Here is the BBC report. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097)

Don't forget to consult the .pdf file upon which this BBC report is based here (http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_Presser_120722.pdf).

If true, these $21 trillions ($21,000 billions) washing about our economies currently, in great part thanks to the World's most important tax-havens (the UK and USA) followed by all the offshore ones, then Switzerland, Lichtenstein etc., probably very easily explain the World's debt crisis since 2008. Especially that of the Eurozone currently.

If there's any truth to the report of all this huge amount of illegal cash washing about our global economy today, obviously aided by all the International banks including HSBC (most recently brought to attention here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18970710)), then we should be preparing ourselves for a popular revolution on the scale of that experienced by Czar Nicholas in the early 1900s.

At the least, the Eurozone countries should immediately instigate unilateral capital controls, for a period of at least 12 months, long enough to be able to come to understand and get to grips with this virus. If they're not brave enough, then it's pretty clear whom they're paid by, the popular revolution would be just behind.

I am quite fed up by now, having watched over the past 4-5 years , how taxpayers have had to rescue banks everywhere. How the "markets" have black-mailed whole EU countries into paying more interest on their loans than airship can borrow himself...?!

Nothing washes whiter anymore. Either those who control the $21 trillions ($21,000 billions) get real and come clean, immediately remove all the pressure especially in the Eurozone, or "we" (your worst nightmare) will replace the usual governmental authorities and come after you directly in the form of a revolution even the Russian Czar couldn't see coming...

Your choice mateys...?! :mad:

Yeah, how dare people try to hold onto their money, by God we need Stalin back, he sorted those rich b@<hidden>@<hidden> out.

:p

Yawn yawn yawn.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.''

Margaret Thatcher

con-pilot wrote: Yeah, how dare people try to hold onto their money, by God we need Stalin back, he sorted those rich b@<hidden>@<hidden> out. :p

Good for you c-p :ok: But, well, back in the early 1900s, they were indeed all sorted out, bloodily, but sorted out nevertheless. :uhoh:

Is that what you want ca. 2012?

If it's of interest to anyone, I reckon that we've reached the limits of capitalism as we know it today. Basically, what's happenned is that the most richest amongst us today basically own 99% of everything in any country. That's almost disregarding all what those $ 21 trillions might own, being illegal funds (an unheavenly mixture of funds, perhaps simply avoiding income taxes, but mixed into all the cash from the drug barons and ME and African dictators etc.)

No reason why these illegitamate funds cause havoc in the Eurozone today (or elsewhere). Freeze those funds, instigate serious capital controls in the EU, unilaterally if necessary. Then we'll see where and what we're left with...?!

PS. "Yawn, yawn, yawn"? It's high time some of us here went to bed perhaps...sweet dreams?!

HAHAHA

So the rich hiding money are the cause of European Governments spending far more money they could afford to borrow!!

HAHAHA

That one's up there with "movies and video games turn people into mass killers" and anything that was posted by Jane-Doh. Best spend some more on the beurre d'arachide et papier d'aluminium, you're gonna need it!

Hey airship

@<hidden>;40 you wrote the following in the Forest Fire thread

This is the last time I'm contributing here. Yeah, I know, good riddance etc. Same back to you all...

@<hidden>:35 you started this current thread about super-rich and tax-dodging.

Does this mean we can't believe anything you say/write....or is it time for another pastis ? :E

I'd have thought that if you want to protect money you own, it's only reasonable to hide it from those who would liberate you from it.

Remember that that all-benovolent government can just crank up the presses and turn your funds into wallpaper at a trice. You have to hedge your bets.

I feel very sorry for people who are so jealous of people who are more successful/luckier/happier than they. It demonstrates that they do not recognise that they themselves are better off than someone else - in the case of Europeans, the majority of mankind. They must be very unhappy people.

That makes me feel better again - exuberant, in fact.

