When will indyref2 happen?

[ayrmad]

7 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

UK figures available here:

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/FAQ1TaxGap.pdf

 

It's like a millionaire moaning about losing a quid.

[NotThePars]

We are one of, if not heading for the, most unequal countries in the developed world. What people are suggesting about a more equal society where businesses are run with a much tighter difference in pay structures is not some pie in the sky lefty bullshit. It's completely feasible and exists in the rest of the developed world. Maybe if our politicians didn't refer to the country as "UK PLC" and talk about Britain "being open for business" we would be able to see ourselves and our fellow Britons as slightly more than another worker to fulfil a role but I'll take what I can get.

[NotThePars]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

It's lefty bullshit when you can't explain in practical terms how to achieve this socialist land of milk and honey.

How do you achieve this without unintended side effects?

 

Salary caps and a higher minimum wage for a start. 

[NotThePars]

Just now, oaksoft said:

Salary caps of how much?

Which staff?

Higher minimum wage of how much?

 

It doesn't have to be a set number. I'm sure Corbyn or someone proposed a cap of bosses earning 20x what their employees earned which seems fair enough. If you honestly believe that this would cause capital flight and the death of business in this country then I want to see any examples that support that. 

[Baxter Parp]

17 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Yes, that's all well and good but by definition it cannot be possible to know what the amount of tax evasion comes to.

If they knew the figure they would be able to collect it.

This is an example of abuse of statistics. The input data is not there and it's not possible to get it.

You cannot therefore make meaningful analyses of that data.

It's an estimate in the same way that the level of benefit abuse is an estimate.  How is it that one bothers you and the other doesn't as if I didn't know?

[Baxter Parp]

12 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Amazon are a great example of that.

As a country we allow them to pay almost nothing in corporation tax and we could certainly put a stop to that overnight.

How do we do that without watching Amazon swan off to another country taking over 15,000 UK-based jobs with them?

Who will pay the unemployment benefits for these now unemployed people?

This is what I mean about taking everything into account.

Who would staff their warehouses and deliver their parcels?  PixiePost?

[Baxter Parp]

Referendums and economic volatility: Scotland 2014

[NotThePars]

Buckled lefty JP Morgan said the salary of a CEO should never be more than 20 times their employees otherwise they would be in it for themselves and not everyone.

[renton]

13 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Salary caps of how much?

Which staff?

Higher minimum wage of how much?

Not disagreeing with any of ths yet. Just asking very obvious practical questions.

Well, I'm no economist, however various bodies have noted causal links between progressive tax systems, GINI coefficients and overall tax takes. So yeah, a living wage, that allows those receiving it to pay into the tax system, and to make NI contributions, all the while reducing in work benefits seems like a very good idea. The latter of course are merely the state subsidizing the private sector's bottom line. Of course, a living wage also leads to more disposal income, which attracts service sector employment as companies flock to sell shit to these newly minted percentiles.

Meanwhile a progressive tax system reflects the fact that while income inequality leads over time to inbuilt privilege, talent is spread like a bell curve across all sections of society. What is concentrated by built up wealth is the ability to access greater income via that talent. It follows that recognition of the role wealth plays in accessing institutions and influence and feeding this back to unlock as much talent as we can across those parts of society that do not have ready access would lead to a more educated, more able workforce with stronger university institutions, more research output and more chance of successful start ups/ pulling in more established tech companies to further boost the level of jobs in the country.

An optimized tax take, of course can be used to invest in public services: A healthier, happier workforce is more likely to attract investment.

The current race to the bottom is a fucking death spiral. It's jettisoning the engine to make the plane lighter.

[madwullie]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Amazon are a great example of that.

As a country we allow them to pay almost nothing in corporation tax and we could certainly put a stop to that overnight.

How do we do that without watching Amazon swan off to another country taking over 15,000 UK-based jobs with them?

Who will pay the unemployment benefits for these now unemployed people?

This is what I mean about taking everything into account.

Genuine question I don't know the answer to and wonder if anyone does:

Do Amazon pay corporation tax in other countries where they have a sizable workforce? Are amazon only here because we allow them to pay not very much corporation tax? Do other countries force amazon to pay higher corporation tax and they've moved to places like the UK (for eg) 

[NotThePars]

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

JP Morgan might well be right. I have made it clear in an earlier response to you that I havent disagreed with you yet.

