Make Osborne Pay His Fair Share.

[Woodstock Jag]

It's not about whether Osbourne saves a tenner or a million quid from his creative accounting. It is the message that is sent out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is perfectly OK to avoid paying your fair share while telling others that they have to make big sacrifices.

 

But the law says that what he's paying IS his fair share, otherwise it wouldn't allow it.

 

The only issue here is the conflict of interest in exploiting what is allegedly an unintended loophole created by Tax Legislation (rather than an intended instance of non-liability) by the person who oversees changes to said legislation. On that, I have sympathy with those who cry foul. In any other respect he is doing nothing wrong.

 

This reminds me of Kevin Maguire, the New Statesman and Mirror journalist who complained that Jeremy Hunt was taking a ministerial salary while also drawing a £1 million dividend from the publishing company he set up more than a decade ago. What seemed to escape Kevin Maguire is that Hunt gets paid a salary for work he does for the taxpayer, and draws a dividend for a company he owns, which is entirely fair (it's not as though the taxpayer is being denied his time as he's no longer in a working capacity at the business). Further, despite drawing a ministerial salary, and even when his parliamentary expenses were taken into account, he would be an annual net contributor to the coffers of the taxman to the tune of £300k personally because of income tax and NICs, and that's before you consider the corporation tax on his company, and the employers' NICs it pays.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[GrantB]

But the law says that what he's paying IS his fair share, otherwise it wouldn't allow it.

 

The only issue here is the conflict of interest in exploiting what is allegedly an unintended loophole created by Tax Legislation (rather than an intended instance of non-liability) by the person who oversees changes to said legislation. On that, I have sympathy with those who cry foul. In any other respect he is doing nothing wrong.

 

This reminds me of Kevin Maguire, the New Statesman and Mirror journalist who complained that Jeremy Hunt was taking a ministerial salary while also drawing a £1 million dividend from the publishing company he set up more than a decade ago. What seemed to escape Kevin Maguire is that Hunt gets paid a salary for work he does for the taxpayer, and draws a dividend for a company he owns, which is entirely fair (it's not as though the taxpayer is being denied his time as he's no longer in a working capacity at the business). Further, despite drawing a ministerial salary, and even when his parliamentary expenses were taken into account, he would be an annual net contributor to the coffers of the taxman to the tune of £300k personally because of income tax and NICs, and that's before you consider the corporation tax on his company, and the employers' NICs it pays.

 

So you think it is acceptable behaviour from a man who is smugly telling us that we are 'all in it together'?

 

I'd say it's one law for him and another for us mere mortals. Bet he takes a differernt tone with benefit cheats...

[Woodstock Jag]

So you think it is acceptable behaviour from a man who is smugly telling us that we are 'all in it together'?

 

I'd say it's one law for him and another for us mere mortals. Bet he takes a different tone with benefit cheats...

 

It's not "one law for him and another for everyone else" at all. He's doing nothing illegal. "Benefit cheats" are committing fraud in the same way as tax evaders. Tax avoiders are no different from those who are entitled to (e.g.) JSA and Housing Benefit, but could pay all their bills with JSA alone. If they're entitled to it, I have no objection to them claiming for it: but I'd expect government action to make sure that those who don't need it aren't entitled to it. By the same token I'd expect government to take action against unintended loopholes in the tax system (as opposed to deliberate relief, which is essentially tax avoidance as well) by closing them in the subsequent Finance Act to the greatest degree possible.

 

Putting your savings into an ISA is tax avoidance, but it's intentionally allowed for a legitimate purpose. I don't know the details of Osborne's apparent tax avoidance, but there is nothing wrong in and of itself i arranging your affairs in a legitimate manner to minimise your personal tax liability. What I AGREE with you on is that if this tax avoidance method is not one that was intended by the tax legislation, it is a conflict of interest for Osborne to preside over the tax system whilst simultaneously taking advantage of its defects. If the avoidance method was intended to be possible, he's doing nothing wrong and is paying his fair share. If it was unintended, then I'd expect of him and the Treasury that the loophole be closed, making him liable in respect of his affairs being arranged in that manner. If he fails to do that, he is a hypocrite and should resign.

[Blackpool Jags]

Yes, and while our glorious chancellor, George-morals of Dick Turpin-Osborne, is lining his own pockets by virtue of his clever, quasi-legal tax loophole exploitation, his worker-friendly government chums have been up to their same old, same old pranks.

