![Osborne's Tory Lies [UK Only]](/img/uisvg/forum-heading/debates.svg){kind=icon}
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.
-Removed-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.
1 edit
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.
The new Universal Credit that will replace them is set to be less generous, critics say.
Mr Osborne also pushed ahead with £12bn cuts to the welfare budget, with a fresh squeeze on housing benefit - and £20bn in departmental cuts."
Nobody was guessing about Osborne's plans - they were announced and he had to make a humiliating retreat in the face of protest. Sure there was a "screech of burning rubber" as Osborne had to withdraw some of his more blatant policies in the face of a masssive backlash, but he pointed out himself, in his typically sneering, supercilious manner, that this is a temporary reprieve because changes in 2018 will include the death of Tax Credits in any event.
The interest of the item I posted (and split up to make it easier to pick out separate points and argue them) is that it attacks the Tory lies about the nature of poverty and the nature of the welfare state.
When the Tories attack poverty, it is not some unpopular minority of the population that is victimised. A large proportion of the population dip into and out of poverty at some time in their lives. But even that misses the point.
Because many aspects of the "welfare state" such as pensions, health services, education and affordable housing policies exist to ensure that we all, by and large, have better prospects of decent lives. And they are not paid for by some hard pressed minority that wants to create wealth - they are paid for collectively by all of us in the way we organise our economy. We organise our economy in such a way that it will benefit some far more than others - that seems to be unavoidable or at least accepted for now. But with the welfare state, we all contribute, we all benefit. Now a tiny minority of us - possibly less than 1% - want to take far more than their share (made possible by our economic arrangements) and return as close to nothing as possible, while intentionally wrecking the life chances of countless citizens in the process. The level of additional povery they want to impose is a conscious decision.
The point is that the Tory lies confuse people into thinking there is some OTHER out there to be victimised when, sadly, it is all of us who suffer in order to satisfy the astonishing greed of a tiny minority - the very rich, not the very poor, are the problem here.
Easily forgotten - much of the welfare state was paid for by earlier generations, including my generation now retired. Just one example - social housing built up since 1922 and earlier represents an immense, accumulated publicly owned asset from which we all benefit and which the Tories have been giving away at stupid low prices, so they are now often in the hands of private landlords charging unaffordable rents, while Osborne is busily taking away the Housing Benefit which ordinary people need to pay those high rents. So he does not have any policy to solve Britian's housing shortage, instead he is handing the existing assets over to the better off and leaving the less affluent to sink. The escalating homelessness and dislocation this causes are only slowly dawning on the public awareness, misdirected by our Tory media.
The Tories have hugely enjoyed parcelling up these accumulated public assets and giving them away at ludicrous prices to enrich their friends, sacrificing the achievements of the past generations who worked to create this social good.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
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.
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.
1 edit
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.
In the USA, Delaware is a small state which has been captured by corporate and financial interests and more than half of all US companies are registered there. Part of the ideology about state government versus federal government is the wish to misuse the less effective and less well governed states as a Trojan Horse to make nonsense of government regulation over corporate behaviour. A classic example of this in operation was the production of credit cards through Delaware, blowing away all hope for sensible credit control in the US economy. Even if you think this insane act was a good thing, the fact remains that it was accomplished in a way that undermined democratic control over a major aspect of the economy. Those supporting such activites are not only undemocratic but also, of course, they share responsibility for the 2008 banking crash, which has not gone away.
Ireland handed over a well functioning economy to spivs and speculators when it chose to become a tax haven on a big scale. When the economy crashed in 2008, as it had to do, the criminals were not brought to justice - maybe because the government were criminals. (See "Ship of Fools" ). Instead, the Irish taxpayer entered into a contract to refund all the speculative lending that was allowed to take place in unregulated merchant banks, so that the only risk takers in that "free market economy" turned out to be the taxpayers.
These havens are not just conspiracies against democratic government but also conspiracies against ordinary shareholders and in addition they undermine all prospects of fair competition in any marketplace.
You are right - no party in the UK or any other country seems interested in correcting this any time soon.
1 edit
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.
Getting out of the way would in itself be a government policy, of course. You will note that many administrations have professed that as their policy or their objective. We can take it that those would have your vote. That is not anarchism of course, since what it really means is government for the benefit of corporations and vested interests, which prosper in the absence of regulation. Another word for such government is fascism.
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.
The notion of the majority (lower income) deciding by voting to rob the minority (higher income) is obnoxious. And I also don't advocate what you presume is my stance either. Government ought not favor anyone. Not the poor. Not corporations. By the way fascism is where government allows private ownership, but under strict government controls. It has no notion of allowing corporate free reign, not in any fascist State that I am aware of. Overly high rates of corporate taxation would indeed by fascist.
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.