Report says 50p tax doesn’t deter ‘talent’


9:20 am - November 25th 2011

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

You may have heard the constant drum-beat from right-wingers that the 50p tax deters talented executives from coming to the UK.

You may have also come across piss-poor reports against the 50p tax that were very likely written by an A-level Economics student.

But where is the evidence for these claims? It turns out there is some evidence…

The Financial Times reports today:

Fears that the 50p rate of tax would hinder recruitment of top executives have been allayed, according to a survey of 50 large companies that will relieve pressure on George Osborne to accelerate plans to abolish the controversial levy in next week’s autumn statement.

Only 13 per cent reported that the 50p rate for those earning more than £150,000 a year was proving a barrier to attracting senior managers to Britain, according to KPMG, the professional services group, in what it said was a “dramatic change of sentiment” since 2009 when over 80 per cent of companies expected the levy to hinder recruitment.

Damn, another right-wing myth busted. There’s one point though – expectation is also different to reality. Even if firms expect high taxes to deter people (as they did in 2009) – that doesn’t actually mean it worked like that in practice.

However I bet there is another government policy that is making it difficult to attract senior people to the UK – immigration restrictions.

I look forward to Conservatives arguing against immigration restrictions to promote business, since the 50p tax claim doesn’t stand up.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Doesn’t the graph look like we’re being given the finger?

13% of 50?!

@ 2

Well spotted, Kirsty.

Besides, these figures are being crudely spun (both by the FT and Sunny) to suggest there’s no problem.

Looking at it another way – shouldn’t the news that 13% of large companies are finding it hard to attract good managers be a cause for concern, rather a than a justification for insouciance?

Try “only 13% die on the operating table” …. see what I mean?

” large companies are finding it hard to attract good managers be a cause for concern”

Large companies are forever moaning to the press that they cannot recruit good managers, good graduates, good school-leavers, good staff etc. take it with a pinch of salt.

5. Chaise Guevara

@ 3 Flowerpower

“Looking at it another way – shouldn’t the news that 13% of large companies are finding it hard to attract good managers be a cause for concern, rather a than a justification for insouciance?”

No, because the context is the constant claims that increasing tax would cause a catastrophic brain drain. If even people with every reason to be biased in favour of believing this actually think it would affect their company, this suggests reports are exaggerated.

The idea that 80% anticipated a problem but only 13% experienced one is pretty revealing, too, although we need more info about the 80% claim (and clarification on the “13% out of 50” thing, although I suspect that’s just 12.5% rounded up).

Most of those earning above 150k will keep a large percentage of their money offshore won’t they? That being the case, the 50p tax rate shouldn’t deter talent as they won’t be paying it anyway.

@ 5 Chaise

Fair point. But the other information we need is about how many of these companies tried to attract a top manager from abroad during the relevant timescale. It’s not something all companies do, and those that do don’t do it every day, or even every year.

Some may have ticked the ‘not a consideration box’ while others ticked ‘no’ box while meaning essentially the same thing: …. there’s been no particular instance of note.

The 13% who reported they had encountered a problem should, therefore, be given more weight.

By analogy, what would you attend to if you were a police officer: 50 residents of a street telling you they hadn’t been burgled last night, or a dozen from the same street telling you they had?

8. Chaise Guevara

@ 7 Flowerpower

“Fair point. But the other information we need is about how many of these companies tried to attract a top manager from abroad during the relevant timescale. It’s not something all companies do, and those that do don’t do it every day, or even every year.

Some may have ticked the ‘not a consideration box’ while others ticked ‘no’ box while meaning essentially the same thing: …. there’s been no particular instance of note.”

True enough.

“The 13% who reported they had encountered a problem should, therefore, be given more weight.

By analogy, what would you attend to if you were a police officer: 50 residents of a street telling you they hadn’t been burgled last night, or a dozen from the same street telling you they had?”

I’m not sure that works. The story is trying to determine whether the 50p tax rate is a problem. It can’t do that if a decision is made to ignore all evidence that supports the tax rate (which is essentially what your analogy seems to be arguing for). And we can accept that the 13% are having problems, and see if anything can be done about that, without having to decide that the 50p tax is a bad idea.

yet another example of right-wing elasticity optimism in the wild.

That JEP paper on Progressive Taxation contains estimates of how high earners respond to getting taxed, and after taking that into account still finds high optimal taxes.

10. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

Large companies are forever moaning to the press that they cannot recruit good managers, good graduates, good school-leavers, good staff etc. take it with a pinch of salt.

Much like ‘the right to bear arms’ – the sentence is rarely finished.

They can’t find xyz at the price they’re willing to pay, as someone in IT I see this all the time in companies large and small.

A company might have three IT staff, one who deals with the server, one who deals with the network and another for user support.

One day the boss realises that the network basically runs itself and that they can get rid of that particular employee and maybe send the server guy/girl on a course so they can deal with any network emergency should it come up. Then there’s a bit of downturn and they tell the server employee that they’ll also have to deal with supporting users or face redundancy, hard times, we’re all in it together, etc, etc. At which point the support employee is let go.

So now there’s one employee doing the job of three at a third of the price and oddly enough such an individual is eventually in demand, so they leave to do those same three jobs elsewhere, for half the price.

The company in question then tells a recruitment agency they want £75k worth of skills and are willing to pay £25k to get them.

That’s how you end up with a ‘lack of viable employees’.

A survey earlier in the year, the FDI Barometer of investors, showed interestingly that 60% said the lower corporation tax rate would not change the attractiveness of London as an investment destination, 13% said it would make them more likely to investment, but 22% said it would make them less likely to invest.make London less attractive to investors.

Those surveyed were much more concerned about immigration policies – with 48% opposed to the Tory-led Coalition’s cap on non-EU immigration.

http://socialisteconomicbulletin.blogspot.com/2011/01/corporation-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to_23.html

@ Chaise

The story is trying to determine whether the 50p tax rate is a problem.

Of course telling someone that his pay packet will be smaller due to the 50% rate is a problem.

But not one without a solution.

The obvious remedy is to pay senior executives more to compensate.

Now, had executive pay remained stable this year with increases in line with inflation, then I’d believe the OP.

But executive salaries at the top have increased markedly. Certainly no-one at the top of a FTSE 100 company has really claim to have been “hit” by the 50% rate.

The pain has just been passed on to customers, shareholders and lower-paid employees.

Like most of the Left’s other gesture-politics wheezes, it actually harms the 99%, leaving the 1% totally unaffected.

Another reason why it’s a bad idea that should be scrapped.

13. ex-Labour voter

How long will it be before the following headline appears in the Telegraph?

“50p Tax Rate causes AIDS”

According to an authoritative report from the much-respected TaxPayers Alliance.

14. Leon Wolfson

@11 – Like the other TORY wheezes. Hello, party in power! Constant assaults against the poor!

Reality’s calling. Hello? Hello?

15. Chaise Guevara

@ 12 Flowerpower

“But executive salaries at the top have increased markedly. Certainly no-one at the top of a FTSE 100 company has really claim to have been “hit” by the 50% rate.

The pain has just been passed on to customers, shareholders and lower-paid employees.

Like most of the Left’s other gesture-politics wheezes, it actually harms the 99%, leaving the 1% totally unaffected.”

Higher executive salaries plus a 50% rate means even more money for the Treasury.

You could make your argument against any taxation whatsoever. The question is, at what point do the negative effects outweigh the positives? You’re not showing that it’s at 50% (or below).

I bet you just made that graph up you bunch of libtards

Well that’s great Sunny. That’s the plan then is it? 50p tax on the “rich”. Well that’s innovative. Don’t you realise that the kind of people you think of as rich have ways round this, they pay themselves dividends, they have offshore residences. When it boils down to it, “the rich” end up becoming people like me. Middle class educated people in the private sector, who are expected to live on beans and toast and take out a mortgage every time we fill our cars with petrol and when we die the government steals half our house (that we already paid tax on).

Why don’t we have an “under the bed” tax whereby a 50% tax is introduced on any money horded under the sheets. We could also introduce a tax on money behind the sofa, I’m sure that could raise untold billions.

