Where's our money gone Gordon?

[KeyboardJockey]

I don't quite get why everyone on KJ, I mean money is leached out of the system into private hands left, right and centre, no? I wouldn't have thought that was even contentious unless you're Tony Blair.

As to whether Spain is any different I have no idea.....

That is the key worry and what makes me angry is the way the private sector ponces off the state.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

But what do you expect when the depth of your analysis is what your mate in Spain pays to get his bins emptied ?

You can only really compare like for like and servcies is one comparison.

It's a version of the same ignorant game Cameron will play vs. Brown and, actually, all oppositions play vs. all parties in power; lies, damned lies and yada, yada.

No I disagree its righht to point out where the country falls down when compared to other similar nations.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Oh dear, been at the Daily Mail again have we..

Bollocks I'd rather you call me a tosser than a Daily Mail reader.

... my Dad had to use the NHS recently, and they were great. NHS might not be perfect, but it's not bad, and shed loads better than most european countries. (had to use an italian hospital couple of years ago, awful...)

All this country going to the dogs is just bollocks... IMHO of course..

The country is going to the dogs but not for the reasons that the daily mail give

 

[KeyboardJockey]

What about the basic rate of income tax? How come we all have to pay 22% until 40k? There used to be a fairer system. Of course, it's hysterical Daily Mail reading nonsense to suggest that but afaics, so far in this thread it has been KJ saying what pisses him off and others saying what pisses them off about what he's been saying, no actual facts to refute it, despite that being levelled against him.

It's like the fucking drugs forum in here!

Spot on. Tax should be progressive and at the moment is is not as progressive as it could be. 60% of 100k is still a lot of money.

A much more banded approach would be fairer.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

The trouble with Labour's programme of public services is that it is meant to give the appearence of being cost effective, less bureaucratic and more choice centred for the consumer market of public services.

Sadly it's a failed and half hearted attempt.

What we need is real privatisation, real market freedom and a true system of free market capitalism that has so far not existed in Britain or many countries around the world for that matter.

I would like to see a politician or any public figure for that matter who would have the guts to advocate for a real system of liberty and freedom. One where the state is reduced to that of a nightwatchman and only deals with national defence and internal justice and policing.

All VAT and council taxes should be abolished, along with corporation taxes and we should only opt for a very low flat rate tax system that is equal across the board regardless of a taxpayers income.

Health services, education, social security should be freed from state control and should be run by private firms. State control over consumer choice such as the immoral prohibition against banned drugs should be abolished and instead all drugs (from tobacco, alcohol and cannabis all the way up to crack and heroin) should be completely legalised and traded in a free market system. Police powers need to be reduced etc, etc, etc....

Sadly I feel this is something that is a long way off, given the current political climate for a more intrusive and powerful state and authoritarian politics in general.

I think if this particular programme was instituted we would end up like the USA and that is not an enticing prospect.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

And the abolition of the 10% tax band will only make things worse for the low paid, especially those without children. If you earn less than £18K (or thereabouts) and don't have any kids, you'll be worse off. Apparently you can claim working tax credit or some such but, as with all benefits, many people won't claim it for a variety of reasons.

And it's a Labour goverment that is pushing this through (and yes I know it was Labour that introduced it, in the days when they were trying to look like they gave a fuck). And then of course there is the subsidising lowpaying employers aspect too.

Again I agree with this comment. 10% tax helped a lot of people.

 

[Roadkill]

I think if this particular programme was instituted we would end up like the USA and that is not an enticing prospect.

I think we'd end up looking rather more like a third world country that's been forced through a Structural Adjustment Programme, actually...


e2a
That reminds me of another point to be made about laissez-faire: it's invariably an ideology forced upon the weak by the strong. Britain only embraced laissez-faire in the nineteenth century when it was strong enough to do so: capitalists in a string of industries - textiles, shipping etc - only accepted an end to protection when they were sure it wouldn't ruin them. And even after formal protectionism ended (with the repeal of the Corn Laws, Navigation Acts and numerous other tariffs), the empire provided a nice source of raw materials and more or less protected markets for finished goods. Nowadays, the wealthy west preaches free trade at the rest of the world, forcing them to 'liberalise' their markets, whilst keeping their own tariff barriers up. Protectionism, whatever the ideologues say, is a fact of life. It always has been, and always will be. And there's a very good reason for that: the result of true market liberalisation would be utter chaos. No-one in a position of power, whatever they say, actually believes in laissez-faire, because they know perfectly well that it's unworkable.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I think we'd end up looking rather more like a third world country that's been forced through a Structural Adjustment Programme, actually...