 

Just when workers thought they couldn't be any more vulnerable than they presently are, in this maelstrom of job cuts and threats, along comes the DWP with a plan to add some security to those worrying about whether they'll still have a job either side of Xmas: they're giving serious thought to increasing the qualifying period of statutory rights from one year to two years. In plainspeak this means bosses will have the right to unfairly dismiss their employees within two years of their start date instead of just the one.

 

If the change occurs, it is moderately good news for business, but bad news for employees. In theory, employers would have an extra year to dismiss unreasonably... No Act of Parliament is required to bring in any change in qualifying periods - simply an Order by Ed Davey, the Minister for Employment Relations under s209 ERA 1996.

 

(Daniel Barnett, head of law firm who exclusively represent employers).

 

Look, I know we live in a democracy and we're each entitled to vote for whoever we feel like - and long may that remain the case - but for Jeezus sake, this shower are evil, bitterly anti-working class thugs who represent the interests of big business and NOBODY ELSE! So, come the time of the next election and you're thinking of rewarding this lot with your vote, please think of the (literally) millions of workers who stand to lose their livelihoods as a direct consequence of the Tories' (and their Lib Dem bedfellows' - see above) lust for shafting good, decent, ordinary working people.

[GrantB]

Yes, and while our glorious chancellor, George-morals of Dick Turpin-Osborne, is lining his own pockets by virtue of his clever, quasi-legal tax loophole exploitation, his worker-friendly government chums have been up to their same old, same old pranks.

 

Just when workers thought they couldn't be any more vulnerable than they presently are, in this maelstrom of job cuts and threats, along comes the DWP with a plan to add some security to those worrying about whether they'll still have a job either side of Xmas: they're giving serious thought to increasing the qualifying period of statutory rights from one year to two years. In plainspeak this means bosses will have the right to unfairly dismiss their employees within two years of their start date instead of just the one.

 

If the change occurs, it is moderately good news for business, but bad news for employees. In theory, employers would have an extra year to dismiss unreasonably... No Act of Parliament is required to bring in any change in qualifying periods - simply an Order by Ed Davey, the Minister for Employment Relations under s209 ERA 1996.

 

(Daniel Barnett, head of law firm who exclusively represent employers).

 

Look, I know we live in a democracy and we're each entitled to vote for whoever we feel like - and long may that remain the case - but for Jeezus sake, this shower are evil, bitterly anti-working class thugs who represent the interests of big business and NOBODY ELSE! So, come the time of the next election and you're thinking of rewarding this lot with your vote, please think of the (literally) millions of workers who stand to lose their livelihoods as a direct consequence of the Tories' (and their Lib Dem bedfellows' - see above) lust for shafting good, decent, ordinary working people.

 

That sums the Tories up. Nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing.

[GrantB]

It's not "one law for him and another for everyone else" at all. He's doing nothing illegal. "Benefit cheats" are committing fraud in the same way as tax evaders. Tax avoiders are no different from those who are entitled to (e.g.) JSA and Housing Benefit, but could pay all their bills with JSA alone. If they're entitled to it, I have no objection to them claiming for it: but I'd expect government action to make sure that those who don't need it aren't entitled to it. By the same token I'd expect government to take action against unintended loopholes in the tax system (as opposed to deliberate relief, which is essentially tax avoidance as well) by closing them in the subsequent Finance Act to the greatest degree possible.

 

Putting your savings into an ISA is tax avoidance, but it's intentionally allowed for a legitimate purpose. I don't know the details of Osborne's apparent tax avoidance, but there is nothing wrong in and of itself i arranging your affairs in a legitimate manner to minimise your personal tax liability. What I AGREE with you on is that if this tax avoidance method is not one that was intended by the tax legislation, it is a conflict of interest for Osborne to preside over the tax system whilst simultaneously taking advantage of its defects. If the avoidance method was intended to be possible, he's doing nothing wrong and is paying his fair share. If it was unintended, then I'd expect of him and the Treasury that the loophole be closed, making him liable in respect of his affairs being arranged in that manner. If he fails to do that, he is a hypocrite and should resign.

 

Woody, do you REALLY expect Osbourne and his cronies to do the right thing?

 

I mean, this is the party that has let Lord Ashcroft off the hook AGAIN after years of him promising to pay his taxes.

