Zombies Margaret Thatcher

[drat01]

Nice to see your usual civility in evidence when debating those with different views.

Stop causing arguments again, please.

I believe that you are being selfish by definition by your stated views as you said in your original post, what is wrong with that? You obviously don't. I was just saying what I believe in, rather than playing the silly games that some on these types of threads love to play.

Again though interesting that you chose not to answer the points back

Edited January 5, 2013 by drat01

[Richard]

I feel like I've just read the script for the ragged trousered philanthropists

[Awol]

Again, this mindset starts from the assumption that what income or wealth someone has is theirs, as you say, as of right. What lies behind that is a notion which is usually unspoken, but which some political thinkers spell out, that as long as that wealth was acquired legally, then it is legitimate property, and property rights should not be infringed. And that becomes the starting point.

There are many problems with that. Much of the wealth may not have been originally acquired legally in the first place, if it comes from family wealth based on theft, clearances, colonialism and so on. Since wealth mainly comes from reinvesting existing wealth, there are a great many wealthy people whose wealth is derived from this. And where it is based on apparently free and equal exchange, as in factory owners making vast wealth from exploiting people who had little or no choice but to accept the terms they were offered, that again is overlooked by the "property rights" school of thought, on the basis that it's a contract freely entered into. If they accept that the contract may have been nominally free but in practice wasn't, the next defence is that it is all in the past, and you can't now unwind the history that has followed the original acquisition. Even today, in situations without the historical fog, we see for example bankers with large bonuses which it turns out were paid on the back of behaviour which was so corrupt and fraudulent that their employers are paying massive (to us; small to them) fines for this immoral or unlawful behaviour. And yet your argument seems to roll up all these people together, and say it's their money, they have earned or acquired it, and no-one else has any right to do anything about it - apart from the level of taxation needed to fund the minimalist state you want.

So if someone's ancestors have profited from something "we" (whoever "we" is defined as in this instance) in more modern times disapprove of, then the inheritors of that wealth are fair game? As for bankers, however much "we" may consider them to be immoral b'stards, they were paid the money by their employers for services rendered. You're right, other than the least possible taxation I don't think "we" have any right to try and sequester/redistribute or otherwise seize their assets - financial or otherwise - unless they have been found guilty of acting illegally. That's what we have courts for in a free society, otherwise people are at liberty to make the best they can of their working lives.

If you think the state (ie the formalised exp<b></b>ression of the views of society, in this context) should have no say in or control over people's wealth, then what about other things? Should we get rid of health and safety legislation so that factory owners are free to arrange production in whatever way they want, and workers will be free to accept those conditions or not?

No. Putting people at unnecessary risk in the work place is a criminal act and should be punished. You seem to equate wanting limited state interference with people's lives with a desire to have no rules at all. That simply isn't the case.

The same is true of wealth distribution. Having some collective say over how it is produced, distributed and used is not some outrageous intrusion by an authoritarian and alien body. It is the exp<b></b>ression of a collective view, in the context of a setting where wealth is the product of social arrangements and collective endeavour.

Not if you believe in a capitalist system (and I accept that you do not), as the west is currently configured. While far from perfect this system has created a greater uplift in living standards than any other system across the world, and it's worth noting that when it was deviated from ideologically to either left or right it has produced disaster and death on an epic scale. I don't pretend capitalism is perfect but I am always suspicious when sincere people start talking about the 'collective'. It has to date always ended in tears.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Awol

[peterms]

So if someone's ancestors have profited from something "we" (whoever "we" is defined as in this instance) in more modern times disapprove of, then the inheritors of that wealth are fair game? As for bankers, however much "we" may consider them to be immoral b'stards, they were paid the money by their employers for services rendered. You're right, other than the least possible taxation I don't think "we" have any right to try and sequester/redistribute or otherwise seize their assets - financial or otherwise - unless they have been found guilty of acting illegally. That's what we have courts for in a free society, otherwise people are at liberty to make the best they can of their working lives.

Well "we" is me, as supreme dictator, obviously.

