DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
3 February 2009
20:0814643I don't think Capitalism is dead and don't think it will be in my lifetime either. I do however have all kinds of problems with the notion of morality within a capitalism system. What defines someone as achieving within the world of capitalism and have these descriptors necessarily got anything to do with morals. Surely the morally right thing (and this is in my opinion) would be to pay taxes into the very system that facilitated your earning in the first place (not to mention, your education, health and well being) By people taking personal responsibility we actually undermine the whole principle of morality, after all ethics are defined by, and define society, not individuals. Unless of course we are talking about personal morality, which is a personal view of ethics is used by individuals in a Robin Hood style. "It's OK I stole, as my family are hungry" Does this 'shark a shark' mentality apply to other criminals, no because society has put laws in place to define what is wrong (a moral judgement based on consensus, a common sense) These laws and morals unfortunately require a certain amount of bureaucracy to uphold, a downside admittedly!
A personal take on morality leads to people substantiating greedy behaviour with models like the laffer curve and comments such as "It was shown that lower taxes on higher earners actually increases the level of tax revenue raised from the higher earners" What they always fail to be achieve is to define where the parabola peak of these models are, simply because things just aren't that simple.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 February 2009
21:0414647Thank you Roger - Sid is being deliberately obtuse.
DT - would it be moral for a Government to so impose rules, regulation and tax on individuals and businesses that they do one of several things:
1/ Those with the financial freedom move to another country where they are free of the said restrictions
2/ Businesses relocate abroad for the same reasons, taking the wealth they create and the jobs they provide with them
3/ Individuals who can afford to increasingly send their wealth offshore and into trusts to avoid tax
4/ Individuals work less hard, stop taking risks, dont bother to employ people because 'the state takes too much so it not with the agravation'.
It is not immoral for those who have the means to look after their families and businesses by protecting their wealth from overly predatory Governments.
Who exactly would be the ultimate loser?
Those who lack the financial freedom and those who need the wealth and jobs that might otherwise be created, thats who.
Make no mistake, Governments do not create wealth and prosperity, that is only done by businesses and risk takers. Government beaurocracies are wealth consumers and are a drag on the prosperity of all the rest of us. We all depend on the success of business and the taxes they pay and the jobs they provide.
Do you not think it moral for someone to decide they can build a profitable business, to go out develop a business plan, borrow money and take the risks involved to sink or swim by their own endeavours? Is it not immoral for a Government to place needless and beaurocratic obstructions in the way or to demand penalising taxes should that individual be successful? Do they not deserve to benefit from that success and to be encouraged?
Is it not moral for me, or anyone, to take their hard earned cash and to invest it into a business with a view to making a good return and, indeed to expect a good premium for taking extra investment risks? For that investment to help the business into which it is invested to develop new products and services, take on employees and grow? For the Directors of that business to themselves be rewarded for the success of what they achieve?
Is it not moral for those who are a success to gain the reward for that success and if they fail to suffer the cost of that failure?
Morality is inherant in business in many ways. Yes a 'moral' business would also address things like decent wages and conditions, would look after its customers and treat them fairly. Good and successful businesses do all these things, if they dont they do not get and retain good staff and do not get loyal customers. Some will fly by the seat of their pants, I know many that do but that does not necessarily make them immoral and ultimately they themselves often lose everything. Those who do wrong deserve to fail and should pay the price. Business and businesses vary hugely and yes there are cowboys and crooks around and we have laws to deal with them and so we should have.
One thing is certain, without these many entrepeneurs as well as established businesses we would all be a lot poorer. Do not preach to them about morality, good businesses have morality inbuilt. DC is right to talk about morality because, sadly, we in business do not do so enough and as a result its the few 'bad boys' that get the publicity.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
3 February 2009
22:0114653BarryW
Both Labour and Tory party have some members in government that are corrupt and feeding from the same trough, that's not an opinion, that's fact, not paying due taxes and sending vast amounts of money overseas should be stopped.
Most of what you spout on about goes right over my head, and I am the first to admit that, and quite honestly, I'm glad.