The solution to this economic nightmare is less tax, not more. Less public spending, not more. Any school kid knows that no one ever spends someone else’s money wisely. That’s human nature. You don’t spend your birthday money on the electricity bill, you get drunk and buy trainers.

People can always spend their own money better than the government, and they can create more jobs as well. Let them keep some if it.

Well I for one am not sticking around to find out, I will be emigrating as soon as possible as I did not go to university and work as hard as I did in order to pay £200 a month to have my bin emptied once a fortnight, pay £3 for a pound of mince and £1.50 for a litre of petrol. Good night and best of luck.

18. Leon Wolfson

@17 – “You don’t spend your birthday money on the electricity bill”

I have. You’re not poor. You have no CONCEPT of what being poor is like. You’re quite happy to benefit from externalities without wanting to pay for them.

Have fun in Somalia.

@18

“I have. You’re not poor. You have no CONCEPT of what being poor is like. You’re quite happy to benefit from externalities without wanting to pay for them.

Have fun in Somalia.”

Leon. The answer to a question no one asked. Maybe if I wait a few more years I won’t have to go to Somalia, the government will have brought Somalia here.

Oh, why don’t you get a job fucker, that way you might find out what it’s like to work hard just to give everything you make to a greedy, spend crazy bunch of scumbags.

On this report as well as commentary on dealing with the budget deficit when the prospect of a new recession looms, the FT is to be warmly congratulated for its enlightened reporting and op-eds. The lead economic writers have given short shrift to austerity nostrums and have been pretty blunt about where the blame rests for the Eurozone’s problems. The paper has become required reading for those with open minds seeking quality discussion.

21. Chaise Guevara

@ 17 James

“When it boils down to it, “the rich” end up becoming people like me. Middle class educated people in the private sector, who are expected to live on beans and toast and take out a mortgage every time we fill our cars with petrol”

I understand that you’re exaggerating for comic effect, but even with that taken into account, this doesn’t stack up. This is a tax on the RICH. You have to be earning a high amount to pay it, and the tax only applies to that part of your earnings that is above the threshold. So it doesn’t put you on the breadline.

“and when we die the government steals half our house (that we already paid tax on). ”

How can you steal from the dead? You can’t use your house when you no longer exist.

No: this is the classic tactic used by people who oppose inheritance tax to distort the issue. Here’s an accurate translation: “When our parents die, the government takes half of the house that we get without lifting a finger, as a reward for being born”.

22. Chaise Guevara

@ 17 again

“People can always spend their own money better than the government, and they can create more jobs as well. Let them keep some if it.”

Oh, and that’s simply untrue, at least if your concept of “better” includes some degree of humanitarianism. Back in the Victorian period, we had a laissez-faire approach to social justice: the state did very little, but private individuals could reach into their pockets to help out if they felt like it. The result? Child labour, horrible class divisions enforced by lack of access to education, and people dying in the street from starvation and treatable diseases.

The government does let you keep some of it, BTW, unless they introduced a 100% tax when I wasn’t looking.

@21

“No: this is the classic tactic used by people who oppose inheritance tax to distort the issue. Here’s an accurate translation: “When our parents die, the government takes half of the house that we get without lifting a finger, as a reward for being born”.

This is actually pretty disgusting and as far away from “humanitarianism” as I can imagine. If I pay for my house (and pay tax on the money that paid for it) then I can do whatever I want with it. Give it to my kids, my cats, my bartender. If you extend this principle, you could just as easily say that if I give you £100 for your birthday, the government is entitled to half of it. Why should you get a free wedge just for being 21 and being born. There’s no end to it. People don’t work so they can fund the government, they work to better their own situation and that of their family. Why shouldn’t they be able to do this??

2 things in this life are certain.

Socialists are people who are generous with other people’s money.

Eventually you will want something which you will have to work for, and when that happens, you will resent having to give all your money to people who are not qualified to spend it, don’t value it and don’t spend it wisely.

24. Chaise Guevara

@ 23 James

“This is actually pretty disgusting and as far away from “humanitarianism” as I can imagine. If I pay for my house (and pay tax on the money that paid for it) then I can do whatever I want with it. Give it to my kids, my cats, my bartender.”

Riiight. I support inheritance tax because it means the money can be taken from people who are already well-off and are getting a free gift into the bargain, and distributed among those most in need. You’re arguing for rich people to keep all their money. You don’t get to call me “far away from humanitariansm”, it’s simply silly.

Also, humanitarianism (or at least the form of it I care about) doesn’t place value on the wellbeing of the dead, on account of this being a contradiction in terms. So no, I’m not going to prioritise a rich person’s corpse over existing people who need help.

“If you extend this principle, you could just as easily say that if I give you £100 for your birthday, the government is entitled to half of it. Why should you get a free wedge just for being 21 and being born. There’s no end to it.”

Firstly, that’s not the same principle. Maybe if you gave me £300,000 for my birthday. Secondly, it’s not practical.

“People don’t work so they can fund the government, they work to better their own situation and that of their family. Why shouldn’t they be able to do this??”

Two reasons. First: reciprocation. Everyone benefits from state spending to some degree, so we as society have to do something about the selfish bastards who want to sponge the benefits while refusing to chip in.

Second: social justice. If you’re rich, the odds are that your circumstances at birth helped massively. Maybe you had intelligent, well-educated and affluent parents who were well placed to ensure you got a good start in life. Maybe you just inherited a huge amount of money. Either way, you don’t “deserve” that benefit more than anyone else. You didn’t expend any effort to get born into fortunate circumstances. Human wellbeing trumps your desire to own three houses and a Jaguar, or whatever.

“Socialists are people who are generous with other people’s money.”

Libertarians exploit a seriously twisted playing field to hog all the resources to themselves then act injured when people make them give some if back blah blah etc. Best not to simplify complex issues into an easy insult, really, it’s not conducive to sensible thinking.

“Eventually you will want something which you will have to work for, and when that happens, you will resent having to give all your money to people who are not qualified to spend it, don’t value it and don’t spend it wisely.”

I’ve already pointed out that this “all your money” thing is a lie. In any case: I do have to give some of my money to the state, it’s called “tax”. Do you think you’re the only person who has to pay it? And I don’t resent this. I sometimes object to specific uses of state money, but I don’t have a problem with taxation in general.

“Either way, you don’t “deserve” that benefit more than anyone else. You didn’t expend any effort to get born into fortunate circumstances. Human wellbeing trumps your desire to own three houses and a Jaguar, or whatever.”

No but the parents expended a hell of a lot of effort, Who the fuck are you, really, to decide what some one “deserves” listen to you self. If a parent decides there child
(not yours) deserves to be left there house,the house they worked there lifetime for, then so be it. This country is over run with fucking scum who feel they can sit there and dictate to another how there circumstances should be when they had zero, nothing what so ever to do with creating those circumstances.

Fucking scum

And why is it always if some one thinks an area of taxation is excessive it must be because they want three houses and a jag??

“And why is it always if some one thinks an area of taxation is excessive it must be because they want three houses and a jag??”

Well said mate. They really are fucking scum. Taxation is supposed to be something which the government does (with our consent) in order to provide essential services.

Does that in any way resemble how tax works in this country? It’s more like an extortion racket run by the mob, with tax on tax until you die, then you’d better declare the pennies on your eyes.

Then we have to suffer these tossers telling us that we aren’t entitled to keep a house that we worked all our lives for, just to help someone who “never got a chance” in the name of phoney “humanitarianism”.

You know what, if the government cut off all it’s benefits and fake public sector jobs and housing benefit in Chelsea, the world wouldn’t fall apart. They would just go out and get jobs like they used to.

In fact. Fuck off. Why should it be my responsibility to solve all the world’s problem and “level the playing field”.

@Chaise

You know what, I know it’s pretty pointless trying to argue with you kind of people. It’s an exercise in frustration to be honest. Straw men, selective quotes, deliberately misinterpreting comments and then blocking people off the website when you lose the argument.

I think there is a part of me that just hopes I’ll be surprised with someone who has a world view grounded in pragmatism and genuine compassion and not simply the works of Karl Marx.

