Democracy and Brexit

[AndrewJB]

What can a government, however determined, do about someone who lives abroad and keeps his money abroad?

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/interna ... ing-abroad" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They can do what the US does.

Since Thatcher every government we've had has looked after the interests of the very rich in this country. The idea that the richest are too agile, too intelligent, and too legally insulated to be compelled to pay their fair share of tax is only there because those governments never tried. A government that looks beyond the interests of the wealthy, one that governs for everyone rather than just the one percent, will reverse this.

[dsr]

How do you stop people renouncing their citizenship? If you are talking about a very rich man with £100m in assets, and he thinks that the UK government is going to take £10m in "Wealth Tax", he isn't going to like it. So firstly he moves his assets abroad, just to be ready; then if the wealth tax is brought in he moves himself abroad, as the second step; and if the UK decides to treat wealth tax the way the US treats income tax (which is a much less onerous burden), then he becomes a citizen of somewhere else. And once Mr. Rich Man is a citizen of say Bermuda, with his money in the BVI, there is nothing the UK government can do about it.

And furthermore, he won't be spending any money in the UK either.

[evensteadiereddie]

So ?

[Erasmus]

Dsr, is there then any means by which wealth can be moved from the private to the public sphere? There seems to be a problem in that Britain is a wealthy country but because the so much of that wealth is privately held, public welfare through public services is being starved of resources. I can see your point about the problem of simply applying a wealth tax, but can you see any other way of doing this? Otherwise the lack of funding for schools, the NHS, social care, police etc is just going to get worse.

[Imploding Turtle]

How do you stop people renouncing their citizenship? If you are talking about a very rich man with £100m in assets, and he thinks that the UK government is going to take £10m in "Wealth Tax", he isn't going to like it. So firstly he moves his assets abroad, just to be ready; then if the wealth tax is brought in he moves himself abroad, as the second step; and if the UK decides to treat wealth tax the way the US treats income tax (which is a much less onerous burden), then he becomes a citizen of somewhere else. And once Mr. Rich Man is a citizen of say Bermuda, with his money in the BVI, there is nothing the UK government can do about it.

And furthermore, he won't be spending any money in the UK either.

Why should i be concerned by someone who's not paying their taxes in the first place renouncing their citizenship?

If anything it'll mean this piece of **** can no longer bribe politicians with donations to protect his wealth by keeping in our tax laws the loopholes that he was able to exploit. To me it sounds pretty good if this leech ***** off and leaves his citizenship behind.

[levraiclaret]

There seems to be plenty of wealthy folk that don't want to pay their fair share of tax but do want to live/work in this country. Put them between a rock and a hard place.

[dsr]

Dsr, is there then any means by which wealth can be moved from the private to the public sphere? There seems to be a problem in that Britain is a wealthy country but because the so much of that wealth is privately held, public welfare through public services is being starved of resources. I can see your point about the problem of simply applying a wealth tax, but can you see any other way of doing this? Otherwise the lack of funding for schools, the NHS, social care, police etc is just going to get worse.

You can tax the middle classes till the pips squeak. Tax their homes, tax their second homes, shove up income tax, tax their businesses, tax their employees. You might be able to tax them so much they they close down their businesses and get a job instead.

But taxing the really wealthy, that's very difficult. The best you can do is tax them small enough amounts that they are willing to pay. Tax someone 25% of income, and he may well decide he can afford it and will not go to any great lengths to avoid it. Tax him 55%, and he'll ask himself why he is working for the government rather than himself and take serious steps to avoid the tax altogether. Tax him 10% of his wealth, and he will not believe that that will be the last demand, and he will clear off and take his money with him.

In the seventies, the Labour government (and quite possibly the Tory government under Heath that preceded it) had a policy of not allowing people to take money out of the country. Not as cash, not as assets. That didn't do much good then, and it wouldn't work now because of all the electronic securities transfers and potentially dodgy anonymous company ownerships.

[Imploding Turtle]

You can tax the middle classes till the pips squeak. Tax their homes, tax their second homes, shove up income tax, tax their businesses, tax their employees. You might be able to tax them so much they they close down their businesses and get a job instead.

But taxing the really wealthy, that's very difficult. The best you can do is tax them small enough amounts that they are willing to pay. Tax someone 25% of income, and he may well decide he can afford it and will not go to any great lengths to avoid it. Tax him 55%, and he'll ask himself why he is working for the government rather than himself and take serious steps to avoid the tax altogether. Tax him 10% of his wealth, and he will not believe that that will be the last demand, and he will clear off and take his money with him.

