When I started this thread I was thinking about George Orwell, who was a very principled left wing man. Because he opposed the Stalinists, some 'useful idiots' said that meant he couldn't be left wing because left wing people must support Stalin! I wondered if the stupidity of that way of thinking died out 50 years ago, or whether it was still around. Being left wing or right wing is surely nothing to do with supporting a particular leader or party or government whatever they do; it is about arriving at a set of principles and judging whether each leader/party/government which comes along is following those principles fully, or near enough, or not at all.
Totally agree. Most people think of it like following a football team. If the Tories do it, it's good, if Labour do it, it's bad. Or vice versa. For me it has nothing to do with a political party. I think the days of unquestioned allegiance to a major political ideology have gone or are going. Certainly, only crackpots now seem to support communism, whereas 30 years ago, it was still pretty common. But I still feel that left and right wing are not very helpful labels and just serve to simplify someone's thinking and put them in a convenient box. They then become "one of us" or "one of the enemy" - which is a pretty pointless way of looking at people.
"Christian values"? As far as I can see from what they do and say, Christians' values are mainly about being mean, vindictive, selfish, controlling, deluded people whose chief priorities are to preserve their unfair privileges, deny other peoples' rights and freedoms, escape justice for their crimes, and perpetuate their lies. I would be highly offended if it was said I subscribed to Christian values; I like to think my values are vastly higher than those of Christians.
As said many times before - I don't subscribe to religion or believe in God. However, I think that if you went to the average C of E church and listened to the sermon, I don't think you'd hear much that was mean, vindictive, selfish or controlling etc - though it might be deluded. How fundamental Christians choose to interpret the texts to suit their own ends is one of the problems of religion everywhere. My problem going to church as a kid was that after a time I really couldn't say I believed in the whole thing, and I have been constantly disappointed by the acts and beliefs of so called Christians who seem happy to start wars and burn innocent people to death or maim children, or are perfectly happy to have large sections of their populations live in cardboard boxes whilst they moan about having to pay an extra 1% of their already large salaries in tax. I think they call this hypocrisy.
I have only ever met one Christian lady who I can say was kind , giving and loving. However fundamentally take away Religion and I suspect she would still be that way. Your born a certain way shaped some what . Like all the prisoners who " Find God" they even admit so they get some off for good behavoir. The others Ive met or worked with Spiteful , bitchy as for "giving " tight as a fishes " You have all these religions making people give up X of their salary To fund the church Er look at all the land they own !! Or artefacts. I say if your that kind and want to do good sell some of your land !!! Like you need all of it and help some folk. Also third world countries who went in and stirred it up. You shall not use contraception! Now we end up giving so much in aid. I think the church should pay for this not us sorry.
This is slightly off topic but is relevant to the recent tax rate changes imposed by the government. It's a bit long but really worth reading.... whether you agree with it, like it or not, it's worth a read; Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100... If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this... The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7.. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. So, that's what they decided to do.. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics.
I have seen the above before and it seems to be a good way to explain how reducing tax rates can increase the total tax take but that is never easy to put across without people screaming how it helps the rich at the expense of the poor. Going back to the original post, surely Stalin was very left wing? Best not to label things though, a good idea is a good idea regardless of who comes up with it. Same goes wit a bad idea.
Who says? Nearly everyone accepts that Stalin was one of the most right wing people ever to walk the earth. Unless, of course, you choose to redefine "left wing" to mean "supports Stalin".
Except of course that it isn't. The poorest four guys, who in the fantasy pay nothing at all, in the real world pay rather a lot of VAT, duty, council tax, etc. even if they don't pay any income tax. In the fantasy the poorest four guys get to go out drinking beer equally with the rest, but in the real world the poorest are mainly children, elderly, disabled, etc and live very different lives from salary-earners. Friendlier overseas, eh? Lots of countries have higher tax takes than the UK so the wealthiest one could go there and pay a higher share if he wants.
Actually, wouldn't the 4 poorest guys be paid to drink? As any tax collected will never equal the amount they are paid. So I reckon they'd be on the hook for at least a pound a pint. Explains why daytime drinkers manage to fund their pleasure...
It is wrong isn't it, the poorest should pay nothing at all, give benefits with one hand and take it away with the other, what an expensive waste of money to administer. I think we should all pay less tax and the state should be much smaller.
If you took a random distribution of right and left wingers, removed the extremists, and asked the remainder to list their priorities in terms of outcome I am sure there would be a significant overlap. The differences would be in how they proposed to achive those outcomes.
But a lot less than the richest. Unless you want to look at it in percentage terms, but then we start to get into the debate about just what is, and is not, 'progressive' (puke).
Except of course that it is. The poorest four guys do pay VAT, duty and council tax but only with money paid to them by the richer taxpayers in the form of tax credits, benefits, child allowance, state pension. So that goes for children and the elderly and the disabled. Friendlier overseas eh? Well....actually, yes. Lots of countries have lower tax than the UK so the welthiest could go there and pay lower (and in some cases, No tax) if they want.
The little parable doesn't seem that astute to me. If they had all been happy with their £100 bill and the way it was being divided, they would all just have had to pay 8/10 of that in the new system. Barely an O level maths question. As for the rich and richer whinging about all the tax they pay, I have no sympathy with it at all. I am not anti rich - I am anti whinging rich. The rich need to look at what makes them rich, i.e., after all is said and done, they still have considerable disposable incomes. These pay for nice houses (perhaps several) luxury cars, exotic holidays etc etc. What exactly do they need all the extra money that is being taken off them in taxes for? Answer, nothing, except that many esteem that they should have the money to bequeath to their kids, implicitly suggesting that they kids shouldn't have to do anything in life, just cruise into a life of luxury. When you have plenty, or even plenty plenty, you just don't need plenty plenty plenty. Now, if after paying your contribution back to society in tax (the contribution you can afford) you still have squillions, great. Why not? But to continually focus on the amount you are paying compared to other people is so petty, small-minded and tight it defies description. How many rich would be prepared to swap their job to dig holes in the road, even if they got the same money as before? Not many. They actually think that they should have an interesting fulfilling job that pays lots, rather than a tough unfulfilling job that pays little, but then they think it would be still fairer if they were taxed at the same rate as the hole digger "because they are paying more £££". How many cakes do they want to eat? They then try to muddy the waters by suggesting that all their taxes are going to scroungers or other society dregs and none of it is being spent on anything at all that they would spend it on. The total brazen selfishness of these peoples depresses me utterly.
So take that argumemt forward Glidd; over what amount of plenty does it take before 100% should be put into the tax mans pocket? At what rate does that become 'fair'?
Does that work equally for everyone or is it only those on low incomes who are allowed to whinge ? The rich do pay more in tax than the poor. We all pay too much tax. No one should pay more than 50% tax. This is a separate issue to how the rich rig the market in their favour. It comes back to the fact the government spends, in round figure, £600 billion per year of which it is borrowing £125 billion. Faced with these figures increasing taxation is a minor issue, the government needs to spend less, a lot less.
It isn't necessary to be rich to be unhappy with tax levels, the poor are perfectly happy to complain about the taxes they pay too. If you are not happy with how the money is collected and spent why not complain? Personally I`d like to see the top 10% of earners pay all the taxes but that should mean you treat these top tax payers with the respect they have literally earned, not take liberties. Let`s take an imaginary businessman paying say just over a hundred thousand a year in income tax plus all the indirect taxes on the rest of his money as he buys fuel, clothes, holidays, how many low income/disabled/ etc etc people is he supporting . Maybe as many as 15 ? I don't know for sure but it seems to me that we should thank him rather than complain about him ?
