Inequality

[Jockey]

Yes, that is a huge worry.

It's also a very shit book!

[SasaS]

It took me six months to finish it last year.

[Section_31]

From an Australian.

My thoughts too, didn't they ban aboriginals from drinking and looking at porn a few years back because they thought it would turn them into paedophiles? Asylum seekers are all sent packing to Papua New guinea at gunpoint too.

 

it's like being called rude by a Frenchman.

[Moctezuma]

If there's one thing you love doing, it's raising more straw men than you would see at a scarecrow convention.

 

Everything Vince has said there is long standing Lib Dem policy. Land value tax has been a liberal cause célèbre since the days of Adam Smith.

Choo choo

 

Get on the corbynista train stronts! With your glorious leader, but a word of advice, you might want to ditch the Norman Tebbit get up you were wearing between 2010 to 15 before you clamber aboard

 

Choo choo

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It took me six months to finish it last year.

Have you been Ayn Randed, nearly branded

A Communist cos you're left-handed?

[SasaS]

Yep. Learned the truth from Lenny Bruce.

[Hades]

Heard yer da thinks we shouldn't change anything ever because it won't be perfect at first.

[Hades]

MONKMAN, Wolfson, Cambridge.

 

 

No. The answer is Family Guy!

 

That's how simple this shit is.

[Rico1304]

Heard yer da thinks we shouldn't change anything ever because it won't be perfect at first.

I'll translate for you;

 

Heard yer da thinks we shouldn't murder everyone across the world who disagrees with me because it might get bloody. Although don't worry once we've terrified the population into obedience with threats of murder or imprisonment you can bet they'll all be too scared to complain.

[Jockey]

That's how simple this shit is.

 

Harsh!

 

I wouldn't say you were a shit. 

[Hades]

Some people are just so greedy the only safe place for them is a gulag. Unfortunately, this society makes them billionaires.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Vince Cable talking about addressing wealth inequality.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41168093?platform=hootsuite

 

"Too much inequality is bad for us all," he argued. "Growing inequality is linked to poor economic performance, greater instability, more social tension, insecurity and unhappiness."

He suggested that inherited wealth - most overtly in the form of high-value properties passed down through generations of the same family - serves to "perpetuate inequality and inhibit social mobility".

"A serious review is needed of the set of taxes which are there to mitigate the sharp, jarring difference brought about by asset inflation and unearned income," he said. "We must tax wealth effectively."

[Pureblood]

Vince Cable talking about addressing wealth inequality.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41168093?platform=hootsuite

 

"Too much inequality is bad for us all," he argued. "Growing inequality is linked to poor economic performance, greater instability, more social tension, insecurity and unhappiness."

He suggested that inherited wealth - most overtly in the form of high-value properties passed down through generations of the same family - serves to "perpetuate inequality and inhibit social mobility".

"A serious review is needed of the set of taxes which are there to mitigate the sharp, jarring difference brought about by asset inflation and unearned income," he said. "We must tax wealth effectively."

 

He's talking bollocks.  The nerve of this guy.  Stop talking about the government cashing in on people's homes.  Royal Mail snake, do not trust.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

He's talking bollocks.  The nerve of this guy.  Stop talking about the government cashing in on people's homes.  Royal Mail snake, do not trust.  

If I remember rightly, as it stands, only the richest 7% of people leave an estate that's liable to inheritance tax and homes - places where living people live - are exempt.  

[Pureblood]

If I remember rightly, as it stands, only the richest 7% of people leave an estate that's liable to inheritance tax and homes - places where living people live - are exempt.  

 

I know and I eagerly anticipate the Stronts reply.  I just don't trust them.  It will start out at a higher threshold, but wait until it lowers.  Then it will catch big swathes of the South East etc.  I see it as just another move to pounce upon the main capital asset, the home.  From the same school of thought as the dementia tax, just a bit more sneaky and with an eye on the longer game.  There seems to be a movement in politics to tap into the family home because incomes are squeezed to the hilt. 

 

Tackling inequality of wealth, particularly property, is uncomfortable in a country where property ownership has almost religious significance. But the means are there. Ignoring the problem will only empower extremists.

 

Sounds like he's after your house to me. 

[Strontium]

I actually thought you were being sarcastic at first, but it seems you're serious that government shouldn't be seeking to extract more of the unearned value in people's houses, especially well-off people.

 

For anyone with any pretence towards meritocracy, it is an absolute no-brainer - inheritance and other unearned wealth must be taxed more heavily.

[VladimirIlyich]

I actually thought you were being sarcastic at first, but it seems you're serious that government shouldn't be seeking to extract more of the unearned value in people's houses, especially well-off people.

 

For anyone with any pretence towards meritocracy, it is an absolute no-brainer - inheritance and other unearned wealth must be taxed more heavily.

They could simply start by paying more tax just like the rest of us.

