London's Burning

[sexobon]

The lower class is angry with the upper class; but, the lower class can't touch the upper class so they take their hostilities out on the middle class (which being unarmed is unable to defend itself) expecting them to cry to the upper class which they do since the upper class is the middle class's only means of protection from lower class violence.

This is the system that the middle class is a willing participant in. The only thing the middle class is a victim of is its own complacency. All of the effort being put into identifying and resolving associated issues are in support of a system that's not affordable. The middle class seems to be in a state of mass delusion (diminished capacity) about being able to perpetuate it: no wonder the government considers that citizens' rights may be forfeited and seeks outside interventions.

[DanaC]

Yeah, I realise that my earlier point might have sounded anti-American. It really wasn't meant to. It's more a comment on the focus of our politicians and how that has caused as many problems as it has solved. Can't just transplant ideas from a different culture and hope they're going to magically solve our problems.

A lot of the bloat and cost of public services over the last 20 years has actually not been to do with our attempts to cater to too many people and the rocketing tax bill that brings. It's more to do with the piecemeal dismantling of some parts of the system, the ill-thought out restructuring of other parts, and the culturally inappropriate adoption of another culture's solutions. Couple that with some shameful lining of each others pockets amongst both the political elite and the corporations and quangos that sprung up from that and you have the rootcause of the massive expansion of costs within the NHS and the welfare system.

It was justified through the shortening of waiting lists and delivery of better care, but those goals could have been met for a fraction of the cost if we hadn't done such a blinding job of breaking the system up into an incoherent mess.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What we lose to people playing the benefit system is a drop in the ocean compared to what we lose to
the wealthiest tax payers not paying the tax they're supposed to pay.

care to elaborate on that part. Are there many tax cheats, loopholes or is the top rate not high enough in your opinion.

[DanaC]

Yes, yes and yes :p

Lot of very wealthy people use tax havens. They reckon if one major football player (Ithink it might have been Wayne Rooney) didn't use a tax haven and paid what he should by rights pay on his mega income, he could probably cover the costs of school football pitch provision for the whole country.

There's a big problem with wealthy people using tax havens. They make their money in the British economy, but then they get themselves residency in a tax haven and pay a pittance back. Seems a problem with a lot of celebs/stars in particular. Every so often there'll be some major figure done over on tax evasion, but you just know it's a drop in the ocean.

It pisses me off no end.

Lot of tax loopholes for business as well.

If you make your money here, then pay your fucking taxes here.

I also think the highest rate of income tax is too low. Not to say I want to go back to the old 'supertax' days. I don't care if you're earning billions, there is no justification for taxing 90% of any portion of it. But I think 60% on the highest portion for the highest earnings bracket is fair.

There're are all sorts of silly ways in which the poor are taxed more heavily than the wealthy. VAT settles more heavily onto lower incomes. Even the duty on tobacco and alcohol settles more heacily onto the poor, and not just because they're more likely to turn to them: the duty on fine cigars is less than that on cigarettes. The duty on cognac is less than the duty on beer. The poor are more likely to have their gas and electric on a pay per use meter, and that is a more expensive way to buy it. The poor get worse rates on loans and credit cards (obviously) so it costs them more to access finance at the lower levels.

There are a lot of things that are more expensive at the lower end of life. A higher tax bracket would offset that a little.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I also think the highest rate of income tax is too low. Not to say I want to go back to the old 'supertax' days. I don't care if you're earning billions, there is no justification for taxing 90% of any portion of it. But I think 60% on the highest portion for the highest earnings bracket is fair.

Yikes! 60% plus the VAT? That would never fly here. You will get tax evasion at rates like that. Different countries...

[DanaC]

There's tax evasion even if you have a fairly low-paying upper tax bracket.

The thing is, the lower earners pay out VAT as a much bigger percentage of their earnings than do the upper earners. Likewise council tax, road tax and tv licence.

We're all talking about citizenship and being part of society, but the businessman or high-paid footballer who has so little regard for the society they made their money in that they begrudge paying taxes to support it, doesn't get called out as lacking civic spirit. No, apparently we must set taxes at a low rate, else they'll just refuse to pay it. The rest of us don't have that option.

