Comments on: Reshuffling towards oblivion http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/04/reshuffling-towards-oblivion/ Left-wing news, opinion and activism Thu, 24 May 2012 11:40:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Berta Lloyd http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/04/reshuffling-towards-oblivion/#comment-83555 Berta Lloyd Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:00:02 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1391#comment-83555 <span class="topsy_trackback_comment"><span class="topsy_twitter_username"><span class="topsy_trackback_content">Liberal Conspiracy » Reshuffling towards oblivion http://tinyurl.com/yjkezft</span></span> Liberal Conspiracy » Reshuffling towards oblivion http://tinyurl.com/yjkezft

]]> By: ad http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/04/reshuffling-towards-oblivion/#comment-22116 ad Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:19:21 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1391#comment-22116 <i>the point is to tax them to the extent where you get the maximum revenue without them running off to Dubai, Dublin or New York).</i> Or preferring lower stress, lower income jobs, or doing less work, or being paid in something less easily taxable, etc... the point is to tax them to the extent where you get the maximum revenue without them running off to Dubai, Dublin or New York).

Or preferring lower stress, lower income jobs, or doing less work, or being paid in something less easily taxable, etc…

]]> By: john b http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/04/reshuffling-towards-oblivion/#comment-22112 john b Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:59:07 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1391#comment-22112 Hmm. You're right, kinda, but it's basically only relevant to the top 10% - for everyone else, wealth is a house and a pension at best. And "fucking the top 10%" is not a policy goal in its own right (rather, the point is to tax them to the extent where you get the maximum revenue without them running off to Dubai, Dublin or New York). Hmm. You’re right, kinda, but it’s basically only relevant to the top 10% – for everyone else, wealth is a house and a pension at best. And “fucking the top 10%” is not a policy goal in its own right (rather, the point is to tax them to the extent where you get the maximum revenue without them running off to Dubai, Dublin or New York).

]]> By: douglas clark http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/04/reshuffling-towards-oblivion/#comment-22100 douglas clark Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:51:10 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1391#comment-22100 john b, I doubt that the figures you quote reflect capitalisation, which the top 10% are very good at accquiring, and the bottom 10% have no conception of. The statistics you quote are all about income, and nothing to do with assets? It would be interesting to know if money gained in a city bonus 10 years ago that went directly to something appreciable, like a house in a good area, was not, perhaps, worth a damn sight more in the capitalisation of the rich, than the poor who couldn't even but a basement flat in the area. I suspect it would be. Income is really not the name of the game. It is overall wealth that is. I'd imagine, john b, that if you had an enormous estate somewhere, with production facilities and the like, on that estate you could live like a lord and not have an income at all. Which is, of course the ambition of any free born man. And if you did need to buy anything, you'd probably just barter for it. As you ought to appreciate, income, in a taxable form is an irrelevance to a truly rich man. He or she can avoid it, if they want to. Despite their resources, oil and gas and suchlike, being overseas, it seems to me that the creme de la creme of our plutocracy live in exactly that grace and favour hidden dimension of our reality. So, it might be bollocks, but is more complicated bollocks than you'd lead a good pleb to believe. john b,

I doubt that the figures you quote reflect capitalisation, which the top 10% are very good at accquiring, and the bottom 10% have no conception of. The statistics you quote are all about income, and nothing to do with assets?

It would be interesting to know if money gained in a city bonus 10 years ago that went directly to something appreciable, like a house in a good area, was not, perhaps, worth a damn sight more in the capitalisation of the rich, than the poor who couldn’t even but a basement flat in the area. I suspect it would be.

Income is really not the name of the game. It is overall wealth that is.

I’d imagine, john b, that if you had an enormous estate somewhere, with production facilities and the like, on that estate you could live like a lord and not have an income at all. Which is, of course the ambition of any free born man. And if you did need to buy anything, you’d probably just barter for it.

As you ought to appreciate, income, in a taxable form is an irrelevance to a truly rich man.

He or she can avoid it, if they want to.

Despite their resources, oil and gas and suchlike, being overseas, it seems to me that the creme de la creme of our plutocracy live in exactly that grace and favour hidden dimension of our reality.

So, it might be bollocks, but is more complicated bollocks than you’d lead a good pleb to believe.

]]> By: septicisle http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/04/reshuffling-towards-oblivion/#comment-22099 septicisle Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:07:51 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1391#comment-22099 john: you are of course right, that was a rhetorical flourish which went a little too far. Certainly the middle classes have enjoyed a decade of virtually unprecedented financial stability, but those which Labour promised to help the most have not done anywhere near as well. john: you are of course right, that was a rhetorical flourish which went a little too far. Certainly the middle classes have enjoyed a decade of virtually unprecedented financial stability, but those which Labour promised to help the most have not done anywhere near as well.

]]> By: Reshuffle Thoughts… | Ministry of Truth http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/04/reshuffling-towards-oblivion/#comment-22088 Reshuffle Thoughts… | Ministry of Truth Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:45:45 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1391#comment-22088 [...] this reshuffle could be viewed as an act of desperation, and that may conceivable prove to be the case - but necessity, not to mention desperation, is [...] [...] this reshuffle could be viewed as an act of desperation, and that may conceivable prove to be the case – but necessity, not to mention desperation, is [...]

]]> By: leon http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/04/reshuffling-towards-oblivion/#comment-22083 leon Sat, 04 Oct 2008 13:42:41 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1391#comment-22083 Mandy was there at the beginning, here's back for the end. Some poetic symmetry in that I guess... Mandy was there at the beginning, here’s back for the end. Some poetic symmetry in that I guess…

]]> By: john b http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/04/reshuffling-towards-oblivion/#comment-22074 john b Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:21:39 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1391#comment-22074 <i>He, along with Blair, declared to the City that he and New Labour were “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich.” Well, they did, while everyone else didn’t</i> "everyone else didn't" may be a popular meme, but it's still bollocks. Labour did a pretty good job of allowing City people to get filthy rich whilst also allowing almost everyone else to do financially very well: http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml He, along with Blair, declared to the City that he and New Labour were “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich.” Well, they did, while everyone else didn’t

“everyone else didn’t” may be a popular meme, but it’s still bollocks. Labour did a pretty good job of allowing City people to get filthy rich whilst also allowing almost everyone else to do financially very well: http://www.poverty.org.uk/04/index.shtml

]]> By: Simon http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/04/reshuffling-towards-oblivion/#comment-22072 Simon Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:17:41 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1391#comment-22072 Isn't there a sinking ship element too? In that the central fact about Mandelson and Beckett is that should Labour lose the next general election their careers are over. For Cruddas- if Labour lose- he has a good chance for senior office or a possibility of the leadership. To some extent I can't see why you would want to be a high profile minister in domestic policy under Brown at the moment- given that the economy is heading downwards and probably the political fortune sof the Labour party too Isn’t there a sinking ship element too? In that the central fact about Mandelson and Beckett is that should Labour lose the next general election their careers are over. For Cruddas- if Labour lose- he has a good chance for senior office or a possibility of the leadership. To some extent I can’t see why you would want to be a high profile minister in domestic policy under Brown at the moment- given that the economy is heading downwards and probably the political fortune sof the Labour party too

]]>