In the seventies, the Labour government (and quite possibly the Tory government under Heath that preceded it) had a policy of not allowing people to take money out of the country. Not as cash, not as assets. That didn't do much good then, and it wouldn't work now because of all the electronic securities transfers and potentially dodgy anonymous company ownerships.

Utter bullshit. This is appeasing greed. In what other area of law do we ever think that we should perhaps make some crimes less of a crime because then perhaps people will commit that crime less often?

It's Laffer Curve-esque bullshit.

"I refuse to obey this law"
"oh, that's a shame. What if we weaken the law, will you obey it then?"
"I might. Do it and we'll see"

[dsr]

Utter bullshit. This is appeasing greed. In what other area of law do we ever think that we should perhaps make some crimes less of a crime because then perhaps people will commit that crime less often?

It's Laffer Curve-esque bullshit.

"I refuse to obey this law"
"oh, that's a shame. What if we weaken the law, will you obey it then?"
"I might. Do it and we'll see"

Avoiding tax isn't a crime. Which makes the rest of the rant pretty pointless.

[Imploding Turtle]

Avoiding tax isn't a crime. Which makes the rest of the rant pretty pointless.

It can be.

[Imploding Turtle]

I predict you're about to use the two legal definitions, ignoring that fact that i don't give a **** about your legal definition and am only talking about the act of avoiding taxes.

'Evade' and 'avoid' are synonyms.

[dsr]

It can be.

How? I'm not aware of any law against avoiding tax. Most of us do it to some extent. Anyone who ever had an ISA or TESSA, for example.

[Imploding Turtle]

How? I'm not aware of any law against avoiding tax. Most of us do it to some extent. Anyone who ever had an ISA or TESSA, for example.

[dsr]

I predict you're about to use the two legal definitions, ignoring that fact that i don't give a **** about your legal definition and am only talking about the act of avoiding taxes.

'Evade' and 'avoid' are synonyms.

Yes, and I will continue to do that until you get the message. You can rant all you want about the morality of someone avoiding tax by moving abroad to a lower tax regime and taking his money with him; but when you witter on about how reducing the tax rate for emigres would be trying to make what they did less of a crime, then you aren't making sense.

you may be the only person in the country who has deliberately arranged your tax affairs to pay the maximum possible. But the rest of us, one way or another, have avoided paying tax where possible.

[Erasmus]

Dsr, I am not sure it is absolutely impossible to rebalance the nation's wealth away from the very rich. One of the problems seems to be that recent governments have tended to be rather more sympathetic to the very rich and not so sympathetic towards the very poor. I find it quite hard to accept that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to redress the imbalance and do something to help poorer people.

It has become so natural to put a few groceries in the food bank box at the supermarket that you stop thinking about what is happening. To me, it is a source of great shame to our country that the school holidays mean greater use of food banks just so children get enough to eat. That really is shameful when there is so much extra wealth in the country being idly frittered away on trivial luxuries.

[Imploding Turtle]

Here's another threat to our democracy. Although I'm sure this will be all above board. Right? Surely Farage wouldn't do anything immoral.

He has a Super PAC now.

This means he can accept unlimited amounts of money from anyone (because donations to Super PACs don't have to have identifiable sources, and he can spend it on literally anything he wants.

Here's Stephen Colbert talking about his Super PAC from 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cet3NcNNSc4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Remember when, Obama correcting Leave's lies about America was outrageous?

https://www.ft.com/content/708d5bee-aef ... 0adfa879c2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

You can tax the middle classes till the pips squeak. Tax their homes, tax their second homes, shove up income tax, tax their businesses, tax their employees. You might be able to tax them so much they they close down their businesses and get a job instead.

But taxing the really wealthy, that's very difficult. The best you can do is tax them small enough amounts that they are willing to pay. Tax someone 25% of income, and he may well decide he can afford it and will not go to any great lengths to avoid it. Tax him 55%, and he'll ask himself why he is working for the government rather than himself and take serious steps to avoid the tax altogether. Tax him 10% of his wealth, and he will not believe that that will be the last demand, and he will clear off and take his money with him.

In the seventies, the Labour government (and quite possibly the Tory government under Heath that preceded it) had a policy of not allowing people to take money out of the country. Not as cash, not as assets. That didn't do much good then, and it wouldn't work now because of all the electronic securities transfers and potentially dodgy anonymous company ownerships.

You've given an excellent argument as to why we shouldn't have extremely rich people at all. Add to the fact that were a billionaire's wealth distributed among a million people (creating a million milionaires), the economy would benefit a lot more than were the money left in the hands (or offshore bank account) of the billionaire; and the argument for tolerating extreme wealth looks very weak.

