US Election November 5th

[ey_tony]

This is total nonsense but a popular malicious right wing trope.
You have completely missed the point which is that nobody chooses to be dysfunctional.
I do know "dysfunctional" people but they tend to have diagnoses such as Downs syndrome, autism, adhd, etc. They don't make it up and would desperately like to be "normal"
Even less likely that it's a generational thing.
No half competent normal person would choose "a benefits lifestyle".
It's just the usual right-wing blame game; immigrants, the poor, the unemployed, single mothers, the downright stupid, the ill, all blamed for societal problems.
Another toxic and intentionally divisive falsehood from the populist handbook.

A popular right wing trope?
How is fact somehow a right wing trope?

My OH who is arguably left wing in her views works in the REAL WORLD not the imaginary world with a twisted left wing view of reality that you live in. You're talking absolute and utter nonsense! These people exist.

Your entire post is arguably utter left wing nonsense from start to finish,. I've not blamed anyone for anything, I'm just pointing out facts that it seems you are unable to assimilate with your blinkered view of the world.
Next you'll be telling that it's impossible to have three right angles in a triangle.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Next you'll be telling that it's impossible to have three right angles in a triangle.

Actually Jacob is quite good at geometry.

 

[John Brown]

Actually Jacob is quite good at geometry.

Non-Euclidian?

 

[paulrbarnard]

Non-Euclidian?

Non-theoretical . He has shared some great examples of practical geometry in the past.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

So crammed with tired cliches and half baked ideas! An imaginary world.

The socialist ideal is equally crammed with tired cliches and half baked ideas. It further suffers from the delusion that an ideological goal can be pursued irrespective of basic human behaviours.

There are no developed market economies which do not recognise and accept the need to fund some social policies - mainly defence, law and order, education, healthcare. The only issue may be the level of support, not the basic principle.

As far as I know there are no purely socialist success stories. Russia, North Korea, China even in their socialist prime allowed leadership to enjoy a disproportionate share of the wealth. Largely they still do - although most have given up the illusion of a socialist utopia. It does not exist.

 

[niall Y]

Some people, for whatever reason are unemployable. One could argue that this is a lifestyle choice by them, but it is more likely to be some form of disability or disfunction. Many could , in the past, have held down some form of menial job and have been quite content doing this, but the modern world of work can be very unforgiving.

It is employers who choose, who they want to work for them - and certain people will always be rejected. I had a friend who fitted this profile. He wasn't clever in a conventional sense, but he certainly knew his way round things like bus and train timetables. He suffered from mental health issues and at a later stage became quite morbidly obese. I would be insulting to say, of him, that this was his choice, as some people just don't have that bit in their head that allows them to make the right choices in life.

 

[Jacob]

.....

There are no developed market economies which do not recognise and accept the need to fund some social policies - mainly defence, law and order, education, healthcare. The only issue may be the level of support, not the basic principle.

Exactly. It's called "socialism". There is no alternative. It's an essential feature of the developed world

As far as I know there are no purely socialist success stories.

Most of so called "first world" has been getting on quite well with it so far.
There are of course absolutely no examples anywhere of a successful purely "capitalist" state anywhere. In fact it's unimaginable! I guess the nearest would be those slave states of the past
Not sure what your "pure socialism" would be like - it seems to be a figment of you imagination. You are probably thinking of the various failed communist "command economy" set ups.

Russia, North Korea, China even in their socialist prime allowed leadership to enjoy a disproportionate share of the wealth. Largely they still do - although most have given up the illusion of a socialist utopia. It does not exist.

They are aren't socialist at all. They are dictatorships of one sort or another. Have you really not noticed?

 

[Jacob]

Actually Jacob is quite good at geometry.

er, what's that about then? I'm OK at geometry I think, but can't recall it ever being discussed. Give us a clue!

 

[Scruples]

Are you a "capitalist" in the ideological sense - that unrestrained free-market business is best for everybody in the long run by virtue of the trickle down effect?
What do you think of this chap:

View attachment 185856

I think the 'chap' is an silly person. The idea that he proposes is, thankfully, a non-starter.

