O/T:- Election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lullapie

It's a difficult one. There's no mainstream political party that would advocate zero income tax. There's too many government jobs that rely on income tax - not to mention the number of accountancy firms that make a fortune out of it.

It's true that taxation is there to redistribute wealth, but what we assume is that it is redistributing it to the poorer members of society, whereas I believe that taxation benefits the super rich more.

Think about the carbon tax regime. Yes, large users of fossil fuels pay the tax in relation to the damage they are doing to the climate, but they don't pluck the money out of thin air. The man (and woman) on the street has to pay higher power charges to accommodate the carbon tax. The additional charges are often much greater than the carbon tax charges. Therefore it is taking more tax from Joe Bloggs and redistributing it to the super wealthy (the shareholders - not the mum and dad ones who own a few shares, but those that own a large percentage of the power generating companies). You don't think for one minute that the super wealthy don't have the means to pay as little tax as possible.

Anyway, in New Zealand, we have a libertarian party, called the ACT Party (Association of Consumers and Taxpayers). They believe in minimal interference from government and as we have Proportional Representation here, they have a large say in the coalition government.

They believe in reducing red tape and the cutting waste in the public sector. Not the same doctrine as many think libertarians are in the UK. The ACT Party is definitely the most right wing party in New Zealand. You can be libertarian and right wing too.

---

Interesting. I've wrestled with the 'taxation is theft' idea myself. I mean, it's obviously true - try not paying it and see what happens. It's the very definition of extorsion, assuming you don't want to pay it. But whether or not society can function without taxation and what the consequences would be is another matter, so perhaps it's the lesser of two evils. I read one of Rothbard's books, where he claimed that charity should be sufficient to help those in need, but I wasn't convinced.

I've definitely become more libertarian over the years, at least in some ways, and especially since COVID. It's interesting what Milei has done in Argentina, stripping away the more pointless government departments, resulting in the country's first budget surplus in over a decade. The long-term impact of all those spending cuts remains to be seen though.

In the UK, there's really no libertarian option to the right of centre. The Green Party are fairly libetarian in some ways, but obviously very much left wing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slack_pie

Interesting. I've wrestled with the 'taxation is theft' idea myself. I mean, it's obviously true - try not paying it and see what happens. It's the very definition of extorsion, assuming you don't want to pay it. But whether or not society can function without taxation and what the consequences would be is another matter, so perhaps it's the lesser of two evils. I read one of Rothbard's books, where he claimed that charity should be sufficient to help those in need, but I wasn't convinced.

I've definitely become more libertarian over the years, at least in some ways, and especially since COVID. It's interesting what Milei has done in Argentina, stripping away the more pointless government departments, resulting in the country's first budget surplus in over a decade. The long-term impact of all those spending cuts remains to be seen though.

In the UK, there's really no libertarian option to the right of centre. The Green Party are fairly libetarian in some ways, but obviously very much left wing.

---

Great post Slack Pie. The misconception with many is that a libertarian is left wing. It’s only when you go right around the political spectrum via the left to Anarchism that left wing libertarianism comes into play. Right wing doctrines are more comfortable with freedom of choice. I know people will talk about loonie evangelists who want to ban abortion etc. etc., but genuine right wing politics, until you get round to National Socialism, is quite laissez-faire. The Green Party in New Zealand is the least libertarian party in the country.

Back to taxation. I’m comfortable with VAT being the only form of taxation. It’s the easiest to collect and you only pay when you spend.

"Tax is theft" is nonsense, unless you want to pay for your own roads, your own street lighting, own police, own army, own doctor, own bin collection, I really could go on and on. If you live in a society, then you have to pay for the things that society provides. You can't opt out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinophile

"Tax is theft" is nonsense, unless you want to pay for your own roads, your own street lighting, own police, own army, own doctor, own bin collection, I really could go on and on. If you live in a society, then you have to pay for the things that society provides. You can't opt out.

---

This. There are better (fairer) more efficient ways of taxing though I am sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lullapie

Back to taxation. I’m comfortable with VAT being the only form of taxation. It’s the easiest to collect and you only pay when you spend.

