Open letter to Russell Brand

VimFuego

Snap said:

VimFuego said:

Snap said:

here's a question, why should you pay proprortionately more income tax if you earn more?

I think it's wrong.

Pay 20% of your income in tax, regardless (above the non tax threshold). Richer people pay more tax (volume).

In principle, why, if you earn more, should you give a greater percentage to state funds?

Serious question. Never agreed with it.

personally I feel tax is a very poor instrument for ensuring a fairer distribution of essential resources. I think a system that stops anyone or anything getting too big in the first place is better (thus ensuring everyone gets a fairer share from the pie before a lump gets taken by the tax man, I also think if more people earned more, there'd be less tax overall to pay). I don't know what this system would look like, but that's why I'm not in charge.

Interesting, so are you advocating a system that says you can only earn so much or accrue so much wealth?

Don't agree with that at all. Why should the state limit what I want to earn? I get your ethos, but not the means. Take this to its extreme end, perhaps, and you say, all jobs are equal, everyone earns the same. That clearly doesn't work. Is that true communism, possibly. Thing, is, humans are basically bastards. When you introduce a fair and equitable, even egalitarian society, the bastards with the biggest mates take over.

nope, didn't say that or anything even close to that, stop strawmanning. I've already said on a number of occasions that I favour small government, something you seem to have conveniently ignored. I'm sorry if my words seem confrontational, but I really hate this thing some people do where they twist someone's words in order to score cheap points.

I much prefer a system where there is greater ownership of the way in which we work, we all take a greater share in the risk and all take a greater share in the profits. Companies, by nature, would be smaller, so less able to distort the political or economic landscape and more accountable to the employees, who of course would have a greater incentive to work well for their employer. Markets would be freer and more open, so the opportunity to exploit individuals or groups of individuals. As I said (which again you ignored) I don't know exactly what this would look like, which is why I'm not in charge.

Evilmags

The real issue is that a large proportion of UK citizens do not own any capital, which always puts them at the mercy of either the state or an employer. The reason it is so hard to accumulate capital is the sheer amount of it burned on an annual basis by the state. By far the biggest cost of every productive UK citizen is the state. It taxes production at every single stage, making goods and products immeasurably more expensive and harder to produce. Then it wonders why their is so much demand for special treatment. Even if the poor are taxed at 0%, factors such as  inflation, VAT and recessions, all a product of state economic management or direct state intervention, hit the poorest disproportionately and increase their dependency on Leviathan.  

Sale of council houses was by far the biggest transfer of wealth and capital and allowed people to start accumulating capital and with it independence and greater personal liberty. The question is how to bring that independence and capital ownership further down the social ladder? I doubt it is theft in the form of coerced taxation and increasing dependency. 

Snap

viz said:

Snap said:

VimFuego said:

Snap said:

here's a question, why should you pay proprortionately more income tax if you earn more?

I think it's wrong.

Pay 20% of your income in tax, regardless (above the non tax threshold). Richer people pay more tax (volume).

In principle, why, if you earn more, should you give a greater percentage to state funds?

Serious question. Never agreed with it.

personally I feel tax is a very poor instrument for ensuring a fairer distribution of essential resources. I think a system that stops anyone or anything getting too big in the first place is better (thus ensuring everyone gets a fairer share from the pie before a lump gets taken by the tax man, I also think if more people earned more, there'd be less tax overall to pay). I don't know what this system would look like, but that's why I'm not in charge.

and I'd tax moustaches so that anyone having one should also have to have a beard. YOu cant have han solo.

http://i865.photobucket.com/albums/ab217/Vizzage/Mobile Uploads/image_zps4518c893.jpg

VimFuego said:

Snap said:

VimFuego said:

Snap said:

here's a question, why should you pay proprortionately more income tax if you earn more?

I think it's wrong.

Pay 20% of your income in tax, regardless (above the non tax threshold). Richer people pay more tax (volume).

In principle, why, if you earn more, should you give a greater percentage to state funds?

Serious question. Never agreed with it.

personally I feel tax is a very poor instrument for ensuring a fairer distribution of essential resources. I think a system that stops anyone or anything getting too big in the first place is better (thus ensuring everyone gets a fairer share from the pie before a lump gets taken by the tax man, I also think if more people earned more, there'd be less tax overall to pay). I don't know what this system would look like, but that's why I'm not in charge.

