Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Risso]

More DWP grimness.

 

I've never read a bigger load of old bollocks in my life.

[Xann]

I've never read a bigger load of old bollocks in my life.

 

I have, Boris's speech the other day.

[snowychap]

 

The government paid Goldman Sachs for advice on the RM fire sale. Genius.

Perhaps wiser than asking the Co-op.

 

Had the full implications of the choice been on offer to Osborne, he may have had a hell of a quandary.

[snowychap]

I thought they might go for Balls once they get rid of Milliband,  Boris would be a strange choice for them

Ha ha ha.

Your lot dicking around with the ECO and, reportedly, putting insulation schemes for some of the poorest households at risk (shortly after numbers of a one third increase in excess winter deaths are released) would suggest that your cheap shot was as a result of a level of partisanship that is beyond most people.

[drat01]

More DWP grimness.

I've never read a bigger load of old bollocks in my life.

explain why rather than abuse?

[drat01]

Seems that-even when dead thatcher was screwing the uk. Turns out her last house was a tax con. Hmmmm what was that about greed again?

[Risso]

Seems that-even when dead thatcher was screwing the uk. Turns out her last house was a tax con. Hmmmm what was that about greed again?

 

"Expert Richard Murphy, of Tax Research, said: “It has always been strange that Margaret Thatcher, that most British of prime ministers, enjoyed the benefits of a property registered in the British Virgin Islands."

 

""It is possible that Denis Thatcher set up the trust or other offshore arrangements in order to save tax.”

Wow, that's the Thatchers bang to rights then.  With "expert" analysis like that, The Daily Mirror is on to something big, that's for sure.

[drat01]

Again mart you would rather attack the messenger than the message. Why is that?

[MakemineVanilla]

 

Seems that-even when dead thatcher was screwing the uk. Turns out her last house was a tax con. Hmmmm what was that about greed again?

 

"Expert Richard Murphy, of Tax Research, said: “It has always been strange that Margaret Thatcher, that most British of prime ministers, enjoyed the benefits of a property registered in the British Virgin Islands."

 

""It is possible that Denis Thatcher set up the trust or other offshore arrangements in order to save tax.”

Wow, that's the Thatchers bang to rights then.  With "expert" analysis like that, The Daily Mirror is on to something big, that's for sure.

 

 

For those who understand Thatcher I am not sure this tells us anything we didn't already know.

 

Her love of Republican values would certainly indicate that her definition of freedom would include tax avoidance as an expression of that freedom. She would then base her patriotism and pride in her country on her ability to express that freedom.

 

I think if you understand Republican politics you understand Thatcherism.

 

So I wouldn't object to her tax avoidance but I think her claim to be St Francis of Assisi went a little too far.

 

The fact that her fans can't see the conflict is very troubling.

[Risso]

I think it's more the fact that just about anybody with a house worth over a certain amount in London would be stupid if they didn't undertake inheritance tax planning.  The Thatchers obviously did, but then so did the Millibands, and of course so did vast numbers of MPs from all sides with their flipping of their secondary homes to avoid CGT.  Nothing to do with "Republican values", unless you consider the Millibands to be big fans of Reagan.

[MakemineVanilla]

I think it's more the fact that just about anybody with a house worth over a certain amount in London would be stupid if they didn't undertake inheritance tax planning.  The Thatchers obviously did, but then so did the Millibands, and of course so did vast numbers of MPs from all sides with their flipping of their secondary homes to avoid CGT.  Nothing to do with "Republican values", unless you consider the Millibands to be big fans of Reagan.

 

You make the wrong connection.

 

My argument was that tax avoidance is perfectly legitimate within Thatcher's political belief system.

 

Tax avoidance for the Milibands would almost certainly contradict their father's beliefs but obviously it would not necessarily contradict Mrs Miliband's, who was the daughter of a wealthy Polish capitalist (steel maker), or David's or Ed's.

 

To lump all the Milibands together and assume that they all believe in the exact same political belief system as Ralph, is to make the same mistake as the Daily Mail.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Tax avoidance should be stopped. If you want to make millions, fine, but you're paying the **** taxes.

[Risso]

 

I think it's more the fact that just about anybody with a house worth over a certain amount in London would be stupid if they didn't undertake inheritance tax planning.  The Thatchers obviously did, but then so did the Millibands, and of course so did vast numbers of MPs from all sides with their flipping of their secondary homes to avoid CGT.  Nothing to do with "Republican values", unless you consider the Millibands to be big fans of Reagan.

 

You make the wrong connection.

 

My argument was that tax avoidance is perfectly legitimate within Thatcher's political belief system.

 

Tax avoidance for the Milibands would almost certainly contradict their father's beliefs but obviously it would not necessarily contradict Mrs Miliband's, who was the daughter of a wealthy Polish capitalist (steel maker), or David's or Ed's.

 

To lump all the Milibands together and assume that they all believe in the exact same political belief system as Ralph, is to make the same mistake as the Daily Mail.