Stop jumping the gun.

The REALITY is that we DO have that disparity. I asked you for practical ways we could deal with that without side effects. You are lecturing on what you would IDEALLY like to see which is not what I am asking for.

JP Morgan can say what he likes. He doesnt have to run a country and deal with the practical matter of making that happen.

 

I just gave you an example and renton has also explained what should be done. You're the one who offers absolutely nothing in your defence other than right wing individualistic drivel which you then demand other people disprove. Why should we have a flat tax rate. Give us examples and statistics that support your argument. You come on here periodically, pick and choose which replies to acknowledge and then offer nothing but your own prejudices in response. Start doing your own legwork.

[NotThePars]

Just now, oaksoft said:

OK for a start, companies struggle to recruit top quality executives. If you then constrict what they can earn they will go to America or some other country to work. This should be commonsense. Stop with this obsession with statistics. They are always able to be manipulated to show whatever you want to see.

 

"You can prove anything with facts. I prefer to rely on instinct and blind prejudice." I think it's pretty apparent that you believe kissing and pleading at the feet of the very rich and hoping they don't run off to some Central Asian shithole is your way of resolving our disgraceful economic inequality but I think it's quite obvious that most people would happily stay in the UK if they were earning a decent wedge. Not everyone's a money grabbing psychopath who needs to fill their bank account endlessly till they die. Prove me wrong, chief. Is America where all the Scottish graduates are flocking to?

[pandarilla]

Just because other countries have larger poverty levels than Britain, doesn't take away from the fact that we have people living in acute poverty. The societal safeguards we have in place don't and can't account for everyone. 
Try telling the homeless guy living in a box in Glasgow that he should thank his lucky stars he wasn't born in Africa. Your point about poverty being relative, in context of Oaksoft's argument, is nonsense. 

Can you not read properly? Where have I said that very severe poverty is not a thing in Britain?

My point was simply about this idea of relative versus absolute poverty. There was a suggestion above that oaksoft was somehow making that up - or that it didn't exist. It really, really does.

Don't like the idea of "Real" vs "Unreal" poverty and I don't think we can make a fair comparison between different extremes and acute levels of deprivation. 
An old yin choose between eating or heating their house, is little different to someone having to decide if they can risk walking miles for water or food in a developing (fucked) country IMO.

You might not like it but it's a thing. In terms of your last example I think there is a difference. That doesn't make me a supporter of pensioner poverty in this country. I'm the absolute opposite. But if wet don't admit there's a difference then we completely weaken our whole argument.

Economists tend to use the terms "relative" and "absolute" poverty.

I suggest we adopt these terms as well

I fully agree.



Just to be clear, I think the distribution of wealth in our country is horrendous, and getting worse. I would love to see credible policies at redressing this - but the fptp nature of Westminster politics, the grip of the tabloid media, and the selfishness and greed of millions of c***s are preventing that from happening. Corbyn is pissing into the wind.

Independence gives us a sniff of a chance - but let's not kid ourselves that it's going to be straightforward. It really, really isn't.

Oaksoft is pointing out some of the issues, and when folk engage with those issues, we get an interesting and productive debate.

All to often though the sniping wins out and this thread starts to resemble the old firm section of p&b.

[NotThePars]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

Statistics are not facts and I just explained why. Grow up FFS.

Oh and what the hell is that pathetic diatribe? All I am doing is asking questions and under the slightest pressure you are crumbling and reverting to your abusive norm. Classic generation biscuit.

 

You always ask questions and post baseless assertions. That's it.

[pandarilla]

OK for a start, companies struggle to recruit top quality executives. If you then constrict what they can earn they will go to America or some other country to work. This should be commonsense. Stop with this obsession with statistics. They are always able to be manipulated to show whatever you want to see.
So how do you prevent a flight of talent?
Oh and I asked you for a value of living wage. Neither you or Renton has provided that.

The flight of talent argument has always been a weak one imo. If we look at the banking sector we can clearly see what all that talent gets us...

