Oh, it is, Mr. Observer, it is. We have had it for more than a thousand years.
Probably ever since we began practising agriculture, and ceased to be hunter-gatherers.
It's really quite striking that every attempt to legislate the wealthy man and woman out of existence has failed.
Who said anything about legislation? Wealth is a good thing and it is something that most people aspire to. But there is a level at which it becomes obscene and causes anger, especially at times when the majority are seeing their spending power stagnate or fall. In the end that leads to commotion of one kind or another. In the UK we have been relatively (though not completely) shielded from this, but you only need to look elsewhere -and sometimes pretty close to home - to see how it usually plays out. And these days, 24 news cycles, internet and hacking amplify everything. It's much harder to hide extreme wealth than it used to be.
It might be an anachronistic view, but I'd like to see a few more Britons being able to afford to buy a detached family home with a garden in pleasant, spacious and cohesive local communities, and a few less oligarchs buying up London and advocating as much immigration as possible to make their own lives easier.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
It was here in the 70's and in France few years ago when we rolled out those red carpets in London.
Yet productivity levels in France are higher than they are here.
And low tax Ireland is haemorrhaging people.
In short, I'd say it is a lot more complicated than how much tax people have to pay. Opportunity and quality of life are also very big - if not much bigger - factors.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
It was here in the 70's and in France few years ago when we rolled out those red carpets in London.
Yet productivity levels in France are higher than they are here.
And low tax Ireland is haemorrhaging people.
In short, I'd say it is a lot more complicated than how much tax people have to pay. Opportunity and quality of life are also very big - if not much bigger - factors.
I thought the "productivity" metric was debunked a while back on here?
Thanks for all the answers to my questions. They are a small but interesting range of replies.
Coming late to this due to work but in my case I was too young to vote in any elections prior to 1983 (and missed that GE by a few months). But for as long as I have been politically active - from around my late 6th form period on - I have been opposed to both UK membership of the EEC/EU and to the existence of the organisation at all.
Looking back to 1973 I can see no time at which I believe our membership was beneficial to the country.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
No, it wasn't a matter of 'some people' disagreeing with him. It was complete nonsense. He'd chucked in all sorts of absurdities, such as capital allowances (which he doesn't seem to understand) and regional aid. He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
I didn't say "some" necessarily meant "few"....
Capital allowances are a relevant consideration in the discussion. Their use in tax-efficient P&M leasing for example is a big avoidance opportunity, it's been cat-and-mouse at least since the quarter-end company changes in the 90s. Not sure about the reference to regional aid; and the relationship between taxation and incentive is a massively complicated area. A lot of more right-wing analysis is premised on the idea that if you tax a behaviour more highly there's always an alternative behaviour which will benefit, but there's lots of evidence to the contrary - the New Jersey state tax hike is one example that's relevant; as is the willingness of lots of rich people to live in NYC despite paying some of the highest direct tax rates in the West.
I thought the research re cost of living and taxation in NYC indicated that the benefits outweigh the costs. I.e. the networking, learning and competition all serve to improve the product/service (of the successful) and hence improve productivity, competitiveness, value-added and so profits.
Thus this does not disprove the disincentive of taxation, but just shows that other factors can overcome it. Or, in other words, price elasticity applies to taxes as much as it does to other goods and services.
It's not a view I share (and I really mean that) but I've been surprised at how frequently I've heard the view so far during this campaign that Germany are out to achieve domination of the EU, and will succeed in a way they have failed to do previously using other means.
And that's from both Remainers and Leavers.
It's certainly true that Germany, whether by accident or design, has come to be more dominant in the EU than used to be the case. Partly it's their sheer size following reunification and their economic clout , but also France - which used to dominate the EU bureaucracy - seems to be in an existential crisis which means they no longer have the confidence to act as the counter-weight they used to be.
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
Remainers may wish to consider that next time they throw insults such as foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver at them.
There is no single type of Leaver. But there is definitely a large strand of foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver in the Leave camp. It's not so much the view as the intensity of the view that marks them out as such.
The hatred that so many Leavers can muster for the EU - as opposed to the militarist authoritarianism of Russia, the carnage in Syria or the desperate hardship faced by hundreds of millions on a daily basis - is quite astonishing. Equally, the energy that so many spend so much time on a cause of decades for something so second order is breathtaking.
It's like devoting your entire life to making an exact 1:10 scale model of Westminster Abbey, correct in every detail, out of Red Leicester.
We have agreed not to engage with each other directly on this issue until after the referendum.
I'm afraid to say that posts like this do nothing to make me reappraise that agreement.
Thanks for all the answers to my questions. They are a small but interesting range of replies.
I was relatively happy post Maastricht. We had the opt out on the Social Charter, our rebate, and access to a large relatively harmonized market. While the Bonn-Paris axis was stronger then than the Berlin-Paris one is now, it was also more balanced, enabling Britain to influence it.
Now with Merkel dominant and every greater powers being assumed by Brussels with no opt outs for the UK, and with British views not aligned with those of France, it is evident we have bugger all influence on real decision-making within the EU. Meanwhile, while still important, the relative importance, and relative future prospects of the EU economy are waning.
Being the spouse who is seen as nothing more than a cheque book, and being despised for complaining about that, is not a good relationship to stay in.
PS PS For me creating the Euro before political union was, even at the time, self-evidently a huge mistake. The adverse effects on the periphery and the net transfers from it to Germany were inevitably going to create social and political tensions. My turning point really came with the incompetent handling of the Greek crisis and the clarity that demonstrated that Berlin has overtaken Brussels as the centre of decision-making.
My father was an ardent Europhile, including the Euro, until he found out the Italians were going to join it. He then said it was a mad idea and had an 80% chance of failure.
He didn't even know the Greeks were joining too until much, much later.
My grandfather, who was a bank manager, just compared it to Bretton Woods but less well-intentioned.
I have to say, although I can think of many good things about the EU and I'm not opposed to it in principle, the Eurozone catastrophe remains a very strong point in favour of leave. If they could make such an awesome shambles of such an important thing out of essentially lazy dogmatism, what else might they get disastrously wrong going forward?
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
Remainers may wish to consider that next time they throw insults such as foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver at them.
There is no single type of Leaver. But there is definitely a large strand of foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver in the Leave camp. It's not so much the view as the intensity of the view that marks them out as such.
The hatred that so many Leavers can muster for the EU - as opposed to the militarist authoritarianism of Russia, the carnage in Syria or the desperate hardship faced by hundreds of millions on a daily basis - is quite astonishing. Equally, the energy that so many spend so much time on a cause of decades for something so second order is breathtaking.
It's like devoting your entire life to making an exact 1:10 scale model of Westminster Abbey, correct in every detail, out of Red Leicester.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
Yes it is, just in a different way, the birthrate has fallen to unsustainable levels (Japan also suffers from this).
I also wouldn't want to take Scandinavia as an example for very much, their society is completely and utterly buggered and they have a massive demographics timebomb.
"Different way" in the sense that they don't work less or go overseas because they pay high taxes :-)
Their demographic time bomb has little to do with tax levels.
Yes it does, the high tax levels mean people can't afford to have children and they are sucking in immigrants hostile to their culture.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
It was here in the 70's and in France few years ago when we rolled out those red carpets in London.
Yet productivity levels in France are higher than they are here.
And low tax Ireland is haemorrhaging people.
In short, I'd say it is a lot more complicated than how much tax people have to pay. Opportunity and quality of life are also very big - if not much bigger - factors.
It's certainly true to say you won't care if the taxes are low if you don't have a job. It's probably also true to say you won't mind paying taxes if you think you are getting so semblance of value from them. The problem in the UK is that lots of people are starting to feel that various "less deserving groups" are getting an unreasonable amount of the tax take spent on them. This is additionally poisoned by the perception that lots of people are arriving and making use of public facilities funded by taxation to which they have made no contribution. This latter is becoming an issue in Scandinavia, if you have high taxes and generous provisions as a result you are likely to take a dim view of other who have not been paying the taxes enjoying the fruits.
Josias - Why I changed from REMAIN to LEAVE I welcomed joining the EEC in the 1970s as a student because of the logic of joining a bigger growing market which is what Economics taught me. In the late 1980s and early 1990s I leaned towards the view of Heseltine/Howe etc that the ERM etc was a good idea to making trade easier and it was a major reason why I was, by 1990, in favour of Thatcher being replaced. It was also a common view of the people at the top of the FTSE100 company I was in and also the mainstream view amongst most of the media. But then I watched the ERM debacle. I then observed the same people that pushed for the ERM start to speak about terrible economic destruction if we did not adopt the Euro and when that failed to happen I started to change my view about the EU project. We are now in a political project with stagnating economies that imposes costs on our businesses which our international competitors do not have.
Oh, it is, Mr. Observer, it is. We have had it for more than a thousand years.
In the end, elites always get taken down. new ones appear and then they get wiped out. It is the circle of life.
True but in England we have been remarkably stable compared to most places and I doubt that will change. There are families that were extremely wealthy at the time of the Conquest and who are still extremely wealthy (much, if not most, of West Sussex is still owned by two of them). There are other families with what one might call extreme wealth (when measured against the common herd) who became wealthy later, in the 17th or 18th century and who have maintained that position - a scion of one of them is posting on here. Revolutions, wars, death duties, even having multiple heads of family executed for treason, have not affected their position.
What has changed? Probably in our lifetime some of those with extreme wealth have become much more open at flaunting it and much less caring about the responsibilities to others and the Nation that go with that wealth. Maybe it is that vulgarity and the loss of the culture of noblesse oblige that are the problem rather than the actual wealth inequality.
Your last sentence is spot on. If you have wealth you also have obligations: to pay your taxes, to contribute to society and, as the Italians say (or my mother, anyway), "non sputare in faccia alla poverta". Not to spit in the face of poverty i.e. just because you can spend your money on vulgar baubles does not mean that you should and that, sometimes, doing so can feel wrong - on some level other than the strict legal one. I would understand it as realising that wealth does not make a man, the measure of a person is not what they acquire, spending just for its own sake is not some sort of virtuous activity and what you can achieve with your money is much more important.
