The Politics Thread 4

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
satriales
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by satriales » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:45 pm

Dual wrote:Spending 24 hours in a&e last week with a family member was the best advert I've seen for private healthcare. It was a vision of hell.

Private healthcare doesn't cover a&e.

User avatar
Tineash
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Tineash » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:48 pm

Regginator3 wrote: (why should I be forced to give up money I've earned?)


Regginator3 wrote:Have to say it's good that there's a crypto thread here. Who here is also worried about the taxation situation?

I've got about 600 trades under my belt so going through all of them is going to be Fun


Do the kids still say 'lel'? I'm getting out of touch

strawberry float it, I'm going for it

lel

"exceptionally annoying" - TheTurnipKing
User avatar
Dual
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Irene Demova

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Dual » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:55 pm

:lol:
satriales wrote:
Dual wrote:Spending 24 hours in a&e last week with a family member was the best advert I've seen for private healthcare. It was a vision of hell.

Private healthcare doesn't cover a&e.


I know, it's a real shame. Hopefully they'll change that when it all gets sold off.

User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:59 pm

Whew. Huge amount of responses here. I'll do my best to tackle as many as possible -

satriales wrote:A lot of points their and it's hard for me to reply properly as I'm on my phone, but I do appreciate your perspective even if I don't agree with it.

In terms of selling off profitable business, the two that come to mind are Royal Mail and Eurostar. Both were making a profit and expected to do better in the coming years so it was crazy to sell them off.


Royal Mail in particular was expected to do better because of internet shopping increasing the demand for parcel delivery (which is true), but the extent to which they needed further investment to meet the demand was not sustainable for state spending. The demand for internet shopping has exploded in the last 4 years to the point it the cost pretty much needed a typical competitive model (the market) to survive. I'll admit it hasn't worked well for workers though, but that's a whole other issue really.

The NHS has been underfunded and the increased involvement of profit making companies and agencies means that more of that money is going to shareholders pockets rather than being invested back into the NHS.


I agree the NHS has been underfunded, but the point is it's being underfunded despite year-on-year spending increases. That means that even with increased spending, the cost is spiralling out of control. Actually the majority of profits from the privatised portions were re-invested back. Some was taken, but it's a drop in the ocean and hasn't really contributed to the problem at all.

As the population lives longer they also work longer and pay more taxes. I don't buy into the idea that it's unsustainable, it's worked well for decades and was doing just fine before the Conservatives took over in 2010.


Surely it only works that "they also work longer and pay more taxes" if you agree with the retirement age going up? Which I thought was generally a major sticking point against the Conservatives, but there you go. It was doing terribly before the Blair government, which was the government which implemented privatisation in the first place and literally saved the NHS from collapse.

The changes to welfare payments and disability assesments are inhumane and not even economically sound. They are again using private profit making companies to run these assesments and forcing vulnerable people to fight the poor verdicts in court (75% win). Any savings made are going to these companies and paying for court cases, it's just all unnecessary.

If only they spent a fraction of the effort spent on benefit claimants as they did on tax avoidance as something like 50x as much tax is lost that way.


The assessments have been utterly terrible and as far as I can tell the government is continually looking to reform the system. I admit it's an area they're a bit gooseberry fool in but I don't see a Corbyn-led Labour government doing any better at all.

I wouldn't be so against corporation tax cuts if they weren't at the expense of everyone else. If we have to underfund the NHS, freeze nurses pay for close to a decade, close police stations, sell off 10s of £billions in public assets, cut funding to schools, and reduce benefits for those that are already struggling, then why are businesses given huge tax cuts while everyone else is suffering with austerity? Corporation Tax was already cheap compared to many other countries, so I don't believe cutting further would have bought in extra revenue but it would be interesting to see those numbers if they exist.

At the very least they should have closed tax loopholes first and recovered unpaid taxes that are long overdue, but no instead they cut HMRC resources to make it impossible for the taxman to chase these companies.


That's exactly why we need receipt increases. Check out the link I posted regarding the numbers (it was embedded in the post). It's interesting to see how Corp tax cuts have contributed to receipt increases, but not altogether unsurprising when you take into account the business boost that has occurred in the last 5 years (most of it SME).

Moggy wrote:That reads like you do not want any taxation?

If so, how would the government pay for anything?

From the police, to the NHS, to the armed forces, to the roads and to education, we live in a society that requires citizens and businesses to contribute for the greater good.

Imposing tax is not morally wrong. I’d say it’s morally wrong to not pay tax.


Missing the point, a little. I don't think taxation shouldn't exist, but should be cut. Bit of a straw man there mate. Taxation is absolutely required, but I don't think it should be super high.

Karl wrote:What supports this assertion? A 2014 study found we had the best health-care out of a sample of 11 developed nations, for the second-lowest spending per capita. (The US - which one could reasonably argue is the 'most privatised' - was the worst and had the highest spending per capita.)