SO

Hey, airship? I have a theory.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4560036153983360&id=592947c6f0fcc7ce926269c883c40169

lets personalise it a little then. Where do you think Robert Mugabe keeps the millions he has stolen from Zimbabwe? or the Castros? do you think they shove it into the local bank in Harare or Havana? Would you feel more indignant if it was a bunch of corrupt Marxist dictators instead of a bunch of corrupt capitalists? or maybe you think it's ok to act that way after all I'd have thought that if you want to protect money you own, it's only reasonable to hide it from those who would liberate you from it.sea oxen.orYeah, how dare people try to hold onto their money, by God we need Stalin back, he sorted those rich b@<hidden>@<hidden> out. Con pilot.

Con pilot.

Jeez, I wasn't serious. :(

All jokes aside con-pilot, you'd better make up your mind about which way you wish to go. Sooner, and perhaps much earlier than you think (take Gaddafi for example), simple folks will be clamouring for explanations and will hardly be willing to hear sorry excuses from the like of you (perhaps half-heartedly awaiting rescue from your previous super-rich employers). Take your sides now, or forever hold your peace. Amen.

What with all the God-damned riff-raff who don't understand simple English including AlpineSkier: Does this mean we can't believe anything you say/write....or is it time for another pastis ? Uhmmm no, what I said was true, it was in another thread. This is a completely new thread. So quit trying to **** my leg like an unruly puppy? OK?!

airship:

I'm sure con-pilot is shaking in his boots right now after your last little tirade. (Which, by the way, could very well be construed as a threat. And the mods don't take very kindly to threats against another member.)

You might think about lightening your load a bit.

(Me thinks we may have seen the last of airship. I hope.)

I hope not. After all, JB is not for the faint-hearted, and what's more, I think he has a point.


The thing is, it's okay to hang on to your money, if you've not harmed people while acquiring it. Sadly, the ordinary working family is being financially raped every single moment of their ever increasingly burdened lives.

Here in America, they've totally lost the plot. One young man shot in the eye by that psychotic gunman, is now thought to have amassed medical bills of over $2,000,000. His partner is giving birth a couple of floors up from his ward. And they thought college fees were going to be a problem.

I'm trying to figure out what is meant by

All jokes aside con-pilot, you'd better make up your mind about which way you wish to go. Sooner, and perhaps much earlier than you think (take Gaddafi for example), simple folks will be clamouring for explanations and will hardly be willing to hear sorry excuses from the like of you (perhaps half-heartedly awaiting rescue from your previous super-rich employers).

since c-p was employed by the Government and not by one of them rich people airship is jealous of.....



Vive la revolution? :\

airship

When people make the kind of comment you made in the Forest Fire thread, it has always previously meant they folded their tents and pissed off entirely.

You apparently think we need a dramatic announcement in any particular thread where we have benefitted from from your insights. Personally I don't care: if it's not you talking shit it will be someone else ( maybe ), so what's the odds?

By the way, got any back up for this..

World's most important tax-havens (the UK and USA) followed by all the offshore ones, then Switzerland, Lichtenstein etc

as the US and UK not usually regarded as tax-havens.

If you have any time after that, I am still waiting for answers in other threads about max number of immigrants into the Uk and max amount of medical help for illegal immigrants in UK.

By the way, do you ever return to the UK these days ?

All jokes aside con-pilot, you'd better make up your mind about which way you wish to go. Sooner, and perhaps much earlier than you think (take Gaddafi for example), simple folks will be clamouring for explanations and will hardly be willing to hear sorry excuses from the like of you (perhaps half-heartedly awaiting rescue from your previous super-rich employers). Take your sides now, or forever hold your peace. Amen.

What with all the God-damned riff-raff who don't understand simple English including AlpineSkier:

Are you off your meds again, or is it the cheap Scotch you are so fond of that caused you to write the above tripe?

I've cut you a lot of slack in the past. Keep this sort of thing up and you'll find out that I've made up my mind a very long time ago regarding you.

So I would recommend that you back off, take a break, do some thinking before you respond again and do us all a favor.

Seriously. As I still like you and would like to remain liking you, but you are pushing the limits of friendship. Even internet friendships.

So think about what I have written.

I think it would be interesting to see how much money stored away is done so by folks like the Mad Colonel in Libya, now departed, the towel wearing crook who ran the PLO for decades, now departed, and any number of tin pot dictators. For that matter, George Soros.