I find it interesting that in the US the wealthy do still see charitable giving as worthwhile, in a way that has - to some extent - been lost here. I found it rather depressing - and telling - that when Osborne tried to clamp down on some of the egregious tax reliefs for charitable giving in the "omnishambles budget" so many rich people complained that if they didn't get the tax relief they wouldn't give to charity. That seemed to me to be completely arse over tip. I wish he had held firm. People should give to charity because they want to not because it benefits them financially, particularly at the levels of wealth the complaining people had.
'There is no single type of Leaver. But there is definitely a large strand of foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver in the Leave camp. It's not so much the view as the intensity of the view that marks them out as such.'
At risk of sounding like a paranoid leaver, if it wasn't for this wonderful website I would have no idea that the Dutch were voting on the EU's proposed deal on Ukraine.
Apart from general dislike of the EU, what is the objection to the Ukraine treaty?
Ukraine seems to be an ally worth cultivating, rather than leaving to the Putinists.
I would be interested in the Leavers attitude to the EU for the 20 years prior to our membership. Did they think that a constructive time?
It has nothing to do with a dislike of the EU and everything to do with enflaming the situation in Ukraine and making it even worse than it is now. EU involvement in the Ukraine has not been a record of success.
Yes - the EU's behaviour in Ukraine demonstrates clearly how dangerous the EU's ambitions in foreign and security policy are. Interestingly, one of my very left wing school friends plans to vote 'LEAVE' entirely on this basis ie that he doesn't want the UK to be part of an imperialist EU.
Mr. Meeks, been reading How To Win Friends And Influence People again?
The usually chippy tosh I am afraid Mr Dancer, he is rapidly moving up my "scroll past to save your blood pressure" list, happily I have my own version of the "widget" nearly working
Oh, it is, Mr. Observer, it is. We have had it for more than a thousand years.
Probably ever since we began practising agriculture, and ceased to be hunter-gatherers.
It's really quite striking that every attempt to legislate the wealthy man and woman out of existence has failed.
Who said anything about legislation? Wealth is a good thing and it is something that most people aspire to. But there is a level at which it becomes obscene and causes anger, especially at times when the majority are seeing their spending power stagnate or fall. In the end that leads to commotion of one kind or another. In the UK we have been relatively (though not completely) shielded from this, but you only need to look elsewhere -and sometimes pretty close to home - to see how it usually plays out. And these days, 24 news cycles, internet and hacking amplify everything. It's much harder to hide extreme wealth than it used to be.
I think the anger is generated by the assumption that they haven't paid their fair share into the national kitty.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
It was here in the 70's and in France few years ago when we rolled out those red carpets in London.
Yet productivity levels in France are higher than they are here.
And low tax Ireland is haemorrhaging people.
In short, I'd say it is a lot more complicated than how much tax people have to pay. Opportunity and quality of life are also very big - if not much bigger - factors.
Unemployment in France is also twice as high as it is here.
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
Remainers may wish to consider that next time they throw insults such as foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver at them.
There is no single type of Leaver. But there is definitely a large strand of foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver in the Leave camp. It's not so much the view as the intensity of the view that marks them out as such.
The hatred that so many Leavers can muster for the EU - as opposed to the militarist authoritarianism of Russia, the carnage in Syria or the desperate hardship faced by hundreds of millions on a daily basis - is quite astonishing. Equally, the energy that so many spend so much time on a cause of decades for something so second order is breathtaking.
It's like devoting your entire life to making an exact 1:10 scale model of Westminster Abbey, correct in every detail, out of Red Leicester.
A very stupid thing to do Alistair.
Wasting your life making a model out of Red Leicester? Everyone knows the best cheese for sculpting in is Double Gloucester.
Your last sentence is spot on. If you have wealth you also have obligations: to pay your taxes, to contribute to society and, as the Italians say (or my mother, anyway), "non sputare in faccia alla poverta". Not to spit in the face of poverty i.e. just because you can spend your money on vulgar baubles does not mean that you should and that, sometimes, doing so can feel wrong - on some level other than the strict legal one. I would understand it as realising that wealth does not make a man, the measure of a person is not what they acquire, spending just for its own sake is not some sort of virtuous activity and what you can achieve with your money is much more important.
I find it interesting that in the US the wealthy do still see charitable giving as worthwhile, in a way that has - to some extent - been lost here. I found it rather depressing - and telling - that when Osborne tried to clamp down on some of the egregious tax reliefs for charitable giving in the "omnishambles budget" so many rich people complained that if they didn't get the tax relief they wouldn't give to charity. That seemed to me to be completely arse over tip. I wish he had held firm. People should give to charity because they want to not because it benefits them financially, particularly at the levels of wealth the complaining people had.
Don't mean to be funny, but a lot of charitable giving in the US is tax reduction based as well. Although, I do take your general point. IMO, in the US it is socially acceptable to make tonnes of money and brag about how successful you are, but equally socially unacceptable to have made it in life then not give back to your school, uni, etc etc etc. Here although it goes on, I don't think there is quite that same attitude or to same extent.
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
Remainers may wish to consider that next time they throw insults such as foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver at them.
There is no single type of Leaver. But there is definitely a large strand of foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver in the Leave camp. It's not so much the view as the intensity of the view that marks them out as such.
The hatred that so many Leavers can muster for the EU - as opposed to the militarist authoritarianism of Russia, the carnage in Syria or the desperate hardship faced by hundreds of millions on a daily basis - is quite astonishing. Equally, the energy that so many spend so much time on a cause of decades for something so second order is breathtaking.
It's like devoting your entire life to making an exact 1:10 scale model of Westminster Abbey, correct in every detail, out of Red Leicester.
We have agreed not to engage with each other directly on this issue until after the referendum.
I'm afraid to say that posts like this do nothing to make me reappraise that agreement.
It's not a view I share (and I really mean that) but I've been surprised at how frequently I've heard the view so far during this campaign that Germany are out to achieve domination of the EU, and will succeed in a way they have failed to do previously using other means.
And that's from both Remainers and Leavers.
It's certainly true that Germany, whether by accident or design, has come to be more dominant in the EU than used to be the case. Partly it's their sheer size following reunification and their economic clout , but also France - which used to dominate the EU bureaucracy - seems to be in an existential crisis which means they no longer have the confidence to act as the counter-weight they used to be.
France is an interesting one.
I've been reading various histories (for pleasure) for quite a long time and it seems to have been in crisis since at least the fall of Napoleon.
How many revolutions and revolts has it had? How many republics? Just how agrarian and backward was it in WW1? Just in how much trouble was their national morale in during 1940 (by far their most serious failing? And how many total economic crises have they faced since WW2?
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
Remainers may wish to consider that next time they throw insults such as foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver at them.
There is no single type of Leaver. But there is definitely a large strand of foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver in the Leave camp. It's not so much the view as the intensity of the view that marks them out as such.
The hatred that so many Leavers can muster for the EU - as opposed to the militarist authoritarianism of Russia, the carnage in Syria or the desperate hardship faced by hundreds of millions on a daily basis - is quite astonishing. Equally, the energy that so many spend so much time on a cause of decades for something so second order is breathtaking.
It's like devoting your entire life to making an exact 1:10 scale model of Westminster Abbey, correct in every detail, out of Red Leicester.
I think that should be the outline of your next thread.
Oh, it is, Mr. Observer, it is. We have had it for more than a thousand years.
Probably ever since we began practising agriculture, and ceased to be hunter-gatherers.
It's really quite striking that every attempt to legislate the wealthy man and woman out of existence has failed.
Who said anything about legislation? Wealth is a good thing and it is something that most people aspire to. But there is a level at which it becomes obscene and causes anger, especially at times when the majority are seeing their spending power stagnate or fall. In the end that leads to commotion of one kind or another. In the UK we have been relatively (though not completely) shielded from this, but you only need to look elsewhere -and sometimes pretty close to home - to see how it usually plays out. And these days, 24 news cycles, internet and hacking amplify everything. It's much harder to hide extreme wealth than it used to be.
It might be an anachronistic view, but I'd like to see a few more Britons being able to afford to buy a detached family home with a garden in pleasant, spacious and cohesive local communities, and a few less oligarchs buying up London and advocating as much immigration as possible to make their own lives easier.
The only acceptable way to amass a lot of money in the UK is to win the lottery. Any other route is assumed to have been unlawful or unethical.
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
Yes it is, just in a different way, the birthrate has fallen to unsustainable levels (Japan also suffers from this).
I also wouldn't want to take Scandinavia as an example for very much, their society is completely and utterly buggered and they have a massive demographics timebomb.
"Different way" in the sense that they don't work less or go overseas because they pay high taxes :-)
Their demographic time bomb has little to do with tax levels.
Yes it does, the high tax levels mean people can't afford to have children and they are sucking in immigrants hostile to their culture.
But birth rates in Scandinavia are not significantly lower than elsewhere and may actually be higher. Birth rates across the developed world - in low and high tax countries - have gone down. In southern Europe, where tax is usually optional, they have collapsed.
It's not a view I share (and I really mean that) but I've been surprised at how frequently I've heard the view so far during this campaign that Germany are out to achieve domination of the EU, and will succeed in a way they have failed to do previously using other means.
And that's from both Remainers and Leavers.
It's certainly true that Germany, whether by accident or design, has come to be more dominant in the EU than used to be the case. Partly it's their sheer size following reunification and their economic clout , but also France - which used to dominate the EU bureaucracy - seems to be in an existential crisis which means they no longer have the confidence to act as the counter-weight they used to be.
It is an issue I think the EU will need to face up to eventually as well, regardless of our decision. German domination with its satellite states in Eastern Europe vs French obstinancy with its satellite states in Southern Europe is going to define the next 10-15 years of the EU. It leaves countries like the UK with no natural allies either as the German agenda is nothing short of Deutsche Uber Alles, one trip to Eastern Europe shows how dominant German companies are compared to other European companies.
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
It's positively balanced compared to the ongoing hatchet job The Economist has been trying to do on Trump for the past few months. It odd that a British magazine is so obsessed about who the next US president is going to be.
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
Remainers may wish to consider that next time they throw insults such as foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver at them.
There is no single type of Leaver. But there is definitely a large strand of foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver in the Leave camp. It's not so much the view as the intensity of the view that marks them out as such.
