peterms Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The point I was trying to make here was simply this... The point you made was that some people will quite happily take advantage of a situation to enrich themselves (with little or no thought as to the consequences to others), will try to justify it (often in a pretty puerlie manner) by claiming that no one else is any different and will sneer at those whose behaviour does not plumb the depths of indecent selfishness (I'd award myself bonuses of ten times what these boys are getting... only a fool would not) +1 +2. Snowy sums it up very neatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Well how much do you think the estimate is of government waste each year in comparison to the amount estimated is lost through tax avoidance in comparison to the amount estimated we lose (or someone might argue we gain) by having the top rate of at 40% as opposed to 50%? I'm not really sure there is much point in comparing the estimates of these three different things. Firstly, you'd have to try and assess the quality of the estimates and then you'd be in the territory that you went in to in your second para., i.e. 'I would personally suspect that'. On the 'waste' angle, does increased efficiency (or less 'waste') necessarily improve the overall economy? I suppose it would depend on how you measure it - GDP or under utilization of capacity or trade competitiveness and so on. Well I would guess if you thought your tax were being used effectively, one might feel less likely to avoid and feel that its worth paying. Sure its hard to define efficiency, but if the government wasted less they would need to borrow less, have less need to tax highly, etc. If the government wastes money, its ultimately wasting our money. Yes, there's no universally accepted definition of waste and efficiency. Some people see privatising the health service and the roads as efficient, because it leads to the employment of fewer people and the absorption of resources in profits. Others see this as waste, leading to spare capacity, resources lying unused, and therefore inefficiency (unemployment) and the diversion of resources into rent rather than production. ("Rent" as in profit that comes simply from ownership rather than adding any value, that is). Governments don't gather tax in order to spend. They tax in order to regulate the amount of spending power in the economy. They can also increase spending power and GDP by spending more themselves as well as reducing tax, or, as this government is doing, they can reduce GDP by spending less or increasing tax. If the government chooses to reduce waste (eg unemployment, underused plant and machinery, unproductive land), it can do so at will. Whether it does so at all is a matter of political choice. If it does so, it can do so in ways which are clearly more productive (improving skills, infrastructure or health, for example) or ways which are more debatable like adding infrastructure in ways which don't reduce travel times or costs. It can even destroy wealth, for example by supporting industries which cause massive hidden or deferred costs like nuclear plants or banks. It can also redistribute wealth, GDP and productive capacity, eg by disposing of value-creating assets at below true value, gifting revenue streams to companies or individuals, allowing wealth to be removed from the country and so on. The choices of our present government are plain to see. What is lacking at the moment, though I do expect this will change, is a more widespread understanding of what they are doing, combined with a determination to remove them from office either by the ballot box, or by attaching them by the neck to the nearest lamppost with their own trouser belts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Taxing 50p in the pound is simply wrong on principle imo. The State should not seek to appropriate 50% of a person's income once their earnings exceed an arbitrary threshold. That's a strange assertion. You imply you have no issue with some tax being taken, as a percentage of earnings - so in principle you agree with income tax, it's just the level of it that is the thing you disagree with, Awol? That's not really disagreeing with the principle, but with the implementation point(s) and the level at those points. Personally I think 50% is on the high side for all sorts of reasons, but equally we are where we are. As a nation we need to spend money on various things, health, education, transport and so on, and we either have to borrow it and pay it back (or devalue the currency which ends up being like a tax, in effect as it puts prices up and savings down in value) or raise the money from taxes. So it's just which taxes - VAT, income tax, stamp duty etc and who pays what amount. Somebody earning above 150 grand, paying half of the money over the 150 grand is broadly speaking a fair target for that level of tax - more so than someone on 15 grand. I agree that people need to pay some tax in order to deliver the basic services you describe and that income tax is a fair way to do it so I don't disagree with income tax in principle. My issue, as you identify, is with the top level at which it is currently banded because I think 50% of income regardless of earnings is simply too high. When you roll in all of the other indirect taxation you highlight then people are near as damn it earning just to fund the State. Maybe the