There is an obsession with growth and results in our current version of capitalism (neoliberalism). Those at the very top are very skilled at getting the headline figures that push them into the stratosphere in terms of salaries (and all the other perks). I'd much prefer higher regulated business practices with (quite frankly) boring executives making long term decisions. Get the cowboys to f**k. They can ruin some other country's economy.

[NotThePars]

Plain common sense would dictate that many people would be happy to earn a specific amount and stay where their roots, family and friends are. If the only people you know would up sticks and move anywhere to spend a large portion of their life where a few thousand more was available then you must know some seriously sad individuals. Even your football example is off. It's a short term career where the amount a player earns has to be maximised as they have zero transferable skills and may have to live off what they earn now till they die. Even then you only have to look at players that opt to live in London over Manchester because of what each city has to offer, or in Dimitry Payet's case taking a massive paycut to move home to France, to see that your earning capacity isn't the be all and end all to a lot of people. This is why other countries in Europe don't have such enormous differentials in pay between top and bottom. Why aren't there people flocking to America?

[Granny Danger]

I do believe "doctor" oaksoft is trying to troll us.  If you make companies pay corporation tax they won't sell their goods here - even though that's how they make their money; and isolationism is the way forward because it's simply not possible to promote greater equality if we're buying foreign goods.

What a clusterfuck of thinking!  

[pandarilla]

You need only look at the impact of salary differentials on football to see what can happen at the top end of the talent pool.
Maybe the problem is that people dont really understand what "talented" businesspeople bring to a company.
I think actually that I would agree with your idea that cowboys should get to f**k but frankly we live in a culture where Joe Public has spoken and resoundly rejected your idea in favour of cheap t-shirts, cars amd mobile phones.
Dont consider for one moment that this form of capitalism has been forced on us. It is the net result of choices made by the average guy on the street. None of us are blameless and now we have got to where my thought process is on all of this.
I am genuinely baffled by the anger, the hand wringing and the rage.
When we flocked to buy cheaper Japanese cars, we condemned the British car industry to death and put our fellow Brits on the dole. When we bought their cheap stereos we put UK businesses out of work. When we insist on buying the absolute cheapest milk, we put our entire Dairy industry at risk. When we complain about expensive meat we risk creating an environment where farmers start injecting bacon with water to save money. When we queue up to buy the cheapest t-shirts without asking questions we enable sweat shops in India and Thailand. I could list examples all day long. None of this has been forced on us.
None of us. Not a single one of is guilt free. We have all contributed and we all continue to make choices which exacerbate the problem. Every day. None of us has the right to claim the moral high ground which is exactly what left wingers have a very bad habit of doing.
If you want an good living wage, stop buying the cheapest stuff. Start buying British. Buy only from companies who pay above the living wage, who promote good causes, who impose salary caps for directors, who clean up the environment etc etc etc. I warn you now though, get your chequebook ready for a shock.
Stop talking and start doing. In your millions. Get organised and get people on board. 
THAT is how you make change. Bleating on an online forum is nothing bud.

Government regulation changes it.

Of course the masses are going to buy the cheapest, that would happen anywhere. But there are plenty of examples of capitalist countries that have not abandoned everything in search of profit and greed. The Scandinavian model is the most cited one.

Neoliberal policies were brought in by Thatcher and continued by Blair and Brown. Don't blame the average consumer for that (although millions voted for this 'what's in it for me' culture).

[pandarilla]

I do believe "doctor" oaksoft is trying to troll us.  If you make companies pay corporation tax they won't sell their goods here - even though that's how they make their money; and isolationism is the way forward because it's simply not possible to promote greater equality if we're buying foreign goods.
What a clusterfuck of thinking!  [emoji38]

I don't think he's trolling at all. I think he's wrong, but his view is one that pops up on the BBC and the likes regularly. It needs to be calmly and rationally beaten by stronger arguments.

[Granny Danger]

41 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

I don't think he's trolling at all. I think he's wrong, but his view is one that pops up on the BBC and the likes regularly. It needs to be calmly and rationally beaten by stronger arguments.

 

Just because the view is promulgated by others doesn't mean it's not trolling.

I think it's Amazon who claim part of their online sales is actually a sale made in another country for tax purposes though the buyer is U.K. based and the item is despatched from a U.K. based warehouse.

The idea that if we crack down on that then Amaxon would stop retailing to their millions of U.K. customers is ridiculous.