As I said earlier, there are probably many clever ways of dealing with wealthy people wanting to avoid (or if the law has been passed - evade) their responsibilities to the rest of society. Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands are probably not the best examples of places to try to flee to - for obvious reasons (I know we don't own them, but we are in a position to exert pressure to see someone running away from the law returned to face justice).

Lots of other ways to redistribute wealth too.

[Gerry Hattrick]

"Add to the fact that were a billionaire's wealth distributed among a million people (creating a million milionaires).........."

Hmmm?

[dsr]

You've given an excellent argument as to why we shouldn't have extremely rich people at all. Add to the fact that were a billionaire's wealth distributed among a million people (creating a million milionaires), the economy would benefit a lot more than were the money left in the hands (or offshore bank account) of the billionaire; and the argument for tolerating extreme wealth looks very weak.

As I said earlier, there are probably many clever ways of dealing with wealthy people wanting to avoid (or if the law has been passed - evade) their responsibilities to the rest of society. Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands are probably not the best examples of places to try to flee to - for obvious reasons (I know we don't own them, but we are in a position to exert pressure to see someone running away from the law returned to face justice).

Lots of other ways to redistribute wealth too.

The English billion of a million million is (unfortunately) only in the history books now. Even Bill Gates' wealth ($103 bn)would only make 100,000 dollar millionaires, not a million.

The Sunday Times rich list, top 15, has only three people on there who were British born and British-only citizenship. They have £40 billion between them, enough to make 40,000 millionaires if you were to make them bankrupt. The other 12, you could have a go at, but be very clear that even if you succeeded with them, you would guarantee no other rich man or woman would ever come to Britain.

One of three Brits is Dyson. He employs 5,000 people in the UK. So if you take his wealth off him, you are also taking it off 5,000 others. You would find that not only family firms but also big plcs would move as much businesses offshore as they can, if only to allow the directors to continue "earning" their salaries. And if the business goes offshore, some or all of the jobs go too.

[AndrewJB]

"Add to the fact that were a billionaire's wealth distributed among a million people (creating a million milionaires).........."

Hmmm?

A thousand millionaires. My error in typing.

[AndrewJB]

The English billion of a million million is (unfortunately) only in the history books now. Even Bill Gates' wealth ($103 bn)would only make 100,000 dollar millionaires, not a million.

The Sunday Times rich list, top 15, has only three people on there who were British born and British-only citizenship. They have £40 billion between them, enough to make 40,000 millionaires if you were to make them bankrupt. The other 12, you could have a go at, but be very clear that even if you succeeded with them, you would guarantee no other rich man or woman would ever come to Britain.

One of three Brits is Dyson. He employs 5,000 people in the UK. So if you take his wealth off him, you are also taking it off 5,000 others. You would find that not only family firms but also big plcs would move as much businesses offshore as they can, if only to allow the directors to continue "earning" their salaries. And if the business goes offshore, some or all of the jobs go too.

You explained above that it's so difficult to tax very wealth people, that we shouldn't do it or we might lose them. This suggests that they're so rich that our economy will feel the hit if they go. What I'm saying is this is therefore "too rich" - a level of power beyond that of ordinary people, and so completely at odds with our ideals around democracy that they threaten it. I'd also say that our economy would be more robust if we had seven thousand millionaires in the place of one Abromavitch. I think the total number of people in the UK worth more than £10 Million is about forty thousand. Maybe about eighteen thousand who own large chunks of land. Quite probably the two lists share a lot of names. It's not a lot of people if we're considering electoral maths - unlikely even to swing a single seat in parliament. But these are the people for whom the last forty years of governments have looked after.

[dsr]

You explained above that it's so difficult to tax very wealth people, that we shouldn't do it or we might lose them. This suggests that they're so rich that our economy will feel the hit if they go. What I'm saying is this is therefore "too rich" - a level of power beyond that of ordinary people, and so completely at odds with our ideals around democracy that they threaten it. I'd also say that our economy would be more robust if we had seven thousand millionaires in the place of one Abromavitch. I think the total number of people in the UK worth more than £10 Million is about forty thousand. Maybe about eighteen thousand who own large chunks of land. Quite probably the two lists share a lot of names. It's not a lot of people if we're considering electoral maths - unlikely even to swing a single seat in parliament. But these are the people for whom the last forty years of governments have looked after.

Actually I said that it's difficult to tax very rich people but if you do try, you will lose them. I didn't quite say that in principle we shouldn't try or that in principle it's not a good idea. It's the practicalities where it falls down. But I would be very reluctant to tax wealth. Income tax and capital gains tax, fair enough; but wealth taxes are a second bite at already-taxed income. Double taxation. Not for me.

