people to work hard and advance themselves, but the world has an embarrassment of riches on that score. The poor are demotivated while energetic entrepreneurs are becoming complacent rentiers who live off their wealth, Piketty says. “Money tends to reproduce itself,” he writes. “The past devours the future.”
Is it possible to have a conversation that isn't at the lowest common misunderstanding and polarization?.... I didn't think so.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: Ah, let's see:
Raise the minimum wage = higher employment costs for the private sector.
Increase the tax take = the poorer people pay more tax and the government gets an increase.
Decrease in-work benefits = so as your wage goes up, your tax credits go down, your tax bill goes up, leaving you with the same income at the end of the week, or even less.
Employer loses. Employee loses. Government wins because it has more tax to spend
Yes, that's socialism - tax and spend.
Maths isn't your strong point, is it?
Currently, we're paying taxes straight into the pockets of big companies, who then distribute it up, not down. I'd like to see an end to that.
So - in-work benefits are a stupid idea. Whoever thought of that should be taken out and shot, whatever political stripe they are. End them immediately.
In their place, you raise the minimum wage. Companies pay people to work for them, not the other way around. The money, which goes to the worker, is spent more-or-less locally.
Employer actually pays for the cost of labour. Employee gains a wage that enables them to pay their way in society. Government stops subsidising below-poverty wages.
That's not exactly socialism, but it's closer. Of course, you'll come out with all sorts of reasons why this isn't possible, except it is. It just takes the political will to do it.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: Indeed, it's more like tax and spend. We'll tax the rich and give the money to people with less by giving them an unworked-for wage and higher benefits so they don't need to work in the first place - all courtesy of the people who have studied hard to get where they are, do a vital job within the economy and give 50% of what they earn in taxes.
You realise that excluding pensions, the majority of benefits go to people who are in work? i.e they wouldn't be able to live on the wages that they are currently paid. [ 15. April 2014, 16:33: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
A recent info video from the showed that the amount of tax concessions and grants to oil companies in Canada was enough to more than pay for all post-secondary tuition in Canada (can't find the link, it was about a year ago). Interesting to also note that oil companies in Canada also provide dividends to their stock holding shareholders. It looks like tax monies ultimately could be linked to share dividends. Interesting. I guess this is good.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: quote: Originally posted by Sioni Sais: There aren't many socialists who advocate taxes of over 100%, which is what happens when JSA, housing benefit, council tax subsidy, cheap gas and electricity tariffs, free school meals and the additional benefits for children are withdrawn.
There is a difference between taking something from someone and ceasing to give something to someone.
True, but do you expect people to enter work and impoverish themselves in the process? Wages are so poor and welfare rules so Byzantine that whether you give or take is pretty irrelevant when you have to pay rent and buy food. Cash is still cash. quote:
Consider two scenarios: (a) Every week my brother buys a chocolate bar, but then I take it off him and eat it myself. (b) I have been giving my brother a chocolate bar every week, but now I have decided I would rather keep it for myself. Are the two scenarios morally identical?
I suppose that if you or your brother really needs that chocolate bar, then they are different.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by chris stiles: quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: Indeed, it's more like tax and spend. We'll tax the rich and give the money to people with less by giving them an unworked-for wage and higher benefits so they don't need to work in the first place - all courtesy of the people who have studied hard to get where they are, do a vital job within the economy and give 50% of what they earn in taxes.
You realise that excluding pensions, the majority of benefits go to people who are in work? i.e they wouldn't be able to live on the wages that they are currently paid.
Careful: let's not spoil the story with facts.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: Currently, we're paying taxes straight into the pockets of big companies, who then distribute it up, not down. I'd like to see an end to that.
And I would like to see you back up your statement with some numbers please.
According to here the UK tax revenue for 2012/13 was £550.6 billion.
How much of that £550.6 billion ended up in the hands of big companies? Will you provide sources so we can validate your claim?