29. Chaise Guevara

Ah, I see. I’m “fucking scum” because I believe in giving the unfortunate a decent chance in life, and don’t venerate the dead at the cost of the living. What a wonderful moral system you must have to come to that conclusion! Still, I should thank the pair of you for the early warning that I’m not going to get a rational conversation here. Ciao.

No, your scum because you insist on sticking your long filthy nose into the lives of others, again who are YOU to decide what some one deserves from there loved ones? And piss off with your morals and save the poor, I am for free education health care and a quality standard of living for all, something our governments, made up off people who have never had to balance the books of a corner shop in there lives, fail to provide no matter how much revenue they are able to use and collect in taxation.

So its always more more more, with silly tossers like you on the side lines demanding more more more, sitting there with your morals like you are something to be heard, go build something, go create something, actually ADD something to society instead of your constant fucking moaning demands and world view.

31. Chaise Guevara

@ 30 Ross

Let me just sift through the ad homs and playground insults there… right, ok. I’m scum because I want to “poke my nose in”, which means I believe in taxation, yet you believe in free education, which requires taxation! So… are you also “fucking scum” by your own definition? Or is support for taxation acceptable up to a certain, as-yet unnamed point, after which the person becomes one of the worst people in the world, suitable only for immature abuse?

“Let me just sift through the ad homs and playground insults there… right, ok. I’m scum because I want to “poke my nose in”, which means I believe in taxation, yet you believe in free education, which requires taxation! So… are you also “fucking scum” by your own definition? Or is support for taxation acceptable up to a certain, as-yet unnamed point, after which the person becomes one of the worst people in the world, suitable only for immature abuse?”

Ross, don’t let him wind you up. He’s deliberately misinterpreting what you’re saying and pretending he doesn’t get the gist of it. I think the tossers on here are wanna-be politician types who know they don’t need to be right, they just need to deflect everything and get the last word in.

Class A weirdos to be honest. I don’t care if any of them “add” anything to society, I’d be happy for them just to get jobs and shut the fuck up and stop trying to get me to pay for all their entitlement schemes.

33. Leon Wolfson

@27 – No, HMRC are NOT good at chasing tax, and the rates are quite average. You’re making nonsense up.

“You know what, if the government cut off all it’s benefits and fake public sector jobs and housing benefit in Chelsea, the world wouldn’t fall apart. They would just…”

Die. Always your soloution. Blood, death, violence!

34. Leon Wolfson

@19 – Nope, the fact there IS a government means it’s not somalia. Off you go!

You don’t even have a basic idea of what it’s like anywhere else in the world, of course.

And I have multiple jobs. None of them pay well, of course, because of 1%’ers like you.

“which means I believe in taxation, yet you believe in free education, which requires taxation! So… are you also “fucking scum” by your own definition? Or is support for taxation acceptable up to a certain, as-yet unnamed point”

No offence Chaise but why have you always got to be a smart arse and deliberately miss the point like it makes you sound clever. Dealing in extremes. Someone doesn’t like being taxed into oblivion DOES NOT mean they are unhappy to pay tax. There is, obviously, a difference between paying, with consent, some money for essential services and being fiddled and bullied out of every penny and having your home stolen off your kids when you die to pay for endless, greedy entitlement schemes.

“You don’t even have a basic idea of what it’s like anywhere else in the world, of course.

And I have multiple jobs. None of them pay well, of course, because of 1%’ers like you.”

@ Leon.

Look mate, just because you disagree with me, don’t make out like you know anything about me. You do not.

It would be quite easy for me to suggest that you are a 30 year old scarf wearing humanities student who works part-time in Tesco and makes up the cash with handouts from mum while spouting Karl Marx and showing off about how many asian friends you have in the student bar.

I wouldn’t do that though because I don’t know you.

37. Leon Wolfson

@36 – You can make out all the nonsense you like. You are, however, ACTUALLY taking the side of the 1%.

I believe in taxation always have done always will do, taxation is required to provide services to and cater for the needs of society, by providing core services and needs an individual may grow in society and become a productive individual, a society of productive individuals is a society worth living and investing in.

I was looking into New Zealand the other day, you know the overall impression I got? What can you do for this country? In what ways are you productive, how are you going to add to our society? I was over the moon, quite different to Britain’s approach eh?

The good times have gone and instead of a country of adults facing this predicament I see squabbling moaning whining and bitching, looking for some one to blame now the benefits have stopped rolling in, class warfare, you know fuck the 1% ( or any one doing well enough to be ok eh? )

“Also, humanitarianism doesn’t place value on the wellbeing of the dead”

Well being? Its about the intentions of the person who worked there entire life time and intended to transfer security and wealth to the human life they played a large part in forming and shaping.

If a person has to pay a tax on a large sum of money inherited and that money is directed towards the well fair of society that is reasonable, this is about the maintenance of society, this is not about whats right and wrong and who deserves what, taxation is about what a society needs to function.

Due to the governments idiotic ways they cant even provide this any more, yet they can waste 12 billion on a pet project and scrap it in the blink of an eye and have massive tax rates,there is no call for change, a sustainable model of government spending that provides what is needed for people and cuts away All the waste, no we just have the sidelines full of equal out come instead of opportunity for all twats like your self making this an issue about the RICH, like there some isolated resource you have the right to stripe because this is how YOU see it, getting a free gift into the bargain, they do not DESERVE that money”

Again, who are you in a free society to dictate what some one deserves, it would not matter if the 50% tax,inheritance tax, Jesus even the financial transaction tax has already been proved to be net negative, it doesn’t matter, it wouldt matter if all the taxes for the “RICH” cost money instead of collected it, its not about that its about ideology and your individual sense of whats right and wrong, whats deserved and whats not.

The only aspect of the euro crisis sunny is concerned about is that it might push the left back a generation…so while the country crumbles and the political class run around like headless chickens shaping the reality to suit there political paradigms, teaming up with the poor who are net negative to this country, taking aim at the rich for simply being rich.

A person is not displeased about being forced to hand over a large % of the wealth They earned because the organization set to spend it is Highly inefficient and if exposed to a real business climate would have gone under long ago, there not displeased because those set to benefit are Leon wooof clones and hate there guts because they have done better than them in life,there not displeased because taxation rates are a lot higher than they ever had to be if any sense had been put into running this country no no no, there just annoyed because they ” cant buy three houses and a jag, or, whatever…init”

” I think the tossers on here are wanna-be politician types who know they don’t need to be right, they just need to deflect everything and get the last word in.”

That does seem to be the case.

40. Leon Wolfson

@38 – Clones? No, you are the cloner. There are the people like you, then there are the interchangable workers who you don’t care if you break. Your hatred for anyone not in the 1% is sad.

Have fun in Somalia!

“You’re not poor. You have no CONCEPT of what being poor is like. You’re quite happy to benefit from externalities without wanting to pay for them” ~ To Leon from Leon, maybe a month in Somalia would give you an education on life..

42. Leon Wolfson

@41 – Unlike you, I don’t constantly rant about “government evil” and “being robbed”. You want to go somewhere without a government…so, Somalia.

I don’t need to experience how much it would suck, but apparently you haven’t realised. So, off you go!

@41 -You CONSTANTLY rant about being robbed, by the rich,by the government not investing to give you a job, by past employers dear god you even blame me for the governments austerity programs.

“I don’t need to experience how much it would suck, but apparently you haven’t realised. So, off you go!”

Yes, you really fucking do, lets see how your concept of poor matches up shall we?

Its a bit ironic that those who feel that people shouldn’t leech off of each other are so dedicated to being able to give houses to their children, effectively meaning their children get to leech off of your death.

Basically your saying

”You all need to work harder, to pay me so I can give my children free stuff, so they don’t ever need to work throughout their lives.”

It’s where the right wingers really miss the point, the idea is that everyone’s children should be offered a good start in life, regardless of how hard their parents did or did not work.

Alright so you could call it dirty socialism, however this is a society, one where we rely on police, fire and health systems to keep us all healthy and alive.

