Tory haters: shouldn't you start reining this in?

[Abitwobblynow]

Because the golden geese who have to pay for what you believe are entitlements and who you despise so much, are flying away:

"Almost half of all Britons who emigrate each year are professionals and company managers, potentially threatening the country?s supply of highly skilled workers, research for the Home Office found.
The attractions of a better lifestyle and climate, as well as career opportunities, meant a ?large and increasing? number of executives, scientists, academics and doctors have chosen to leave Britain in the last 20 years, the report said.
Business leaders blamed high rates of income tax for the ?disturbing? rises in the number of professionals leaving Britain for countries such as Australia, American and Canada. Around 149,000 British citizens emigrated last year, and 4.7 million now live overseas."

What do you think? Has the class resentment poison gone just a bit too far, and isn't it just a bit outdated? And was Labour right to stoke this narrative up?

Who is it we are describing when we use the put down 'in a world where no one runs out of other people's money'?

Is it capitalists who collect other people's money to pay themselves out of selling goods and services/collecting interest, or socialists seek redistribution of part of the wealth to make sure everyone has the basic resources necessary to be able to show their strengths and abilities and contribute at the highest level?

The second one.

All economic systems rely on taking other people's money and making it your own. The idea of government is to prevent the tragedy of the commons.

The tragedy of the commons is that everyone thinks that if I take what I need, but take (or make) a little more than my neighbours by taking a small amount of money (or resources) from each, it will benefit me greatly and cost my neighbours little.. and that's fair.

The tragedy is that when one person behaves like that, everyone else has a little less.. so each one of them tries to make a little off each of his/her neighbour.. benefitting them greatly, but costing their neighbours little.

When more than a quarter of the people do this without restriction - the guaranteed outcome that there are no resources left for anyone.

And that works for capitalism as much as socialism. tories are sort of in between actually as in reality they want market and behavioural control as much as socialists - they just want it to preserve money within certain classes, and allow the wealthier classes to accelerate their disproportionate income in order to make those classes more resistant to that difference eroding.

The outcome of the socialist approach is to ensure that the majority of workers of all classes have basic needs and some aspriational needs met. The good thing about this for the country, that Thatcher didn't realise because of her own class prejudice, was that if the majority of the country percieve themselves as reasonable well catered for - decent home, enough food to survive plus the opportunity for some luxury, a chance for education and development and freedom to have educational and operational aspirations and the means to develop them, then the country's competitiveness is optimised, as is the security of the middle class business owners.

What we saw in the 80s was a massive freedom for certain classes to take massive amounts of money out of the system and spend it internationally rather than on solid operating foundations. We saw the same phenomenon, though this time it wasn't real money it was the debt used to cover up the effects of the 80s crisis.

The Unions could see all this and resisted Thatcher's will to slash the veins full of money circulating between all classes in the UK and bled all our money overseas.

Thatcher couldn't see the danger of doing this, nor the fact that companies from Europe and the US would flood in and take over all our businesses so that they could actively pump that money into their economies where better labour law kept that money amongst their people.

Thatcher was manipulated by people to whose class she aspired to. Sadly those people, without a working class perspective, didn't understand what was being proposed either. There were as many losses in the professional classes as elsewhere, because there were fewer working class/lower middle class people who could afford professional services or the products needed to pay for the firms that used professional services.

People who think that Unions are stopping people who deserve it from making 'fair' money need to understand that fair has never been about one guy in the boat getting all the food and getting too fat to row whilst the others starve, thus ensuring his own miserable death.

Fair is keeping the most people alive so you can row the boat to shore

Are you confusing the idea of "taking someone's money in return for goods and services" (usually called a market) and "taking someone's money because you think you deserve it more than they do, and you wish to distribute it to purchase power and popularity at the polls" (usually called socialism).

I think you may be.

LSE lecture which explains how the capitalist class spend money to make money and the workers work to spend money. The whole edifice is based on debt. Capital accumulation sits alongside debt, always has, this lecture explains why.

Really? It's all based on debt? What an insight. Year Zero must be a bit hit with you.

Gordon Brown/his tame BoE committee lowered the interest rates to encourage spending - which kept the stamp and other tax pouring in for his messianic mission to save the world - and in doing so (along with his pension raid) absolutely decimated savings. There was absolutely no point in saving, because after inflation your saving rate is minus. So you see, people are rational, they just need a few more brains to see through the ideology and politicians.
That man was an absolute menace to this country and people STILL don't get it. 'I've eliminated boom and bust' should have resulted in whatever the British version of impeachment is, and sectioning. But people don't get it, they obediently follow his 'it's all the banker's fault' excuse.

Yeah - and who were the bankers lending to?