---

What would society look like if we abandoned all other forms of taxation though? What public services would you cut funding to or privatise? How would you ensure that those in society who genuinely need support get it? Would you abolish the welfare state altogether?

I agree that there are just too many ways to get taxed. You get taxed when you earn, taxed when you spend, taxed when you sell. If you decide to do nothing, you get "taxed" thought inflation as a result of more government incompetence. There has to be a better way, but it cannot be at the expense of those who cannot support themselves.

I automatically associate libertarians with the right wing, probably because it's anecdotally popular in YouTube podcast land (Rogan / Musk etc). In my mind it is a logical extension of the low tax, small government, private sector good / markets solve everything beliefs that that most centre right / right wing parties hold.

Once exception would be that they are more likely to be anti war, and certainly anti draft, than a typical right wing party. I agree with Lullapie that if you go far enough right you eventually run into big interventionist government again, although I don't think you need to go as far as National Socialism to get there.

Of course the super rich don't pay taxes. I think this is the problem, not taxes themselves. Quality of human life has improved immeasurably since progressive taxation was introduced, and most people seem nostalgic for the more equal society from a few decades ago when (effective) top rates of tax were higher, and more importantly were collected.

This led to CEOs not awarding themselves salaries 100x /500x their employees because they wouldn't be able to keep them anyway, so more money ploughed back into companies via R&D or to employees.

Of course there are very valid questions about how and efficiently taxes are spent, and how to incentivise people to innovate and work hard, but I think that can be done.

I also think there's enough empirical evidence to show that human nature is not compatible with spontaneous widespread charity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drillerpie

I automatically associate libertarians with the right wing, probably because it's anecdotally popular in YouTube podcast land (Rogan / Musk etc). In my mind it is a logical extension of the low tax, small government, private sector good / markets solve everything beliefs that that most centre right / right wing parties hold.

Once exception would be that they are more likely to be anti war, and certainly anti draft, than a typical right wing party. I agree with Lullapie that if you go far enough right you eventually run into big interventionist government again, although I don't think you need to go as far as National Socialism to get there.

Of course the super rich don't pay taxes. I think this is the problem, not taxes themselves. Quality of human life has improved immeasurably since progressive taxation was introduced, and most people seem nostalgic for the more equal society from a few decades ago when (effective) top rates of tax were higher, and more importantly were collected.

This led to CEOs not awarding themselves salaries 100x /500x their employees because they wouldn't be able to keep them anyway, so more money ploughed back into companies via R&D or to employees.

Of course there are very valid questions about how and efficiently taxes are spent, and how to incentivise people to innovate and work hard, but I think that can be done.

I also think there's enough empirical evidence to show that human nature is not compatible with spontaneous widespread charity.

---

Exactly. Libertarians are right-wing when it comes to economics, but not when it comes to many social or political issues. Most libertarians believe that government's role should be to keep the peace and enforce property rights, and that's about it. Whereas right-wing conservatives believe the government should be able to spend tax-payer money on foreign wars and tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, plus other stuff.

It comes back to that political compass. In addition to the left-right spectrum, there's also authoritarian-libertarian, which is perhaps a more important distinction given that both left and right-wing politics tend to result in hateful and murderous regimes if they are highly authoritarian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drillerpie

Of course the super rich don't pay taxes.

---

Do you have evidence to support this? Seems to be a common unsupported statement that goes around on Social Media.

London School of Economics:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/resea...ich-really-pay

In one respect, the UK tax system already looks top heavy. The top one per cent pay 30 per cent of all income tax revenues: a higher share than at any time in past twenty years. In other words, three in every ten pounds that the government receives in income tax is paid by just over 300,000 individuals.

Of course if you start over-milking a cash cow then they'll readily spend a million on schemes to avoid paying another five million in tax and that no doubt includes pop stars and footballers.

Wasn't it our Kenneth Clarke who raised the tax revenue by reducing the tax burden?

Despite having studied political science at university and being very interested in political ideas and how societies function, I've come to not care so much about what colour tie (or blouse!) politicians wear, but how corrupt or not they are.

If Labour or Conservatives were both impeccably honest in how they went about their business, who they gave government contracts to (hello Conservatives), promoted people to important positions using one criterion which is competence, not gender or skin colour (hello Labour) or blind, ignorant loyalty to the PM (hello Boris), then I would take more of an interest in their policies.

