Sadly your ideas are predicated on the notion that there players at the top that want fairness in society. There is a club. But unhappily most of us are not in it. I’d stop reading Plato and maybe read Burke for a while.

Of course it is wrong that billionaire’s pay less tax on their overall income than their secretarial staff.

Do we really need to go through this again?

I’m an accountant and I can’t see why this idea is as easily rejected as Manon and Tim J seem to think – the fact that rich people don’t want it is not relevant. We live in a democracy and if enough people can get behind an idea then we stand a good chance of making it happen. Cyncial people always like to question the ability of ordinary people to organise themselves but if they couldn’t and were never successful we’d still have workhouses.

I understand Tim J’s frustration with LC that the distinction between absoute and relative measures is often misunderstood but if your constantly going to shout down ideas for raising the standard of living of ordinary people then what’s the alternative? Liberalising everything ignores the externalities generated by NOT having public services for dustbins, healthcare, education etc

Of course it is wrong that billionaire’s pay less tax on their overall income than their secretarial staff.
———————-

Hmm.. bankrupt your country with government spending on the self entitled fuck wits who produce nothing…realise you are bankrupt…locate your nearest and dearest enemy, the producer of jobs..do your best to milk him of all he has in the short time he is left in your country..

Job done.

Every chancellor says that they want to simplify the tax system and it just gets more complex. As soon as the Treasury gets a hold of them they go native. Complexity suits HMRC as it provides jobs for the nomenklatura implementing the complexity. Similar thing to lefties arguing that low earners should pay tax so that they can get the same money back in handouts. Tax them and employ more nomenklatura’s to give them it back.

I have a good way to simplify the tax system. Abolish all income taxes and introduce a progressive consumption tax. Income is an abstract concept and essentially just numbers on a computer until such time as someone uses the numbers to consume something. In the Communist Party of Great Britain 1929 manifesto, they proposed exempting wage-earners from tax. Which makes you guys who support taxing the poor even more statist in some respects than the 1929 CPGB.

” (1) Abolition of all indirect taxes.

(2) Exemption from all kinds of taxation for all wage-earners.

(3) Tax exemption for all working farmers.

(4) Graduated income tax starting with the incomes of £500 per annum, increasing gradually so that all personal incomes over £5,000 per year are confiscated.

(5) Abolition of the right of transfer and inheritance by confiscation of all individual fortunes over £1,000.

(6) Repudiation of the National Debt (special consideration to be given to the position of small investors, the Cooperatives, and trade unions)..”

Part of the problem is that people like the idiot @ 4. actually believe all this free market / private=good, public=bad / “wealth creators” / Ayn Rand / Chicago School guff. It’s like a religion to them.

It was some bearded German bloke who pointed out that religion made working class people support their own oppression.

@5

” Which makes you guys who support taxing the poor even more statist in some respects than the 1929 CPGB.”

The Right will say *anything* to make abolishing income tax seem like a sound idea, rather than the swivel-eyed lunacy that it is.

@ 4 What?

“bankrupt your country with government spending on the self entitled fuck wits who produce nothing”

Seeing as this hasn’t happened and the OP isn’t calling for it, I’m really not sure what your point is. I mean, I have a suspicion that you’re trying to conflate a small number of benefit-dependent slackers with every single person who benefits from state spending… but I wouldn’t want to make that assumption and straw man you.

“locate your nearest and dearest enemy, the producer of jobs..do your best to milk him of all he has in the short time he is left in your country..”

It’s not about enemies, it’s about a fair contribution from those who can afford it. The super-rich can pay a reasonable amount of tax and be thanked for it.

As for job-producers leaving the country… first off, if a business owner in Britain realises that operating in, say, China would be more profitable, that doesn’t mean he or she will up sticks and move east. It would be more likely and more logical for them to set up a business in highly-profitable China while maintaining their business in fairly-profitable Britain.

Secondly, if a business owner is really going to stomp off to another country because the state wants a decent cut of their six- or seven-digit annual income, they’ll be leaving a market niche behind, which can be filled by an entrepeneur who isn’t quite so grasping.

7. Pasha

” The Right will say *anything* to make abolishing income tax seem like a sound idea, rather than the swivel-eyed lunacy that it is. ”

1/ I am not on the Right.

2/ Since when was not taxing labour and taxing other things instead ‘swivel-eyed lunacy ? I guess you would claim to support labour so much that you believe in taxing labour. A strange form of support. How possibly could income tax introduced in Britain to fight Napoleon be anything other than a sound idea in 2011. Pasha, it may be news to you but he is dead.

The country is as good as bankrupt, the enormous waist of public funds,the economic illiteracy of “leaders” and the living beyond our means has seen to that.

“It’s not about enemies, it’s about a fair contribution from those who can afford it. The super-rich can pay a reasonable amount of tax and be thanked for it.”

Oh! How nice of you to thank them for it! Makes a change from the constant bombardment of negativity they receive in the press and the envy of the public which continues to get worse. “Fair contribution”.. why is it the only way you can calculate the fairness of there contribution is by the percentage of tax they pay in comparison to yours?

The jobs,services and products these individuals produce are the most important contribution because they are the economy, this is not black and white “public sector bad” “private sector good” its about balance,to continue to choke this sector to fund government freebies is not going to solve the issues Britain currently faces.

You can consume the private sector with excessive taxation and regulation until it has been consumed in pursuit of feeding government debt or you can encourage it to grow..hmm I wonder where that would take us? But please what ever you do piss off with the “fair” and “morally right” crap, we live in a global economy and to succeed you must compete, not tax and regulate to death.

@8 chaise

The problem is that the ‘rich’ already are making a ‘fair’ contribution.

I don’t have UK figures but in the US the top 10% of (net) taxpayers contribute 75% of all income taxes. The bottom 25% actually have a net negative contribution after tax breaks, benefits etc.

I doubt it’s too different in the UK.

So, by all means tax the ‘rich’ more, but don’t expect them to stick around forever.

@ What

1) I pointed out that your explanations for the state of the country’s finances were fantastical. Your response is to pretend that I think the country’s finances are fine. Funny that. Can we assume that you withdraw your claim that our country is bankrupt due to “self-entitled fuck wits who produce nothing”? Because you seem to have quietly dropped the very thing I objected to in the first place.

2) See above for why I think your predictions about the impact on the economy due to increased taxes on high earners are wrong. You need to address what people say, not just repeat your opinion ad infinitum.

3) If you object to morality, how is it that you have an opinion on the rights or wrongs of anything? Even if you were right about the effect that a Buffett tax would have on the country, you’d need subjective analysis to determine whether or not this was a desirable outcome.

