Is true socialism possible?

[scottycelt]

This was all over the (local) news in Moscow last week.

I can't believe that the French Left suffers from such intellectual poverty as to fall back on punitive taxation of the kind that failed so comprehensively in Britain in the 70s (when it was pioneered by the odious 'Denis' Healey). The super-rich will always find a way to avoid the tax net, whilst successful grafters like Depardieu (who I don't think is any great shakes as an actor) will simply move abroad.

Yes, the Healey 'soak the rich' policy didn't work ... was the tax-rate for the rich something like 90%?

As a relatively poor wretch my heart and soul tells me it is a truly super idea to heavily tax the often ridiculously high income of the rich, but I fear the new Depardieu-Putin love-in only demonstrates that the Tories are correct when they claim that these high rates will actually collect less money by driving many of the rich abroad. They may be wrong about many things but surely not that. That is why 'true' socialism demands an element of compulsion for it to have any chance of working. It is also somewhat ironic that Depardieu has now fled to the main country of the former Soviet Union to enjoy the lowest tax-rate!

Things are more complicated than they sometimes appear as k.c,, again fortified by his morning coffee, suggests.

Personally, however, I much prefer Yorkshire Tea (For Hard Water).

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, the Healey 'soak the rich' policy didn't work ... was the tax-rate for the rich something like 90%?

As a relatively poor wretch my heart and soul tells me it is a truly super idea to heavily tax the often ridiculously high income of the rich, but I fear the new Depardieu-Putin love-in only demonstrates that the Tories are correct when they claim that these high rates will actually collect less money by driving many of the rich abroad. They may be wrong about many things but surely not that. That is why 'true' socialism demands an element of compulsion for it to have any chance of working. It is also somewhat ironic that Depardieu has now fled to the main country of the former Soviet Union to enjoy the lowest tax-rate!

Things are more complicated than they sometimes appear as k.c,, again fortified by his morning coffee, suggests.

Personally, however, I much prefer Yorkshire Tea (For Hard Water).

Good luck to him and the millions of people who could be the new Depardieu. All will be under the age of 64. Bardot, 78, is threatening to follow him. I will wait to hear the news about them rejecting a French pension and enjoying their medical care in Russia with great interest. The whole point about capitalism is that if you can't, or won't, compete in any given environment, others who can and will always act very quickly to fill the vacuum.

That happens whatever the tax rate happens to be. The country doesn't lose out. What these privileged elites are demanding is to be treated like some sort of precious nationalised industry except on low tax grounds. The further right they go, the more left they become in that sense except it is all in their direction. Like Woolworths, the idea of their disappearance will be unthinkable for approximately five seconds. And Putin will continue to shoot whales.

[MrGongGong]

Yes, the Healey 'soak the rich' policy didn't work ... was the tax-rate for the rich something like 90%?
.

Of course it's important to remember that high tax rates (like 90%) don't apply to ALL of what someone earns
the super rich like to play the game of threatening to leave the country and then trying to get people to think that we are all envious of them
if we did manage to get idiots like Alan Sugar to leave the country he would be doing us a favour !

empty posturing by the super rich is a bit pathetic .......

[Flosshilde]

Surely Depardieu had become something of an embarrassment, anyway? & good riddance to anyone who wants to embrace Putin just to keep more money than they know what to do with (except spend it on drink, perhaps).

[Lateralthinking1]

The great news is that they have decided not to come to Britain. Lower taxes here might have encouraged them. She could have been on ITV every day telling all the Muslims to go home. He could have been on the NHS very quickly. They could have been using water, making traffic jams worse, having new houses built in conservation areas. As for economic productivity, probably not.

[Beef Oven]

We need a fair tax system. people should pay their fair-share.

Right now;

the top 1% of earners only account for 27% of total income tax receipts.

the top 5% of earners only account for 47% of total income tax receipts.

That leaves 95% of earners accounting for a whopping big 53% of income tax receipts.

Top earners CAN and SHOULD pay more.

Before people accuse me of the old chestnut of the 'politics of envy ' or jealously regarding what other people have, I would say that we need to consider what is best for the WHOLE of society, not just the privileged few.

[kleines c]

c

[Lateralthinking1]

We need a fair tax system. people should pay their fair-share.

Right now;

the top 1% of earners only account for 27% of total income tax receipts.

the top 5% of earners only account for 47% of total income tax receipts.

