Is true socialism possible?

[amateur51]

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.



Really?

Oh yes - that's why you didn't get it

Sorry I didn't get your Israel reference but this is the first time you've mentioned Israel on this thread and my telepathy was not switched on. Surely that is better framed as 'pro-Israeli connections' rather than 'Jewish connections'? Many Jews inside US and Israel are highly critical of Israel and its foreign policy of the past few decades.

Are you happy for your postings to read like something from the far Right in the earlier parts of the last century, and all that it led to?

[Lateralthinking1]

Saying 'good riddance' to the super-rich is all very well but the only real question still remains, at least in a free society.

Do you tax the rich at lower rates and collect more money or tax them more and receive less because many leave the country? After all, moving abroad for these lucky super-rich people is a dawdle compared to the rest of us.

If we taxed the rich at normal rates and the state collected more money to assist the poorer in society would socialists be against the idea?

Isn't it a bit rich (!) for people not to turn a hair when David Beckham etc chooses to play abroad for reasons other than tax and yet if one of, I don't know, the Spice Girls or Take That departs in order to save tax, we are all expected to go into bereavement? Please explain how the international football transfer market is a happy fact of life while Elton John being in the US is terrible.

Why also is it perfectly ok for millions of administration and call centre jobs to be lost to the enslaved parts of India, with associated losses of tax revenue to the United Kingdom, but the loss of Roman Abramovich would send the stock markets into counselling? I don't believe for one moment that anyone who puts forward the "brain drain" argument believes a word of it.

[teamsaint]

The discussion on tax is only really of use when the actual income figures are taken into account. This was the huge flaw in Nick (the rich are great) Robinson's recent BBC show on the subject.

I don't think socialists generally are all that bothered about tax rates.(If I find one, I'll ask them!) All the noise on tax seems to come from the rich and the political right.

[MrGongGong]

I don't think socialists generally are all that bothered about tax rates.(If I find one, I'll ask them!) All the noise on tax seems to come from the rich and the political right.

Indeed, they want to hang on to "their" money and like to try and pull the fast one that somehow it benefits the rest of society !

tugs forelock and retreats into hovel

[David-G]

The network of Jewish interests that permeates US government...

This sounds very much like typical antisemitic propaganda.

[teamsaint]

Isn't it a bit rich (!) for people not to turn a hair when David Beckham etc chooses to play abroad for reasons other than tax and yet if one of, I don't know, the Spice Girls or Take That departs in order to save tax, we are all expected to go into bereavement? Please explain how the international football transfer market is a happy fact of life while Elton John being in the US is terrible.

Why also is it perfectly ok for millions of administration and call centre jobs to be lost to the enslaved parts of India, with associated losses of tax revenue to the United Kingdom, but the loss of Roman Abramovich would send the stock markets into counselling? I don't believe for one moment that anyone who puts forward the "brain drain" argument believes a word of it.

Quite right, Lat.

it's part of the "Top people are brilliant and indispensible" myth. Most day to day experience suggests that this is rubbish.
(obviously not any "top people " who are on this MB !!)

[MrGongGong]

This sounds very much like typical antisemitic propaganda.

I suppose if you believe (like the chief rabbi) that ANY criticism of Judaism or Israel is anti semitic then it probably IS
but there are other ways to think ........(ask St Daniel)

[Mandryka]

Have you got a thing about eyebrows, Mandryka?

Healey was one of the most unprincipled politicians of the post-war era. He was able to contort himself to adopt a variety of political postures because he genuinely believed in nothing, other than the feathering of his own nest.

He was the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer in living memory (yes, EVEN worse than Norman Lamont) and - this I can vouch for - is a deeply unpleasant person on a social level.

[David-G]

I suppose if you believe (like the chief rabbi) that ANY criticism of Judaism or Israel is anti semitic then it probably IS
but there are other ways to think ........(ask St Daniel)

One might be entitled to criticise Judaism over religious matters. The phrase "The network of Jewish interests that permeates US government" has nothing to do with religion. It does sound like antisemitic propaganda, and if Simon had not intended that implication, he should have been more careful with his words.

[MrGongGong]

One might be entitled to criticise Judaism over religious matters. The phrase "The network of Jewish interests that permeates US government" has nothing to do with religion. It does sound like antisemitic propaganda, and if Simon had not intended that implication, he should have been more careful with his words.

Indeed , a better choice of words would avoid the impression

[scottycelt]

Isn't it a bit rich (!) for people not to turn a hair when David Beckham etc chooses to play abroad for reasons other than tax and yet if one of, I don't know, the Spice Girls or Take That departs in order to save tax, we are all expected to go into bereavement? Please explain how the international football transfer market is a happy fact of life while Elton John being in the US is terrible.

Why also is it perfectly ok for millions of administration and call centre jobs to be lost to the enslaved parts of India, with associated losses of tax revenue to the United Kingdom, but the loss of Roman Abramovich would send the stock markets into counselling? I don't believe for one moment that anyone who puts forward the "brain drain" argument believes a word of it.

I'm not talking about 'brains' I'm referring to 'money'! Many call-centre jobs are on appalling minimum-wage rates and their loss, while a devastating blow to those concerned, is hardly a huge blow to the exchequer.

Nobody has as yet answered the question of whether they consider it preferable to collect more money from lower taxes on the rich or less by 'soaking' them.

It is a simple enough question, ( a bit too 'naive' for some maybe) so why not simply answer it?

[amateur51]

Healey was one of the most unprincipled politicians of the post-war era. He was able to contort himself to adopt a variety of political postures because he genuinely believed in nothing, other than the feathering of his own nest.

He was the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer in living memory (yes, EVEN worse than Norman Lamont) and - this I can vouch for - is a deeply unpleasant person on a social level.

And what's more .... He's NORTHERN!

[Anna]

I'm not talking about 'brains' I'm referring to 'money'! Many call-centre jobs are on appalling minimum-wage rates and their loss, while a devastating blow to those concerned, is hardly a huge blow to the exchequer.

Nobody has as yet answered the question of whether they consider it preferable to collect more money from lower taxes on the rich or less by 'soaking' them.

It is a simple enough question, ( a bit too 'naive' for some maybe) so why not simply answer it?

Well obviously the answer is simple, lower taxes for the rich, keep them in this country, and therefore collect more money. It's hardly rocket science.

[MrGongGong]

Nobody has as yet answered the question of whether they consider it preferable to collect more money from lower taxes on the rich or less by 'soaking' them.

It is a simple enough question, ( a bit too 'naive' for some maybe) so why not simply answer it?

It is preferable to tax the richest at higher rates than to penalise the poorer members of society (something about camels and needles in your book ? )

Well obviously the answer is simple, lower taxes for the rich, keep them in this country, and therefore collect more money. It's hardly rocket science.

that's not what happens in the UK though
which is more like

Lower taxes for the rich, keep them in the country, allow them to avoid tax, collect less money

[scottycelt]

Well obviously the answer is simple, lower taxes for the rich, keep them in this country, and therefore collect more money. It's hardly rocket science.

Thank you, Anna! ... just wondered.