Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

The Tories are sorting out the wealthy tax-avoidant

325 replies

LittleFrieda · 11/04/2012 12:19

members of our society. Why on earth did Labour fail to act during their long term in office? Eh? Eh?

I can't believe people are complaining about George Osborne doing something about it.

OP posts:
MrPants · 20/04/2012 13:06

minimathsmouse Could it not be that with Singapore being a hugely successful city state, attracting migrants from miles around, land prices are at a premium? Could it also be that in Soviet Russia, one of the least densely populated areas of the world; the rich got heaped into one tiny room, whilst the poor occupied the big house out of sheer petty and vindictive spite - A spite that lies at the heart of socialism?

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 13:20

MrPants - lots of people have plenty of space in Singapore. They make sure they are far enough away from those who don't that they don't have to consider them neighbours in terms of having any obligations towards them, of course. I'm glad to hear that you do at least express some interest in your neighbours and friends. Of course it is natural to be more interested in your own family,friends and neighbours, but where that extends into mafia or triad-style behaviours it has extended too far. Where it extends beyond ensuring your own family's needs are met first and into grabbing as much as you can and what you really don't need off others and trampling them into the dirt, then it is going too far. It's funny how you admire societies which have in many respects a lot of self-discipline, but don't see it as necessary to extend that self-discipline into dealing with the human tendency towards conspicuous and unnecessary consumption at someone else's obvious expense.

minimathsmouse · 20/04/2012 13:22

It is also a state of affairs which allows anyone who is a net contributor to the state to regard those that aren't with resentment - "Little darling Anunciatta can't have polo lessons because Daddy pays too much tax to support the local bike and her ten kids by ten different blokes." style of argument

You might feel that way, I don't. Yes I am happy to forgo some luxuries and some freedoms when they impact upon others, I am unhappy that in the third world children labour all day for 7p and that in the 7th richest country in the world 1 in 4 children live in poverty.

In terms of worrying about "the bike" and her choice to have 10 kids it would be fair to say that misogynistic men would hold her up to be a social pariah. Why, because with the advent of money came the advent of private property and with that the realisation that in order to pass on your worldly goods through the paternal line man had to know that his progeny was his. Women and their ability to reproduce became linked to ideas of private property.

minimathsmouse · 20/04/2012 13:32

I just hate the way that at the core this idea of liberalism is misogyny, funny how one man's freedom becomes another woman's prison.

Men are war hungry, pirates at heart, not content to just feed and cloth their families, that could be done under a socialist state. Instead it is more about paternal rights to property, to pass on that property, to extend his influence amongst his tribe, to gain power over others through the acquisition of property. That lies at the heart of capitalism because the patriarchy made capitalism as a means of rich white men exherting power over his fellow humans. Caring only for his tribe, his family, sod the rest.

If a tree fell in a forest and no one was there to see it, did it make a sound?

In Mr Pants world, no, In mine yes, because it is impossible to not have empathy.

ttosca · 20/04/2012 14:05

Pants-

But I freely admit it; I have very little interest in the fate of anyone or anything outside my immediate family, friends and neighbours.

Apart from lacking basic human empathy, this is extremely short-sighted.

Have you ever heard of enlightened self-interest? It's not in your interest to live in a gated community. It's not in your interest to be wealthy (including your friends and family), when 95% of the population are poor. It's not in your interest for the majority of the population to suffer financially, emotionally, or any other way.

It is in your interest to live in a society which gives respect and dignity to every one of its members. Which promotes the general health, education, and well-being of everyone. This is the kind of society which generates great scientists, artists, poets, authors, playwrites, and entrepreneurs.

A society which is full of sick people who struggle to survive, where crime is rife, where there is huge wealth inequality, is not a society where you would want to live.

MrPants · 20/04/2012 15:37

Rabbitstew Some people live in big houses whilst others live in small ones in every city in the world. If you can show me a society where this isn?t true I?d be interested to know of it. That some Singaporeans live in big houses whilst others live in small ones is not a function of libertarianism.

minimathsmouse Firstly, don?t try and conflate third world poverty with the ?1 in 4 children in the UK grow up in poverty? bollocks. They aren?t the same thing and anyone who suggests otherwise is, quite frankly, ignorant.

As for my misogyny, I have no problem with a woman having however many children she likes, and with as many sexual partners as she likes. However, when she turns to the tax payer to foot the bill I believe I have a right to, at the very least, tut under my breath at her! Let me word this in idiot proof language. A woman can have as many children as she likes but when she has to rely on the largess of the state to house, cloth, feed and raise her progeny, the rest of us have a right to feel aggrieved. This is nothing to do with any woolly interpretation of feminism, of women being a man?s chattel, this is common sense.