Hiding money is a very old game, and one which made the Swiss bankes rich for a century or two.

It is always best to have a bit hidden away for a rainy day. The question that never stops being asked is "how do you know when it's enough?"

My answer is simple shut all the stock markets down, make it illegal to speculate in the means of exchange ie money,make it illegal to speculate or sell on or buy dept,make it illegal to speculate on energy or basic food stuffs.
In fact giving the matter some thought to save time it would be better if we just took everybody who wears braces and goes to work in a suit outside make them dig a hole and nine the feckers in the back of the head,finally confiscate all personal wealth over say ten million,ten million would do me,it should do anybody.
There you are,sorted.
:rolleyes:

"BBC reports "Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn..."

Damn right I am.

The guvmint says we can sort all our problems out by paying the window cleaner with a cheque and demanding a VAT recipt,all our problems have apparently been caused by blokes with dirt under their finger nails and not by pinstripe wearing spivs in London.
:=

"BBC reports "Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn..."

Damn right I am.

Super-rich...bah! humbug. Petty cash that is. Give us a shout when yer running short.

The guvmint says we can sort all our problems out by paying the window cleaner with a cheque and demanding a VAT recipt,all our problems have apparently been caused by blokes with dirt under their finger nails and not by pinstripe wearing spivs in London.



Well don't feel alone Mr. D, that is what our President is telling us over here as well. :(

I see airship has been flamed. :uhoh:

http://www.lolbrary.com/content/225/oh-the-huge-manatee-9225.jpg

Everyone became trillionaires in the Weimar republic.

When the 1,000-billion Mark note came out, few bothered to collect the change when they spent it. By November 1923, with one dollar equal to one trillion Marks, the breakdown was complete. The currency had lost meaning."Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

" Everyone became trillionaires in the Weimar republic "

I seem to recall that when the Italian Lira was the preferred currency, you could join the "super rich" whenever you went on a little sabbitical to Deci...;)

For those not familiar, the RAF and others used to have a little island retreat in the Med whence they could enjoy a few days in the sun.

Decimomannu Air Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimomannu_Air_Base)

Meanwhile, I am still convulsing at the comments about "morality / cash "..from the Rt Hon who clearly seems to have a rather selective memory about some of his colleagues.

i'm still convulsing about:

1. pigboat's post, above.. (tickled me it did!)

2. the politics of envy... - if i don't have it why should anyone else.

the government demands more and more tax to pi$$ down the drain on things like legacy projects that the country doesn't want or need and ringfencing aid for countries that have their own fecking space programs.

as far as i am concerned, paying any more tax than the base rate to government is akin to giving a drunk money, they'll only pi$$ it down the drain.

Stuckgear,

I'm with your regarding tax... why should someone who earns more pay proportionally more tax?

A flat rate is the only fair system... and it would also prevent some inflated payrises because you would not need them to cover higher rate taxes...

You earn more, you pay more into the system... it's not rocket science. High earners tend to be less of a burden on the state because they pay for private health and dentistry etc, yet they pay more... madness

As someone said above...

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"

A flat rate is the only fair system... and it would also prevent some inflated payrises because you would not need them to cover higher rate taxes...

You earn more, you pay more into the system... it's not rocket science. High earners tend to be less of a burden on the state because they pay for private health and dentistry etc, yet they pay more... madness

Ah, but there be the problem. Introduce a flat rate of income tax and, despite the INCREASE in tax revenues you would receive (anyone remember what happened to the UK tax revenues when Thatcher slashed the top rate of tax?), the Champagne Socialists will scream "Giving money to the rich whilst taking it from the poor" which leads to the average numbskull who reads the Sun or Mirror yelling about how "Them rich b******s shouldn't pay the same tax as me, they should pay more" when, in fact, they won't pay the "same" amount of tax and will, in fact, pay FAR more.

But that doesn't matter when the Champagne Socialists can create enough hysteria to make the average idiot on the street believe what they are hearing is true. And whilst that goes on, these same "Socialists" salt their own money away through creative accounting ("it's all legal, guv, and why should I have to pay more tax than I need to?") and keep quiet about it.....