But forget the idea of a choice between Abramovich or seven thousand millionaires. There is no way we can tax the wealth of a foreign citizen on his foreign assets. The choice is one Abramovitch or zero Abramovitches. Whatever we choose (and I have no objection to zero Abramovitches) the UK government does not get his money.

The problem with not allowing wealth is that if you don't allow people to get rich, they aren't going to do the things that people do to get rich. Namely, employ people. How many people does Richard Branson employ? How many does James Dyson employ? Alan Sugar? All the other very wealthy families - how many people have they paid wages to? They won't take the risk without the reward.

[Colburn_Claret]

Lots of millionaires pay their tax quite happily, some even back the Labour Party, so this reference to rich people , like it's a dirty word is sad.
You could share a billionaires money, and it might well create a thousand millionaires, but it doesn't create a thousand entrepreneurs..Taxes need to be fair, and if they are fair, people will be prepared to pay them. There are exceptions of course, but a far greater number of labourers and self employed fiddle the tax man than the mega rich. They just dont do it on the same scale.
There is a great danger in hammering the rich for super tax, and that is if they cant make money, what is the point of trying.
A 75-80% tax rate might seem fair to the poor, but if the bloke getting taxed thinks, what's the point, the repercussions for the poor are far worse than someone avoiding taxes.

[Imploding Turtle]

Lots of millionaires pay their tax quite happily, some even back the Labour Party, so this reference to rich people , like it's a dirty word is sad.
You could share a billionaires money, and it might well create a thousand millionaires, but it doesn't create a thousand entrepreneurs..Taxes need to be fair, and if they are fair, people will be prepared to pay them. There are exceptions of course, but a far greater number of labourers and self employed fiddle the tax man than the mega rich. They just dont do it on the same scale.
There is a great danger in hammering the rich for super tax, and that is if they cant make money, what is the point of trying.
A 75-80% tax rate might seem fair to the poor, but if the bloke getting taxed thinks, what's the point, the repercussions for the poor are far worse than someone avoiding taxes.

75-80% tax rate on income over what? The question i'm going to ask is going to seem offensive to you if you do know how they work, but dont' take it the wrong way because a lot of people don't. Do you know how marginal tax rates work?
No one talking about 75% tax rates (is anyone talking about a 75% tax rate?) is talking about taxing 75% on 100% of a persons income.

[mdd2]

Try 62% tax rate on some earned income. And look at the tax hit some are getting on their theoretical pension pots which is resulting in reduced additional work being done by some GP's and hospital consultants and I imagine other "high income" public sector staff.

[AndyClaret]

Try 62% tax rate on some earned income. And look at the tax hit some are getting on their theoretical pension pots which is resulting in reduced additional work being done by some GP's and hospital consultants and I imagine other "high income" public sector staff.

This, it's a crazy situation that some Doctors have stopped doing overtime because it will cost them MORE to work it, shows what happens when you tax people too much.

[mdd2]

For many, doing additional work to help out with the back log of work has been a given. Of course there has been a financial reward but many have done it even when the £100/hr sometimes paid has meant £38/hr in the pay packet. I confess to having no idea how some folk have taken an unsuspected £30k tax hit but it has happened. Because it isn't easily worked out how anyone who has a "big" income may take a hit those whose basic pay is reaching £110k are not offering to do additional work or if they are accepting additional management duties they are cutting back on clinical work. The Guardian headline that some Consultants are working to rule is disingenuous; they are ensuring they avoid a massive unexpected tax bill due to the complicated system employed on NHS pensions (and maybe other public sector pensions).
If the Government wants to rein in on the £50billion tax relief on pensions and I think 2/3rd of that is to higher rate tax payers, let them change the system and for example abolish it (stupid idea) or allow tax relief at the basic rate and then tax pension income at the basic rate. Presently high earners get tax reliefs at their higher marginal rates but many will only pay basic rate on the majority or entirety of their pension income.

[Colburn_Claret]

75-80% tax rate on income over what? The question i'm going to ask is going to seem offensive to you if you do know how they work, but dont' take it the wrong way because a lot of people don't. Do you know how marginal tax rates work?
No one talking about 75% tax rates (is anyone talking about a 75% tax rate?) is talking about taxing 75% on 100% of a persons income.

Marginal tax rates are complicated, especially for anyone lucky enough to have more than one income. An argument I've raised before on this board, is how complicated our tax laws are. The very fact that it is complicated, means it's easier for those with the desire to find loop holes to avoid some of it. If we re wrote our tax laws, and made the book 1 inch thick instead of 6, it would be far easier to police.
No one has mentioned super tax rates, yet, but it's the normal go to when a Leftist Labour government try to raise money for their spend, spend policies. My point was it is self defeating, because if the rich have no incentive to make money, then the least well off in society get hit the hardest.