Your next point also wrong ? one of the key tenets of libertarianism is that no one person has the right to wield power over another.

Finally, if a tree falls down in a forest, I don?t even give it a second thought. For that way, madness lies!

MrPants · 20/04/2012 15:48

ttosca "It's not in your interest for the majority of the population to suffer financially, emotionally, or any other way."

Firstly, I dispute your figure of 95% being poor in this country. Secondly, it's also not in my interest to give away half of my families wealth either. If your argument is that an unequal society is a dangerous society then throwing money at the poor, in the hopes that they don't kick off and murder us all in our beds, is no different to the Danegeld of medieval times.

"This is the kind of society which generates great scientists, artists, poets, authors, playwrites, and entrepreneurs."

No it isn't. The laissez-faire Victorian society produced far more of the above than we are producing today. In modern times, the more libertarian countries have annihilated the more socialist countries of Europe in just about every category you mention.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 16:04

MrPants - surely you can see that there is a difference between a society where the richest behave like spoilt little emporers for whom most other mortals are beneath their contempt and the poorest, sickest and weakest are left to starve, and one where the poorest nevertheless have genuine opportunities to improve their situation and a certain minimum guaranteed standard of living and the richest give some thought to the effect their actions have on others (including their effect on others' behaviours)? You may view Singapore and Hong Kong as having got the balance right, there, but I don't. I think, just as being too generous can bring out an idle sense of entitlement in people, being too generous to yourself because you can get away with it and harsh towards everyone else because of your own overweening sense of greatness and entitlement can bring out the worst in everyone.

PigletJohn · 20/04/2012 16:10

"The laissez-faire Victorian society produced far more of the above than we are producing today"

Is that a guess, or is it based on some kind of evidence that the rest of us haven't seen?

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 16:23

Well, it has to be said that the existence of starvation and corruption make good topics for art and literature. I'm not so sure they help out with science, though, as most scientists of the past were from wealthy families who could afford an education and loads of leisure time and didn't have to care whether their ideas made them any money or not. Although I guess starving people with nasty diseases make interesting scientific studies.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 16:32

Oh, and of course, we find the monstrous excesses of past Kings and Queens, Pharaohs, Emporers, etc, truly fascinating, now. Wonderful art and architecture was created via slavery and serfdom. Ironically, it's the slaves' work we admire more than the people who ordered its creation.

daffodilly2 · 20/04/2012 16:35

At the risk of sounding extreme, I think it is unhealthy to say that we only need to care about our family and neighbours - it is also very unrealisitc in our world of globilisation. What about your customers and patients and pupils to do good by?

We really do need to care for all and we are really wealthy enough to do that. I think the super rich are also at the risk of becoming unhealthy and need to do good deeds with their largesse to improve their health.

I'm deadly serious - the alternative is a dog eat dog world, savage Sad

MrPants · 20/04/2012 16:43

PigletJohn It?s a fact that over regulated societies don?t produce as many entrepreneurs because over regulated societies don?t have as many start up businesses. Niether are small states likely to create the Lysenko?s of this world and their perverted science that they peddle. Nor do I see any correlation of superiority in the arts world with countries with higher public spending to GDP ratios. In fact, in the areas of enterprise, science and the arts (particularly film) the relatively small state - all be it far from perfect - USA has led the way since WWII.

It?s a hunch I?ll admit, but would you care to try and prove ttosca?s point for them?

MrPants · 20/04/2012 16:49

daffodilly2 If I were to accept your point of having an obligation to my fellow man - which I agree we do have, i'm just not sure that wealth redistribution is the answer - why is it only necessary to extend this to those fellow men who, like me, happened to be born on this lump of rock in the North Atlantic? There is far more poverty out there in the big bad world than there ever will be in the UK but, with half of my salary being redistributed amongst fellow Brits, it doesn't leave a lot for the other 6 billion people or so on Planet Earth.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 17:12

Well obviously in your case, MrPants, you don't have to extend your money, timer or expertise anywhere else, since you don't believe in caring for anyone outside your immediate family and friendship circle. But I'm sure the benefits of your wealth will trickle down to the poorest people in corrupt African countries eventually, won't they?... Or should the leaders and most wealthy in those countries care a bit more for their own, themselves, rather than relying on outsiders, like you care for those in your own country before you care for those outside it - or not, as the case may be?

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 17:31

How can an aggressive, militaristic country like the US fulfil your criteria for a small state, MrPants? I'm amazed.

minimathsmouse · 20/04/2012 17:45

But I freely admit it; I have very little interest in the fate of anyone or anything outside my immediate family, friends and neighbours

with half of my salary being redistributed amongst fellow Brits, it doesn't leave a lot for the other 6 billion people or so on Planet Earth

please reconcile these two opinions because they are contradictory.

