UK - Election 2015

[MikeG]

Manipulating rates to shaft the consumer seems pretty predatory?

No. It's bad, but it isn't predatory. Predation involves consuming your victim. Asset strippers do/ did that all the time: buying up companies to get their land banks, or their patents, or whatever, and selling the rest of the assets off after sacking the workforce. That's a predator, and heinous as some of the bank behaviour has been, they don't behave like that.

 

[3point14]

No, it isn't. You see, this is where people get wrapped up in rhetoric. Being required to be competitive in terms of service delivery is not the same as privatisation. Nothing is being sold off. The government still funds everything out of tax payer money. It is still free at the point of delivery. In the same way as people don't really care whether their rubbish is collected by a council employee or a private company, I'll warrant people don't really care about the contractual arrangements of the surgeon who is doing their hip operation or cataracts.

I see the 'private/public' partnerships as a very right wing idea, holding that the best way to run anything is to put it out to tender and see how it does in 'the market'. The biggest advantage the NHS has is it's massive purchasing power so it is able to obtain things more cheaply. Splitting it up into a number of publicly funded private firms, a number of whom will no doubt go bust and leave the taxpayer picking u the tab anyway, is a very right wing idea, ideologically driven.

At what rate does a marginal tax band become left wing or right wing? There must be a crossover point. If 50% is definitely left wing, and 45% is definitely a right wing position, then you be comfortable with a 47.5% rate being the good centrist position to take? And could you also explain how this isn't ridiculous?

I didn't talk about any specific rates, I said that tax rates are falling, which they are.

 

[3point14]

No. It's bad, but it isn't predatory. Predation involves consuming your victim. Asset strippers do/ did that all the time: buying up companies to get their land banks, or their patents, or whatever, and selling the rest of the assets off after sacking the workforce. That's a predator, and heinous as some of the bank behaviour has been, they don't behave like that.

Fair enough, thanks.

 

[Craig B]

If you think mis-behaving banks are predator corporations, Craig, then you have a very different definition from the one which has been in common useage for decades. Banks may be all sorts of villains, but they aren't asset strippers, which is what I expect most people think of when they think of predator corporations.

That is a very weird response. Francesca, can you help?

ETA This isn't predation?

US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that "almost every day" for five years from 2007, currency traders used a private electronic chat room to manipulate exchange rates.
Their actions harmed "countless consumers, investors and institutions around the world", she said.

Anyway we can't talk about asset strippers, because they're predators; but we can talk about naughty banks because they're not predators. Is that it?

Maybe we should ask Tony. He works for a JPM affiliate, advising them. Also he's plenty rich, so just the man to sort out the complexities besetting these issues.

 

[MikeG]

Weird? In what way is that really simple little paragraph weird?

 

[MikeG]

........I didn't talk about any specific rates, I said that tax rates are falling, which they are.

I don't think tax rates are important. I think tax takes are. It is perfectly possible to increase tax rates and receive smaller tax takes as a result (indeed, a classic example of this is happening in France right now).

There is a danger of fixating on tax rates, and thus reinforcing the stereotype of left wing governments being all about high taxes and high spending. Someone someday might be able to explain why this is a good thing, but I haven't heard it yet.

 

[Francesca R]

The fact that they 'tend to fall under left and right governments' seems to indicate that the 'centre' is shifting to the 'left'.

Or it indicates that high corporate tax is not very sustainable no matter what the domestic political climate. In Ireland which is an example of a country that leans to the left of many the corporate tax rate is among the lowest in the world for example.

I disagree with your disagreement.

What are the income-egalitarian grounds for providing government payments to rich people?

I think that could just as easily indicate a more right wing and less efficient government, fueling private profits with taxpayer money, raising turnover.

Earlier you indicated that a falling tax rate was synonymous with a shift right. Now you are suggesting a rising tax take and public spend could also easily be a shift right. So it is a shift right whichever happens? That is not great evidence really, is it?

Socially, I think movement to the 'left' is happening in some areas. The whole thing is muddied by the utterly useless 'left/right' labelling.

Well you did raise the labelling yourself in the post I replied to (1383) . . .

 

[Francesca R]

The continued privatisation of the NHS is happening now.

This is false and it is rhetoric that is/ought to be beneath you. NHS service* is free to everyone on delivery and it always has been since creation. It is all paid for by the state which is the only "shareholder".

*Not prescriptions. Dentistry, optometry is technically free to anybody but sufficiently rationed that it it may as well not be.

The current discussion is of charging for GP visits or some other way to take money from the sick who have already paid for it in national insurance contributions.

I support this, but even the Tories have been told that it is a colossal vote loser apparently

 

[Craig B]

Weird? In what way is that really simple little paragraph weird?

Because we're discussing whether or not it's permissible to refer to predator corporations in the political arena. What you seem to be saying, as I later pointed out, is very odd.

