Comments on: The pursuit of happiness

By: AP

AP — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:04:42 +0000

PS: Steve, it wasn’t actually the ‘islands in the sun’ that I was thinking of, but you seemed to want me to take a pop at them …….

Rate This: 0 0

By: AP

AP — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:02:09 +0000

Steve … Karl baby would have said that you suffer from a ‘false class consciousness’ … me? I’m just a trouble maker.

‘They consume’ … less than a drop in the ocean as far as the British economy is concerned.

I think ‘dream on’ was what the cossaks said to the bolsheviks … this time it’s more likely to be the Islamists than the reds, though the way Putin is going I wouldn’t be too sure of it.

What effing benefit are tax havens if no taxes are paid? Or do you want to maintain them for the benefit of the international cocaine trade?

Uuuummmm …. if it’s ‘politically popular’ isn’t that democracy at work? Or do you have something against democracy?

Maggie didn’t extend share ownership other than briefly, the vast majority of people who bought cashed them in for a quick profit and they ended up in the hands of the usual culprits. Though the idea of extended ownership was in the right direction, it just didn’t work.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think the Poles, who do tend to be skilled, are the only immigrants in this country.

OK … ‘investments that don’t pay dividends in this country’. Not too sure about the stability of the Chinese regime long-term despite the booming economy, there’s a lot of potential contradictions there. Not too sure about the morality of a regime that uses forced prisoner labour in the way China does. Not too sure I trust that regime either. And, as several senior Americans now seem inclined to think, I’m not that convinced with shipping work/investment to these economies for a quick buck. Nor am I sure about the continuing breach of safety regulations in many of the factories, or do we want another Bhopal? I remember when the main road into Tehran was lined with western factories. Hey Steve, are they still there?

Please check how other European countries manage mortgages for yourself Steve.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Steven_L

Steven_L — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:27:41 +0000

< ‘I note that The Eye is on to the foreign non-domicile millionaires in this country who pay no tax whatsoever (though several have made donations to NuLab). Just what benefit are they to the economy of this country?’ (AP)<

They consumer for one and spend for over a dozen in our businesses that employ our people.

< ‘And how about closing tax loopholes that allow many that earn vast amounts in this country to avoid taxation?’ (AP)<

Yeah, let’s shut down the Caymann Islands etc and let France have the monopoly on tax-havens. Whilst we’re at it let’s ban short-selling in our little off-shore retreats and let some other country pinch that little niche off us too!

< ‘The solution at the local level is simple, vote them out. I don’t want somebody telling me what coffee to drink’ (AP)<

It’s politically popular and politicans love the image it gives them Tory councillors included. Local government policy is also highly centralised through professional bodies, civil service departments and quangos. Often the problem is that there is no-one better to vote in, councillors don’t get paid remember, but there’s plenty of scope for corruption.

< ‘paying a decent living wage in the first place would also benefit the unskilled and semi-skilled working class.’ (AP)<

The imbalance in the market is housing costs if you ask me,, not wages.

< ‘Let’s stop the ludicrous rewards paid in bonuses to the City and senior management executives for failure’ (AP)<

That’s one for shareholders to call, the logical conclusion to Thatcher’s economic reforms would be small shareholder unions of some sort I guess.

< ‘It’s hardly ‘market forces’ when the market is deliberately swamped with cheap unskilled imported labour’ (AP)<

I’m not convinced the Polish are unskilled, malemployed perhaps in a lot of cases. EU enlargement is about continuing the drive to improve civilisation and repair the damage the USSR did to our fellow people. We’re back to building more houses if you ask me, creates work and increases supply of a basic commodity and need.

< ‘today’s ‘jet-set’ might be pedestrians tomorrow’ (Ap)<

Dream on …

< ‘invested wealth is of benefit, that wealth that isn’t invested in Britain is of no benefit whatsoever.’ (AP)<

Complete tosh, if your pension fund had been invested in China and India the last few years and made, let’s say, 100% in 3 years, would that benefit you? Would you spending the profits benefit British business?

< ‘There’s an easy answer to property/mortage problems’ (AP)<

Well share the idea then!

Rate This: 0 0

By: AP

AP — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:04:28 +0000

When we have monopolies, cabals, states providing subsidies for selected industries, and protectionism, I’m not too certain about ‘market forces’ Steve. I note that The Eye is on to the foreign non-domicile millionaires in this country who pay no tax whatsoever (though several have made donations to NuLab). Just what benefit are they to the economy of this country? Whilst I wouldn’t go as far as total ‘free-marketeers’, such as Guido, I have some sympathy in that direction. And how about closing tax loopholes that allow many that earn vast amounts in this country to avoid taxation? Broon claimed that he would do so, but still hasn’t acted.

