Wealth-creator™.

[PhilipT]

I know you aren't asking me, but no, I can't see that - plenty of people strive and innovate (many composers of music, for example) with little or no promise of creating wealth for themselves or anyone else: plus you're assuming that endless economic growth is both desirable and possible, which I think is quite unwarranted.

I wasn't just talking about economic wealth. Calum referred to status, which I agree matters. Are you saying that all composers should have their works performed in equal amounts, irrespective of quality or popularity? That's equality of outcome. And that such an enforced outcome wouldn't diminish their desire to compose good music, even though rubbish would have the same chance of performance? And that you want to live in that world?

[Serial_Apologist]

I wasn't just talking about economic wealth. Calum referred to status, which I agree matters. Are you saying that all composers should have their works performed in equal amounts, irrespective of quality or popularity? That's equality of outcome. And that such an enforced outcome wouldn't diminish their desire to compose good music, even though rubbish would have the same chance of performance? And that you want to live in that world?

What would motivate anyone to compose rubbish?

[MrGongGong]

I wasn't just talking about economic wealth. Calum referred to status, which I agree matters. Are you saying that all composers should have their works performed in equal amounts, irrespective of quality or popularity? That's equality of outcome. And that such an enforced outcome wouldn't diminish their desire to compose good music, even though rubbish would have the same chance of performance? And that you want to live in that world?

Are you suggesting that the "best" music gets the most performances now ?

(that;s a JOKE ok )

[ahinton]

I know you aren't asking me, but no, I can't see that - plenty of people strive and innovate (many composers of music, for example) with little or no promise of creating wealth for themselves or anyone else

Muss es sein? (looks at most recent PRS return). Es muss sein! That's not really the point that I imagine PhilipT was seeking to make, however; the fact that certain creativity is perfectly possible without the expectation or actuality of financial reward does not alter the fact that, in certain areas of operation, such creative impetus is by nature and definition a good deal less than one might expect to be the case with composers.

[ahinton]

Oh how incredibly boring. Another ill-thought-out comment from someone who has completely failed, or who doesn't wish, to grasp the philosophy behind her speech - which was the very opposite of what the left tries to portray it as.

On the contrary, it is Thatcher's remark itself, however unguarded and with whatever disregard for the likely consequences of its entry into the public domain, that is the "ill-thought-out comment here"; what do you - who seem not to have a problem with it, in or out of context - take it to mean, then, when it certainly cannot mean what its words look to mean?

[Serial_Apologist]

On the contrary, it is Thatcher's remark itself, however unguarded and with whatever disregard for the likely consequences of its entry into the public domain, that is the "ill-thought-out comment here"; what do you - who seem not to have a problem with it, in or out of context - take it to mean, then, when it certainly cannot mean what its words look to mean?

Self reliance should come before empathy, is the usual explanation I've seen...

[heliocentric]

even though rubbish would have the same chance of performance? And that you want to live in that world?

I often feel that I do live in a world where rubbish has at least the same chance of performance as anything else.

Anyway I think it would be irrelevant here to get into an argument about what constitutes equality of outcome in the world of composition. I was only trying to say that "striving and innovation" can have all kinds of motivations besides wealth-creation, and that the whole concept of "wealth-creation" in itself is open to questioning. I wasn't intending to bring in "status" either; I'd prefer to live in a world where something like musical composition would be motivated from a desire to share something.

[ahinton]

In fact it wasn't a speech but an interview in Woman's Own magazine in 1987.

Indeed so!

The relevance to the current discussion is quite clear I think: we're looking at the difference between contributing as much as you can or as little as you can get away with (like ahinton's tax philosophy or Thatcher's "look after your own (family) and let everyone else go to hell").

Apart from the fact that, if that does or did represent a literal interpretation of Thatcher's attitude in such matters, there is a vast difference between it and my views on taxation which embrace the fact that the least tax that one can legitimately get away with paying is in practice identical to the most that one should legitimately be charged and is what I mean when I refer, as I have done on several occasions, to "the correct amount of tax"; that said, whilst there IS such a thing as society, there is NO such thing as "the correct amount of tax" other than what happens to be correct at the time in accordance with current tax laws and obligations, both of which change with the weather. There's nothing inherently wrong with contributing as much as one can and, as I observed in response to someone's reference to Buffett's complaint that he's not being charged sufficient tax, he and others are perfectly at liberty to make whatever contributions they may choose if they can afford to do so in addition to those which the government demands that they should make by way of tax payments.

