UK Wealth Tax Needed; Rich Not Paying Fair Share

[Blind groper]

I don't think you can back up those generalisations with facts.

Pappa

There are numerous anthropological studies which back up what I said, though they would use more scientific terminology.

It applies across the world in 'primitive' tribal societies. Members of the family or tribe are cared for. People outside the tribe are preyed upon. This is the one thing I have discovered (apart from science and technology) that separates societies that are 'primitive' from those that are 'advanced'.

The same situation applies in Africa, and I am sure there are African people on this forum who would back that up. It applies in street gangs in the USA, which are the modern urban version of primitive tribes (Gang members are cared for by other gang members. Non gang members are prey.) It applied in my country before the coming of the European, when tribes would fight each other, and those taken captive were killed, enslaved, and even eaten.

Callousness towards those who are not of your family or tribe is normal in more primitive societies. (A few people in 'civilised' society show that also, which you can see by reading Seth's comments.) However, a caring approach towards outsiders is something found in modern societies, and is characteristic of advancement.

[Pappa]

I don't think you can back up those generalisations with facts.

Pappa

There are numerous anthropological studies which back up what I said, though they would use more scientific terminology.

It applies across the world in 'primitive' tribal societies. Members of the family or tribe are cared for. People outside the tribe are preyed upon. This is the one thing I have discovered (apart from science and technology) that separates societies that are 'primitive' from those that are 'advanced'.

The same situation applies in Africa, and I am sure there are African people on this forum who would back that up. It applies in street gangs in the USA, which are the modern urban version of primitive tribes (Gang members are cared for by other gang members. Non gang members are prey.) It applied in my country before the coming of the European, when tribes would fight each other, and those taken captive were killed, enslaved, and even eaten.

Callousness towards those who are not of your family or tribe is normal in more primitive societies. (A few people in 'civilised' society show that also, which you can see by reading Seth's comments.) However, a caring approach towards outsiders is something found in modern societies, and is characteristic of advancement.

I'm sure there are numerous anthropological studies which back up what you said.... but there are also likely to be numerous anthropological studies which contradict what you said too. The diversity of human societies has been extremely broad, and you can't make simple generalisations about 'primitive' and 'civilised' and form useful conclusions. I could pull out some examples of 'primitive' tribes who act(ed) altruistically towards those outside their tribe. I could also give lots more examples of 'civilised' people who behave non-altruistically, and not just the fringe exceptions either. At the very heart of political conservatism there is an opposition to altruism. Where does that fit in your scheme?

[Svartalf]

One of the marks of a primitive, backward society, like the stone age tribes of Papua New Guinea, is a total lack of concern for anyone except family and tribe. One of the marks of an advanced, civilised and progressive society is that its members are concerned about everyone.

I don't think you can back up those generalisations with facts.

Is that fish part of the tribe or is it lunch?

[Blind groper]

At the very heart of political conservatism there is an opposition to altruism. Where does that fit in your scheme?

No political scheme. I speak purely for myself here.

I regard altruism in the broadest sense - a caring towards all human everywhere - as the mark of the developed person. Callousness of the sort shown by Seth towards those less fortunate is the mark of a primitive, undeveloped person.

A society where caring towards strangers is normal is a society that has developed beyond its primitive roots, and is a society which I would delight to be a part of (Mostly, that describes NZ, and I do delight in being a part of it.).

Pappa, I should also point out that I have considerable personal experience with the more tribal societies. I lived in Fiji for 2 years, and observed first hand the remnants of their tribal past, as well as spending time in several other Pacific Island nations. I have spent a lot of time in Papua New Guinea, and socialised with native peoples there, both well educated, and those who are still living the old life style. I am also a New Zealander, and our native peoples 200 years ago lived the primitive tribal life, with all the social down sides that go with it.

[padraic]

Australia already has progressive income tax system. We also have an across the board indirect 'goods-and services tax of 10% (like the UK's VAT)


I don't want the rich to necessarily pay more income tax. I would prefer a solid inheritance tax ,which would exempt the family domicile to certain value.. I subscribe to the notion that one's heirs" should have enough to do what they want,but not enough to do nothing. "Britain made a splendid start with death duties on the stately piles and hug estates of the aristocracy.

Keynes said that if you want an affluent society, you must have; full employment, (not less than 97%) high wages and high taxation. A miserly minimum wage and tolerance of millions of underpaid illegal immigrants is self defeating.

[MrJonno]

It doesn't take god for people to act in a civilized manner but it absolutely does take a policeman/state with a big stick.

In anything other than extremely small closely related communities it needs authority/force for people to act reasonably

[Tyrannical]

Keynes said that if you want an affluent society, you must have; full employment, (not less than 97%) high wages and high taxation. A miserly minimum wage and tolerance of millions of underpaid illegal immigrants is self defeating.

With full employment and high wages I don't see why you'd even need high taxation

Immigrants, both legal and illegal increase the job pool and lower average wages as well as raise unemployment. Corporations love immigrants, because they work cheaper and save them money. Not so good for everyone else.

Welfare is really a corporate subsidy. It allows companies to pay below living wages because their employee is paid additional benefits by the government through welfare.

[MrJonno]

Welfare is really a corporate subsidy. It allows companies to pay below living wages because their employee is paid additional benefits by the government through welfare.

True so a good reason to raise minimum wages instead of paying benefits to people in work, like that's going to happen through

[Svartalf]

Keynes said that if you want an affluent society, you must have; full employment, (not less than 97%) high wages and high taxation. A miserly minimum wage and tolerance of millions of underpaid illegal immigrants is self defeating.

With full employment and high wages I don't see why you'd even need high taxation

Immigrants, both legal and illegal increase the job pool and lower average wages as well as raise unemployment. Corporations love immigrants, because they work cheaper and save them money. Not so good for everyone else.

Welfare is really a corporate subsidy. It allows companies to pay below living wages because their employee is paid additional benefits by the government through welfare.

Depends on how much money the gummint needs...

[Seth]

I'm happy to pay MY OWN RENT. I'm not going to pay YOUR RENT just because you are a greedy, lazy socialist fuck. Go get a job and create some wealth or wither away and die. It's your choice.

But none of you socialist fucks are going to steal what is mine, what I have labored for, to suit your needs or desire for "fairness" in life. Life is not fair. Get used to it.

Adapt or die.

As I said you are happy to pay what you think is a fair rent but you don't get to decide what a fair rent rent, the people do which you are just one very small part

Not really. Just because they call it "rent" doesn't mean it is. Any exaction from me must have a rational nexus to some government service or amenity that I do, or can make use of. Exactions intended to be a simple redistributive transfer of my wealth to someone else, regardless of their perceived or actual "need" don't qualify as "rent," they are simply a taking perpetrated by the government for the benefit of someone else from which I receive no benefit.

You can say that I owe you a living, but unless I've agreed to provide it to you, it's just an excuse you use to wield the mace of state to steal what is mine for your own benefit. That's just theft. That you might have the power to perpetrate such a theft doesn't make it rational or moral. The will of the collective is not axiomatically moral or correct just because it's what the majority wants.

[Seth]

I shudder when I read your nonsense sometimes Seth. You are so steeped in the American idea of personal wealth and commercialism that you can't seem to see that there is room for other ways of thinking about how the world is managed for us all collectively.

I have no problem with managing things collectively and I'm happy to pay my share of the benefits of government that I consume. I am not, however, willing to be FORCED to labor on behalf of those who choose to be parasites on the system. If I drive on a public road, I expect to pay for that privilege. If I use a public water system, I expect to pay for that use. If I require medical care, I expect to pay for it myself.

What I do not agree to is paying for YOUR use of the highways, water systems or medical care facilities. That's YOUR obligation, not mine. If you choose not to work and pay your own way, then you can starve to death in a ditch or die a painful death from cancer for all I care. I have no obligation to you. I don't know you and have not accepted financial responsibility for your well-being. You may not impose those obligations on me without my consent and you may not enslave me to your interests.

On the other hand, if you are a victim of circumstances BEYOND YOUR CONTROL and you need assistance, upon being politely asked for help, I will render what assistance I can voluntarily, because I'm a rational adult with a well-formed personality, something that the dependent class socialist leeches on society are not.

Where I wonder does the 'beyond your control' bit kick in? When you fall sick, have an accident or slip a disk or are born with a disability? What about when the banks get greedy and spread dry rot in the foundations of your life and bingo - you are suddenly poor people? Or when a corporation moves its business to the Philippines to save on labour costs and your job and your neighbour's disappears and you don't have the education, background or knowledge to do much about it.?

There are lazy rich people and lazy poor people. There are the undeserving rich as well as the undeserving poor. People are creatures of their circumstances and while it is right to identify and get the lazy ones off their backsides, I would rather have a net that catches everyone than one that risks the most vulnerable falling through the gaps.

I'd rather have them ask me politely rather than sending out the jackbooted thugs of government to take what they want. As to where it kicks in, it kicks in where I say it kicks in because it's my money, and you need a persuasive reason to ask me to give it to you.

[Seth]

I don't think you can back up those generalisations with facts.

Pappa

There are numerous anthropological studies which back up what I said, though they would use more scientific terminology.

It applies across the world in 'primitive' tribal societies. Members of the family or tribe are cared for. People outside the tribe are preyed upon. This is the one thing I have discovered (apart from science and technology) that separates societies that are 'primitive' from those that are 'advanced'.

The same situation applies in Africa, and I am sure there are African people on this forum who would back that up. It applies in street gangs in the USA, which are the modern urban version of primitive tribes (Gang members are cared for by other gang members. Non gang members are prey.) It applied in my country before the coming of the European, when tribes would fight each other, and those taken captive were killed, enslaved, and even eaten.

Callousness towards those who are not of your family or tribe is normal in more primitive societies. (A few people in 'civilised' society show that also, which you can see by reading Seth's comments.) However, a caring approach towards outsiders is something found in modern societies, and is characteristic of advancement.

Altruism, charity and rational self-interest are all components of a mature, well-formed adult personality. But that's not what socialists like you are calling for. You believe that charity and altruism must be forcible, and that only government is qualified to determine just how charitable and altruistic citizens are required be. Socialism assumes that people are NOT charitable and presumes that government must both control them and extract their "excess" wealth from them for the good of the collective.

That's not charity or altruism, that's totalitarian despotism.

[Seth]

At the very heart of political conservatism there is an opposition to altruism. Where does that fit in your scheme?

No political scheme. I speak purely for myself here.

I regard altruism in the broadest sense - a caring towards all human everywhere - as the mark of the developed person. Callousness of the sort shown by Seth towards those less fortunate is the mark of a primitive, undeveloped person.

Why should I care about the crack-head who takes my money in the form of a welfare check to buy more crack and doesn't care to get a job and support herself? She's an adult and has the liberty to make her own decisions in life, for better or worse, and she gets to live with the consequences of those decisions without imposing the economic burden of them on others against their will just as I do.

I'm a believer in personal liberty and personal accountability. If you screw up, and you recognize it, and you want to change and make better decisions in life, I'll be more likely to support your efforts to become a productive member of society. But if all you want to do is smoke crack and rob people, I'm making a rational choice not to support that particular lifestyle. If YOU want to help such people, that's a choice you get to make with YOUR money, but not mine.

OTOH, I do care about the children of the crack-head who have done nothing to deserve to suffer the consequences of their mother's poor decision making.

[MrJonno]

Not really. Just because they call it "rent" doesn't mean it is. Any exaction from me must have a rational nexus to some government service or amenity that I do, or can make use of. Exactions intended to be a simple redistributive transfer of my wealth to someone else, regardless of their perceived or actual "need" don't qualify as "rent," they are simply a taking perpetrated by the government for the benefit of someone else from which I receive no benefit.

You can say that I owe you a living, but unless I've agreed to provide it to you, it's just an excuse you use to wield the mace of state to steal what is mine for your own benefit. That's just theft. That you might have the power to perpetrate such a theft doesn't make it rational or moral. The will of the collective is not axiomatically moral or correct just because it's what the majority wants.

The government/society service you get is being permitted to exist in such a society, what you think its free to live in a civilized society?. You think merely being born gives you the right to to run earn money or own property. Nope that costs in taxes and obeying the law

[Blind groper]

Why should I care about the crack-head who takes my money in the form of a welfare check to buy more crack and doesn't care to get a job and support herself?

It is not possible to support a crack habit on welfare. Such people turn to crime to support their habit, if they do not have a high paying job or business. There are management methods for this kind of drug problem, but that is for another thread.

Personally, the only thing I got from my government was a small subsidy towards my education. After leaving university with my bright and shiny new degree, I spent 40 years working hard and paying between 25% and 40% tax. I am now retired but still not drawing on the state for my sustenance, since I am living on my own investments.

My political beliefs are neither socialist idiot or right wing looney. I believe in balance, and there is something to be said for the best from both left wing and right wing ideas. I do not believe in dumping society's failures in some kind of garbage bin, where they simply turn to crime and make things far worse. Some kind of caring is needed, and this needs taxes. I seriously resent, though, the very rich avoiding taxes, and paying a tiny proportion of their income, while laughing at society, where the poorer workers and middle class are paying a much greater percentage to the government.