The examples you give are all from local government (and yes, there are plenty from national government too). The solution at the local level is simple, vote them out. I don’t want somebody telling me what coffee to drink, any more than you do. If there are still people employed to do so, I can only surmise that the majority do want to be so instructed.

As stated previously, I’ve no objection to tax cuts provided it can be demonstrated that services can be maintained. However, paying a decent living wage in the first place would also benefit the unskilled and semi-skilled working class.

Yes, by all means let’s clean out this quagmire at the bottom and lower middle, but can we please clean out the top end too? Let’s stop the ludicrous rewards paid in bonuses to the City and senior management executives for failure (as I’ve also stated previously, I don’t object nearly as much to payment for success, that is of benefit to the country as a whole). And let’s get rid of the consultant and accountancy firms that feed off the state, as well as favoured companies that receive government contracts.

Immigrants per se aren’t a problem. It’s the exploitation of said immigrants as cheap labour by certain elements of corporate capital that can cause social problems, what we might term ‘the unacceptable face of capitalism’ in Britain today. But it is only certain sections that depend on this cheap labour to the detriment of our own low paid workers. It’s hardly ‘market forces’ when the market is deliberately swamped with cheap unskilled imported labour.

Nothing is fixed, it’s not carved in stone; today’s ‘jet-set’ might be pedestrians tomorrow. As Nietzsche said, “Over the hills, some other time, we see things differently.” I’m sure that the Tsar felt that things would always be the way they were in 1916 (sorry, I’m being deliberately provocative again … Newmania noticed it before). OK, invested wealth is of benefit, that wealth that isn’t invested in Britain is of no benefit whatsoever.

There’s an easy answer to property/mortage problems, but it smacks far too much of old time socialism for me to advocate it here. It is done in other European countries, and would certainly be of benefit to first time buyers, if not extended to the rest of the market (hell of a potential vote winner too!). But it would mean involving the state.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Steven_L

Steven_L — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:07:40 +0000

< ‘I’ve no intention of defending the absurdly high earnings of entertainers, in which category I place footballers.’ (AP)<

It’s the market that decides their wages. I can’t get over the number of football season ticket holders I’ve met that whinge about how ridiculous Premiership pay is. If consumers want to support celebrity millionaires let them.

< ‘… but I feel fairly certain that such a redistribution would be socially desirable … I agree that there’s a lot to be said in favour of reducing public sector expenditure ‘ (AP)<

I think you’ve found the solution. South-Tyneside council were advertising for a couple of ‘Smoking Enforcement Officers’ a few months back at £24k a year. Most councils now employ people who spend time promoting Fairtrade goods to business and the public. The best thing for the lower-paid working classes would be to repeal all of New-Labour’s pointless legislation, get rid of their silly intitives and sack the people that deal with it. This money could then be used to provide a tax cut for the lower paid. Of course you’ll then damage another group’s wealth, that of lower-middle class council workers, civil servants and quangocrats.

The things that damage the economic interests of the poor working classes the most are positive net immigration, taxation and inflation. Immigration and taxation keeps public sector workers in business, they also get pay rises every year that usually take into account inflation, often the low paid do not. These groups have competing interest’s in my view. I don’t think the poor do have a competing interest with the rich, who are basically free to go anywhere and do anything, that’s why we call them the ‘jet set’ isn’t it? If anything it is in the interests of the working classes to have a system that attracts wealth and investment to the nation.

This would mean low tax, low regulation and low inflation, not the other way around. Gordon Brown’s solution is to make everyone dependent on him and his system of Tax Credits, what a hideous thing to do to people. There are millions of previously independent people out there now who can’t keep up their financial commitments and lifestyle without relying on Gordon Brown. Is this really what we want a government to do to us?

Rate This: 0 0

By: AP

AP — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:17:09 +0000

PS: Upon consideration I don’t think I should have used the term ‘redistribution’, being lazy I took it since it had already been used on this thread. ‘Redistribution’ implies taking from one and giving to another, I’m happier with ‘a more eqitable distribution’.

I think we do have a problem in that the old-guard left tend to have claimed ownership of most terminology that is to do with radical social issues, it’s difficult to not sound like them if one wants to discuss these things, but we have to take some of them back, they don’t own them, even if they think they do.

JK is worth every penny. Not for the Potter books as literature, but for getting kids to read again and to want to read again, that’s more than any government has managed in the last thirty years.

Rate This: 0 0

By: AP

AP — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:03:20 +0000

Steve: Try correlating the ‘rich list’ with land ownership, and subtract the land that houses are built on. And I’ve no intention of defending the absurdly high earnings of entertainers, in which category I place footballers. However, new wealth tends to ape old wealth once it manages to legitimise itself. The Sun used to continually carp on about Beckham’s earnings, strange that it never mentioned Murdock’s.

