Reply to: Why do you vote as you do?

[dang65]

Clever editing.

[DodgyAgent]

Your public school must have been a complete waste of cash seeing as you can't parse or analyse for toffee.

that's just what my English teacher and parents said to me.

[sasguru]

Well the effect of your Utopian view of welfare is that it has been totally exploited by your "commie" frinds in order to secure a vast power base. The problem is that you and your ilk support it idealistically because it symbolises virtue. The reality is that Welfare has become a lifestyle for many in this country. For people like you to ignore this by citing "one off" anecdotal uccess stories is highly misleading.
The debate should be not about whether the absolutes of welfare are right or wrong but about how it should be implemented in oder to help those who need it. Labour have had 13 years of absolute power to reform welfare. They have during this time managed to isolate Frank Field because they know that their power base depends on its existence. Their agenda is to expand the welfare state.

People like you are like nihilistic partisan football supporters who see no wrong in your "party/team" and are obsessed with finding criticism of opponents (footballer supporters simply "hate" other teams). The raising and spending of tax has now been exposed as an abuse of power and your left wing institutions have been similarly exposed as self serving fiefdoms of Labour power. There is no morality whatsoever attached to socialism.. infact given the misery that the state causes in its exercise of its monopolistic functions it is clearly more evil than the more honest effects of pure capitalism.

Good rant but totally unrelated to Dang's post.
Your public school must have been a complete waste of cash seeing as you can't parse or analyse for toffee.

[DodgyAgent]

The funny thing is that my "left wing ideology" is no different from what all governments have consistently supported since the Welfare State was set up. In this country we have a steady mix of "left wing" and "right wing" traditions, neither of them extreme. The Welfare State is one of the moderate "left wing" policies. Moderate to the point where right wingers support it, except extreme right wingers. We also, as a society, support free trade and capitalism, except extreme left wingers.

There are different forms of Welfare State, and they have been studied over many years.

The first main variation (I think the US uses this) is that the rich support the poor through charities and "hand outs" and soup kitchen kind of set ups. We had this before WWII as well. This system sets up a clear division between the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy pay for everything and get nothing in return, except that they can sleep well after brandy and cigars because they raised $10,000 for the poor at their Poor Peoples' Ball that evening. But the wealthy feel this is a burden, and the poor feel that they are dependent and helpless.

The other main variation is the one we use in the UK (and most of Europe). Everyone pays in, as and when they can afford to pay according to pre-defined assessment of income and assets, and everyone benefits - everyone is entitled to free health care, education, Child Benefit and other benefits. This means that everyone feels they have done their bit and are part of the system of National Insurance. The insurance policy, as it were, gives you what you need. If you don't need anything, you don't get anything, but it is there for when you do need it, whether it's paying for your home while you are unemployed or paying for the ambulance which comes to your aid when you crash the Bentley. You don't get a massive bill through the post a couple of weeks later like they do in the States (you can use a payment plan to pay off the thousand dollars they charge for an ambulance ride to the hospital).

So, yeah, these are kind of left wing policies, but they're from the good guy commies which only Americans are still scared of.

Well the effect of your Utopian view of welfare is that it has been totally exploited by your "commie" frinds in order to secure a vast power base. The problem is that you and your ilk support it idealistically because it symbolises virtue. The reality is that Welfare has become a lifestyle for many in this country. For people like you to ignore this by citing "one off" anecdotal uccess stories is highly misleading.
The debate should be not about whether the absolutes of welfare are right or wrong but about how it should be implemented in oder to help those who need it. Labour have had 13 years of absolute power to reform welfare. They have during this time managed to isolate Frank Field because they know that their power base depends on its existence. Their agenda is to expand the welfare state.

People like you are like nihilistic partisan football supporters who see no wrong in your "party/team" and are obsessed with finding criticism of opponents (footballer supporters simply "hate" other teams). The raising and spending of tax has now been exposed as an abuse of power and your left wing institutions have been similarly exposed as self serving fiefdoms of Labour power. There is no morality whatsoever attached to socialism.. infact given the misery that the state causes in its exercise of its monopolistic functions it is clearly more evil than the more honest effects of pure capitalism.