Am I right in saying that you feel its ok for these people to evade paying tax's and sending their money abroad whilst earning their wages in this country, i.e. making use of loopholes, but against working class people signing on and getting paid whilst avoiding work, i.e. making use of loopholes? Simple yes or no please? simple right or wrong.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
3 February 2009
22:4014655In response to the first four points, I believe the imposition of such laws, rules or taxes would be perfectly valid, as long as they were in the interest of the people they represent. (Something both the present and previous government have seemed to have forgotten)
As for the rest of your examples I don't think any of them to immoral, yet regard them as 'choices' applicable to those who already 'have' Now I don't believe people are all the same or equal (I'm very careful of that term because I don't want to sound like Mrs Thatcher, although it is a basis for her ideology) When I talk to my wife about equality between males and females I always points out the fact that she has a womb puts me at a loss! What we can have is an equal playing field, neither of us being better than the other. My wife does not earn as much money as me because she looks after our children full time, but this does not change the equality in what we do.
The point I am making (albeit in a roundabout way!)is that although I earn money it is more important that it facilitates something that is far more important, offered by my wife that as far as we're concerned has no capital value (I am very fortunate and to an extent lucky). This is about want and need and people are avoiding paying into a system that attempts to provide things that don't necessarily have a quantifiable value. There are people in this country, who through no fault of their own have nothing, born into poverty and have very little chance of changing their 'luck' Then we have those on the privileged side of the laffer curve moaning about paying in too much whilst deciding between salmon or steak, and suggesting poor people are just lazy. Once these unacceptable inequalities in our (supposedly civilised) society are addressed, then I will start accepting the idea people making their own destinies.
As society changes morality changes and perhaps I am completely wrong already. I just think choice at a fundamental 'need' level is far important than at a capital 'want' level. Unfortunately living in a capitalist society (as a far left approach is equally impractical) these 'wrongs' in our country need money to right them, and means taxation and legislation, not every man for himself. The things that require intervention do not have a financial value (the more important things I think) and so will always confuse true capitalists. This I see as the failing of popular capitalism, looking at the cost of everything and the value of nothing. (I nicked that last line from Tony Benn!)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
3 February 2009
23:1214657gary
you are talking about real people.
this will mean nothing to the top brass in our country.
labour and tories waffle on in great detail, in order to get out of giving an honest answer.
the real people are having their livelihoods taken away by global problems and just to add to that, importation of cheap labour to undercut the hard working skilled sector.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 February 2009
23:3814660GaryC - do give up on this 'working class people' rubbish, we all work unless you are retired or living on benefits, whether you are running a small business, a multi-national or clean floors for a living. Breaking people down between 'workers' and 'others' went out with the 1970's class war, it was rubbish then and even more so now.
I object to everyone paying too much tax. I help people minimise the amount of tax they pay whether they are on £20k a year or £100k a year. It is nothing to do with not paying what is due but keeping what you pay down only to what you must pay by proper financial planning.
So often the simplistic ideas of the left whether it is a wealth tax, ceilings on income, restricting the movement of capital, or just higher taxes on the better off, result in reducing tax revenues and stiffling the wealth creating sector and enterprise. It results in less wealth for everyine, fewer jobs and a backward economy. These are lessons that the left never learn and that is why Labour Governments always end up in financial trouble.
Governments take money off us and a huge proportion does not get even through to the important front line services and that is what I object to. Governments should take less of our cash and we should be left to decide how we spend more of our hard earned cash. Also a lower and simpler tax regime will increase tax revenues through stimulating economic activity and cutting out a lot of unnecessary costs. Again there are examples of this happening, Hungary, from memory for one.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
4 February 2009
00:0214661barry
you are talking over the top of the issue.
the people being stuffed at the moment will soon be paying no tax!!
why have the blue people joined with the reds in sucking up to european directives that hurt british people?
please do not respond with the free movement of labour stuff, we all know the outcome of that.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 February 2009
07:4514666I am no defender of the EU and would exit that organisation tomorrow, howard.