4) “to succeed you must compete, not tax and regulate to death”. Well, first off that’s a false dichotomy. You can compete while maintaining a reasonable level of tax and regulation. Secondly, what do you mean by “succeed”? If we raise Britain’s market competitiveness at the cost of the wellbeing of the population, I think we’re measuring success on the wrong metric.

@ 11 Tyler

Given that the US isn’t exactly a socialist’s paradise, I’d suggest that your figure says more about the disparity between the incomes of the super-rich and the rest of the population than it does about how high the top tax rate is in the country. And I’m perfectly happy with individuals earning millions of pounds a year, btw… but they can afford to give a good portion back to society.

As for the lower-earners being a net tax drain: yes, that’s kind of the point. If everyone in the US or UK could afford to pay for essential services, we wouldn’t need state funding for many of the things we currently pay for (health, education, etc.). However, they can’t. I don’t subscribe to the idea that you should get out what you pay in. It doesn’t work without a very level playing field.

1) Im not prepared to go into government spending with someone who believes the government should provide even if they have not got the means to..

2) See above for why I think your predictions about the impact on the economy due to increased taxes on high earners are wrong.

Ok, not so far in the future when the markets, industry and anything worth a dam has completely moved to Asia and all that is left in this country are people with a sense of high worth who demand this and demand that,simply because we pushed them away, you can have a long think about that one.

3) If you object to morality, how is it that you have an opinion on the rights or wrongs of anything?

I object to economic illiterate crap being pushed in peoples faces because they feels its morally justified, lets not go into the fact more tax would be generated with lower rates, more business and more investment would result, lets put aside the fact investment is a risky game in which one could lose the total sum involved in the pursuit of profit and business creation, lets just focus on it being unfair that people who of there own initiative take risks to do good pay a lesser percentage than those who sell there time for a guaranteed paycheck.

““to succeed you must compete, not tax and regulate to death”. Well, first off that’s a false dichotomy.”

Ok, stimulate the UK economy out of the Hole it is in by raising taxes and employing more government envelope sealer’s.

“If we raise Britain’s market competitiveness at the cost of the wellbeing of the population, I think we’re measuring success on the wrong metric.”

And watch what happens when Britain does not get its economy back on track for the well being of its population…the population who are so used to having it good it simply can not do what is needed to save what it has, in fact it cant even stomach those who provide for it being correctly compensated for there individual efforts.

Some interesting ideas to look at here.

First, we could abolish all allowances and reliefs for those earning over £150,000 a year. It’s really not hard to do and the case for doing so is glaringly obvious: why should we even now grant up to £25,000 of actual cash saving a year to those earning more than £150,000 a year who want to put cash in their pension funds when they are already incredibly well off and we could instead have a teaching assistant in a school? The choice is a no-brainer, surely?

You seem to miss one key point – what is the allowance or relief for? In most cases it will have been (at least envisaged – I have no idea if they work or not, which is a different matter) to encourage investment. This is because every economic model in the world seems to acknowledge investment is more efficient at wealth creation than taxation (less deadweight cost I presume) – Keynsianism is built round the need to make up for missing investment at times of recession; , not replace it totally – Keynes thought governments should underspend in times of growth remember. So by cutting reliefs etc on those with the money to invest, you presumably cut investment. Now, if you believe (against economic models) that this is a good idea, fine. But you need to explain why.

Second, we could align the income tax and capital gains tax rates and at the same time reduce the capita gains tax allowance which is ludicrously higher than for income tax and easily transferred between spouses. Nigel Lawson did it; let’s do it again and began to tax welath seriously as is essential if we are to build a just society.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to have a single tax on all income? Seems to be where this is heading, and is politically easier and more open. Despite the fact it may be a disincentive to some forms of activity, I can’t see any principalled objections to this. However, I am intrigued that in Mr Murphy’s view taxation leads to justice (a necessity of a just society) since law develops around property – it is custom (which is not just) which develops around communal holdings – and socities with lower levels of property have historically been those with greater abuses of justice. I think we need a bit of explanation of how this is meant to work, as historically this appears wrong.

Third, we need to set minimum tax rates if we won’t limit reliefs so that whatever your gross income there is a minimum rate of tax you will pay.

Again missing the point of reliefs I fear – or perhaps, to be fair, claiming that tax is more valuable than investment.

Overall then, a mixed bag of ideas, and some logic that needs developing. It is not enought to assert that a greater share of GDP taken as taxation will be a good thing – it needs to be shown, especially where it seems that the targetted increase in the share of GDP that is taxed is money potentially available for investment.

I don’t know enough about reliefs and the like to state they work, but if they do not (and I have had enough dealings with accounants to know they are commonly applied) replacing them with taxation cannot just be assumed to be the only way forward. The case needs to be argued.

@9

I wasn’t going to do this, but…

Let’s go back to your original post at 5.

“Complexity suits HMRC as it provides jobs for the nomenklatura implementing the complexity.”

I’ve heard this rubbish before. Tax laws are complicated because governments want to encourage certain activities and discourage others, because business lobby groups campaign for specific exemptions and subsidies and because things generally get more complicated over time. This idea that governments deliberately build up layers of labyrinthine complexity purely to create admin work is utter nonsense.

I’ve worked at the bottom in several different bits of the Civil Service and the idea that the overworked, low-paid, often temporarily-contracted admin staff who do the donkey work associated with the tax system are prvileged “nomenklatura” is ridiculous.

“Similar thing to lefties arguing that low earners should pay tax so that they can get the same money back in handouts.”

I’ll hold fire from calling this one out as a massive strawman if you can find me evidence of “lefties” arguing that taxing the low paid is a good idea. If you want to reduce the tax paid by the poor, raising the threshold for income tax would do this without allowing the better off to escape paying their due. This, incidentally is what most “lefties” and, for that matter, most self-styled liberals, want.

“I have a good way to simplify the tax system. Abolish all income taxes and introduce a progressive consumption tax.”

I see this more and more these days. Someone who claims to be “left-leaning” or “progressive” or somehow On The Side Of The Poor who reckons they’ve got a genius idea to help out those at the bottom of the income scale. And, what a shocker, the idea always turns out to be “scrap income tax”. Scrap the tax that rich people pay the most and poor people pay the least. Scrap the tax that, coincidentally, the wingnut right are always calling for reductions in and are *desperate* the find a way to abolish.