[AndyClaret]

For many, doing additional work to help out with the back log of work has been a given. Of course there has been a financial reward but many have done it even when the £100/hr sometimes paid has meant £38/hr in the pay packet. I confess to having no idea how some folk have taken an unsuspected £30k tax hit but it has happened. Because it isn't easily worked out how anyone who has a "big" income may take a hit those whose basic pay is reaching £110k are not offering to do additional work or if they are accepting additional management duties they are cutting back on clinical work. The Guardian headline that some Consultants are working to rule is disingenuous; they are ensuring they avoid a massive unexpected tax bill due to the complicated system employed on NHS pensions (and maybe other public sector pensions).
If the Government wants to rein in on the £50billion tax relief on pensions and I think 2/3rd of that is to higher rate tax payers, let them change the system and for example abolish it (stupid idea) or allow tax relief at the basic rate and then tax pension income at the basic rate. Presently high earners get tax reliefs at their higher marginal rates but many will only pay basic rate on the majority or entirety of their pension income.

This is what can happen when you try to close a tax loophole, or make the system fairer, it can have unintended consequences.

[Erasmus]

My question for those who are against increasing taxes is how does the country get the money needed to reverse the decline in the standard of public services? If taxes aren't raised then that decline will continue.

There is so much wealth in this country, some of it in my wallet, and there must be some way of moving a proportion of it to pay for better public services. We might criticise 'spend spend' policies, but that's what is needed to keep schools from running part time and ensuring old, sick and infirm people get the care they need.

For goodness sake, children in this country are going hungry. That is so unacceptable that instead of going on about problems of taxation why not suggest ways that money can be raised to get the country out of this situation.

[Colburn_Claret]

My question for those who are against increasing taxes is how does the country get the money needed to reverse the decline in the standard of public services? If taxes aren't raised then that decline will continue.

There is so much wealth in this country, some of it in my wallet, and there must be some way of moving a proportion of it to pay for better public services. We might criticise 'spend spend' policies, but that's what is needed to keep schools from running part time and ensuring old, sick and infirm people get the care they need.

For goodness sake, children in this country are going hungry. That is so unacceptable that instead of going on about problems of taxation why not suggest ways that money can be raised to get the country out of this situation.

I dont think it's a question of NOT raising taxes, but how far you raise them. If you try to raise them too high, and people lose the incentive to earn, you might have higher tax rates, but it will generate even less money. It's a fine balance, and if you asked 100 people what the threshold should be, you'd probably get 100 different answers.
If their are children in this country going hungry, then you need to look at the parents, because their isnt any reason why any child in this country should be hungry.

[Erasmus]

Universal credit and the six or five weeks delay is one reason for hunger. Five weeks is a long time when you have no money. And schools closing for a half day is entirely due to a lack of money. It's just not good enough to blame the poorest people. It's that nasty Victorian self-serving 'morality' emerging again.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Universal credit and the six or five weeks delay is one reason for hunger. Five weeks is a long time when you have no money. And schools closing for a half day is entirely due to a lack of money. It's just not good enough to blame the poorest people. It's that nasty Victorian self-serving 'morality' emerging again.

Universal Credit doesn't really take long though once you've been approved, the system is actually easy to understand and you can apply for an advance payment that is repaid over 12 months if needs be.
People tend to struggle with UC because they aren't paying attention to their online journals etc

[Colburn_Claret]

Universal credit and the six or five weeks delay is one reason for hunger. Five weeks is a long time when you have no money. And schools closing for a half day is entirely due to a lack of money. It's just not good enough to blame the poorest people. It's that nasty Victorian self-serving 'morality' emerging again.

You still get a basic minimum whilst you are waiting for UC. There is still no reason for children to go hungry. You can feed a family of 4 or 5 for relative peanuts, IF you buy fresh food and actually cook it yourself. Home domestic skills, wether learnt at home or in school have been sadly neglected. It's a culture choice, not lack of money.

[AndrewJB]

Not wanting to take away from Erasmus’ angle on this, which could possibly be summed up in the 1930s question; why are people eating cake in a country where so many don’t have bread? But there’s an interesting twist on morality here. Poor people are poor because they’re making the wrong decisions - when in reality a lot of it is circumstances beyond their control (which is conveniently left out). Rich people are rich not because of their moral choices (greed), but because they’ve earned it. And this is all just propaganda.

I’ve travelled enough in very poor countries to see that when you have terrible poverty, you also have unimaginable wealth (with a tiny middle class) The latter exists because of the former. Lots of people have jumped on this thread to provide reasons why we can’t have a fairer society / tax system. And all of it is appeasement politics, no different from a moral perspective than Halifax wanting to do a deal with Hitler. Sometimes you just have to take the hard choice, and especially in this issue because if things continue on the present course, we will create a situation where the rich are even stronger and we are less free.