-------------------- "The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by deano: quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: Currently, we're paying taxes straight into the pockets of big companies, who then distribute it up, not down. I'd like to see an end to that.
And I would like to see you back up your statement with some numbers please.
According to here the UK tax revenue for 2012/13 was £550.6 billion.
How much of that £550.6 billion ended up in the hands of big companies? Will you provide sources so we can validate your claim?
I wonder how much those companies would have paid had HMRC pursued them as vigorously as the DWP does benefits claimants. Then again, big companies can afford legal talent that benefits claimants cannot.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: Consider two scenarios: (a) Every week my brother buys a chocolate bar, but then I take it off him and eat it myself. (b) I have been giving my brother a chocolate bar every week, but now I have decided I would rather keep it for myself. Are the two scenarios morally identical?
This is not the way things are. More like:
(c) Every week your brother buys 6200 (or some other large and absurd number) and sells one to you at a profit, he never ever gives it to you. When you and the other chocolate bar eaters protest because he has cornered the market, raised the price, diluted the chocolate with edible oil products, corn syrop, trans fats and preservatives, and made the bars smaller, the government first says they can't do anything, and then gets him to agree to lower the toxic ingredients but allows him to raise his price per bar. The community of chocolate bar consumers complains further, so your brother figures out how to pressure his suppliers, so that the people in the third world get less for their work and he maintains his profit. He also teams up with the local gov't there and a few people are shot as an example, and they agree they'd rather be hungry than shot. When the local government starts to have difficulty controlling the population, your brother's country sends in their army at no cost to him to support his business. All of the chocolate bar eaters pay for that via taxation. Your brother doesn't pay much for taxes because he off-shored his profits in a tax haven country.
Just read any essential foodstuff or commodity for "chocolate" and you'll get the picture.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by deano: quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: Currently, we're paying taxes straight into the pockets of big companies, who then distribute it up, not down. I'd like to see an end to that.
And I would like to see you back up your statement with some numbers please.
Not necessarily defending the original statement, but a lot of this is via indirect transfers. For instance, in terms of in work welfare payments to subsidize otherwise people's incomes and housing cost is a essentially a subsidy to business (who can thus pay them less), and a direct transfer to landlords (and an indirect support to the BTL market).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by deano: And I would like to see you back up your statement with some numbers please.
According to here the UK tax revenue for 2012/13 was £550.6 billion.
How much of that £550.6 billion ended up in the hands of big companies? Will you provide sources so we can validate your claim?
In-work benefits to low income claimants in 2011-2012 was roughly £41 billion. Source (pdf, page 21).
That's £10bn more than we spend on defence, and £13bn less than education, to give some kind of yardstick.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: In-work benefits to low income claimants in 2011-2012 was roughly £41 billion. Source (pdf, page 21).
That's £10bn more than we spend on defence, and £13bn less than education, to give some kind of yardstick.
It's also a straight out subsidy for employers paying crap wages. I'm too lazy to look for it, but there is a recent USA report showing that raising the minimum wage would save government major bucks because fewer working people would qualify for benefits such as SNAP (aka food stamps), Medicaid, etc.
And given that McDonald's just got busted for bringing in foreign workers to work in Canada, I think the argument that people can always get work or change jobs if they really want to is, to put it politely, toast.
-------------------- "You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: Currently, we're paying taxes straight into the pockets of big companies, who then distribute it up, not down. I'd like to see an end to that.
So - in-work benefits are a stupid idea. Whoever thought of that should be taken out and shot, whatever political stripe they are. End them immediately.
In their place, you raise the minimum wage. Companies pay people to work for them, not the other way around. The money, which goes to the worker, is spent more-or-less locally.
Employer actually pays for the cost of labour. Employee gains a wage that enables them to pay their way in society. Government stops subsidising below-poverty wages.
That's not exactly socialism, but it's closer. Of course, you'll come out with all sorts of reasons why this isn't possible, except it is. It just takes the political will to do it.