And how would a progressive consumption tax work exactly? You’ll need to explain how it’d “simplify the system” (clue – it won’t), how it would be fairer than a progressive income tax (clue – it won’t, given that even those with no income have to consume sometimes), and how it wouldn’t just lead to massive fraud via cash in hand transactions (something that we don’t have to worry about with income tax, as PAYE makes it difficult).

“Income is an abstract concept and essentially just numbers on a computer”

In which case income tax is essentially just some numbers on a computer as well, so you needn’t worry about it.

“Which makes you guys who support taxing the poor even more statist in some respects than the 1929 CPGB.”

The phrase “in some respects” is doing a lot of work there. The CPGB, in the manifesto you quote, suggest an income tax for non-wage income starting at £500 (£23070 in today’s money), with all income over £5000 confiscated (£230700 in today’s money) [figures taken from http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html. That’s very, very different from your proposal to scrap income tax altogether. Anyway, it’s a bit rich to suggest replacing a tax that works on the labour market with a consumption tax that affects the market in *everything* and then call someone else “statist”.

“Since when was not taxing labour and taxing other things instead ‘swivel-eyed lunacy ?”

Taxing what other things? You didn’t make any suggestions apart from some reference to a “progressive consumption tax” that you don’t explain or give any details of.

“I guess you would claim to support labour so much that you believe in taxing labour.”

You’ve moved the goalposts – you’d suggesting abolishing income tax, which is a different thing from ‘tax on wages’. I believe in setting the threshold for income tax at a level where those on lower wages wouldn’t have to pay it, rather than giving gigantic tax cuts to Dragon’s Den types, as you’re proposing. Incidentally, FWIW I also believe in taxing non-earned income (capital gains, savings interest, share dividends, inheritances) at rates equal to, or higher than, earned income. But that apparently doesn’t matter, as you reckon the most left-wing approach is to cut the tax that the rich pay most.

“A strange form of support.”

Oh, give over. You pop up suggesting the kind of “scrap income tax and replace it with more VAT” type idea that poor-hating wingnut extremists like Daniel Hannan get an instant boner just thinking about and then you try to take some kind of leftier-than-thou moral high ground. You might even have got away with it if you hadn’t immediately preceded it with a fact-free rant about the size of the state apparatus that could have been copied and pasted from any one of the seemingly infinite number of Randian, basement-dweller libertarian blogs out there.

“How possibly could income tax introduced in Britain to fight Napoleon be anything other than a sound idea in 2011.”

Ah yes, 200 years ago, before income tax, it was a golden age for the poorly-paid, wasn’t it? Look, I don’t give a shit why it was introduced. A progressive income tax is the easiest and most effective way to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor using the tax system.

You seem to miss one key point – what is the allowance or relief for? In most cases it will have been (at least envisaged – I have no idea if they work or not, which is a different matter) to encourage investment.

Chesterton’s Gate. But then, Richie’s general MO is to ignore that principle.

“why should we even now grant up to £25,000 of actual cash saving a year to those earning more than £150,000 a year who want to put cash in their pension funds when they are already incredibly well off and we could instead have a teaching assistant in a school? The choice is a no-brainer, surely?”

Tax relief on pensions isn’t actually tax relief. It’s tax postponement, People pay tax on the pensions they receive at the end of the period….and in the meanwhile the money is invested meaning that there are more jobs etc around.

So, by encouraging people to save we get higher incomes now and also a teaching assitant for the grandchildren. We could do it your way of course and only have the teaching assitant right now but it seems better to have two for one rather than one only, doesn’t it?

“Second, we could align the income tax and capital gains tax rates”

Against the basic economics of taxation that. There are higher deadweight costs to capital taxation than there are to income taxation. And of course, consumption taxation has less and property taxation the least.

Just for those (like Richard) who don’t know what “deadweight costs” means, all taxes have a cost. A cost in reduced growth. And we can place taxes on a spectrum, higher deadweight costs for an amount of money raised through to lower deadweight costs for the same money raised. Corporate and capital taxes have the highest costs, then income, consumption and at the lowest, property taxes.

If you don’t believe me go and take it up with the OECD: or even the Nobel Laureates who got their gongs for working it out.

There’s another nice little bit in there as well: the Laffer Curve. We know that different taxes have diferent peaks. CDurrently the argument is about whether 40 % or 50% is the peak of the curve for income taxes. Hmm, OK, but the reason the capital gains tax is 28% is that that’s the best guess as to what the peak of the curve for capital gains taxes is. So raising rates could lead to lower tax income.

Why does Richard want to reduce revenue?

This is the problem with so much of Richard’s stuff: he just never puts all the pieces together.

@ 14 What

“1) Im not prepared to go into government spending with someone who believes the government should provide even if they have not got the means to..”

In other words, “I’m going to claim that I refuse to argue the point while arguing the point”. Oh, and also a straw man.

“Ok, not so far in the future [...] you can have a long think about that one.”

Yawn. In other words, you can’t explain why you’re right, but you just KNOW that history will vindicate you!

“I object to economic illiterate crap being pushed in peoples faces because they feels its morally justified ”

Again with the goalpost-shifting! You said you had a problem with morality earlier on. If you think the OP is economically illiterate you need to actually put forward an argument to demonstrate that.

“lets not go into the fact more tax would be generated with lower rates, more business and more investment would result, lets put aside the fact investment is a risky game in which one could lose the total sum involved in the pursuit of profit and business creation, lets just focus on it being unfair that people who of there own initiative take risks to do good pay a lesser percentage than those who sell there time for a guaranteed paycheck.”

Has it occurred to you that having enough money to take potentially life-changing risks means you need to be relatively affluent in the first place – so twisting the tax rate in favour of risk-takers would, for the most part, simply be a way of rewarding people for being born to a rich mummy and daddy?

“Ok, stimulate the UK economy out of the Hole it is in by raising taxes and employing more government envelope sealer’s. ”

A few more straw men and you’ll have your very own hay bale.

“And watch what happens when Britain does not get its economy back on track for the well being of its population…”

What’s that got to do with what I said? I said general wellbeing was more important than economic power. How do you counter that by ranting about the effects of low wellbeing? Yeesh.

I understand Tim J’s frustration with LC that the distinction between absoute and relative measures is often misunderstood…

It’s actually not just that. Buffet’s complaint that millionaire’s pay proportionately less tax than their secretaries basically isn’t true. As the AP puts it;

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

“In other words, “I’m going to claim that I refuse to argue the point while arguing the point”. Oh, and also a straw man.”

Yes I am going to refuse to argue that spending more money than you have and continually extracting more and more funds from the sector that pays for everything, damaging it as you go, is bad and the road to bankruptcy.