The hatred that so many Leavers can muster for the EU - as opposed to the militarist authoritarianism of Russia, the carnage in Syria or the desperate hardship faced by hundreds of millions on a daily basis - is quite astonishing. Equally, the energy that so many spend so much time on a cause of decades for something so second order is breathtaking.
It's like devoting your entire life to making an exact 1:10 scale model of Westminster Abbey, correct in every detail, out of Red Leicester.
We have agreed not to engage with each other directly on this issue until after the referendum.
I'm afraid to say that posts like this do nothing to make me reappraise that agreement.
Meeks really is a complete tosser.
The thing is, he isn't, but he's lost all measure of reason, rationality and self-awareness on this to the point where he becomes pompous and rude. Probably because he feels the issue may affect him deeply personally, I don't know.
I can't constructively work with that on an issue I also feel passionately about and so, to avoid losing all respect for each other, I am leaving alone.
Different experience with Richard Nabavi and David Herdson, so am happy to continue to engage with them.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
It was here in the 70's and in France few years ago when we rolled out those red carpets in London.
Yet productivity levels in France are higher than they are here.
And low tax Ireland is haemorrhaging people.
In short, I'd say it is a lot more complicated than how much tax people have to pay. Opportunity and quality of life are also very big - if not much bigger - factors.
Unemployment in France is also twice as high as it is here.
Yep, but high taxes are clearly not making those who pay them work less.
Oh, it is, Mr. Observer, it is. We have had it for more than a thousand years.
Probably ever since we began practising agriculture, and ceased to be hunter-gatherers.
It's really quite striking that every attempt to legislate the wealthy man and woman out of existence has failed.
Who said anything about legislation? Wealth is a good thing and it is something that most people aspire to. But there is a level at which it becomes obscene and causes anger, especially at times when the majority are seeing their spending power stagnate or fall. In the end that leads to commotion of one kind or another. In the UK we have been relatively (though not completely) shielded from this, but you only need to look elsewhere -and sometimes pretty close to home - to see how it usually plays out. And these days, 24 news cycles, internet and hacking amplify everything. It's much harder to hide extreme wealth than it used to be.
Oh, I agree. It's just striking to me, just how much large levels of inequality have persisted across every type of society, for Millenia. I suppose the human urge to favour family and friends over strangers, and to ensure that one's children succeed, however lazy and worthless those children may be, will always outweigh any attempt by government to level the playing field.
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
It's positively balanced compared to the ongoing hatchet job The Economist has been trying to do on Trump for the past few months. It odd that a British magazine is so obsessed about who the next US president is going to be.
If Ted Cruz becomes president (Yes I know that is a mahoosive "if"), all their christmases will have come at once - right ?
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
I don't think it does, but the real point here is one of quality rather than balance. They should be informing us, not lecturing us.
It's not a view I share (and I really mean that) but I've been surprised at how frequently I've heard the view so far during this campaign that Germany are out to achieve domination of the EU, and will succeed in a way they have failed to do previously using other means.
And that's from both Remainers and Leavers.
It's certainly true that Germany, whether by accident or design, has come to be more dominant in the EU than used to be the case. Partly it's their sheer size following reunification and their economic clout , but also France - which used to dominate the EU bureaucracy - seems to be in an existential crisis which means they no longer have the confidence to act as the counter-weight they used to be.
France is an interesting one.
I've been reading various histories (for pleasure) for quite a long time and it seems to have been in crisis since at least the fall of Napoleon.
How many revolutions and revolts has it had? How many republics? Just how agrarian and backward was it in WW1? Just in how much trouble was their national morale in during 1940 (by far their most serious failing? And how many total economic crises have they faced since WW2?
They manage to muddle through. Somehow.
God knows why.
Napoleon came to power because it was in crisis in the first place! His 15+0.3 year reign was notable for a series of military successes and domestic catastrophes.
France has struggled ever since the death of Louis XIV. There are a number of reasons for that, including poor leadership, geography, a grossly inefficient farming setup leading to regular famines, an oversupply of cheap labour hindering mechanisation and modernisation, and what remained until 1914 Europe's most ineffectual and undeveloped banking sector.
However the key reason is that between 1789 and Thiers' storming of the Paris Commune in 1871 the French people got it into their heads that a revolution would solve all their problems when things went wrong, which for the reasons listed above they frequently did. When it didn't they would then look for strong leadership (the Duc d'Orleans, the Bonapartes, Charles de Gaulle) to yank their irons out of the fire. Such an attitude is not exactly a recipe for stability.
I am thinking it might not be all that wise for politicians to go both barrels quite like this. I think like MP expenses, like paedos, we will find that every party has members, MPs, Lords, and donors that fit the general characterization.
I think if I was Labour, I would go on the "what should be done" angle, and let the media give Cameron a hard time.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
No, it wasn't a matter of 'some people' disagreeing with him. It was complete nonsense. He'd chucked in all sorts of absurdities, such as capital allowances (which he doesn't seem to understand) and regional aid. He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
I didn't say "some" necessarily meant "few"....
Capital allowances are a relevant consideration in the discussion. Their use in tax-efficient P&M leasing for example is a big avoidance opportunity, it's been cat-and-mouse at least since the quarter-end company changes in the 90s. Not sure about the reference to regional aid; and the relationship between taxation and incentive is a massively complicated area. A lot of more right-wing analysis is premised on the idea that if you tax a behaviour more highly there's always an alternative behaviour which will benefit, but there's lots of evidence to the contrary - the New Jersey state tax hike is one example that's relevant; as is the willingness of lots of rich people to live in NYC despite paying some of the highest direct tax rates in the West.
I thought the research re cost of living and taxation in NYC indicated that the benefits outweigh the costs. I.e. the networking, learning and competition all serve to improve the product/service (of the successful) and hence improve productivity, competitiveness, value-added and so profits.
Thus this does not disprove the disincentive of taxation, but just shows that other factors can overcome it. Or, in other words, price elasticity applies to taxes as much as it does to other goods and services.
I think that's a fair comment. Taxation definitely can have a disincentive/incentive effect and I wouldn't see anything in Murphy's work (which kicked off this discussion) that disagrees with that. The disagreement is around the level and the interaction with other factors. His most vocal opponents such as TPA tend to have views about as extreme as his/those of TJN, i.e. the former pretty much argue for taxation as an a priori independent disincentive whereas the latter certainly seek to minimise the view of it as disincentive. Obviously being a leftwing extremist is more prejudicial to being considered "expert" than being a rightwing extremist....
It's not a view I share (and I really mean that) but I've been surprised at how frequently I've heard the view so far during this campaign that Germany are out to achieve domination of the EU, and will succeed in a way they have failed to do previously using other means.
And that's from both Remainers and Leavers.
It's certainly true that Germany, whether by accident or design, has come to be more dominant in the EU than used to be the case. Partly it's their sheer size following reunification and their economic clout , but also France - which used to dominate the EU bureaucracy - seems to be in an existential crisis which means they no longer have the confidence to act as the counter-weight they used to be.
France is an interesting one.
I've been reading various histories (for pleasure) for quite a long time and it seems to have been in crisis since at least the fall of Napoleon.
How many revolutions and revolts has it had? How many republics? Just how agrarian and backward was it in WW1? Just in how much trouble was their national morale in during 1940 (by far their most serious failing? And how many total economic crises have they faced since WW2?
They manage to muddle through. Somehow.
God knows why.
I do wonder if it is the case that revolutions - particularly those that are perceived as relatively successful - beget more revolutions by making them seem acceptable. Britain has not had a successful revolution since 1688 and managed to negotiate the troublesome mid 19th century without succumbing to them whilst the rest of Europe suffered. France on the other hand seems to have had a never ending stream of the things since 1789. I am not making any comment on whether this is a good or a bad thing, simply noting that a country with a regular history of revolution is probably going to be more inclined to them than one which has managed to ease the pressure without civil fracture.
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
I don't think it does, but the real point here is one of quality rather than balance. They should be informing us, not lecturing us.
I haven' really noted the BBC's position. It isn't exactly prime time in the US so not so relevant.
Of the US networks I note
Fox is blatantly anti-Trump CNN is quite pro-Clinton.
I was a passionate Pro EUer, though not a federalist, nor a supporter of the single currency, simply because I believed we could and should influence the EU, especially the former communist states, into being free market, liberal and Atlanticist states.
My views changed last year because of Greece, Greece should never have been allowed to join, when it came clear to me that the EU was and will be shaping into the political wing of the Eurozone countries, and we have no business being in the single European currency.
As an aside, I do agree with the Eurozone countries, to have an economic and monetary union without a political union is madness.
The thing is, he isn't, but he's lost all measure of reason, rationality and self-awareness on this to the point where he becomes pompous and rude. Probably because he feels the issue may affect him deeply personally, I don't know.
Most people would think being urbane, balanced and persuasive would be a better strategy if want to convert people to your view, being abrasive and sneering just gets you the scroll-past treatment.
It's not a view I share (and I really mean that) but I've been surprised at how frequently I've heard the view so far during this campaign that Germany are out to achieve domination of the EU, and will succeed in a way they have failed to do previously using other means.
And that's from both Remainers and Leavers.
It's certainly true that Germany, whether by accident or design, has come to be more dominant in the EU than used to be the case. Partly it's their sheer size following reunification and their economic clout , but also France - which used to dominate the EU bureaucracy - seems to be in an existential crisis which means they no longer have the confidence to act as the counter-weight they used to be.
France is an interesting one.
I've been reading various histories (for pleasure) for quite a long time and it seems to have been in crisis since at least the fall of Napoleon.
How many revolutions and revolts has it had? How many republics? Just how agrarian and backward was it in WW1? Just in how much trouble was their national morale in during 1940 (by far their most serious failing? And how many total economic crises have they faced since WW2?
They manage to muddle through. Somehow.
God knows why.
I do wonder if it is the case that revolutions - particularly those that are perceived as relatively successful - beget more revolutions by making them seem acceptable. Britain has not had a successful revolution since 1688 and managed to negotiate the troublesome mid 19th century without succumbing to them whilst the rest of Europe suffered. France on the other hand seems to have had a never ending stream of the things since 1789. I am not making any comment on whether this is a good or a bad thing, simply noting that a country with a regular history of revolution is probably going to be more inclined to them than one which has managed to ease the pressure without civil fracture.