[shaunbhoy]

Really? Did you know this:

If you are a US citizen , and you have more than a certain net worth, if you leave the USA then it is officially presumed that you are doing so in order to escape tax. You are therefore assessed by the IRS as still being liable to US tax as if you had remained in the USA.

If you are a non-US citizen living in the US as a legal resident alien, exactly the same applies.

So you could get a green card, live and work in the US for a while, then leave for good but find that the IRS still claimed the right to tax you. What could they do about it if you had left the country? Why, issue an international arrest warrant for criminal tax evasion. Then your local police would find you and take you off to the airport to be sent back to Uncle Sam.

It's not communism, it's tax.

You really have got hold of the wrong end of more than one stick Tarkers. To blow one hole in your analysis, you need to be a US Citizen, and if you are then trust me........you will never pay anything like the ridiculously prohibitive tax rates you are suggesting. So most US Contractors I have encountered quite happily pay their taxes to Uncle Sam. They get something back for it other than flocks of single mums!
Secondly, to get back to your JK Rowling scenario, again your "exit tax" will not work in the way you think. She could presumably pay the tax on her first book then move abroad to a more tax-friendly haven to carry on her writing leaving HMRC crying into their soup. And what is more, any budding authors/musicians/actors/sportsmen etc. will follow her out the door.

[DodgyAgent]

Really? Did you know this:

If you are a US citizen , and you have more than a certain net worth, if you leave the USA then it is officially presumed that you are doing so in order to escape tax. You are therefore assessed by the IRS as still being liable to US tax as if you had remained in the USA.

If you are a non-US citizen living in the US as a legal resident alien, exactly the same applies.

So you could get a green card, live and work in the US for a while, then leave for good but find that the IRS still claimed the right to tax you. What could they do about it if you had left the country? Why, issue an international arrest warrant for criminal tax evasion. Then your local police would find you and take you off to the airport to be sent back to Uncle Sam.

It's not communism, it's tax.

OK if that is true fine, but then again tax rates in the USA are lower than they are here and I doubt that such legislation would be effective if tax rates rose to the levels that you lefties would like.

[dang65]

The old left wing cliche that takes no consideration of "who pays for it all" and who takes responsibility.
Your whole left wing ideology is morally and practically bankrupt

The funny thing is that my "left wing ideology" is no different from what all governments have consistently supported since the Welfare State was set up. In this country we have a steady mix of "left wing" and "right wing" traditions, neither of them extreme. The Welfare State is one of the moderate "left wing" policies. Moderate to the point where right wingers support it, except extreme right wingers. We also, as a society, support free trade and capitalism, except extreme left wingers.

There are different forms of Welfare State, and they have been studied over many years.

The first main variation (I think the US uses this) is that the rich support the poor through charities and "hand outs" and soup kitchen kind of set ups. We had this before WWII as well. This system sets up a clear division between the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy pay for everything and get nothing in return, except that they can sleep well after brandy and cigars because they raised $10,000 for the poor at their Poor Peoples' Ball that evening. But the wealthy feel this is a burden, and the poor feel that they are dependent and helpless.

The other main variation is the one we use in the UK (and most of Europe). Everyone pays in, as and when they can afford to pay according to pre-defined assessment of income and assets, and everyone benefits - everyone is entitled to free health care, education, Child Benefit and other benefits. This means that everyone feels they have done their bit and are part of the system of National Insurance. The insurance policy, as it were, gives you what you need. If you don't need anything, you don't get anything, but it is there for when you do need it, whether it's paying for your home while you are unemployed or paying for the ambulance which comes to your aid when you crash the Bentley. You don't get a massive bill through the post a couple of weeks later like they do in the States (you can use a payment plan to pay off the thousand dollars they charge for an ambulance ride to the hospital).