Hey, Hellsbrink, is a champagne socialist similar to a champagne super-nova?!!! I thought as much.

Hey, Hellsbrink, is a champagne socialist similar to a champagne super-nova?!!!

Hey RGB! nope, a champagne socialist more closely resembles a sphincter.

:ok:

Hey, Hellsbrink, is a champagne socialist similar to a champagne super-nova?

Hey RGB! nope, a champagne socialist more closely resembles a sphincter.

Acksherly, yer both wrong.

A supernova explodes and scatters debris all over the local area of space it is in, and the same effect can be seen when a sphincter opens (especially after visiting Jose's Cheap'n'Cheerful Chilli Bar after downing the odd gallon of Guinness)

A Champagne Socialist, however, tends to suck the life out of everything that it gets close to. A bit like a Black Hole, which is generally what they leave in the finances of any country where they have been able to con enough people into voting them into power.


Don't thank me, I'm happy enough knowing I've clarified things for you both. I was going to say "cleaned things up" but then you would refer to Jose's place and I don't think we need to dwell on that subject.

It's the hypocrisy that really is disgusting. The British government, many of whose members undoubtedly benefit from these practices, were yesterday lambasting the working man for daring to work on a cash in hand basis

edited fpr sp.

And I assume you don't mean only the Coalition, Lon, as the other lot are just as bad.

Oh dear, Mr. D, you really don't like braces, do you??

....if we just took everybody who wears braces....

(just having a private chuckle, mate).:ok:

Not sure why so many people here feel the need to defend the super rich or even the plain very rich. They don't need any help from us to hide their assets whether ill gained or not.

Coincidentally this was being reported while I read this thread. Sean Quinn may only be a tiddler in the scheme of things but his attitude is the same. Paying your dues is only for little people.

Judge says Quinns' scheme 'reeked of dishonesty and sharp practice' - RT News (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0725/sean-quinn-court.html)

I don't begrudge the wealthy their wealth. I aspire to be like that. What I cannot stand are rich people like Quinn who think the law doesn't apply to them.

What I cannot stand are rich people like Quinn who think the law doesn't apply to them.

As long as you apply the same to the "little man" who works in black so doesn't pay his taxes too............

Are we now paying off the Cold War? There didn't seem to be any problem finding the money to have enormous standing armies on both sides at the time. yet the peace bonus which we were promised never appeared. Was it all run on credit and now we are reaping what was sown then? If all the money that was spent keeping service personnel employed is no longer required and all those service men and women have now been released to work in financially productive jobs rather than being a drain on the economy, where has all this money gone? :confused: Are the tinfoil and peanut butter hat brigade right? Is it being funnelled off planet to support bases on Mars? any one care to offer an explanation. Don't worry about black helicopters we can't afford them any more , but I have noticed a few black mopeds around. :suspect:

Well, Windy, although US defence spending dropped by 28% after the Cold War ended, that money was still spent elsewhere. That's the joys of politicians and governments, they always find new and more inventive ways to pee more of your money away.

The reason for the increased reluctance to pay tax is that most people feel that the "tipping point" has been passed. That is when they no longer see their taxes as being fair, and wisely spent.

In the past, governments asked you to give some of your money to help finance public services. Now, they regard all of your income as theirs and deign to allow you to keep some of it.

And BTW, HMRC is now adopting STASI tactics with children being asked to become agents of the state.

HMRC tells school children: Tell your teacher if a neighbour is evading tax - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9426761/HMRC-tells-school-children-Tell-your-teacher-if-a-neighbour-is-evading-tax.html)

What next, is Mr Smith next door a member of UKIP/Freemason/stamp collector?

This explains it all folks

BBC News - The lengths people go to, to avoid paying tax (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18983010)

mmmm that's rich, coming from the BBC, funded itself by a form of tax and pisses countless millions away each year.

from the article..