Look at it this way. We can choose different types of taxation. We could for example choose to tax productive activity less than wealth gained from rent-seeking, from trading stocks, from speculating on food staples, and from sitting on a vast pile of unearned wealth deriving from war, conquest, and the fact that a distant ancestor was part of the Norman aristocracy or the bastard son of a deranged monarch. A lot of people think that would be a good idea, and in fact I should hope anyone would who is genuinely interested in wealth creation, as opposed to the wealth appropriation which is so often what is meant by that overused term.

In doing that, we would be making a value judgement, a moral judgement, that some ways of getting richer are better than others. Do you think that it can ever be reasonable to make such a judgement, or do you think that any taxation deemed necessary should on no account try to distinguish between different ways of acquiring wealth?

No. Putting people at unnecessary risk in the work place is a criminal act and should be punished. You seem to equate wanting limited state interference with people's lives with a desire to have no rules at all. That simply isn't the case.

Unnecessary. What's that? Mining c.1880? Staying behind to clean up Fukushima? Rotating blades with no safety guard? Someone has to decide, and that's either the owner of the enterprise, or someone acting with the authority of the state, the government, society or whatever you wish to call it. The degree of interference is the focus of the argument. It's pretty clear that the owners of dangerous workplaces resist being told what to do, and all the legislation in this area has been fought - and is still being fought, under the rallying cry of deregulation, cutting red tape, pushing back the bureaucrats, getting the nanny state off our backs. Some people actually would like there to be no rules in this area, others that there should be very minimal rules. It's often initially driven by financial self-interest, then supported by those sympathetic with the general philosophy. I do find it ironic to see calls to increase measures to protect people against careless employers treated as an attack on freedom.

Not if you believe in a capitalist system (and I accept that you do not), as the west is currently configured. While far from perfect this system has created a greater uplift in living standards than any other system across the world, and it's worth noting that when it was deviated from ideologically to either left or right it has produced disaster and death on an epic scale. I don't pretend capitalism is perfect but I am always suspicious when sincere people start talking about the 'collective'. It has to date always ended in tears.

I suppose it depends on what you view as living standards. It has produced a vast and endless stream of consumer goods. And yet Cuba has a higher literacy rate and better healthcare than the US, despite the latter spending decades trying to blockade, blacklist, undermine and overthrow that country. I'm not aware either of Cuba causing as much disaster and death as the US, or the UK, or many other places which have a fondness for taking wealth from other countries. You might also look at China, and ask whether that country has achieved an uplift in living standards without as much collateral damage as those countries which see well-being as we in this country have been taught we should.

[leviramsey]

As long as there are people richer than others, taxation based on income is morally indefensible.

Georgism FTW.

[chrisp65]

As long as there are people richer than others, taxation based on income is morally indefensible.

Georgism FTW.

I can see I'm going to have to stick to music and funnies for a couple of days until all this stuff blows over.

[peterms]

As long as there are people richer than others, taxation based on income is morally indefensible.

Georgism FTW.

There's a lot to be said for it.

[leviramsey]

To the extent that taxation is based on income (that is to say, change in wealth), the current distribution of wealth is locked in. If one holds as a social goal the reduction in wealth-inequality, then income taxation is not a useful means toward that goal (at best it can be used to fund redistribution schemes, but any income-tax funded redistribution scheme can be made more effective in regards to that goal by changing to a more effective tax system)).

[peterms]

I can see I'm going to have to stick to music and funnies for a couple of days until all this stuff blows over.

It goes in fits and starts. We'll shut up before too long.

[mjmooney]

I feel like I've just read the script for the ragged trousered philanthropists

I'm quite interested in stamp collecting, myself.

[villa_chemist]

"Sorry Dem but what a complete and utter crock of shit thing to say"

Peter, Drat

Just as stupid as the above poster saying all the rich will invest in it all in offshore swiss accounts. Of course I dont agree that the poor would all spending it on booze and drugs, but I was using a example of that same logic with the poor, by using that ignorant example.