The problem is this, your good fortune in life is currently not the result of hard work.
I’m sure you DID work hard, and probably still do, but the fact is that your brethren who are currently unemployed are not unemployed for not being hard workers, they are unemployed because a system that rewards only constant growth at the top see employees as expandable, not because they are making a loss but because they are making a gain!
It’s not just flighty left wingers who believe that our current taxation and monetary model is flawed, you can watch the money networks and see plenty of comments by top stock brokers and CEO’s that all say the same things.

As it is, my family is effected by inheritance tax et all, I come from a fairly privileged family. However I think it’s important to consider the overall welfare of a country before the possibility of free housing for my kids. (Which by the way, if your truly committed to helping your children buy a home you might be better placed helping them BEFORE you die through joint ownership on a reasonably priced property, this way when you do die they could move from their homes to buy your property if they like using the revenue you helped them secure during your lifetime, however in my experience most people do not like returning to ‘the family home’ after it’s inhabitants are dead.)

Everyone wants to do right by their kids, but I think it’s more important to do right by all kids, by making sure we have an infrastructure that supports jobs for all and good health and policing for all.
This actually helps your kids more than making them the rich one in their neighbourhood, if everyone has a comfortable life there is less likelihood of them being the victims of crime or social discrimination (something that seems to be becoming more likely as the gap between rich and poor becomes further, it’s something I have experienced in fact from my own relations and those I studied with. I do not want to be ‘above’ others, I want to be working towards a better tomorrow with everyone!)

Capitilism, socialism, left-wing, right-wing it’s all irrelivant ways of trying to pigeon hole each other. And this segregation of thought causes a stagnation of actual progress in debate and politics.
We need to see beyond the labels to realise that all these systems and points of view have parts that work and parts that don’t, and move forward with the parts that do to make a stronger society.

The 50p tax does not discourage ‘talent’ because real talent works at what it’s passionate about. If I ever get to that point I’ll be more than happy to pay the tax. (I’d be more happy about it if the system had actually helped me when I was down on my luck, however. I still believe that our country would be worse off with no form of social welfare.)
I’d also point out to those who suggest that removing the tax would make companies hire more people, that this is laughable, these corporations care only about the profit margins, they would take the cut in pay and use it to line the pockets at the top, not to avoid further staff cuts.
Not all corporations I’m sure, some these days are ethically guided. But many however, the majority are not.

45. Chaise Guevara

@ 35 James

“No offence Chaise but why have you always got to be a smart arse and deliberately miss the point like it makes you sound clever.”

I don’t, actually. I’m trying to clarify his point. Sorry if that makes me a “smart arse” in your book, although that’s probably a step up from “fucking scum”.

“Dealing in extremes. Someone doesn’t like being taxed into oblivion DOES NOT mean they are unhappy to pay tax.”

Firstly, nobody rich is being taxed into oblivion. It’s not extreme, you’re just lying to make it sound like it is.

Secondly, I totally get that someone can be in favour of moderate taxation but not heavy taxation. What I don’t get is why someone who uses rhetoric designed to demonise ALL tax would suddenly turn out to be in favour of tax after all… and I’m still interested in that tipping point where people become scum.

“There is, obviously, a difference between paying, with consent, some money for essential services and being fiddled and bullied out of every penny and having your home stolen off your kids when you die to pay for endless, greedy entitlement schemes.”

Yes. For a start, neither case exists as a current tax system. Tax is NOT paid with consent, unless you mean consent by democracy (in which case you should be fine with any tax applied by the government). And the second example is another hysterical lie. Unless you want to explain how exactly the government takes 100% of your money, and “fiddles and bullies” you beyond normal tax enforcement law.

Basically, you and Ross are irrational zealots. I’m trying to unpick your arguments. Any apparent irrational concepts in my posts are plucked out of your arguments, not invented by me. I can only work with what I’m given.

46. Chaise Guevara

@ 32 James

“Class A weirdos to be honest. I don’t care if any of them “add” anything to society, I’d be happy for them just to get jobs and shut the fuck up and stop trying to get me to pay for all their entitlement schemes.”

Um, I’m employed. What “entitlement scheme” are you referring to? I use the NHS, albeit rarely, I got some state education as a kid, I drive on public roads. Are these entitlement schemes? If not, what the fuck are you on about?

This is especially hilarious seeing that, earlier in the thread, you’re complaining about Leon making assumptions about you, and declaring that you would never stoop to such tactics… and yet here you are doing just that! Oh, someone disagrees with James, OBVIOUSLY they’re a jobless sponger! If you’re going to be a blatant hypocrite, try to at least do it a few posts apart.

47. Chaise Guevara

@ 44 Annarage

Well said. Basically your post is what I should have been writing instead of getting affronted at the behaviour of arseholes.

I also agree that in exchange for keeping the tax the government should be prepared to cut down on inefficacy, personally I would cut a lot of the benefits that various parties seem to award themselves for starters. The governments don’t understand that in order to get they also need to give, without giving what only they are taking (in the form of NHS cuts etc.)

A perfect example of their inability to understand this currently is with the discussion with unions at the moment.

As my other half often says ”It’s almost like they are trying to create riots.”
Be as hard line as you like but don’t get down to petty ”Well if your not going to take it I’m not going to give it to you! Nya!” It really sounds very petty, though I’m sure both sides are committed to equal quantities of petty.

Actually to be honest a lot of it feels manufactured, it’s impossible to me how they manage to create a crisis out of something that basically doesn’t exist.
So long as water, food and shelter are plentiful in a society it should be possible to ensure that the rest of it works properly.
Unfortunately the old systems for keeping a group of people alive and happy required a lot more man power, it is at the end of the day a population thing, but what we can or more to the point are prepared to do about it is difficult to say the least, especially as while conflicts still continue the requirement to have a substantial population of able bodied young people at hand all the time in case of war.
We as a country have plenty of food for our populace, so most of the jobs we have are ones that do insubstantial things… Jobs that are there just to justify having other jobs.

We are stuck in a situation where to work hard it means you must belong to a company or otherwise make good money running your own, not an easy thing to do. Most people without a job at the moment are, contrary to popular belief, not lazy, they just do not have the opportunity to work hard, we have too many regulations that inhibit people from participating in jobs they are perfectly capable of doing, often regulations that do not even perform the task they were created to do (CRB Checks being for me the most obvious one.)
That or we need to accept that a large majority of jobs these days are actually utterly pointless, and just a way of maintaining the illusion of a 5 days a week society, when in fact working less days for the same pay would make more sense, how many more people could we employ if the average working week was 3 days? Some jobs it’s not suitable for of course but others why not.
I know that’s hard to get your head around, why pay someone the same for doing less, and where would the revenue come from? But it’s actually the only way to maintain this kind of capitalist system, as labour saving devises have cost many their jobs over the last 100 years, why not pass this labour saving further to the people as more jobs become requiring of less people.
9-5/7 is a outdated model, one that will not continue to fit us as society invents ever increasingly inventive ways of saving time and effort for everyone.
And obviously those people would have more time to spend money on activity such as tourism, entertainment and other secondary services, so the money would continue to circulate just fine.
That and the savings on the NHS for issues such as stress related illnesses would most likely be substantial.

A pipe dream I’m sure, but to me that seems the way forward, one way or another this obvious problem will need addressing, that or support for the arts and other local level entertainment services will need to be understood to be increasingly important in providing jobs. (Though I think that would need to be addressed either way.)

Either way someone needs to get the pumps moving, getting money going from top to bottom and back through again, instead of letting it stagnate! (This is part of the argument for inheritance taxes of course, that it encourages monetary mobility, however I personally do feel it’s unjust to make people pay for something that has already been paid for, I can see reasoning behind it, as other things in the system are rectified it would be good if eventually it could be scrapped entirely, but with that would need to come an understanding and acceptance of the idea of family homes, one which theoretically could cause a further slowing of the house market (As people needing to sell and buy is obviously more stimulating for the money movement than them staying in the one house perhaps most of their lives.)

“Its a bit ironic that those who feel that people shouldn’t leech off of each other are so dedicated to being able to give houses to their children, effectively meaning their children get to leech off of your death.”