Correct to an extent, although see above for the other reason revolutions in France became a self-fulfilling entity.
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
Remainers may wish to consider that next time they throw insults such as foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver at them.
There is no single type of Leaver. But there is definitely a large strand of foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver in the Leave camp. It's not so much the view as the intensity of the view that marks them out as such.
The hatred that so many Leavers can muster for the EU - as opposed to the militarist authoritarianism of Russia, the carnage in Syria or the desperate hardship faced by hundreds of millions on a daily basis - is quite astonishing. Equally, the energy that so many spend so much time on a cause of decades for something so second order is breathtaking.
It's like devoting your entire life to making an exact 1:10 scale model of Westminster Abbey, correct in every detail, out of Red Leicester.
A very stupid thing to do Alistair.
Wasting your life making a model out of Red Leicester? Everyone knows the best cheese for sculpting in is Double Gloucester.
Yes, but if we leave Double Gloucester will be 81% more expensive / if we stay Double Gloucester will be renamed Gloucester-Deux-Temps and only able to be sold in grammes*
Your last sentence is spot on. If you have wealth you also have obligations: to pay your taxes, to contribute to society and, as the Italians say (or my mother, anyway), "non sputare in faccia alla poverta". Not to spit in the face of poverty i.e. just because you can spend your money on vulgar baubles does not mean that you should and that, sometimes, doing so can feel wrong - on some level other than the strict legal one. I would understand it as realising that wealth does not make a man, the measure of a person is not what they acquire, spending just for its own sake is not some sort of virtuous activity and what you can achieve with your money is much more important.
I find it interesting that in the US the wealthy do still see charitable giving as worthwhile, in a way that has - to some extent - been lost here. I found it rather depressing - and telling - that when Osborne tried to clamp down on some of the egregious tax reliefs for charitable giving in the "omnishambles budget" so many rich people complained that if they didn't get the tax relief they wouldn't give to charity. That seemed to me to be completely arse over tip. I wish he had held firm. People should give to charity because they want to not because it benefits them financially, particularly at the levels of wealth the complaining people had.
Don't mean to be funny, but a lot of charitable giving in the US is tax reduction based as well. Although, I do take your general point. IMO, in the US it is socially acceptable to make tonnes of money and brag about how successful you are, but equally socially unacceptable to have made it in life then not give back to your school, uni, etc etc etc. Here although it goes on, I don't think there is quite that same attitude or to same extent.
I'm generally in favour of tax relief for charitable giving. I just felt that the wailing we heard from very rich people at what seemed to me to be reasonable proposals to limit the total amount of tax relief someone could claim in one tax year was unseemly. And even more unseemly were the threats not to give to charity at all if the proposals went ahead. How charitable are you really if you're only going to do it to get a personal benefit? It was all very Pharasaical. Osborne should have held firm on that one, IMO.
Thanks for the post on your meeting. The results you report are similar to the views and split that I meet from that well known representative sample, The Hurstpierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association. Though we probably have a smaller proportion of undecideds.
Assuming our samples are in anyway representative, the interesting thing seems to me that the general consensus on here that the ABs will be strongly for remain may well be wrong.
I have an EUREF anecdote too.
Last Monday, I went to a London debating club that was debating the motion that "this House would wish to remain in the European Union". There were 29 of us, with a spread of ages and political persuasions but not random as we were all opinionated (a bit like here). Most people spoke. I guess we were all urban London as well.
There was a passionate and interesting debate with speakers from both sides. The show of hands at the end surprised everyone. 22 in favour of remain, 4 in favour of leave and 3 abstentions.
My contribution was as follows:
In practice, there is very little difference between remaining and the probable model for leaving (the Norway model). We are already semi-detached outside Schengen with passport and border control, outside the Euro, outside ever closer union, with many opt-outs. The Norway model requires a largish contribution to the EU, free movement of EU nationals but with similar border controls to us, and is really quite similar to our current semi-detached status.
But there is one big difference. If we vote remain, we will carry on as before and our political energies can go into improving health, education, housing, defence, the economy etc. But if we vote leave, all the political energy will go into agreeing the model, negotiating the various treaties over many years, dealing with the fallout on Scotland and Northern Ireland etc to the neglect of the more important issues we should be dealing with. So vote remain and avoid the unnecessary chaos and distraction of a Brexit that is in practice very similar to the status quo.
There were many vigorous nodding of heads in agreement with this point.
Oh, it is, Mr. Observer, it is. We have had it for more than a thousand years.
In the end, elites always get taken down. new ones appear and then they get wiped out. It is the circle of life.
Your last sentence is spot on. If you have wealth you also have obligations: to pay your taxes, to contribute to society and, as the Italians say (or my mother, anyway), "non sputare in faccia alla poverta". Not to spit in the face of poverty i.e. just because you can spend your money on vulgar baubles does not mean that you should and that, sometimes, doing so can feel wrong - on some level other than the strict legal one. I would understand it as realising that wealth does not make a man, the measure of a person is not what they acquire, spending just for its own sake is not some sort of virtuous activity and what you can achieve with your money is much more important.
I find it interesting that in the US the wealthy do still see charitable giving as worthwhile, in a way that has - to some extent - been lost here. I found it rather depressing - and telling - that when Osborne tried to clamp down on some of the egregious tax reliefs for charitable giving in the "omnishambles budget" so many rich people complained that if they didn't get the tax relief they wouldn't give to charity. That seemed to me to be completely arse over tip. I wish he had held firm. People should give to charity because they want to not because it benefits them financially, particularly at the levels of wealth the complaining people had.
Refraining from flaunting one's wealth is probably a relatively recent idea (I would guess, growing from Quakers, Methodists, and other non-conformists who prospered during the Industrial Revolution). In the past, the rich loved to be attended by retinues of hangers-on, and wear the most lavish clothes and jewels, and host extravagant banquets and tournaments.
Eu membership has led to significant improvements to health and safety at work,notably the 1992 SixPack which included the Manual Lifting and Handling Regualtions which have saved many a workers' back,the Visual Display Regulations improving eye health and free eye tests,and the Personal Protective Equipment Regualtions,which meant they couldn't send someone to clear a real shithouse without some gloves and overalls. I intend to vote Remain.
But who leads the EU in these areas? is it not the UK (Perrow, Reason, Flinn et al) and Denmark (Rasmussen, Hollnagel)? Would we not have improved these regulations in or out of the EU in the timeframe that you have mentioned?
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
The BBC’s headline story this morning was ‘Cruz wins Wisconsin in blow to Trump’* – you will never see a headline reading ‘Sanders wins Wisconsin in blow to Clinton. – Tells you all you need to know of where Aunty stands on US politics.
(* why this makes headline news on the BBC is also quite baffling.)
I am thinking it might not be all that wise for politicians to go both barrels quite like this. I think like MP expenses, like paedos, we will find that every party has members, MPs, Lords, and donors that fit the general characterization.
I think if I was Labour, I would go on the "what should be done" angle, and let the media give Cameron a hard time.
That's a truly awful article, and shows all that is rotten at Labour's heart.
Mr. Meeks, been reading How To Win Friends And Influence People again?
The usually chippy tosh I am afraid Mr Dancer, he is rapidly moving up my "scroll past to save your blood pressure" list, happily I have my own version of the "widget" nearly working
Mr. Indigo, will you be making your version of the widget available to other users? I hope so. You might even think of making modest charge for it. I think the saving on my blood pressure might be worth a few quid, even a few quid a month.
I forgot one point about France - the revolution of 1940 when the government disintegrated and Petain took power in a coup, dissolving the third republic in the process. Strong man again, even though an 80-year-old drunk is not perhaps somebody I would have looked to for strong leadership.
Admittedly there were other factors involved, but that was also true in 1870 when the Second Empire was overthrown and Thiers took power. The difference was that Thiers, unlike Petain, kept fighting until he was defeated (even though he must have been aware his chances of winning were poor) rather than tamely surrendering at the first opportunity.
Earlier I reported on the BBC’s Norman Smith saying George Osborne terminated an interview when asked about offshore funds. (See 10.47am.) The word “terminated” was mine; I think Smith just said Osborne walked off camera.
I’ve been told this account isn’t right. A source who was there says that Osborne intended to just answer two questions, that he ended up answering six, that the ones about offshore funds came last and that the interview came to a natural end.
Always good to see the press can be relied on to be honest and get the facts right....So Osborne terminates interview and storms off story is actually Osborne answers lots more questions than he said he would, then leaves.
In the past, the rich loved to be attended by retinues of hangers-on, and wear the most lavish clothes and jewels, and host extravagant banquets and tournaments.
Hooooooo Boy is that back in fashion! It seems these days one can apparently become famous for no other reason than displaying vulgarity itself.
Sky isn't any better - they just had yet another meaningless segment Trump bashing, talking up Cruz and possibly Kasich ?! Their *expert* managed to talk up Bernie, and never once mentioned Hillary's FBI baggage - all the footage of her was fawning. He then went on to note that not all of New York state was the same - no shit Sherlock.
Honestly, I really expect better than Janet and John stuff from a news channel.
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
The BBC’s headline story this morning was ‘Cruz wins Wisconsin in blow to Trump’* – you will never see a headline reading ‘Sanders wins Wisconsin in blow to Clinton. – Tells you all you need to know of where Aunty stands on US politics.
(* why this makes headline news on the BBC is also quite baffling.)
Inn other words, the BBC is covering the US election in the way just about everyone else is. The big story in the US and abroad has been Trump and the Republican race. Despite Sanders successes, right now Hillary looks to be coasting to the Democrat nomination.
Oh, it is, Mr. Observer, it is. We have had it for more than a thousand years.
In the end, elites always get taken down. new ones appear and then they get wiped out. It is the circle of life.
Your last sentence is spot on. If you have wealth you also have obligations: to pay your taxes, to contribute to society and, as the Italians say (or my mother, anyway), "non sputare in faccia alla poverta". Not to spit in the face of poverty i.e. just because you can spend your money on vulgar baubles does not mean that you should and that, sometimes, doing so can feel wrong - on some level other than the strict legal one. I would understand it as realising that wealth does not make a man, the measure of a person is not what they acquire, spending just for its own sake is not some sort of virtuous activity and what you can achieve with your money is much more important.
