26 Nov '15 03:51>3 edits
Originally posted by finneganFinnegan uses the same exaggerated language he bemoans and calls lies,
....a family where there is an adult breadwinner labouring all hours.
...oh dear, boohoo.
Originally posted by finneganYou're starting to remind me of RJHinds
when George Osborne stands up to deliver his autumn statement next Wednesday, he should do so in the knowledge that the Britain he has created is already a much more divided country and that on current forecasts there will be a total of 3.9 million children in poverty by 2020, far more than at any time in the Thatcher years.
Of all the Conservative ‘big ...[text shortened]... to tackle in-work poverty and child poverty should not be reduced but is needed more than ever.
Originally posted by divegeesterSo, the tax credits wheeze has been stopped. That was point 8. Do you want to discredit points 1 to 7 on their own merits, or simply rely on point 8 being slightly undermined to hope points 1 to 7 are dismissed as well?
Never confuse a good story with facts.
Originally posted by DeepThought"Millions of low paid families will not now see their benefits cut in April, although the relief for many will be temporary because tax credits will be phased out by 2018.
So, the tax credits wheeze has been stopped. That was point 8. Do you want to attitudes and propaganda regarding the nature of povertydiscredit points 1 to 7 on their own merits, or simply rely on point 8 being slightly undermined to hope points 1 to 7 are dismissed as well?
The way to solve Britains problems is to cut off all these off-shore tax ha ...[text shortened]... t of paying dues. Do that and you can afford to give tax cuts to those who are paying too much.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSpeaking as someone with a close relative who is a tax specialist, it's not that easy. nor that simple.
So, the tax credits wheeze has been stopped. That was point 8. Do you want to discredit points 1 to 7 on their own merits, or simply rely on point 8 being slightly undermined to hope points 1 to 7 are dismissed as well?
The way to solve Britains problems is to cut off all these off-shore tax havens and other tricks for getting out of paying dues. Do that and you can afford to give tax cuts to those who are paying too much.
Originally posted by googlefudgeTax havens may not be the entire problem or its entire solution but they are a scandal. The UK is responsible for some of the major ones, with confusing arrangements to maintain the illusion of their being independent states, which they are not. However, the world is now replete with small states willing to provide multi nationals with the cover they want to evade not only taxation, but regulation, criminal law and all forms of transparency.
Speaking as someone with a close relative who is a tax specialist, it's not that easy. nor that simple.
And even if achieved, it would barely make a dent in solving the UK's problems.
Something vastly more radical than that is required. And none of the major parties are entertaining such
policies.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAnarchist, and non anarchists also recognize that government policies can and do reduce prosperity, probably more often than they increase it. Best policy is getting out of the way.
All non-anarchists agree that the right government policies increase prosperity.
Originally posted by normbenignAs long as you concede that government policies can affect prosperity for better or worse, your comment is sufficient confimation for KN's point. It may indeed be that for every beneficial policy there are two or ten or twenty harmful ones but that merely emphasizes the importance of finding the ones that are best.
Anarchist, and non anarchists also recognize that government policies can and do reduce prosperity, probably more often than they increase it. Best policy is getting out of the way.
Originally posted by finneganNote that I don't advocate anarchy. Nor do I advocate governments randomly trying stuff in the hope that some of it works. Unless it is pretty much certain that a policy is beneficial to all classes, and harmful to none, it ought be avoided.
As long as you concede that government policies can affect prosperity for better or worse, your comment is sufficient confimation for KN's point. It may indeed be that for every beneficial policy there are two or ten or twenty harmful ones but that merely emphasizes the importance of finding the ones that are best.
Getting out of the way would in itse ...[text shortened]... rests, which prosper in the absence of regulation. Another word for such government is fascism.
Originally posted by normbenignThere are not many - probably none - government policies that are beneficial to everyone, de facto you are arguing for anarchy.
Note that I don't advocate anarchy. Nor do I advocate governments randomly trying stuff in the hope that some of it works. Unless it is pretty much certain that a policy is beneficial to all classes, and harmful to none, it ought be avoided.
The notion of the majority (lower income) deciding by voting to rob the minority (higher income) is obnoxious ...[text shortened]... cist State that I am aware of. Overly high rates of corporate taxation would indeed by fascist.