real solution is to scale back government intervention to simply providing the basics required for the common good, instead of having an ever expanding nanny state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 If the government chooses to reduce waste (eg unemployment, underused plant and machinery, unproductive land), it can do so at will. Seems a fairly narrow definition of waste and also includes waste that in part is beyond the government. Unemployment is simply not caused exclusively by government policies, we could argue all day about how much government policy affects it, but we know that its never the sole defining force. I am equating waste to as I mentioned spending on say our new aircraft carriers; its a waste of money that the cost is constantly rising. Its a waste when we spent billions on AEW3 & MRA4 with nothing to show. I don’t believe also that taxation is to control private spending; without taxation how would the government be able to operate? How would it fund the diplomatic service, the armed forces, etc, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 If the government chooses to reduce waste (eg unemployment, underused plant and machinery, unproductive land), it can do so at will. Seems a fairly narrow definition of waste and also includes waste that in part is beyond the government. Unemployment is simply not caused exclusively by government policies, we could argue all day about how much government policy affects it, but we know that its never the sole defining force. I am equating waste to as I mentioned spending on say our new aircraft carriers; its a waste of money that the cost is constantly rising. Its a waste when we spent billions on AEW3 & MRA4 with nothing to show. I don’t believe also that taxation is to control private spending; without taxation how would the government be able to operate? How would it fund the diplomatic service, the armed forces, etc, etc? peterms appears to be a big fan of so called "Modern Monetary Theory" so most of his points on an economics discussion will come from that basis. It is a theoretical model of economics developed in Chicago university but is not the method used by mainstream economists including modern day governments. It is a little disingenuous to present it as fact when it has never been proven to actually work in the real world. The Washington Post did a story on it a little while back: The Deficit Owls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 peterms appears to be a big fan of so called "Modern Monetary Theory" so most of his points on an economics discussion will come from that basis. It is a theoretical model of economics developed in Chicago university but is not the method used by mainstream economists including modern day governments. It is a little disingenuous to present it as fact when it has never been proven to actually work in the real world. The Washington Post did a story on it a little while back: The Deficit Owls Eek! No! The Chicago school is the exact opposite! It's the festering pit of the Friedmanites, the neoclassicals, those who believe in deregulation, perfect markets, repeal Glass-Steagall and all the rest of the nonsense which gave us the crash. The Chicago school does indeed rest on theory rather than what happens in the real world. MMT is most closely associated in the US with University of Missouri. The Washington Post article isn't bad, though the discussion below the line is better than the article. Here's a comment from Stephanie Kelton on it, from below the line: It was very nice to see Dylan Matthews, who is a young journalist and not an economist, recognize the growing influence of MMT. The piece does get a number of things wrong (perhaps inevitably, given the sheer volume of work we have produced over the last 10-15 years). We'll be working to clear things up on our various websites (including: www.neweconomicperspectives.org and via our Twitter feed @deficitowl). We hope readers will not jump to erroneous conclusions about MMT. We have gotten a great deal right over the years (the S&P downgrade, the Eurozone debt crisis, QE, US interest rates, inflation, etc.). While Austrians screamed, "Zimbabwe", we explained that QE is nothing but an asset swap and that idle reserves -- whatever their magnitude -- will not "chase" any goods. And while "Keynesians" worried about the impact that large deficits would have on US interest rates, we calmly explained the flaws in the loanable funds framework and insisted that rates would remain low as long as the Fed was committed to low rates (as the Bank of Japan has shown for decades). And while Nobel laureates, like Robert Mundell, were espousing the virtues of a common currency in Europe, we warned that the new design would put bond markets in charge of government policies. At some point, being right should actually count for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 If the government chooses to reduce waste (eg unemployment, underused plant and machinery, unproductive land), it can do so at will. Seems a fairly narrow definition of waste and also includes waste that in part is beyond the government. Unemployment is simply not caused exclusively by government policies, we could argue all day about how much government policy affects it, but we know that its never the sole defining force. I am equating waste to as I mentioned spending on say our new aircraft carriers; its a waste of money that