So, yeah, these are kind of left wing policies, but they're from the good guy commies which only Americans are still scared of.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

Back to Soviet style communism then

Really? Did you know this:

If you are a US citizen , and you have more than a certain net worth, if you leave the USA then it is officially presumed that you are doing so in order to escape tax. You are therefore assessed by the IRS as still being liable to US tax as if you had remained in the USA.

If you are a non-US citizen living in the US as a legal resident alien, exactly the same applies.

So you could get a green card, live and work in the US for a while, then leave for good but find that the IRS still claimed the right to tax you. What could they do about it if you had left the country? Why, issue an international arrest warrant for criminal tax evasion. Then your local police would find you and take you off to the airport to be sent back to Uncle Sam.

It's not communism, it's tax.

[DodgyAgent]

No need for a wall. You simply keep track of everyone. If they skip the country without paying the exit tax, you do the same as with any other criminal, issue an international arrest warrant.

Back to Soviet style communism then

[DodgyAgent]

Obviously, the response will be, "well, they shouldn't be allowed to have such big families," but that's not the sort of restriction we allow in our society, at the moment.

The old left wing cliche that takes no consideration of "who pays for it all" and who takes responsibility.
Your whole left wing ideology is morally and practically bankcrupt

[expat]

One of the things that is most wrong with the welfare state is that I get the same benefits after paying in for 30 years as someone does who has not paid in at all. This to me is bonkers.

Would you mind explaining that to my insurance company? For some reason they think that the payout should be based on need, not on amount paid in.

[Lockhouse]

One of the things that is most wrong with the welfare state is that I get the same benefits after paying in for 30 years as someone does who has not paid in at all. This to me is bonkers.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

How do you propose to fund the building of a "Berlin Wall" around the UK, and for that matter around all the EU borders. The state should have no revenue rights unless it proves that it can spend its revenue for the benefit of the people as opposed for the benefit of those in power.

The new phrase for Britain "Illegal Emmigrants"

No need for a wall. You simply keep track of everyone. If they skip the country without paying the exit tax, you do the same as with any other criminal, issue an international arrest warrant.

[Weltchy]

Well, I think the point is that there are no statistics. The papers will say, "2 million dole scroungers get free houses" or whatever, but these are just random and meaningless numbers. Like you, I spent a short time on the dole (in the early 80s), but I had no responsibilities then and was able to take a rubbish low-paid job and still be much better off financially. If I had a family and a house and kids at local schools and then ended up on the dole and only know how to, say, machine parts for generators in the local factory which had just shut down, then I imagine things would be a little more complicated.

If you were a single parent with children and on the dole, then I don't disagree that you would struggle to get out of your situation with the way that the system currently works. You have to admit though, this is just plain wrong. Society and the government have allowed the situation to occur and it needs to be fixed.

Surely the purpose of the welfare state is to give people like this the oppotunity to improve and enrich their lives and still provide the ability to contribute to society and not have to rely on state hand-outs. If you've been on the dole for a few month's, you must understand how easy it would be to give in and say "Bugger it, i'll let someone else do the work and i'll live off them".

The statistics, if they existed, might say the situation is as bad as I think it is, or maybe not, however the system itself is wrong. Do we leave it as it is, or should we fix it?

Changing the subject slightly, but still on the question of how we decide to vote, my old man used to have a saying.

"Never put off until tomorrow, something that can be done today"

If we link this into the policy of holding off fixing the economy until next year, then maybe that's a mistake. My thinking behind this is you cannot know with certainty what will happen in the future. If we can do something to fix the economy now, we should!

[dang65]

Back to your comment about statistics. It would be interesting to see what any statistics reveal, to ensure that neither of our views are skewed by our own perception and bias. If I was not working, perhaps I'd spend an hour or two looking for them.

Well, I think the point is that there are no statistics. The papers will say, "2 million dole scroungers get free houses" or whatever, but these are just random and meaningless numbers. Like you, I spent a short time on the dole (in the early 80s), but I had no responsibilities then and was able to take a rubbish low-paid job and still be much better off financially. If I had a family and a house and kids at local schools and then ended up on the dole and only know how to, say, machine parts for generators in the local factory which had just shut down, then I imagine things would be a little more complicated.