It's perfectly possible, but the problem I forsee comes when we consider how companies are going to fund the extra salary costs.
The socialist answer is generally that it will come out of profits, but I don't see that happening. Instead I think they will increase the cost of what they're selling in order to make up the difference.
The socialist answer to that is generally along the lines of "good, that means we'll be paying the true cost of producing those goods". Which is a perfectly valid position to take, of course.
But consider the effect that has on the low-paid people. They will effectively have the same amount of income as before, but with it coming from the company rather than the government. But, because of the price rises that money now buys less than it did, making them poorer in real terms. So the goverment has to step in again to ensure that their purchasing power remains at a "living" level. Net effect to the poor person: zero. Net effect to the government: zero. Net effect to the company shareholders: zero. Net effect to everyone in the middle: on the same salary, but poorer in real terms because goods are now more expensive.
I freely admit that this is a counsel of despair. I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that if we want prosperity - even the relative prosperity of the middle classes - then the trade-off is a certain amount of poverty in our society. And while charitable giving and local action (or as JC would put it, "treating the symptoms but not the cause") can alleviate at least some of that poverty, any systemic attempt to eradicate it will result in either a greater divide between the rich and the rest (as above) or an overall lessening of prosperity (as in, for example, communism).
I just don't believe it's possible for everyone to be financially equal and everyone to have a high standard of living.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Are you willing, if it comes to it, to be one of the people in poverty Marvin? Because that's what you're requiring some poor bastard to do. Why not you?
And that's assuming you're right about the effect of paying better wages. This If Walmart paid... would imply that you are not.
[Edited to fix scroll lock -Gwai] [ 16. April 2014, 13:11: Message edited by: Gwai ]
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: I just don't believe it's possible for everyone to be financially equal and everyone to have a high standard of living.
On this present issue we aren't talking about financial equality for all. We are talking about all people who are working being able to at least 'make a living' without government subsidies.
and ironically, yours is not a counsel of despair. Yours is actually a counsel for higher taxes.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: I just don't believe it's possible for everyone to be financially equal and everyone to have a high standard of living.
Your belief that it's not possible is a precarious basis to justify maintaining poverty in society. In order to adopt such a ruthlessly cynical "for the good of the rest of us" position I would want to be extremely sure that it really was absolutely necessary.
It also strikes me as remarkable that you are justifying government pay-outs to support the costs of employing the low-paid. That strikes me as a very non-capitalist position to take. It seems to me that if McDonalds turns out to be economically non-viable (because the burgers are crap, and once they become crap and less cheap the poor won't shop there anymore) then it should be allowed to fail and replaced by something viable. Otherwise it is all a socialist-state-inflated bubble of business that will pop one day and remain inefficient until it does.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: Are you willing, if it comes to it, to be one of the people in poverty Marvin? Because that's what you're requiring some poor bastard to do. Why not you?
I'm willing to have that option, yes. So long as everyone is given the opportunity to get an education and so acquire marketable skills that they can use to move themselves up the ladder, I think it's fair.
quote: And that's assuming you're right about the effect of paying better wages. This link would imply that you are not.
That's encouraging. And I presume it would apply to the big supermarkets over here as well. If that's correct, then even with the increased pension and NI costs the companies would also have to pay I doubt the extra costs would amount to much more than a few quid a week. Hm, maybe it would work.
[edited for scroll lock issues] [ 16. April 2014, 09:27: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that if we want prosperity - even the relative prosperity of the middle classes - then the trade-off is a certain amount of poverty in our society... I just don't believe it's possible for everyone to be financially equal and everyone to have a high standard of living.
I think this is right. Also, I expect there are very few people who would argue for either extreme end of this spectrum, that the government should either (a) pursue prosperity and growth regardless of the inequalities that result, or (b) ensure all have equal income and resources, never mind the reduced growth that might follow.