“Yawn. In other words, you can’t explain why you’re right, but you just KNOW that history will vindicate you!”

Ok yes “yawn” we have not witnessed a huge global shift in economic power over the last few decades, the shift we have not witnessed has nothing to do with competitiveness and taxation and if such a shift had existed it would stop right here and now as to not upset the special English people – the world revolves around us we can tax to death and regulate out of existence anything we like, it will all remain because we cant ever imagine it leaving.

“Again with the goalpost-shifting! You said you had a problem with morality earlier on”

Actually I said piss off with your morals,this is an economy we are dealing with, morals have there firm place when there backed with understanding and “ideas about things that actually work” just because you feel something is moral does not make it workable or correct.

Do I really need to put together a case of why these ideas are economically illiterate,can you not read them on this very page or perhaps some time and google?

“Has it occurred to you that having enough money to take potentially life-changing risks means you need to be relatively affluent in the first place – so twisting the tax rate in favour of risk-takers would, for the most part, simply be a way of rewarding people for being born to a rich mummy and daddy?”

Is this some kind of joke?

“A few more straw men and you’ll have your very own hay bale.”

My children will be building there homes out of straw bale if the ideas of people like you continue to destroy the economy.

“What’s that got to do with what I said? I said general wellbeing was more important than economic power. How do you counter that by ranting about the effects of low wellbeing? Yeesh.”

Peoples well being is booming when the economy, the network to provide all there wants and needs is so under performing they cant get a job, service there mortgage payments, provide for there family’s, indulged in luxury’s, holidays and the many things people aspire to, who needs economic power, jobs industry who needs any of it..well being comes from within…right

I really can not accept that you fail to understand the connection between a healthy economy and the populations well being….

@ Tim J

Isn’t the claim based on all taxes, though, not just federal ones? Here in the UK, tax bands make it clear that income tax is higher for richer people… but it’s claimed that other taxes such as VAT can cancel this out. In the US, I’m pretty sure sales tax is charged by the state, which means it wouldn’t be counted in a roundup of federal tax. And of course there’s also the point that rich people can afford accountants and offshore accounts to minimise their tax outgoings, which muddies the water further.

@ 21 What?

“Yes I am going to refuse to argue that spending more money than you have and continually extracting more and more funds from the sector that pays for everything, damaging it as you go, is bad and the road to bankruptcy.”

That’s probably good, as it’s based on made-up concepts like “the sector that pays for everything”.

“Ok yes “yawn” we have not witnessed a huge global shift in economic power over the last few decades, the shift we have not witnessed has nothing to do with competitiveness and taxation and if such a shift had existed it would stop right here and now as to not upset the special English people – the world revolves around us we can tax to death and regulate out of existence anything we like, it will all remain because we cant ever imagine it leaving.”

Finally, a point! Yes, of course economies like China are more competitive than us. This is something we need to take into account (although see my original points, the ones you still haven’t addressed, for why this isn’t as huge a problem as you make out). But it’s a case of finding balance, not just choosing between competitiveness and welfare. Charging the super-rich a bit extra is not going to leave our country destitute.

“Actually I said piss off with your morals,this is an economy we are dealing with, morals have there firm place when there backed with understanding and “ideas about things that actually work” just because you feel something is moral does not make it workable or correct.”

Maybe you should have said that instead of just going on a rant about “this “fair” and “morally right” crap”, then? I agree that thinking something is right doesn’t mean it is effective. However, I don’t try to communicate that understanding by shouting “piss off with your morals!”

“Do I really need to put together a case of why these ideas are economically illiterate,can you not read them on this very page or perhaps some time and google?”

I’m afraid that traditionally one is expected to justify one’s assertions, yes. The last few posts have made it clear that you have a problem with that and would prefer everyone to just accept your opinion as gospel.

“Is this some kind of joke? ”

See above.

“My children will be building there homes out of straw bale if the ideas of people like you continue to destroy the economy.”

Grow up. Accept it was a straw man or explain why it wasn’t, don’t make stupid comments based on a random couple of words taken from my post.

“I really can not accept that you fail to understand the connection between a healthy economy and the populations well being….”

I’m fully aware of the connection, yes. But that doesn’t mean that moves that improve the economy are automatically good for the population’s wellbeing. For example, a return to Victorian policies on welfare and workers’ rights would probably do wonders for the economy, but it would still leave a huge amount of people royally fucked over.

“That’s probably good, as it’s based on made-up concepts like “the sector that pays for everything”.

Yes because the government have created so much revenue from all the products and service they created from scratch with private financing that had zero to do with the tax payer, they have such independent income streams one wonders why they need taxation at all!

“But it’s a case of finding balance, not just choosing between competitiveness and welfare. Charging the super-rich a bit extra is not going to leave our country destitute”

You talk as if its a choice and completely fail to understand that as our economy is out performed economic productivity will decrease – you feel the solution to this is to further tax and in the process discourage those who are working to make our economy competitive….you will also “take into account” that other economies are more competitive than us, in reality we will be wiped off the map by that small little fact, in due time.

“Maybe you should have said that instead of just going on a rant about “this “fair”

Direct quote from you:

“it’s about a fair contribution from those who can afford it”

Maybe you should try to understand there contributions instead of banging on about “fairness”.

“I’m afraid that traditionally one is expected to justify one’s assertions, yes. The last few posts have made it clear that you have a problem with that and would prefer everyone to just accept your opinion as gospel.”

Its been explained, maybe if you lack even this basic knowledge you should have your head in a book instead of in a debate?

“Grow up. Accept it was a straw man or explain why it wasn’t, don’t make stupid comments based on a random couple of words taken from my post.”

Instead of an endless debate about what it takes to become competitive lets just watch this country and as we do compare it to a low tax open to business with welcome arms country, maybe the coming reality will explain it for you.

“I’m fully aware of the connection, yes. But that doesn’t mean that moves that improve the economy are automatically good for the population’s wellbeing. For example, a return to Victorian policies on welfare and workers’ rights would probably do wonders for the economy, but it would still leave a huge amount of people royally fucked over.”

Nice extreme for you to jump to, I was just you know…thinking about not making the UK on the list of the least inviting places for an entrepreneur to conduct his business and pay his taxes in the entire fucking world, a return to the Victorian era had not crossed my mind..:)

@ 24 What

“Yes because the government have created so much revenue from all the products and service they created from scratch with private financing that had zero to do with the tax payer, they have such independent income streams one wonders why they need taxation at all!”

Oh, ok, you’re talking about the private sector in general. As you were defending higher earners I thought you meant them specifically.