I'm happy to hear an argument that the private sector is inherently and uniquely well-adapted to meeting the challenges of an ageing population. I don't see why this should be the case -- that the profit motive is more helpful in dealing with old people than with other recipients of healthcare.


Well, I mean, since 1997 we've had increasing levels of privatisation. A study saying in 2014 we're doing the best doesn't necessarily show an indication that increasing privatisation is bad, in fact it could be an argument that it works well. That said, there are multiple different surveys that rank different countries 'best' overall for healthcare, so it's impossible to say what system is best/worst from those alone.
I'd go with the World Health Organisation as being arguably the most reliable source since they have the most extensive studies which occupy the most areas. The World Health Organisation puts France the best, for example, with the UK rated 18th. France is public/private co-operative, in which for patients compulsory healthcare insurance is paid (which goes partially to the state as well as to private companies which is then invested by the companies into the infrastructure), and then also the patients pay around 30% of the cost directly at checkups and consultations.

As for the argument that the private sector is 'inherently and uniquely well-adapted to meeting the challenges of an ageing population' - well, that's not necessarily the point. An entirely public funded NHS could well do it.The question is, where is the money coming from, and also, could it be done better with some privatisation? Nobody, as far as I can tell, is arguing for an almost completely free-market-based system such as the US. But it is known that businessmen run organisations more efficiently than politicians. A market is created for management, essentially.

Karl wrote:Are you arguing that strong social welfare nets lead to dependence, or that Labour's particular implementation will? To my eye there are countries with stronger nets than ours with less-entrenched poverty, and countries with weaker nets with more-entrenched poverty, so I definitely don't feel the former idea is well-founded. (EDIT: On the latter point, I don't know the details of Labour's proposed welfare policies. I can't imagine they're particularly bad ideas - Labour is usually fairly thoughtful on welfare issues - but I don't really know.)


There is definitely a dependency issue, but no, I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that the economic "reforms" will put a lot of people out of work, as corporations will make layoffs in response to a higher tax burden, Brexit (which the modern Labour Party is effectively arguing for), and a higher minimum wage. These three things in combination mean that corporations will seek to find ways to save money. Who do you think will shoulder the burden.

There are also countries which tried to have stronger nets and completely failed. Which comparable country (in terms of net GDP and population) has a stronger welfare net and less poverty? I'm keen to find out because I'm not convinced on this argument. You get, say, Denmark which has a much lower population as well as no state-enforced minimum wage (their economy is very much market-based and wages are bargained between employers and employees).

Karl wrote:I think there are a few interesting points to talk about on this graph: 1. Canada experienced no growth in corporation tax receipts when slashing corporation tax over the 11-year-period studied, and there is no overall trend in the data, showing that there isn't a simple relationship between the variables.


Now, there's a very misleading graph. That's corporation tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, which is, frankly, irrelevant when GDP shifts (for example tax receipts can go up, but GDP can go up further, therefore this would mark as a 'fall'). Did the overall tax receipts go up?

This graph would suggest that, on average, there is a negative correlation between tax rates and tax revenues.

Karl wrote:This is the question at the core of right ideology. I grew up poor, in a single-parent household, with a parent that was too ill to work. I've yet to hear a good way for society to account for that situation without taking some money from someone. I now work in medical research, so it's ultimately to your (and, in general, society's) benefit that your tax paid for my food and clothes and school when I was a kid.

Sorry if you feel like I'm talking down to you, but right-leaning people often forget the basic, positive, long-term relationship between looking after poorer people and having a better society.


I grew up on a council estate to a single mother who couldn't work. I'm not sure why it matters. Nobody is arguing that no money should be taken at all, but the point is I said "why should I?" to demonstrate that I believe that it should be minimised as much as possible. We need to protect the most vulnerable, but the idea it should be at such a large expensive I'm still unconvinced by.

Tineash wrote:
Regginator3 wrote: (why should I be forced to give up money I've earned?)


Regginator3 wrote:Have to say it's good that there's a crypto thread here. Who here is also worried about the taxation situation?

I've got about 600 trades under my belt so going through all of them is going to be Fun


Do the kids still say 'lel'? I'm getting out of touch

strawberry float it, I'm going for it

lel


What is your point? My post there was regarding the actual practicality of calculating overall gains/losses. Even if it wasn't, it matches up, no?

User avatar
Tineash
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Tineash » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:03 pm

I don't count speculating on dutch tulips as earning money, but you do you

"exceptionally annoying" - TheTurnipKing
User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:05 pm

Tineash wrote:I don't count speculating on dutch tulips as earning money, but you do you

I didn't say crypto speculation was the same as 'earning'? My "money I've earned" point was regarding my income tax. Your point is incomprehensible.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:10 pm

When you say:

Regginator3 wrote:Also I agree with corporation tax cuts. Not just from a moral point of view (why should I be forced to give up money I've earned?)