 

[Scruples]

Exactly. It's called "socialism". There is no alternative. It's an essential feature of the developed world

Most of so called "first world" has been getting on quite well with it so far.
There are of course absolutely no examples anywhere of a successful purely "capitalist" state anywhere. In fact it's unimaginable! I guess the nearest would be those slave states of the past
Not sure what your "pure socialism" would be like - it seems to be a figment of you imagination. You are probably thinking of the various failed communist "command economy" set ups.

They are aren't socialist at all. They are dictatorships of one sort or another. Have you really not noticed?

No, it's called taxation and the richest pay the most. Without wealth there is stagnation.

 

[Scruples]

Actually Jacob is quite good at geometry.

But he comes at life at the wrong angle. Too acute, perhaps? Or obtuse?

 

[Jacob]

....

There are no developed market economies which do not recognise and accept the need to fund some social policies - mainly defence, law and order, education, healthcare. The only issue may be the level of support, not the basic principle.

.....

Yes you've got it.
And socialism is the basic principle.
As above, some see these social policies as ongoing emergency measures remedying failures of "people" (the usual suspects, immigrants, benefit cheats, lazy n'er do wells etc ), in an otherwise ideal free-market situation.
Hence only the minimum tax and spend - choosing "acceptable" levels of deprivation, in housing for example.
Others see tax and spend as ways of ensuring welfare for all in a failing free-market system which is incapable of supplying the full range of societal needs, not to mention the massive infrastructure required as back up.
Hence the more tax and spend the better. Not only to supply basic needs but also proactively to cultivate opportunities and invest in and liberate "human capital". Also to invest in and support businesses, if necessary taking them into state control.

 

[Jacob]

No, it's called taxation and the richest pay the most. Without wealth there is stagnation.

Without wealth circulation and re-distribution, there is stagnation.
Some wealth here piling up, just waiting to be re-distributed:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...executive-pay-reaches-highest-level-on-record

 

[Cobbs]

No, it's called taxation and the richest pay the most. Without wealth there is stagnation.

I think you'll find that in this country at least, the poor lose a much bigger proportion of their income to tax - maybe not directly in income tax, but once all the other taxes are taken into account, VAT, council tax, TV license, vehicle duty and so on...
Whether or not you agree with that principle is up to you, but personally I find it a little unfair.

 

[Jacob]

I think you'll find that in this country at least, the poor lose a much bigger proportion of their income to tax - maybe not directly in income tax, but once all the other taxes are taken into account, VAT, council tax, TV license, vehicle duty and so on...
Whether or not you agree with that principle is up to you, but personally I find it a little unfair.

Indirect taxes hit the less well off disproportionately. They are in effect "regressive" taxes, as compared to progressive direct taxation on personal income and wealth.

 

[spanner48]

If you try reading up on history and stop swallowing Western propaganda without question you might learn something!

I do try; I have stopped; I do question. You clearly have not.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Indirect taxes hit the less well off disproportionately. They are in effect "regressive" taxes, as compared to progressive direct taxation on personal income and wealth.

Only is you have money left over at the end of the month. If you have 0 left over you have been taxed the same percentage and the.

 

[Chris152]

Only is you have money left over at the end of the month. If you have 0 left over you have been taxed the same percentage and the.

Say what now, Paul?

 

[ey_tony]

I do try; I have stopped; I do question. You clearly have not.

Your earlier 'angry emoji' tells me all I need to know about your character. You're a West apologist!

 

[paulrbarnard]

Say what now, Paul?

I see Jacob was confused as well.

If you earn £100 after direct tax and spend it all you get indirectly taxed on it. Let’s say net 50% as an example. If you earn £1000 and spend it all you get indirectly taxed at the same net 50%. So no, indirect tax does not impact the poor more. It’s the same percentage. The difference comes from what you need to spend it on, food vs Ferraris. What you spend on is to do with disposable income not taxation. It is direct taxation that tries to adjust the balance between have and have not.