The Great Big Homelessness/Capitalism/Socialism Thread

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Malthusian wrote: »

If you have enough NI contributions to qualify for a full State Pension, then the Government wouldn't have to give you any means-tested benefits, whether you avoided tax by paying pension contributions or not.

So your justification makes no sense. I assume you will now be making a voluntary tax contribution equivalent to all the tax relief you have unfairly taken by making pension contributions.

Hence my question, This is the scenario. If the government weren't squandering money (debatable)and one can afford to pay taxes without suffering any hardship or relative loss. At what point if any does it become morally questionable to avoid tax.

I think my situation is morally justified. Maybe I'm wrong.
I earn between £25k to £30k.
I pay into a pension. Everyone is actively encouraged to pay into a pension so that they don't need to rely on the state in old age.

I don't have any tax avoidance plans or schemes in place and nor would I ever choose to.

Others disagree and think they should avoid all tax where at all possible. I think inheritance should be taxed. At what rate I'm not sure. After all it's a gift that is completely unearned. I am likely to receive a decent inheritance and have no problem paying the relevant tax.

westernpromise

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

Have you read that article? Where were the first two financial institutions to get into trouble based?

Who cares? That they got into trouble was because a weakened regulatory regime - set in place because Brown weakened ours - failed to restrain them. A race to the bottom. Otherwise why didn't this happen in 1995 or 1985? That it happened on Labour's watch is not a coincidence - for once Labour was in power long enough to be there and reap the blame for its own mistakes. Northern Rock fell over because it lent long and borrowed short, a business model of which the FSA was fully aware and completely unconcerned, even though it brought the bank down. Analogously, if the FSA had been the fire brigade, they'd have walked round a wooden house heated by open fires and had nothing to say about fire safety.

It's very telling that no public sector leech from the FSA was jailed or even fired over all this. This is because the FSA did its prescribed job, which was to be totally ineffective so institutions would come here and pay tax that could be squandered on public sector jobs for Labour voters.

Labour, of course, is very keen not to understand this, in a sort of Typhoid Mary way.

To those in the business, it isn't even controversial that Labour caused all this.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

westernpromise wrote: »

Who cares? That they got into trouble was because a weakened regulatory regime - set in place because Brown weakened ours - failed to restrain them. A race to the bottom. Otherwise why didn't this happen in 1995 or 1985? That it happened on Labour's watch is not a coincidence - for once Labour was in power long enough to be there and reap the blame for its own mistakes. Northern Rock fell over because it lent long and borrowed short, a business model of which the FSA was fully aware and completely unconcerned, even though it brought the bank down. Analogously, if the FSA had been the fire brigade, they'd have walked round a wooden house heated by open fires and had nothing to say about fire safety.

It's very telling that no public sector leech from the FSA was jailed or even fired over all this. This is because the FSA did its prescribed job, which was to be totally ineffective so institutions would come here and pay tax that could be squandered on public sector jobs for Labour voters.

Labour, of course, is very keen not to understand this, in a sort of Typhoid Mary way.

To those in the business, it isn't even controversial that Labour caused all this.

When labour was weakening the regulatory regime, did the Tory party actually oppose any of the legislation? I already know the answer.

So how is this solely Labours fault?

Even if our financial sector had been markedly different, we still would have been hit. Germany, for example, has a banking sector less than half the size of ours and had a deeper recession. And remember, the US followed us in implementing measures to control the crisis. The lesson to be learned? Financial regulation matters. Yet going into the crisis the Tories were pushing us to deregulate further.

Arklight

westernpromise wrote: »

Who cares? That they got into trouble was because a weakened regulatory regime - set in place because Brown weakened ours - failed to restrain them. A race to the bottom. Otherwise why didn't this happen in 1995 or 1985? That it happened on Labour's watch is not a coincidence - for once Labour was in power long enough to be there and reap the blame for its own mistakes. Northern Rock fell over because it lent long and borrowed short, a business model of which the FSA was fully aware and completely unconcerned, even though it brought the bank down. Analogously, if the FSA had been the fire brigade, they'd have walked round a wooden house heated by open fires and had nothing to say about fire safety.

It's very telling that no public sector leech from the FSA was jailed or even fired over all this. This is because the FSA did its prescribed job, which was to be totally ineffective so institutions would come here and pay tax that could be squandered on public sector jobs for Labour voters.

Labour, of course, is very keen not to understand this, in a sort of Typhoid Mary way.

To those in the business, it isn't even controversial that Labour caused all this.

Yes, expecting bankers to act with any probity, competence, or sense of moral direction was clearly wildly unrealistic.

It’s not surprising that 'those in the business' have decided to blame Labour for the entire financial crisis they stewarded, profited from, failed to predict, and bled taxpayers dry with.

They’re not going to blame themselves, are they?

Like everyone else does.

westernpromise

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

When labour was weakening the regulatory regime, did the Tory party actually oppose any of the legislation?

Yes.
“With the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority…it is difficult to see how and whether the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse.”
“The coverage of the FSA will be huge; its objectives will be many, and potentially in conflict with one another. The range of its activities will be so diverse that no one person in it will understand them all.”
“…that the Government may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day.”
[Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 731-32.]
Peter Lilley MP, shadow Chancellor, 1997
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90507-0003.htm

They also quite accurately observed that the regulation was burdensome but ineffective, as the FSA admitted:
The FSA wants to take a ‘more intrusive and interventionist’ approach with lenders after admitting its current rules were ‘ineffective’ at curbing irresponsible lending. The FSA said its review had discovered problem with how lenders check affordability of home loans, the level of arrears, and charges.
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/fsa-mortgage-review-a-complete-breakdown/a362397

Gosh! Just like the USA's! Only first.

