Crime and punishment

[Atilla]

I've never been a high rate tax-payer so I have gained not much at all to speak of from tax threshold changes or tax rate changes: its so minimal it wouldn't buy my vote. But I do believe that my self-interest is best served by a strong UK economy. I don't believe we're going to get that under a Labour government - but maybe there's some historic correlation between the governing party and our GDP etc. statistics to prove I'm wrong. Can you oblige on this?

In more general terms I have a major concern that a Labour government is a precursor to socialism, which logically carries forward to a single-party state, and even the prospect of living under a communist regime. Again, I would be very persuaded by historical examples but all the major socialist / communist regimes that come to mind have dissolved into appalling human rights disasters. Given the track record, I don't want to take the risk of repeating history. Again, can you put up evidence that my view of actual socialist regimes is wrong?

Too much work there but one worth conducting. I can dig and see what comes up.

However, there is leap frogging of parties.

The EU is essentially a mixed socialist economy of sorts and since it's creation the whole of Europe including UK have done well out of it.

You say show me countries doing well but can you show me a pure free market capitalist doing well? If you mention US or UK compare their debt to income ratios and pretty much we are all in the same boat.

Perhaps one shining star is probably China with its economy switching from a command based one to a sort of middle of the road part private part government managed economy. I'd go far as to say not much different to our mixed economy types which is the ideal imho.

Very few countries have a surplus BoP who are earning their way in the World.

It begs the question where is all the money going such that so many people are in debt.

You still don't get or acknowledge that pure capitalism leads to the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the very few. It is not sustainable.

Even business practice if unregulated and unchecked ultimately all game models end up with oligopolistic, cartels or monopoly practices.

In bad times Socialism is better for national economy. In good times Capitalism.

Mixed mode of operation is best imo. We've had this argument on another thread and I don't think much reason will prevail either way.

 

[tomorton]

Too much work there but one worth conducting. I can dig and see what comes up.

However, there is leap frogging of parties.

The EU is essentially a mixed socialist economy of sorts and since it's creation the whole of Europe including UK have done well out of it.

You say show me countries doing well but can you show me a pure free market capitalist doing well? If you mention US or UK compare their debt to income ratios and pretty much we are all in the same boat.

Perhaps one shining star is probably China with its economy switching from a command based one to a sort of middle of the road part private part government managed economy. I'd go far as to say not much different to our mixed economy types which is the ideal imho.

Very few countries have a surplus BoP who are earning their way in the World.

It begs the question where is all the money going such that so many people are in debt.

You still don't get or acknowledge that pure capitalism leads to the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the very few. It is not sustainable.

Even business practice if unregulated and unchecked ultimately all game models end up with oligopolistic, cartels or monopoly practices.

In bad times Socialism is better for national economy. In good times Capitalism.

Mixed mode of operation is best imo. We've had this argument on another thread and I don't think much reason will prevail either way.

I look forward to evidence that would make me change my mind from voting Conservative to voting Labour - Labour governments have been better for our economy, and socialist regimes have been better for their people.......... In a waiting pattern.

Meantime, the World Bank says on a global scale poverty is drastically reduced in recent years and continuing to fall. With the demise in this time period of the largest socialist regimes - the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, India and China, there seems little else to give credit to but the spread of capitalism.........

 

[Atilla]

I look forward to evidence that would make me change my mind from voting Conservative to voting Labour - Labour governments have been better for our economy, and socialist regimes have been better for their people.......... In a waiting pattern.

Meantime, the World Bank says on a global scale poverty is drastically reduced in recent years and continuing to fall. With the demise in this time period of the largest socialist regimes - the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, India and China, there seems little else to give credit to but the spread of capitalism.........

Yes but that is because they are coming from ground up and as I say for growing economies capitalism is better yes.

For declining or recession type economies, socialism is more appropriate to distribute income giving greater multiplier effect to induce growth.

The accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few is the curse of capitalism. Monopolistic practices or cartels are not good.


Here is one example for you. Microsoft virtually killed off Apple. Apple was cooked. To avoid monopolistic practice attention from US authorities, MS rescued Apple. Otherwise we may never have had mobile phone and app revolution.