[Woodstock Jag]

Woody, do you REALLY expect Osbourne and his cronies to do the right thing?

 

No. Almost to a man, all politicians are ******s. Therefore the less you let them control the better.

 

I mean, this is the party that has let Lord Ashcroft off the hook AGAIN after years of him promising to pay his taxes.

 

Is it not the case that he's resigned his place in the Lords? If so, there's no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to domicile himself elsewhere.

[Meister Jag]

I never thought I'd be defending my anti-Tory / liberal position on the spending cuts on this DG but here goes -

 

Osborne talks of having to take immediate action on behalf of the country, his claim - and let's be clear that new labour said similar when they took over - is that the outgoing party made a mess of things so we have to show fiscal responsibility and clear up the mess i.e. time to get tough and claim a few easy ideological scalps - public sector workers, pensions and redundancy terms etc. Also and while we're at it - let's take a kick at the real poor; single parents, long term sick and those who rely on Housing Benefit. Be clear, they've been waiting for this day. Yesterday's press revealed that during recession that the pay of boardromm bosses increased by 55%. That will be quite a lot more than any of the aforementioned groups will have received by way of pay or benefit increases. But don't forget, we're all in this together...

 

I'd suggest that exeptional times do call for exceptional measures so let's start by taking some exceptionally radical action. Oh, and let's not forget that Britain's debt has been a lot worse in the past - and no mention of it being the fault of the sick, unemployed and public sector workers. Just acceptance that the country would need time to right itself - the capatalist system always finds a way! So what could we do?

 

We could take the banks under full social ownership and control – they have £560 billion in liquid cash and £5 trillion of assets. In so doing we would all be in this together and this small step would not only allow us to recoup the £375 billion (£175bn indirect investment and £200bn through quantitative easing) that we have ploughed into them during the financial crisis, it would also allow us to pay down a major part of our debt and fund socially useful projects e.g. inner city housing that is making a few scum landlords a fortune. (Even f***ing Boris Johnson has recognised that they're scum and good to see that he's distanced himself from the mother party! "I won't be involved in Kosovo-style ethnic cleansing" etc. Go BoJo!)

 

Instead of spending £4.5 billion on two socially useless aircraft carriers - the ones without any planes - we could build new rolling stock for an integrated public transport system. In so doing we do our wee bit fopr the public and the planet. Even good old Uncle Joe Stalin saw the wisdom in giving the proles a decent transport system. Kept them happy and able to travel about... and it's still a jewel in Russia's crown to this day. But look at what the Tories did to out rail infrastructure - destroyed it along with everything else. The famous selling of the family silver - our silver btw!! Is there a theme here?

 

We could introduce a progressive local income tax to replace the council tax; this would raise another £20bn across the UK and £1.5 bn in Scotland. The SNP know this and as things stand I'd imagine that quite a few public sector workers will be considering which way to vote next May; although Labour will no doubt be back campaigning as the party of the people; so perhaps not an SNP landslide.

 

We could reduce spending on defence by half and withdraw from the Afghanistan and Iraq; thus saving up to £20 bn per year to spend on socially useful projects with no loss of jobs. Indeed such projects actually create jobs and kick-start economied. But the Tories want this to only be led by the private sector. why, well, I guess so that their mates in the boardrooms up and down the land can make yet more dosh. If we're all in this together then the government of the day should be dropping dogma and taking care of its citizens. Would reduce crime and would help local businesses. The 16 millionaire in the cabinet should remember that most local businessmen are trying their hardest to keep their enterprise afloat and that they're the ones who don't have expensive accountants to fiddle their books.

 

We could raise taxes on corporations which have seen their tax rates halved under successive Conservative and Labour governments. Guess what, a further 4% cut is planned in the budget. This could raise an additional £30 billion a year in revenues. Really a no-brainer IMO and an easy way to whittle away the defecit - certainly easier than taking a few quid of a single parent.

 

And so to a big Tory no no - instead of the cuts in services we could close the loop holes in tax avoidance schemes. This alone could save £20 billion a year. Reading back, how much money have I saved these c***s? By my calcualation I've got us back in the black already! Rock and roll!