“You talk as if its a choice and completely fail to understand that as our economy is out performed economic productivity will decrease – you feel the solution to this is to further tax and in the process discourage those who are working to make our economy competitive….you will also “take into account” that other economies are more competitive than us, in reality we will be wiped off the map by that small little fact, in due time.”

And you’re ignoring the positive effects for the economy of state spending – such as having a better-educated, healthier workforce, and fostering an environment in which the most capable, rather than the most fortunate, rise to powerful positions.

Your argument, thus far, also seems to be based on the assumption that emerging economies, and our relationship with them, will stay the same. But the competitiveness of places like China is in part made possible by their poor record on human rights, which seems likely to improve as the country becomes more affluent. More generally, exchange rates are a huge factor, and will change as these countries become more economically powerful.

Finally, you seem to assume that even a small step in a direction that you consider negative will have huge consequences. There’s a difference between “make us slightly less competitive” and “wipe us off the map”.

“Maybe you should try to understand there contributions instead of banging on about “fairness”.”

I do understand them… but that’s got nothing to do with your poor communication skills. The problem here is that you shouted in rage at the very concept of a moral position when you (allegedly) actually meant that morality needs to be applied to a factual backdrop. If that was what you meant, that’s what you should have said in the first place.

“Its been explained, maybe if you lack even this basic knowledge you should have your head in a book instead of in a debate?”

Thanks for proving my point! I guess you can’t back up your opinions then. Shame.

“Instead of an endless debate about what it takes to become competitive lets just watch this country and as we do compare it to a low tax open to business with welcome arms country, maybe the coming reality will explain it for you.”

And once again: “I’m right because I’m right and I don’t need to explain myself”.

“Nice extreme for you to jump to, I was just you know…thinking about not making the UK on the list of the least inviting places for an entrepreneur to conduct his business and pay his taxes in the entire fucking world, a return to the Victorian era had not crossed my mind..:)”

Sigh. Did I say you wanted to return to the Victorian era? No. Did I draw a parallel between your views and a return to the Victorian era? No. Stop straw manning me, it’s getting horribly dull.

Perhaps you should look again at the post you just replied to and realise that it was an analogy – and explained as such right there in the post. The point I’m making is that improving the national economic outlook does not automatically improve the wellbeing of the population. The analogy is there to demonstrate the point. Do you get it now?

@ What

“My children will be building there homes out of straw bale if the ideas of people like you continue to destroy the economy.”

Actually that’d be something of a positive for all. Straw-bale construction is cheaper, stronger, offers much better insulation and much much greener than conventional home construction.

@ chaise

The point I was really trying to make is that high earners *already* pay their ‘fair’ share, whatever that is…in total tax reciepts as a % of all taxes and in pure nominal terms. What they don’t do is (necesserily) pay a bigger % of their own personal net income.

Whic is what those on the left get so het up about….but that is really a problem with marginal tax rates – very much so in the UK for example.

I pay a lot more tax than someone. Earning 20k pa, and probably get less for it, not using most state services. BUT my % income tax rate is still probably lower than someone on not much over minimum wage.

My other point is that it easy for ‘rich’ people to move. I’m currently being offered jopbs in London, johannesburg and geneva. The tax rate really does play a large part in my decision making process…

@ pasha

I’d argue that

Ooops as I was saying

@ pasha

The tax/handouts thing DOES make a big difference.

Forcing people onto a handouts system makes them more beholden to the state. That clearly alters peoples behaviour. Its a method of control, at its most basic level.

If your total earnings are dependent on state handouts, the you are more likely to vote for the party offering you those things. Its a very common thing in polkitics and really has its roots in game theory. Its also sadfly not the most efficient way to run things and common amongst all parties, but more so on the left where the view is that the state should do as muc as possible, rather than the minimum required as more right/liberal parties would argue.

@op – “Second, we could align the income tax and capital gains tax rates”

Yes! And treat income as ONE source. One personal allowance only….

@11 – Given how the rich have scooped the wealth of society back up since the 70′s, while at the same time their tax rates have dropped (not unconnected), you’re spouting propaganda.

@ 16. Pasha

I regularly hear public sector union leaders arguing that they should have more staff. Yet to hear one saying that they need fewer staff. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that their default position is that they should become larger. Here are some links outlining the issues. Most are discussing the U.S., but the general point is transferable.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=7091

http://www.democracyjournal.org/8/6591.php

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2007/04/a_progressive_c.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-27/left-right-can-love-taxes-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff-andrew-weiss.html

The point I am trying to get across is income as Scott Sumner says is a meaningless concept. Labour income is just accumulating monetary units. Very few people gain any utility from accumulating more numbers per se, and accumulating more numbers puts no pressure on the resources of society. The personal gain in utility and claim on resources is through consumption of resources. As you say taxes can ‘ encourage certain activities and discourage others.’ Presumably we want people to work rather than be unemployed so it is difficult to reconcile that aim with taxing labour.

Shifting taxes from production to consumption at face value would be regressive for those who consume all their income. Therefore, we need it make it progressive through rebating to take people below certain incomes completely out of tax and graduated further up the income scale. Now, if we have people on high incomes who choose not to consume that income their tax would fall. I don’t see what difference that makes. Saving is just deferred consumption. As soon as they spend the savings they would be paying the progressive consumption tax no matter what they consumed. Pass it on to descendants and they will pay the consumption taxes.

There would undoubtedly be problems and anomalies. However, it is hardly the case that our current system is perfect. It really comes down to the delusion that taxing numbers is taxing at all. The reason why those earning higher incomes do not just up sticks and go to areas with lower marginal tax rates is because of the utility that they gain from the UK. I favour Pigou taxes on pollution, Land Value Taxes and a progressive consumption tax. The principle of taxing those things is that those who gain the greatest utility from society would pay the most back to society. Moreover, those who gain the least would pay back the least. Our current system with the deluded belief that numbers are wealth does the opposite by taxing least those who gain the greatest utility. The folks at the bottom are paying the most through the loss of purchasing power by having their labour taxed and their consumption taxed with non-progressive indirect taxes.

My system would be progressive, reward the productive, encourage saving and discourage wasteful consumption and should be the type of things that all parties could support if they stopped to think about it for a moment. Yet, we will continue in our present mess with the wealthy out-thinking the Richard Murphy’s because when it comes down to it, they are quite simply smarter than him.

8. Chaise Guevara

Seeing as this hasn’t happened and the OP isn’t calling for it, I’m really not sure what your point is. I mean, I have a suspicion that you’re trying to conflate a small number of benefit-dependent slackers with every single person who benefits from state spending… but I wouldn’t want to make that assumption and straw man you.