I find it interesting that in the US the wealthy do still see charitable giving as worthwhile, in a way that has - to some extent - been lost here. I found it rather depressing - and telling - that when Osborne tried to clamp down on some of the egregious tax reliefs for charitable giving in the "omnishambles budget" so many rich people complained that if they didn't get the tax relief they wouldn't give to charity. That seemed to me to be completely arse over tip. I wish he had held firm. People should give to charity because they want to not because it benefits them financially, particularly at the levels of wealth the complaining people had.
Refraining from flaunting one's wealth is probably a relatively recent idea (I would guess, growing from Quakers, Methodists, and other non-conformists who prospered during the Industrial Revolution).
It may be also related to a greater tendency for the great unwashed to take matters into their own hands should the spirit move them.
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
I can't remember which outrageous Donald Trump statement it was, but Jon Sopel ended his report by saying something like "this really should hurt his prospects but nothing else has hurt him, so why should this?"
It certainly seems like the BBC journalists are not too worried about how they come across when talking about US politics.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
Yes it is, just in a different way, the birthrate has fallen to unsustainable levels (Japan also suffers from this).
I also wouldn't want to take Scandinavia as an example for very much, their society is completely and utterly buggered and they have a massive demographics timebomb.
"Different way" in the sense that they don't work less or go overseas because they pay high taxes :-)
Their demographic time bomb has little to do with tax levels.
Yes it does, the high tax levels mean people can't afford to have children and they are sucking in immigrants hostile to their culture.
But birth rates in Scandinavia are not significantly lower than elsewhere and may actually be higher. Birth rates across the developed world - in low and high tax countries - have gone down. In southern Europe, where tax is usually optional, they have collapsed.
I just went looking for net migration rate into Norway and they are quite an eye opener in recent years.
Since 2000 the net migration rate has run at between 1.7 and 2.1 per 1000 of population. In 2014 it jumped from 1.7/1000 to 7.9/1000. That is a four fold increase in net migration in one year.
Oh, it is, Mr. Observer, it is. We have had it for more than a thousand years.
In the end, elites always get taken down. new ones appear and then they get wiped out. It is the circle of life.
Your last sentence is spot on. If you have wealth you also have obligations: to pay your taxes, to contribute to society and, as the Italians say (or my mother, anyway), "non sputare in faccia alla poverta". Not to spit in the face of poverty i.e. just because you can spend your money on vulgar baubles does not mean that you should and that, sometimes, doing so can feel wrong - on some level other than the strict legal one. I would understand it as realising that wealth does not make a man, the measure of a person is not what they acquire, spending just for its own sake is not some sort of virtuous activity and what you can achieve with your money is much more important.
I find it interesting that in the US the wealthy do still see charitable giving as worthwhile, in a way that has - to some extent - been lost here. I found it rather depressing - and telling - that when Osborne tried to clamp down on some of the egregious tax reliefs for charitable giving in the "omnishambles budget" so many rich people complained that if they didn't get the tax relief they wouldn't give to charity. That seemed to me to be completely arse over tip. I wish he had held firm. People should give to charity because they want to not because it benefits them financially, particularly at the levels of wealth the complaining people had.
Refraining from flaunting one's wealth is probably a relatively recent idea (I would guess, growing from Quakers, Methodists, and other non-conformists who prospered during the Industrial Revolution). In the past, the rich loved to be attended by retinues of hangers-on, and wear the most lavish clothes and jewels, and host extravagant banquets and tournaments.
In medieval times, a newly crowned King, and/or Queen, were expected to rise through London throwing cold coins to people to show how rich they were.
One reason why Richard III struggled to be accepted is that he couldn't afford to do this.
One reason his brother was popular is that he did it three times - once on being crowned, once on getting married (or at least, admitting it and getting her crowned) and once on being restored in 1471.
Your last sentence is spot on. If you have wealth you also have obligations: to pay your taxes, to contribute to society and, as the Italians say (or my mother, anyway), "non sputare in faccia alla poverta". Not to spit in the face of poverty i.e. just because you can spend your money on vulgar baubles does not mean that you should and that, sometimes, doing so can feel wrong - on some level other than the strict legal one. I would understand it as realising that wealth does not make a man, the measure of a person is not what they acquire, spending just for its own sake is not some sort of virtuous activity and what you can achieve with your money is much more important.
I find it interesting that in the US the wealthy do still see charitable giving as worthwhile, in a way that has - to some extent - been lost here. I found it rather depressing - and telling - that when Osborne tried to clamp down on some of the egregious tax reliefs for charitable giving in the "omnishambles budget" so many rich people complained that if they didn't get the tax relief they wouldn't give to charity. That seemed to me to be completely arse over tip. I wish he had held firm. People should give to charity because they want to not because it benefits them financially, particularly at the levels of wealth the complaining people had.
Don't mean to be funny, but a lot of charitable giving in the US is tax reduction based as well. Although, I do take your general point. IMO, in the US it is socially acceptable to make tonnes of money and brag about how successful you are, but equally socially unacceptable to have made it in life then not give back to your school, uni, etc etc etc. Here although it goes on, I don't think there is quite that same attitude or to same extent.
I'm generally in favour of tax relief for charitable giving. I just felt that the wailing we heard from very rich people at what seemed to me to be reasonable proposals to limit the total amount of tax relief someone could claim in one tax year was unseemly. And even more unseemly were the threats not to give to charity at all if the proposals went ahead. How charitable are you really if you're only going to do it to get a personal benefit? It was all very Pharasaical. Osborne should have held firm on that one, IMO.
I am not religious but enjoy looking around churches and cathedrals.
I was exploring a parish church at the weekend where I read a leaflet from the CoE recommending that 5% of post tax income should be given to charity, but also options of 2.5% and 10%.
Sounds reasonable to me. But I don't give anything like that.
I am thinking it might not be all that wise for politicians to go both barrels quite like this. I think like MP expenses, like paedos, we will find that every party has members, MPs, Lords, and donors that fit the general characterization.
I think if I was Labour, I would go on the "what should be done" angle, and let the media give Cameron a hard time.
That's a truly awful article, and shows all that is rotten at Labour's heart.
Spiteful, sneering, jealous, bigoted, it doesn't show Jess Phillips in a good light.
I was a passionate Pro EUer, though not a federalist, nor a supporter of the single currency, simply because I believed we could and should influence the EU, especially the former communist states, into being free market, liberal and Atlanticist states.
My views changed last year because of Greece, Greece should never have been allowed to join, when it came clear to me that the EU was and will be shaping into the political wing of the Eurozone countries, and we have no business being in the single European currency.
As an aside, I do agree with the Eurozone countries, to have an economic and monetary union without a political union is madness.
Oh, it is, Mr. Observer, it is. We have had it for more than a thousand years.
In the end, elites always get taken down. new ones appear and then they get wiped out. It is the circle of life.
Your last sentence is spot on. If you have wealth you also have obligations: to pay your taxes, to contribute to society and, as the Italians say (or my mother, anyway), "non sputare in faccia alla poverta". Not to spit in the face of poverty i.e. just because you can spend your money on vulgar baubles does not mean that you should and that, sometimes, doing so can feel wrong - on some level other than the strict legal one. I would understand it as realising that wealth does not make a man, the measure of a person is not what they acquire, spending just for its own sake is not some sort of virtuous activity and what you can achieve with your money is much more important.
I find it interesting that in the US the wealthy do still see charitable giving as worthwhile, in a way that has - to some extent - been lost here. I found it rather depressing - and telling - that when Osborne tried to clamp down on some of the egregious tax reliefs for charitable giving in the "omnishambles budget" so many rich people complained that if they didn't get the tax relief they wouldn't give to charity. That seemed to me to be completely arse over tip. I wish he had held firm. People should give to charity because they want to not because it benefits them financially, particularly at the levels of wealth the complaining people had.
Refraining from flaunting one's wealth is probably a relatively recent idea (I would guess, growing from Quakers, Methodists, and other non-conformists who prospered during the Industrial Revolution). In the past, the rich loved to be attended by retinues of hangers-on, and wear the most lavish clothes and jewels, and host extravagant banquets and tournaments.
The rich of the past paid no tax. Gladstone's budget was the modern equivalent of 3bn sterling.
Always good to see the press can be relied on to be honest and get the facts right....So Osborne terminates interview and storms off story is actually Osborne answers lots more questions than he said he would, then leaves.
To be fair it appears that as soon as Sparrow realised the account he had been given was wrong he posted a correction in the same live feed. That strikes me as responsible journalism.
Your last sentence is spot on. If you have wealth you also have obligations: to pay your taxes, to contribute to society and, as the Italians say (or my mother, anyway), "non sputare in faccia alla poverta". Not to spit in the face of poverty i.e. just because you can spend your money on vulgar baubles does not mean that you should and that, sometimes, doing so can feel wrong - on some level other than the strict legal one. I would understand it as realising that wealth does not make a man, the measure of a person is not what they acquire, spending just for its own sake is not some sort of virtuous activity and what you can achieve with your money is much more important.
I find it interesting that in the US the wealthy do still see charitable giving as worthwhile, in a way that has - to some extent - been lost here. I found it rather depressing - and telling - that when Osborne tried to clamp down on some of the egregious tax reliefs for charitable giving in the "omnishambles budget" so many rich people complained that if they didn't get the tax relief they wouldn't give to charity. That seemed to me to be completely arse over tip. I wish he had held firm. People should give to charity because they want to not because it benefits them financially, particularly at the levels of wealth the complaining people had.
Don't mean to be funny, but a lot of charitable giving in the US is tax reduction based as well. Although, I do take your general point. IMO, in the US it is socially acceptable to make tonnes of money and brag about how successful you are, but equally socially unacceptable to have made it in life then not give back to your school, uni, etc etc etc. Here although it goes on, I don't think there is quite that same attitude or to same extent.
I'm generally in favour of tax relief for charitable giving. I just felt that the wailing we heard from very rich people at what seemed to me to be reasonable proposals to limit the total amount of tax relief someone could claim in one tax year was unseemly. And even more unseemly were the threats not to give to charity at all if the proposals went ahead. How charitable are you really if you're only going to do it to get a personal benefit? It was all very Pharasaical
I am not religious but enjoy looking around churches and cathedrals.