 

Finally, we could really tax the rich and wealthy; and I mean tax them! A one off 10% tax on Britain’s richest people would raise £35 billion. See this country is afloat with cash and YT has just highlighted where it is and how to get at it! Don't let the fat cat f***s get away with it; and remember, "we're all in this together!" So we can take it as read that they'll probably not mind. Aye right... This measure alone would be used to provide millions of much needed houses through building conversion, building renovation and housing insulation and all the jobs that would be needed to achieve that. All this and full employemnt in the building sector too... could this even result in much needed apprenticeships in traditional building industry jobs for school leavers or even for the unemployed who would like to earn more than the £55 per week ESA pittance that they're currently on? How f***ing straightforward is all of this?

 

Finally, finally, finally and in case they don't understand that what we really want is a better future for everyone, we could raise another £38bn a year for fifteen years by in taking North Sea Oil under full public ownership control. All together now: "We're in the money!!!"

 

Oh and as I'm on a roll and starting to feel the strains of a semi - instead of cutting pensions and demanding people pay more towards their pensions we could look to provide an alternative retirement provision that is not dependent on the whims of the financial markets. With all the money that's available above, we could provide for all people over 60 free rented housing, electricity and gas, public transport and free access to cultural and sports facilities. A socialist utopia is possible - it just takes guts to achieve the prize. But guess what, the money men would still make money - just a little less!

 

I close this sermon by apologising if I've bored the t**s off you and by saying that an alternative world is not only possible but it is now necessary if we are to avoid paying for the crisis of their economic system and suffer years of austerity and slump. If your eyes and brain can take it, tot up the figures and reach for your molotov cocktail. Thank you and good night... No pasarán! As they don't say in the wine bars of Kilbarchan.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Meister Jag

[jaggybunnet]

I never thought I'd be defending my anti-Tory / liberal position on the spending cuts on this DG but here goes -

 

Osborne talks of having to take immediate action on behalf of the country, his claim - and let's be clear that new labour said similar when they took over - is that the outgoing party made a mess of things so we have to show fiscal responsibility and clear up the mess i.e. time to get tough and claim a few easy ideological scalps - public sector workers, pensions and redundancy terms etc. Also and while we're at it - let's take a kick at the real poor; single parents, long term sick and those who rely on Housing Benefit. Be clear, they've been waiting for this day. Yesterday's press revealed that during recession that the pay of boardromm bosses increased by 55%. That will be quite a lot more than any of the aforementioned groups will have received by way of pay or benefit increases. But don't forget, we're all in this together...

 

if councils did there job properly they could same millions by not letting private rental company rip them off

 

I'd suggest that exeptional times do call for exceptional measures so let's start by taking some exceptionally radical action. Oh, and let's not forget that Britain's debt has been a lot worse in the past - and no mention of it being the fault of the sick, unemployed and public sector workers. Just acceptance that the country would need time to right itself - the capatalist system always finds a way! So what could we do?

 

We could take the banks under full social ownership and control – they have £560 billion in liquid cash and £5 trillion of assets. In so doing we would all be in this together and this small step would not only allow us to recoup the £375 billion (£175bn indirect investment and £200bn through quantitative easing) that we have ploughed into them during the financial crisis, it would also allow us to pay down a major part of our debt and fund socially useful projects e.g. inner city housing that is making a few scum landlords a fortune. (Even f***ing Boris Johnson has recognised that they're scum and good to see that he's distanced himself from the mother party! "I won't be involved in Kosovo-style ethnic cleansing" etc. Go BoJo!)

 

how you going to do that without it costing us billions? or are you asking for a upriasing and just takeing it off them

 

Instead of spending £4.5 billion on two socially useless aircraft carriers - the ones without any planes - we could build new rolling stock for an integrated public transport system. In so doing we do our wee bit fopr the public and the planet. Even good old Uncle Joe Stalin saw the wisdom in giving the proles a decent transport system. Kept them happy and able to travel about... and it's still a jewel in Russia's crown to this day. But look at what the Tories did to out rail infrastructure - destroyed it along with everything else. The famous selling of the family silver - our silver btw!! Is there a theme here?

 

and cost billions to cancel and thousands in job losses

 

that never happened it is falling to bits an dangerous ( now the german one )

 

We could introduce a progressive local income tax to replace the council tax; this would raise another £20bn across the UK and £1.5 bn in Scotland. The SNP know this and as things stand I'd imagine that quite a few public sector workers will be considering which way to vote next May; although Labour will no doubt be back campaigning as the party of the people; so perhaps not an SNP landslide.

