If you ask loaded questions (not that the Taxpayers’ Alliance would, I’m sure) you get loaded results. As well as how the question is worded, the options you offer for the answers and how you select the interviewees (I believe YouGov to be very biased towards the Daily Mail-reading population types, having been bounced off their survey panel once before) will all get you the result you want, and if it doesn’t you sack the company organising it for you!

Using your analogy, why should members of the family who live at home and expect mummy and daddy to give them anything be tolerated? I’d rather a working, board-paying lodger.

You obviously don’t want an unlimited number of lodgers in your house though.

Why should someone else who has contributed nothing come in , take the best seat use my pewter mug and swank about the place like he owns it then ? He should at least have to ask me if he can come in surely ?

Having said that, I’m glad someone is asking these kind of questions and challenging the “everything is a priority” culture that seems to inform political comment and public opinion.

Yes, but this isn’t the whole story really. The reason I am earning a salary that the state can take its share of is because when I was born the state paid for the healthcare that kept me alive, paid for an education that has enabled me to earn such a salary, paid for police and law enforcement that reduced my chances of being a victim of crime, paid for an army that prevented my country being invaded by the French, Germans, Vikings or Russians, etc etc.

In other words it’s taking from me a percentage of a salary that I wouldn’t have been able to earn had it not invested in me. We can of course debate how high that percentage should be, what it should spend the money on and how it should organise the spending of that money, but lets recognise that our (by global standards) extremely high wages are partly a function of the fact we benefited from public services.

By adding up the Labour and Liberal vote it has sometimes been wrongly stated there is a progressive majority. In fact the truth is a lot more complex .CLose to the truth : it is tiny minority who hold a disproportionately powerful place in our institutions and culture .

Try finding any normal person who doesn’t agree with the 45% tax rate, or has any sympathy for your pals in the City of London. Go on.

Right, so let’s start talking about how we can open up that democratic process and campaign to make it happen. Just moaning about it on blogs doesn’t make much difference, neither is praying a different party will change things because they won’t.

I don’t think the author or the commenter in question aimed to describe utopia, but point how things actually are, right now.

People do not object to paying a reasonable level of taxes if they see good outcomes in public services. It is hardly surprising that they are unhappy at this stage.

Quite!

Sunny,

Not denying any of this, but there’s also the small matter of elections every few years where you can choose between a set of policies… and that people can take to the streets if they think a particular tax is grossly unfair. There is rather more accountability and negotiation going on than you imply Charlotte.

But one reason for disengagement is that there are too many polices we feel we have to commit to in putting a tick next to a party’s candidate. We may not agree with many of a party’s policies even though we want their candidate as MP because we trust them more on the important issues than the other party. The ruling party claims a mandate for each of the policies in its manifesto, but we all know there is no honest basis for doing so.

And that’s redpesto to you, ‘mania.

“2 – The Conservative Party are indeed the only one with any real interest in defending the Union.”

Huh? That’s not the line being perpetrated north of the border by the SNP. Nor is it the line being perpetrated by Conservatives regarding the European Union.

Top of my list too Alix

Liberals like to talk about a progressive majority. It’s a myth , try finding it in any pub , when the European elections come you will see what happens when the country has chance to express its frustration at the political log jam we endure .Then we can judge how well our democracy is working .

I look forward to it Pesto . I shall keep your humble pie warm and ready to be “plated up”

I’m as puzzled as Charlotte by this. Shorn of mythological elements that’s exactly what it is.

“The Government decides where to put the tax money it gets based on a variety of factors. At present, one of these factors is they’re a bunch of dicks.”

Indeed, so maybe a good time to ask yourself why the libertarians and Tories are so enraged by this issue at the moment (the Tories with considerably less justification, since it’s not as if their bunch of dicks would do much better). Libertarians distrust high taxes/large state on principle precisely because the whole caboodle *might* fall into the hands of a bunch of dicks. So it piles insult upon insult when that’s exactly what comes to pass.

As for the list – wot no Regional Development Agencies?

1-I am talking about the delays to the work of the boundary commission .

It still doesn’t change the fact that you can’t fix the constituency boundaries based around who pays/receives tax.

2 – The Conservative Party are indeed the only one with any real interest in defending the Union. Not however at the expense of fair votes. WLQ etc.

