The Conservatives

[MammaBrussels]

I cannot believe someone, even someone in the Conservative Party, would say this.

How can anyone support them?

Xenia who determines best how money is spent? That is the issue isn't it? The Belgian tax system is mental, Belgian workers are taxed ridiculous amounts but no one knows where any of the money has gone. I'd much rather live in Sweden, pay tax of more than 50% and get quality services, have a more equal society and have a better quality of life (plus be tall, blonde and thin like every Swede I've ever met).

What would Jesus say about housewives? Oh wait, there's a parable...

Xenia - the point about tax relief on charitable giving is that rich individuals have been using it to avoid paying taxes. And pose as generous into the bargain, the shysters. Nice con, getting your name on the wing of an art gallery (for instance) and pretending to be a benefactor while actually it's all about avoiding paying your fair whack.

Proportionately the poorest and those on average incomes are far more generous than the rich - and the parable of the widow's mite still applies today.

Most charitable giving is not into the pockets of the benefactor though and plentyo f those who give are a bit fed up that most people now think they are tax dodgers. They could instead keep 100% of their after tax income and spend it on boats and women/men rather than seeking to rid the planet of malaria or whatever. I certainly don't think they have been treated very well. A very very few gave to charities abroad which were in effect themselves but the current charities laws can be used to stop that kind of thing.

I didn't know the one about the widows's mite. Just looked it up.

"Then he sat down opposite the offering box, and watched the crowd putting coins into it. Many rich people were throwing in large amounts. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, worth less than a penny. He called his disciples and said to them, ?I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others. For they all gave out of their wealth. But she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had.?

Some of these teachings contain real truths. I still remember how when I was a primary school pupil and I first heard in assembly about how Solomon determined which of two women a baby belonged to. I was amazed by it then, and it still holds a great truth now.

I'm reading Crisis of Global Capitalism by George Soros, someone who has given away huge sums of money and set of a foundation. One of the greatest economic brains and a leading hedge fund manager who believes that capitalism is flawed. Of course he too must of avoided tax through philanthropy and he has given money to some very strange causes.

The problem with rich people holding on to more of their wealth, indeed paying less tax even and then being free to decide what causes if any they wish to give to, is that it is undemocratic. Raising taxes fairly across the board and having our ELECTED representatives decide for us how the money should be spent is at least somewhere near democracy.

Better still lets have fair taxes and more democracy, then everyone of us can have some say on who is and who isn't the deserving poor, rather than the rich CEOs of major corporations whispering in the ears of our politicians.

Fair is a normative concept though Mini

Xenia, it's a Sunday, shouldn't you be busy hollowing out your vulcano? (she owns an island) You could always put your name down for some of Daves slaves, he might even throw in a few hapless and useless housewives to help with the dig

It seems that charities can even earn money from being involved in some way with workfare.

An island? How on earth do you know that Mini? Is Xenia a bit of a MN legend?

I thought it was a continent?

The charities no longer serve their original purpose if they continue to take work/contracts/subsidies from government. Why should your average tax payer give to charity twice, you see we are not free to decide which causes to support because the charities are no longer totally independant of the state.

Good point

Just catching up after day out to see if we have any of those facts yet.
I know the threads moved on to Biblical texts and the like but have to go back to Novak to say,no- am really not jealous. I don't have much to be jealous of. We earn a decent whack, live in a beautiful city, pay ££££ for our place, I have kept my career going in a cut throat, money orientated market since having ds and am still the main breadwinner. We take no subsidies, have no benefits. Lucky us!! What the actual fuck has jealousy got to do with wanting a more equal society (note I didnt say communist, N Korea etc). So just because I believe in more equality of opportunity, a smaller gap between rich and poor - again for all the reasons cited on that TED link - that the poor and vulnerable should be looked after by those who have (note I again didn't say receive equal amounts - not a communist disclaimer) and should be afforded dignity and support that makes me jealous

Have any of the Tories on the thread come back with any feedback on that TED link? Or is the general consensus none of it matters in our race to survival of the fittest?

plentyo f those who give are a bit fed up that most people now think they are tax dodgers. They could instead keep 100% of their after tax income and spend it on boats and women/men rather than seeking to rid the planet of malaria or whatever. I certainly don't think they have been treated very well.
I am just going to take a moment to ponder on the unfairness of the attitude towards the misunderstood and charitable people you speak of

Hi Banana, not one of them has commented on the ted link but then they haven't commented on any other links/info either. I have drawn the conclusion that ignorance is bliss for some.

The author of the TED lecture says that if Americans want to live the American Dream, then they should move to Denamrk. But from his own graphs, Denmark has a lower average life expectancy than the USA and a lower GNP per head. How is that the American Dream? How many people around the world would choose to go to Denmark and study in their universities than study in the great universities of the United States? The American Dream is still alive and well.

Wilkinson says that there is a large wealth gap in Sweden but that this is rectified by taxation and the redistribution of wealth. Pull the other one, do you think the very rich elite Swedes don't have as good accountants as our rich have, don't have offshore accounts like our rich have? I am sure they do very nicely and don't redistribute their wealth, but like all elites, they want everyone else's wealth to be redistributed.

Do you think that the New Labour elite with their million pound mansions will redistribute their wealth? Do you think Ken Livingstone will close the income gap with a cleaner by redistributing his wealth?

Here is a good critique of the TED lecture ideas and the spirit level book. The author shows that it is just the latest socialist/green style attempt to limit the growth and wealth of ordinary people by an authoritarian elite.

www.iea.org.uk/blog/a-superb-critique-of-%E2%80%9Cthe-spirit-level%E2%80%9D

Here is a quote from someone on the critique of Wilkinson's ideas.

'If a metaphor was to be chosen for this type of social system, it would be a giant playpen.?I disagree. The word is more like ?paddock?, ?sty? or more likely, ?farm?.When I see such scrit, I tend to imagine the authors believing that ?we? (the proles) must have our choices limited and curtailed, but ?they?, (the elite), can go on as normal.'

You clearly have a tactic of boring your debating opponents to death.

So more insults and rudeness and you expect a reply.

When you're prepared to have a proper debate without reverting to name calling when your beaten then I'll address your points but until then keep slinging your mud. As I wrote earlier since this is the guardian stronghold I doubt your open to common sense and facts and are prefer to just live off others endeavours.

Just remember that 3 children costing over 100K in eduction is 100K injected into the economy by that family and almost 100K on top of that went in taxation before the could hand over that cash to the school which paid for an awful lot of school places that we don't use.

The elite go to Fettes, they go to Oxford, they earn hundreds of thousands in Chambers as lawyers, they own flats and properties worth millions, they knight bankers for their "services to banking", some of them send their children to private schools, and they tell you to redistribute your wealth for a fairer society. It's a farm alright - Animal Farm.