This is the whole point with equitable distribution of income. It facilitates the productive utilisation from billions of people.

We may not have had great Pixel movies that have provided so much entertainment and joy to people.


Anyhow, point being competition is good. Distribution of scarce resources, so they can be more productively employed, is good. Hogging of wealth in the hands of the very few is bad.

 

[Pat494]

In a nutshell one might say capitalism is good for the economy and socialism is not.
But socialism is better for the poor.

So the solution is obvious. Have Capitalism and higher taxes on the super rich to pay for better social services, policing, pensions etc.


:smart:

 

[tomorton]

In a nutshell one might say capitalism is good for the economy and socialism is not.
But socialism is better for the poor.

So the solution is obvious. Have Capitalism and higher taxes on the super rich to pay for better social services, policing etc.


:smart:

Pat, where has socialism been good for the poor? There must be some historic examples, its over a century since Karl Marx.

 

[Pat494]

Pat, where has socialism been good for the poor? There must be some historic examples, its over a century since Karl Marx.

The threat of Socialism has often forced the Consevatives to have more regard for the poor imho. This has been built on the postwar efforts of Atlee etc.

The USA has never really known much social unrest because of their easy circumstances but Europe has and has not forgoten the consequences.

My bottom line is to have a nice country to live in for all, not just the rich. So this includes " what to do about crime ". Assaults, robbery etc can ruin innocent people's lives and should be tackled more cleverly.

 

[Signalcalc]

The threat of Socialism has often forced the Consevatives to have more regard for the poor imho. This has been built on the postwar efforts of Atlee etc.

The USA has never really known much social unrest because of their easy circumstances but Europe has and has not forgoten the consequences.

My bottom line is to have a nice country to live in for all, not just the rich. So this includes " what to do about crime ". Assaults, robbery etc can ruin innocent people's lives and should be tackled more cleverly.

It's strange how the conversation revolves around 'the rich' vs 'the poor', what about the very wide middle ground, which is where most of us actually reside?

What about hard working ordinary, relatively crime free, tax payers, the one's that actually deserve the most support from governments because they are the one's getting out of bed and earning the money to pay for the waste that is produced by....the rich and the poor'?

What does capitalism or socialism do for the middle ground? Which is the better system where they are not taxed too heavily in order to redistribute the 'wealth'?

It's getting a bit OT, maybe we also need a social, philosophy thread to handle this type of conversation, but in relation to the middle ground tax payers that live and work in Hartlepool, where is the justice for them.

The 'rich' can escape, the 'poor' either don't pay tax and/or commit the most crime, it is the middle ground that are the real losers, not the 'poor'

Also define 'poor'! I remember when poor meant that you had candles for light and heat, hand to mouth existence, made use of and reused everything. Now the definition of poor seems to have risen with the rise in living standards. Is it something like under £20K and can't afford mobile broadband or something equally as crass.

The definition of poor to me still means destitute, on the street or almost there, with no income whatsoever.

The popular description of people that are poor seems to be people that are unable to save for the future, are reliant on the state (socialist ideal) supplement from foodbanks, living off charity handouts, owning a mobile phone and computer, receiving council assistance, only a cheap holiday once or twice a year, maybe a second hand white leather sofa, that is not poor IMO.

 

[Pat494]

Yep I stick up for Middle England too.

The crap live high above or well below with politicians in a tiswas as to who to suck up to.


The mega rich that sell off the best British companies deserve the scorn they receive. The millions they pocket are usually stashed away in Panama or Switzerland. Keeping company with the rich dictators from banana republics.

 

[Signalcalc]

Saw segment on BBC lunchtime news today (have to keep an eye on the enemy ). Bristol recycling initiative, making stuff out of throwaway items, recycling waste into useable and cheap products for use by predominately low income people. Some of the things they had recycled were showing a good use of initiative, furniture out of cardboard, house insulation from cassette holders, video cases, duvets, almost a whole house built and fitted out with recyclable waste, great stuff

What struck me, as with most of these things, is that it's a small bunch of volunteers probably doing 80% of the work of collecting, machining, fabrication, design, invention, marketing, publishing etc, a small business, limited in scale and size.