Financial regulation matters. Yet going into the crisis the Tories were pushing us to deregulate further.

Because what there was was ineffective. More does not mean better and less does not mean worse. Better means better and the FSA meant worse as was pointed out in May 1997.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

westernpromise wrote: »

Yes.
“With the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority…it is difficult to see how and whether the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse.”

Because what there was was ineffective. More does not mean better and less does not mean worse. Better means better and the FSA meant worse as was pointed out in May 1997.

westernpromise wrote: »

Who cares? That they got into trouble was because a weakened regulatory regime - set in place because Brown weakened ours - failed to restrain them.

To those in the business, it isn't even controversial that Labour caused all this.

Ok make your mind up....

Tories would have cut all regulations and that would have been better, because they're Tory. I understand now.......

I believe that fanaticism kills intellect. But when you're so blinded by your "fanaticism" you can't recognise when your showing the signs of this phenomenon.

P.S you still haven't answered my question: If the government weren't squandering money (debatable)and one can afford to pay taxes without suffering any hardship or relative loss. At what point if any does it become morally questionable to avoid tax and why/ not?

Cakeguts

My answer to this is that if you are the owner of a successful company and some daft labour government decides to increase your tax rate to some ridiculous percentage just because you are rich you would start to look for somewhere else to live where the tax rate was lower. Following this if this stupid idea continued you would move your company somewhere else. The end result being that the UK would lose a lot of employers and no new companies would come instead.

If you start down the road of rich people have to pay 90% income tax just because they have more money you are soon going to find that there are fewer rich people still in the UK.

Someone did some research into large council estates and they found that if a whole area consisted of people renting council houses and living on benefits the quality of the shops reflected that. But if the area became mixed with owner occupiers as well as council tenants the shops reflected people with more money to spend and so the council tenants got more choice as well.

So if you try to make everyone equal by pulling the top down you also reduce the choices of the bottom. Labour always try to make people equal by pulling the top down. They don't try to improve the bottom and pull that up.

Just think about football teams. It is perfectly alright for young children to be selected to play for junior football teams but it is not alright to select children on intelligence. The country needs the inovators, doctors, business people but Labour says you are not allowed to select on intelligence because of the way that affects the people who aren't selected not that they will improve the choices of those not selected but that they will take away the choices of those that are. It applies to grammar schools but not to football why?

economic

Cakeguts wrote: »

My answer to this is that if you are the owner of a successful company and some daft labour government decides to increase your tax rate to some ridiculous percentage just because you are rich you would start to look for somewhere else to live where the tax rate was lower. Following this if this stupid idea continued you would move your company somewhere else. The end result being that the UK would lose a lot of employers and no new companies would come instead.

If you start down the road of rich people have to pay 90% income tax just because they have more money you are soon going to find that there are fewer rich people still in the UK.

Someone did some research into large council estates and they found that if a whole area consisted of people renting council houses and living on benefits the quality of the shops reflected that. But if the area became mixed with owner occupiers as well as council tenants the shops reflected people with more money to spend and so the council tenants got more choice as well.

So if you try to make everyone equal by pulling the top down you also reduce the choices of the bottom. Labour always try to make people equal by pulling the top down. They don't try to improve the bottom and pull that up.

Just think about football teams. It is perfectly alright for young children to be selected to play for junior football teams but it is not alright to select children on intelligence. The country needs the inovators, doctors, business people but Labour says you are not allowed to select on intelligence because of the way that affects the people who aren't selected not that they will improve the choices of those not selected but that they will take away the choices of those that are. It applies to grammar schools but not to football why?

This is so perfectly put especially on the intelligence vs football team example. This is something i have been thinking about as well.

It is very clear to me the best system we have so far is capitalism and we need to provide incentives for smart hardworking people to innovate and produce so that all levels of society to benefit.

As i said before i would only consider "donating" my hard earned cash in the form of investments to innovators who will come up with new generation of goods and services that would benefit many.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Cakeguts wrote: »

My answer to this is that if you are the owner of a successful company and some daft labour government decides to increase your tax rate to some ridiculous percentage just because you are rich you would start to look for somewhere else to live where the tax rate was lower. Following this if this stupid idea continued you would move your company somewhere else. The end result being that the UK would lose a lot of employers and no new companies would come instead.

If you start down the road of rich people have to pay 90% income tax just because they have more money you are soon going to find that there are fewer rich people still in the UK.

No-one has suggested any such system. Pointless post.

I've only asked at which point if any does it become immoral to evade tax. People are not being supported adequately for mental illness, homelessness, crime etc. So if the country is in a not so great place, is it moral to avoid income tax at 45% or inheritance tax etc

How do you even pull the poor up without adequate taxation??? Education costs money....

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

economic wrote: »

This is so perfectly put especially on the intelligence vs football team example. This is something i have been thinking about as well.

It is very clear to me the best system we have so far is capitalism and we need to provide incentives for smart hardworking people to innovate and produce so that all levels of society to benefit.

As i said before i would only consider "donating" my hard earned cash in the form of investments to innovators who will come up with new generation of goods and services that would benefit many.

Why are you so amazed by poverty stricken areas having shops targeted at what poverty stricken people can afford?

Surely you've already figured that out for yourself.