It’s not a strawman to ask how we would pay for things.

You are ok with taxation, but it’s too high and you morally don’t think you should be forced to give up money you’ve earned? It all sounds a bit contradictory, either forcibly taking any money is wrong or it isn’t.

User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:12 pm

Moggy wrote:It’s not a strawman to ask how we would pay for things.

You are ok with taxation, but it’s too high and you morally don’t think you should be forced to give up money you’ve earned? It all sounds a bit contradictory, either forcibly taking any money is wrong or it isn’t.


I believe it's a "necessary evil" (I don't actually think of it as 'evil' but that's the best phrase that comes to mind), so it's necessary to keep some, but it's also good to minimise it to mitigate the badness of forcefully taking money from people just because they decided to work. I really don't see what's contradictory about that. It IS a straw man to suggest that my argument implies that we should have 0% taxation, when it wasn't.

If there was a way of funding government and having 0% tax then I'd probably take that option, but it's impossible.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:18 pm

Regginator3 wrote:
Moggy wrote:It’s not a strawman to ask how we would pay for things.

You are ok with taxation, but it’s too high and you morally don’t think you should be forced to give up money you’ve earned? It all sounds a bit contradictory, either forcibly taking any money is wrong or it isn’t.


I believe it's a "necessary evil" (I don't actually think of it as 'evil' but that's the best phrase that comes to mind), so it's necessary to keep some, but it's also good to minimise it to mitigate the badness of forcefully taking money from people just because they decided to work. I really don't see what's contradictory about that.


It’s contradictory because you’ve claimed that it’s morally wrong to forcibly take money that people have earned.

You then say that we should have tax, but that it should be lower.

That contradicts itself, either tax is wrong or not. If forcibly taking money is morally wrong, then taking 0.01% is as morally wrong as taking 50%.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:20 pm

Regginator3 wrote:It IS a straw man to suggest that my argument implies that we should have 0% taxation, when it wasn't.

If there was a way of funding government and having 0% tax then I'd probably take that option, but it's impossible.


You edited your post.

It’s not a strawman to ask somebody how we pay for things when they have said that forcibly taking earnings is wrong. It’s a logical question to ask.

User avatar
Tineash
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Tineash » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:24 pm

Maybe you could just provide a comprehensive list of which forms of taxation you do and don't consider legitimate.
I mean we got income tax: naughty bad I earned that go away, and CGT:yep cool ya got me.
Now just fill in the rest.

"exceptionally annoying" - TheTurnipKing
User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:28 pm

Moggy wrote:It’s contradictory because you’ve claimed that it’s morally wrong to forcibly take money that people have earned.

You then say that we should have tax, but that it should be lower.

That contradicts itself, either tax is wrong or not. If forcibly taking money is morally wrong, then taking 0.01% is as morally wrong as taking 50%.

You edited your post.

It’s not a strawman to ask somebody how we pay for things when they have said that forcibly taking earnings is wrong. It’s a logical question to ask.


No, it isn't contradictory. I'm still not sure what the hang-up is, here. I agree forcefully taking money is wrong. I disagree with you entirely that "taking 0.01% is as morally wrong as taking 50%". Taking less money is still wrong, but less wrong than taking more money. Taking 10% is half as wrong as taking 20%, to me. Because by taking 10%, you're taking away one tenth of someone's income, by taking 20% you're taking a whole fifth. There is a demonstrable impact on someone's life between the two rates, especially on someone who is on a poorer income. I didn't say there was a system which would work that would be "completely" morally okay. I reject the assumption that that is possible.

I take it you generally don't believe there is such thing as a "necessary evil", then.

And yes I edited my post because I had additional thought to weigh in and didn't care to double post. I did it with this one too!

Tineash wrote:Maybe you could just provide a comprehensive list of which forms of taxation you do and don't consider legitimate.
I mean we got income tax: naughty bad I earned that go away, and CGT:yep cool ya got me.
Now just fill in the rest.


Why are you talking about 'legitimacy'? They're all legitimate. I don't think any tax is particularly good but I think it's a necessary evil (again, not 'evil', but best phrase that comes to mind).

I'm seriously unsure why this forum has a problem with grasping the concept of "necessary evil".

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:32 pm

Regginator3 wrote:
Moggy wrote:It’s contradictory because you’ve claimed that it’s morally wrong to forcibly take money that people have earned.

You then say that we should have tax, but that it should be lower.

That contradicts itself, either tax is wrong or not. If forcibly taking money is morally wrong, then taking 0.01% is as morally wrong as taking 50%.

You edited your post.

It’s not a strawman to ask somebody how we pay for things when they have said that forcibly taking earnings is wrong. It’s a logical question to ask.