Now imagine if worthy members of the prison population could be brought into such schemes, free labour, brain stimulation, a sense of worth, something to show for their efforts at the end of the day, a benefit for society, the prisoners, the environment and the tax payer - a quadruple win.

Why on earth are politicians not opening their eyes to the possibilities, is it against the prisoners 'uman rights to work or something? They spend millions attempting to fix problems that are unfixable and yet spend nothing on blue sky thinking initiatives.

When Sadiq Khan talks about 10 years to get results to rid London of youth crime, it's unbelievable that he comes out with such crap, who does he think he is fooling, millions will be wasted with no definitive outcome, on what? What is his grand plan? More youth centres, more mosques, more edumacation, more BS more like!

Get youngsters working factory style, making stuff out of waste, teach them the benefits, forget academic qualifications, they're not cut out for it, waste of time, get them hands on in manufacturing and growing food for themselves and others, farming, chickens, ducks, fish, horticulture, aquaculture, give them something tangible to play with rather than scores on a computer screen that ultimately mean nothing to them or anyone else, give them a sense of appreciation about how the real world used to work and still does, rather than multiple choice questions related to something they can't relate to.

In concert with this, we need to reorganise their vocational endeavours, we need less women leading young men, we need more male role models, more male teachers, the scourge of women attempting to control hormonal youth does not work, they get trampled all over after losing control, we need more masculine men, not metro's in their classroom, a fine balance between authoritarianism and inspiration, men that can lead and not whimper.

That last para is not sexist, it's hard truth.

 

[Atilla]

To me it's simply about the system. Allocation of scarce resources to where they can be most productively employed. That goes for labour and capital. Land is somewhat physically fixed but how it is used obviously is a factor.

Do you feel the following tax breaks are reasonable and fair and do you support them?

Are they deserved?

Whether they help the nation in total or create issues and hardships on the many so a few can do even better.

It is not about the individual you or I!

Think in terms of social gain / loss.

Think about the system whether it is just? Is it fair?

How you might feel if you were on the bottom rung of the ladder?



hen it comes to austerity, the Conservatives have often argued that “there is no alternative”. When he was Chancellor, George Osborne inflicted painful spending cuts on our country, our communities and our public services.

Now, of course, Osborne has sought to reinvent himself as a small 'l' liberal and a newspaper editor. Yet the choices he made - and they were choices - still have a lasting impact. The prime advocate of the “no alternative” doctrine may have left Parliament, but the effect of his cuts will be felt for generations.


Yet the brutal approach to public spending of the Conservative years needn’t have happened, and it needn’t continue. As many of us have been saying in the decade since the global financial crisis, there is an alternative. One that values public services and those who provide them, and that places the biggest burden on the shoulders of those who can bear it most.

One of the best examples of this is on taxation. While hospital porters, school support staff and care workers have been forced to pay – in lost jobs and slashed wages – for the mistakes of the financial sector, the wealthiest in our society got a tax cut. The government claimed that reducing the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p in 2013 wouldn’t cost the government money. In fact, analysis carried out by UNISON shows that between 2013/14 and 2017/18 the income tax cuts for those earning over a million pounds a year alone have saved the nation’s super-wealthy on average £554,000 each. Those tax cuts have also cost the British taxpayer £8.6bn over those five years.

That’s £8.6bn that could have been spent avoiding the harshest of cuts to the NHS, schools and local government. And £8.6bn that could have been spent raising wages for those dedicated public servants who work for our communities. Put another way, tax cuts for the richest 15,000 taxpayers in the country could have bought them a couple of top of the range sports cars, a big house in the country or perhaps even a helicopter. Yet at the same time, the same government has cut wages in real terms for those who teach our children, care for our loved ones and empty our bins.

The money lost could have paid for an extra 20,000 nurses, 10,000 extra police community support officers (PCSOs), 10,000 extra police officers, and 20,000 newly qualified teachers - every year for the whole five years. Or it could have paid for 60,000 bursaries for nurses, midwives and other health professionals, 10,000 extra nurses, 10,000 extra PCSOs and 10,000 newly qualified teachers - every year for five years. Or it could have helped solved our nation’s social care crisis, by putting £1.7bn a year into social care. Instead, that money was squandered on those who need it least, including - shamefully - those who caused the financial crisis in the first place.