Anyway we can't talk about asset strippers, because they're predators; but we can talk about naughty banks because they're not predators. Is that it?

 

[3point14]

Or it indicates that high corporate tax is not very sustainable no matter what the domestic political climate. In Ireland which is an example of a country that leans to the left of many the corporate tax rate is among the lowest in the world for example.

What are the income-egalitarian grounds for providing government payments to rich people?

I think that services (not benefits) should be provided equally across the population. Just because someone is rich and, incidentally, has probably paid more tax, I don't think that's any reason to exclude them from public services.

Earlier you indicated that a falling tax rate was synonymous with a shift right. Now you are suggesting a rising tax take and public spend could also easily be a shift right. So it is a shift right whichever happens? That is not great evidence really, is it?

You changed 'rate' to 'take' mid sentence...

Well you did raise the labelling yourself in the post I replied to (1383) . . .

I hate it. I hate it even more when I am forced to use it. It is entirely without subtlety or nuance

 

[anglolawyer]

If you think mis-behaving banks are predator corporations, Craig, then you have a very different definition from the one which has been in common useage for decades. Banks may be all sorts of villains, but they aren't asset strippers, which is what I expect most people think of when they think of predator corporations.

LIBOR fixers, PPI mis-sellers, criminal abusers of their defaulting customers, multi-billion pound fine-paying, economy wrecking, reckless, greedy, stupid fools. But not predator corps. (except when forcing customers into insolvency then underselling their assets to pals and associates) thank goodness.

 

[3point14]

Aaargh.
Technical cock-up
Any passing mods, please delete.

 

[3point14]

This is false and it is rhetoric that is/ought to be beneath you. NHS service* is free to everyone on delivery and it always has been since creation. It is all paid for by the state which is the only "shareholder".

Please see my response to Mike above who made a similar point.

*Not prescriptions. Dentistry, optometry is technically free to anybody but sufficiently rationed that it it may as well not be.

I support this, but even the Tories have been told that it is a colossal vote loser apparently

I think it's very regressive.

 

[Francesca R]

I think that services (not benefits) should be provided equally across the population. Just because someone is rich and, incidentally, has probably paid more tax, I don't think that's any reason to exclude them from public services.

Requiring payment is not exclusion. Unless the service is, actually a pure benefit, in which case withdrawing it is. Rich people can access the NHS.

So what do you disagree about?

And of course some services are only and appropriately for the poor only so they are not provided equally anyway.

You changed 'rate' to 'take' mid sentence...

Evasion noted.

 

[Craig B]

This is false and it is rhetoric that is/ought to be beneath you. NHS service* is free to everyone on delivery and it always has been since creation. It is all paid for by the state which is the only "shareholder".

*Not prescriptions. Dentistry, optometry is technically free to anybody but sufficiently rationed that it it may as well not be.

I support this, but even the Tories have been told that it is a colossal vote loser apparently

Prescriptions are free in Scotland, N Ireland and Wales. They were free in the UK when the NHS was set up.

You want to minimise taxation as far as it is possible to go. And such taxes as remain are to be non-income levies. And you want to abolish all social provision, including state pensions, except means-tested doles to keep the very poorest people alive. There's nothing unconventional about this viewpoint. It's pure Thatcher Toryism.

 

[Francesca R]

I think it's very regressive.

You have a weird understanding of regressive. Making rich people pay for stuff is progressive relative to not making anyone pay. This is not ambiguous.

(And for clarity charging for doctor visits is something I approve of for high income people, although some charge even if it is £1 should IMO be levied across the board.)

You might as well say that implementing a higher rate of tax for high incomes is "very regressive"

 

[Francesca R]

You want to [ . . . ]

Concocts garbage not in evidence.

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

 

[3point14]

Requiring payment is not exclusion. Unless the service is, actually a pure benefit, in which case withdrawing it is. Rich people can access the NHS.

I don't see your point. Can you rephrase?

So what do you disagree about?

And of course some services are only and appropriately for the poor only so they are not provided equally anyway.

Evasion noted.

After just having lectured me on the fact that the rate can rise and the take can fall I would think you'd be prepared to be a little more precise about it. If you can tell me which you're talking about I might take a stab at an answer.

 

[3point14]

You have a weird understanding of regressive. Making rich people pay for stuff is progressive relative to not making anyone pay. This is not ambiguous.

(And for clarity charging for doctor visits is something I approve of for high income people, although some charge even if it is £1 should IMO be levied across the board.)

You might as well say that implementing a higher rate of tax for high incomes is "very regressive"

Rich person visiting GP once - 1% of income earned that week
Poor person visiting GP once - 20% of income earned that week.

Unless I've missed some sort of means testing being posited here.

 

[3point14]

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.