I mentioned the tree not because I am Mad (although I might be) but wealthy people are removed from the reality of poverty, they simply do not see it. If their only interest is in their immediate tribe/family they will never see it. Therefore it doesn't exist. That is a very neat way of protecting your entitled sense of self worth, your property and your own interests, just deny the fact that many people are far far worse off, perhaps even through no fault of their own. Ignorance is not the way to justify your actions.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 17:54

Of course the two opinions are contradictory, minimathsmouse, it's how one can justify not helping anyone.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 17:57

It's called knowing there are trees falling down elsewhere and using that knowledge to justify ignoring the trees that are falling down in front of you, whilst simultaneously claiming that you shouldn't have to take any interest in trees falling down a long way away.

rabbitstew · 20/04/2012 17:59

And who cares about trees, anyway? I'm not related to any trees.

ttosca · 20/04/2012 18:13

Pants-

ttosca "It's not in your interest for the majority of the population to suffer financially, emotionally, or any other way."

Firstly, I dispute your figure of 95% being poor in this country.

No, you're right. 95% aren't poor yet. Though the middle-class is shrinking whilst a tiny minority at the very top become unfeasible rich at the expense of the majority. Wealth inequality hasn't been this big since the 1920s.

Secondly, it's also not in my interest to give away half of my families wealth either. If your argument is that an unequal society is a dangerous society then throwing money at the poor, in the hopes that they don't kick off and murder us all in our beds, is no different to the Danegeld of medieval times.

I don't know what Danegeld is, though I'd love to learn. I'm not suggesting you give away half your family wealth. Only that society must be structured in a way that everybody can expect to benefit from the wealth creation that we all produce. Structural adjustments of the past several decades has ensured that most of the income and wealth has gone to a few at the very top.

But in any case, the reality of the situation is that the population will not tolerate being exploited so much for so long. If the situation reaches a critical point - and it will, if things continue along this path - then we're going to see a lot more civil strife, riots, strikes, protests and other forms of resistance.

"This is the kind of society which generates great scientists, artists, poets, authors, playwrites, and entrepreneurs."

No it isn't. The laissez-faire Victorian society produced far more of the above than we are producing today. In modern times, the more libertarian countries have annihilated the more socialist countries of Europe in just about every category you mention.

That's a historically ignorant point. It is true that there were lots of inventions and innovation during the Victorian period. However, this period started before Victorian times. It started with the Enlightenment and Renaissance. This was a time during human history when people were free to inquire without fear of being locked up by religious diktat. It was also a time when people challenged the authority of previous philosophers and 'scientists' like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. The Greek philosophers had been remained unchallenged for thousands of years. Finally, from the 17th Century onward, we saw the development of the scientific method, and from the 18th Century Industrial revolution. These two things contributed greatly to the development and discussion of ideas and technology.

It really wasn't because of 'laissez-faire' economics. What laissez-faire did do was impoverish vast swaths of society, many of whom moved from the country to the city, where they worked in unsafe and unsanitary conditions for 18 hours per day. Many of these workers were children.

It is the reaction to laissez-faire which brought about workers rights and protections, the weekend, 8 hour days, pensions, etc. Society thoroughly rejected laissez-faire over 100 years ago.

minimathsmouse · 20/04/2012 18:34

I'm not related to any trees Grin me neither but it's a good idea to appreciate them whilst we still have them. If mr pants had his way he'd rip up all the tress in mexico to craze his cows. Just like good old uncle Sam.

Victorian factory owners were so Laissez-faire about using children of 6 to work 18 hr days, how about it, do you think your children would benefit from that Mr Pants. Engles managed a cotton mill in Manchester and documented the lives of the poor workers, Marx, the Chartists, the workers, all lobbied for better rights for the workers, thank those you dislike for the rights and priviledges you have today.

ttosca · 20/04/2012 18:38

Word, mini.

PigletJohn · 20/04/2012 19:05

Danegeld is extortion money, loosely speaking.

Once you pay it, you know they'll never stop coming back for more.

niceguy2 · 20/04/2012 20:32

"But an emphasis on looking after the family against a nasty outside world, whilst having many benefits, also has a darker side, as it can easily extend to... having very little interest to the fate of anyone or anything outside your immediate family."

Theoretical nonsense. Plenty of people in Hong Kong do voluntary work. Just like in this country and all over the world. I cannot actually believe you are arguing that it is wrong that we should put our own family first and that if we do, we shall not take care of our fellow man and that's why we need an all emcompassing state system!

Are you seriously arguing that the state knows better than I do and would do a better job of taking care of say my elderly mother?

What totally bizarre logic.