 

We could reduce spending on defence by half and withdraw from the Afghanistan and Iraq; thus saving up to £20 bn per year to spend on socially useful projects with no loss of jobs. Indeed such projects actually create jobs and kick-start economied. But the Tories want this to only be led by the private sector. why, well, I guess so that their mates in the boardrooms up and down the land can make yet more dosh. If we're all in this together then the government of the day should be dropping dogma and taking care of its citizens. Would reduce crime and would help local businesses. The 16 millionaire in the cabinet should remember that most local businessmen are trying their hardest to keep their enterprise afloat and that they're the ones who don't have expensive accountants to fiddle their books.

 

sorry what planet are you on we dont spend enough as it is, and what happens when we actualy need this army with no kit and you are screaming for its help??? oh and we have been out of iraq for about six months now

 

We could raise taxes on corporations which have seen their tax rates halved under successive Conservative and Labour governments. Guess what, a further 4% cut is planned in the budget. This could raise an additional £30 billion a year in revenues. Really a no-brainer IMO and an easy way to whittle away the defecit - certainly easier than taking a few quid of a single parent.

 

And so to a big Tory no no - instead of the cuts in services we could close the loop holes in tax avoidance schemes. This alone could save £20 billion a year. Reading back, how much money have I saved these c***s? By my calcualation I've got us back in the black already! Rock and roll!

 

sorry but thats rubbish, they would all just move there money or just move away and then you get no money at all

 

Finally, we could really tax the rich and wealthy; and I mean tax them! A one off 10% tax on Britain’s richest people would raise £35 billion. See this country is afloat with cash and YT has just highlighted where it is and how to get at it! Don't let the fat cat f***s get away with it; and remember, "we're all in this together!" So we can take it as read that they'll probably not mind. Aye right... This measure alone would be used to provide millions of much needed houses through building conversion, building renovation and housing insulation and all the jobs that would be needed to achieve that. All this and full employemnt in the building sector too... could this even result in much needed apprenticeships in traditional building industry jobs for school leavers or even for the unemployed who would like to earn more than the £55 per week ESA pittance that they're currently on? How f***ing straightforward is all of this?

 

Finally, finally, finally and in case they don't understand that what we really want is a better future for everyone, we could raise another £38bn a year for fifteen years by in taking North Sea Oil under full public ownership control. All together now: "We're in the money!!!"

 

ahh that old myth again this cant be done without spending billions as companies would walk away when you try to take that £38bn a year away from them

Oh and as I'm on a roll and starting to feel the strains of a semi - instead of cutting pensions and demanding people pay more towards their pensions we could look to provide an alternative retirement provision that is not dependent on the whims of the financial markets. With all the money that's available above, we could provide for all people over 60 free rented housing, electricity and gas, public transport and free access to cultural and sports facilities. A socialist utopia is possible - it just takes guts to achieve the prize. But guess what, the money men would still make money - just a little less!

 

I close this sermon by apologising if I've bored the t**s off you and by saying that an alternative world is not only possible but it is now necessary if we are to avoid paying for the crisis of their economic system and suffer years of austerity and slump. If your eyes and brain can take it, tot up the figures and reach for your molotov cocktail. Thank you and good night... No pasarán! As they don't say in the wine bars of Kilbarchan.

 

and then back in the real world with all its greed nothing will happen, no matter which party is in power, its what they do and have done for ever and a day.

 

your numbers are scary and not believable as canceling projects costs money and jobs.

 

your form of socialism never works or you would never be out of power also why, even at the tories lowest point labour could not get elected untill they moved to the right.

 

you can rant all you like people, but i dont think your numbers add up and people just dont think its viable

[B.C.G. JAG]

And how about taking on the Swiss and ending the secret stashing of loot in their banks? It's reckoned that the Treasury would be £40bn better off with a quick inspection of UK citizen's accounts there. Disgusting.

[jaggybunnet]

And how about taking on the Swiss and ending the secret stashing of loot in their banks? It's reckoned that the Treasury would be £40bn better off with a quick inspection of UK citizen's accounts there. Disgusting.

