Thank you Kelvin

[pjclarke]

Ok, i can see this might take a while.

Oh I doubt it, a discussion between me and with someone who states that 'all tax is theft' is likely to deteriorate into a dialogue of the deaf pretty sharpish. I'm well aware of elementary market theory, indeed you seem to have answered a point that wasn't made, the point I was making is that judging merit and value to society only on the narrow basis of profit, return on investment and so forth is one-dimensional and short-sighted. Not to mention the fact that judging by the figures on top pay and corporate performance, even judged by its own metrics the market is failing.

The needs of society are determined by what they choose to spend their finite resources (let's say money) on.

No, that's the wants of society, and following such a doctrine would lead us to a society in which the rich few and their wants and needs would be met to the detriment of the rest of us (even more so than happens now). You might want to read up on 'externalities'. They're why railways get built and your 'stolen' taxes (£1bn while nationalised, £4bn under privatisation) go into running them.

[KentPhilip]

Oh I doubt it, a discussion between me and with someone who states that 'all tax is theft' is likely to deteriorate into a dialogue of the deaf pretty sharpish.

So you think tax is not theft?

No, that's the wants of society

Almost everything that people pay for are wants, not needs. You could live for nothing in a cardboard box on the streets and you would survive for decades.

[LatteLiberal]

You'd have to wait for the lefties to respond, but it seems pretty obvious that if one part of the country can't afford to run their services, the slack has to be taken up somewhere.

You might as well go further and say Londoners are paying for the South. And Bankers are paying for Londeners, etc. We are a nation with national issues.

Exactly, this obvious glaring defect of reasoning that was no doubt first resolved in Classical Greece and understood by anyone who has glanced at a Political text, hasn't dawned on the feeble minded Kelvin or the OP. If you follow his argument to a logical conclusion he is actually arguing for a place where everyone contributes equal monetary amount of tax by being paid exactly the same.

[Robinho]

Oh I doubt it, a discussion between me and with someone who states that 'all tax is theft' is likely to deteriorate into a dialogue of the deaf pretty sharpish.

Clearly tax is theft on a moral level. If i went round your house and took X amount of your earnings, then you would probably accuse me of theft, and rightly so. For some reason, people are blinded when the government does it.

I'm well aware of elementary market theory, indeed you seem to have answered a point that wasn't made, the point I was making is that judging merit and value to society only on the narrow basis of profit, return on investment and so forth is one-dimensional and short-sighted.

You're repeating yourself now. Do you care to propose a better method for evaluating or can you explain why it is one dimensional?

No, that's the wants of society, and following such a doctrine would lead us to a society in which the rich few and their wants and needs would be met to the detriment of the rest of us

Why are people rich? As already mentioned, people earn a lot of money, because they are remunerated for contributing a lot to society, thus they can fairly demand more from society via their wealth (yes inheritance taints this slightly). The idea that people will become infinitely wealthy to the detriment of others, is of course completely flawed because they only way you can get rich is by contributing a lot to society, via hard work, innovation, bettering the lives of others etc. Additionally, the only way you can enjoy your wealth is by spending it, and relinquishing it to others.

(even more so than happens now). You might want to read up on 'externalities'. They're why railways get built and your 'stolen' taxes (£1bn while nationalised, £4bn under privatisation) go into running them.

Private companies built the railways. As for today, the current rail system is barely any more private than it was under BR. Neither system, public or private should be subsidised. If you want to use the train, bear the costs yourself. Don't expect the taxpayer to fund your journey, stealing from joe public and giving the money to train users isn't going to make the country a more efficient place, it's going to make it less efficient.

[LatteLiberal]

So you think tax is not theft?



Almost everything that people pay for are wants, not needs. You could live for nothing in a cardboard box on the streets and you would survive for decades.

You don't understand the difference between needs and wants, there are different levels of needs required for a human to be content, not just basic survival, have a look at Maslow.