The income tax cut for the wealthy is one of the most emblematic budget changes of recent years, but it’s far from the only tax giveaway. The government has also slashed corporation tax while consistently failing to act on large-scale industrial levels of tax avoidance, which has once again been brought to our nation’s attention, this time by the Paradise Papers.

The truth is, we were never “all in it together”. There was an alternative that was avoided in favour of austerity, which was a political choice serving one group in society over another. Now, Chancellor Philip Hammond says the government has heard the calls for change, heeded the lessons of the recent general election, and plans to change course. The acknowledgement that another way is possible is to be welcomed, but only if the government makes the unlikely but necessary decision to walk that other road.


The age of austerity has devastated our country at a time when we need to be ready for the challenges of a future defined by automation and rapid technological advancement. Investment in public services - and most importantly of all, in those who provide them, is needed more now than ever. The way to better services comes not through more cuts but through real investment.

Governments should not be afraid to make the case for higher taxes to pay for the investment in pay, services and infrastructure our country needs. A higher rate of income tax for those who can most afford it would be a sensible and rational start.




That article is old but valid. Then there is the more recent Tory 2018 budget.

A surprise £3bn income tax giveaway worth £860 a year to high earners was the centrepiece of Philip Hammond’s third budget, but tax experts said it would leave low earners with little or no gains.

The chancellor brought forward the Conservatives’ election pledge to increase the basic personal allowance to £12,500 while raising the threshold for the 40% higher-rate tax to £50,000.

The rises in personal allowances – which are the starting points for paying 20% and 40% income tax – translate into significant tax cuts further up the income scale. For someone on £12,500, the increase is worth £130, but for those on £50,000 salaries it is worth £860 a year, although this is reduced to £520 once national insurance is taken into account.



I'm not talking about handouts or state help or social services here. Best analogy I can think of is this. They all work just that simply they do different pieces of work earning different levels of income.



Imagine a skinny person and a fat person. They both work for food.

You have limited amount of food.

Do you give the skinny person less food because he is skinny?

Similarly because someone is fat, do you give more food so they can maintain their obesity at level they are used to?

Alternatively, do you calculate what an average amount of calories a body needs and give each the same + extra on work that requires more energy / reward based on output?

If you find some extra food, do you distribute that food based on effort or just simply weight of person (ie current income).

I don't know just a sort of different way of looking at allocation of resources; based on need/want sort of thing.



I know a few people working for around 20-25K. One of them is a graduate and his ok. Gets by. Another is single mother with two kids under 10. No idea where dad is. Don't like to get personal. Don't know and don't care. I hear she is struggling. She doesn't want charity or handouts. Works hard. However, with two kids and rent plus all sorts of other expenses even 24K is not much. No she's not poor. She's not exactly well off. Struggling I'd say.

I concur to a point. It's not my fecking problem. Where's the freaking daddy? If people screw up why should rest of society pick up the tabs. There are many such people approaching the margins.

What I do get annoyed about however, is governments paying a 50K earner 4 x as much as someong on 12K.

That to me does not make social sense. It creates social challenges and makes people collectively unhappy. Doesn't help the top end either who may get to find them selves living in an environment with increasing probability of unintended consequences. Like being burgled.

So ignoring thy self. What do you think of the tax system? Just or Unjust? :whistling

 

[Pat494]

You have made some very valid points. Social justice is something the extreme philosophies just won't tolerate. Included in that group are the Tories I regret to say. They pander to the rich. Get invited to big estates for shooting and partying plus jaunts to holiday island homes. The Socialists in their rent free country houses and croquet are no better.
Well that's people for you.

 

[trendie]

To me it's simply about the system. Allocation of scarce resources to where they can be most productively employed. That goes for labour and capital. Land is somewhat physically fixed but how it is used obviously is a factor.

Do you feel the following tax breaks are reasonable and fair and do you support them?

Are they deserved?

.......
So ignoring thy self. What do you think of the tax system? Just or Unjust? :whistling

Progressive tax is unjust. Why should someone earning over a certain amount be arbitrarily penalised for being successful? Flat rate tax is the way to go.
And some kind of transaction tax, or sales tax on every purchase.