I was exploring a parish church at the weekend where I read a leaflet from the CoE recommending that 5% of post tax income should be given to charity, but also options of 2.5% and 10%.
Sounds reasonable to me. But I don't give anything like that.
Does anyone?
Although a quick back of the envelope shows I do exceed (just) the 0.7% target that the Government follow ;-)
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
It was here in the 70's and in France few years ago when we rolled out those red carpets in London.
Yet productivity levels in France are higher than they are here.
And low tax Ireland is haemorrhaging people.
In short, I'd say it is a lot more complicated than how much tax people have to pay. Opportunity and quality of life are also very big - if not much bigger - factors.
Unemployment in France is also twice as high as it is here.
Yep, but high taxes are clearly not making those who pay them work less.
A lot of high earners came to London, so they definitely did have an element of people leaving to avoid the high taxes imposed by Hollande. I don't know about working less, but productivity in France is a directly related to their awful unemployment rate. They are two different issues though, high taxes and productivity.
Of course if we cut tax to just a few pennies in the pound, money would flood onshore. Rich people don;t like being half outside the law, any more than anybody else.
Thanks for the post on your meeting. The results you report are similar to the views and split that I meet from that well known representative sample, The Hurstpierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association. Though we probably have a smaller proportion of undecideds.
Assuming our samples are in anyway representative, the interesting thing seems to me that the general consensus on here that the ABs will be strongly for remain may well be wrong.
I have an EUREF anecdote too.
Last Monday, I went to a London debating club that was debating the motion that "this House would wish to remain in the European Union". There were 29 of us, with a spread of ages and political persuasions but not random as we were all opinionated (a bit like here). Most people spoke. I guess we were all urban London as well.
There was a passionate and interesting debate with speakers from both sides. The show of hands at the end surprised everyone. 22 in favour of remain, 4 in favour of leave and 3 abstentions.
My contribution was as follows:
In practice, there is very little difference between remaining and the probable model for leaving (the Norway model). We are already semi-detached outside Schengen with passport and border control, outside the Euro, outside ever closer union, with many opt-outs. The Norway model requires a largish contribution to the EU, free movement of EU nationals but with similar border controls to us, and is really quite similar to our current semi-detached status.
But there is one big difference. If we vote remain, we will carry on as before and our political energies can go into improving health, education, housing, defence, the economy etc. But if we vote leave, all the political energy will go into agreeing the model, negotiating the various treaties over many years, dealing with the fallout on Scotland and Northern Ireland etc to the neglect of the more important issues we should be dealing with. So vote remain and avoid the unnecessary chaos and distraction of a Brexit that is in practice very similar to the status quo.
There were many vigorous nodding of heads in agreement with this point.
So your contribution was misleading and factually inaccurate and people agreed with you.
I was a passionate Pro EUer, though not a federalist, nor a supporter of the single currency, simply because I believed we could and should influence the EU, especially the former communist states, into being free market, liberal and Atlanticist states.
My views changed last year because of Greece, Greece should never have been allowed to join, when it came clear to me that the EU was and will be shaping into the political wing of the Eurozone countries, and we have no business being in the single European currency.
As an aside, I do agree with the Eurozone countries, to have an economic and monetary union without a political union is madness.
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
The BBC’s headline story this morning was ‘Cruz wins Wisconsin in blow to Trump’* – you will never see a headline reading ‘Sanders wins Wisconsin in blow to Clinton. – Tells you all you need to know of where Aunty stands on US politics.
(* why this makes headline news on the BBC is also quite baffling.)
Inn other words, the BBC is covering the US election in the way just about everyone else is. The big story in the US and abroad has been Trump and the Republican race. Despite Sanders successes, right now Hillary looks to be coasting to the Democrat nomination.
Actually all the media have lost their shit over Trump. When you actually break down some of the stuff that has made the headlines, he often isn't actually proposing that much different from other candidates or what already exists e.g. border walls (already partially exists and Cruz wants it to) and bringing manufacturing jobs back to US (one of Sanders key platforms). He just describes it in language which is designed to inflame and the media buy it every time.
But the policy stuff is lost in the noise of the outrage in the language he uses.
----
I should add most of the stuff he is proposing is impossible, but so is what Sanders is too and nobody worries too much about that.
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
The BBC’s headline story this morning was ‘Cruz wins Wisconsin in blow to Trump’* – you will never see a headline reading ‘Sanders wins Wisconsin in blow to Clinton. – Tells you all you need to know of where Aunty stands on US politics.
(* why this makes headline news on the BBC is also quite baffling.)
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
Yes it is, just in a different way, the birthrate has fallen to unsustainable levels (Japan also suffers from this).
I also wouldn't want to take Scandinavia as an example for very much, their society is completely and utterly buggered and they have a massive demographics timebomb.
"Different way" in the sense that they don't work less or go overseas because they pay high taxes :-)
Their demographic time bomb has little to do with tax levels.
Yes it does, the high tax levels mean people can't afford to have children and they are sucking in immigrants hostile to their culture.
But birth rates in Scandinavia are not significantly lower than elsewhere and may actually be higher. Birth rates across the developed world - in low and high tax countries - have gone down. In southern Europe, where tax is usually optional, they have collapsed.
I just went looking for net migration rate into Norway and they are quite an eye opener in recent years.
Since 2000 the net migration rate has run at between 1.7 and 2.1 per 1000 of population. In 2014 it jumped from 1.7/1000 to 7.9/1000. That is a four fold increase in net migration in one year.
Absolutely, but it is not happening to make up for a rapidly declining birth rate. Norway's birth rate is comparatively high from what I can tell.
I am thinking it might not be all that wise for politicians to go both barrels quite like this. I think like MP expenses, like paedos, we will find that every party has members, MPs, Lords, and donors that fit the general characterization.
I think if I was Labour, I would go on the "what should be done" angle, and let the media give Cameron a hard time.
That's a truly awful article, and shows all that is rotten at Labour's heart.
Spiteful, sneering, jealous, bigoted, it doesn't show Jess Phillips in a good light.
The sins of the father aren't his fault but, if it gives us a useful stick to beat him with, we'll take it anyway.
I am thinking it might not be all that wise for politicians to go both barrels quite like this. I think like MP expenses, like paedos, we will find that every party has members, MPs, Lords, and donors that fit the general characterization.
I think if I was Labour, I would go on the "what should be done" angle, and let the media give Cameron a hard time.
That's a truly awful article, and shows all that is rotten at Labour's heart.
Spiteful, sneering, jealous, bigoted, it doesn't show Jess Phillips in a good light.
She claims Cameron's trying to make something of the fact he pays taxes, when all he is doing is answering questions that Labour are asking.
"Do you beat your wife, Mr Cameron!" "No." "Oh look at you! Mr Goody two-shoes who doesn't beat his wife." "Well, I don't." "Now, how about your dad? Or the rest of your family? How about your tennis partner's whist-playing grannie's best friend's dog-sitter? Eh?"
I was a passionate Pro EUer, though not a federalist, nor a supporter of the single currency, simply because I believed we could and should influence the EU, especially the former communist states, into being free market, liberal and Atlanticist states.
My views changed last year because of Greece, Greece should never have been allowed to join, when it came clear to me that the EU was and will be shaping into the political wing of the Eurozone countries, and we have no business being in the single European currency.
As an aside, I do agree with the Eurozone countries, to have an economic and monetary union without a political union is madness.
I thought you were a Remainer these days TSE?
Head says Remain, Heart says Leave.
I work close to the Financial Services Industry, and I was fully expecting them to back Leave, but because of the uncertainty of what we might get/lose by leaving, they are urging Remain.
Also gnawing at the back of my mind is the wing of the Tory party I despair at the most, seem to be full of ardent Leavers.
Your last sentence is spot on. If you have wealth you also have obligations: to pay your taxes, to contribute to society and, as the Italians say (or my mother, anyway), "non sputare in faccia alla poverta". Not to spit in the face of poverty i.e. just because you can spend your money on vulgar baubles does not mean that you should and that, sometimes, doing so can feel wrong - on some level other than the strict legal one. I would understand it as realising that wealth does not make a man, the measure of a person is not what they acquire, spending just for its own sake is not some sort of virtuous activity and what you can achieve with your money is much more important.
I find it interesting that in the US the wealthy do still see charitable giving as worthwhile, in a way that has - to some extent - been lost here. I found it rather depressing - and telling - that when Osborne tried to clamp down on some of the egregious tax reliefs for charitable giving in the "omnishambles budget" so many rich people complained that if they didn't get the tax relief they wouldn't give to charity. That seemed to me to be completely arse over tip. I wish he had held firm. People should give to charity because they want to not because it benefits them financially, particularly at the levels of wealth the complaining people had.
Don't mean to be funny, but a lot of charitable giving in the US is tax reduction based as well. Although, I do take your general point. IMO, in the US it is socially acceptable to make tonnes of money and brag about how successful you are, but equally socially unacceptable to have made it in life then not give back to your school, uni, etc etc etc. Here although it goes on, I don't think there is quite that same attitude or to same extent.
I'm generally in favour of tax relief for charitable giving. I just felt that the wailing we heard from very rich people at what seemed to me to be reasonable proposals to limit the total amount of tax relief someone could claim in one tax year was unseemly. And even more unseemly were the threats not to give to charity at all if the proposals went ahead. How charitable are you really if you're only going to do it to get a personal benefit? It was all very Pharasaical. Osborne should have held firm on that one, IMO.
I am not religious but enjoy looking around churches and cathedrals.
I was exploring a parish church at the weekend where I read a leaflet from the CoE recommending that 5% of post tax income should be given to charity, but also options of 2.5% and 10%.
Sounds reasonable to me. But I don't give anything like that.
Does anyone?
Since Eton et al are charities, do school fees count?
I am not religious but enjoy looking around churches and cathedrals.
I was exploring a parish church at the weekend where I read a leaflet from the CoE recommending that 5% of post tax income should be given to charity, but also options of 2.5% and 10%.
Sounds reasonable to me. But I don't give anything like that.
Does anyone?
Can't answer for others, but I give more than 5% and am looking to increase it to 10%.
But then that's easy for me to say/do because I have a large income and low expenses.
Mr. Meeks, been reading How To Win Friends And Influence People again?