Actually it is happening and the OP certainly supports it. Every single person who benefits from state spending drags the rest of society down.

It’s not about enemies, it’s about a fair contribution from those who can afford it. The super-rich can pay a reasonable amount of tax and be thanked for it.

Afford is one of those flexible concepts that really means whatever the speaker wants. The more sensible way is to look at it from the other end – the British government gets more than enough money to do all it needs to. It can’t do all it wants, but it can do anything it wants. It does not need more. It needs to be more efficient and tougher on parasites.

As for job-producers leaving the country

Actually some will move, more just won’t bother. If you tax people too much they simply won’t make the effort. Britain’s real problem is that too many people have given up. They prefer to exist on benefits or whatever rather than taking the risks. Look at Scotland for instance.

Secondly, if a business owner is really going to stomp off to another country because the state wants a decent cut of their six- or seven-digit annual income, they’ll be leaving a market niche behind, which can be filled by an entrepeneur who isn’t quite so grasping.

Yes, such noble paragons who will work for nothing so that their siblings can sit on their arses doing nothing are a dime a dozen. In reality, if the culture shifts against people who start businesses – as Britain decisively has – then there won’t be anyone willing to do that. Britain has been relying on immigrants to provide the entreprenuerial spirit for over a century. Which is why most big companies were started by immigrants or their children. Tesco for instance.

12. Chaise Guevara

Can we assume that you withdraw your claim that our country is bankrupt due to “self-entitled fuck wits who produce nothing”? Because you seem to have quietly dropped the very thing I objected to in the first place.

He may drop it but I wouldn’t. As it is true.

4) “to succeed you must compete, not tax and regulate to death”. Well, first off that’s a false dichotomy. You can compete while maintaining a reasonable level of tax and regulation. Secondly, what do you mean by “succeed”? If we raise Britain’s market competitiveness at the cost of the wellbeing of the population, I think we’re measuring success on the wrong metric.

No it is not. The more you tax, the lower your rate of growth, the less well off Britain becomes in being able to compete. At least for tax levels above a certain minimum. We are not looking at the trade off between well being and market competitiveness. We are looking at short term avoidance of pain and long term benefit. In the short term Britain paid a high price for closing its coal mines, but in the longer term we are all better off. In the short term, paying people to do nothing avoids trouble and pain, but in the longer term, we are all worse off. We could force British schools to teach properly but that would involve confronting the Education Unions. No one has the stomach for that fight so we drift on. In the longer term, competitiveness is everything. Lower taxes and less useless welfare would encourage that. Higher taxes and more paying people for stupid behaviour will discourage that. We are accepting lower living standards in the future to avoid making tough choices now.

In the meantime Singapore and Hong Kong are now richer than we are. The future is Argentina.

“Oh, ok, you’re talking about the private sector in general. As you were defending higher earners I thought you meant them specifically.”

Yes I am talking about the private sector which is powered by individuals who choose to created products services and jobs – to you im “defending the rich” well let me tell you something, I was never given a job by a poor person,for the UK to recover it needs job creation something we must encourage to the most of our abilities.

Taxation levels are a tool that can be used to encourage job creation yet the method seems to be ” raise taxation because its morally right and hate rich people”

Right on!

“And you’re ignoring the positive effects for the economy of state spending – such as having a better-educated, healthier workforce, and fostering an environment in which the most capable, rather than the most fortunate, rise to powerful positions.”

When to pay for these things you destroy the means of paying for them then we have an issue, without being in a powerful economic situation we would not have been able to pay for these things in the first place and as I have already said, its been so good for so long people can not even conceive of the spending on them being cut, no, we have rights I tell you! just tax those rich folks more!

“But the competitiveness of places like China is in part made possible by their poor record on human rights, which seems likely to improve as the country becomes more affluent.”

I agree, to compete and gain standing you must sacrifice,as china becomes more affluent and buys up infrastructure globally etc there living standard/society as a hole will improve year on year whilst the UKs idiots cant even sacrifice the most basic of state spending or over come there jealousy of the rich in order to regain there competitive edge and healthy economy.

“Finally, you seem to assume that even a small step in a direction that you consider negative will have huge consequences. There’s a difference between “make us slightly less competitive” and “wipe us off the map”.

This is not an isolated small step, this is another step in a marathon of steps to making the UK an expensive unprofitable place to conduct business – we are suffering the consequence of business moving abroad and your solution is to cause more..

“I do understand them… but that’s got nothing to do with your poor communication skills. The problem here is that you shouted in rage at the very concept of a moral position when you (allegedly) actually meant that morality needs to be applied to a factual backdrop. If that was what you meant, that’s what you should have said in the first place.”

Evidently you do not understand them if you are still calling for there “fair contribution”

“Thanks for proving my point! I guess you can’t back up your opinions then. Shame.”

This is not about my opinion, I did not create it I just go with what works, the reasons the tax suggestions here would be negative have been explained on this very page.

“And once again: “I’m right because I’m right and I don’t need to explain myself”.”

The fact that it is already happening matters not..hey:)

“Perhaps you should look again at the post you just replied to and realise that it was an analogy – and explained as such right there in the post. The point I’m making is that improving the national economic outlook does not automatically improve the wellbeing of the population. The analogy is there to demonstrate the point. Do you get it now?”

No actually you said well being is more important more important than economic power, all that matters is the UK recovers,it is not going to recover by taxing and regulating business out of the country and existence – the end.

@30 – “In the meantime Singapore and Hong Kong are now richer than we are.”

Meaningless comparison.

They’re city-states. They’re NOT richer than Greater London, which IS a reasonable comparison.

32. Leon Wolfson

Meaningless comparison. They’re city-states. They’re NOT richer than Greater London, which IS a reasonable comparison.

Greater London is the capital of a large country – the fifth biggest economy in the world – and the head (or regional) quarters of a huge number of multinationals. All of which push up the average. That comparison is meaningless.

Even so, the average wage in London is something around 28,000 pounds. While in Hong Kong it is over $45,000 which is a little over 29,000 pounds these days.

While Singapore is richer still at over $60,000.

Also note how all those non-producers in the North, Scotland and NI are dragging the British average, and hence well being, down.

The comparison is apt, substituting London’s finance links for the local trade links of Hong Kong and Singapore. And that’s far too low for London, you’re using junk figures again. And/or wikipedia, but I repeat myself.

And I see, only South English are the true bloods now. You really ARE that closed-minded.

