The Tories are sorting out the wealthy tax-avoidant

[LittleFrieda]

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.

And don't whinge on about tax relief and contributions to the public purse, that's an entirely separate topic.

I agree with his tonyness on the fact that Globalisation is a fact. It is happening whether we want it to or not.

Furthermore it makes perfect sense that as globalisation happens, the solution to many of our problems have to be tackled on a global scale, not just locally.

Therefore as time goes on, the institutions like the UN, WTO, IMF, G8/G20 etc will be more critical to our daily lives.

Is GO living in a bubble....how did he not know about tax avoidance?

''My conclusion is about the new social contract itself.'

It's a new 'social contract', but did anyone ask you to sign on the dotted line? Just open your mind, leave your cares behind, the 'social contract' is new, it's for the many not the few.

It's a Big Society with big donors and maybe even big tax reliefs too. It'll probably involve Big Business and it's all for little old you.

There'll be all sorts of deeds and acts that are good, and for services to philantrophy, the odd knighthood.

Services to banking, no one is thanking as the economy is tanking, but services to philanthropy will bring thanks anew, since they are for the many not the few.

Claigs a poet and didn't even know it

a rubbish one, but since writing on MN, I have found out what great fun playing with words is.

When Tony Blair talks about philanthropy, I go right off the idea - unless he admits he is an outrageously poor personal example of how to be a good philanthropist and not just a self-serving, vile little toad.

This is Tony on Newsnight last night, talking about the 'philanthropic sector'. It convinced me.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17737368

The way Tony describes the 'philanthropic sector' makes it sound positively progressive, even if some individual philanthropists pay a smaller percentage tax than a hospital porter.

It sounds so good, you almost wish they would cut the big donor's tax and the highest earners' tax even more, to encourage them to give, and in compensation raise the tax of the porter more, since they can't afford to give.

And who will be the most admired, the most esteemed and praised in a society that prizes philanthrophy so highly? Who will be treated with decorum in global philanthropic forums where no praise will be enough? Who will be praised on earth as if in heaven, when the camel passes easily through the eye of a needle? It will be the rich man, the philanthropist, the richest, the biggest, the fattest, the cat that gives the most, not the lowly soul in a care home, eating beans on toast.

They say the Big Society is for the benefit of us all, but could it possibly be for the BIG and not the small.

They talk of caring for the many and not the few, but is it really true? We saw the rich get richer under the Labour they called New.

So my Africa Governance Initiative ?now in 6 African nations ? puts teams of people; all of whom have hands-on experience of ?doing it?, whether in Government of the private sector; into the country to work alongside the country?s leaders What? Tony Blair won't be happy until he has taken over the world. The man is a meglomaniac (sp?)

Seems that all will be well though when Dave comes home and whips Georgie Porgie back into shape.

or helping yourself to the cash in the kitty?

Philanthropy is all well and good for the righteous hippies like Bill Gates and Richard Branson but what about Nestle who feed formula milk to babies in Africa and Tesco' whose patrons sold of valuable public land for a pittance then swanned off to Israel.

I'm all for people taking a pro-active role in improving conditions for all but those business people that do participate are usually liberal and industry is not training people to be moral. Remember philanthropy was the grandparent of the welfare system, the Victorian era was full of philanthropists and also inequity and sadness and poverty.

Public mood affects business - it is bad publicity to be called to account in the press. Banks and newspapers are too recent examples who had to change

Taxation is needed. When labour asked big business to pay a one off windfall tax to improve infrastructure, BT threatened to take the government to court. I stopped subscribing to that business after that. Their huge profits comes off the back of public infrastructure, the GPO. Just like banks benefit from tax payers. Most businesses will not be philanthropic unless they see a benefit and so some kind of legislation needs to be passed so power is not just with big business - I don't want my world governed by Esso or google.

How to make global business accountable is the question - shareholders don't seem to influence the massive hike in executive pay.

I'm not sure what the answer is but when I'm eating my beans on toast at 85, I don't want to rely on a philanthropist feeling generous that day.

Agree daffodilly2. We need taxation and we need philanthropists to pay the same share of tax as lower earners do. Thta's why I liked Osborne's ideas. But, who knows, they may not last, because lots of MPs and the great and the good don't seem to want them, even though if they did an opinion poll of the public, the public would agree with Osborne. You only have to read the comments of Daily Mail readers in their articles on it, to see that the Mail reader agrees with Osborne.

Tony Blair used the term 'third sector'. I had never heard of it before, but then I hadn't seen many 'philanthropists' on TV before this week either. I prefer a strong state sector and a strong private sector, rather than an increasing reliance on a 'third sector' and philanthropists to provide for services to the public.

I prefer a state welfare state, funded by the taxation of the rich and the poor alike, rather than a 'third way', Victorian style reliance on charity, benevolence and philanthropy of the rich.

What's the Big Idea with the Big Society? Why do we need it? Tony said there are some things government can't do. Really? I kind of liked the society we had, the one where government ran the Royal Mail and the water and the energy and the trains. I don't know why social 'entrepreneurs', 'philanthropists' and the 'third sector' are so popular with the great and the good.

I don't know why social 'entrepreneurs', 'philanthropists' and the 'third sector' are so popular with the great and the good

I think the great and good believe they can pull the wool over our eyes and make it seem that they are making a contribution. What is actually happening though is they see another way to make money, through the third sector, the big society and big society bank, social enterprise, social investment financial products and the like.

Having sold off the energy, the railways, the mail, the telecoms and water, the steel, mining..........governments are under pressure to cut spending and privatise more. But what? everything else that is left and I guess once they have laid that to waste we'll hear about more impending gloom......the environment.

It is starting to look increasingly like some of it is about money, 'enterprise', 'investment', 'market returns' etc. etc.

What will it mean for our services, if the state sector declines and the 'third sector' rises in importance? Will there be a regulator to ensure standards or will there be 'innovative' schemes and collateralised care products?

I don't know why social 'entrepreneurs', 'philanthropists' and the 'third sector' are so popular with the great and the good

I think the great and good believe they can pull the wool over our eyes and make it seem that they are making a contribution. What is actually happening though is they see another way to make money, through the third sector, the big society and big society bank, social enterprise, social investment financial products and the like. So whilst they invest to make profit, through complex financial products called Social enterprise bonds, any losses are bound to be covered by the unwitting tax payer.

Having sold off the energy, the railways, the mail, the telecoms and water, governments are under pressure to cut spending and privatise more. (found out that if the government dares to up spending on welfare the pound is likely to be devalued) But what? I guess once they have laid that to waste we'll hear about more impending gloom......the environment, some other way they can make money and have that underwritten by the tax payer.