|
ahinton
|
 |
« Reply #105 on: 12:03:58, 27-09-2007 » |
|
Furthermore, shareholders' influence is directly proportional to the amount of stock they own (a majority shareholder obviously has far more influence than one who owns a small handful bought during a government sell-off, for example). If the voting system was like that, then those who pay higher taxes would have more votes in elections - I can't believe even Alistair would advocate that.
No, of course I wouldn't, any more than I can find in in my heart to appreciate your somewhat gratuitous use of the word "even" here! That said, however, "majority taxpayers" do have something of an advantage (albeit not identical or on the same scale, of coruse) in that they have it within their power to withhold (by skilful avoidance) tax if disgruntled with the ways in which it is being spent and to move entities offshore to avoid even more; not only that, they are in better positions to decide to move entire taxpaying commencial operations offshore to avoid UK tax while still taking personal advantage of what this country offers. Not a nice situation, to be sure, but it is nevertheless a real one. Redistributive taxation works on the principle that tax is collected from the better-off to help support the less fortunate, whether or not the former perceive themselves to directly benefit from such a thing.
That's supposedly the principle, yes - but it is in the extent to which it "works" (or doesn't) that the principle may often be compromised in practice. The poll tax negated all of that, and was a reversion to 14th century economics. Even the biggest sceptic towards ideologies of progress would surely concede that we've moved on somewhat for the better since then?
As I have suggested in another post in this thread, it was a grave error of judgement and I have to admit that I didn't think that it would last long - as indeed it didn't. In fact, it seriously reduced any confidence that I might otherwise have had in the more general tax-reducing aims of the régime that was daft enough to introduce it. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #106 on: 12:05:37, 27-09-2007 » |
|
There are many people in the UK who don't pay taxes (and I'm not saying that everyone should) but I'm going to be controversial and say that I thought that Thatcher's poll tax was the right idea but just badly implemented. Shouldn't you therefore insist on calling it the 'community charge'?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #107 on: 12:09:05, 27-09-2007 » |
|
There are many things, including public transport, that could probably be provided free for all via taxation with little negative financial impact on a large number of people, I reckon (high-earners would pay a bit more through their taxes, but they can afford it). For example, I can't imagine it would be all that costly for a government to provide free good quality wireless internet access for everyone. However, the companies that currently profit from such a thing would certainly not like their source of income taken away, and they and others have (through the money they give) a direct effect upon the policies and actions of politicians in all the main parties.
The post from Alistair directly above this one totally writes out redistributive taxation from the picture, alas.
No, it doesn't - or, if it seems to do so, I've not expressed myself clearly, for which I apologise. Provision of wireless internet by the government out of taxpayers' money could very well generate massive profits; whether it could be made to work in practice I don't know, but I certainly would not dismiss the idea out of hand at all. I'm not so sure if that could be made to work with public transport; I'm not saying that it couldn't but even the French, who subsidise their rail network more heavily than we do ours (although there are very few domestic flights in France compared to here) don't do that. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #108 on: 12:09:57, 27-09-2007 » |
|
No, of course I wouldn't, any more than I can find in in my heart to appreciate your somewhat gratuitous use of the word "even" here! That said, however, "majority taxpayers" do have something of an advantage (albeit not identical or on the same scale, of coruse) in that they have it within their power to withhold (by skilful avoidance) tax if disgruntled with the ways in which it is being spent and to move entities offshore to avoid even more; not only that, they are in better positions to decide to move entire taxpaying commencial operations offshore to avoid UK tax while still taking personal advantage of what this country offers. Not a nice situation, to be sure, but it is nevertheless a real one. That was exactly the argument that Nigel Lawson used to justify cutting the top rate of income tax from 60% to 40% in the 1988 budget. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #109 on: 12:11:29, 27-09-2007 » |
|
one of Richard's finer qualities I never thought of myself as a euphuist before. Cool! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #110 on: 12:11:59, 27-09-2007 » |
|
Provision of wireless internet by the government out of taxpayers' money could very well generate massive profits; That is totally at odds with what I was proposing, which was that wireless internet might be provided free, and not for profit! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #111 on: 12:16:04, 27-09-2007 » |
|
one of Richard's finer qualities I never thought of myself as a euphuist before. Cool! Oh. I just googled it - it doesn't seem to mean what I thought. I thought euphuism was the art of beautiful handwriting (and in your case I meant it to apply to score-writing). Sorry. Provision of wireless internet by the government out of taxpayers' money could very well generate massive profits; That is totally at odds with what I was proposing, which was that wireless internet might be provided free, and not for profit! Indeed! As I said above, Alistair seems to be so unaware of his own beliefs' status as beliefs that he consistently misreads others in place of realising that they might have a coherent but different position to his own. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #112 on: 12:16:28, 27-09-2007 » |
|
(by which I mean healthcare, public transport, etc., all of which are run by businesses - the fact that they are for the most part public rather than private businesses should make no difference in reality) Yes it should! The idea that they should be "businesses" rather than "services" is a crucial part of Thatcher's redefinition of the agenda. A "service", as its name implies, exists in order to "serve". A "business", while it might incidentally provide a service, is in the "business" of making money for its owners. Completely different (and indeed fundamentally incompatible) priorities, in other words. Well, I suppose that we may just have to agree to disagree here, but my reasons for so saying are as follows. If a business - by which I mean a one-person-no-employees just as much as a multinational corporation, should exist to provide a service as well as achieveing business success and, if it doesn't do that, its credibility doesn't go far with me. You are quite right to point out the incompatibility; the only way in which I see it differently is that I find such incompatibility (which has indeed become all too real in practice) and its consequences to be potentially dangerous and unnecessary. Also, HMRC taxes me as a "business" and has done before, during and after Thatcher, so I'm not entirely convinced that Thatcher's lot really did fundamentally move the definitional goalposts here; but what do I do? - rake in massive profits without much of a care as to the service that I provide? Not abit of it (in either case)! Anyway, for the record, I am not against the principle of redistributive taxation and I am against most if not all flat-rate taxation; that might surprise some people after other things that I've said, but it remains my basic position on it. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #113 on: 12:17:55, 27-09-2007 » |
