Class

[Richard Barrett]

Related to social class, it seems the well off are more than paying their way in society.

They are certainly doing well at increasing the differential between themselves and the poor. This is why they (sometimes) get a bad press. But let's perhaps not divert this conversation onto tax, however attractive an idea that may be for some parties. What about the "false assumptions" behind the idea of equality?

[Beef Oven]

I would like to know more from you about why the idea of equality I expressed is based on false assumptions. Reminder: what I said was "of course you're right when you say that human beings have not been "created" equal. But why should that mean that any (presumably) biological dis/advantages should be translated into social ones?"

I think it's quite simple. Human beings and how they are made, cannot be separated from social interaction. If human beings are not equal, there is no possibility of success in a scheme that attempts to bring about fundamentally different outcomes. We should not play God, rather propogate policies that bring out the best in us and avoid the worse.

[teamsaint]

Beefy, you really should know better than to post partial and misleading statistics.
Stats on % of total tax paid are meaningless isolated from relevant income figures.
Naughty !

[Beef Oven]

They are certainly doing well at increasing the differential between themselves and the poor. This is why they (sometimes) get a bad press. But let's perhaps not divert this conversation onto tax, however attractive an idea that may be for some parties. What about the "false assumptions" behind the idea of equality?

It's not a diversion, it's highly germane (though it will be difficult for some people to accept into discussion).

Now that I have answered your question about 'assumptions', you ought to answer my question.

[ahinton]

They are certainly doing well at increasing the differential between themselves and the poor. This is why they (sometimes) get a bad press.

To what extent would you say that the well off are, purely off their own bats, doing well at increasing this differential and to what extent would you say that they (or at least some of them) are successfully manipulating the government of the day to ensure that policies be created that enable them to do so?

[Beef Oven]

Beefy, you really should know better than to post partial and misleading statistics.
Stats on % of total tax paid are meaningless isolated from relevant income figures.
Naughty !

It's not meaningless ts - it is what it is. Of the 40m people or so that pay income tax, that is the high level breakdown.

You can refine it if you want, but it stands on its own feet as it is.

[teamsaint]

It's not meaningless ts - it is what it is. Of the 40m people or so that pay income tax, that is the high level breakdown.

You can refine it if you want, but it stands on its own feet as it is.

no it doesn't. It needs the context of income figures/distribution.

[Beef Oven]

no it doesn't. It needs the context of income figures/distribution.

No, you're thinking of a different question.

What I am addressing with this simple but unwelcome statistic is that of all the income tax revenues taken in this country, the lion's share of it is paid by those horrible nasty highly paid people who form 15% of the workforce.

The rest of the bill, 12.2% is spread amongst the remaining 85%. Now they aint doing so bad; for example, given that it costs £10k to put a child through state education, a family with 2 children is not a net contributor to income tax until they go past £37k earnings. Nothing wrong with that, but why do people think high earners are rinsing the system?

[Beef Oven]

They are certainly doing well at increasing the differential between themselves and the poor. This is why they (sometimes) get a bad press. But let's perhaps not divert this conversation onto tax, however attractive an idea that may be for some parties. What about the "false assumptions" behind the idea of equality?

I think it's quite simple. Human beings and how they are made, cannot be separated from social interaction. If human beings are not equal, there is no possibility of success in a scheme that attempts to bring about fundamentally different outcomes. We should not play God, rather propogate policies that bring out the best in us and avoid the worse.


Now what about answering my question (and not with a link to an article please).

[Richard Barrett]

I think, Beef Oven, the false assumptions are yours, concerning "human beings and how they are made", which as I pointed out earlier is not something that's set in stone. Also I don't see the logic in your assertion that no attempt to bring about equality can ever succeed, but we clearly aren't going to agree on this.

you ought to answer my question

About why capitalism is doomed to fail, you mean? Because it's predicated on endless economic growth, which is physically impossible on a finite planet, especially when continuing growth produces an increasingly large effect in terms of environmental depletion.