[Erasmus]

Colburn, I agree with you entirely that it is a question of how far to press taxation, but it seems that recent governments haven't been doing anything like enough in terms of increasing taxation in order to prevent the decline in the standard of public services.

But I don't agree with you about attributing child poverty to the shortcomings of the parents. It's too easy to blame the poorest people for their own plight whilst sitting back in well-fed comfort. I can't accept that the rise in demand at food banks during school holidays is because the parents are at fault somehow (generally in a way that remains undefined).

As Andrew said, the reasons for poverty in affluent societies are as they have always been, the greed, selfishness and lack of compassion amongst those who very comfortably off. And, unfortunately, I would have to include myself in that category.

[Imploding Turtle]

The good news is that child poverty has ended in the UK. How else can you explain why we're not even spending money the EU gave us to fight it? I mean, it could just be that the government just doesn't give enough of a **** to find a way to use to fight a problem, but surely that's not the case because this government will absolutely care more about poor people than anyone else.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49131685" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

You still get a basic minimum whilst you are waiting for UC. There is still no reason for children to go hungry. You can feed a family of 4 or 5 for relative peanuts, IF you buy fresh food and actually cook it yourself. Home domestic skills, wether learnt at home or in school have been sadly neglected. It's a culture choice, not lack of money.

It certainly doesn't help when you get people saying (as a mother of small children told my mother) that they couldn't afford to buy fresh vegetables and had to have chocolate biscuits instead. It's difficult to know what to do about that sort of ignorance, especially if it's widespread.

A roast chicken dinner for four costs less than £5. Which, fair enough, if you don't have £5 is a problem. But for the people who can buy ready meals but can't afford roast chicken with all the trimmings, it's education, not money, that's needed.

Free cooking classes, free home economics classes (though why they don't do it in schools is hard to fathom), free cookbooks - though anyone with internet access doesn't even need that. (Though obviously most of the people using food banks and the people who can't afford £5 for a chicken dinner, won't have internet access either. Hence the cookbooks.)

[Imploding Turtle]

It certainly doesn't help when you get people saying (as a mother of small children told my mother) that they couldn't afford to buy fresh vegetables and had to have chocolate biscuits instead. It's difficult to know what to do about that sort of ignorance, especially if it's widespread.

A roast chicken dinner for four costs less than £5. Which, fair enough, if you don't have £5 is a problem. But for the people who can buy ready meals but can't afford roast chicken with all the trimmings, it's education, not money, that's needed.

Free cooking classes, free home economics classes (though why they don't do it in schools is hard to fathom), free cookbooks - though anyone with internet access doesn't even need that. (Though obviously most of the people using food banks and the people who can't afford £5 for a chicken dinner, won't have internet access either. Hence the cookbooks.)

And as for these "free" classes. How are parents who can't afford to feed their kids getting to these classes? Who's looking after the kids for free while they take them?

[Imploding Turtle]

And by the way, what makes you think that poor parents are feeding their kids with ready meals? Have you just completely made up that idea and tried to slip it into this discussion as if it's an accepted fact?

[Erasmus]

Dsr, you're not wrong in saying that improved parenting and home management skills of some people would be useful. But in placing all the emphasis on that you seem to be looking to deflect attention away from the real issue. When people are on the breadline, as so many are in Britain today, they have to get every decision absolutely right or they can't afford food or heating.

Yes, better home management skills would help somewhat, but that's just skirting around the edge of the issue. The primary cause of poverty is that people both in and out of work barely have enough to live on. And that at a time when others of us have far, far more than we need. It's something I feel has to be properly addressed, and no amount of home education can bring any really significant change.

[dsr]

And by the way, what makes you think that poor parents are feeding their kids with ready meals? Have you just completely made up that idea and tried to slip it into this discussion as if it's an accepted fact?

I suppose it's possible that all these parents who can't afford vegetables, as the BBC tells us on a fairly regular basis, are eating something cheaper instead. Grass, perhaps. But I doubt it - they're eating chocolate biscuits, like the lady I mentioned above, or ready meals, or pre-prepared pies, or something.

[dsr]

And as for these "free" classes. How are parents who can't afford to feed their kids getting to these classes? Who's looking after the kids for free while they take them?

It's a proposal that clueless cooks should be taught what to do. In this proposal, there is room to suggest that single parents with no family and no close friends will be provided for with (radical suggestion) a creche next door to the classroom?

This is one thing we can agree on, surely. It has to be a good idea, in principle, that people who don't know how to feed their children, should be taught.