We're all (pretty much) arguing for where on the spectrum between these two extreme points the authorities should aim to pitch their policies. Or so ISTM.
-------------------- My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: Are you willing, if it comes to it, to be one of the people in poverty Marvin? Because that's what you're requiring some poor bastard to do. Why not you?
I'm willing to have that option, yes. So long as everyone is given the opportunity to get an education and so acquire marketable skills that they can use to move themselves up the ladder, I think it's fair.
What I find grossly unfair (other people have already touched on it) is the way that in-work benefits taper as income rises. Someone does well, gets more qualifications, takes on more responsibilities, and has absolutely zero reward for their effort.
In-work benefits are a Kafkaesque disincentive to try. And they're bloody expensive to boot.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
How about pitching their policies so that no-one who's working for a living is earning too little to live on? That doesn't seem an unreasonable "middle way" to me.
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: Are you willing, if it comes to it, to be one of the people in poverty Marvin? Because that's what you're requiring some poor bastard to do. Why not you?
I'm willing to have that option, yes. So long as everyone is given the opportunity to get an education and so acquire marketable skills that they can use to move themselves up the ladder, I think it's fair.
What I find grossly unfair (other people have already touched on it) is the way that in-work benefits taper as income rises. Someone does well, gets more qualifications, takes on more responsibilities, and has absolutely zero reward for their effort.
In-work benefits are a Kafkaesque disincentive to try. And they're bloody expensive to boot.
(Just to put the other side of the coin...) Would you extend the same principle to changes in income tax rates?
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: (Just to put the other side of the coin...) Would you extend the same principle to changes in income tax rates?
No one is arguing for a 100% top rate of income tax afaict - which is what would need to happen for your comparison to actually work. [ 16. April 2014, 11:13: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by chris stiles: quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: (Just to put the other side of the coin...) Would you extend the same principle to changes in income tax rates?
No one is arguing for a 100% top rate of income tax afaict - which is what would need to happen for your comparison to actually work.
What he said.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
No, but the higher you raise marginal tax rates, the greater that effect.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: No, but the higher you raise marginal tax rates, the greater that effect.
Yes. This is not in question. However, paying 40% of a £10,000 payrise is still a £6,000 net payrise on top of the say, £100k you're already earning.
Granted that the 40% tax band should probably be moved upward, in line with the increase in the 0% personal allowance, but I also think that those who should pay 40%, should actually pay 40%. We lose around £80bn in tax avoidance a year.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: No, but the higher you raise marginal tax rates, the greater that effect.
Yes, except that the marginal tax rate for someone with in work benefits can actually be 100% - we aren't talking about a reduced incentive, we are actually talking about *zero* incentive.
So colour me a little sceptical about your line of argument, it seems - in context - to be a very large red herring.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Beeswax Altar: Well, I wish you would all figure out a definition of Socialist.
Your wish is my command. [ 16. April 2014, 14:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
-------------------- Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Are you seriously trying to tell me these things aren't about taking more from the rich to fund programmes for the poor?
That's not socialism. Its just the welfare state. Even Tories do it. It might be a component of socialism, or a way to bring about socialism, but its not all there is. quote:
I mean, why call a proposal the "Robin Hood Tax" if not to evoke echoes of "rob the rich and give to the poor"?
Of course. A sales slogan to foist a bad tax on us.
How about quote:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
?
-------------------- Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: Granted that the 40% tax band should probably be moved upward, in line with the increase in the 0% personal allowance
Given that the threshold for paying 40% is calculuated on earnings above the 0% allowance, it effectively has been. To illustrate, if the 40% threshold was at £40k and the 0% threshold was at £9k, the 40% tax would be paid on all earnings above £49k. If the 0% mark is then moved to £10k, the 40% mark automatically moves to £50k.
That's my understanding of it, anyway.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: Granted that the 40% tax band should probably be moved upward, in line with the increase in the 0% personal allowance
Given that the threshold for paying 40% is calculuated on earnings above the 0% allowance, it effectively has been. To illustrate, if the 40% threshold was at £40k and the 0% threshold was at £9k, the 40% tax would be paid on all earnings above £49k. If the 0% mark is then moved to £10k, the 40% mark automatically moves to £50k.
That's my understanding of it, anyway.
I believe you're right but the HM Revenue and Customs website (and, I think, some other official-looking stuff I've seen) is massively unclear about this. Bafflingly unclear...
-------------------- My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: I believe you're right but the HM Revenue and Customs website (and, I think, some other official-looking stuff I've seen) is massively unclear about this. Bafflingly unclear...
Probably deliberately so, given that any uncertainty about how it applies would lead to people paying more tax than they have to.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: quote: Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: I believe you're right but the HM Revenue and Customs website (and, I think, some other official-looking stuff I've seen) is massively unclear about this. Bafflingly unclear...
Probably deliberately so, given that any uncertainty about how it applies would lead to people paying more tax than they have to.
Only people without clever accountants. If you've got those, it has the opposite effect.
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ken: How about quote:
To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
?
How exactly are you going to achieve "common (that is to say, State) ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange" without taking those things from the people who currently own them? Even by your own definition, socialism requires the removal of assets from the rich in order to distribute them more widely (or, in the case of State ownership, more narrowly).
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: Granted that the 40% tax band should probably be moved upward, in line with the increase in the 0% personal allowance
Given that the threshold for paying 40% is calculuated on earnings above the 0% allowance, it effectively has been. To illustrate, if the 40% threshold was at £40k and the 0% threshold was at £9k, the 40% tax would be paid on all earnings above £49k. If the 0% mark is then moved to £10k, the 40% mark automatically moves to £50k.
That's my understanding of it, anyway.
Yes, but the rate at which the 40% band is increasing with respect to the 0% band is such that the 'normal' tax band is getting increasingly squeezed. I've no agenda for that. In fact, the bands and rates could be far more generous if everyone paid what they ought.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by chris stiles: quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: No, but the higher you raise marginal tax rates, the greater that effect.
Yes, except that the marginal tax rate for someone with in work benefits can actually be 100% - we aren't talking about a reduced incentive, we are actually talking about *zero* incentive.
So colour me a little sceptical about your line of argument, it seems - in context - to be a very large red herring.
Yes, I know - but the higher you raise the tax rate, the more that incentive tends towards zero. I'm thinking of a time within my lifetime when the top rate was 83%.
-------------------- "Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: quote: Originally posted by chris stiles: quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: No, but the higher you raise marginal tax rates, the greater that effect.
Yes, except that the marginal tax rate for someone with in work benefits can actually be 100% - we aren't talking about a reduced incentive, we are actually talking about *zero* incentive.
So colour me a little sceptical about your line of argument, it seems - in context - to be a very large red herring.
Yes, I know - but the higher you raise the tax rate, the more that incentive tends towards zero. I'm thinking of a time within my lifetime when the top rate was 83%.
Yeah, but it's hard to see what damage it's doing society as a whole when the incentive to earn two million rather than one million is "only" a few tens of thousands, a few ordinary people's entire annual incomes, compared with effectively paying people a few pence for a week's work when the benefits loss is taken into account.
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Matt Black: quote: Originally posted by Doc Tor: What I find grossly unfair (other people have already touched on it) is the way that in-work benefits taper as income rises. Someone does well, gets more qualifications, takes on more responsibilities, and has absolutely zero reward for their effort.
In-work benefits are a Kafkaesque disincentive to try. And they're bloody expensive to boot.
(Just to put the other side of the coin...) Would you extend the same principle to changes in income tax rates?
No, and there are sound economic reasons for the difference. Lower-income people will spend their additional money locally on goods and services, boosting the economy. Higher-income people spend their additional money on different things. So, for example, a cruise to the Bahamas or a weekend in New York doesn't stimulate the local economy in the same way.
-------------------- "You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|