As for talking 'over the top' I really dont know what you mean, I am addressing specifically the matter of tax and tax rates.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
4 February 2009
08:0314668I'd love to live in a classless society Barry, but the simple reality is we don't. There are people less fortunate than you or I, which through no choice, are born into unspeakable circumstances and usually stay there. On the other side you have those born into the upper class and aristocracy, which do not have to work and get seat in the House of Lords. Social mobility in this country is one of the poorest in Europe. Capitalist will be pleased to know that this is something that you can measure in sterling, along with the fact that money does aid it! Being stuck in the same routines people have had a lot of time to define their class (although it is admittedly hard now), working class people are no more defined by the virtue 'they work' than they are by wearing flat cap and owning whippets, as you quite rightly point out we all work. The one trait that working class people do seem to have is an understanding of want and need, something that was largely diluted during the 1980's (I wonder why) by decadent consumerism. Being is the primary objective, over that of knowing or doing. Ironically we are becoming a tertiary nation as a result of entrepeneurs and as a result will become increasingly dependant on other countries and Europe.
What is too much tax? Perhaps what you mean is 'I object to people paying tax' I think it simplistic of Capitalists (more significantly the Regan administration) to try and sell such a crude and basic notion to substantiate ideas that actually transcend economics. It is painfully obvious that to tax 0% will created no revenue and 100% will result in making work pointless, but as for the rest of the variables the jury is out, and there is little coincidence that countries with higher tax than us have higher well being amongst their citizens(sorry you can't measure that one in sterling)
I object to you saying that Labour are on the left, because they quite simply are not. I do agree that so much of our money is wasted and ploughed into things that we, as the electorate, do not agree with. We are also in a state of poor system management where sectors of public service are a bureaucratic mess, the result of a poor government, past and present. However the elements that Capitalists seem to blame for inefficiency are services to society that don't have an relative input and output, eg sterling going in at one end and health, well-being or education coming out the other. Have I succeeded in bringing up my children if they are rich, or if they are safe and happy?
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
4 February 2009
08:1614669I think GaryC is alright in his use of the term 'working class people'..its not something fictional but a recognised social group...or to be posh about it, a recognised socio-economic group. There are working class heroes, working class leaders, working class housing estates, working class everything...
Its not a term Gary has picked out of the blue but is still a recognised term. Its true BarryW everyone is working, but not at all described as working class. Richard Branson and Rupert Murdoch might indeed work hard but they work because they want to, working class people work because they have to.
But back to Tax:I see now in Washington we have the latest tax corruption scandal. The new appointee, a Mr Daschel, is unable to take up position as Health Secretary because of purposely not paying taxes in his recent past. There are also other top politicos in Washington who have suddenly withdrawn from the race for potential top jobs. This is the result of the guy featured in Panorama the other night. A chap called Herr Kleber, who walked out of Lichtenstein with a collection of CD Roms all showing World Big Names tax dodging.And tax dodging on a massive scale. The repercussions are already being felt in Washington, and rumoured to be felt here shortly.
Kleber is now in hiding in Germany having been given a new identity. There is a $10million contratc out on him as we speak.
Sure, trying to get your best legal tax deal is legit particularly for us ordinary joes, every little helps as they say, but these guys with out of the ordinary salaries are purposely avoiding paying taxes that are most certainly due. Leaving as a consequence the tax bill to be picked up by us further down the scale.its criminal and no mistake.
4 February 2009
08:5014673I can only agree. There is a legal and moral responsiblility to pay taxes due in order to support and pay back the community that has allowed one to earn the money. There is also something about demonstrating leadership and being a role model. Those people have failed at every conceivable moral, ethical and sometimes legal level, have failed their communities and have shown their chracters for what they are.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 February 2009
09:0414675I dont defend those who are breaking the law to avoid tax, far from it, but the high tax rates under which we suffer are a serious drag on our economy along with the sheer burden they create indirectly on businesses.
The waste in Government is simply huge. I remember Oliver Letwin telling me that his wife works as a lawyer in the Government's Department of Media Culture and Sport. In 1997 there were 4 lawyers in that department and by 2005 there were 17. That is a huge explosion of people delivering little or nothing in service to the public, mainly they are there to protect backs as a result of the huge surge in legislation that creates traps all over the place. That is just one small Government Department, I wonder what has happened in bigger departments, the costs of that alone must be massive.