The report estimates that if tax was paid on the investment returns, it would yield more than the twice the amount OECD countries are spending at the moment on overseas development aid.

so, an investor invests in a business and then should pay tax on the revenue generated from that investment.

of course they do already in the form of taxation on income or revenue and capital gains tax.. so what more tax ? where then does the return on investment become of import ?

and also from the article..


The very rich don't want to pay tax for three reasons:
First, money is lovely and having lots of it is better than not having lots of it.
Second, some very wealthy people collect money and giving it away ruins the aesthetic of the pile they have. It's an inclination common to all collectors.


1. no one wants to pay tax, it's not limited to the very rich, but the higher incomes do pay more tax, even if we were at a flat rate of tax, higher incomes would still pay more tax.

so what we are talking about is punitive or usuary taxation on individuals that earn a certain amount? that's politics of envy, not economics.

2. wealthy people have collected money by way of investing their income and taking risk. inhereited money is very few and far between these days, since inheretance tax and capital gains tax.

so why should someone who has invested and taken risk to further their own economic wealth be punished for doing so, go back to point 1

of course, this is a bandwagon the BBC can jump on, take over the reins and drive forward, after all it is dependent on a tax for it's existence, not by commercial viability and as such it can piss money away as the population has no choice in paying for it and there's always more to come.

ergo, the BBC itself is a very real and evident example of why increased taxation is not economically effective and why in a free market society the owner of the funds is better displaced to choose how it is spent rather than an unaccountable entity.

Stuckgear there is a clue in that article about how it should be treated, its right next to the authors name where it tells you his profession.

indeed shedhead, though i am wearing a bit thin of patience with the BBC of late, when they push propaganda under the guise of humour.. a week or so ago on BBC (yes i know, i know please accept my self flagellation for admitting that) a comedy piece was playing for laughs on how George Obsorne's policies were damaging the economy, to much riotous audience applause..

see, under the guise of 'comedy' and 'creating debate', it is, intriniscly propaganda even more so when the bias is levied on one direction.

Perhaps they could't get Dianne Abbot to write the piece as she was probably elsewhere engaged on some other BBC talking heads piece about how labour have all the answers and 'tax dodgers are all tories'.

:hmm:

going back to the point, the BBC itself is funded by tax yet ahs spunked countless millions up the wall over its salford move, but what do they care, its not money they have to raise commercially, so of course they can piss it away..

If it's of interest to anyone, I reckon that we've reached the limits of capitalism as we know it today. Basically, what's happenned is that the most richest amongst us today basically own 99% of everything in any country.

I'm an economic illiterate, but is it something like what happens to a game of Monopoly once one player owns all the good properties and has hotels on all of them?

At least in the real world, you can develop new 'good properties' like Apple.

yeah that whole 1% crap makes me laugh.

it belongs right along aside 'tax the rich', 'your 5 a day' and with the b/s anti-whatever protestors in Wall St & St Pauls..

"what do we want?.. we have no idea!.. when do we want it?.. now!"

There is a tipping point at which higher tax rates generate decreasing revenues. That's the foundational logic behind the Laffer Curve. The effect is increased with the abilty to move capital globally. People will figure out where to move assets so as to maximize their return, and they won't allow their fortunes to be taken with impunity by any government.

It should never be a profitable choice to do nothing to earn one's keep. It is ethically wrong even to weigh the choice of income from working against what the government would provide in deciding whether to work or not. And the consequences to society have shown to be catastrophic time and time again where the option of welfare is held out. We should all do what we can to make our own way and provide for our families.

Safety nets are another matter. We should provide them if we are able, but to provide them in kind (shelter, food), not cash. There should be strings attached as well, such as lifetime limits and an obligation to pay back out of future individual revenues.

There is a tipping point at which higher tax rates generate decreasing revenues. That's the foundational logic behind the Laffer Curve. The effect is increased with the abilty to move capital globally. People will figure out where to move assets so as to maximize their return, and they won't allow their fortunes to be taken with impunity by any government.

Bandaide, why do you think I referred to what happened in the UK after the 1979 election?