If the Tories win in 2010 they can always axe funding to Scotland. On the other hand, they might choose not to, because they recognise Scotland might need the funding. It could even vote to resolve the WLQ by scrapping devolution (I’m not convinced, for example, by the ‘English Votes for English Laws’ argument as Westminster is the national parliament, not the ‘English’ one). As for ‘fair votes’…no, I’m sure LibCon readers (and LibDem members) can argue over that one instead of me.

3 – On the way the system operates to ignore Nationalist sentiment you are wisely silent

Eh? Oh, I think I get it – there’s no party representing exactly what you (and, you assume, a large number of others) really really want because it’s all fixed against you. Maybe I’m silent because it’s down to you to address that problem, Newmania: find a party or start your own.

True enough, to a certain extent, although taxation is only part of the equation as far as voting goes, and as we all know it goes up and down in importance. The Tories horrible dog whistle anti-immigrant campaign in 05 and their stupid ‘save the pound’ nonsense the one before did them far more than their tax plans.

When there’s only two parties that have a realistic chance of forming a Government and the two are quibbling over £10-20 billion here and there, of a budget of £610 billion and rising fast, it’s hard to really see how the democratic process helping here.

Obviously the next General Election may offer a real difference but you’ve got the Tories talking about cutting the rate of growth, not actual spending cuts, and Labour talking about massive increases in the size of the state to get us through the recession (and they’ll no doubt cut back when it’s all over, I’m sure of it).

This idea that public sector pay is all out of line with market rates is a nonsense. The concept is based on the average of public sector pay being higher than private sector pay. But the range of salaries is too wide for this to have any meaning. Are the salaries of Ronaldo and Rooney less out of line than those of hospital porters. Should they be paid more and porters’ salaries cut? I don’t think many peiople will agree with that. In my own field, education, I think salaries are still below that for a job requiring equivalent skills and responsibility in the private sector, though the gap has closed in recent years.

Reading the Daily Mail every day isn’t necessarily an accurate representation of reality. Half the stories in there can be deconstructed in half an hour, and there’s plenty of blogs who do that every day. If you think the current system can be improved in specific ways – feeel free to suggest how. That would be more constructive…

You have to pay whatever is demanded, and they get to decide how much they demand, and they get to decide what they spend it on.

Not denying any of this, but there’s also the small matter of elections every few years where you can choose between a set of policies… and that people can take to the streets if they think a particular tax is grossly unfair. There is rather more accountability and negotiation going on than you imply Charlotte.

You made my head explode. Hang on, I need my scissors and glue:

Newmania, dear, the State is not a magical ogre taking yours and other ordinary people’s money and “funnelling” it anywhere, anymore than it is any kind of fairy-tale beastie filching your cash and spending it on roads, bombs to Baghdad, hospitals or stationary.

The ‘Dear’s’ a nice patronising touch. I agree the state isn’t a magical ogre, and I agree it’s not a fairy tale beastie. That’s pretty much where we begin to part company and I wonder what is it that you think you’re saying.

Where you do you believe the Government gets tax revenues from? It’s from, you know, newmania and other ordinary people, businesses and borrowing. They take a money from us, and spend it for us. Surely you agree this is true? Newmania calls it funnelling. Is it the term ‘funnelling’ you don’t like?

The government does spend tax revenues on roads, bombs to baghdad, hospitals and stationary, and it gets the tax revenues by demanding them and using the threat of jail if you refuse. They’re not optional, you know? You have to pay whatever is demanded, and they get to decide how much they demand, and they get to decide what they spend it on.

Surely you can’t disagree with that? It’s a simple statement of facts.

We move on:

Nevertheless, I don’t see how a personal choice to not indulge in overseas aid is particularly high in the ranks of tax mis-spending disasters (see above). In fact, I’d argue that overseas aid is one of the least worst things that the government /are/ spending their money on.

Okay who’s personal choice to not indulge in overseas aid are you talking about here? The Governments? Newmanias? This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

I’m sure the State is glad you approve of overseas aid, but I think you’ll find that it’s “government /is/ spending /our/ money on.” It’s our money. Well, it was, until it was taken. If you don’t think tax is taken, try not paying tax when it’s demanded and see how you get on.

Being perfectly happy to pay tax because you believe what you get for your money is good value does not change the fact that it is taken from you whether you like it or not. You do understand that don’t you?

Finally:

Do you, perhaps, have a copy of the Daily Mail lodged in your brain or, (gasp!) somewhere more intimate?! Would you like it removed?! Would you like me to DRAW YOU A DIAGRAM?!

