State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[ahinton]

'Consuming more and more' is what MrGG said. Consumption per se, is not problematic.

Indeed - but, as I said, lifting the world's poorest multi-millions out of their poverty will mean their consuming more and more; the wealthy world will need to make that possible, which will entail moe and more capital growth and its judicious investment in improving the lot - and the consequence consumption - of those poor.

The Soviet Union was very good at increasing economic growth, but failed to create wealth and lift its population's living standards.

Can't argue with that! - however, the Soviet model is hardly likely to be put forward as a possible example as to how to go about these issues today!

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed - but, as I said, lifting the world's poorest multi-millions out of their poverty will mean their consuming more and more; the wealthy world will need to make that possible, which will entail moe and more capital growth and its judicious investment in improving the lot - and the consequence consumption - of those poor.


Can't argue with that! - however, the Soviet model is hardly likely to be put forward as a possible example as to how to go about these issues today!

What I think MrGG really means, is 'consumerism'. I would certainly agree with him, if he felt consumerism to be dysfunctional.

Soviet Union? There are a few in this forum who do indeed advance such a model!! ;-)

[ahinton]

What I think MrGG really means, is 'consumerism'.

Yes, I also expect that he does.

I would certainly agree with him, if he felt consumerism to be dysfunctional.

As would I.

Soviet Union? There are a few in this forum who do indeed advance such a model!! ;-)

Really? I'd not noticed any!...

[french frank]

I know that your post wasn't directed at me, but since you're asking what's "WRONG" with the Balls plan mansion tax (which nevertheless seems somewhat fairer than its LibDem predecessor) - or rather what's not sufficiently fit for purpose about it - is as I wrote earlier and will now summarise:

Thank you for that brief summary. But I wasn't (I think I made it clear) talking about Mr Balls' tax proposals, but the ideology behind it since Beefy said he was suspicious of ideologically-driven policies (I believe you agreed).

To me, ideologies are the fundamental principles which give coherence to policies. I would therefore not be automatically suspicious of ideologically-driven policies, though I might disagree with the underlying ideology.

Most taxes are 'anti-people' to those who pay and don't see the personal benefit, aren't they? And 'pro-people' if they do benefit.

[MrGongGong]

What I think MrGG really means, is 'consumerism'. I would certainly agree with him, if he felt consumerism to be dysfunctional.

Soviet Union? There are a few in this forum who do indeed advance such a model!! ;-)

What I mean is the idea that somehow we all have to consume more and more to supposedly "create wealth"
buy more stuff, sell more stuff and so on and on and on
Consumerism IS dysfunctional BUT it's what all the main (and some of the little ones too) political parties want more of.

Why do people always bring up the Soviet Union ?

There are more than 2 ways to do most things

[ahinton]

Thank you for that brief summary.

You're welcome.

But I wasn't (I think I made it clear) talking about Mr Balls' tax proposals

Yes, you did indeed clarify that - but then nor was I, as I was referring instead to any kind of "mansion tax". There's something of a "mansion tax" already in any case; SDLT's 5% up to £125K, 1% up to £250K, 3% up to £500K, 4% up to £1m, 5% up to £2m and 7% above £2m.

but the ideology behind it since Beefy said he was suspicious of ideologically-driven policies (I believe you agreed).

I didn't say so and I'm not quite sure whether or not or to what extent I might agree with him because I'm not entirely certain what he means by "ideologically driven policies" and in any case I imagine that not everyone would have the same ideas about what constitutes such policies.

To me, ideologies are the fundamental principles which give coherence to policies. I would therefore not be automatically suspicious of ideologically-driven policies, though I might disagree with the underlying ideology.

Most taxes are 'anti-people' to those who pay and don't see the personal benefit, aren't they? And 'pro-people' if they do benefit.

I'm not sure that it's as straighforward as that. The prime point about taxes is that their purpose and desired result be as clear as possible in the tax lawmakers' minds before the relevant laws governing it are passed or changed. As to the pro- and anti-people argument, that's a complex matter as well, as I'd hoped that my VAT example might show by reason of it being levied at the same rate for all taxpayers and being hard to avoid or mitigate.

There's been much argument (and economy with the truth) about supposed tax hypothecation, for example the old chestnut that those taxes quaintly and misleadingly known as "National Insurance Contributions" go to fund the NHS, which quite plainly they do not; the taxes that do fund it make its facilities available to all including the very wealthiest people free at the point of use. Some of the taxes allocted to "defence" - i.e. military - spending would be highly questionable in terms of whom they benefit or are intended to benefit.

Another vital aspect of taxation is that it be transparent, clearly understandable and as simple as as possible, which is self-evidently far from the case in Britain; the sheer numbers of errors on the part of HMRC and taxpayers, the cost of inspection and collection and the loopholes that such overbearing complexity inevitably open up mean that disproportionate amounts of taxpayers' money go towards the support of HMRC itself and the sytem that it is charged to operate; whilst it is obvious that no tax system can function for free, the current British one is both unwieldy and uneconomical, so how do the poorest benefit from that? In fact, if there's one single aspect of the tax régime that's "anti-people" it's the cost of running it, which is bad news for everyone from the poorest to the wealthiest.

[Beef Oven!]

Thank you for that brief summary. But I wasn't (I think I made it clear) talking about Mr Balls' tax proposals, but the ideology behind it since Beefy said he was suspicious of ideologically-driven policies (I believe you agreed).

To me, ideologies are the fundamental principles which give coherence to policies. I would therefore not be automatically suspicious of ideologically-driven policies, though I might disagree with the underlying ideology.

Most taxes are 'anti-people' to those who pay and don't see the personal benefit, aren't they? And 'pro-people' if they do benefit.

Ideologically-driven, meaning where getting the point across and burdening opponents or people who you see as the 'problem' - raising revenue being the excuse, almost. It is this sort of ideologically-driven tax that I'm suspicious of (actually, not suspicious, dead against)

This is a fundamental characteristic of the three anti-people taxes referred to; poll tax, bedroom tax and mansion tax. Baroness Thatcher, IDS and now Clegg, all had their ideological 'agendas'. There are always better ways of raising revenues than this. But 'It's not about, what it's about'.

I disagree that most taxes are 'anti-people'. On the contrary, I would say that taxation is pro-people. There's nothing wrong with income tax, or VAT, whether or not one benefits or not from them. When taxes are wrongly applied, or used as ideological weapons, then the problems begin.

And taxes should be as low as feasibly possible for everyone, IMV.

[ahinton]

Ideologically-driven, meaning where getting the point across and burdening opponents or people who you see as the 'problem' - raising revenue being the excuse, almost. It is this sort of ideologically-driven tax that I'm suspicious of (actually, not suspicious, dead against)

OK, I think that I understand what you mean a littl better now but I remain to be convinced that all taxes can as readily be identified as "ideologically driven" as you seem to suggest; perhaps I'm seeing complication where it may not exist, but I don't think so.

This is a fundamental characteristic of the three anti-people taxes referred to; poll tax, bedroom tax and mansion tax. Baroness Thatcher, IDS and now Clegg, all had their ideological 'agendas'.

Well, yes, they did (and you appear to imply that Clegg no longer has!), but I maintain that harnessing such agendas to specific decisions on the levying of specific taxes is not quite so simple and transparent an issue as it might at first seem.

[french frank]

And taxes should be as low as feasibly possible for everyone, IMV.

The key to that being your view of what is feasible. And that will depend on what principles you hold regarding what needs to be achieved and what doesn't.

[ahinton]

The key to that being your view of what is feasible. And that will depend on what principles you hold regarding what needs to be achieved and what doesn't.

That would obviously be at least as much a matter for differences of opinion as the question of what does or does not constitute an ideologically driven tax policy!

[Beef Oven!]

The key to that being your view of what is feasible. And that will depend on what principles you hold regarding what needs to be achieved and what doesn't.

Not necessarily. There are basic things that need to be provided for a nation to exist, such as recourse to law, protection from foreign invaders etc. You know, all those things that Hobbes, Locke et al wrote about. Everything else can be left to free enterprise. That's where the feasibility bar is set. Beyond that, it's about ideological standpoint. Feasible does not mean desirable.

[Beef Oven!]

OK, I think that I understand what you mean a littl better now but I remain to be convinced that all taxes can as readily be identified as "ideologically driven" as you seem to suggest; perhaps I'm seeing complication where it may not exist, but I don't think so

I haven't suggested that all taxes are ideologically driven. I explained what I meant by the term, and it's just taxes like the mansion tax (Clegg), Poll Tax (Thatcher) and bedroom tax (IDS) are.

[french frank]

Feasible does not mean desirable.

No, it means doable (faisable). The view that "Everything else can be left to free enterprise" is questionable (as in, it gives rise to immediate questions, such as what about the unprofitable 'basic things' that free enterprise has little interest in?). There is no need to actually answer the question as posed, as we are so far apart that providing a reply to that single question wouldn't get us very far. I'll bow out here.

[ahinton]

Not necessarily. There are basic things that need to be provided for a nation to exist, such as recourse to law, protection from foreign invaders etc. You know, all those things that Hobbes, Locke et al wrote about. Everything else can be left to free enterprise. That's where the feasibility bar is set. Beyond that, it's about ideological standpoint. Feasible does not mean desirable.

Nothing at all can be left to free enterprise unlese free enterprise wants rights and jurisdiction over it, which it won't if it cannot be guaranteed to make profits for its shareholders; it is pretty clear that there are quite a few vital things that, on such a basis, free enterprise neither can do or will do. NHS is surely the largest of these and, whilst there is arguably a place for private healthcare, there's no way in which free enterprise would be able or willing to fund a colossal operation such as NHS; the profits that it might somehow contrive to make from the odd bits of it would be so vanishingly small as to be almost unnoticeable. There are plenty of other such examples, NHS merely being the biggest.

You mention "recourse to law" as one of those vital basics; what free enterprise would fund that and manage to make a profit out of it?(!)

[Beef Oven!]

No, it means doable (faisable). The view that "Everything else can be left to free enterprise" is questionable (as in, it gives rise to immediate questions, such as what about the unprofitable 'basic things' that free enterprise has little interest in?). There is no need to actually answer the question as posed, as we are so far apart that providing a reply to that single question wouldn't get us very far. I'll bow out here.

You mean ''yes, it means doable".

Free enterprise does not by definition require a profit motive.

I actually bowed out at post #82.