UK - Election 2015

[Craig B]

Concocts garbage not in evidence.

But well-poisoning and propagation of your personal fantasy noted.

You don't want to abolish the state pension? You don't want all social provision to be means-tested?

 

[Francesca R]

After just having lectured me on the fact that the rate can rise and the take can fall [ . . . ]

What?

 

[3point14]

What?

Ah, My apologies, that was Mike. I am told the difference between 'rate' and 'take' is important so could you rephrase the question.

 

[Francesca R]

After all of that, I still maintain that either the centre is shifting to the right (driven, and this is simply my opinion, by powerful corporate and media interests) or the will of the people is not being reflected in the legislation.

I am sure yiu still do maintain that. People don't tend to relinquish their position even if it does not stand up well to forensics.

(Neither do I of course. But on this point I don't think the centre has moved in aggregate. More liberal in a lot of ways but also less liberal on things like immigration. Larger state but also more private provision. As for the interests driving it then I don't think big business is the only interest with power at all)

 

[Francesca R]

Ah, My apologies, that was Mike. I am told the difference between 'rate' and 'take' is important so could you rephrase the question.

There are myriad tax rates. There is only one tax take.

Which one is your indicator of left/right please?

 

[3point14]

I am sure yiu still do maintain that. People don't tend to relinquish their position even if it does not stand up well to forensics.

Are you being snipey with me? I'm not sure the forensics are complete. I am sure you come across as pretty patronising on occasion.

(Neither do I of course. But on this point I don't think the centre has moved in aggregate. More liberal in a lot of ways but also less liberal on things like immigration. Larger state but also more private provision. As for the interests driving it then I don't think big business is the only interest with power at all)

Er, neither do you what..?

 

[3point14]

There are myriad tax rates. There is only one tax take.

Which one is your indicator of left/right please?

So, generally speaking, and as I understand it, higher tax rates are a more left wing thing and lower tax rates a more right wing thing.

I may have been fooled by the correlation with left/right wing governments over the years and around the world. Maybe that's just been one big coincidence.

 

[Craig B]

I am sure yiu still do maintain that. People don't tend to relinquish their position even if it does not stand up well to forensics.

(Neither do I of course. But on this point I don't think the centre has moved in aggregate. More liberal in a lot of ways but also less liberal on things like immigration. Larger state but also more private provision. As for the interests driving it then I don't think big business is the only interest with power at all)

I have asked before, because I'm interested. Why do you support immigration? I have no problems with it either, but you seem really to be an enthusiast for it, and it would interest me to know why you have adopted that position.

 

[Francesca R]

neither do you what..?

Relinquish my position very easily even if it doesn't stand up to forensics.

 

[Francesca R]

So, generally speaking, and as I understand it, higher tax rates are a more left wing thing and lower tax rates a more right wing thing.

Then it is inconsistent to say that a growing size of government (tax take, or total spend) "could easily be a shift right". This is more likely to be a shift left isn't it?

 

[3point14]

Relinquish my position very easily even if it doesn't stand up to forensics.

Up to speed now.

Also, apparently, I'm feeling tetchy. My apologies.

 

[3point14]

Then it is inconsistent to say that a growing size of government (tax take, or total spend) "could easily be a shift right". This is more likely to be a shift left isn't it?

Are we taking into account population size?

Is the take growing per capita?

 

[Francesca R]

Tax revenue as % national income, public spending as % of national spending.

 

[3point14]

Tax revenue as % national income, public spending as % of national spending.

If the population rises and the tax rate falls, is it possible to have a lowering rate with a rising take?

 

[Francesca R]

Also, what are the income-egalitarian ("left") grounds for making government payments to rich people, again?

 

[Francesca R]

If the population rises and the tax rate falls, is it possible to have a lowering rate with a rising take?

Many things are possible it is not very likely.

A growing share of the economy being government spending and/or government revenue (tax, excise, other) is not really consistent with there being a shift of the centre-ground to the right is it? At least not given your statement that the right cuts taxes. (And I suppose you would add, cuts spending)

 

[3point14]

Also, what are the income-egalitarian ("left") grounds for making government payments to rich people, again?

Payments? Have I mentioned payments?

I have definitely mentioned services, but if I mentioned any payments I can't recall.

 

[3point14]

Many things are possible it is not very likely.

A growing share of the economy being government spending and/or government revenue (tax, excise, other) is not really consistent with there being a shift of the centre-ground to the right is it? At least not given your statement that the right cuts taxes. (And I suppose you would add, cuts spending)

I think it's probably not that simple. I think one would need to examine where the spending went, certain subsidies, to large corporations and the like, would increase tax burden but still be right leaning.

I would need to examine the actual in's and out's of spending.

I think it's also significant what the income is spent on. If it's providing services to the public through a private corporation (at taxpayer expense) that's more expensive than the nationalised variant (energy prices spring to mind) then the cost to the taxpayer, and therefore government spend has increased but it's definitely a right wing policy.


Similarly, when the privatised railways cost more to run and need to be subsidised by the taxpayer, the cost to the taxpayer rises and the utility falls. Money leaks out of the system to shareholders even while the company is subsidised by the taxpayer.

 

[Francesca R]

Payments? Have I mentioned payments?

I mentioned universal benefits and all those I listed are payments. I stated removing this universality was incompatible with "a move right". You disagreed.

There seems to be an almost world-wide false idea that universal state benefits are somehow progressive / left and that reserving state benefits for the poor only is regressive. It is completely backwards. There is no income-egalitatarian justification for rich people to receive free prescriptions, or state pension, or winter fuel payment, or child benefit, or any benefit at all. I disagree that the withdrawal of universal benefits is a move to the right.

I disagree with your disagreement.

So please explain why it serves left of centre political ideals to make such government payments to rich people.

 

[Francesca R]

I think it's probably not that simple.

You load caveats onto one comprehensive measure (the size of the state), but are perfectly happy to conclude that a falling headline business tax rate is a rightward shift of the centre ground.

Right . . .

Maybe the country hasn't moved but you've moved left?