IS NEWMANIA’S CHILDISH CONCEPTION OF THE MECHANICS OF ECONOMICS CURABLE?! FIND OUT NEXT WEEK! SAME TINY-MINDED TIME! SAME RIGHT-WING CHANNEL!

I wouldn’t be so quick to throw around insults like ‘childish’ and ‘tiny-minded’ if I were you. People who live in glass houses and all that.

Perhaps by actually spending it well, on worthwhile projects instead of idiocy.

People do not object to paying a reasonable level of taxes if they see good outcomes in public services. It is hardly surprising that they are unhappy at this stage.

Red Pesto- You need a level of consent from everyone in reality which is why the system must be very wary of drifting away from wide based popular support .Currently there are number of ways in which our system is failing . Firstly the over representation of inner cities favours net tax recipients . The democratic deficit with Scotland imports the voting of a country in which 67% of the GDP is public spending ( by 2012 ) . Only Cuba and Baghdad are ahead ( 80% and 87% )More importantly the class bias of the system as a whole and the baby boomer age of the current elite. This all slews public debate to the left and the BBC rabidly support Europe. But apart from that we were promised a referendum on Lisbon and lied to. Simple
In fact there is a large majority in the whole of Britain distrustful of the EU immigration and positively contemptuous of international budgets . This is kept quiet by the fact much of it votes Labour on grounds of economic interest but the working-class are subdued by the Labour Party who ignore the views of voters they consider bought and paid for with other people’s money. The idea of PR is to increase the power of this stranglehold .

Me [sighs]: Where to start?

1 – I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘net tax recipients’ in the inner cities. Constituencies are determined by population size: if more people live together in cities, then those cities have more constituencies than say, rural Yorkshire. If some of those people are poorer, they may need some form of state support (unless I’m engaging with the ‘cut their legs off and they’ll learn how to walk’ school of welfare). Or is there a suggestion that people in the inner cities allegedly breed like rabbits and receive billions in child benefit as a result…it’s just so hard to tell.

2 – Re. Scotland: the Tories had successive working majorities 1979-1993 without worrying too much about Scotland. Or indeed Wales.

3 – It’s nice to see the US ‘liberal media’ canard doing the rounds over here. Presumably all the ‘Thatcher’s children’ who learnt their stuff in the 1980s are soon to take over – or maybe not. Grumping about the legacy of the 1960s is what the Tories spent 18 years doing (and with some of them, they’ve not stopped even when they’re in opposition).

In other words, you’re offering a conspiracy rather than an analysis – only without the giant lizards.

Broadly the deal was that although others did better those who paid or everything though they still got a good deal from say the NHS. Now people look at the £200,000 of health insurance their taxes buy and wonder if they are getting a good deal by any measure

Nobody says that, people just want the welfare state to discriminate between those who deserve welfare and those who don’t.

Basically they don’t want to pick up their newspaper and read about newcomers being put up in million pound houses and then read on the opposite page that the terminally ill are being denied life-prolonging drugs by the NHS.

Not really

1 It does not have to add up-Not if you can allow debt to grow during a boom use fiscal drag to disguise tax levied on it and start printing money shoving all the pain onto our children. Eventually there will be a reckoning but the political bonus will be enjoyed now . During this period was can at least thank the lord above that no-one was listening to the Liberal Democrats who were asking for higher taxes for most of the period .
Tax credits has been an administrative cock up ( as if you read a Newspaper of any sort you might notice ) because it was based on an American model where people are used to filing returns at a low level (* Brown whose baby it was ,was repeatedly warned by the civil service ). Its further effect is to distort employment around its requirements for hours ,suck out money into bureaucrat sinecures and finally give people their own money back . It also created dependency and reduces Labour mobility . As stupid ideas go it has to be a world class contender even if it had been run well which it has not .
In the past people were prepared to trust the state and were even handed on the tax services equation . After ten years of waste they are not any more and if you look at the effect on the Polls of IHT or the 10p do ci do you will see everyone has had enough. At
Someone at some point will have to take on the Public Sector Unions . Who you gonna call ? The Liberal Democrats ? They are all teachers, the Labour Party ? Looked at its funding recently ?

Listen to the stupendous sagacity of Nick foolish Withiel for he speaketh great truths . You , by way of contrast , babble like a baby.