If I raised my children and they decided to sit on there ass and not work for the rest of there lives just because they had cash, if they totally lack curiosity and inspiration in and about the world, fail to view money as a precious resource and time as an irreplaceable gift, throwing there full weight behind something they choose as a path of personal growth to give and achieve in life, then I have raised them wrong.

Now that is my view and I am entitled to have it, just as you are entitled to have your view, that to gain an inheritance is to “leech off a parents death”. Differing views are what make the world an interesting place, I am also for taxation, what I am not for is scum sitting on the side lines “deciding” what’s right, wrong, deserved and justified, throwing it in peoples faces like they have some god given right to dictate to and control others.

You say :

‘”Everyone’s children should be offered a good start in life, regardless of how hard their parents did or did not work”

I say every life should always be given equal opportunity’s to develop to its full potential, but is it really the case that a parent despite being in no financial position what so ever to support a child will go ahead anyway, in the knowledge that someone else will fund the next 18 years? And as the funding for this drys up more and more what are we going to do? Hate the rich more? Become more self righteous about how much money they owe us and how much less they deserve:S…..

Until we get a responsible government that understands economics, does not blow the credit card in the good times operating entirely from short term perspectives, how to buy the most votes, nothing is going to change.

And by the way, if the 50% rate was found to bring in less revenue those on this site would argue to keep it, its not about sound economics its about emotion, no tax rate is going to dig the UK out of its hole.

51. Leon Wolfson

@43 – No, I don’t. You’re delusional.

I *mention* the fact that employers have defrauded me, and that that there should be stronger protections against it, among other stronger protections for workers. It’s real, real important for you to defend the crooks in the piece. That’s quite different from it being critical for *me*, and says a lot about you.

And you’re the one who wants to experience what no government’s about, it’s YOUR desire to live there. Stop insisting everyone else thinks as you do, 1%er.

Oh and the 50% rate still brings us nowhere near the Laughter (deliberate) curve, so please talk more nonsense about how it costs the country cash. Especially when the 1%ers pay 28% on much of their income (capital gains).

Raise THAT to 40%, THEN we can talk about dropping the 50% rate for income (Hint: this will increase the tax take)

52. Chaise Guevara

@ 49

Differing views make life interesting! People who have views different to you are scum! You gut funnier by the minute.

Let me point out the obvious to you: EVERYONE’S moral views are based on what they think is right and wrong. I’m for socialism because I think it’s right, you’re against socialism because you think it’s wrong. It’s not like you know the One True Moral Way and everyone else is bending it with their arrogant opinions.

Nobody on this thread is pushing anything down anyone else’s neck, they’re just expressing their opinions, you included. So if I’m scum for voicing my views, then you’re scum for voicing yours. Plus a hypocrite into the bargain.

“I’m for socialism because I think it’s right, you’re against socialism because you think it’s wrong. It’s not like you know the One True Moral Way and everyone else is bending it with their arrogant opinions.”

Yet you with politics will happily force socialism on every one because You think its right….. im not the one pushing inheritances taxes on the basis of some one not deserving the money involved:S who the fuck am I to decide such a thing???

I acknowledge taxes are needed for a functional society there for they are paid, they are a means to an end, but you jump behind taxes and use them as a political tool, a way to express your morals over the world, something that happens left right and center in politics, subjectively looking at the issues at hand instead of just working with whats real and what needs to be done, then we all end up living in some one elses version of the world.

54. Chaise Guevara

@ 53 Ross

Again, how are you any different given that you believe in people paying tax to fund things like free education? From the point of view of someone who believes that they shouldn’t be made to pay for other people’s schooling, you’d be doing exactly the same thing. Stop using ridiculous double-standards to demonise people who don’t share your exact beliefs. You’re a complete hypocrite.

Socialists are (generally) driven by a desire to see a fairer world. Taxation is a means to this end, perhaps even a necessary evil. I can’t speak for all socialists, but I don’t hate rich people or think that they should be taxed because they’ve “got it coming to them”. The only person who would brand people “fucking scum” for those reasons is a VERY narrow-minded zealot.

“Again, how are you any different given that you believe in people paying tax to fund things like free education? From the point of view of someone who believes that they shouldn’t be made to pay for other people’s schooling, you’d be doing exactly the same thing”

How is investing in education, the out come of which is (should be) a society of functional people who can provide for and look after them selves for a life time, in the process adding value to the economy and the lives of all around them in any way shape or form on the same level as some twat sitting down and deciding:

Oh that person has to much and it was not secured in the way I personally desire, Lets take half and hey they get a free gift into the bargain.

THEY get a free gift thrown into the bargain?? Are your socialists beliefs so ingrained you cant see who is really taking something for nothing here?

I don’t want to go around in circles with you, socialists are driven by a desire to see a fairer world, by redirecting other peoples wealth to causes they believe to be fair..great.

56. Chaise Guevara

@ 55 Ross

“How is investing in education, the out come of which is (should be) a society of functional people who can provide for and look after them selves for a life time, in the process adding value to the economy and the lives of all around them in any way shape or form on the same level as some twat sitting down and deciding […]”

The only difference is that you’ve decided one is reasonable and the other is done by “twats”, “scum” and other convenient ways of dismissing those with the gall to disagree with you. Don’t get me wrong, it’s valid to support some socialist ideas and not others, but you’re acting as if they’re totally different principles purely because you approve of one and not the other.

“THEY get a free gift thrown into the bargain?? Are your socialists beliefs so ingrained you cant see who is really taking something for nothing here?”

Of course not – it’s evident to me that someone who gets a free house all to themselves, without lifting a finger to pay for it, is getting something for nothing.

If you sell the house and divide part of the proceeds among society, then the people who benefit from that are ALSO getting something for nothing. I don’t deny that. But if people are going to get freebies anyway, they may as well be handed out with some degree of fairness.

“I don’t want to go around in circles with you, socialists are driven by a desire to see a fairer world, by redirecting other peoples wealth to causes they believe to be fair..great.”

Like you redirecting other people’s wealth to pay for free education?

Seriously, you need to address this massive double standard. You claim that believing in redistribution makes me scum, but you believe in exactly the same kind of redistribution, only directed at causes YOU believe to be fair. I shouldn’t even have to point out this hypocrisy, it’s so obvious; are you really do desperate to “win” that you can’t admit when your argument is fundamentally incoherent?

Your argument can only be logical if you admit that you think of yourself as scum, which I doubt. Assuming that’s not the case, it’s a massive sucking black hole in your logic, and it’s making you look like you’re here to screech childish insults at strangers rather than argue any moral point.

The easiest way to resolve this, BTW, is to attack my views on inheritance tax from an angle that doesn’t rely on the assumption that Redistribution Is Evil. Presumably there is a reason that you’re happy to spend other people’s money on education, but not on other things?

57. sean4thedefence

James and Ross sitting in a tree…………

58. sean4thedefence

discussing the unfairness of the tax burden upon them and how it inhibits their role as both irritating libertarian internet 12 year olds and serious wealth creators, apparently.

“The only difference is that you’ve decided one is reasonable and the other is done by “twats”, “scum” and other convenient ways of dismissing those with the gall to disagree with you. ”

Education is not “reasonable” its absolutely essential to the success of the country and the well being of the population, this is a need, a rock solid requirement in a functional society, not fluffy la la la socialist beliefs…

“But if people are going to get freebies anyway, they may as well be handed out with some degree of fairness.”

With what authority do you decide what’s fair? Again, Who are you?

“Like you redirecting other people’s wealth to pay for free education?

Seriously, you need to address this massive double standard. You claim that believing in redistribution makes me scum, but you believe in exactly the same kind of redistribution, only directed at causes YOU believe to be fair.”

Nob head, investing in the education of generation after generation is not ” redistribution of wealth” it a fundamental step in the creation of wealth.

“The easiest way to resolve this, BTW, is to attack my views on inheritance tax from an angle that doesn’t rely on the assumption that Redistribution Is Evil. Presumably there is a reason that you’re happy to spend other people’s money on education, but not on other things?”