Deserved? Thats a question about morality.
Does JK Rowling "deserve" more for writing story books, as opposed to a paramedic?

I think its about defining the social net. But, as we know, it starts to expand, bit by bit, until it becomes too heavy a social burden.
The amount we can afford should be a function of our productivity. If the economy fails, social cuts have to happen.

If the chancellor really wanted to be fair, he would raise the threshold at which anyone pays tax. That way, EVERYONE gets a fixed amount extra, irrespective of existing income. It has to be from the ground up.

 

[Pat494]

Flat rate of tax just won't raise enough revenue because the rate would have to be such that the poor can pay it. Peanuts for the rich but poverty and starvation for the poor.
All workers rich or poor do about an eight hour day. Perhaps everyone should be paid by the hour fairly ?
Of course the very word fair makes some shudder in repulsion.

 

[trendie]

Flat rate of tax just won't raise enough revenue because the rate would have to be such that the poor can pay it. Peanuts for the rich but poverty and starvation for the poor.
All workers rich or poor do about an eight hour day. Perhaps everyone should be paid by the hour fairly ?
Of course the very word fair makes some shudder in repulsion.

But income tax becomes irrelevant if we use sales tax.
if you are rich, you pay proportionately more sales / transaction tax than the poor.
government could be run like ebay: there is a "fee" for transacting.
eg, 2% sales tax:
1000 for cheap car; pay 20.
100000 for expensive sports car: pay 2000

we are already used to amazon creaming off fees. apply it across everything.
ebay does the same: as does Uber, AirBnB, JustEat.

Workers do all the work, Just Eat creams off a 10% "fee" for each transaction.
Govt should do the same.
That way, even Google pays a transaction tax for every fee they charge for their ads. And Apple.

Same with business deals.
Even Goldman Sachs gets to pay a fee too.
Maybe , there should be a Turnover Tax". Then, we could potentially ignore corp-tax and accountancy gymnastics to avoid it.
If you're a business and get paid an invoice, you just pay the govt 2% fee, and you keep the rest.
I think it might be called VAT.

It will fail, of course, as it slowly rises to 2.5%, then 3%, etc.

 

[Signalcalc]

What is the tax take of someone earning £25k vs £50k vs £500k.

Who pays the most tax already in both national insurance, paye, corporation tax, dividend tax and sales tax (assuming higher consumption and spend the more you earn).

Obviously the govt makes more money from higher earners, therefore there is an incentive for govt to encourage people to earn more. It’s a pretty simple equation!

Everything is taxed to the nth degree, from its raw state all the way through the manufacturing, supply chain, retailer and consumer, every person supplying a service to get goods from the earth to the consumer is also taxed.

Why would govt want to disincentivise higher earners by making them pay more tax?

 

[tomorton]

Just seen on the BBC news channel UK police confirming they have authorisation to knock moped criminals off their bikes if an acceptable risk to do so, to "sting" their tyres and to pursue even if the riders are helmets off. Hopefully this will all occur as they say.

 

[Signalcalc]

Just seen on the BBC news channel UK police confirming they have authorisation to knock moped criminals off their bikes if an acceptable risk to do so, to "sting" their tyres and to pursue even if the riders are helmets off. Hopefully this will all occur as they say.

A mate of mine, a copper, loves this aspect of the job, nothing better than nicking crims [emoji106][emoji2533][emoji102][emoji23]

 

[Signalcalc]

First time use of batton rounds by police on British mainland, a sign of increasing violent crime? Next stop.....m.i.l.i.t.a.r.y. (done in the style of MASH )

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...bber-bullets-knife-crime-pitsea-a8628571.html

 

[Atilla]

First time use of batton rounds by police on British mainland, a sign of increasing violent crime? Next stop.....m.i.l.i.t.a.r.y. (done in the style of MASH )

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...bber-bullets-knife-crime-pitsea-a8628571.html

Why is that funny?

 

[counter_violent]

London Homicides 2018

Reading through that list, one thing stands out....clear up rate is almost non existent

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46128268