The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[bickster]

2 hours ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

Your prejudices suggested that only Tory voters use tax avoidance schemes, and i'm the one who is in the playground?

No right now now MI5/6 are on their way to interview you, because you can read magic invisible ink

Point me in the direction of where I said ONLY Tory voters use tax avoidance schemes. To save you looking up the screen, what I said was

Quote

Just like Roger Daltry, Rod Stewart and all the other Tory twunts that come out with this nonsense every time Labour look like winning an election

Because, that is exactly what happens. It does not say ONLY Tory voters use tav avoidance schemes and any inference you've taken that it does is clearly wrong. It was never said. That comment is about Tory celebs claiming they'll leave the UK if Labour win.

Please take time to read posts and don't make inferences that aren't there

[ROTTERDAM1982]

Corporation Tax is a good example. Ireland introduced a low rate, 12.5%?, copying Luxembourg under Junker, and what happens, Google, Amazon etc set up their HQs there and take tax away from the countries from where they are making their money.

Taxation on unproductive wealth?....didn't really follow your point on that one tbh. 

I'm not sure CGT is very effective either

[ROTTERDAM1982]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

Just like Roger Daltry, Rod Stewart and all the other Tory twunts

 

[bickster]

Just now, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

 

[ROTTERDAM1982]

I don't disagree with your point Bickster, but i'm old school, you can't be a rich Socialist

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

but i'm old school, you can't be a rich Socialist

This is one of those lines that’s clever, ish, but wonky. If you’re poor and socialist then it’s “the politics of envy”. If you get wealthier, then you’re “a champagne socialist”.  People can and do maintain a set of values despite changing their life circumstances, in part because they remember that they weren’t always wealthy, or that their state school background helped them. Someone like Mick Lynch is paid a very decent wage as a union boss, but he clearly holds socialist beliefs, even some Marxist ones. Corbyn similarly so (apart from his private education).

[bickster]

Even Lenin was upper-middle class

[ROTTERDAM1982]

Redistribution of wealth blandy

I'm not sure Mick Lynch is acting on behalf of ALL his members tbh

Dave Nellist used to take the average wage of his constituents to show his dedication to their cause. Mind you Corbyn was in Islington, so probably not the best example.

[ROTTERDAM1982]

So was Trostky

 

Theme here?

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

Redistribution of wealth blandy

I'm not sure Mick Lynch is acting on behalf of ALL his members tbh

Dave Nellist used to take the average wage of his constituents to show his dedication to their cause. Mind you Corbyn was in Islington, so probably not the best example.

Dave Nellist and Mick Lynch are both members of the same political party, right in the here and now. And Dave Nellist hasn't changed parties

[Rolta]

24 minutes ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

I don't disagree with your point Bickster, but i'm old school, you can't be a rich Socialist

This is an absurd statement designed only to undermine wealthy people who aren't automatically really right wing. Socialism has many flavours anyway—I'm sure a lot of people would probably class themselves as some kind of social democrat.

[ROTTERDAM1982]

No its not. It reflects the hypocrisy of people who are able to change society to the utopic society they claim to support

Faux Socialists

[Jareth]

Personally I'd just like to vote for a main stream party with socialist policies. 

[chrisp65]

33 minutes ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

No its not. It reflects the hypocrisy of people who are able to change society to the utopic society they claim to support

Faux Socialists

I think we’d all benefit from understanding your definition of socialism?

If you’re going to say wealthy can’t be socialist, I guess you’ve also got to set the bar for where wealthy is, so people know when to stop being socialist.

[KentVillan]

1 hour ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

Corporation Tax is a good example. Ireland introduced a low rate, 12.5%?, copying Luxembourg under Junker, and what happens, Google, Amazon etc set up their HQs there and take tax away from the countries from where they are making their money.

Taxation on unproductive wealth?....didn't really follow your point on that one tbh. 

I'm not sure CGT is very effective either

Taxation on production = income tax, corporation tax, VAT, etc. ie transactions involved in processes that generate economic growth.

Taxation on unproductive wealth = inheritance tax, savings tax, council tax, etc. Things that of course have a place in society (property, savings, etc) but are post-production. You can quibble a bit over things like factories and renovated housing, and so on, but mostly these items don’t contribute to GDP growth.

Does that make sense?

Your Ireland argument is basically the tax haven argument. Ordinary Irish don’t really benefit from a lot of those special accounting arrangements, and usually this tax haven arrangement only works for smaller countries like Ireland, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, etc. You think it would work here?

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

This is one of those lines that’s clever, ish, but wonky. If you’re poor and socialist then it’s “the politics of envy”. If you get wealthier, then you’re “a champagne socialist”.  People can and do maintain a set of values despite changing their life circumstances, in part because they remember that they weren’t always wealthy, or that their state school background helped them. Someone like Mick Lynch is paid a very decent wage as a union boss, but he clearly holds socialist beliefs, even some Marxist ones. Corbyn similarly so (apart from his private education).

Good post, exactly what I was about to say when I read the original argument.

To take the point a little bit further, and address the charge of "hypocrisy", while our country and most of the world lives under a capitalist system, there is absolutely nothing hypocritical about doing what you can to live a comfortable life and enable a good standard of life for you and your loved ones while believing the game is rigged and should be changed.

The alternative is what, @ROTTERDAM1982, that anyone who believes in socialism should live a life of poverty and either live in a shack ion the woods, or work a minimum wage job until they die?

Don't hate the player, hate the game, especially if the player knows the game is bullshit but that playing is their only sensible option.

[Rolta]

55 minutes ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

No its not. It reflects the hypocrisy of people who are able to change society to the utopic society they claim to support

Faux Socialists

Kind of over simple, barely functioning nonsense this. Do you ever give the statement one moment of critical thought? No offense, but I'm just surprised is all. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Rolta

[Davkaus]

58 minutes ago, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

No its not. It reflects the hypocrisy of people who are able to change society to the utopic society they claim to support

 

Who are these people you believe are able to change society to be socialist, but are choosing not to do so? You're not still talking about Mick Lynch and Jezza Corbyn are you? I think you might be overstating their powers and influence.

[ROTTERDAM1982]

If you are wealthy you are more able to change society for how you see fit. If you claim to be a Socialist, and you tell everyone you "care", then you have a significantly better opportunity to effect society more than the average person. When a multimillionaire tells me he is a Socialist just for effect, then i am calling bullshit.

 

[Davkaus]

Just now, ROTTERDAM1982 said:

If you are wealthy you are more able to change society for how you see fit. If you claim to be a Socialist, and you tell everyone you "care", then you have a significantly better opportunity to effect society more than the average person. When a multimillionaire tells me he is a Socialist just for effect, then i am calling bullshit.

 

You are almost certainly correct that a very wealthy person has more influence than a mere worker drone, but if you believe that a small number of wealthy people are going to smash the capitalist system, you're incredibly misguided.