'Are you confusing the idea of "taking someone's money in return for goods and services" (usually called a market) and "taking someone's money because you think you deserve it more than they do, and you wish to distribute it to purchase power and popularity at the polls" (usually called socialism).

I think you may be.'

Ha ha ha! Brycie, we have to conclude that the progressive education of the last 40 years has done its job, and done it very well. Even educated Mumsnet is incapable of seeing beyond the mantra

'the State is the correct and ultimate arbiter of what is moral and fair, known as social justice'.

(and if the high producers leave, well let's pay them their tickets - why should the nitty gritty of who pays for it all trouble our high minded goodness!)

"'the State is the correct and ultimate arbiter of what is moral and fair, known as social justice'."

I missed that. Who said that? It's terrifying. It's quite unnerving that someone really believes that. Come on hands up. Who said that.

Brycie, Ctrl-F is your friend...

There is certainly a key difference between "not contributing fully to society because you are afraid others are a) on the take and b) led by those whose only wish is to distribute other's wealth to purchase power and popularity at the polls" and "contributing effectively (and willingly) because you understand it will be more productive for society as a whole, as well as individually".

What's happening in Iceland is interesting:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19599449

Speaking as one who left the UK 2010 to the UAE, which was tax free, and then Malaysia where we still have to pay income tax.....it was mainly a financially driven decision to leave the UK plus we were fortunate to have the right opportunity/offer to be able to make this decision. We did not deliberately seek out opportunities to go abroad, but we were made an offer, so we weighed up the options before us....it's not about tax per se but given it WAS a financial decision, so of course it was based on the bottom lines of take home pay AFTER any taxes, so UK taxes had a Big influence on the decision.

I'm happy to pay taxes to fund a socially just society, In fact i never gave taxes a second thought before We had a baby. But when the opportunity presented itself, We were really struggling as a family at the time and since dd was born became sensitively aware and resentful of how my taxes were taken and spent when we ourselves were living pay cheque to pay cheque - my sentiments towards taxes reflected what dontputbeerinhisears said above as a) and b)

So bottom line is we didn't leave because of taxes, although it had a big influence, plus once the offer presented itself, we saw it as a good opportunity for an adventure and change.

Just sharing my experience and thoughts fwiw. I'm not going to engage in any socialist vs capitalist discussions here Nor do I intend to respond to any flaming btw...

For us, it's not about the lifestyle either, we much prefer our lifestyle and fresh air in the English countryside.....just that it was very costly to fund for us....

Fair play Sugarbeach

Oh, and....now that i've read the whole thread.....some of the posters above have no right to assume that those who leave are selfish and greedy....I'd like to see you deciding against taking the opportunity to experience living oversea, earn a lot more and be able to better secure your financial future, and stay in the UK for your principals, IF you had such a choice....or do your principals only apply in theory and to other people?

Fair play again Sugarbeach

I can see how my initial post has given that impression. But seriously, if people do leave in order to better their lives, all power to them - I really was not intentionally souring that point.

For me to choose the kind of opportunity you describe however, I would personally have to balance the decision against a measure of that country's treatment of the vulnerable, and my part in that. It would be of equal importance as the financial benefits to me. I have already made choices along those lines with the career path I have chosen here in the uk - I am sure I could have secured a lot more money working in a different career/sector.

For some reason, I am reacting with anger to a perceived threat that unless we chastise those already in or near poverty further (such as removing support for the children of those whose contraception fails) all those with significant income will up sticks and leave.

To be fair, my angst really is apportioned more to those amidst the upper brackets, such as the bankers, and massive corporate entities, not those looking to secure a modest living for their immediate family.

And actually, thank you for pushing me to explain myself better, even if fundementally we might disagree - I genuinely do appreciate that and apologise if I caused you offence

In this link Obama possibly says it better than I do

"not contributing fully to society"

Don't worry Beer - I contribute fully.

As for this:

"I would personally have to balance the decision against a measure of that country's treatment of the vulnerable, and my part in that."

You are right - I have left a country partly because of this. But I can say that once you have lived abroad, I would say outside the wealthist European nations, you recognise how highly developed and sophisticated is the British system of social support. I like being back because I like that. But with perspective - it's easy to see how taxpayers are ripped off and social support exploited.

Still not sure chastising those in or near poverty is the answer though.
Incentives, maybe.

Chastising those who are ripping off and exploiting would be an answer. Why not?

Because of the legitimate ones that get caught up - chucking the baby out with the bath water.

Accidental pregnacies can happen to good people.

None of which is the fault of the taxpayer. Blame the cheats.

Accidnetal pregnancies are almost 100 per cent avoidable.

Let's do more to find the ones who are ripping off and exploiting and work harder to find out why. I cannot see anyone choose a life in poverty who wouldn't rather experience job satisfaction and high self esteem.