 

 

the Swiss get a lot of money by doing this, WHY on earth would they want to stop it, we wouldnt

[Meister Jag]

Thanks for your comments, it's a DG so I guess opinions of all shades can be freely expressed. The figures are, I believe, courtesy of the Institure For Fiscal Studies. I believe your party is quite good at quoting them when the occasion demands i.e. they can make cheap capital out of them. I'm taking it that you are a Tory? Doesn't make you a bad person incidentally.

 

In terms of my rather long rant, I was simply suggesting that we are not really that poor a country and the debt we are in is a convenient excuse for your mates to put the boot in and to reduce the State further i.e. another step closer to us mirroring that fine upstanding democratic role model that is the good old US of A. IMO your bed mates, the Libs, have truly fu**ed up and they know it; so expect a two-party state within our lifetime.

 

In essence, for the neo-cons, this is basically a return to unfinished business and, in truth, this dates back to the time of, would you believe it, Ted Heath. Successive governments have been keen on reducing the public sector for decades and the current so-called debt problem is but a convenient excuse for them to reduce the state yet further. No Tory can deny this fact.

 

In terms of the gist of my post, you'll note that I said "could" throughout. For my part and if for the good of the country, I'd have no problem taking all major institutions into public ownership. Seems that private companies have no problem returning their business to the state if they can't make a profit e.g. GNER on the railways. Times are hard so for the good of the country - you, me and everybody, the state must prevail; so "nae luck guys, you've been making plenty poppy from us for yonks so the party is over... maybe for ever! Now the country can start to rebuild and we can have a stronger, more civilised and equitable society." What a vision that would be and if you and your mates can't pay the school fees than tough titty! I mean, "we're all in this together!" so let's all feel a little of the pain.

 

In terms of compensation, in truth, I didn't really think about that because there would be no need - plain and simple. Job losses? Naw, anything but, the state would take over as it did when many sectors were nationalised. There'd be full employment in my brave new world and free McGhee's pies for the masses; this would result in more employment for bakers, delivery drivers etc... the good times are just around the corner. It's amazing what comes to you when you apply the principles of dialectical materialism to a McGhie's mutton pie. When you approach "any" issue using Marx's dialectics, you can arrive at "any" answer. But shhh, don't tell the Tories or they'll be patenting it and rolling it out as a management development tool.

 

But on a serious note, talk to civil servants and other public sector workers who could be out of a job and they'll show you "fairness". In a nutshell, the Tories don't like the contractual terms that cover redundancy in the public sector, so what do they do? Drrrruuum roll....Why of course, they re-write the rules so they can pay less and get rid of more. And you wonder why nut jobs like me start spouting off about your party and "fairness". There is no "fairness" when you deal with Mammonites. They want all the money for themselves and there is no common good. Fair society my a***!

 

In truth, I'm actually not that political, its just that I hate bullies and crooks. That last lot were just as bad incidentally. Everything I've suggested is possible but would have to be done with the will of the people. I'm not suggesting a Marxist-Leninist agenda or even a worker-led revolution; although the recent Spending Review probably take us a small step in that direction. Remember that the difference between capitalism and socialism is that in a capitalist society man exploits man, and in a socialist one, it's the other way around! Make of that conundrum what you will.

 

Enjoy your power trip while it lasts, but being two goose steps to the right of Enoch Powell doesn't really cut it with the people of Scotland. The good news is that this government won't last forever - the people will have the final say! I recall that was one of the great anarchist thinkers (Bakunin I think) who said: The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed. We can but hope.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Meister Jag

[Meister Jag]

FAO Jaggybunnett

 

Meant to say - read my post with your tongue firmly in cheek. I wasn't having a personal go at you... promise!

 

As Douglas Adams so famously said: He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot!

 

Vive la Révolution!

 

Meister Jag

[Blackpool Jags]

Meister Jag, don't you know that by spelling out those cold hard facts and the alternatives to the status quo, you've sent our hardcore Tory Jags into political conceptual meltdown?

 

Btw, I commended the philosophy of dialectical materialism on here once, but I think I got away with it.

 

Great posts, MJ.

[mrD]

 

In terms of compensation, in truth, I didn't really think about that because there would be no need - plain and simple. Job losses? Naw, anything but, the state would take over as it did when many sectors were nationalised. There'd be full employment in my brave new world and free McGhee's pies for the masses; this would result in more employment for bakers, delivery drivers etc... the good times are just around the corner. It's amazing what comes to you when you apply the principles of dialectical materialism to a McGhie's mutton pie. When you approach "any" issue using Marx's dialectics, you can arrive at "any" answer. But shhh, don't tell the Tories or they'll be patenting it and rolling it out as a management development tool.