The taxpayer's duty to pay as little tax as possible within the strictures imposed by law is hardly my idea; it goes back a long way. Were people who, in the days prior to the introduction of income tax, failed to make the kinds of financial contributions to society that today's income taxpayers are expected to do less moral than those who have since paid the correct amounts of income tax?

[ahinton]

Anyway I think it would be irrelevant here to get into an argument about what constitutes equality of outcome in the world of composition. I was only trying to say that "striving and innovation" can have all kinds of motivations besides wealth-creation, and that the whole concept of "wealth-creation" in itself is open to questioning.

I agree as strongly with the first of those statements as I disagree with the second!

I wasn't intending to bring in "status" either; I'd prefer to live in a world where something like musical composition would be motivated from a desire to share something.

I bring thee good news, sire; you already do!

[heliocentric]

Self reliance should come before empathy, is the usual explanation I've seen...

Indeed. Here by the way is the quotation in context:

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”

There is also something else I should say to them: “If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit.”

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.

The rest of the expostulation may be consulted here: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/spee...p?docid=106689

I'm sure it would be enlightening to see Simon's learned interpretation of the above.

[Serial_Apologist]

Indeed so!


Apart from the fact that, if that does or did represent a literal interpretation of Thatcher's attitude in such matters, there is a vast difference between it and my views on taxation which embrace the fact that the least tax that one can legitimately get away with paying is in practice identical to the most that one should legitimately be charged and is what I mean when I refer, as I have done on several occasions, to "the correct amount of tax"; that said, whilst there IS such a thing as society, there is NO such thing as "the correct amount of tax" other than what happens to be correct at the time in accordance with current tax laws and obligations, both of which change with the weather. There's nothing inherently wrong with contributing as much as one can and, as I observed in response to someone's reference to Buffett's complaint that he's not being charged sufficient tax, he and others are perfectly at liberty to make whatever contributions they may choose if they can afford to do so in addition to those which the government demands that they should make by way of tax payments.

The taxpayer's duty to pay as little tax as possible within the strictures imposed by law is hardly my idea; it goes back a long way. Were people who, in the days prior to the introduction of income tax, failed to make the kinds of financial contributions to society that today's income taxpayers are expected to do less moral than those who have since paid the correct amounts of income tax?

Whether it's tax on income or not, there's been tax of one kind or another right back to Mediaeval times when the peasantry paid tithes, so the same ethical/moral principles apply.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

arguing against our extreme inequality in life chances health and wealth is not the same proposition that all such matters should be determined by a strict equality [an impossibility even under tyranny] i am far more concerned to reduce inequality and its pernicious and toxic effects on peoples lives

i also feel iti si futile to debate the points of principle since such discussions decide nowt at all .... the gangsters run the place and peddle the opium of welath creation and growth ... they have no f******g idea what todo other than look after People Like Us .... as S_A would have it the problem is systemic not strategic ...

[Serial_Apologist]

Indeed. Here by the way is the quotation in context:

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”

There is also something else I should say to them: “If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit.”

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.

The rest of the expostulation may be consulted here: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/spee...p?docid=106689

I'm sure it would be enlightening to see Simon's learned interpretation of the above.

Interesting too to reflect on Thatcher's method of preventing interruptions from the interviewer... just make your sentences interminable!

[Serial_Apologist]

arguing against our extreme inequality in life chances health and wealth is not the same proposition that all such matters should be determined by a strict equality [an impossibility even under tyranny] i am far more concerned to reduce inequality and its pernicious and toxic effects on peoples lives

i also feel iti si futile to debate the points of principle since such discussions decide nowt at all .... the gangsters run the place and peddle the opium of welath creation and growth ... they have no f******g idea what todo other than look after People Like Us .... as S_A would have it the problem is systemic not strategic ...

Well I kinda see it as both, and more. Trying to disentangle the systemic from the power relations is difficult to do without triggering the kinds of vengeful emotions about whos side are you on and who started it that led to the stringing up of the Kulaks, and we have to get away from that; especially given that most people one tries rationally discussing these things with treats capitalism as if it were a fact of nature... just like the, er, weather...

[ahinton]

Whether it's tax on income or not, there's been tax of one kind or another right back to Mediaeval times when the peasantry paid tithes, so the same ethical/moral principles apply.

Sure - but there has also been abuse of the prevailing tax system since time immemorial, so tax and morals have never walked hand in hand and almost certainly never will, if for no better or more potentially convincing reason than that the government of the day or whomsoever else it might be that happens to find itself/themselves charged with creating tax laws and inspecting and collecting taxes can never be guaranteed not to have its/their own agenda/s to use for its/their own advantage any more than can anything else that anyone else does when involved in transactions of any kind.