[teamsaint]

Well two things really.
1. plenty of people see the difference between top income tax rate of 40% and the effective marginal rate of around 40% that a graduate teacher on £30 pays (with loan repayment added in) as quite wrong.

2.More importantly, there is I think a confusion in the public mind about things like corporation tax avoidance, coupled with a culture of boardroom greed and associated tax avoidance schemes, and direct taxation on personal incomes.

[Beef Oven]

I think, Beef Oven, the false assumptions are yours, concerning "human beings and how they are made", which as I pointed out earlier is not something that's set in stone. Also I don't see the logic in your assertion that no attempt to bring about equality can ever succeed, but we clearly aren't going to agree on this.



About why capitalism is doomed to fail, you mean? Because it's predicated on endless economic growth, which is physically impossible on a finite planet, especially when continuing growth produces an increasingly large effect in terms of environmental depletion.

We all know how capitalism works with booms and busts. It is highly adaptive, and will recover. You have a point about the environment though.

So I vote for continuing with capitalism all the same. Now you feel I'm wrong in this, so how about offering your idea about what we should replace capitalism with (we must have finished understanding it, how can we change it?).

[ahinton]

About why capitalism is doomed to fail, you mean? Because it's predicated on endless economic growth, which is physically impossible on a finite planet, especially when continuing growth produces an increasingly large effect in terms of environmental depletion.

I'm with you here to the extent that, as long as capitalism remains so predicated, it will ultimately fail - and indeed deserves to do so. My attitude to this seems to lie somewhere between yours and Beef Oven's, I think, to the extent that, if capitalism is to survive, it must take on board that, as you rightly say, endless economic growth is simply an impossibility but, to me, due recognition of that fact ought to serve as a dire warning to capitalists that, if capitalism is to survive, it must abandon this absurdly improbably notion and direct far more consideration to how the future of our planet might be made to work for the benefit of all who inhabit it. I accept that, for this to happen, you believe that capitalism needs to be replaced by an alternative economic system and that, with respect, I disagree with you on that particular point, but such disagreement is surely of little importance compared to that vital need to grasp the nettle and harness capitalism toward that beneficial future rather than to continue to allow it to fester upon mere greed and self-interest as a virtue, as is largely the case with capitalists today.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm with you here to the extent that, as long as capitalism remains so predicated, it will ultimately fail - and indeed deserves to do so. My attitude to this seems to lie somewhere between yours and Beef Oven's, I think, to the extent that, if capitalism is to survive, it must take on board that, as you rightly say, endless economic growth is simply an impossibility but, to me, due recognition of that fact ought to serve as a dire warning to capitalists that, if capitalism is to survive, it must abandon this absurdly improbably notion and direct far more consideration to how the future of our planet might be made to work for the benefit of all who inhabit it. I accept that, for this to happen, you believe that capitalism needs to be replaced by an alternative economic system and that, with respect, I disagree with you on that particular point, but such disagreement is surely of little importance compared to that vital need to grasp the nettle and harness capitalism toward that beneficial future rather than to continue to allow it to fester upon mere greed and self-interest as a virtue, as is largely the case with capitalists today.

I fear this might well be impossible, owing to the capitalist mindset being fixed on short-term gain - (another reason why the rhythm of parliamentary democracy always has to be played to their tune) - simply because it's mutually competing decisionmaking centres of operation have to compete to survive. Which is why capitalism is a systemic problem.

It is this that produces the ruthless type calum vividly describes, whose values percolate down through the media and education system to endlessly reproduce the model of human nature Beef Oven hails as justificatory of the status quo.

If we can't trust our own nature (what nature has endowed us with), how are we enabled to trust our mistrust? seems central to this specifically Western religious-inherited view of human nature.

[Richard Barrett]

how about offering your idea about what we should replace capitalism with

I would have thought that would be clear by now from all I've said about equality and socialism! Of course I'm not so naive as to think that the shift in consciousness necessary is likely or even possible at this particular point in history - although things can change rapidly sometimes, as we saw when the entire Stalinist system of the USSR and its empire crumpled within a few years - but I think the concepts need to be kept alive and responsive and evolving against the time when they might be needed.