[AndrewJB]

To summarise these last few days: People who are very rich are difficult to tax because they can employ people and resources in finding legitimate ways out of paying, so therefore we shouldn't bother. If we persist in doing so - let's say we elect a government determined to tax them a lot more (because we haven't had a government like that since the '70s) - then they will leave and take their money elsewhere. We've also had the "Bill Gates" argument, that being a billionaire is entirely legitimate because they've "earned it".

But when the conversation turns to people on benefits (many of whom are in low paid work), because someone once knew someone who fed their children chocolate biscuits, therefore all poor people are in their position due to the bad (and immoral) choices they've made, and it has nothing to do with the austerity agenda pursued by this government - cutting back on benefit spending, and reducing funding to councils who consequently reduce their services to ordinary people). And we must not conclude that the money saved in those cuts has gone directly to those richest people, just because the government has also cut taxes for the wealthy.

In other words the conversation has followed the general media narrative that comes up whenever a more fair tax system is mooted. And when you look down a list of UK newspapers, and consider which ones have supported austerity, and then who they're owned by, with the exception of the Express Group (which used to be owned by a billionaire), they're all owned by either offshore billionaires, or people nearly at that level of wealth.

So at a time when levels of poverty are rising alarmingly in the UK (see link for more reliable information than what somebody's mother witnessed once): https://www.jrf.org.uk/data" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and when public services are suffering a crisis of funding, and yet while the wealth of the richest in Britain increases at a pace well ahead of ordinary people's earnings: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sund ... -cbxfbprqf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; these newspapers feed you the "blame the poor, and appease the rich" propaganda, and unfortunately there are enough people who lap it up to keep any meaningful reform from happening.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Just want to point out that whilst I agree with most of what you've said, there are people out there who've been living on benefits for longer than the Tories have been in charge this time round and struggled to feed their kids properly, this includes the microwave meal option.

[dsr]

To summarise these last few days: People who are very rich are difficult to tax because they can employ people and resources in finding legitimate ways out of paying, so therefore we shouldn't bother. If we persist in doing so - let's say we elect a government determined to tax them a lot more (because we haven't had a government like that since the '70s) - then they will leave and take their money elsewhere. We've also had the "Bill Gates" argument, that being a billionaire is entirely legitimate because they've "earned it".

But when the conversation turns to people on benefits (many of whom are in low paid work), because someone once knew someone who fed their children chocolate biscuits, therefore all poor people are in their position due to the bad (and immoral) choices they've made, and it has nothing to do with the austerity agenda pursued by this government - cutting back on benefit spending, and reducing funding to councils who consequently reduce their services to ordinary people). And we must not conclude that the money saved in those cuts has gone directly to those richest people, just because the government has also cut taxes for the wealthy.

In other words the conversation has followed the general media narrative that comes up whenever a more fair tax system is mooted. And when you look down a list of UK newspapers, and consider which ones have supported austerity, and then who they're owned by, with the exception of the Express Group (which used to be owned by a billionaire), they're all owned by either offshore billionaires, or people nearly at that level of wealth.

So at a time when levels of poverty are rising alarmingly in the UK (see link for more reliable information than what somebody's mother witnessed once): https://www.jrf.org.uk/data" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and when public services are suffering a crisis of funding, and yet while the wealth of the richest in Britain increases at a pace well ahead of ordinary people's earnings: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sund ... -cbxfbprqf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; these newspapers feed you the "blame the poor, and appease the rich" propaganda, and unfortunately there are enough people who lap it up to keep any meaningful reform from happening.

You've put the wrong slant on what I have written, at any rate. A lot of this is because we're looking at it from different angles. Your tax policy is based on the idea that rich people shouldn't be so rich. Mine is based on the idea of (within reason) maximising tax revenues. If you try to tax the rich man into being not rich, then he goes away and pays no tax at all.

But it's your poverty argument that makes no sense, because you aren't actually talking about poverty. You're talking about relative poverty. And that means that if Bill Gates, as per your suggestion, gives $1m to each of 100,000 of his employees, then he is increasing poverty, because he has raised the threshhold at which poverty starts by increasing the average salary. If I get a pay rise, how can it make you poorer? It's nonsense.

What we need to see is the number of people actually in poverty. The number of people who cannot afford food, for example. Not the number who can't afford food because their cars and phones and holidays are costing too much, because there are people using food banks who do have those things as well as people using food banks who don't. But to measure actual poverty based on children going to school hungry because their parents can't afford the £1 a week or so that it costs to provide breakfast (porridge, in case you are wondering), you need to compare the numbers who genuinely do have holes in their shoes and no food now with those who had holes in their shoes and no food then.