I pay the required taxes, schools are a long term investment into the next generation of people who will hold society together, In return for labour products and services they will earn there living, maintaining and advancing society as they go, Invest in hospitals, people being alive is a good thing lets do all we can to keep them that way, eventually we all go and providing service to make that time as comfortable as possible is a good investment.

Invest in street cleaners,rubbish removal, fire, police, ambulance, road maintenance, the long list of services that keep society to a standard worth living in, invest in benefits, we all need a safety net to fall on when times are hard until we are back on our feet, NONE of this, not one single part has anything to do with little Timmy getting an inheritance and how its unfair, because his friend John, never.

I am happy for tax money to be invested and directed into causes that are worth while for all our sakes, but when you twats try to turn this into something about fairness,instead of solely focusing on what needs to be provided and how to improve it, you sit there and look at some one deciding there money should be taken away, not because it will be invested here and there, no no no, because You think its only fair that there money should be taken away.

60. Leon Wolfson

@59 – And where’s your condemnation of the University changes then? Where’s your condemnation of the groundwork for charging pre-University students?

You’re making the viper look reasonable, that takes work.

61. Chaise Guevara

@ 59 Ross

“Education is not “reasonable” its absolutely essential to the success of the country and the well being of the population, this is a need, a rock solid requirement in a functional society, not fluffy la la la socialist beliefs…”

I agree. So what? You still have a moral belief that people should be forced to pay for other people’s education, so you’re still “scum” by your own definition of the word.

BTW, in America and some other countries, supporting state healthcare is seen as “fluffy la la la socialist beliefs” (good work on the content-free criticism there).

“With what authority do you decide what’s fair? Again, Who are you?”

By what authority do I determine my own fecking opinion? Um, mine. By what authority do you determine your OWN view of what’s fair and what isn’t?

“I pay the required taxes […] we all need a safety net to fall on when times are hard until we are back on our feet”

Thanks for that long justification of socialism. It’s getting weirder and weirder that you claim to hate it.

“NONE of this, not one single part has anything to do with little Timmy getting an inheritance and how its unfair, because his friend John, never.”

Yes, because you just explained the need for money, but not where the money comes from. Once you realise that the money has to come from SOMEWHERE, you have to make a decision about where that should be. As it is, you’re dodging the issue.

If fairness isn’t an issue to you, why don’t we just have a 100% tax on people whose surnames start with the letters M to Z?

“I am happy for tax money to be invested and directed into causes that are worth while for all our sakes, but when you twats try to turn this into something about fairness,instead of solely focusing on what needs to be provided and how to improve it, you sit there and look at some one deciding there money should be taken away, not because it will be invested here and there, no no no, because You think its only fair that there money should be taken away.”

Total lie. I’ve already told you that I see taxation as a necessary evil. So on top of your constant mindless insults, you’re now just making shit up. Grow up or fuck off, your choice, but I’m not going to waste my time dealing with childish straw man attacks.

“I agree. So what? You still have a moral belief that people should be forced to pay for other people’s education, so you’re still “scum” by your own definition of the word.”

If one was state schooled, If one has children who are state schooled,if one is an employer of state schooled, Jesus, if one even receives treatment from a paramedic who was state schooled, primed for further education and specialization by the education system, they have received a mighty return on there investment in education, I don’t want to force any one to do anything, that is the difference between me and you.

You can have any beliefs you like its just when your ego gets so big your beliefs start to concern how another’s resources must be taken away from them, when you step away from how much is needed to balance the books whilst providing a-z of services, services that ensure society’s survival, and instead focus on individual A coming into this life with more provided than individual B, and how its only fair you change that…koff…..

“Thanks for that long justification of socialism. It’s getting weirder and weirder that you claim to hate it.”

A worker works – invests in the state and said safety net – loses job and needs funds to survive until they return to work, become self sufficient once again and invest in the state, this is not about how you think its unfair for a parent through there own efforts provide there children with security, its just another fundamental function of society.

“Yes, because you just explained the need for money, but not where the money comes from. Once you realise that the money has to come from SOMEWHERE”

Uh yea it comes from TAXES which are a number representing the amount of money required to balance the books to deliver essential services to a society, it is not a tool for governments to reduce peoples resources and inflict there definition of what’s fair onto society, I understand its completely impossible for you to get this through your skull.

“If fairness isn’t an issue to you, why don’t we just have a 100% tax on people whose surnames start with the letters M to Z?”

Because those with the surnames in question would stop working altogether or route there finances out of the states reach, this is not economically viable, it destroys the living standards of those now unable to work and reduces the amount of capital flowing to the state to provide the population it serves the services required.

“You sit there and look at some one deciding there money should be taken away, not because it will be invested here and there, no no no, because You think its only fair that there money should be taken away.”

“Total lie. I’ve already told you that I see taxation as a necessary evil.”

” But if people are going to get freebies anyway, they may as well be handed out with some degree of fairness”

Uh-huh – necessary evil, nothing to do with what you feel should be imposed on others because of your opinion of fair…

63. Chaise Guevara

@ 62 Ross

“I don’t want to force any one to do anything, that is the difference between me and you […] You can have any beliefs you like its just when your ego gets so big your beliefs start to concern how another’s resources must be taken away”

plus

“Uh yea it comes from TAXES”

So… you believe in tax, but not in forcing people into doing anything (like paying tax) or taking people’s resources away (like charging them tax). How does that work?

“this is not about how you think its unfair for a parent through there own efforts provide there children with security, its just another fundamental function of society.”

It’s more that I think it’s unfair when parents are unable or unwilling to provide their children with security. The child doesn’t choose its circumstances. To help these children, we need resources, which have to come from somewhere. I suggest taxes, which seems to confuse you as you both believe in tax and think tax is the devil.

“it is not a tool for governments to reduce peoples resources and inflict there definition of what’s fair onto society, I understand its completely impossible for you to get this through your skull.”

I’m totally capable of understanding this. It’s not my fault that you hold two irreconcilable beliefs.

“Because those with the surnames in question would stop working altogether or route there finances out of the states reach, this is not economically viable, it destroys the living standards of those now unable to work and reduces the amount of capital flowing to the state to provide the population it serves the services required.”

OK, balance it a little better: say people with surnames A-M pay 25% tax and people with surnames N-Z pay 50%. If this didn’t hurt the economy or stop people from working, would you be ok with it? Or would it strike you as being unfair on the latter group?

“Uh-huh – necessary evil, nothing to do with what you feel should be imposed on others because of your opinion of fair…”

So you were aware of those quotes, but still claimed my “only” concern was taking money away from people? You’re a liar, then, aren’t you?

To explain yet AGAIN: the purpose of taxation is mainly to provide essential services and create a reasonably even playing field. Taxation is a means to that end, not an end in itself; a necessary evil.

HOWEVER: if we admit that taxation is necessary, we then have to determine where it comes from. Regardless of what you decide on (whether it’s a flat absolute amount from each person, or 95% tax on everyone earning a high wage, or anything in between), your decision is presumably based on what you think is both fair and practicable.

I happen to think it fair that people who can afford to pay more, do pay more. You may disagree. That doesn’t mean that I’m pushing my personal views and you’re not, it means that we BOTH have personal views, and that mine (shock, horror, call me a scumbag) happen not to match yours. Apparently you can’t deal with this without deciding that the world consists of the Good (you and people like you) and Evil (everyone else).

“So… you believe in tax, but not in forcing people into doing anything (like paying tax) or taking people’s resources away (like charging them tax). How does that work?”

That would work like this:

People do not pay for a service – the service is not provided. If an individual refuses to pay tax the individual has all access to state services cut. A calculation of tax revenue paid in the past by the individual is deducted from there bill for schooling, any health care and services provided up to that time.

There would be no fire brigade service etc and there residence would have to be in isolation due to the safety implications of that, every service currently provided by the government would have to be privately secured, any business entity would fall under the corporation tax rules and all public infrastructure/services supporting that business entity would be funded with direct payments.

As for country’s as a whole in which tax evasion is the norm, the people live within the means they grant the government to give them, if the people wont support the services they do not get them.The country get out what they put in and face the consequences of that either way, a slightly different approach to governments spending what they like despite there income, leading to the bankruptcy of the country and placing a large burden on the international community.