e2a
That reminds me of another point to be made about laissez-faire: it's invariably an ideology enforced upon the weak by the strong. Britain only embraced laissez-faire in the nineteenth century when it was strong enough to do so: capitalists in a string of industries - textile, shipping etc - only accepted an end to protection when they were sure it wouldn't ruin them. And even after formal protectionism ended, the empire provided a nice source of raw materials and fairly protected markets for finished goods. Nowadays, the wealthy west preaches free trade at the rest of the world, forcing them to 'liberalise' their markets, whilst keeping their own tariff barriers up. Protectionism, whatever the ideologues say, is a fact of life. It always has been, and always will be. And there's a very good reason for that: the result of true market liberalisation would be utter chaos. No-one in a position of power, whatever they say, actually believes in laissez-faire, because they know perfectly well that it's unworkable.

Can't disagree with anything you say in this post Roadkill.

I agree with free enterprise but NOT as an overiding ideology. Also free markets - which are anything but in reality - can't exist without some form of governmental control.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Spot on. Tax should be progressive . . .

Playing devils advocate here . . . can you provide any non-ideological reasons why?

Note : please do NOT infer any position I have on the issue from this question

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Playing devils advocate here . . . can you provide any non-ideological reasons why?

Note : please do NOT infer any position I have on the issue from this question

I can give a moral reason why this should be so.

If you are in the position where you can contribute more and it doesnt send you into penury then you should do so because we are all interconnected in some way.

Those who are rich or have been fortunate have a moral obligation to help those who are not fortunate or rich.

A world of total selfishness benefits nobody and rebounds on the selfish as they are constantly on guard for people who they have shafted coming to get them.

Everyone owes society some form of service because we all benefit whether it be the rich paying more taxes or the able bodied unemployed doing positive stuff for their communities.

Ancient communties left a corner of fields for those who had no food which was a way of acknowledging that whatever our individual status we are connected.

Leviticus 19.9 says:
'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.

It was a discouragement against graspingly squeezing every resource for personal gain at the expense of others.

 

[poster342002]

These services are not as fucked as people perceive them to be IMO

That's like saying "it's not that you don't like tomatoes - you just think you don't like them. In fact, here's some statistics that prove that you like them - nomatter what your own experience is".

 

[A Dashing Blade]

I can give a moral reason why this should be so.

If you are in the position where you can contribute more and it doesnt send you into penury then you should do so because we are all interconnected in some way.

. . .

Nothing I disagree with there, but I don't see that as reason for a specifically progressive tax system, simply a justification of "the more you earn, the more you tax"

And there's the rub, it seems to me that belief in a progressive tax regime is a purely ideological stance.

Again, just playing devils advocate.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Nothing I disagree with there, but I don't see that as reason for a specifically progressive tax system, simply a justification of "the more you earn, the more you tax"

And there's the rub, it seems to me that belief in a progressive tax regime is a purely ideological stance.

Again, just playing devils advocate.

Not just idological but practical as well. Fairer societies are safer societies.

 

[Orang Utan]

That's like saying "it's not that you don't like tomatoes - you just think you don't like them. In fact, here's some statistics that prove that you like them - nomatter what your own experience is".

Some people perceive that the country is going to the dogs because they've read about it in the mail, not because they've experienced poor services directly

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I know where the money has gone. Gordon has PFIed it up the wall.

You know what I mean, the PFI schemes also called PPP have made a lot of money for big multinational development companies who will soon own most of the schools and hospitals in the country and be able to charge the taxpayer via the government for the cost of building, maintaining and running them and of course giving their shareholders a profit. They will also have made a mint from asset stripping the existing land and and buildings for retail or housing development while building the new schools and hospitals on land donated by local authorities. It will be 20 or 30 years before the PFI contracts are complete and the whole thing will be revealed for the scam it is and how much it has cost because unlike a mortgage ownership of the property remains in the hands of the financiers.

I say get these companies off welfare, their shareholders are costing the taxpayer money we cannot afford.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

I say get these companies off welfare, their shareholders are costing the taxpayer money we cannot afford.

Yup lets deal with all the ponces.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Not just idological but practical as well. Fairer societies are safer societies.

Er, hang on a sec! Gonna need a definition of "fair". Taken to extreme, surely the "fairest" society is one where we all earn/own the same?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Er, hang on a sec! Gonna need a definition of "fair". Taken to extreme, surely the "fairest" society is one where we all earn/own the same?

No one where we all get what we need, and we all take part on an equal footing in agreeing what we need.