What about private firms burdened by all the same rules and red tape? They cannot afford huge legal departments unless they are very large corporations and even then it is a cost that has to be passed on to the consumer. I bet that not one single business is fully compliant with all the rules and regulations being dictated from above, its impossible.
The truth is Government does far too much, it is far too big and lacks the competence to do what it tries to do. Government must be shrunk back to provide a much more minimalist framework of sensible rules and laws. It should stop interfering and let people get on with their lives.
People should be allowed to keep more of their own money with lower taxes to pay for the smaller State. It should simplify taxation accross the board and in so doing make it simpler to collect and therefore harder to dodge. Do that and you can booste the economy, remove a huge drag that depresses economic success and in so doing create jobs and improve incomes.
This is the best way to defeat poverty, not by the simplistic tax 'em high and pay more and more benefits.
PaulB and DT, no I do not like branding people 'working class' 'upper class' or whatever. That is divisive and there is no need to label people and keep them in pidgeon holes. We need more social mobility, something that has suffered over the last 10 years.
We need a society where someone earning a low wage can get on and have the opportunity to better themselves through their own effort and hard work. It is wrong to just accept that some people are destined to live on poor pay and benefits all their lives but that is just what our present welfare system creates. What you would call a 'working class' person should be able to become what you call a 'middle class' person. By you labelling them you are writing people off to be what they are for the rest of their lives. People can best do that if they are left to be more self reliant and to make their own decisions in life. I did it.
4 February 2009
09:1714680Social mobility can only be measured if we have stratas in which to measure! And being Working Class does not mean you cannot earn money - I do not believe one "becomes" middle class or working class depending on circumstances - one either is or isn't! Ones circumstances, education, earning power whateve can change, but fundamentally one will remain a member of the class/family/race/community in which one was raised. That is neither good or bad, it just is. It may be more important to measure how opportunities can be afforded to raise the standards and wellbeing of anyone in any class (or however you want to measure) rather than whether or not that can leave that class and migrate to another one.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
4 February 2009
09:4714688barry,so you are you saying that people erning over lets say 30,000 pounds a year can get away with paying tax leagaly,that i find crimanal if everyone payed there taxses this country would be better of.high earners like in the city including bankers shold be taxed at source before any money leaves the country.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 February 2009
10:2114693I am not clear exactly what you are saying Brian.
Just remember the objective of tax should be only to raise the revenue needed for public services. the police and most importantly of all, defence. The exact level and indeed what constitutes public services is arguable, I would for instance set a much lower level than most people.
If the tax system in simplified and lowered you do a number of things:
1/ you stimulate the economy
2/ you reduce the opportunities and make it harder to avoid tax
3/ you in fact reduce the need to avoid tax
4/ you make it easier for people to understand the tax they pay and plan
5/ you reduce collection costs
Ultimately you can end up increasing revenues as a result.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
4 February 2009
10:3014694STILL WAITING FOR MY ANSWER BARRYW, ( I AM NOT A LEFTY/RIGHTY) just ordinary human being, please answer question as fellow human being?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
4 February 2009
11:5314699big bonuses going offshore barryw thats what im talking about.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 February 2009
13:1014700Gary - dont shout, as far as I know I have answered any questions, not that I have to.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
4 February 2009
14:0814701BarryW
I only got the answer that I expected, so I shouldn't be disappointed should I.
Even I know the, need and reasons, for profit, what I don't understand, is how business's like British Gas can get away with announcing profits of £571m, Centrica, their parent company, £1.95 Billion profit, during a recession and when our old and vulnerable are dying of cold? You will probably say, they are super efficient and they and their shareholders deserve every penny .
The truth is, they are making vast amounts of profit because we are so dependant on gas, most of which is imported, coupled with the fact that our coal stocks are still underground and most of our miners have been made redundant.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 February 2009
16:1614703Whether their profits might be judged excessive depends on the return on capital relative to the risk. I dont have those figures and therefore cannot comment. There is a great deal of infrastructure investment need to provide a reliable gas supply remember and it is also a competitive market with a range of suppliers available, I for one do not use BG.