I don’t know how we achieve it Newmania, but I feel fairly certain that such a redistribution would be socially desirable and, while I’m less than certain that the US is a sound model, I agree that there’s a lot to be said in favour of reducing public sector expenditure (I’ve indicated previously that given the wastage, the top-heavy management/consultant insanity, and the over-manning and inefficiency, this should be possible without reducing services). I generally try to avoid taxation issues because they are so contentious and I’m fiery enough without adding that to the mix. The whispers from what little remains of the Labour left isn’t really the same thing I’m talking about, as you seem to have realised. To get back to the beginning, Plato had something to say about wealth and stable societies, and if Boris is going to cite crusty old Greeks in terms of education, there’s a lot more in Plato and Socratese than in Aristotle.

Rate This: 0 0

By: newmania

newmania — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:20:02 +0000

AP the tax take from the rich cannot be increassed they just move it .It actually goes down. Heres a simple idea why not look at which economies are performing well , allowing for natural resources and do what they do .This would entail reducing state managed expenditure by about 10% to get down to the US level. Our rich are of a very diffrent sort to the Germans it is international and trade related. Its to do with our history …slave trade , opium , spreading civilisation ..that sort of thing
Even the Labour left are not daring to mention ppen wealth redistribution as a Policy goal in itself ( well it gets whipered)

I quite like what I take to be the motives behind what you are saying but European models generaly do not work here

Rate This: 0 0

By: Steven_L

Steven_L — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:38:42 +0000

< ‘We could do with some redistribution of wealth … and not from the middle class and lower middle class, which is where the tax burden usually falls.’ (AP)<

So what you are basically saying is tax the rich. It wouldn’t work. They all went abroad last time we did it, now that globalisation has kicked in it would be even easier for asset managers and their ilk to relocate to Switzerland or Germany. Premiership football clubs would just ramp up the prices of season tickets and shirts to meet new wage demands. We’re probably lucky to be getting 40% off them.

I’m not sure about this redistrubution lark, and I only earn about £18 – £20k and am at zero with the bank. I agree with the minimum wage and I’d like to see it continue to rise in line with earnings. The main problem people have these days is the cost of housing, there is too much money chasing too little property. Brown and the rest of us have been printing money like there’s no tomorrow, with so many goods imported from nations pegged to a weakening dollar, the likes of Tesco keeping prices down and free movement of people keeping wages down, all this inflation has gone into house prices. The British are mad for it, more money gets printed and we use it to compete for bigger and better housing, creating more speculation and ramping up the cost of housing in general.

What lower income people need is more affordable housing, not an inefficient bureacractic system to tax one section of society and hand it out to another. A higher 0% bracket would help too, funded by tax credits, which by their very nature also prop up the property market. I don’t want Gordon Brown to top up my salary, I want him to tax me on a level playing field with everyone else and stop wasting so much of my money on things like paying council officers to lecture me about buying Fairtrade coffee.

< ‘we could return to the very red analysis of how that 10% came by their wealth in the first place … force of arms, the slave trade, the opium trade and sex with monarchs included’< (AP)

Codswallop, read the rich list, you including JK Rowling in this? Yeah, there’s a few aristos on there, but judging by the stories I always hear about the beahviour of Newcastle footballer and other ‘new money’ I don’t think it’s the old money that’s the problem when it comes to setting an example for young people to follow.

Rate This: 0 0

By: AP

AP — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:09:56 +0000

We need a high-tech high-paid economy to compete, not a low-paid low-tech one. If we don’t achieve it, and we ain’t exactly doing as well as we should be, then this country will continue its downward spiral. That means educating and developing skills in as many of our population as we can, and providing on-going development in the much talked about ‘learning society’. Student debt already puts off many from the lower classes from attending higher education, and that’s before any moral consideration is taken into account.

We could do with some redistribution of wealth. In the UK 10% own 90% of the wealth, in Germany and Scandinavia we get to a third of the population before we reach that 80-90% figure. Not Brownite ‘equality’ notice, but redistribution, and not from the middle class and lower middle class, which is where the tax burden usually falls. Since this would increase the numbers of middle class households, such a redistribution should be of benefit to the Conservative Party and to the society as a whole. This is something that Maggie saw and tried to address with the sale of council houses and the sale of shares in privatised companies, unfortunately it didn’t really work long-term.

Of course, if we can’t achieve this, we could return to the very red analysis of how that 10% came by their wealth in the first place … force of arms, the slave trade, the opium trade and sex with monarchs included.

Rate This: 0 0