the cost is constantly rising. Its a waste when we spent billions on AEW3 & MRA4 with nothing to show. I don’t believe also that taxation is to control private spending; without taxation how would the government be able to operate? How would it fund the diplomatic service, the armed forces, etc, etc? My examples of waste were just that, examples, not a suggestion for the totality of waste. I would also include pointless use of too many resources to produce something. That would certainly include the aircraft carrier examples, and would also include making us pay more for things like rail travel and water than we need to, in order to create rentier profits for owners. It would also include things like using scarce resources to produce eg a new mobile phone so that a perfectly good one can be disposed of; but it's that sort of waste which largely fuels our economy. Strangely, the notion of waste discussed in the press seems to be identified with "government waste", which in turn seems to mean having five nurses on a ward rather than three. Real waste is largely ignored, or seen as a good thing. It's a very odd way of looking at things. On taxation, of course governments don't raise money from taxation in order to spend. It's not just proponents of MMT who recognise this, though it seems to be what many people think. And also contrary to what some people believe, bank loans don't come from money deposited by savers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelboyVilla Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 So basically the crux of this thread and the real cause for the economic downturn is:- MON buying lot's of rubbish old players on high wages. And the solution is Alec McLeish being made King of the World? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The point I was trying to make here was simply this... The point you made was that some people will quite happily take advantage of a situation to enrich themselves (with little or no thought as to the consequences to others), will try to justify it (often in a pretty puerlie manner) by claiming that no one else is any different and will sneer at those whose behaviour does not plumb the depths of indecent selfishness (I'd award myself bonuses of ten times what these boys are getting... only a fool would not) +1 +2. Snowy sums it up very neatly. Snowychap, Your irrelevant point may arouse the approbation of your fellow lefties, but does nothing to undermine what I was saying. It matters not whose snout is in the public purse, for we all know that little piggies like to guzzle… it is their nature. The stupidity is allowing them access to the trough… as with bankers and government money. I read yesterday that scientists now believe humans started walking on two feet in order to more easily grab and carry off a larger share of the food. These capitalist apes duly prospered, whilst their socialist brothers went hungry and died out. Like it or not we are all descended from those greedy two footers. I am merely observing how the world works… and self-interest is at the centre of it. Any system failing to allow for this is doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Your irrelevant point... It wasn't an irrelevant point, it was a summation of what you posted (and what you keep on posting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Your irrelevant point... It wasn't an irrelevant point, it was a summation of what you posted (and what you keep on posting). ... and I will keep posting it until it is no longer true... that will be the day we all morph into ants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 ... and I will keep posting it until it is no longer true... It would appear utterly unnecessary to keep reminding us of these choices which you make, let alone the self-justification which accompanies them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I read yesterday that scientists now believe humans started walking on two feet in order to more easily grab and carry off a larger share of the food.…And then, in a world where food was relatively easy to come by, SOME of us evolved beyond the point of trying simply to benefit at the expense of others. We developed compassion, and were able to co-operate with others in a way which lead to higher forms of science and art. In a post-apocalyptic world, survival at the expense of others may be an evolutionary necessity again, but in the mean time I’d rather live like, and be ruled by, the more compassionate form of human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Humans were born with altruistic tendencies too, some display the trait more than others. Humans with a more altruistic nature were probably important in societies as pure selfishness is destructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I read yesterday that scientists now believe humans started walking on two feet in order to more easily grab and carry off a larger share of the food. These capitalist apes duly prospered, whilst their socialist brothers went hungry and died out. Like it or not we are all descended from those greedy two footers. I am merely observing how the world works… and self-interest is at the centre of it. Any system failing to allow for this is doomed. Perhaps you need to read a little more widely. And over the course of more than a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Not everybody has the time to copy pieces from