Louis MacNeice

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Er, hang on a sec! Gonna need a definition of "fair". Taken to extreme, surely the "fairest" society is one where we all earn/own the same?

There will always be differences in people and their skills and abilities and rewards and that I don't have too much of a problem with but advantage should be accompanied by an awareness of others who don't have advantages who need to be supported.

 

[Roadkill]

Nothing I disagree with there, but I don't see that as reason for a specifically progressive tax system, simply a justification of "the more you earn, the more you tax"

And there's the rub, it seems to me that belief in a progressive tax regime is a purely ideological stance.

I think there are entirely practical reasons why a progressive tax system is a good thing.

In the first instance, progressive tax systems usually yield a higher tax take, which can (though often, sadly, isn't) be put into better services, social security and the like.

In the second, very great inequalities of wealth are a bad thing. With them come social polarisation and fragmentation, static social mobility, high crime, large areas of run-down inner cities with all the social problems they bring, a shrinking skills base because many people have poor access to education and training, etc etc.

 

[poster342002]

The country is going to the dogs but not for the reasons that the daily mail give

Well said. I find it bizarre that lefties spend so much of their time calling people "daily mail readers" if they criticises the state of affairs (which is down to the rightwing political agenda of today) from the left. It amazes me the way so many of them (often minutes after protesting against this or that side-issue) seem to imply that, actually, everything's fine and dandy after all and anyone who objects to high prices, low wages, clapped out infrastructure is just being a daily-mail whinger.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

There will always be differences in people and their skills and abilities and rewards and that I don't have too much of a problem with but advantage should be accompanied by an awareness of others who don't have advantages who need to be supported.

Fair enough.

 

[poster342002]

Some people perceive that the country is going to the dogs because they've read about it in the mail, not because they've experienced poor services directly

A lot of us have experienced poor services directly. A substantial number of us in the poorer end of the spectrum, for a start. The daily mail occasionally makes noises for it's own reasons - but it doesn't invalidate the original complaint.

 

[obanite]

Nothing I disagree with there, but I don't see that as reason for a specifically progressive tax system, simply a justification of "the more you earn, the more you tax"

And there's the rub, it seems to me that belief in a progressive tax regime is a purely ideological stance.

Again, just playing devils advocate.

Personally I believe lower rate bands are more important than higher rate ones, because somebody getting taxed 22% on their £12k is going to be little better off than someone on income support when you take off housing costs, and who wants a state where welfare pays out more than working? Hence IMO, 40% should be the 'default', with progressively more tax relief the less you earn.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

I think there are entirely practical reasons why a progressive tax system is a good thing.

In the first instance, progressive tax systems usually yield a higher tax,

Higher tax = "a good thing"?

which can (though often, sadly, isn't) be put into better services, social security and the like.

ie the practical implementation of progressive tax regimes "often" fails?

 

[Roadkill]

Higher tax = "a good thing"?

Sorry - I'd missed a word out. Should have read "higher tax take."

ie the practical implementation of progressive tax regimes "often" fails?

The practical implementation of many things often fails, but that doesn't mean they're not good ideas. I'm quite happy for governments to collect more money in tax provided we see the benefit in better services: atm, we all too often aren't, which was where this thread started from.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

The practical implementation of many things often fails, but that doesn't mean they're not good ideas. I'm quite happy for governments to collect more money in tax provided we see the benefit in better services: atm, we all too often aren't, which was where this thread started from.

Nothing to disagree with there, but I would make the point that if something's not working then it should be changed.

Getting back to the OP, iirc the governments take of GNP (GDP whatever) has risen by something like 8% since this Gov't came to power.

 

[Fruitloop]

Until the flow of public money into the pockets of multinationals can be staunched somehow I can't see the point in taking more of it, tbh.

 

[Roadkill]

Nothing to disagree with there, but I would make the point that if something's not working then it should be changed.

Getting back to the OP, iirc the governments take of GNP (GDP whatever) has risen by something like 8% since this Gov't came to power.

Well yes, but again, that was the original point of the thread. The Blair government presided over a pretty substantial increase in the tax take, but we've not seen a great deal of benefit for it. Why not? Is it because (as the right would argue) governments always piss money up the wall, or does it more closely reflect failings specific to the British government? I would generally argue the latter, blaming the sort of things people have pointed to earlier in the thread: PFI, an obsession with managerialism, excessive bureaucracy and the like.

 

[Fruitloop]

In my experience private industry pisses money up the wall as well. In the time I've spent working in the private sector I've seen wastage like you wouldn't believe.