That leaves 95% of earners accounting for a whopping big 53% of income tax receipts.

Top earners CAN and SHOULD pay more.

Before people accuse me of the old chestnut of the 'politics of envy ' or jealously regarding what other people have, I would say that we need to consider what is best for the WHOLE of society, not just the privileged few.

What is the percentage of income compared with overall income among the Top 1% and the Top 5%? Less or more than 27% and 47%? I am hoping to find information of this kind based on peoples' total income rather than just income declared in any year.

[amateur51]

We need a fair tax system. people should pay their fair-share.

Right now;

the top 1% of earners only account for 27% of total income tax receipts.

the top 5% of earners only account for 47% of total income tax receipts.

That leaves 95% of earners accounting for a whopping big 53% of income tax receipts.

Top earners CAN and SHOULD pay more.

Before people accuse me of the old chestnut of the 'politics of envy ' or jealously regarding what other people have, I would say that we need to consider what is best for the WHOLE of society, not just the privileged few.

Clearly put, Beefy

And of course it is the top 5% who are likely to have reaped the benefit of light-touch regulation with their share portfolios and after all the money that HMG has put in both to stabililise the banks and then to encourage growth (ha!) then fairness suggests that those who've done best should help disproportinately to fix the roof

[Beef Oven]

What is the percentage of income compared with overall income among the Top 1% and the Top 5%? Less or more than 27% and 47%? I am hoping to find information of this kind based on peoples' total income rather than just income declared in any year.

Whatever way you look at it Lat, the system is unfair and top earners (that's the say nothing of multinationals that mercilessly exploit the UK's sovereign corporation tax regulations) should pay more. After all, it's not as if they can't.

[Simon]

This one

Oh I see. I'd forgotten I'd mentioned that. It means what it says. The network of Jewish interests that permeates US government, and which is in large part reponsible for the repeated failures of administrations to be tough enough with Israel. But it also wields enormous economic power too, especially in the finance/banking sector, as anyone with business dealings in the USA will tell you.

My reference to the Times' non-comment was ironic

Really?

[Simon]

Good morning, c. Good to hear from you again, and I hope you are keeping well.

[Beef Oven]

Out of interest, BeefOven, how much tax do you reckon that the rich should reallly pay?

I have given you two delicious posts in the last 24 hours and you respond with 'one-liner-out-of-interest' type posts. Unless you are going to reward my considerable intellectual toil with something more substantial, a response from me will be hard to get. I demand to be taken seriously.

[Lateralthinking1]

Whatever way you look at it Lat, the system is unfair and top earners (that's the say nothing of multinationals that mercilessly exploit the UK's sovereign corporation tax regulations) should pay more. After all, it's not as if they can't.

I think that's right. I do think that if Starbucks etc left by choice, small businesses providing the same service would flourish.
The best cup of coffee I can get is eight miles away at a British/Italian run cafe. It is in a huge cup and it only costs me £1.

Supposing a large multinational barbers/hairdressers was started in the United States and moved into the UK. It would wipe out all of the local businesses who have to pay full tax overnight. I can think of many other examples which would be equally dire.

As for the very well off, many are concerned that they will be bashed in any initiative designed to tax those earning really silly money. The two need to be separated out. If we are having people earning £100,000 a week, they are very different from 98% plus of the population and need to be seen as a special case. No one forces people to stay or go. It is a personal decision.

But the idea that there could never be a new Mick Jagger was always ridiculous. Whatever the climate, there will be many people able and willing to provide a service people want. It is generational. Under market forces, even the Beatles were easily replaced.

[Beef Oven]

I think that's right. I do think that if Starbucks etc left by choice, small businesses providing the same service would flourish.
The best cup of coffee I can get is eight miles away at a British/Italian run cafe. It is in a huge cup and it only costs me £1.

Supposing a huge multinational barbers/hairdressers was started in the United States and moved into the UK. It would wipe out all of the local businesses who have to pay full tax overnight. I can think of many other examples which would be equally dire.

As for the very well off, many are concerned that they will be bashed in any initiative designed to tax those earning really silly money. The two need to be separated out to some extent. If we are having people earning £100,000 a week, they are very different from 98% plus of the population and need to be seen as a special case. Under market forces, even the Beatles were replaced.

At the end of the day, it's all about making sure that whatever tax system you have, everyone pays what they are meant to under that system, and where there are anomalies/loopholes, they are put right as soon as they come about.