He said the poor would boost the econmy by spending, but the rich wouldnt as they will just invest it into banks, which isnt true, Some would but not all. just like the poor some would waste it on drugs and smoking. The rich,they could boost the economy by opening new businesses, creating jobs etc. to help the economy

Its a biased view thats my point, you cant single all the rich out in one big group in a negative way but spin it that the poor would do good with the extra £1000

*sigh* a beautiful example of why arguing on the Internet is so pointless

Maybe I should have said that...

taking a level of income that provides a comfortable living for a family as an arbitrary threshold above which we can label people "Rich" and below which we can label people "poor", those in the "rich" category would on average (based on a normal population distribution) recycle less of that money back into the economy by buying goods and services which create employment opportunities for others and more likely to seek tax efficient hides holes for their extra income than those in the "poor" category. The reasoning being that those who live miserable lives scraping by would be more likely to buy something nice or go on holiday than someone well off buying a second 47" TV for the bog in the East Wing.

However...

The comparison i made was between giving cash to people rather than institutions. Tell me what wealth creation Barclays or Nat West have done with their quantitative easing and compare that to what you would have done if the Chancellor had stuck a grand in your back pocket. Which route would have got the money into the economy more efficiently?

Yes I am stupid, but that comes of being educated in the worst LEA in the country under The Tories

Edited January 6, 2013 by villa_chemist

[villa_chemist]

Is that really true? (depending where you draw the lines for Rich/Poor). I mean do footballers spend a lot of money? Course they do.

I've been to that London, I stopped in Chelsea for a Cup final, or it might have been the Semi, and there were folk all over the place driving about in posh cars, drinking posh drink, living in posh houses. I deduced that they were Rich. I did so by observing them spending all that money and driving their Lambourghinis and Porkers (while I doffed my northerners cap). They spend a ton of money.

If the middle classes were given more money, then they'd spend it on sending tarquin and jemima to private school, or going ski-ing or on 4x4s or whatever.

It doesn't work as trickle down, but that's another subject.

I think it's more a case that if people get extra money, they will spend it if they were already struggling to get by, they will splash out if comfortable, or they will barely notice if they're stinking rich, anyway.

The exception is for people with large debt, or concerns over their jobs, who may save it. That isn't the "rich".

Taking the discussion that's been going on to it's extreme, the Gov't would cancel all taxes down to a very low amount, just print it's own money and watch while we all went giddy with disbelief and spending sprees.

What proportion of a footballer's salary do you think they spend? 50%?

What proportion of a person on minimum wage's salary do you think they spend?

It just seems obvious that if the government's motivation was to get the economy going, then giving people a grand would be a pretty efficient way of doing it.

[Seat68]

If I come across a Thatcher apologist, I tend to tilt my head to one side and talk to them slowly and using small words. Its the same reaction I have with U2 fans.

[Awol]

In doing that, we would be making a value judgement, a moral judgement, that some ways of getting richer are better than others. Do you think that it can ever be reasonable to make such a judgement, or do you think that any taxation deemed necessary should on no account try to distinguish between different ways of acquiring wealth?

No I don't favour that personally precisely because it involves the magic "we" making a value judgement/moral judgement on what the remuneration of others should be based on their occupation. With due respect to you, what business is it of yours or indeed anyone else's what others make as long as the people concerned are acting within the law? Anything else is basically an affront to a free society.

Some people actually would like there to be no rules in this area, others that there should be very minimal rules. It's often initially driven by financial self-interest, then supported by those sympathetic with the general philosophy. I do find it ironic to see calls to increase measures to protect people against careless employers treated as an attack on freedom.

There may well be people who agree with that sentiment but I don't and have never said any different. We were discussing the morals around taxation when you introduced this, not me!

I suppose it depends on what you view as living standards. It has produced a vast and endless stream of consumer goods.

At the minimum level living standards would be defined (by me) as having a roof over your head, a fire in the grate and food in your belly, i.e. the basic requirements for sustaining human existence. The developed world's definition of minimum living standards obviously far exceeds those basics but even those minimum standards are currently unobtainable for literally billions of people alive today. The engine behind that rise has indisputably been capitalism combined with the rule of law. Has it been perfect for everyone? No of course not, but it has allowed our society to develop to a level where death by starvation is not routine (unless you use Stafford NHS) and our children aren't dropping by the million from preventable diseases.

And yet Cuba has a higher literacy rate and better healthcare than the US, despite the latter spending decades trying to blockade, blacklist, undermine and overthrow that country. I'm not aware either of Cuba causing as much disaster and death as the US, or the UK, or many other places which have a fondness for taking wealth from other countries. You might also look at China, and ask whether that country has achieved an uplift in living standards without as much collateral damage as those countries which see well-being as we in this country have been taught we should.

The figures for Cuba are fair enough but I would add that it is the exception to the rule for communist countries. As for collateral damage and China, they may have projected less of it outside their borders but within the country millions died under Mao, millions today are being arbitrarily dispossessed of their land by the State and you can still go straight to jail for uttering the word democracy. I'm not sure they are great example of social progress either. Besides which China is very likely to start projecting collateral damage beyond it's borders in the near future as it seeks to accumulate greater wealth. The seeds of conflict with the countries around the South China Sea are being sown and watered enthusiastically by their Politburo as we write because China wants what they have got.

[Xann]

With due respect to you, what business is it of yours or indeed anyone else's what others make as long as the people concerned are acting within the law? Anything else is basically an affront to a free society.

Laws are an affront to free society.

Our lawmakers are a self serving bunch of conts.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Xann

[blandy]

What proportion of a footballer's salary do you think they spend? 50%?

What proportion of a person on minimum wage's salary do you think they spend?

It just seems obvious that if the government's motivation was to get the economy going, then giving people a grand would be a pretty efficient way of doing it.

Re footballers, as with any other segment of society, it's variable - some have spent all of it and more, some have saved. My point was that I asked whether it was really true that all rich people stash their money away, or would do if they paid less tax.In some ways, there will be parts of the population, where if you gave them a grand, they'd pay off some debt, some where they'd spend it on a telly, and some where they'd just live a little better. It's not a simple "rich people wouldn't spend it, and poor people would".

[villa_chemist]

Re footballers, as with any other segment of society, it's variable - some have spent all of it and more, some have saved. My point was that I asked whether it was really true that all rich people stash their money away, or would do if they paid less tax.In some ways, there will be parts of the population, where if you gave them a grand, they'd pay off some debt, some where they'd spend it on a telly, and some where they'd just live a little better. It's not a simple "rich people wouldn't spend it, and poor people would".

Of course "rich do this, poor do that" arguments are by their nature simplified because we don't have the time, intelligence and typing ability to go through detailed breakdowns of statistical analysis of population data on a non-specialist forum. Well I don't :-)

Yes there is variability within each group and considerable overlap between the two populations, but I still believe that poorer people would on average spend more of their bonus than rich people, just because they would have more things they needed rather than just wanted.

Anyway, the main point of my argument that I put across poorly is that putting money into people's pockets would be a better way of stimulating the economy than putting the money onto bank's balance sheets through quantitative easing.

[peterms]

No I don't favour that personally precisely because it involves the magic "we" making a value judgement/moral judgement on what the remuneration of others should be based on their occupation. With due respect to you, what business is it of yours or indeed anyone else's what others make as long as the people concerned are acting within the law? Anything else is basically an affront to a free society.

But all changes in the law happen because people make value judgements that something which is currently legal perhaps shouldn't be. The example of slavery was mentioned earlier. It only became illegal after a long and bitter campaign, during which a lot of people died. Part of the motivation for the US war of independence was to keep slavery, and they later had a civil war in which that was a factor. You seem to be saying that whatever the law is at any point in time is what we should stick with, and any attempt to change it is unacceptable. I don't think that's your view, but it does seem to be implied by what you've just said. Similar discussions are taking place at present about things like exactly which drugs can be sold as a source of income, which methods of selling sex are allowed, and so on. Why are those discussions, those changes in view about which occupations and sources of income are and aren't acceptable, an affront to a free society rather than the expression of a free society?

There may well be people who agree with that sentiment but I don't and have never said any different. We were discussing the morals around taxation when you introduced this, not me!

Yes, the point was to make an analogy with other forms of "interference" in what people do, but I accept it's a sideshow to the main point.

At the minimum level living standards would be defined (by me) as having a roof over your head, a fire in the grate and food in your belly, i.e. the basic requirements for sustaining human existence. The developed world's definition of minimum living standards obviously far exceeds those basics but even those minimum standards are currently unobtainable for literally billions of people alive today. The engine behind that rise has indisputably been capitalism combined with the rule of law. Has it been perfect for everyone? No of course not, but it has allowed our society to develop to a level where death by starvation is not routine (unless you use Stafford NHS) and our children aren't dropping by the million from preventable diseases.

I would express it another way, using almost exactly your own words:

" those minimum standards are currently unobtainable for literally billions of people alive today. The engine behind that has indisputably been capitalism"

By which I mean that there is enough food to feed the world, even with the current rate of population growth, and the problem is the control and distribution of it. In the same way that during the Irish potato famine, the country was a net exporter of food while a million starved to death, so today we see rice and grain traded for speculative profit while people starve. That is the capitalist system. That's not to say that forced collectivisation is a better way, or that there have been no benefits from capitalism. But for a great many people outside the more privileged countries, it is the problem, not the solution.

The figures for Cuba are fair enough but I would add that it is the exception to the rule for communist countries. As for collateral damage and China, they may have projected less of it outside their borders but within the country millions died under Mao, millions today are being arbitrarily dispossessed of their land by the State and you can still go straight to jail for uttering the word democracy. I'm not sure they are great example of social progress either. Besides which China is very likely to start projecting collateral damage beyond it's borders in the near future as it seeks to accumulate greater wealth. The seeds of conflict with the countries around the South China Sea are being sown and watered enthusiastically by their Politburo as we write because China wants what they have got.

I don't think I'd especially like to live in China, and especially not in the period when they were trying to make sure the revolution couldn't be rolled back. Historically, although it's always been at least as advanced as western counties in many ways, it has been less outward-looking, less interested in colonising other countries. Maybe their warlords had enough to keep them busy at home.

[peterms]

Re footballers, as with any other segment of society, it's variable - some have spent all of it and more, some have saved. My point was that I asked whether it was really true that all rich people stash their money away, or would do if they paid less tax.In some ways, there will be parts of the population, where if you gave them a grand, they'd pay off some debt, some where they'd spend it on a telly, and some where they'd just live a little better. It's not a simple "rich people wouldn't spend it, and poor people would".

As a generalisation, yes, poor people will spend more of any additional income than rich people.

Some discussion of it here. MPC is marginal propensity to consume.

The MPC is higher in the case of poor than in case of rich people. The greater a person’s income, the more of her or his basic human needs will have already been met, and the greater his or her tendency to save in order to provide for future will be. The marginal propensity to save of the richer classes is greater than that of the poorer classes. If, at any time, it is desired to increase aggregate consumption, then the purchasing power should be transferred from the richer classes (with low propensity to consume) to the poorer classes (with a higher propensity to consume). Likewise, if it is desired to reduce community consumption, the purchasing power must be taken away from the poorer classes by taxing consumption. The marginal propensity to consume is higher in a poor country and lower in the case of rich country. The reason is same as stated above. In the case of rich country, most of the basic needs of the people have already been satisfied, and all the additional increments of income are saved, resulting in a higher marginal propensity to save but in a lower marginal propensity to consume. In a poor country, on the other hand, most of the basic needs of the people remain unsatisfied so that additional increments of income go to increase consumption, resulting in a higher marginal propensity to consume and a lower marginal propensity to save. This is the reason MPC is higher in the underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa, and lower in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany.

It follows that Osborne's measures to cut benefits by some £4bn will cut spending, ie economic activity, by a greater amount than, say, raising taxes on the rich. And since on an economy-wide level, spending equals income, the national income will decline by that much more. Honey, I shrunk the economy.

[snowychap]

With due respect to you, what business is it of yours or indeed anyone else's what others make as long as the people concerned are acting within the law? Anything else is basically an affront to a free society.

The difficulty with this is that it tends towards more regulation and legislation rather than less, in my view.