Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?


Sugar Ape
 Share

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?  

218 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?



Recommended Posts

It was strong and stable enough to give them another term after jettisoning its fanboys. Seems the people of Sheffield served Cleggy a nice cold dish of revenge for his part in it.

 

No good deed goes unpunished. There's not a more misunderstood person in these islands than Nick Clegg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a simple reason for the discrepancy here. People cheating the welfare state are taking other people's money, whereas someone trying to diminish their tax burden is trying to keep more of their own money.

 

In pithier terms, welfare cheats are stealing money, and tax avoiders are trying to stop their money being stolen.

Are you characterising lawful taxation as theft?

This seems more like a position an Anarchist would take rather than a Liberal

 

From your Manifesto:

 

Liberal Democrats believe in a fair taxation system and a strong social safety net.... We will make the wealthiest pay their fair share by clamping down on tax dodging and ensuring that unearned wealth is taxed more aggressively than earned income.

 

This doesn't sound, to me, that your Party colleagues would approve your radical ideas of taxation being theft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, Corbyn is going to remove the tuition fee burden. The biggest middle class cash giveaway since the Tories raised the inheritance tax threshold to £1m.

I think the tuition fee idea was originally a good one as most of it was given back to students by improving facilities,running more courses and various grants being given out. The problem was that it was then used as part of another tory class war strategy by raising it to impossible to afford levels for the poorer students to allow only the wealthiest students to be able to afford them and attend university.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you characterising lawful taxation as theft?

This seems more like a position an Anarchist would take rather than a Liberal

 

From your Manifesto:

 

Liberal Democrats believe in a fair taxation system and a strong social safety net.... We will make the wealthiest pay their fair share by clamping down on tax dodging and ensuring that unearned wealth is taxed more aggressively than earned income.

 

This doesn't sound, to me, that your Party colleagues would approve your radical ideas of taxation being theft

 

Maybe you should try reading the post I was responding to? I've reposted it here with the relevant bits bolded.

 

Unfortunately it seems a lot of people would go down the avoidance route, and it's one of a complex set of issues we have in society, where people cheating the welfare state are classed as scum, but tax avoidance is seen as something that anyone moneyed would do.

 

We were discussing (some) attitudes in society, and why money taken illicitly from the state is seen (by some) as markedly different to money withheld illicitly from the state.

 

If I was an anarcho-capitalist, would I really be an enthusiastic member of a social liberal party? Some folk need to have a word with themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the tuition fee idea was originally a good one as most of it was given back to students by improving facilities,running more courses and various grants being given out. The problem was that it was then used as part of another tory class war strategy by raising it to impossible to afford levels for the poorer students to allow only the wealthiest students to be able to afford them and attend university.

 

The coalition's revised tuition fee regimen made it cheaper for the poorest third to go to university. Which made it a progressive policy.

 

By all means disagree with the policy, but don't misrepresent it as walloping the poor, because it was anything but.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was an anarcho-capitalist, would I really be an enthusiastic member of a social liberal party? Some folk need to have a word with themselves.

 

Anarcho-capitalism is bullshit anyway I think. You're either one or the other from what I can tell, anarchist or capitalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should try reading the post I was responding to? I've reposted it here with the relevant bits bolded.

 

 

We were discussing (some) attitudes in society, and why money taken illicitly from the state is seen (by some) as markedly different to money withheld illicitly from the state.

 

If I was an anarcho-capitalist, would I really be an enthusiastic member of a social liberal party? Some folk need to have a word with themselves.

Dunno, mate, you might be a fifth columnist or one of Theresa May's sabateurs

Or fallen under the influence of RP

Stranger things have happened

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coalition's revised tuition fee regimen made it cheaper for the poorest third to go to university. Which made it a progressive policy.

 

By all means disagree with the policy, but don't misrepresent it as walloping the poor, because it was anything but.

By tripling the fees? That will have poor kids flooding the application processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This and the rest from the link explain some of the problems with anarcho-capitalism in more detail :

 

it would be fair to say that most "anarcho"-capitalists are capitalists first and foremost. If aspects of anarchism do not fit with some element of capitalism, they will reject that element of anarchism rather than question capitalism (Rothbard's selective appropriation of the individualist anarchist tradition is the most obvious example of this). This means that right-"libertarians" attach the "anarcho" prefix to their ideology because they believe that being against government intervention is equivalent to being an anarchist (which flows into their use of the dictionary definition of anarchism). That they ignore the bulk of the anarchist tradition should prove that there is hardly anything anarchistic about them at all. They are not against authority, hierarchy or the state -- they simply want to privatise them.

 

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF1

 

And there's a whole load more here : http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The love/hate relationships on this site are hilarious.

Making a big show of having people on ignore but still talking about them, or forever making thinly-veiled references to them while pretending to not want a reaction, is like pretending you don't care about your ex but parking outside her house overnight, watching who comes and goes with binoculars.

Big lad he is. Shit tattoos and I swear that 6-pack was a steroids job.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...