Prior to Thatcher getting elected, income tax rates were at up to 83% for the highest earners. The country was broke. Thatcher gets elected in 1979, cuts the top rate of tax to 60% (as well as shifting the tax bands and tax paid according to your earnings, so, effectively, the tax burden was CUT), tax revenues from the highest earners INCREASED.


Do the maths.

wealthy people have collected money by way of investing their income and taking risk.
And we're back to that old right-wing argument - that the rich have got there because they worked hard and deserve it, and the poor are poor because they have done nothing. :ugh:

In terms of paying tax, people are always going to try and avoid it and it's got to be down to the government to close the loopholes. There's no point trying to persuade people to pay up out of morality, it just won't work.

Acksherly, yer both wrong.

A supernova explodes and scatters debris all over the local area of space it is in, and the same effect can be seen when a sphincter opens (especially after visiting Jose's Cheap'n'Cheerful Chilli Bar after downing the odd gallon of Guinness)

A Champagne Socialist, however, tends to suck the life out of everything that it gets close to. A bit like a Black Hole, which is generally what they leave in the finances of any country where they have been able to con enough people into voting them into power.


Don't thank me, I'm happy enough knowing I've clarified things for you both. I was going to say "cleaned things up" but then you would refer to Jose's place and I don't think we need to dwell on that subject

Excellent Mr Brink ! Tell me, are you really that little guy in the wheelchair wot talks funny ??

And we're back to that old right-wing argument - that the rich have got there because they worked hard and deserve it, and the poor are poor because they have done nothing.

Well, I don't know - can you become properous shirking on benefits? It would not be prosperous in my eyes, but a Disability or a Carer's allowance must be Downton Abbey compared to JSA.

Do you think that people who work hard deserve to become properous? Should they be allowed to keep some of the fruits of their labour? Or is it better that it is bled off to the indolent?

SO

And we're back to that old right-wing argument - that the rich have got there because they worked hard and deserve it, and the poor are poor because they have done nothing. :ugh:



and eqaully then it's back to that old lefty argument, why should someone else have what they have worked for.. it should be taken off them and redistrubted ?

do you not see the folly of that stance ?

Nah, El G, I'm the overweight bald guy that talks funny. Or the locals think so when they hear someone speak Dutch with a Scottish accent anyway.

There's a lot of people who work hard yet live on very low wages, the argument that the poor could always work harder/take more risks and in turn become wealthy simply doesn't add up. Look at care workers doing 12 hour shifts on minimum wage, do they not work hard? I don't believe in taxing people simply because they are rich, but those that are well off can afford to carry more of the burden than those who aren't - which is why progressive tax system is fair.

Well, ManU, there are always some with ambition, and they take the risks to get to the top. There are those who are happy with what they do, and don't want to advance. There are those who are happy because they feel their job gives them the satisfaction of helping people. Of course, there are also those who don't have the ability to move beyond the low paid job they do and/or don't have the will to try and improve themselves to "move beyond" what they do.


Now, if someone is "happy" doing their low paid, 12 hour job, or doesn't have the ambition or will to better themselves, why should someone like my boss, who regularly works 18 hours a day 7 days a week with all the stresses of keeping a business going, like ensuring we have supplies of materials, getting new clients, ensuring existing clients are kept satisfied so they stay as clients, etc, whilst looking after a family with 4 kids (he never expected triplets) be taxed to the hilt whilst he CREATES wealth for the taxman and government to appease those who feel they are somehow hard done by due to themselves not willing to do the basics in self improvement so they too earn more?

So, you see, your argument doesn't wash, especially as the tax burden on someone like my boss is far higher due to tax paid on company vehicles, tax paid on his earnings, tax paid on his savings, business taxes, taxes on his house, etc etc. Especially as he is the one who could have quite easily lost EVERYTHING if his business idea did not work. Let's see that "care worker" say they have taken a risk like that by taking the job they have.

When the average care worker pays anything like the percentage of personal and business taxes my boss does, then you can have that argument. But even with a "flat rate" tax system, they'll never come close to doing that.

the argument that the poor could always work harder/take more risks and in turn become wealthy simply doesn't add up

It has added up in my own experience and the observation over a lifetime of countless success stories.