 

 

No, I didn't assume that they have the same political beliefs as their father.  They clearly have far more in common with Mrs T.

[blandy]

On Boris' comments:

 

Is greed an essential driver to increasing economic activity? Yes. If everyone was happy with their lot then who would start new companies and employ people, growing the economy, increasing the tax take and providing the cash to fund universal public services?  If it wasn't because they wanted "more", who would be prepared to risk their own assets as collateral for a loan from those god awful banks and spend their time building a company instead of playing with the kids, or watching the footy, or getting pissed? 

 

As to whether saying some people are not as bright as others.... is that really a contentious statement?

Greed is NOT an "essential driver" to increasing economic activity. It's the opposite, and here's why:

 

Greed is "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves...". As a slight generalisation, it was greed - the seking of unnatural or unjustified, or unjust rewards that in part led to the state we're in now. We have been, in the west, suffering a long period of economic decline, stagnation and now some small element, very small, of improvement in economic activity.

 

Greed is quite different from a desire to strive to better one's situation justifiably, and to a level which means you deserve what you get - either through effort or investment.

 

Greed leads to instability, it leads to unfairness, inequality (if someone is getting excessive reward, more than their efforts, or their contribution deserves, someone else will be getting less). Greed is not good. We need less of it, not more. Boris Johnson is an utter pillock.

 

Your major argument to me is not the same as BoJo is espousing. You seem to be saying, work hard, get fair reward, or risk t=your house, and fair play if you profit from the risk. That ain't greed. Greed is risk someone else's house so you can get rich, do no work, or little work, but seek excessive reward.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

On Boris' comments:

 

Is greed an essential driver to increasing economic activity? Yes. If everyone was happy with their lot then who would start new companies and employ people, growing the economy, increasing the tax take and providing the cash to fund universal public services?  If it wasn't because they wanted "more", who would be prepared to risk their own assets as collateral for a loan from those god awful banks and spend their time building a company instead of playing with the kids, or watching the footy, or getting pissed? 

 

As to whether saying some people are not as bright as others.... is that really a contentious statement?

Greed is NOT an "essential driver" to increasing economic activity. It's the opposite, and here's why:

 

Greed is "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves...". As a slight generalisation, it was greed - the seking of unnatural or unjustified, or unjust rewards that in part led to the state we're in now. We have been, in the west, suffering a long period of economic decline, stagnation and now some small element, very small, of improvement in economic activity.

 

Greed is quite different from a desire to strive to better one's situation justifiably, and to a level which means you deserve what you get - either through effort or investment.

 

Greed leads to instability, it leads to unfairness, inequality (if someone is getting excessive reward, more than their efforts, or their contribution deserves, someone else will be getting less). Greed is not good. We need less of it, not more. Boris Johnson is an utter pillock.

 

Your major argument to me is not the same as BoJo is espousing. You seem to be saying, work hard, get fair reward, or risk t=your house, and fair play if you profit from the risk. That ain't greed. Greed is risk someone else's house so you can get rich, do no work, or little work, but seek excessive reward.

 

 

I am not sure I would agree with this definition of greed.

 

But I would definitely say that it was a misuse of language by Boris to claim that all greed was good.

 

It would seem obvious that some types of greed are rather better than others and the way we can tell them apart is whether they do more or less harm, or not.

 

What amounts to harm will change according to the moral framework used.

 

But it seems likely that no matter what moral judgement we bring to bear, we will probably be trying to decide between lesser and greater evils.

 

And as we all know, trying to remove one evil can often bring forth another.

 

Ultimately, I don't think that in this age of consumerism, we can take refuge in the idea that it is only others who are guilty of greed and not ourselves. 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

Ultimately, I don't think that in this age of consumerism, we can take refuge in the idea that it is only others who are guilty of greed and not ourselves. 

 

 

Our very way of life depends on greed and exploitation. We are all implicit in it, and while the super rich abusing the system and skimming billions out of the economy is reprehensible, is it any more reprehensible than having our cheap goods made by cheap labour, sitting calmly by while governments kill thousands in order to maintain an energy supply, or thinking we do good by giving a few quid a month to charity as if it somehow makes it alright that we have colonised, exploited, killed and committed atrocities throughout history in order to get ahead?

 

If you want to change the system to promote social mobility and greater equality, then you have to do it completely and not just within your own borders, otherwise you're no better than those you oppose.

[chrisp65]

you can get all pious about it

 

 

or you can do your little bit

 

if more people did their little bit, we'd all be in a better place

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I didn't intend to come across as pious, more ambivalent.

[chrisp65]

no, no, I didn't quote you directly 'cos it wasn't aimed at you

 

it was a generality AND it was aimed at the guy with the sign (doubtless wearing denim from China)

[villaajax]

you can get all pious about it

 

 

or you can do your little bit

 

if more people did their little bit, we'd all be in a better place

 

That's not me trying to promote Ford as a better alternative by  the way...