|
(by which I mean healthcare, public transport, etc., all of which are run by businesses - the fact that they are for the most part public rather than private businesses should make no difference in reality) Yes it should! The idea that they should be "businesses" rather than "services" is a crucial part of Thatcher's redefinition of the agenda. A "service", as its name implies, exists in order to "serve". A "business", while it might incidentally provide a service, is in the "business" of making money for its owners. Completely different (and indeed fundamentally incompatible) priorities, in other words. One of the great myths that enables the 'businesses are services' ideology to continue is the idea that in the marketplace, the consumers rather than the producers run things. It ain't so. I didn't say that "businesses are services" - or at least I didn't mean to; what I meant is that businesses OUGHT to be services... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #114 on: 12:18:36, 27-09-2007 » |
|
HMRC taxes me as a "business" and has done before, during and after Thatcher, so I'm not entirely convinced that Thatcher's lot really did fundamentally move the definitional goalposts here I think Richard was talking about services like the NHS or the public transport network, not the Sorabji Archive. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #115 on: 12:19:58, 27-09-2007 » |
|
Alistair
I don't know what you think 'euphemism' means but I can't make any sense of your response above. A euphemism is a nice way of paraphrasing something unpleasant, whereas you don't seem to think there's anything unpleasant about the idea of, as you put it, 'UK plc'.
On the contrary, there's a lot that's unpleasant about it! While we're on the subject of definitions, your continual attempt to present your beliefs as if they were natural/obvious/simple common sense etc. is the very embodiment of what's meant by the term 'ideology'. As Alain Robbe-Grillet said in a different context, every writer believes himself to be a realist; similarly, I might suggest, every ideologue believes himself not to be one.
They're not so much beliefs as mere opinions; I'm not even suggesting that I'm right, either... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12:35:50, 27-09-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #116 on: 12:23:43, 27-09-2007 » |
|
I'm not so sure if that could be made to work with public transport It depends on what you mean by "made to work". Does the present system "work"? Not really. Train fares, for example, are so expensive that people are more or less forced into taking a car (if they have one) or even a plane, since, as you say, our country is crisscrossed by completely unnecessary flightpaths. Which means train fares become even more expensive, which means even fewer people use them, which means the system gets even more run down until the only way to get anywhere is the most wasteful and destructive way. Brilliant! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #117 on: 12:24:18, 27-09-2007 » |
|
I didn't say that "businesses are services" - or at least I didn't mean to; what I meant is that businesses OUGHT to be services... The appropriate definition of 'business' in the OED in this context is 'trade, commercial transactions; commercial house, firm', and Collins gives it as 'a commercial or industrial establishment; commercial activity, dealings'. I'd argue that it is incompatible for something to be run primarily as a commercial operation, and still be a 'service'. The two things are entirely different. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #118 on: 12:25:40, 27-09-2007 » |
|
I'm not so sure if that could be made to work with public transport It depends on what you mean by "made to work". Does the present system "work"? Not really. Train fares, for example, are so expensive that people are more or less forced into taking a car (if they have one) or even a plane, since, as you say, our country is crisscrossed by completely unnecessary flightpaths. Which means train fares become even more expensive, which means even fewer people use them, which means the system gets even more run down until the only way to get anywhere is the most wasteful and destructive way. Brilliant! While it's not perfect, when I've used the Paris Metro there have been trains arriving every few minutes, going very quickly, enabling one to travel to practically any destination one wishes, and at considerably cheaper fares than in London. If they can do it, so can we. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #119 on: 12:25:57, 27-09-2007 » |
|
No, of course I wouldn't, any more than I can find in in my heart to appreciate your somewhat gratuitous use of the word "even" here! That said, however, "majority taxpayers" do have something of an advantage (albeit not identical or on the same scale, of coruse) in that they have it within their power to withhold (by skilful avoidance) tax if disgruntled with the ways in which it is being spent and to move entities offshore to avoid even more; not only that, they are in better positions to decide to move entire taxpaying commencial operations offshore to avoid UK tax while still taking personal advantage of what this country offers. Not a nice situation, to be sure, but it is nevertheless a real one. That was exactly the argument that Nigel Lawson used to justify cutting the top rate of income tax from 60% to 40% in the 1988 budget. And unless you believe (which perhaps you do - and I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't) that sufficient numbers of those subject to that 60% would not in fact have taken their businesses and investments elsewhere, was that change so bad a thing? After all, there's no point in levying any tax at any rate at all unless you can be reasonably certain of success in collecting enough of it! Incidentally, I am no expert on taxation anywhere and certainly not in Finland, for example, yet a Finn I know who pays a far greater proportion of his income in direct income tax than would be the case here doesn't mind doing so because he can perceive the value for money that he gets for it (OK, maybe his overall tax liability is not so different to what it might be here, since we have more and more complex taxes here than they do in Finland, I think). Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12:53:42, 27-09-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