“It’s more that I think it’s unfair when parents are unable or unwilling to provide their children with security. The child doesn’t choose its circumstances. To help these children, we need resources, which have to come from somewhere. I suggest taxes, which seems to confuse you as you both believe in tax and think tax is the devil.”

Oh no, he is against government’s spending there peoples country into oblivion and the self righteous deciding what’s fair for people to have from private relationships, he wants an economically literate government that would have treated its peoples finances like a business providing what was needed even for the children without the crippling the country he must think taxation is the devil!

“OK, balance it a little better: say people with surnames A-M pay 25% tax and people with surnames N-Z pay 50%. If this didn’t hurt the economy or stop people from working, would you be ok with it? Or would it strike you as being unfair on the latter group?”

How about people with surnames A-M pay 0% tax and are the recipients of tax revenue and people with surnames N-Z pay 50% and when they die there revenue gets taxed another 40%, revenue that’s already been subject to the taxation system, would it strike me as unfair? More important things would come to mind such as it being unsustainable.

“I happen to think it fair that people who can afford to pay more, do pay more.”

Its not evil its an investment , on the condition that the officials who direct it are absolutely qualified and experienced to do so, gaining the biggest return for all on our money as a nation, but we don’t have that do we, from history PHD grads fantasizing that they have changed economic reality’s they don’t have the qualifications on paper to understand, to idiots intending to direct the economy on there idea of “fair business”.

Last time,its not about what’s fair, its about what needs to be done and how we can do it in the most efficient way with the least burden on all,that we are at the point we must tax people on there graves and half there wages, instead of functioning as an efficient low tax nation, the nations wealth has been destroyed by people who knew what’s fair and right for all says it all.

65. Chaise Guevara

@ 64

What you appear to be doing is turning all state-supplied services into a gigantic opt-in deal. It’s a workable model, although I’m not sure why you’d need state involvement. However…

“People do not pay for a service – the service is not provided. If an individual refuses to pay tax the individual has all access to state services cut. A calculation of tax revenue paid in the past by the individual is deducted from there bill for schooling, any health care and services provided up to that time.”

How, exactly, does this work for education? Does the five-year-old pay in advance, or have the bill deducted from the taxes he’s paid (presumably sales tax on sweets)? If the parents are expected to pay, what happens if they don’t? Or, if education is provided regardless, how does that not involve forcing other people to pay?

“Oh no, he is against government’s spending there peoples country into oblivion and the self righteous deciding what’s fair for people to have from private relationships, he wants an economically literate government that would have treated its peoples finances like a business providing what was needed even for the children without the crippling the country he must think taxation is the devil!”

Nope, yet another of your boring straw men. Try this: “He refers to people who believe in taxation as “fucking scum” because they’re using other people’s resources! He must think taxation is the devil!”

“How about people with surnames A-M pay 0% tax and are the recipients of tax revenue and people with surnames N-Z pay 50% and when they die there revenue gets taxed another 40%, revenue that’s already been subject to the taxation system, would it strike me as unfair? More important things would come to mind such as it being unsustainable.”

This is what’s technically known as “dodging the question”, due to what is technically known as “intellectual cowardice”.

“Its not evil its an investment , on the condition that the officials who direct it are absolutely qualified and experienced to do so, gaining the biggest return for all on our money as a nation, but we don’t have that do we, from history PHD grads fantasizing that they have changed economic reality’s they don’t have the qualifications on paper to understand, to idiots intending to direct the economy on there idea of “fair business”.”

Please provide your plan for making sure elected officials are qualified, as well as your details of the correct qualifications. Without details, it’s just whinging.

“Last time,its not about what’s fair, its about what needs to be done and how we can do it in the most efficient way with the least burden on all,that we are at the point we must tax people on there graves and half there wages, instead of functioning as an efficient low tax nation, the nations wealth has been destroyed by people who knew what’s fair and right for all says it all.”

In other words, you believe in a small state. Fine. But you’re still ignoring that demanding the “least burden on all” – an understandable priority in itself – doesn’t clarify how we should divide the burden that is genuinely necessary. Please provide your preferred system – but make sure to leave out any personal moral beliefs or concepts of fairness, in accord with your code.

Also, why do you care whether people are taxed into oblivion? It’s not like you think politics should be influenced by “what’s fair”, is it?

66. Chaise Guevara

I have to say that the calibre of libertarians on this thread is sorely lacking. Where’s Worstall when you need him?

“What you appear to be doing is turning all state-supplied services into a gigantic opt-in deal. It’s a workable model”

Its not some thing I would like to see happen on a large scale, I want people to have pride in there country and feel honour in financially supporting there country,I don’t believe we currently meet those standards yet even if we did as I have said I don’t believe in forcing people to do things,there for I would not be against an option such as the one I mentioned.

“How, exactly, does this work for education? Does the five-year-old pay in advance, or have the bill deducted from the taxes he’s paid (presumably sales tax on sweets)? If the parents are expected to pay, what happens if they don’t? Or, if education is provided regardless, how does that not involve forcing other people to pay?”

No I do not see it working like that, the 5 year old a would receive a state education, when the individual is an adult if they have the financial means to provide all services needed and they desire to cut ties with the state, a calculation of there taxes paid to that point in time is deducted from a bill they have to pay, the bill concerns states services received up to that point in time. The lot, schooling, emergency services, indirect services etc. The individual no longer wants to pay tax, not a penny more will be coming from them so they have to pay for services received to that point in time and be able to financially provide there own services, to be eligible for such an option.

Get me? As you can imagine it would be a large bill and with the continuing burden on personal finances providing all that’s now required privately, I don’t imagine many people would go for this option, I would not but a choice is a choice and I believe it should be there.

Another 5 year old would receive state eduction and as an adult perhaps that individual is in no financial position to support them selves and pay for past services, cutting there ties with the state, so they continue to pay tax which is channelled into education, they are funding a system to provide a service to another, a system that was funded by others to provide a service to them, in effect they are paying there bill.

““He refers to people who believe in taxation as “fucking scum” because they’re using other people’s resources! He must think taxation is the devil!”

I refer to pipe dreamers who are unskilled/qualified to govern, and enter the role regardless to inflict there definition of what’s fair and right onto society, out of a deep seated need to control, as opposed to working with reality and providing what’s needed for the populations they serve. We at this time have a long history of warped psychology’s entering and using government’s to express its self, it hasn’t been pretty from one extreme to the other.

These individuals are not just in government there all around us, I mistook you for one and apologize for calling you scum, how about wanker?

Joking,

“This is what’s technically known as “dodging the question”, due to what is technically known as “intellectual cowardice”

I see you avoided mine as well but I understand why.

“Please provide your plan for making sure elected officials are qualified, as well as your details of the correct qualifications. Without details, it’s just whinging.”

We have the qualifications and experience required for private sector jobs mapped out in great detail, we have an education system designed to educate individuals specifically for our industry’s, from school to specialized further education.

I am not going to sit here and list every aspect of government and what’s required,I struggle to understand why you are so confused by the idea, would an applicant for a senior position in a fortune 500 company get the job of balancing the books and directing hundreds of millions of capital to keep the corporation functional and on its path to growth with nothing but a PHD in history and some political lecturing experience on there CV?

The answer is no, so come on lets not be ridiculous, if one is going to take charge of what amounts to a corporation, a business the size of a country ( yes the out put is different but its a business ) lets get some one who has at least had the experience of balancing the books of a corner shop, or ideally highly qualified individuals who has been in the thick of it, has experience across the board, have started, run, turned around gigantic business operations,real world results behind them to prove they are capable, government positions are of vital importance and it stuns me any one regardless of there history can take the role.

I believe in democracy, a board of directors voting upon who to employ from a list of candidates is democratic, yet each individual has to be of a certain standard to get the interview in the first place and for good reason, I just suggest government’s are subject to the same.

“In other words, you believe in a small state. Fine. But you’re still ignoring that demanding the “least burden on all” – an understandable priority in itself – doesn’t clarify how we should divide the burden that is genuinely necessary. Please provide your preferred system – but make sure to leave out any personal moral beliefs or concepts of fairness, in accord with your code.