The usually chippy tosh I am afraid Mr Dancer, he is rapidly moving up my "scroll past to save your blood pressure" list, happily I have my own version of the "widget" nearly working
Mr. Indigo, will you be making your version of the widget available to other users? I hope so. You might even think of making modest charge for it. I think the saving on my blood pressure might be worth a few quid, even a few quid a month.
If I can get a level of quality I am happy with. It's currently a Chrome extension, so would need to be released on the Chrome Store since Google have blocked any other way of distributing them. Let me get it firmed up over the next few weeks and see what can be done.
Since Eton et al are charities, do school fees count?
No, because you get a benefit from them.
Edit- to clarify, you get a direct benefit from paying the money. Charitable giving is *supposed* to be without any reward for yourself.
This is why my old choir had two forms of sub - a membership fee to keep us functioning, and a tuition fee to pay the conductor, because that was a benefit.
I am not religious but enjoy looking around churches and cathedrals.
I was exploring a parish church at the weekend where I read a leaflet from the CoE recommending that 5% of post tax income should be given to charity, but also options of 2.5% and 10%.
Sounds reasonable to me. But I don't give anything like that.
Does anyone?
Can't answer for others, but I give more than 5% and am looking to increase it to 10%.
But then that's easy for me to say/do because I have a large income and low expenses.
Good for you.
I donate to the National Trust, Tories, Veterans charities, local community appeals, heritage railways (don't tell Sunil) and political campaigns.
But I could certainly be more generous.
My only real rule is to avoid the big bruising charities and their chuggers like the plague.
Always good to see the press can be relied on to be honest and get the facts right....So Osborne terminates interview and storms off story is actually Osborne answers lots more questions than he said he would, then leaves.
To be fair it appears that as soon as Sparrow realised the account he had been given was wrong he posted a correction in the same live feed. That strikes me as responsible journalism.
Agreed, Andrew Sparrow is a very impartial and fair source.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
People will be happier paying taxes if they think they are getting their money's worth and that the other recipients are worthy of the state's largesse. This is not something that can be compared country to country on an apples to apples basis, as cultural and historical factors play into it too. I suspect Scandinavians feel they get their money's worth.
FWIW, here is a piece from an LSE Economics Prof on why Scandinavian societies accept such high levels of taxation. As you will see, the factors do not translate to larger, more diverse societies.
I forgot one point about France - the revolution of 1940 when the government disintegrated and Petain took power in a coup, dissolving the third republic in the process. Strong man again, even though an 80-year-old drunk is not perhaps somebody I would have looked to for strong leadership.
Admittedly there were other factors involved, but that was also true in 1870 when the Second Empire was overthrown and Thiers took power. The difference was that Thiers, unlike Petain, kept fighting until he was defeated (even though he must have been aware his chances of winning were poor) rather than tamely surrendering at the first opportunity.
Petain was a 'strong man' to rally the French around the white flag
I am thinking it might not be all that wise for politicians to go both barrels quite like this. I think like MP expenses, like paedos, we will find that every party has members, MPs, Lords, and donors that fit the general characterization.
I think if I was Labour, I would go on the "what should be done" angle, and let the media give Cameron a hard time.
That's a truly awful article, and shows all that is rotten at Labour's heart.
Spiteful, sneering, jealous, bigoted, it doesn't show Jess Phillips in a good light.
She claims Cameron's trying to make something of the fact he pays taxes, when all he is doing is answering questions that Labour are asking.
"Do you beat your wife, Mr Cameron!" "No." "Oh look at you! Mr Goody two-shoes who doesn't beat his wife." "Well, I don't." "Now, how about your dad? Or the rest of your family? How about your tennis partner's whist-playing grannie's best friend's dog-sitter? Eh?"
She (and others) should put up or shut up. If they have evidence that David Cameron has behaved in an illegal or unethical manner then they should present it. If they don't, they should bugger off.
Always good to see the press can be relied on to be honest and get the facts right....So Osborne terminates interview and storms off story is actually Osborne answers lots more questions than he said he would, then leaves.
To be fair it appears that as soon as Sparrow realised the account he had been given was wrong he posted a correction in the same live feed. That strikes me as responsible journalism.
Agreed, Andrew Sparrow is a very impartial and fair source.
I forgot one point about France - the revolution of 1940 when the government disintegrated and Petain took power in a coup, dissolving the third republic in the process. Strong man again, even though an 80-year-old drunk is not perhaps somebody I would have looked to for strong leadership.
Admittedly there were other factors involved, but that was also true in 1870 when the Second Empire was overthrown and Thiers took power. The difference was that Thiers, unlike Petain, kept fighting until he was defeated (even though he must have been aware his chances of winning were poor) rather than tamely surrendering at the first opportunity.
Petain was a 'strong man' to rally the French around the white flag
''People will be happier paying taxes if they think they are getting their money's worth and that the other recipients are worthy of the state's largesse.''
People will pay if they think the money is reasonably well managed and spent. They don't. The rich are only doing what millions would do if they had the opportunity. The contract between tax payer and government has completely broken down. Hence our enormous and persistent debt and deficit.
Always good to see the press can be relied on to be honest and get the facts right....So Osborne terminates interview and storms off story is actually Osborne answers lots more questions than he said he would, then leaves.
To be fair it appears that as soon as Sparrow realised the account he had been given was wrong he posted a correction in the same live feed. That strikes me as responsible journalism.
Yes, Andrew Sparrow is a good guy - his live blogs are one of the best things in the Guardian.
Does the BBC obligation to impartiality extend to foreign politics? I ask out of a genuine desire to know. Anyone who has followed the BBC coverage of the primaries so far could not begin to make a case for BBC impartiality. I regard the Trump campaign as politically incoherent. But that is my opinion. I really do not need the BBC to be so hostile to and contemptuous of the man. Nor as sneeringly snobbish towards his supporters. They appear to have abandoned any pretence of balance. Before anyone tells me to go to another channel I would reply with two words - Matt Frei.
The BBC’s headline story this morning was ‘Cruz wins Wisconsin in blow to Trump’* – you will never see a headline reading ‘Sanders wins Wisconsin in blow to Clinton. – Tells you all you need to know of where Aunty stands on US politics.
(* why this makes headline news on the BBC is also quite baffling.)
Inn other words, the BBC is covering the US election in the way just about everyone else is. The big story in the US and abroad has been Trump and the Republican race. Despite Sanders successes, right now Hillary looks to be coasting to the Democrat nomination.
If a Wall St corporatist like Hillary wins the race this time, I wonder what they signals for 2020. The angry anti-politics vote will spend another four years steaming, and probably increasing in numbers. A chunk of the remaining working class will realise she will outsource their jobs just as fast as any other president so far to date. The risk of someone like Trump only even more crazy running, and winning, must be significant.
Yes, some people disagree with him. The tax gap isn't a matter on which there's a great deal of consensus. Basically it's very small when your opponents criticise you for failing to collect taxes properly, and then quite large every time the Chancellor needs to find another magic few billion pounds from "closing loopholes" to balance the budget.
He also ignored the point that taxing something reduces the incentive to do it.
So you're telling me that putting taxes up will mean people will work less or go overseas? Who'd have thunk it!
That's not the case in Scandinavia, is it?
People will be happier paying taxes if they think they are getting their money's worth and that the other recipients are worthy of the state's largesse. This is not something that can be compared country to country on an apples to apples basis, as cultural and historical factors play into it too. I suspect Scandinavians feel they get their money's worth.
FWIW, here is a piece from an LSE Economics Prof on why Scandinavian societies accept such high levels of taxation. As you will see, the factors do not translate to larger, more diverse societies.
Always good to see the press can be relied on to be honest and get the facts right....So Osborne terminates interview and storms off story is actually Osborne answers lots more questions than he said he would, then leaves.
To be fair it appears that as soon as Sparrow realised the account he had been given was wrong he posted a correction in the same live feed. That strikes me as responsible journalism.
Yes, Andrew Sparrow is a good guy - his live blogs are one of the best things in the Guardian.
I believe the "terminating" claim originated with Norman "back to Wigan Pier" Smith, and the Guardian repeated it...which they now had to correct. Was pointing finger at the person who started the story.
Interesting to see downthread that almost all Leavers started off as mildly sympathetic or, at worst, neutral to our EU membership, but experiences and events since have pushed them into the Leave camp. There is a moderate and reasonable story to tell about that journey for each of them.
Remainers may wish to consider that next time they throw insults such as foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver at them.
There is no single type of Leaver. But there is definitely a large strand of foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver in the Leave camp. It's not so much the view as the intensity of the view that marks them out as such.
The hatred that so many Leavers can muster for the EU - as opposed to the militarist authoritarianism of Russia, the carnage in Syria or the desperate hardship faced by hundreds of millions on a daily basis - is quite astonishing. Equally, the energy that so many spend so much time on a cause of decades for something so second order is breathtaking.
It's like devoting your entire life to making an exact 1:10 scale model of Westminster Abbey, correct in every detail, out of Red Leicester.
Mr Meeks creating a new straw man. I would guess most Leavers hold firm views about Putin and Assad, about ISIS and Boko Harem. Most Leavers do not obsess about Europe all day long. Most Leavers, particularly on this site, are successful in their chosen career and are continuing to be so.
So enjoy your fictional bogeyman, Mr Meeks. You seem to need him to justify your own anger and bitterness.
Eu membership has led to significant improvements to health and safety at work,notably the 1992 SixPack which included the Manual Lifting and Handling Regualtions which have saved many a workers' back,the Visual Display Regulations improving eye health and free eye tests,and the Personal Protective Equipment Regualtions,which meant they couldn't send someone to clear a real shithouse without some gloves and overalls. I intend to vote Remain.
But who leads the EU in these areas? is it not the UK (Perrow, Reason, Flinn et al) and Denmark (Rasmussen, Hollnagel)? Would we not have improved these regulations in or out of the EU in the timeframe that you have mentioned?
A good example of this is the Safety Case system developed in the aftermath of Piper Alpha in 1988. It was a system developed entirely within the UK under the leadership of Lord Cullen and has now been adopted as the standard safety system for offshore work around the world in almost every jurisdiction - with the notable exception of the US. One reason why the Macondo disaster happened.