Darwin theory, to which I subscribe, dictates that an organism will thrive by choosing wisely.

Those who have succeeded financially throughout the post-Renaissance era have traditionally shared their treasures voluntarily. Now that Western government has taken over what once was charitable giving by forced contribution through government, and spent the giving profigately and unwisely, the creators and holders of wealth and capital do rightfully withold and try to place wealth out of government's reach. Ultimately that's a good thing.

the argument that the poor could always work harder/take more risks and in turn become wealthy simply doesn't add up.


yes it can and does add up. my own family history attests to that.

ManUtd1999

You expect people who risk their assets, who strive to succeed, who sacrifice years of study, who save and scrape to buoy up those who won't.

What possible incentive exists to do these things when you'll be stripped of all the rewards these things offer?

Why should I pay more per pound I earn than you? It's my pound, I earned it, you want some more of it so you can have more of your pound to yourself.

SO

Those who have succeeded financially throughout the post-Renaissance era have traditionally shared their treasures voluntarily. Now that Western government has taken over what once was charitable giving by forced contribution through government, and spent the giving profigately and unwisely, the creators and holders of wealth and capital do rightfully withold and try to place wealth out of government's reach. Ultimately that's a good thing.

:D:D:D


and in addition BA it's actually the socially responsible thing to do. by limiting the tax take by government it thus prevents the government from being profligate, wasteful and prevents government from what it should be; lean.

It has added up in my own experience and the observation over a lifetime of countless success stories.
We tend to hold up examples of the few people in life that make real successes of their lives and come from poverty to make millions as proof that social mobility is alive and well in this country. In reality, very few people who are born into low-income families grow up to earn any more than their parents. Look at uni applications, Oxbridge take more students from Eton than they do from the entire population who receive free school meals. But anyway, that argument is for another thread.


You expect people who risk their assets, who strive to succeed, who sacrifice years of study, who save and scrape to buoy up those who won't.
No I don't, everyone should be encouraged to try and better themselves and work should always be worthwhile. I do however believe in having things such as free education, healthcare and a welfare state. These things cost money which has to be raised through tax. A flat-rate of tax would have to be set at a much higher level than the 20% that low and middle income households currently pay, so the financial burden on them would increase dramatically. I don't think it's fair to ask those to pay more whilst the rich pay less.

Even by your logic, the people that 'work hard' are still financially better off after a progressive tax system than people who don't, the gap is just slightly less than it would have been.

We tend to hold up examples of the few people in life that make real successes of their lives and come from poverty to make millions as proof that social mobility is alive and well in this country.

indeed and unfortunately it is not Labour have done more to destroy social mobility than can be comprehended by many.

remember that sketch harry enfield did of the plasterer; 'loadsamoney'? typical of the time, when people of all walks of life and education levels were making money.. real money, starting businesses, employing people owning their own homes..

Labour from 97 onwards destroyed social mobility, unless of course you were a party apparatchik or connected to one.

but there is the dichotomy for labour, they claim to represent the 'working man' but destroyed small businesses by over regulation, taxes, more regulation, more taxes mass immigration leaving more people competing for fewer jobs, and with their destruction of the economy...., and this is the rub.. if labour elevates people from poverty they have lost their vote base.

it's all very well citing the socialist worker mantra 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer' but frankly that is utter tosh..

i know people form all walks of life, from the fithy rich to the blue collar builder that under the past decade have seen their personal wealth and debt increase, their businesses suffer due to the economics

you want social mobility then vote for a free market economy..

you want to live in perpetual servitude to debt, taxation and economic decline then vote left. remember it was labour that saddled each and every one of us with a debt pile that no-one asked for or ratified in fact were flatly lied to about it. and yes CMD bears responsibility for not raising the rafter of the house in condemnation over NL's actions..



In reality, very few people who are born into low-income families grow up to earn any more than their parents. Look at uni applications, Oxbridge take more students from Eton than they do from the entire population who receive free school meals. But anyway, that argument is for another thread.



ahh so you it's politics of envy.. oxford is notoriously lefty.. however both universities and their colleges have specific fields of academic excellence, as do many other universities around the country. Durham has specific fields itself, a friend just completed her Phd. there in a specialist field of excellence as other universities have their specific fields.


Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) was founded in 1919[1] to provide a voice for Labour Party values and for socialism and social democracy at Oxford University, England. It is the largest and oldest university Labour club in the country.

The club caters for any students who are interested in the ideals of the labour movement whether a lifelong member of the Labour Party or entirely new to politics.

In a recent lecture Stewart Wood, special adviser to Gordon Brown and politics tutor at Magdalen College, said that 'OULC is held up as an exemplar of what needs to be done.

' During his visit to Oxford in July 2009 the Prime Minister Gordon Brown was reported as having praised OULC’s 'brilliant contribution to progressive politics in the University, the city and the country.'

The club was instrumental in returning Andrew Smith to Parliament for Oxford East at the 2010 General Election with a 4.1% swing to Labour, the largest in England outside London.



The Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club (OUDSC) was a splinter group from Oxford University Labour Club (OULC), formed in 1940 after disafilliation by the national Labour Party of OULC over its opposition to the Second World War and its support for the Soviet Union.

Its first Chair was Tony Crosland, and its first Treasurer Roy Jenkins. David Ginsburg was also a Chair.[1] OUDSC merged with OULC again in 1943.


It's quite funny that oxbridge, that good old socialist worker mantra no. 2 is cited for eliteism, so what we are again talking about is politics of envy.. we've already been down this road before: http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/411282-uk-politics-hamsterwheel-126.html#post6451784


KnC,

thanks for the link.. from the link..

Quote:
Britain has now re-entered an age of elitism in which “old Etonians are ruling the country once more.”
The documentary offered some unsettling facts and trends to support this theory, informing us that the number of MPs educated at public schools is on the rise, and that the upper echelons of the major political parties are now beholden to Oxbridge graduates; but its message was perhaps best captured by its indelicate yet effective imagery – with old footage of Harold Wilson and Edward Heath (set to T. Rex’s Children of the Revolution) juxtaposed with an interview between Neil and that redoubtable Etonian caricature, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, in which the latter ironically declared “I’m a man of the people. Vox populi, vox Dei.”
Ah, so it's not Public School then it's one specific public school ? That smacks of something else entirely.

however, the link also cites that:

Quote:
Contrary to what Neil asserted, there is no compelling evidence of a public school or Oxbridge insurgency in the Commons, or the Cabinet.
so it's just PR based on left wing (Labour) hypocrisy, considering...

Ed Mliband, Labour Leader - Oxford
(dep Leader / Intl. Develp.) Harriet Harman - Private (Aunt is a countess and cousins are entitled)
(national disgrace) the dis-Honourable tony blair (Private and while publicly decrying elitism by way of non state education, sent his progeny private)
Socialist mouthpiece Dianne Abbot - Private & Cambridge sent her progeny private, which she herself described as "indefensible" and "intellectually incoherent".
Shadow Chancellor) tubthumper Ed Balls - Private & Oxford
(Home & Women/Equality) Yvette Cooper - Oxford
(Chief Whip) Rosie Winterton - Private
(Education) Andy Burnham - Cambridge
(Health) John Healey - Cambridge
(Energy/Climate) - Meg Hillier - Private & Oxford
(Shadow Leader of the House) Hilary Benn - Private
(Transport) Maria Eagle - Oxford
(Environment, Food & Rural) Mary Creagh - Oxford
(Sec to Treasury) Angela Eagle - Oxford
(NI) Shaun Woodward - Private
(Culture Media Sport) Ivan Lewis - Private
(cabinet & Olympics) Tessa Jowel - Private
(chair) Tony Lloyd - Private
(attny Gen) Patricia Scotland - Private

so, in respect of your assertion:

Quote:
Stuckgear....alas, nice try but somewhat wide of the mark...here's a little article for your consideration.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
it's right on the mark and the stench of rank hypocricy is overwhelming.


so, rather than swallow the socialist worker propaganda hook, line and sinker, some critial thinking would be in order.