 

Are you saying that no answer can be arrived using the principals of dialectical materialism? Or are you just referring to the "motion" aspect of it.

 

Always thought the term was actually historical materialism as applied to humanity whereas dialectical materialism was engles applying this science to the universe. No?

 

A poster earlier was referring to tax as state sanctioned theft. How can it be so when it is the very same state that enables property rights to exist in the first place? Another perspective is the notion that property in itself is theft (proudhon)

Edited November 2, 2010 by mrD

[B.C.G. JAG]

A poster earlier was referring to tax as state sanctioned theft.

 

Don't go there. 65 PM's later (I kid ye not) about this right wing fantasy and I'm left considerably balder than I was before, whilst my walls have several head shaped dents in them. Suffice to say, he doesn't like being told to pay taxes (at all) and thinks he should have the option to pay what he chooses - not unlike George Osborne really!

 

And what about you JB, signed the petition yet? No of course not, poor wee George Osborne, he really needs you to protect him doesn't he? Why don't you find a petition from a right wing organisation to close all tax loopholes and we'll all sign that (well, I can think of one other poster who won't). What's that? You can't find a right wing website in favour of closing tax loopholes, oh dear!

[Meister Jag]

Are you saying that no answer can be arrived using the principals of dialectical materialism? Or are you just referring to the "motion" aspect of it.

 

Always thought the term was actually historical materialism as applied to humanity whereas dialectical materialism was engles applying this science to the universe. No?

 

A poster earlier was referring to tax as state sanctioned theft. How can it be so when it is the very same state that enables property rights to exist in the first place? Another perspective is the notion that property in itself is theft (proudhon)

 

By way of brief response - and I know some of my posts are somewhat verbose, my understanding is that dialectical materialism is a way of understanding reality; to encompass thoughts, emotions, or what we physically encounter in the material world. Put simply, this methodology is the combination of Dialectics and Materialism. The materialist dialectic is the theoretical foundation of Marxism - while being "communist", in the trues sense, is the practice of Marxism.

 

By way of relevant example, I quite liked the Italian communist Gramsci's efforts to persuade Italians that the way, the only way, to express humanitarian concern for the poor or those left behind as the detritus of capitalism was through a government that could be benevolent. If this involved the state having to raise taxes then he didn't consider this to be state-sponsored theft. How far away is this from the current mob who don't want to pay a penny extra but want to literally rob the poor to get us out of the mess that their mates, the bankers, created - benefit cuts, VAT hikes, shrinking public sector etc. Where is the "fairness" in any of that and what kind of society will we be left with in the future?

 

I no longer read the Communist Manifesto before bed but can remember that Marx and Engels suggested that there should be a heavy progressive or graduated income tax (one of the early chapters if memory serves). Basically, those who could should pay more for the common good so as to maintain a functioning and inclusive society (my assertion). Marx then went on to expand on his theories regarding the state and his references to centralism (IMO anyway) suggest that it does have a key role to play in leading us toward a better society; basically the socialist utopia that we're all promised if we follow his path. Lenin also gives it a good go and takes Marx's analysis further in The State and Revolution - a real page turner btw; and I used to take this stuff on holiday to read!

 

Hope this helps and doesn't send you to sleep!

Edited November 3, 2010 by Meister Jag

[John Blutarsky]

Another perspective is the notion that property in itself is theft (proudhon)

 

which is the reason why anarchists only drink herbal tea

[B.C.G. JAG]

which is the reason why anarchists only drink herbal tea

[Woodstock Jag]

A poster earlier was referring to tax as state sanctioned theft. How can it be so when it is the very same state that enables property rights to exist in the first place? Another perspective is the notion that property in itself is theft (proudhon)

 

A market-anarchist would disagree. Property derives from original acquisition, giving meaning to possession. Property itself cannot be theft as theft necessitates a natural person as the original proprietor. Anything that is not owned cannot be stolen.

 

But that's an argument for another day!

Edited November 2, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[B.C.G. JAG]

which is the reason why anarchists only drink herbal tea

It took five days before I could casually slip that one into conversation, but it was totally worth it. It's my new favourite joke.