No, it isn't contradictory. I'm still not sure what the hang-up is, here. I agree forcefully taking money is wrong. I disagree with you entirely that "taking 0.01% is as morally wrong as taking 50%". Taking less money is still wrong, but less wrong than taking more money. Taking 10% is half as wrong as taking 20%, to me. Because by taking 10%, you're taking away one tenth of someone's income, by taking 20% you're taking a whole fifth. There is a demonstrable impact on someone's life between the two rates, especially on someone who is on a poorer income. I didn't say there was a system which would work that would be "completely" morally okay. I reject the assumption that that is possible.

I take it you generally don't believe there is such thing as a "necessary evil", then.

And yes I edited my post because I had additional thought to weigh in and didn't care to double post. I did it with this one too!


All I did was query your statement that it was morally wrong to forcibly take people’s earnings. We agree that taxation is necessary, I don’t think it is a “necessary evil” because I don’t think it’s mora wrong to tax people. You think it is. That’s cool, we don’t have to agree.

I wasn’t criticising your post edit, I mentioned it so I didn’t look to others that I was splitting my reply into two separate posts.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Moggy » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:34 pm

Regginator3 wrote:I'm seriously unsure why this forum has a problem with grasping the concept of "necessary evil".


We all understand it. We are just having a disagreement about it’s use in this context.

User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:40 pm

Moggy wrote:
Regginator3 wrote:I'm seriously unsure why this forum has a problem with grasping the concept of "necessary evil".


We all understand it. We are just having a disagreement about it’s use in this context.

That's cool. I think the issue comes around the phrase "morally wrong". Perhaps a bad choice of words.

User avatar
Karl
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Karl » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:21 pm

Thanks for your long reply. I'm just going to cherry-pick this bit:

Regginator3 wrote:Now, there's a very misleading graph. That's corporation tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, which is, frankly, irrelevant when GDP shifts (for example tax receipts can go up, but GDP can go up further, therefore this would mark as a 'fall'). Did the overall tax receipts go up?

This graph would suggest that, on average, there is a negative correlation between tax rates and tax revenues.

My day-to-day work is in data science, so I'm certainly very interested in your thoughts on why the analysis is misleading. I would advise that any multi-year or multi-country presentation of data across these variables absolutely needs some normalisation factor to account for the overall growth of the economy. I don't think it's very meaningful to say "the receipts went up by x" without a contextualising factor that accounts for what the economy is doing at that time. I don't research in economics but I can't imagine multiple sources of data on this subject have used the current GDP as a normalising factor without some thought and consensus.

I don't think the graph you just linked to - which, incidentally, is normalised in the same way that you said you have a problem with(?) - is very clear-cut. I agree there's some trend, but if you look at pairs of points, sometimes an increase in corporation tax rate is correlated with an increase in take and sometimes the opposite is true -- it's about 50/50. The dramatic drop in rate doesn't have a similarly dramatic increase in take, or vice-versa.

My primary take-away from that graph is "I wonder if the article explains what happened in '95-'00," not "wow, those two variables are strongly correlated."

User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:32 pm

I mean in terms of considering whether there is a direct cause, only the raw values should be needed, right?

The usage of the graph that is using the same metric - % of GDP - was to show that even if taking this into account, the stats (on average) do represent that.

User avatar
Karl
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Karl » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:44 pm

Regginator3 wrote:I mean in terms of considering whether there is a direct cause, only the raw values should be needed, right?

This isn't really correct in my opinion. I think if you're compiling a big data-set over a time period and many countries, you need a way to account for the possible impacts on corporation tax receipts which aren't due to corporation tax rate policy. One such effect is that in any growing economy, even if you hold rates constant, you would expect raw receipts to rise steadily over time; at the very least, normalising by total GDP accounts for this one confounding phenomenon.

I can't say whether it's the perfect normalisation factor, but I would personally take it over the raw numbers if I were running this analysis.

EDIT: A nice way to approach this might be "% change in tax receipts / % change in GDP". If you want to use your Bitcoin riches to fund a study let me know...

User avatar
Regginator3
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Regginator3 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:34 pm

I would recommend reading this paper though. It's quite fascinating reading and I don't see an issue with what it's found.

User avatar
Karl
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Politics Thread 4
by Karl » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:09 pm

Regginator3 wrote:I would recommend reading this paper though. It's quite fascinating reading and I don't see an issue with what it's found.

Sure thing, I'll read it! I actually have a 'paper to-do list' -- this is at the bottom (underneath all the biology stuff I need to read for my PhD!), but I will get around to it eventually.


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alvin Flummux, Cribs, Denster, FudgeDiver, Minoru, Qikz, RichardUK, Riksilver, Robbo-92, smurphy, wensleydale, zXe and 44 guests