As it is I'll be voting Labour, actually for the first time in my life, purely on the basis that I don't like the majority of people in the Conservative party or their (lack of) ethics. There are some good ones, just as there are some ones I don't like and don't trust in the Labour Party, but I think Starmer has done a decent job of making them electable, and things need freshening up.

Having said that, I see some huge problems that we are going to need to get a grip on as a nation very soon. I don't expect we will, as they are hard problems to solve.

1) Population decline. Not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but definitely a bad thing when you have a huge demographic chunk of older people that needs medical procedures / care assistants / pensions, while the number of people of working age or soon to be working age is declining. Immigration has been the solution so far, but that is not a vote winner in 2024 and looks like becoming less so, due to concerns about social cohesion. Making rich old people pay for more stuff is also not a vote winner, cause rich old people vote and young people don't.

2) Pensions. As per no.1, pensioners get a good deal rom political parties because they actually vote (good for them, seriously). However, pensions were originally introduced not as a way to enjoy your autumn years, but to make sure you didn't die when you could no longer work. The 'boomer' generation got lucky with advances happening in medical care but pension age staying the same, but it is not sustainable. Everyone knows the pension age is going to have to go up dramatically as people live longer. Not a vote winner but we need to start talking about that.

3) NHS. Similar to no.2. It started out as penicillin or a plaster cast and lying down for a few days, and is now something completely different. We all like it, and I personally don't want to see US style private insurance, but it is tremendously expensive and maybe some kind of payment for use of the NHS for those who can afford it and don't have chronic complaints would help. Also not a vote winner.

4) Housing. Part of the reason for population decline (apart from the fact that social norms have changed and people don't feel obliged to have kids if they don't want them) is that raising a family is absurdly expensive compared to a few decades ago. Housing is a big part of this. I may be mistaken but I think there is a consistent net increase in UK population, but not in (affordable) housing stock. We need to build more houses so that housing becomes cheaper. We also cannot make houses cheaper because most people's only investment is their house, and this would lead to them in the best case being extremely pissed off, and in the worst case behind on their mortgage with negative equity.

5) Immigration. Some people love it, some people hate it. Personally I think we could benefit from it, but not like this. Leaving aside ethical concerns about persecuted people, taking generally unskilled labour off boats to become a burden on the taxpayer in the short term, then compete for jobs, public services and housing with local low earners in the long term, is not a recipe for healthy finances and social cohesion. It is also enriching organised crime groups beyond their widest dreams. Again, we need to have an honest conversation about the situation, our options, and the consequences either way. Isn't India churning out tech entrepreneurs hand over fist? Let's get them in. East Asian culture prioritises work ethic and academic achievement? Get them in.

Basically we need to have a sensible, mature, public conversation about the nuts and bolts of what makes a country successful and nice to live in, whom we want to look after, to what extent, and what we're willing to sacrifice to do that, without the hyperbole and 'no-go' topics that constrain us now. But we'll probably just get slogans. Having said that, do vote for someone because you'll miss it when it's gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old_pie

Do you have evidence to support this? Seems to be a common unsupported statement that goes around on Social Media.

London School of Economics:

https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/resea...ich-really-pay

In one respect, the UK tax system already looks top heavy. The top one per cent pay 30 per cent of all income tax revenues: a higher share than at any time in past twenty years. In other words, three in every ten pounds that the government receives in income tax is paid by just over 300,000 individuals.

Of course if you start over-milking a cash cow then they'll readily spend a million on schemes to avoid paying another five million in tax and that no doubt includes pop stars and footballers.

Wasn't it our Kenneth Clarke who raised the tax revenue by reducing the tax burden?

---

Yes and Gordon Brown did the opposite, if memory serves.

I don't know what you evidence you want given you kind of confirmed it with your last two paragraphs.

Corporations bully/bribe politicians into giving tax breaks. People move their money to tax havens. Monaco is full of F1 drivers.

The paragraph you cited just shows that the top 1% is getting comparatively richer, which is supported by other data. Also twenty years doesn't take us back to a vastly different time.