[Kidder Bukowski]

I'm never sure if SD is a piss take persona as he's obviously quite bright but comes out with some awful drivel. On this however I'm with him. I've been advocating this for years but not just for the (perceived) rich. I've said on here before that I would put inheritance tax up to about 75% and use the money to give every child in the country a decent life enabling sum on their 21st birthday and give 'everybody' an opportunity in life.

 

Why should I work my bollocks off to pay for the kids of lazy drunken drug addicts I hear the cry and the answer is because the child is not responsible for the parent's actions. If we really believe in an equal society then we need to give 'everybody' a chance. The establishment rich became so by killing other people and stealing their land but would scream bloody murder if ever asked to share a bit of their undeserved wealth.

 

I appreciate the many flaws in my argument, firstly the fact that the rich would manage to avoid these taxes due to employing  cunts, sorry, accountants but surely there is a way to make it work. 

[VladimirIlyich]

I'm never sure if SD is a piss take persona as he's obviously quite bright but comes out with some awful drivel. On this however I'm with him. I've been advocating this for years but not just for the (perceived) rich. I've said on here before that I would put inheritance tax up to about 75% and use the money to give every child in the country a decent life enabling sum on their 21st birthday and give 'everybody' an opportunity in life.

 

Why should I work my bollocks off to pay for the kids of lazy drunken drug addicts I hear the cry and the answer is because the child is not responsible for the parent's actions. If we really believe in an equal society then we need to give 'everybody' a chance. The establishment rich became so by killing other people and stealing their land but would scream bloody murder if ever asked to share a bit of their undeserved wealth.

 

I appreciate the many flaws in my argument, firstly the fact that the rich would manage to avoid these taxes due to employing cunts, sorry, accountants but surely there is a way to make it work.

Where there is a will....there is a greedy relative,err I mean a way.

The problem is that even if Jeremy Corbyn,or even Vince Cable sat in a room with a load of fleet street journos and explained it step by step and how it benefited 95% of the public it would still be smeared,deliberately errored and obfuscated so as what was actually said never made it further than those reporters. That is the problem and not the many sensible ideas that are out there and have been implemented before.

[Section_31]

The problem is that there is always a breed of people who are predatory and corrupt any model for their own ends.

 

there are genuine dreamers, genuine genius level people out there building worlds, there always have been, since the days of Greece, Rome, the industrial revolution.

 

Buy beneath them there's always this snivelling class of rat people who exploit their efforts and use PR and media to bend their creations into something that just benefits them and theirs.

 

You see these people everywhere, at councils, at big businesses, floating around politics. Brash and full of hubris, non creative or especially bright, but manipulative and able to bend people to their views.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I actually thought you were being sarcastic at first, but it seems you're serious that government shouldn't be seeking to extract more of the unearned value in people's houses, especially well-off people.

 

For anyone with any pretence towards meritocracy, it is an absolute no-brainer - inheritance and other unearned wealth must be taxed more heavily.

I think the issue is how you define "fairness".

 

The "Dementia Tax" approach (which, I think, is what you're defending) extracts from a person's estate the cost of the care they have received: in theory, it means you get what you pay for - and for that reason, some people think it's fair.

 

My preferred definition of fairness is "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs".  That's why I think it's preferable to collect Inheritance Tax (which is a tax that no living person has to pay), chuck all the money in a big General Taxation pot, then fund a decent level of care for everyone who needs it, without means testing.

[Hades]

Why should I work my bollocks off to pay for the kids of lazy drunken drug addicts I hear the cry and the answer is because the child is not responsible for the parent's actions. If we really believe in an equal society then we need to give 'everybody' a chance. The establishment rich became so by killing other people and stealing their land but would scream bloody murder if ever asked to share a bit of their undeserved wealth.

 

Firstly, the "working your bollocks off" part is because of bosses and their desire to hire as few people as possible to keep their own profits high and an economic and educational system rigged to do that. If automation, and not profits, were a priority, we'd all need to work far less for the same pot, distributed more evenly. Focusing on care and not demonisation of addicts would also help them recover sooner and better. Certainly, it could have helped me, if my addict parent had freely available addiction services and the absence of social stigma about addiction being 'weakness'.

 

The #1 rule of wealth is that the more you have, the more you can make and the less you have, the less you can save. Any society that considers itself humane must have the distribution of resources separated from lineage and greed.

[Strontium]

I think the issue is how you define "fairness".

 

The "Dementia Tax" approach (which, I think, is what you're defending) extracts from a person's estate the cost of the care they have received: in theory, it means you get what you pay for - and for that reason, some people think it's fair.

 

My preferred definition of fairness is "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs".  That's why I think it's preferable to collect Inheritance Tax (which is a tax that no living person has to pay), chuck all the money in a big General Taxation pot, then fund a decent level of care for everyone who needs it, without means testing.

 

I wasn't really defending "dementia tax", just the general principle about taxing unearned wealth. It's pretty rare that I take much interest in the nitty gritty of specific policies, I prefer to focus on general principles. In general.

[Hades]

Handy primer. I don't mind critiques of Communism from anarchists, just not from capitalists. 

 

[Jose Jones]

Is that supposed to be funny?