Interesting, so are you advocating a system that says you can only earn so much or accrue so much wealth?

Don't agree with that at all. Why should the state limit what I want to earn? I get your ethos, but not the means. Take this to its extreme end, perhaps, and you say, all jobs are equal, everyone earns the same. That clearly doesn't work. Is that true communism, possibly. Thing, is, humans are basically bastards. When you introduce a fair and equitable, even egalitarian society, the bastards with the biggest mates take over.

nope, didn't say that or anything even close to that, stop strawmanning. I've already said on a number of occasions that I favour small government, something you seem to have conveniently ignored. I'm sorry if my words seem confrontational, but I really hate this thing some people do where they twist someone's words in order to score cheap points.

I much prefer a system where there is greater ownership of the way in which we work, we all take a greater share in the risk and all take a greater share in the profits. Companies, by nature, would be smaller, so less able to distort the political or economic landscape and more accountable to the employees, who of course would have a greater incentive to work well for their employer. Markets would be freer and more open, so the opportunity to exploit individuals or groups of individuals. As I said (which again you ignored) I don't know exactly what this would look like, which is why I'm not in charge.

chill out mate, I agree with you, but you were making the point here:

"I think a system that stops anyone or anything getting too big in the first place is better (thus ensuring everyone gets a fairer share from the pie before a lump gets taken by the tax man, I also think if more people earned more, there'd be less tax overall to pay)."

which I interpreted as limiting how big someone/thing can get, but reading back, was probably misinterpreted.

don't be so bleeding tetchy, its not a case of "ignoring",wilfully you imply with your accusation of straw manning (somthing I hate, btw, a cobblers phrase that gets banded about here left right and centre), its a case of quickly reading and writing in a spare moment, whilst I can. So, conveniently ignored my arse. Missed, yes, on purpose, no. There's not an agenda here to undermine your point of view mate, I was rambling, whilst concentrating, or attempting to, on two things at once, one of them being work.

VimFuego

a system doesn't have to be a top down process (like communism for example), it can be a bottom up process (like free markets). Our current system is very top down, with big business basically running the country through a combination of lobbying, coercing of governments, ownership of the means of communication and plain outright ownership of the political process.

Strawman is not a cobblers phrase at all, it's a really cheap nasty trick that people who have more interest in scoring cheap points than they do in having an adult discussion. It's fine to have a joke and a laugh in a jokey thread, in a serious thread where serious things are being discussed it is disrespectful. You may not have meant it to come across as such, but that's how it read to me. As I said, I'm sorry if I come across as seeming confrontational, but none of us are perfect.

EDIT: FWIW I wouldn't even attempt to have this discussion with some people on this forum as their minds are so closed and their opinions drawn from such deeply held prejudices that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with them, so they fact that I responded at all is a sign that I think you are worth debating with.

Snap

right, so that's sorted! your last sentence, should I feel honoured that you deem me fit to discuss with, you arrogant get! (btw, that's said with a laugh, just so you take it as it's meant, lighthearted,,,)

were you saying people's ability to earn as much as they like, or, expand as much as they can, is not desirable? I think I see where you're going - some corporations or individuals become so big we veer into (almost) oligarchies, which does need controlling, BUT, the question for me is, at what point? WHo makes that call? Tricky. In principle this oculd be an anti free market policy, but clearly the reent free market ideaolgy, that collapsed in 2008 doesn't work, and neither does all out socialism. Perhaps we are entering a post far left/far right socio economic era. Maybe we are moving into a more socially aware "post capitalist" era, where we are all more aware of the filpside to unrestrained pursuirt of material wealth??

Then again, once people start to feel the wealth in their pocket/credit facility build, I reckon we will be off down the same path again.

VimFuego

can't type too much, sore finger. I think an organisation would require a check on it when it reaches the point where it starts to distort the market. However, in a fair and open competitive market, it would be very difficult for any one organisation to get to that point. As an organisation grows it becomes less flexible and able to adjust to the demands of an open market, that is why so many big organisations work so hard to distort the market in their favour, it's easier to bend policies than it is to adapt to change.

EDIT: I think it's also important that we stop seeing money as wealth, money is just a means of exchange and is too easily created (either by private banks or central banks) whereas wealth is access to resources. The vaue of money should be tied to something real, like the old gold standard, but updated for 21 c living. Have a look at the positive money people (they have a series of lectures on youtube) for a more lucid explanation than I am able to give.