34. Leon Wolfson

The comparison is apt, substituting London’s finance links for the local trade links of Hong Kong and Singapore. And that’s far too low for London, you’re using junk figures again. And/or wikipedia, but I repeat myself.

The comparison is banal where it is not idiotic. London has so many senior civil servants, politicians, international lawyers and so on. Hong Kong and Singapore have no special local trade links. No more than London and in fact a lot less.

If you don’t like my figure, produce your own.

And I see, only South English are the true bloods now. You really ARE that closed-minded.

The problem with you, Leon, is your refusal to stop making sh!t up. Even for this website that is pretty lame.

Always amazes me how much you can type without citing a single primary source.

34. So Much For Subtlety

” Also note how all those non-producers in the North, Scotland and NI are dragging the British average, and hence well being, down. ”

Better trolling required, SMFS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#National_and_regional_variation

Scotland has a higher GDP per capita, and gross value added per capita than most of England. If we include a geographical share of oil and gas, which we should as you are including the City in Greater London, then the numbers are higher than the South East and second only to Greater London. You do know Scotland has a higher employment rate and lower unemployment than the UK? You do know that with 8.5% of the UK population that Scotland provides the Treasury with at least 9.5% of tax receipts. Add around 2 per cent to compensate for the Treasury fiddling the numbers. Those figures exclude geographical North Sea oil and gas revenues. So if we calculate accurately, Scotland is raising the UK average.

Since when did the UK have a preferential rate for investment income?

The heart of the Buffett Tax proposals is to abolish that rate for higher earners; but we don’t have that option, we already tax investment income at the usual rates..

@ Tyler

“If your total earnings are dependent on state handouts, the you are more likely to vote for the party offering you those things”

That’s a fair enough point, as far as those on tax credits actually vote.

However, that wasn’t what Richard W was saying @ 5. He believed that the tax credit system was put in place purely to generate work, in some kind of Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil” scenario. Having worked for the DWP, I know that to be bollocks.

@Richard W #37:

If we include a geographical share of oil and gas, which we should as you are including the City in Greater London, then the numbers are higher than the South East and second only to Greater London.

I’d love to know what you mean by “a geographical share”. The figures differ wildly depending on whether it is a straight proportion by geographical area of the various regions (which distorts the figures in favour of Scotland because of its much lower population density), the “median line” favoured by the Scottish Government which, co-incidentally of course, gives Scotland a proportion well into the 90%s, or an international law boundary (one option of which extends the boundary out to sea perpendicular to the coastline at the boundary) assuming Scotland’s independence, which would give the bulk of the oil to England; or any compromise between these. Then you’ve got the share of Scotland’s GVA created by servicing “England’s” oil; how is that attributed?

@39 pasha

You are both sort of right. The tax system hasn’t been put in place to generate work through beaurocracy….

But…

As we all well know, labour did hire huge numbers of new civil servants (who will rarely go against their employer, in this case with their votes) and did add tremendously to the beaurocracy. At the margin he’s probably right as well.

Realistically, if you are a civil servant and your choice is labour, in hock to unions and adding the the state, or a tory party setting on pruning the state and hence possibly your job, who are you going to vote for? This self-interest is exactly what we are seeing in the union strikes, if not exactly surprising.

Actually, just to finish my thought;

If no-one was reliant on the state, the labour party would be in real trouble – it would lose much or most of its client base. In a purely self serving way they need poor people, working class people and civil servants etc…the groups who feel labour has their interests at heart.

Which is why I find it so amusing when people say the evil tories want to keep people poor. It simply isn’t in their interests to do so. If everyone was rich and their need for the state lessened, labour’s power base would be eroded and the tories massively strengthened….and every politician wants to be in power right?

@41: “Which is why I find it so amusing when people say the evil tories want to keep people poor. It simply isn’t in their interests to do so. ”

Exactly what measures is the coalition government intending to implement to distribute post-tax incomes more equally – eg to make Britain’s distribution of income more like that of, say, Germany or the Scandinavian countries?

Come to that, what is the government proposing to do about bankers’ bonuses?

“The financial and insurance sector paid out £14bn in bonuses in the last financial year, unchanged from the year before, despite government pressure on banks to curb excessive pay-outs. According to the Office for National Statistics, finance workers received average bonuses of £12,500 in the year to March, down £100 because of a slight rise in people employed in the sector.” [19 July 2011]
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e2e673ae-b22a-11e0-9d80-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YfZT9yw7

What has it got to do with the government or the public how bankers are compensated and why oh why would you like to reduce the tax bankers pay?

@44: “What has it got to do with the government or the public how bankers are compensated and why oh why would you like to reduce the tax bankers pay?”

C’mon. Contributers to the thread are discussing issues relating to redistributive fiscal policies and coalition government ministers have reportedly declared themselves opposed to the staggeringly large staff bonuses paid to bankers.

Several issues are at stake, such as the extent to which bonuses have rewarded mis-selling securities to customers, excessive risk taking by banking staff which led to the financial crisis in 2008, and short-term gains regardless of whether the investment decisions turned bad a few years on.

On mis-selling, Lloyds and Barclays have set aside billions to compensate customers.

In testimony to Congress in 2008, Alan Greenspan said, “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”

“The Financial Services Authority (FSA) today charged seven people with 13 charges in respect of conspiracy to deal on inside information obtained by the defendants from two major investment banks.” [March 2010]
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/059.shtml

@20

Thanks Tim, I saw that article after posting to you. I would also make the same point as other that that is the USA not the UK but the systems are broadly similar in principle if not in detail.

Since you seem to be someone who actually reads and understands economics how would you propose using the tax system to raise a fairer distribution of taxation? By that I mean raising investment in the real economy and generating jobs and work

Many commentators on this string seem to looking at all of the unemployed as feckless and lazy whilst ignoring that currently even if we allocate work by fascism we’d still have unemployed people as there are only 0.5-1m job vacancies and about 3m unemployed?

45-

I agree with what you just said how ever corrupt bankers are corrupt bankers – they will do this to gain a bonus and they will do this to gain profit in other ways if a bonus is not on offer.

Regulation and accountability make a lot more sense when it comes to addressing these issues than a blanket bonus attack! But then people would not have there moral outrage of the day reading the sun and the latest article titled ” some people got rich in the recession whilst YOU GOT POOR”

Its also all good and well having the government address the banks for there wrong doing, but whom is going to address the government for the absolute economic catastrophe they have unleashed in Europe?

@ 32

Okay, I keep asking you to explain yourself but you’re incapable of anything other than straw men and, in effect, shouting “I’m right cos I’m right so shut up cos I’m right!”. Boring.

