And presumably that regulation against the sale of babies or organs contravenes human rights in some way?
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
Both leaders are terrible and worst possible selection of individuals at the worst possible time. This election was meant to be fought by Coalition of several pro-EU parties vs Conservatives. Corbyn's ego destroyed the only chance to stop this separatist madness, but ultimately Corbyn has no chance of winning, because of his baggage of bad decisions, terrible associations and shady history will ultimately resurface few weeks before the election and sink the party with him. Yet choosing between May and Corbyn is still ultimately a akin to choosing left or right leg amputation to cure migraine.
Dolph, over the years you have made your view on taxation very clear, and have referred to it as "legalised theft".
Well it's a common theme around the world now, isn't it? Look at the U.S. and French elections. Would you like me to do a no.1 or no. 2 on your chips? You're free to choose!
It's a situation that only exists because of tactical voting. Even under FPTP, if people stopped voting tactically, if we moved beyond the tribal Labour vs Tory nonsense, we might actually see some positive changes. If, heaven forbid, a different party won an election, we might see some electoral reform that ensures lasting, positive changes to the nature of our democracy. Instead, we feed the duopoly and vested interests in the status quo through fear of a Labour or Tory government.
Which is how brexit came about. People got fed up with the status quo never improving anything and started voting UKIP. The conservatives then offered a referendum in a bid to capture the vote and got a surprise result.Yeahhence why at least as a shot across the bows the country needs to vote anything but those parties :|
I've explicitly stated my current position, but even in the past (a search of the forum will show that the last time I referred to "legalised theft" with regards to taxation was in April 2008, which is 9 years ago), there were caveats.
Here is an example from the thread concerned.
Now, in the intervening 9 years, my position has shifted in part, to a position that acknowledges the necessity of taxation, but due to the coercive nature of taxation, supports taxation equality and fairness.
It would be better if you argued the positions I present now, rather than the ones from a decade ago.
Wait what was that argument about Labour again.
There's nothing coercive about taxation, it's part of the social contract.
Labour's current policies aren't those of 10 or 20 years ago (it's 20 years to the day that new labour came into government), the current leadership is closer to 1983...
A contract requires agreement, taxation simply requires existence, and the response to non payment is force.
benefit money is spent in shops, paying bills and most of it is taxed. The portion that isn't taxed at point of sale is then passed onto lets say an employee, who then does the same and that money is also taxed. Money paid out always returns in most cases.
The tories want to give corporations tax breaks. But many of the top corporations funnel their money abroad to decrease the profit they have to declare to hmrc, therefor paying less tax.
It's loopholes like this which corbyn will fix. The tories will never ever do that. They also gave amazon and google deals on uncollected tax
The tories want to give corporations tax breaks. But many of the top corporations funnel their money abroad to decrease the profit they have to declare to hmrc, therefor paying less tax.
It's loopholes like this which corbyn will fix. The tories will never ever do that. They also gave amazon and google deals on uncollected tax
Money doesn't have to be redistributed to be spent, that's a broken window fallacy. Likewise the idea that taxing money paid out from taxation provides revenue is nonsense.
Cutting tax rates doesn't necessarily cut revenue, because it makes it more attractive to declare profits here than elsewhere. Unless you want to pull the UK out of international business law (which will cause a much bigger drop in tax receipts), this is a good thing.
The so called deals on uncollected tax were nothing of the sort. What they actually are is a dispute over the amount of tax owed, which contains a significant element of risk in taking to court as the government could lose and get nothing, as well as setting a precedent.
This sort of thing can be dramatically improved through tax simplification, which would be the single best way to tackle tax avoidance, but it can't just be declared that there is a tax gap based on assuming that in every circumstance, the maximum possible amount must be the right one
Do people complain about force when other regulation/law is enforced. What is magic/special about peoples behaviour with money.
In short, you are not at liberty to do anything you want, it's called society.
Try to fix - it is one of those things where you can't force or expect people to continue doing the same thing, after you've changed the rules, when they have other options - but some still continue under the delusion that you can.
As a mildly ignorant voter my personal feelings towards both parties are like many of you, based on popular conceptions, personal experience and some media bias.
I can't help but fear labour, my personal experience of they're relaxed "give everyone what they want attitude" is imo why we are such a **** situation, their lax atitude to immigration is why our infrastructure are over run and the need for housing is so great.
On the other hand, all I ever hear about the Tories is they are own by the rich and are out to screw the poor. At this point it feels more like stuck between a diamond and adimantium!
I have to weigh up the quadmire of **** I have to then wade through. Vote Labour and get some short term benefits but then find myself up to my neck in 10 years or go with Tories who will slowly erode my personal liberties over the next 10 years.
Is it the case that neither of these parties is actually out to help the public (feels that way) or is it as simple as saying life is really a knife edge of **** and this nirvana of perfection we are seeking is a pipedream.
At this point I think a vote for Tories might sort Brexit, a Vote for Labour will get us rolling over like a submissive puppy.
I can't help but fear labour, my personal experience of they're relaxed "give everyone what they want attitude" is imo why we are such a **** situation, their lax atitude to immigration is why our infrastructure are over run and the need for housing is so great.
On the other hand, all I ever hear about the Tories is they are own by the rich and are out to screw the poor. At this point it feels more like stuck between a diamond and adimantium!
I have to weigh up the quadmire of **** I have to then wade through. Vote Labour and get some short term benefits but then find myself up to my neck in 10 years or go with Tories who will slowly erode my personal liberties over the next 10 years.
Is it the case that neither of these parties is actually out to help the public (feels that way) or is it as simple as saying life is really a knife edge of **** and this nirvana of perfection we are seeking is a pipedream.
At this point I think a vote for Tories might sort Brexit, a Vote for Labour will get us rolling over like a submissive puppy.
I think this is partly why they've called it now - hoping to frighten people into short term voting over Brexit without looking at the long term implications. People seem to have already forgotten how May took people for fools over calling the election so as to try and get her own way and somehow imagine (or just don't even think) she/the Tories won't do exactly the same thing down the line :|
They do if the enforcement or definition of the action is arbitrary.
I would have no issue with a tax and benefit system that applies the same rules to all, but that is not what we have at present, taxation rates vary based on arbitrary factors, as do benefit rates, based on political convenience.
Put simply, taxing people 30% (or 60%, or 90%) of their income is fine, taxing one person at 205 and another at 30% based on arbitrary reasons is not.
Taxation is absolutely coercive, but so is everything else: laws about murder, abortion, smoking, car insurance, etc. The state's monopoly on force is Hobbes' Leviathan and it is an enormous good. The problem with Dolph's argument is not the coercive nature of taxation it's the idea that taxes ever belonged to the person. They don't they belong to the state that allowed them to make the money in the first place. Literally no-one in a modern country makes their money without the benefit of the state.
- Status