Foreign holidays are vastly higher now than ever before. So is car usage. So is access to telephones. So, for that matter, is obesity caused by eating too much, and NEVER caused by financial poverty. Most of us, including some of the official poor, are richer than ever before. What we never hear about is how many people now are poor in a non-relative way. How many children are poor in real terms? If we don't know those numbers, then how can we solve the problem of absolute poverty? Because trying to solve the problem of relative poverty, short of communism, is impossible.

[Darnhill Claret]

In what other area of law do we ever think that we should perhaps make some crimes less of a crime because perhaps people will commit that crime less often? Post 208

I give you, the long proposed decriminalisation of drugs to relieve the pressure on the police, the courts and the prisons.

[Imploding Turtle]

In what other area of law do we ever think that we should perhaps make some crimes less of a crime because perhaps people will commit that crime less often? Post 208

I give you, the long proposed decriminalisation of drugs to relieve the pressure on the police, the courts and the prisons.

The decriminalisation of drugs is about it's none of your ******* business what i put into my own body (if it was then we'd criminalise alcohol and smoking). It also happens to have the benefit of helping ease the pressure on our justice system since we'd be decriminalising something that shouldn't be a crime in the first place.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 16636.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They're aiming to make the UK smoke free, once that is done and they get a proper handle on drinking I assume the criminalisation of drugs won't be an issue?

[AndrewJB]

You've put the wrong slant on what I have written, at any rate. A lot of this is because we're looking at it from different angles. Your tax policy is based on the idea that rich people shouldn't be so rich. Mine is based on the idea of (within reason) maximising tax revenues. If you try to tax the rich man into being not rich, then he goes away and pays no tax at all.

But it's your poverty argument that makes no sense, because you aren't actually talking about poverty. You're talking about relative poverty. And that means that if Bill Gates, as per your suggestion, gives $1m to each of 100,000 of his employees, then he is increasing poverty, because he has raised the threshhold at which poverty starts by increasing the average salary. If I get a pay rise, how can it make you poorer? It's nonsense.

What we need to see is the number of people actually in poverty. The number of people who cannot afford food, for example. Not the number who can't afford food because their cars and phones and holidays are costing too much, because there are people using food banks who do have those things as well as people using food banks who don't. But to measure actual poverty based on children going to school hungry because their parents can't afford the £1 a week or so that it costs to provide breakfast (porridge, in case you are wondering), you need to compare the numbers who genuinely do have holes in their shoes and no food now with those who had holes in their shoes and no food then.

Foreign holidays are vastly higher now than ever before. So is car usage. So is access to telephones. So, for that matter, is obesity caused by eating too much, and NEVER caused by financial poverty. Most of us, including some of the official poor, are richer than ever before. What we never hear about is how many people now are poor in a non-relative way. How many children are poor in real terms? If we don't know those numbers, then how can we solve the problem of absolute poverty? Because trying to solve the problem of relative poverty, short of communism, is impossible.

I didn't say I was just talking about relative poverty (which is still a good indicator as to levels of inequality). Consider this short article:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -austerity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cross party committee, chaired by a Tory, Four and a half million people in "deep poverty". "A couple with two children have a household income of £211 per week after housing costs" - food, clothing, bills, travel - so nothing there for leisure, presents, holidays, school trips, etc. Admittedly, they don't face having to deal with Smallpox anymore, but all it takes is a disaster here or there, and they're in real trouble. I look at that and say, what's the point of austerity just squeezing the poor? It's needlessly making life more stressful and uncertain for those with the least means.

And again this is happening while the .01% of people who are already extremely wealthy, are getting even wealthier.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale- ... quality-uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's a dysfunctional system, and it works this way because that .01% of the population are so rich they own newspapers that advocate for them and look out for their interests. They fund political parties to do this (how many extremely rich Labour Party donors stopped donating after Corbyn became leader?) , and "think tanks" to produce policies that benefit them. Scratch away at the surface, and you can see it's just naked greed. The "laffer curve" is never wheeled out to justify lowering VAT to 5%. Newspapers never rail against big corporations getting government help as "corporate welfare bums". The financial crisis wasn't caused by disabled and unemployed people, yet they've had to shoulder the burden for it. Newspapers never call for the repatriation of offshore money as the patriotic duty of UK citizens to help out our economy and invest at home. And even government figures show that far more money is lost to the Treasury in tax evasion than that lost to benefit fraud, yet there has been no major advertising campaign vilifying the rich, or anonymous tip line to shop people, or even a huge increase in staff to chase the money down.

No amount of dancing around about numbers, or questioning definitions, or parroting rightwing newspaper editorials will get around the fact that the economy, and even our governments of the last forty years are set up to look after the interests of the very rich, and the poor are disposable.