[Griff]

Warren Buffet wrote a piece today asking for an increased tax rate. He has famously said that he pays a lower rate than his secretary because our tax laws are so Byzantine.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Brianna

That's funny. I was thinking the same thing about capitalism.

Nothing lasts forever - not even economic systems.

the second law of thermodynamics proves it.

Good riddance to capitalism!

No, the Second Law does not. That's because money is not heat, it is a method of keeping score.

Capitalism accords with what human beings naturally do in exchanges and deal-making, absent -- and this is crucial -- governmental interference in transactions. To eliminate capitalism, you must first eliminate human beings.

The Socialists, Communist and Fascist together, took a fair poke at that, and racked up 120M peacetime deaths. Not something remotely necessary from a capitalistic viewpoint -- or any other genuinely good or human viewpoint. Inherently necessary, in Socialism.

I grasp this. Brianna, had you the same understanding, you would not have written that shameful, Godawful post.

[ZenGum]

The laws of thermodynamics most certainly do entail the eventual cesaation of capitalism as a natural consequence of the inevitable heat death of the universe.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

No, the Second Law does not. That's because money is not heat, it is a method of keeping score.

No, the second law is about entropy. Pay attention.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

To eliminate capitalism, you must first eliminate human beings.

I'm ok with that.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The Socialists, Communist and Fascist together, took a fair poke at that, and racked up 120M peacetime deaths. Not something remotely necessary from a capitalistic viewpoint --

Capitalists have killed just as many people - only they do it more personally. Like via withholding goods and services to individuals.

a Capitalist will look you in the eye as they tell you you won't be getting that life saving surgery after all.

I stand by what I said. Capitalism will fail - just like every system fails sooner or later.

[DanaC]

From the London Riots to the inevitable heat death of the universe.

That is the bestest fucking thread drift evah! Holy shit.

@ UG: I don't have a problem with 'capitalism' or even 'the free market' per se. We, as human beings, have devised and evolved a system of values and exchange that has in many ways allowed us to become so much more than the sum of our parts, driving forward technological and social development at a breakneck speed.

Globalisation has its problems, but I cannot deny that the supermarkets I visit now are a whole lot more interesting and a hell of a lot cheaper than they ever were when I was growing up. I enjoy my life and am able to follow my own path without having to grow or even prepare (mostly) my own food, or sew my own clothers, make my own shoes, or brew my own beer. I'm typing this message to you on a mass produced keyboard connected to a kickass and ridiculously cheap piece of technology, communicating with you across the ocean instantly.

Without capitalism, globalisation and the constant influx of new tchnology, driven by the market, I would be living a very different, and I suspect less enjoyable life.

But it isn't just a case of market good or bad, collectivism good or bad. We exist within multiple systems: economic, geographic, social. All need taking into account in how we approach the world, and they are neither interchangeable nor inherently attuned to each other.

The problem with you philosophy is that it reveres and makes sacrosanct only one of those systems in which we as humans exist. Above all else. Elevated beyond its status as an artificial creation and tool for human survival and progress into both the means and the end of everything.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

No, the Second Law does not. That's because money is not heat, it is a method of keeping score.

Yeah, but what about Maxwell's demon?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I grasp this. Brianna, had you the same understanding, you would not have written that shameful, Godawful post.

Leaving out Maxwell's demon is such an egregious error that it leaves you little credibility to be correcting someone else. I suggest that the next time you feel a need to comment on any possible disturbance in London, you get your information straight from the source - Dana.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

We, as human beings, have devised and evolved a system of values and exchange that has in many ways allowed us to become so much more than the sum of our parts, driving forward technological and social development at a breakneck speed.

He can translate it into Russian. But cannot grasp its meaning.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The problem with you[r] philosophy is that it reveres and makes sacrosanct only one of those systems in which we as humans exist. Above all else.

That innovation might exist is a dichotomy to entrenched dogma. Also defines a major difference between moderates and extremists. Innovation will never happen in an extremist world. As if a bible also has all the answers.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

To eliminate capitalism, you must first eliminate human beings.

He has now insulted the Ferengi. A stereotypical ultra-capitalist society only motivated by profit. They cannot exist without Huuumans?

UG is too terrestrial. He needs to spend more time out of this world.

[Big Sarge]

Wait a minute. This thread is about London burning and now it seems the Ferengi are responsible? Geez, no wonder the Brits have so many problems.