Also, why do you care whether people are taxed into oblivion? It’s not like you think politics should be influenced by “what’s fair”, is it?

Because when people are being taxed into oblivion the state doing it is likely to big and its even more likely that there’s a level of sovereign debt that’s currently or will soon cause a crisis. This is unsustainable, take note of the current sovereign debt crisis, a complex issue that cant be attributed solely to the states involved, how ever the states involved are to big for there source of funding yet they ignored this and spent what they pleased anyway. Are the people in those country’s currently any better off due to there government’s actions? Is the world in a better place for it?

I am interested in what’s sustainable, fuck fair as a stand alone objective, when you have politicians pursuing that alone, there’s a lot they do not understand, its normally called ” economics “. If we have people who truly understand and work for what’s sustainable, fair is a by product. According to Richard and who ever the only cause of the current crisis is people not paying enough tax, its obvious if your system collapses on to its self as the conditions it operates in change, it was not constructed to be sustainable.

For the UK taxes can be raised as high as you like, its not going to change a dam thing, we don’t know the out come of the 50% yet do we? Yet look a the sheer backing it has, backing which would not budge if it cost the country money, we do not get any where with this mind set.

My plan, I am not qualified to engineer such a system I have an idea or two though, starts with listening to some one who knows what there talking about:

Sir Philip has reviewed government spending:

He said no business could survive the level of money that was wasted from the £191bn of spending he reviewed( imagine he reviewed it all ) He believes billions could be saved if the government did simple things like checking spending properly. ——–

Speaking to the BBC’s business editor, Robert Peston, he said that between £600m and £700m could be saved on the £2bn telecoms bill alone.

‘No accountability”

He said the information held about what the government spent on services was so sketchy that if his business was run in that fashion “the lights would go out”.

Sir Philip said: “The process is shocking. There’s no reporting, there’s no accountability.”

He told Robert Peston: “You could not be in business if you operated like this. It would be impossible.”

Sir Philip said: “The conclusion of this review is clear – credit rating and scale in virtually every department has not been used to make government spending efficient.

“There is no reason why government should not be as efficient as any good business.”

If I were in charge of it all I would pay the respect to the people and direct there funds with respect and unbending determination to have everything accounted for and as close to 0% wasted as economically possible, without doing this I could not look my population in the face and take money from them, whilst unbelievable waste that could NOT happen in the business sector, without the business going under, and fast, is taking place behind my back.

I would have also taken risk, as an organization this large there is massive access to credit, income streams and bright minds, I would have utilized them all, bought and created corporations over the decades. Risk does not go hand in hand with zero waste, you are going to lose money.

How ever there’s an end game in mind, to reach a point in which the country ( the people ) own a vast network of global corporations, the original investment is recouped and a substantial amount of the states spending on services is funded by revenue, profit, created by these corporations. Imagine face book, a simple idea was owned by the state and they did not simply foam at the mouth at the possibility of tracking every ones information, they instead used the revenue generated wisely for our needs.

I am not against the state owning means of production, if its sustainable and leads to less of a burden upon us all,private wealth creation still in tact with state wealth creation not only being able to provide states services from revenue, employing the public sector workers, but actually being able to employ a substantial number of people in a way that does not consume taxes it in fact creates them.

I would have also planned and saved for bust periods,instead of looking what was blatantly an unsustainable boom in the face and convincing my self I had done away with bust and boom, I would have planned for it, focused on building and then maintaining a low tax business attractive society that provides what is needed in a sustainable way,as well as purchasing a large amount of gold annually, knowing in the economic down times, if push comes to shove its going to give one hell of a return.

The above are of course simple run down of ideas which would have taken a hell of a lot of skill and know how, with a dash of luck to pull off, we of course have not done this and now we do not have the option to, I do not see a way out of the current situation that is not painful,society is rightly bitter and questioning what the hell they did wrong, they played there part of the bargain and now they suffer this,the government has some dangerously illequipped members floating among its ranks and if they gain control things will be in chaos a lot faster than they are on course to be now.

The nature of the beast does not change, it will continue to consume until there is nothing left to consume.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0184xg1/Panorama_Whos_Getting_Rich_on_your_Money/ Interesting.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/5zzNMvqi

  2. Owen Jones

    Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/5zzNMvqi

  3. Liz Disley

    Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/5zzNMvqi

  4. Tania Ziegler

    Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/5zzNMvqi

  5. Paul Jakma

    Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/5zzNMvqi

  6. sunny hundal

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  7. Stew Wilson

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  8. John McIrvine

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  9. Ed Sharpe

    Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/5zzNMvqi

  10. Our World Our Say

    RT @libcon: Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/2h2f0xKF

  11. Taxation

    RT @libcon Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/sBPu6RCe #TaxationUK

  12. Lucentum Ltd

    RT @libcon Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/sBPu6RCe #TaxationUK

  13. LucentumTaxTips

    RT @libcon Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/sBPu6RCe #TaxationUK

  14. Bharat

    Report says 50p tax doesn’t deter hiring of top execs: http://t.co/pcgWBlQH

  15. Dario Llinares

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  16. House Of Twits

    RT @sunny_hundal Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/s6QYDUJp

  17. Martin Warne

    RT @sunny_hundal: Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/S7mJJudp

  18. J P

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  19. Tania Ziegler

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  20. Henry Scowcroft

    Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/5zzNMvqi

  21. christine clifford

    RT @sunny_hundal Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/s6QYDUJp

  22. Ben Singleton

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  23. A.N.Other Twit

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  24. Dave Trew

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  25. Paul Taroni

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  26. Kate

    Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/5zzNMvqi

  27. MarinaS

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  28. D.

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  29. BobbyFlint

    Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/5zzNMvqi

  30. Jamie

    Report says 50p tax doesn’t deter ‘talent’ http://t.co/s2jOw7jS

  31. Kim Harding

    RT @libcon Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/30dG32e6<as shown by the net migration figures…

  32. Scott Macdonald

    RT @libcon Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/30dG32e6<as shown by the net migration figures…

  33. One Society

    50p tax rate is NOT a barrier to attracting senior managers to the UK,
    businesses tell KPMG survey http://t.co/ADdHEzKy

  34. Mama D

    50p tax rate is NOT a barrier to attracting senior managers to the UK,
    businesses tell KPMG survey http://t.co/ADdHEzKy

  35. Konsilia

    RT @libcon Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/sBPu6RCe #TaxationUK

  36. David Traynier

    Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/9UgfKIuN

  37. Ian Charles Cunliffe

    50p tax rate is NOT a barrier to attracting senior managers to the UK,
    businesses tell KPMG survey http://t.co/ADdHEzKy

  38. Peter Durant

    RT @sunny_hundal Another right-wing myth busted: survey finds 50p tax rate *doesn't* deter hiring of of top execs http://t.co/s6QYDUJp

  39. Molly

    70p is the optimum rate –> RT @libcon: Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/ToA1iuAm

  40. Steve Cohen

    Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/5zzNMvqi

  41. Nicholas Ripley

    unsurprisingly report says 50p tax doesn’t deter ‘talent’ | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/OosiuwGk via @feedly

  42. duckrabbit

    unsurprisingly report says 50p tax doesn’t deter ‘talent’ | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/OosiuwGk via @feedly

  43. Christian Wilcox

    The 50p Tax Rate does next-to-no damage to exec recruitment. Confirmed: http://t.co/bgYJWQpq. Another #Tory myth busted. #Croydon #Labour

  44. Jonathan Taylor

    Report says 50p tax doesn't deter 'talent' http://t.co/5zzNMvqi

  45. Georgina Bavetta

    Nice try. Want to have another go at trying to dress up self-interest as concern for the national economy? http://t.co/mAyaeWvD

  46. Gus Hoyt

    Nice try. Want to have another go at trying to dress up self-interest as concern for the national economy? http://t.co/mAyaeWvD

  47. Phil BC

    @thejamesmax @MrJacHart Might have been useful if I'd included the link, duh. http://t.co/gUbWPooy

  48. Jamie

    Report says 50p tax doesn’t deter ‘talent’ http://t.co/s2jOw7jS





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.