I doubt you will find any SNP using tax havens to evade paying tax, you will get plenty of Tories though. Of course they will insist it is legal and use weaselly statements like tax avoidance and tax planning to justify it , rather than just admit they are crooks.
Of course not
The SNP has backed one of its MPs who has admitted benefiting from a tax avoidance loophole in a previous job.
Edit- to clarify, you get a direct benefit from paying the money. Charitable giving is *supposed* to be without any reward for yourself.
That has been greatly muddied recently, with ostentatious giving to charity being both seen as virtuous and tax efficient. The real test is would the person have given the same donation anonymously.
I still use Edmund's on my laptop to save scrolling by two or three perennially rude posters - one that works on mobile would fab. I'm increasingly scrolling by all of Mr Meeks, the thread last night being a prime example. I've glanced at a couple on here and it hasn't changed.
Mr. Meeks, been reading How To Win Friends And Influence People again?
The usually chippy tosh I am afraid Mr Dancer, he is rapidly moving up my "scroll past to save your blood pressure" list, happily I have my own version of the "widget" nearly working
Mr. Indigo, will you be making your version of the widget available to other users? I hope so. You might even think of making modest charge for it. I think the saving on my blood pressure might be worth a few quid, even a few quid a month.
If I can get a level of quality I am happy with. It's currently a Chrome extension, so would need to be released on the Chrome Store since Google have blocked any other way of distributing them. Let me get it firmed up over the next few weeks and see what can be done.
Comments
And low tax Ireland is haemorrhaging people.
In short, I'd say it is a lot more complicated than how much tax people have to pay. Opportunity and quality of life are also very big - if not much bigger - factors.
Looking back to 1973 I can see no time at which I believe our membership was beneficial to the country.
Thus this does not disprove the disincentive of taxation, but just shows that other factors can overcome it. Or, in other words, price elasticity applies to taxes as much as it does to other goods and services.
I'm afraid to say that posts like this do nothing to make me reappraise that agreement.
He didn't even know the Greeks were joining too until much, much later.
My grandfather, who was a bank manager, just compared it to Bretton Woods but less well-intentioned.
I have to say, although I can think of many good things about the EU and I'm not opposed to it in principle, the Eurozone catastrophe remains a very strong point in favour of leave. If they could make such an awesome shambles of such an important thing out of essentially lazy dogmatism, what else might they get disastrously wrong going forward?
I welcomed joining the EEC in the 1970s as a student because of the logic of joining a bigger growing market which is what Economics taught me. In the late 1980s and early 1990s I leaned towards the view of Heseltine/Howe etc that the ERM etc was a good idea to making trade easier and it was a major reason why I was, by 1990, in favour of Thatcher being replaced. It was also a common view of the people at the top of the FTSE100 company I was in and also the mainstream view amongst most of the media. But then I watched the ERM debacle. I then observed the same people that pushed for the ERM start to speak about terrible economic destruction if we did not adopt the Euro and when that failed to happen I started to change my view about the EU project.
We are now in a political project with stagnating economies that imposes costs on our businesses which our international competitors do not have.
I find it interesting that in the US the wealthy do still see charitable giving as worthwhile, in a way that has - to some extent - been lost here. I found it rather depressing - and telling - that when Osborne tried to clamp down on some of the egregious tax reliefs for charitable giving in the "omnishambles budget" so many rich people complained that if they didn't get the tax relief they wouldn't give to charity. That seemed to me to be completely arse over tip. I wish he had held firm. People should give to charity because they want to not because it benefits them financially, particularly at the levels of wealth the complaining people had.
'There is no single type of Leaver. But there is definitely a large strand of foamer, frother, fruitcake, nutter and raver in the Leave camp. It's not so much the view as the intensity of the view that marks them out as such.'
Clearly you don't do self awareness.
I get angry about that too.
Wasting your life making a model out of Red Leicester? Everyone knows the best cheese for sculpting in is Double Gloucester.
I've been reading various histories (for pleasure) for quite a long time and it seems to have been in crisis since at least the fall of Napoleon.
How many revolutions and revolts has it had? How many republics? Just how agrarian and backward was it in WW1? Just in how much trouble was their national morale in during 1940 (by far their most serious failing? And how many total economic crises have they faced since WW2?
They manage to muddle through. Somehow.
God knows why.
I can't constructively work with that on an issue I also feel passionately about and so, to avoid losing all respect for each other, I am leaving alone.
Different experience with Richard Nabavi and David Herdson, so am happy to continue to engage with them.
France has struggled ever since the death of Louis XIV. There are a number of reasons for that, including poor leadership, geography, a grossly inefficient farming setup leading to regular famines, an oversupply of cheap labour hindering mechanisation and modernisation, and what remained until 1914 Europe's most ineffectual and undeveloped banking sector.
However the key reason is that between 1789 and Thiers' storming of the Paris Commune in 1871 the French people got it into their heads that a revolution would solve all their problems when things went wrong, which for the reasons listed above they frequently did. When it didn't they would then look for strong leadership (the Duc d'Orleans, the Bonapartes, Charles de Gaulle) to yank their irons out of the fire. Such an attitude is not exactly a recipe for stability.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jess-phillips/david-cameron-taxes_b_9622288.html
I am thinking it might not be all that wise for politicians to go both barrels quite like this. I think like MP expenses, like paedos, we will find that every party has members, MPs, Lords, and donors that fit the general characterization.
I think if I was Labour, I would go on the "what should be done" angle, and let the media give Cameron a hard time.
[edit: TPA - Taxpayers' Alliance / TJN - Tax Justice Network]
Of the US networks I note
Fox is blatantly anti-Trump
CNN is quite pro-Clinton.
The two aren't the same
My views changed last year because of Greece, Greece should never have been allowed to join, when it came clear to me that the EU was and will be shaping into the political wing of the Eurozone countries, and we have no business being in the single European currency.
As an aside, I do agree with the Eurozone countries, to have an economic and monetary union without a political union is madness.
* delete as preferred
Last Monday, I went to a London debating club that was debating the motion that "this House would wish to remain in the European Union". There were 29 of us, with a spread of ages and political persuasions but not random as we were all opinionated (a bit like here). Most people spoke. I guess we were all urban London as well.
There was a passionate and interesting debate with speakers from both sides. The show of hands at the end surprised everyone. 22 in favour of remain, 4 in favour of leave and 3 abstentions.
My contribution was as follows:
In practice, there is very little difference between remaining and the probable model for leaving (the Norway model). We are already semi-detached outside Schengen with passport and border control, outside the Euro, outside ever closer union, with many opt-outs. The Norway model requires a largish contribution to the EU, free movement of EU nationals but with similar border controls to us, and is really quite similar to our current semi-detached status.
But there is one big difference. If we vote remain, we will carry on as before and our political energies can go into improving health, education, housing, defence, the economy etc. But if we vote leave, all the political energy will go into agreeing the model, negotiating the various treaties over many years, dealing with the fallout on Scotland and Northern Ireland etc to the neglect of the more important issues we should be dealing with. So vote remain and avoid the unnecessary chaos and distraction of a Brexit that is in practice very similar to the status quo.
There were many vigorous nodding of heads in agreement with this point.
(* why this makes headline news on the BBC is also quite baffling.)
Admittedly there were other factors involved, but that was also true in 1870 when the Second Empire was overthrown and Thiers took power. The difference was that Thiers, unlike Petain, kept fighting until he was defeated (even though he must have been aware his chances of winning were poor) rather than tamely surrendering at the first opportunity.
Always good to see the press can be relied on to be honest and get the facts right....So Osborne terminates interview and storms off story is actually Osborne answers lots more questions than he said he would, then leaves.
Honestly, I really expect better than Janet and John stuff from a news channel.
It certainly seems like the BBC journalists are not too worried about how they come across when talking about US politics.
Since 2000 the net migration rate has run at between 1.7 and 2.1 per 1000 of population. In 2014 it jumped from 1.7/1000 to 7.9/1000. That is a four fold increase in net migration in one year.
One reason why Richard III struggled to be accepted is that he couldn't afford to do this.
One reason his brother was popular is that he did it three times - once on being crowned, once on getting married (or at least, admitting it and getting her crowned) and once on being restored in 1471.
I was exploring a parish church at the weekend where I read a leaflet from the CoE recommending that 5% of post tax income should be given to charity, but also options of 2.5% and 10%.
Sounds reasonable to me. But I don't give anything like that.
Does anyone?
'Meeks really is a complete tosser.'
Agree, hysterical frother to put it mildly
But the policy stuff is lost in the noise of the outrage in the language he uses.
----
I should add most of the stuff he is proposing is impossible, but so is what Sanders is too and nobody worries too much about that.
"Do you beat your wife, Mr Cameron!"
"No."
"Oh look at you! Mr Goody two-shoes who doesn't beat his wife."
"Well, I don't."
"Now, how about your dad? Or the rest of your family? How about your tennis partner's whist-playing grannie's best friend's dog-sitter? Eh?"
I work close to the Financial Services Industry, and I was fully expecting them to back Leave, but because of the uncertainty of what we might get/lose by leaving, they are urging Remain.
Also gnawing at the back of my mind is the wing of the Tory party I despair at the most, seem to be full of ardent Leavers.
But then that's easy for me to say/do because I have a large income and low expenses.
Edit- to clarify, you get a direct benefit from paying the money. Charitable giving is *supposed* to be without any reward for yourself.
This is why my old choir had two forms of sub - a membership fee to keep us functioning, and a tuition fee to pay the conductor, because that was a benefit.
I donate to the National Trust, Tories, Veterans charities, local community appeals, heritage railways (don't tell Sunil) and political campaigns.
But I could certainly be more generous.
My only real rule is to avoid the big bruising charities and their chuggers like the plague.
FWIW, here is a piece from an LSE Economics Prof on why Scandinavian societies accept such high levels of taxation. As you will see, the factors do not translate to larger, more diverse societies.
http://www.henrikkleven.com/uploads/3/7/3/1/37310663/kleven_jep_july2014.pdf
People will pay if they think the money is reasonably well managed and spent. They don't. The rich are only doing what millions would do if they had the opportunity. The contract between tax payer and government has completely broken down. Hence our enormous and persistent debt and deficit.
So enjoy your fictional bogeyman, Mr Meeks. You seem to need him to justify your own anger and bitterness.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD