.

[Fergie 307]

Jacob,
No chips, rather a small farm upbringing where there were no excuses or free lunches, like working in the bottom of a sheaugh, installing drain pipes, while the Rds Service van sat the other side of a hedge, with the blokes sitting in,"because it was too wet to work" and seeing this "ethos" replicated down through the years across all Government or Council organizations I encountered(the Rivers Agency were the absolute worst btw). In hindsight I should have realized I could not make any changes for the better much sooner than I did. Being matey and able to discuss the football, or being a member of the right lodge, was much more important than being a productive employee(I was a supervisor btw)
There was ALWAYS a gaggle of Council staff "discussing" how to proceed, instead of getting on with work. Like 4 of them, including a mechanic, and the tractor driver failing to dismount a Quickie tractor loader, that I then took off in minutes myself, and safely.
I had never encountered a Quickie loader before, but grasped the basic principles, cos they were simply so blinking obvious. Like fold down legs and hydraulics with extra long hoses
There were multiple other equally frustrating examples of wanton stupidity and non productivity.
Marcus.
P.S.
I can make mistakes and break stuff too, I am not claiming to be all seeing perfect, but the level of undisclipined neglect, misuse and damage in the Council was appalling, to me at least. But they just kept fixing the broken stuff or buying new stuff.

Have a great cartoon somewhere, can't find it now. One guy in the hole actually digging, surrounded by several more with clipboards and their job titles on their tabards, health and safety advisor, risk assessment officer etc etc. Very funny but also probably not a million miles from the truth.

 

[Fergie 307]

It's entirely clear that our political leadership and driving philosophies should come principally from the ill-educated working class. Evidence of intellect or talent is not a requirement, only a fixed belief that inequality, personal wealth, inherited wealth and choice are to be eliminated.

That little or no evidence exists that any society has flourished in the long term under such beliefs misses the point. They are morally justified and thus dogma trumps reality.

I can't imagine what would drive a parent to seek the best education for their children. Funding for class sizes of no more than 15, budgets for participation in sport and the arts, extra coaching for those who have difficulty with some subjects is unacceptable unless universal.

Similarly, health care provided by the best trained professional physicians and nursing staff should be available to all unconstrained by waiting lists and a lack of resources. There would then be no need for private healthcare.

Along similar lines, and in the interests of equity, Caribbean holidays, fillet steak, Bentleys, en-suite bathrooms and other trivia associated with the unfairly moneyed should be made illegal until all can enjoy.

Is this a desirable realistic prospect or an unattractive, unrealistic, unattainable, aspiration.

A purely personal view - irrespective of the moral arguments, of which I am anyway doubtful, it is an unworkable fantasy. It has been proven to work nowhere. It runs counter to behaviours which tend to drive progress (good and bad).

I am firmly on the side of personal responsibility and freedom of choice, providing the basic needs of those less fortunate are provided for. I would happily pay for private education, faster healthcare, nicer holidays for myself and family if I had the wherewithal so to do and defend the right of those who "have" to spend it as they wish.

Indeed, you also seem to inevitably get to the Orwellian situation where some are conspicuously more equal than others, like the fat boy with the silly haircut playing rocket man whilst his subjects mostly live in abject poverty.

 

[Jacob]

I think the problem with Jacob's argument regarding taxation is quite simple. If you tax people at a level they find unacceptable, then they won't willingly pay their dues.

They end up in court and/or pay their dues "unwillingly".

They will either find ways of avoiding it, fixable through better laws and enforcement, or simply leave for somewhere with a level of taxation they find more agreeable.

Goodbye and good riddance.
In fact people don't leave quite so readily as we all know. They've got plenty of cash left and regard taxes as a price worth paying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Jacob]

It's entirely clear that our political leadership and driving philosophies should come principally from the ill-educated working class. Evidence of intellect or talent is not a requirement, only a fixed belief that inequality, personal wealth, inherited wealth and choice are to be eliminated.

That little or no evidence exists that any society has flourished in the long term under such beliefs misses the point. They are morally justified and thus dogma trumps reality.....................etc

This is what is known as a "straw-man" argument. Straw man - Wikipedia Hope that helps.

 

[selectortone]

You see these as signs of success? I see them as signs of having too much money and reduced to spending it on big toys. An eminent case for severe increase of taxation! The money could be far better spent elsewhere.

How mean spirited is that? I have a similar friend who started with nothing and worked really hard his whole life to be in a position where he can afford a few nice toys. I don't begrudge him any of it. He's also the most generous guy you could ever hope to meet.

 

[Jameshow]

Removed

 

[Jacob]

How mean spirited is that? I have a similar friend who started with nothing and worked really hard his whole life to be in a position where he can afford a few nice toys. I don't begrudge him any of it. He's also the most generous guy you could ever hope to meet.

More to the point - they seem to begrudge paying taxes.

 

[Marcusthehat]

Perhaps most of us would less begrudge paying taxes, if they were somewhat/a whole lot more carefully allocated and spent!

 

[selectortone]

More to the point - they seem to begrudge paying taxes.

Now you're just being deliberately obnoxious. How do you know how much tax my mate pays? How do you know what he does to help those less advantaged than he is? (Quite a lot, as it happens.)

The world according to Saint Jacob. A really miserable place.

 

[Jacob]

Now you're just being deliberately obnoxiou., How do you know how much tax my mate pays? How do you know what he does to help those less advantaged than he is? (Quite a lot, as it happens.)

OK. But some of them seem to begrudge paying taxes and you can't run the NHS on charitable contributions.

 

[Fergie 307]

Perhaps most of us would less begrudge paying taxes, if they were somewhat/a whole lot more carefully allocated and spent!

A very good point

 

[Jacob]

A very good point

Perhaps most of us would less begrudge paying taxes, if they were somewhat/a whole lot more carefully allocated and spent!

Would not the same apply to paying for privatised services?
Seems a point hardly worth making.

 

[Fergie 307]

Now you're just being deliberately obnoxiou., How do you know how much tax my mate pays? How do you know what he does to help those less advantaged than he is? (Quite a lot, as it happens.)

The world according to Saint Jacob. A really miserable place.

Indeed, Jacobsville not near the top of my list of holiday destinations, mind you if I had the spare cash to go there maybe it would be ragarded as frivolous by the thought police, and wouldnt be permitted

 

[Jacob]

Indeed, Jacobsville not near the top of my list of holiday destinations, mind you if I had the spare cash to go there maybe it would be ragarded as frivolous by the thought police, and wouldnt be permitted

Where do your thought police fit into the argument? Is this another straw man?

 

[rogxwhit]

Perhaps most of us would less begrudge paying taxes, if they were somewhat/a whole lot more carefully allocated and spent!

And there's a problem that might be inherent in that. When you have a state the size of the UK, it takes an apparatus of many actors to administer it. So a neat efficiency is probably a wild dream.

 

[Marcusthehat]

And there's a problem that might be inherent in that. When you have a state the size of the UK, it takes an apparatus of many actors to administer it. So a neat efficiency is probably a wild dream.

But even very small local govt or Councils(and I believe NI used to have 26 different Councils) were wildly inefficient/spent money very foolishly( and mostly to buy votes), and it only got worse as they got bigger.

 

[rogxwhit]

If you tax people at a level they find unacceptable, then they won't willingly pay their dues. They will either find ways of avoiding it, fixable through better laws and enforcement, or simply leave for somewhere with a level of taxation they find more agreeable.

If you're the government and you tax people more highly than they like, they will probably vote you out at the next round. This may be one of the weaknesses of democracy? But it was interesting to note Adam's figures for Denmark.

Perhaps the hurdle is public acceptance. How might you achieve a condition where the popular vote can accomodate a reduction in personal wealth possession for a greater public good?

There are many cogent points scattered throughout lots of the above posts, but it seems to me that all the issues being considered are being set in the present and the very near future.

Taking a (slightly) longer view, it seems likely that global warming / climate change are going to lead to the wholesale disruption of residence, means of production (and attendant economic models) along with habitat change and forced migrations. I imagine that things are going to get a lot more stressed than they are now. And it seems that we are piddling into the wind whilst standing on a cliff edge.

As all that develops, and it could swing at frightening speed, changes will be forced upon us that we were far too blind to pre-empt.

It's possible that warming will lead to major disruptions of atmospheric and oceanic currents, never mind sea levels. Which will all affect where we can live and how we produce food (which normally needs a degree of pre-planning). Will even nations remain a sensible concept then? It's a contiguous planet, after all.

I was never much of a fan of sci-fi novels, but I've started to think how prescient some of them were. Perhaps a new reality of sink or swim is just around the corner for everyone?

Meanwhile, we plough on as we might.

 

[Fergie 307]

Looking at recent events can't help thinking government is in serious need of a Sergeant Wilson figure, " Do you think that's wise Mr Johnson, Ms Truss? ", certainly wouldn't be short of work

 

[Fergie 307]

If you're the government and you tax people more highly than they like, they will probably vote you out at the next round. This may be one of the weaknesses of democracy? But it was interesting to note Adam's figures for Denmark.

Perhaps the hurdle is public acceptance. How might you achieve a condition where the popular vote can accomodate a reduction in personal wealth possession for a greater public good?

There are many cogent points scattered throughout lots of the above posts, but it seems to me that all the issues being considered are being set in the present and the very near future.

Taking a (slightly) longer view, it seems likely that global warming / climate change are going to lead to the wholesale disruption of residence, means of production (and attendant economic models) along with habitat change and forced migrations. I imagine that things are going to get a lot more stressed than they are now. And it seems that we are piddling into the wind whilst standing on a cliff edge.

As all that develops, and it could swing at frightening speed, changes will be forced upon us that we were far too blind to pre-empt.

It's possible that warming will lead to major disruptions of atmospheric and oceanic currents, never mind sea levels. Which will all affect where we can live and how we produce food (which normally needs a degree of pre-planning). Will even nations remain a sensible concept then? It's a contiguous planet, after all.

I was never much of a fan of sci-fi novels, but I've started to think how prescient some of them were. Perhaps a new reality of sink or swim is just around the corner for everyone?

Meanwhile, we plough on as we might.

I think your initial point is very true. I am reminded of an appearance by Will Self on question time. He told the audience, "You get the politicians you deserve, you moan if they lie to you, but if they tell you the truth you won't vote for them". Pretty accurate I suspect.

 

[johna.clements]

If you're the government and you tax people more highly than they like, they will probably vote you out at the next round. This may be one of the weaknesses of democracy? But it was interesting to note Adam's figures for Denmark.

Perhaps the hurdle is public acceptance. How might you achieve a condition where the popular vote can accomodate a reduction in personal wealth possession for a greater public good?

In countries like Denmark it is likely that people accept that government generally does a good job. There are many posts above by people who think government is nearly always wrong. If a significant proportion of the population is against the government then the talent pool that government can draw on is reduced. If people are using there time to try to dismantle government then the government has to waste its efforts defending itself rather than being productive.

In countries like Denmark with a higher government spend on the "community" most people are richer and have more social mobility than countries like the USA.