@42

“As we all well know, labour did hire huge numbers of new civil servants (who will rarely go against their employer, in this case with their votes) and did add tremendously to the beaurocracy.”

It’s bizarre the way everyone thinks that everyone who got any kind of civil service job, no matter how temporary or poorly-paid, while New Labour were in power will automatically become a diehard Labour voter out of gratitude to Gordon Brown, demonstrating an attachment to him comparable to that of a feudal subject to his master. “Gawd bless ya, Mr Brown”. Anecdotally, the people I work(ed) alongside hold a range of political leanings, the biggest being apathy.

@43

“Which is why I find it so amusing when people say the evil tories want to keep people poor. It simply isn’t in their interests to do so. If everyone was rich and their need for the state lessened, labour’s power base would be eroded and the tories massively strengthened….and every politician wants to be in power right?”

That’s rather naive and doesn’t follow logically.
1. If everyone was rich, no one would be rich. Part of the point of being rich is that you’re richer than people who aren’t (you should know game theory backs that up).
2. You can turn poor people against the state without making them any richer by reforming the state so that it gives the poor more grief and fewer freebies, which is generally what the Tories do.
3. You’re making the Libertarian Error – viewing politics as being all about the size of the state. There has never been any large change in the size of the government in this country in living memory, just a few % each way. The right want a “small state” when it comes to welfare or health provision, but are fine about jacking up the defence budget or hiring loads more police. The left want the opposite, more schoolsnospitals and fewer troops. It’s not about the “size” of the state, but where its reach extends to in different directions.

@36 – You keep saying it. If you stop using the language of social darwinism, I’ll stop talking about your use of it.

“Hong Kong and Singapore have no special local trade links.”

And once more you depart into lying to try and save a point you’re clearly completely wrong on, to anyone who has done even a minor amount of research.

Chaise Guevara – Wicked(Y) Don”t forget to write your letter to the government and explain to them there’s nothing to worry about, after a quick explanation of how taxes should be from you and how the growing competition will soon fizzle out because they are set to gain some human rights, well I can see it now, with hiked taxes and what ever other measures they are lucky enough to hear from you Britain will be great again with in 6 months.

And what ever we do people lets not ever fall for this “free market” crap, good luck, hopefully there are enough people with sense left to insure you never have to rely on your own.

@ 41. Robin Levett

Here is the world’s foremost oil economist Prof. Kemp discussing the border of the UKCS.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/133434/0061924.pdf

It would be a truly bizarre line for the border, ‘ which would give the bulk of the oil to England. ‘ A line that resulted in the Shetland Isles really being in England would be a sight to behold. Maybe they could define Shetland as just off Brighton and hope no one would notice. The UK government of course have form in this regard. Harold Wilson in 1968 inexplicably gave away a large and valuable part of the UKCS to Norway. That section of the North Sea of course has been very productive for Norway.

I think you are thinking about gas when it comes to North Sea resources that would go to England as a result of Scottish independence. Most of the oil resources are clearly in Scottish waters as can be seen by they are governed by Scots law, and Grampian police incur costs policing them. The oil fields that would go to England are actually the ones declining fastest. In the Scots sector, many fields are increasing production. For example, Apache bought BP Forties fields a few years ago and the BP production was 33,000 barrels per day. Applying new recovery innovations and technology has resulted in those fields increasing production to 56,000 barrels per day. Moreover, there are considerable unexploited oil resources west of Shetland in the Atlantic Shelf. Therefore, the Scots sector will still be producing oil beyond 2050. The decline of North sea oil is often misunderstood. The sector is past peak production. However, there is still at least 40% of the known reserves still to be recovered. Regular innovations in recovery techniques mean older fields have a longer lifespan as more oil is recovered than initially estimated. Moreover, new fields are regularly discovered, albeit they are smaller than the major fields.

I am not trying to make a nationalist point because I am not a nationalist. Just answering SMFS sweeping generalisation. A generalisation that is at odds with reality. I would be saddened in the event of Scottish independence. Unfortunately, every time Michael Moore and Danny Alexander opens their mouth that day gets closer. Although saddened, I know what way the wind is blowing and Scotland is heading for a looser federation in the UK with full fiscal autonomy or full independence. The current set up is bad economics and bad politics. Good economics dictate that an elected parliament should be responsible for collecting the revenue that they spend. The present situation is intolerable and the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for raising all taxes in Scotland. They could then make a fixed contribution to the Treasury for shared defence, foreign services for the chinless ones in the Foreign Office and pensions.

50. Pasha

It’s bizarre the way everyone thinks that everyone who got any kind of civil service job, no matter how temporary or poorly-paid, while New Labour were in power will automatically become a diehard Labour voter out of gratitude to Gordon Brown, demonstrating an attachment to him comparable to that of a feudal subject to his master. “Gawd bless ya, Mr Brown”.

It is because we are all Marxists and know that existence determines consciousness. It is also a strawman to insist that they all will. Most is not all.

1. If everyone was rich, no one would be rich. Part of the point of being rich is that you’re richer than people who aren’t (you should know game theory backs that up).

So does the fact that there are so few genuinely poor people in the UK. If everyone is rich then the Left relies on inciting hatred among the not-so-rich for the very-rich. Even though the system has made everyone rich.

2. You can turn poor people against the state without making them any richer by reforming the state so that it gives the poor more grief and fewer freebies, which is generally what the Tories do.

Generally that just makes people hate the Tories, not the State. Everyone can see the State is a massive pinata which will showered them with goodies if only they can hit it just right.

The right want a “small state” when it comes to welfare or health provision, but are fine about jacking up the defence budget or hiring loads more police. The left want the opposite, more schoolsnospitals and fewer troops. It’s not about the “size” of the state, but where its reach extends to in different directions.

There has long been a consensus on these matters. The Tories are slashing the military – which is so low it is statistical noise in British spending anyway. It is about the philosophy behind the spending. But I agree the Tories have not been real libertarians for a while.

51. Leon Wolfson

You keep saying it. If you stop using the language of social darwinism, I’ll stop talking about your use of it.

So you’re making sh!t up about the sh!t you make up? A-ma-zing.

And once more you depart into lying to try and save a point you’re clearly completely wrong on, to anyone who has done even a minor amount of research.

I am sorry but your ignorance about the history, economics and geography of Hong Kong and Singapore is not my fault.

@51 – No, I’m telling the truth. I’m not surprised you have trouble recognising it, but there we go.

And MY ignorance? I’m not the one claiming they’re not heavily involved in trade. Revision from a Social Darwinist? How unsurprising!