Reply to: UK rejects German 'olive branch' of exchange tax

[DodgyAgent]

See, you're not a right wing nasty stormtrooper after all.

You're just an old-school Tebbit-style tory 'dry' :-)

[KimberleyChris]

As long as "better capitalism" does'nt undermine competitiveness by imposing too much bureaucracy.

There should be a debate about......

(blah, blah,..but pretty good blah actually)

national service in the form of community service.

The list goes on and on and on

See, you're not a right wing nasty stormtrooper after all.

You're just an old-school Tebbit-style tory 'dry' :-)

[AtW]

As long as "better capitalism" does'nt undermine competitiveness by imposing too much bureaucracy.

I think you've got all the qualities necessary to succeed in a Soviet type bureaucracy and you know it... you just don't like that it won't get you as much money as kapitalizm

[DodgyAgent]

There isn't as big a gulf between us as you like to put-on.

Yes, 'tax and spend' taken to excess did leave the UK exposed and vulnerable when the cold wind blew, but you can't blame the cold wind on Gordon Brown, although I am no big fan of his either and believe that his 'shrewd' reputation is largely mythical (remember the gold?).

UK bankers, as well as those in Ireland and many other places, were almost criminally foolish to fall for so much 'toxic debt', in the headlong chase for a quick buck, and I doubt if many of them vote Labour.

What do you reckon to 'better capitalism'? Good thing? bad thing?

As long as "better capitalism" does'nt undermine competitiveness by imposing too much bureaucracy.

There should be a debate about having a second tier of business that brings the competitive dynamics of capitalism ito the delivery of monopolistic public and private services,- the charitable status enjoyed by private schools. The real problem however is that there is not enough capitalism at the small end of business. It is now impossible to start businesses from scratch that compete with banks, power companies, health, insurance (apart from brokers of course). There is even obsession with size in recruitment.
There should also be a debate (not out of envy) about repatriating power from overpowerful individuals - whether that is done through tax does'nt matter, but it should be done for positive reasons. Give for example the likes of Terry Leahy tax breaks in return for spending say four years running a public service.
What should be of overwhelming importance is that lower earners should enjoy the very best from its public services thus removing the need to earn money.
In areas where there is little tax revenue to be earned, make them tax free enterprise zones for companies and workers living in the area.
Make all kids who leave school do national service in the form of community service.

The list goes on and on and on

[AtW]

I wasn't claiming all your opinions are worthless BTW, or trying to imply that none of mine are.

Just making a general point that emotions and aspirational considerations (what should be instead of what is and will remain) are likely to mislead one and cloud the issues.

Save your breath for the High Court judge!

[OwlHoot]

My opinions are only worth as much as someone prepared to pay for them - I save the best ones for the paying clients and CUK crowd gets the rest

I wasn't claiming all your opinions are worthless BTW, or trying to imply that none of mine are.

Just making a general point that emotions and aspirational considerations (what should be instead of what is and will remain) are likely to mislead one and cloud the issues.

[KimberleyChris]

Whatever the reasons, whether banks were forced to lend by governments or did so of their own accord there is no doubt that the sovereign debt owed by the Uk government was piled on by your lot when they should have been saving.

There isn't as big a gulf between us as you like to put-on.

Yes, 'tax and spend' taken to excess did leave the UK exposed and vulnerable when the cold wind blew, but you can't blame the cold wind on Gordon Brown, although I am no big fan of his either and believe that his 'shrewd' reputation is largely mythical (remember the gold?).

UK bankers, as well as those in Ireland and many other places, were almost criminally foolish to fall for so much 'toxic debt', in the headlong chase for a quick buck, and I doubt if many of them vote Labour.

What do you reckon to 'better capitalism'? Good thing? bad thing?

[AtW]

This completely distorts his opinions on the subject, and makes them worthless.

My opinions are only worth as much as someone prepared to pay for them - I save the best ones for the paying clients and CUK crowd gets the rest

[OwlHoot]

I'll assume that you know a lot more about this than I do.

As should be obvious, Alexie is hopelessly idealistic when it comes to economics.

This completely distorts his opinions on the subject, and makes them worthless.

[DodgyAgent]

Sorry, I must have read the papers wrong.

I thought it all started with American Bankers/mortgagers lending to high-risk borrowers, and then bundling-up debts for sale in packages with fraudulently good credit ratings.

So the credit crunch had nothing to do with banks then???

Silly me.

Whatever the reasons, whether banks were forced to lend by governments or did so of their own accord there is no doubt that the sovereign debt owed by the Uk government was piled on by your lot when they should have been saving.

[KimberleyChris]

I never realised that the Labour party in a small country such as Britain had the power to bring the entire global economic system to its knees :-)

[KimberleyChris]

Sorry, I must have read the papers wrong.

I thought it all started with American Bankers/mortgagers lending to high-risk borrowers, and then bundling-up debts for sale in packages with fraudulently good credit ratings.

So the credit crunch had nothing to do with banks then???

Silly me.

[DodgyAgent]

We spent most of it shoring up the banks! Then we spent even more paying people to be miserable sat at home instead of working, because the same banks wouldn't lend the same money to industry.

The economic problems we have have been once again caused by your lot in the Labour party. The banks have been responsible for financing the huge advances in economic growth from which your friends have gorged and squandered money. Yes the banks need to be reigned in (something your lot didnt want to do) and yes they should have been broken up and as AtW says had their activities challenged. But as usual socialists dont actually care about anyone other than themselves.

The reason we spend so much tax on police, job centres and welfare is because we are patching up the sh*t created by the socialist institutions who run the schools and every other function that the poor depend upon.

The reason that industry is not growing is because we prefer to introduce laws and practices that disincentivise employment

[KimberleyChris]

So why dont they just say so ?. And whilst we are bandying "tax it" on anything we sanctimoniously disapprove of why don't we start worrying about how tax is spent.

We spent most of it shoring up the banks! Then we spent even more paying people to be miserable sat at home instead of working, because the same banks wouldn't lend the same money to industry.

[AtW]

So why dont they just say so ?. And whilst we are bandying "tax it" on anything we sanctimoniously disapprove of why don't we start worrying about how tax is spent.

They've already said many times they don't like City's way of making money, it's not exactly news.

This transaction tax does not need to go to EU budget, but instead it can go into UK coffers (just like stamp duty does) - same as VAT regulations, nothing wrong with having harmonises EU taxes with a bit of leeway left for locals to decide (VAT is 15-25% - pretty big margin allowed).