[ZARDOZ]

It seems to me many in the South east and London are obssessed with the rest of the country. While we rarely give them a second thought. Other than wonder that is, how they manage to carry on with living on top of each other in such modest housing while generally thinking they are doing well. How they also manage to ignore each other when living at such close quarters is also baffling. But each to their own.

[Robinho]

ZARDOZ showing he doesn't give a second thought by posting 2 almost identical posts in a row.

[pjclarke]

Private companies built the railways. As for today, the current rail system is barely any more private than it was under BR. Neither system, public or private should be subsidised. If you want to use the train, bear the costs yourself. Don't expect the taxpayer to fund your journey, stealing from joe public and giving the money to train users isn't going to make the country a more efficient place, it's going to make it less efficient.

I used the present tense, Crossrail would not get built without Government help, plus subsidies from businesses who see benefits accruing to them from an efficient transport system that don't appear on the balance sheet of the railways. I am not aware of a developed country that doesn't subsidise their railways, just maybe they understand the concept of externalities rather better than you seem to.

Why are people rich? As already mentioned, people earn a lot of money, because they are remunerated for contributing a lot to society, thus they can fairly demand more from society via their wealth ... they only way you can get rich is by contributing a lot to society, via hard work, innovation, bettering the lives of others

Naive and simplistic; I'm not sure many would recognise the meritocracy you describe. Cast your eyes over the ST Rich List, see how many got there by bettering the lives of others, and how many, such as the Duke of Westminster (Property) got there simply by owning a lot of stuff, manipulating Russian oil stocks, or being born into a prosperous family business. Meanwhile nurses and teachers working hard directly and demonstrably to 'better the lives of others' struggle to pay their gas bills.

[DodgyAgent]

Exactly, this obvious glaring defect of reasoning that was no doubt first resolved in Classical Greece and understood by anyone who has glanced at a Political text, hasn't dawned on the feeble minded Kelvin or the OP. If you follow his argument to a logical conclusion he is actually arguing for a place where everyone contributes equal monetary amount of tax by being paid exactly the same.

And what is wrong with that?

As you all have no answer to Kelvins "bollocks" I will explain.

If you agree with Mackenzie then essentially you believe in a society where it is every man for himself - a world run for the benefit of hard uncompromising businessmen and power hungry bullies. Locations are immaterial whether it is redistributing wealth from Hampstead to Glasgow or Wimbledon to Brixton.
What is disgraceful is the way that wealth is distributed. If every penny of every Michael Spencer were handed over to the state to redistribute we would be left with nothing.
The problem is that we all think (most of us) that paying tax is virtuous as a principle and we ignore the appalling waste and incompetence that goes on in the public services. I cannot think of any socialist run community (it is no coincidence that the poor areas in the country are run by socialists) that prospers. It is because the left have no real interest in anyone but themselves and they see the opportunity to take money from others as an entitlement to increasing their own power. This state of dogma is further compromised by the affluent left who blindly support socialist principles (whilst practising extreme capitalism - leftie contractors are a classic example) who feel pleased with themselves for being "left wing".
The point that Kelvin Mackenzie should be making is that the golden Goose of the South east of England should not be killed and that we need to create a system of redistribution that actually serves the people rather than one that serves the people who dish it out.

[Ignis Fatuus]

...
I cannot think of any socialist run community (it is no coincidence that the poor areas in the country are run by socialists) that prospers. It is because the left have no real interest in anyone but themselves and they see the opportunity to take money from others as an entitlement to increasing their own power.....

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Japan, Canada all seem more "socialist" than the UK, and all quite prosperous-looking to me.

What they all have, and ISTM England does not have any more, is a feeling on the part of the people in general, not just left-wing politicians, that their countries' economic "fairness" is an essential part of what their nation is. Indeed, a feeling that there is such a thing as society.

Of course it is no coincidence that the poorest areas of the country are run by socialists, but that it because the poverty intensifies the desire for fairness, not because socialism causes poverty. That's pretty elementary.