left wing blogs all day and pass them as cold hard economic facts, Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Humans were born with altruistic tendencies too, some display the trait more than others. Humans with a more altruistic nature were probably important in societies as pure selfishness is destructive. What you say is very true and such insticts undoubtedly played an important role in human development. However, what I would appreciate one or two people taking on board, is that I dealt with the 'people's paradises' close up and from the inside. Without exception they were rotten to the core, and the poverty they inevitably created led to at least some of the "post apocolyptic" conditions referred to above... Communism allows no room for altruism. The general dislike of Thatcherite economics ignores the emergence of the selfish gene in socialist heroes such as Blair, Prescott and Mandelson, to name but a few recent leaders. I would argue these lads are wholly representative of their particular political class. However moronic their socialist spoutings before obtaining power, once they got their snouts in the trough, the selfish gene took over and guzzle guzzle guzzle was all they could think of. Be it Ceaucescu, Mengistu, Mugabe, Ghaddafi or Blair, these boys all end up at the opposite end of the line to socialist good intentions... and they will continue to do until they can spin a web out of their arsehole and catch flies for breakfast. I apologise for repeating myself again, but that's just the way it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 23, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 23, 2012 Communism allows no room for altruism. Utter garbage. altruism is not something that needs room from whatever political system, including communism. Altruism is a human trait, a persoanl trait - "yes I'll help another person". People under Communist, Fascist democratic regimes are all capable of altrusim as has been shown may times over The general dislike of Thatcherite economics ignores the emergence of the selfish gene in socialist heroes such as Blair, Prescott and Mandelson, to name but a few recent leaders. I would argue these lads are wholly representative of their particular political class. It's not mutually exclusive. It is possible to both loathe Thatcherite economics and to loathe Blair, Mandelson et al. However moronic their socialist spoutings before obtaining power, once they got their snouts in the trough, the selfish gene took over and guzzle guzzle guzzle was all they could think of. Aye. True Dat. Be it Ceaucescu, Mengistu, Mugabe, Ghaddafi or Blair, these boys all end up at the opposite end of the line to socialist good intentions... Power corrupts, you mean? Well I never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Humans were born with altruistic tendencies too, some display the trait more than others. Humans with a more altruistic nature were probably important in societies as pure selfishness is destructive. What you say is very true and such insticts undoubtedly played an important role in human development. However, what I would appreciate one or two people taking on board, is that I dealt with the 'people's paradises' close up and from the inside. Without exception they were rotten to the core, and the poverty they inevitably created led to at least some of the "post apocolyptic" conditions referred to above... Communism allows no room for altruism. The general dislike of Thatcherite economics ignores the emergence of the selfish gene in socialist heroes such as Blair, Prescott and Mandelson, to name but a few recent leaders. I would argue these lads are wholly representative of their particular political class. However moronic their socialist spoutings before obtaining power, once they got their snouts in the trough, the selfish gene took over and guzzle guzzle guzzle was all they could think of. Be it Ceaucescu, Mengistu, Mugabe, Ghaddafi or Blair, these boys all end up at the opposite end of the line to socialist good intentions... and they will continue to do until they can spin a web out of their arsehole and catch flies for breakfast. I apologise for repeating myself again, but that's just the way it is... Depends whether you believe any of the afformentioned were Socialists in the first place. I would prefer to equate Socialism with the likes of Nye Bevan, Mo Mowlam, Clement Attlee, Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Robin Cooke, John Smith etc. As for sticking their snouts in the trough. Well yes , human frailty may well cause some of them to succumb to the more base avaricious tendencies of the human psyche. But I find it overly cynical to attribute such tendencies as the norm. Indeed I believe such avaricious characteristics are to be found far more in evidence in the modern Tory party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 However, what I would appreciate one or two people taking on board, is that I dealt with the 'people's paradises' close up and from the inside. Without exception they were rotten to the core, and the poverty they inevitably created led to at least some of the "post apocolyptic" conditions referred to above... Communism allows no room for altruism. What on earth makes you think that people who don't share your predatory approach to economics are big fans of authoritarian, totalitarian communism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts