91 comments on “Hmmm

  1. Curiously, just for once, I don’t think he’s wrong there. The better off live in nicer areas, get better policed. Public services like hospitals, schools etc are usually much better. The more money you have, the better the law protects you because you can afford decent lawyers to protect your interests.
    Individually, the greatest beneficiaries of the welfare state are the middle classes. They’re much better positioned to game the system.
    And, of course, Murphy himself’s a fine example of how to graze off the taxpayer’s dime.

  2. “In case you ask”

    I didn’t, you fat fucker.

    But since you mention it, as the wealthiest pay the most tax, I should fucking well hope that they do get something back for it. They certainly don’t get their money’s worth.

  3. They pay more than their fair share of tax. But services don’t come quicker, bins don’t get emptied faster, quite often they pay on top of what they pay in tax for additional service – such as healthcare and schooling.

    I point out to those demanding the rich pay their fair share that I admire the stance they are taking, to increase their own tax payable and reduce the tax the rich pay so that everyone pays their fair share.
    It usually turns out the definition of ‘fair’ means ‘more than they pay now’ but only applied to the rich.

  4. Andrew C,

    ‘They certainly don’t get their money’s worth.’

    of course they do or they wouldn’t pay for it.
    That is the price of that lifestyle, other lifestyles are available at different prices.
    (14 to a room in a hovel sharing a tin of beans for tea is v.cheap)

    You takes your pick and then pays your money.

  5. Martin,

    ‘They pay more than their fair share of tax’

    they pay what the market will bear

  6. “they pay what the market will bear”

    And which market is that, pray tell? The one where one party decides what the rules are and changes them incessantly?

    The funny thing about Hammond’s ni rise is that his argument was to align both rates. However, it never occurs to those cunts that he could have aligned them by lowering the other rate.

  7. That quite an interesting way of looking at it. The King`s peace so called was supported for centuries because without it ( the state you could say) no-one could keep the nearest bully of their stuff .It would be truer to say that the wealth-ish but not wealthy enough to have an army, class, benefit form that sort of minimal order keeping.
    Brexit goons might note how useful this non democratic institution was and reflect that whilst democracy is a good thing it is not the only good thing. Prosperity and security and also good and when the choices has had to be made people have no problem seeing which counts most.

    This sort of thinking used to be second nature to Conservatives, nowadays they are all causey idealists as are the Labour activists

  8. I too think he’s correct

    “wealthiest get greatest benefit from state because the state provides them with the legal means to protect that wealth”

    It is a great benefit and it allows them to retain their existing wealth and increase it, such increase being taxed.

    Thought experiment: Let’s remove that benefit and watch what happens next.

    ‘They pay more than their fair share of tax’

    I remember seeing a televised version of this bbc page, which contains the following interesting graph showing a breakdown of tax contributions:

  9. Tim

    If you replace ‘roving and stationary bandits’ with ‘anything other than utter bollocks’ you’ve summed up the relevant department at City University

  10. NewRemaina: “Brexit goons might note how useful this non democratic institution was and reflect that whilst democracy is a good thing it is not the only good thing.”

    Yeah its only a good thing when London Bubble scum get the result they like.

    You still lost tho’.

  11. “BobRocket

    Andrew C,

    ‘They certainly don’t get their money’s worth.’

    of course they do or they wouldn’t pay for it.””

    Oh. sorry, I hadn’t realised it was so easy. I don’t feel I’m getting my money’s worth, so I can just stop paying tax can I? Shall I tell HMRC you told me all about this?

    Someone on £1m a year pays £459,400 in tax/NI.

    Perhaps you could itemise the services and costs that that someone benefits from MORE than someone paying zero tax/NI?

  12. Hmm. The McConnell plan to take 20% of the wealth of the richest 20% (or at least those of them still here if it ever comes to pass) would tend to suggest that the legal protection is somewhat illusory.

  13. BiS

    The better off live in nicer areas, get better policed.

    Are they really better policed in terms of police numbers? More likely that they need a lot less policing?

    Public services like hospitals, schools etc are usually much better.

    Same principle? Ie, if the area is full of nice kids?.

    Flatcap

    Hahahahaha…….

  14. Very slightly O/T but a valid example of who gubmint really looks after–from Raedwalds’s blog:

    “UN greed and cupidity, EA waste and stupidity piss away $803m in Greek Aid ”

    “One senior aid official estimated that as much as $70 out of every $100 spent had been wasted”

    “So says a piece in the Guardian today that catalogues the greed, stupidity, empire building, tantrums, thefts, frauds, jealousies and malfeasance that has pissed away $803m in aid to Greece to accommodate the migrants there. Who is surprised?

    The gainers from the aid have been UN bureaucrats, apparatchiks and aid workers paid third-world ‘hardship pay’ bonuses for being posted to this holiday destination, the international aid bandwagon, EU bureaucrats, Greek civil servants and their contractors, and Turkish and German taxpayers. Losers from the aid have been the migrants, who have little improvement in living conditions and the people of Greece, who have gained nothing and lost much.

    The piece is a damning litany of lunatics running the asylum. Few migrants have been returned to Turkey, few have been accepted under Juncker’s quota rules but UN managers are fat with gold and puffed with a hubristic flatus of self-importance. Vicious turf-wars between aid agencies have seen donor aid pissed away in campaigns to counter opposing aid agencies rather than in assisting the migrants to go home.

    If any further evidence were needed that the UN and EU are run for the benefit of their officials, Greece provides it in spades. Nasty, self-loving incapable fools, chiselling little crooks, petulant penpushers and leeches, their vile misappropriation of tax and aid money is only now becoming clear. “

  15. Andrew C,

    people whine about the price of things all the time, and then they buy it.

    Something about expressed and revealed preferences.

    Stay and pay or leave and not, it’s up to you.

    I personally think the amount I pay is outrageous for what I get but I pay it anyway so it can’t be that bad or I would just leave.

  16. The State’s “legal protection” benefits the middle classes and prosperous working classes far more than the wealthiest.

    In the absence of a State the wealthiest could easily afford to hire whatever protection they needed – they did, after all, do this for centuries and even millennia before “States” started to appear with their “legal protection”. Far more easily than, say, a fat pseudo-professor nervously defending his house from the depredations of the local scumbags.

    So in my humble opinion he is talking bollocks, again.

  17. As Crassus is reputed to have said, “no man could be considered rich until he owned his own private army”.

  18. Thought experiment: Let’s remove that benefit and watch what happens next.

    Preferably from some distance.

    Murphy is obviously wrong. To be less wrong, he would’ve had to write something closer to “the greatest benefit the wealthy receive from the state is the legal means to protect their wealth”, which still has problems, as Newmania points out. Probably unintentionally.

    This post from Crooked Timber is interesting: http://crookedtimber.org/2016/04/08/gaps-and-holes-how-the-swiss-cheese-was-made/

    Particularly;

    If you couldn’t live with 95% supertax, then you didn’t have to fight it; you could hire a good advisor and rearrange your fortune. The price of doing so, however, was a diminution in your political influence back home.

    Although the author doesn’t explicitly mention Nationalisation, which would tend to diminish economic power, and thus political influence even further.

    Has anyone seen a similar chart to the one Justin posted, one that includes other forms of tax paid, not just income tax?

  19. Police forces are relatively modern. Under Good Queen Bess, for example, if you were wealthy your only chance of getting around London without being set upon by pickpockets and cutpurses was to surround yourself with an armed retinue. State protection came in maybe under Robert Peel but it’s not the wealthy who benefit most from it. The very rich still have bodyguards. The police drink tea in their huge office buildings. Do the rich use the holy NHS?

    In other words, the fat one has got it all wrong. We should be grateful to the rich for paying so much tax in return for so little service. It’s just that these days we are not wholly dependent upon them for work and housing – we can even decide to live in another land if we so desire.

  20. Much of that wealth comes from owning and operating the means of production… You know, the factories and stores that employ the toiling masses.

    How would the toiling masses benefit if the state decided that protecting the means of production from theft and vandalism was counterproductive – in the name of “equality of benefit”, of course?

  21. No Ecks, you twat. I’m saying that Raedwald wet it’s pants trying to make a measured piece into a ball of hate.

    And don’t forget, old boy, the EU and UN were trying to find a solution to migration into the EU and to alleviate suffering. Don’t you support borders being borders? It may have been a colossal waste of cash, but you, like others, simply don’t understand the scale of situations like these. And it was a first.

    How much do you think your private army would need to repatriate those refugees? Without killing them.

    The EU certainly has a big gap in its knowledge of exactly how each member state spends its allocation. It’s well known. Well known enough for the auditors to sign off the accounts as accurate but with that caveat.

  22. Newmania

    “Brexit goons might note how useful this non democratic institution was and reflect that whilst democracy is a good thing it is not the only good thing. Prosperity and security and also good and when the choices has had to be made people have no problem seeing which counts most.”

    Well, you’re true to yourself at least. Taking yyr last sentence first: thank you! Thank you for acknowledging the Leave vote (that free decision of the people) was not a trade off between democracy and economic security/prosperity; Brexit gives us both. Unfortunately, some of your fellow Remainers didnand do see it that way. You tell us they are wrong as, if they were right, the result would surely have gone the other way. It didn’t; your analysis is correct.

    JOLLY WELL DONE!

  23. As regards your ‘usefulness of non-democratic institutions’: thank you again!!! Thank you for acknowledging what a non-democratic cesspit the EU is.

    You know, so much abuse is thrown at us Brexiteers it is really nice to receive such encouragement. I owe you a pint.

  24. Flatcap Army beat me to it but here is the full quote from Mcdonnell – it’s as though ‘SS-GB’ was a reflection of the real world:

    ‘ “You then move on in terms of taxation – you put Richard Murphy and John Christensen at the head of HMRC to introduce Financial Transaction Tax, the wealth tax, the land value tax – all done in the first 100 days.” ‘

    Let’s hope they have taken advice on ‘border control’ from the Real world Murphyite state – every single flight out of the UK would be booked up for the next ten years…..

  25. “Stay and pay or leave and not, it’s up to you.”

    What the fuck? That’s as stupid as it gets.

  26. Meiac: Now we are getting somewhere.

    “No Ecks, you twat. I’m saying that Raedwald wet it’s pants trying to make a measured piece into a ball of hate.”

    A measured piece? For the Guardian to publish a piece critical of the UN/EU is remarkable in itself. The piece is highly critical of both. The author doesn’t headline with “Oi UN You’re a cunt” as you would have but it is still highly critical of both. All the points Raedwald makes are in the original piece. Albeit in amongst a mass of verbiage.

    “And don’t forget, old boy, the EU and UN were trying to find a solution to migration into the EU and to alleviate suffering. ”

    Yeah and Hitler wanted a better life for Germans and socialism is supposed to end in a paradise for all. After the murders are all done. It doesn’t matter shit what people SAY they intend. What matters is what they DO. And the article shows exactly what the UN/EU’s “good intentions” produced.

    “Don’t you support borders being borders?”

    Yes I do but WTF has that got to do with what went on in Greece.? The UNEU pukes could have sent them back or moved them on. Probably to Germany. They did neither but left them to rot and cause problems for ordinary Greeks while filing their own pockets out of public money.

    “It may have been a colossal waste of cash, but you, like others, simply don’t understand the scale of situations like these.”

    What have the first and second parts of the above sentence got to do with each other let alone what we are supposed to be talking about. It is a big situation so its OK to piss money–not just against the wall–but into the pockets of self-serving crooks? Really? The situation is already a big problem so lets send a load of bureaucratic thieves to make it worse? What about the situation or the scale of the problem don’t Raedwald and I understand? Or the Guardian for that matter?

    ” And it was a first.”

    How is this the first refugee problem in history–when millions were on the roads in WW2? It was obviously too much for leftist scum like Clinton to twig that dropping whole countries into chaos might cause a few refugees.

    “How much do you think your private army would need to repatriate those refugees? Without killing them.”

    The calculations already done by various aid agencies show that cash spent helping refugees remaining in the middle east goes 12 times as far as cash spent trying to bring them here. We should also have pressured Saudi scum to use their 3 million tent city to house refugees.

    Assuming they are refugees and not 18-30 economic migrant yobs who fancy coming over here to sign on sit around and look for women/children whose every orifice they can invade without concern as to what their victims want.

    They can be returned to their homeland after the war is over. For humane reasons we should feed, house them but not let them into our society. We would do far better to rescue them on the high seas and return them to protected camps in their own lands.

    “The EU certainly has a big gap in its knowledge of exactly how each member state spends its allocation.”

    Again WTF are you talking about. The money is taken off European taxpayers and handed over to the EU mostly the commission. The article then goes on to talk at length about the waste, conflict etc between the EC, the UN and the Greek state. Talking about “each member states allocation “merely shows that you either haven’t read the article or you don’t understand what you have read. The EU knows very well how much dosh it is getting from its members. You are simply rambling.

    “It’s well known. Well known enough for the auditors to sign off the accounts as accurate but with that caveat.”

    More irrelevant bullshit. The dodgy status of the EU’s accounts ( despite lying leftist “fact-checkers” who claim otherwise) has nothing to do with the matter being discussed. You throw this crap into your posts as if to cover the fact that you have no idea what you are blathering about

  27. Mr Ecks

    You throw this crap into your posts as if to cover the fact that you have no idea what you are blathering about

    It’s a post by meiac, goes without saying he/she/it has no idea what they are blathering about. Just another in a long line of leftist Violet Elizabeths.

  28. Ecks, you haven’t read the article, clearly.

    Crun. Point to any ‘leftism’. I’m just not a dribbling fool like you. Or that totalitarian cock, Ecks.

  29. “the wealth tax…”

    Most of the weathy’s wealth is assets. So, in year one you saw 20% off the end of your factory to pay your wealth tax. Then in year two you saw 20% off the end of what you’ve got left. How quickly before the basis of that wealth collapses and is useless to anybody?

  30. “BobRocket

    Andrew C,

    people whine about the price of things all the time, and then they buy it.

    Something about expressed and revealed preferences.”

    Nonsensical bollocks.

    You’re saying that the mere fact that people pay tax means they are getting value for money.

    So if I threaten to kill you unless you give me all your money and you do and I don’t, then you’ll feel like you got value for money? Merely because you paid it?

  31. Meiac: Point out the bits I failed to read then. Evidence as opposed to assertion.

    As for you being a leftist or whatever I doubt that you are bright or coherent enough to adopt any point of view. You are on here as an on-line stalker probably because I remind you of someone who has humiliated or stuck it to you somehow. Possibly a teacher owing to your ” fucking know-all teacher” line a while back. To admit that would make you sound like a pathetic fool so you rationalise that I am a “totalitarian” ( at least you have learned to spell it right since your first appearance) .

    “Mr Ecks is a cock” is 100% of what you have say about anything and everything.

  32. Mr Stark
    There was a choice but too many people did not know it had to be made. In fact 90% of leave voters believed they would be better off I think they call it “challenged”.
    As for democracy, I suggest that when you need the assistance of a proctologist, as you almost certainly will, instead of consulting said expert why not ask whoever happens to be standing around the surgery. Take their advice on treatment, its democratic.
    You will at least die laughing.. or screaming , ….one of the two .

  33. I’m bored in a pub in Oslo.

    But the first two posts in this thread made me giggle:

    BiS’ observation that “Curiously, in this case, I don’t think he’s wrong” followed by a gentle examination of the profs words, I mmediately followed by Andrew C calling Murph a fat fucker.

    If only my economics lectures at Uni had displayed such a range of comment.

  34. So is McDonnell trolling Murphy or does he dislike him that much he would give him the job, given Murphys comments on HMRC in the past it would be fun to watch him squirm trying to justify everything he had criticised before and not likely he would have much support from the organisation

  35. Newmania

    Yep, as usual the Remainer skips addressing Brexit directly (well, one of your arguments was we souldn’t have a vote because it’s all just too complicated) and hurls personal abuse at the Brexiteer.

    Before the vote you were arguing it was too difficult to vote on; after the vote you argue that the Brexiteers specifically didn’t understand it. You lost because you couldn’t make your case. Since you lost you’ve given up trying take your case.

    You get on with throwing abuse from the corner in a permanent sulk; we’ll get on with living in the present and building the future.

  36. Andrew C, Monoi,

    the Government sets the price of staying and earning £1m per year at an amount it sees fit.

    There are other Governments that provide various services for varying prices and each of them competes for your custom.

    If they set the price too high then people will leave one Government jurisdiction for another.

    If you think the UK Government has set the wrong price you are free to campaign to get it changed or campaign to change the Government for one that you think will charge what you consider to be the right price.
    (this freedom to campaign is factored into the price charged in the UK, other jurisdictions might not offer this benefit and will price their product accordingly)

    ‘You’re saying that the mere fact that people pay tax means they are getting value for money’

    Yes, because if they felt it was such crap value for money that it wasn’t worth paying they would take their money elsewhere, there is no wall keeping them in, they are free to leave at any time.

    That there is no mass exodus/influx means that the price is correct for the benefits offered.

  37. Last time I looked, neither the Old Bill, nor the judiciary were part of the State.

    Perhaps I missed something.

  38. @BobRocket

    The amount of work I do as a tax advisor suggests to me that people most definitely are not thinking that they are getting value for money for the tax they pay.

    You’re so wrong there’s no point continuing this discussion.

    It’s like talking to someone in a field of cows who is convinced he’s surrounded by unicorns.

  39. That there is no mass exodus/influx means that the price is correct for the benefits offered.

    This isn’t going to end well…

  40. Andrew C,

    ‘suggests to me that people most definitely are not thinking that they are getting value for money for the tax they pay.’

    It doesn’t matter what people think or say, it is what they do that counts.

  41. Ironhoof

    Was there some aspect of Brexit you wanted me to explain? Point of Origin, Passporting, ( on which subject AIG have capitalised in Luxembourg today , ( not to worry eh they`ll keep the jobs here natch). Polling on the single market ( showing a majority for staying in), why Vauxhall is dead and why it is down to Brexit, why a loss of international confidence is not the boon Brexit toadies pretend and why and why and why ….
    You may submit your questions in a respectful manner (dare I say humble?) and I will answer them if I can be arsed. .

    Forward to a brighter yesterday Ironhoof

  42. One story from the remoaners-in-chief at the FT and Newmania thinks all is well. It is called contingency planning, sir. How many staff are AIG planning to move to Luxembourg? The gloomsters have been spouting this bullshit ever since last July. It is as meaningful now as it was then.

    Vauxhall has been dead for a long time. Even the remoaners-in-chief at the BBC note that:

    The last time the US carmaker’s European business, which houses Germany’s Opel and the UK’s Vauxhall, made a profit was in 1999.
    Although the division’s boss, Karl-Thomas Neumann, pledged to return to growth in 2016, the operation ended up reporting a loss of $300m (£245m).

    Obviously GM thought it was a good time to dump it. And why are Peugeot buying it?

    According to the BBC (staunch remoaners)

    The takeover will give PSA access to the UK market where demand for its Peugeot and Citroen cars has been poor in the past.
    Most importantly, Mr Tavares has already said he wants to go back to the US, which Citroen left in 1974 and Peugeot exited in 1991.
    It is now more likely that PSA will use Opel to make the push into the US using the “halo effect” of German carmakers.

    And let’s see what those hardline remoaners in the Guardian report

    Tavares said in a soft Brexit scenario, the cheaper pound could boost Vauxhall’s competitiveness, and if the UK left the EU’s single market in a hard Brexit scenario, it would be a “very nice opportunity” to source more car parts from inside the UK, so costs and revenues were recorded in sterling.

    In other words, Peugeot are taking over Vauxhall because of Brexit opportunities.

    I apologise for not being able to emulate your crazy and bizarre misuse of syntax and punctuation. I hope you will be able to understand my more conventional style.

  43. Bobrocket
    Are forgetting, perhaps, the costs of movement?

    People might not be emigrating because
    “costs of emigration + the benefits from the State > taxation costs.”
    Logically, that does not mean that “the benefits from the State > taxation costs.” so you should not infer that it does.

  44. If (and it’s a big If) the rich benefit the most from the state, the poor are the state’s greatest cost.

  45. NewRemainia: “Was there some aspect of Brexit you wanted me to explain?”

    Why a scummy EU-sucking traitor paints his face Union Jack colour to watch a bladder being chased around a field?

  46. The rich would sort out their own guards if the State left the scene. It’s the low income communities which most benefit from the Rule of Law. Bring in effectively policing to a pit village in Durham and kick out disruptive children from schools and those who want to get on in life have a chance. Take the State away and a local strongman and his gang will take over.
    France, Sweden and now small bits of the UK have some police no-go areas, and the losers are the decent sorts that live in these areas who have the intelligence to work out that first millennium books are not the complete and perfect word of God, and maybe some blokes wrote them.

  47. t isn`t one story Diogenes, Lloyds of London are setting up an EEA fronting Company, ( quite an undertaking for them ), UBS are moving third of their jobs, Barclays are ( they say) adding to their employees by creating jobs in the EEA ( and that means …). If you don`t have a single market, you have to capitalise in it and you can`t count it twice. It’s a significant blow for although services do have a global reach. The City will survive it’s just that it will not be Europe`s financial capital any more.
    AIG / Chartis / AIG again, already have staff in Europe functions will obviously have to move. The same is true of Glaxo SK. Its endless. Everyone with EU customers or suppliers is worried and no-one is failing to make contingency plans in all sectors. Why do you not know this ?

    GM`s lack of profitability is not cause by Vauxhall alone (duh) they were saved by Obama from complete extinction . In that Vauxhall is in trouble, it is due to due to overcapacity in Europe. That over capacity exists just as much in German France and Poland as in the UK . So the question is which will they close?
    The answer is none, not until the next model is up the reboot is too expensive I think that takes us up to 2021. In the meantime I would disregard the traditional expressions of commitment, I can promise you the employees of Vauxhall are, as well the 20,000 other ancillary jobs . Jesus have you not heard this stuff before ? !
    No Diogenes the UKs additional customs and point of origin costs do not represent a golden opportunity and even if they did the Peugot Family and the French Government are unlikely to do the UK any favours. In such a supply system you will appreciate the cheaper pound is only marginally a good thing.
    For the country it is bad thing (obviously ) but if we feel losing international confidence by taking stupid decisions is the way to go, you are on my team Diogenes !!! What stupid thing shall we do next ?

    Chew on this my ill-informed chum. Vauxhall make cars exclusively for the UK market. It seems likely that the EEA will be better placed even to do this by virtue of the ease of handling the supply chain. Think on that for a moment , what it means for UK manufacturing !
    Still all worth to get rid of a few Polish people. Genius

    Oh do stop gaying on about punctuation.

  48. VP,


    ‘ “You then move on in terms of taxation – you put Richard Murphy and John Christensen at the head of HMRC to introduce Financial Transaction Tax, the wealth tax, the land value tax – all done in the first 100 days.” ‘

    Let’s hope they have taken advice on ‘border control’ from the Real world Murphyite state – every single flight out of the UK would be booked up for the next ten years…..”

    MacDonald talked about the first 100 days. In reality 100 days before a likely election of him and his cronies the Capital and people will be gone.

    Anyway, back to the general discussion. The wealthy remain here because we have a comparative advantage in being a functioning democracy with the rule of law. It might be more expensive than living in, say, Moscow, but it’s a lot more predictable.

    As for the rest of us, nobody pays in expecting to get the same amount spent on them that year, we’re gambling that future governments will honour the pledges made by their predecessors. I’ve paid in shed loads of money since leaving the Army, most of it earned overseas either from direct foreign investment or me travelling and working whilst paying UK taxes. I’m now just about to drawn down on those promises.

  49. Was anyone able to understand Newmania’s response to me? It just felt like more of the contingency plans bullshit that the FT has been running since July last year. But I could not summon the patience to try to read his badly worded and punctuated stream of verbal sewage. It’s like trying to debate with a toddler’s nappy.

  50. BobRocket: as others have said, the tax burden isn’t the only thing that people will consider before deciding to go – where would have them (e.g. not enough points for Oz/NZ), language, family ties, employment prospects out of UK. So you can’t apply a strict ‘ too much tax, I’m off’ to most potential leavers. Only a lucky few have little friction in making that choice.

  51. “Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired…”

    Newmania, though illiterate, is semi-right that companies are making no regrets plans in some cases. How wide ranging they’ll be remains to be seen – moving a few functions to Luxembourg is not actually a disaster.

    Where he really errs is in his belief that thus was all done “to get rid of a few Polish people”. For the most part I’m preaching to the choir here, but nobody has ever suggested repatriation of any sort – to maintain otherwise is merely to stamp oneself as a fool.

    Beyond that tawdry, silly straw man, this is not like Canada leaving NAFTA. By leaving the EU we restore sovereignty to Parliament, the institution that we fought wars to give power to, that the Chartists and the Suffragettes wanted to have representation in, and that conducted and won two world wars in their entirety.

    By leaving the EU we take power back from the self-important spintrians of Brussels and Strasbourg, who legislate over us without a democratic mandate. We didn’t vote for such a situation to develop, and never would have done; it has been forced upon us by degrees.

    If we do not do this now, we will never be able to do it, given the rate at which we have been signed up to EU initiatives (except of course the one that counts). If Newmania and his ignorant, pharasaic chums had had their way, we should have ultimately been railroaded into a Federal Europe which we have never wanted.

    But still, that would have pleased Goldman Sachs, so dipshit is probably ok with that.

  52. Are they really better policed in terms of police numbers? More likely that they need a lot less policing?

    In my experience of a few years living in a village with lots of City fat-cats, they get better policing because they hire private security instead of relying on the public sector police who exist primarily to protect criminals from their victims.

  53. People might not be emigrating because
    “costs of emigration + the benefits from the State > taxation costs.”

    Might also be because, surprisingly enough, most countries don’t actually just let you walk in and decide to stay.

  54. Funnily enough I have an dusty old degree in Literature Suet, what you are talking about is typing, so shut ya gob.
    It is not a few Companies and it is not just short terms , in fact the short term problems are the least of it.
    On the supposed conspiracy to abolish the UK meh… cock and Bull but even if it were true that is certainly not why people voted to leave the EU

  55. @Tractor Gent
    “BobRocket: as others have said, the tax burden isn’t the only thing that people will consider before deciding to go – where would have them (e.g. not enough points for Oz/NZ), language, family ties, employment prospects out of UK. So you can’t apply a strict ‘ too much tax, I’m off’ to most potential leavers. Only a lucky few have little friction in making that choice.”
    It’s not luck. Those are the prices those of us who’ve chosen to leave the UK have paid to do so. Personally, I’m already planning my next move. Abandoning the comfort blanket Europe provides for somewhere very different. Because I believe what I will gain outweighs what I will forgo.
    You, Andrew C, also have this choice. You’re free to leave. That you won’t pay the price that entails means the taxes you complain about must be the lower price you pay to remain. There;’s no such thing as a free lunch.

  56. meiac
    Crun. Point to any ‘leftism’. I’m just not a dribbling fool like you. Or that totalitarian cock, Ecks..

    Ooooh, I’d better check myself into the burns unit after that retort.

  57. Bobrocket,

    You fail to grasp the basic point: the state is an emanation from the people, not the reverse.

    I appreciate that that concept has been diluted in the last couple of decades and is hard for simpletons to understand.

    That said, healthy competition amongst states would also be a good thing, to keep taxes low for example. But as we have seen with the EU, politicians and bureaucrats do not like competition so all you are left with are more and more overbearing states, taking on more than what they are supposed to be for in the 1st place.

    The state has some basic functions such as enforcing laws, property rights and defence of the country. It really should stick to that seeing the costly fuckups it does for everything else (

    Like most morons, you cannot conceive of a world where the state doesn’t hold your hand. Then again, I was young at a time when you couldn’t travel to eastern Europe and vice versa so I have experience of what the state is capable of. You’re just ignorant.

  58. “That said, healthy competition amongst states would also be a good thing, to keep taxes low for example”

    What happens when all states have zero or very low tax rates?

  59. @ meiac,

    Right on cue, you come out with an “absurb absolute tell” for cognitive dissonance (H/T Scott Adams)

  60. Rather bored of this conversation, but I’m not alleging there’s any “conspiracy to abolish the UK”. What’s intended by the Eurocrats is stated quite openly, though there’s none so blind as those who will not see.

    There’s a strong argument that further integration is the only thing that can save the Euro. If they create a two speed Europe in the process, then (all things being equal) everyone would want to have less integrated membership. They’d therefore have to make that less attractive in some way than full membership.

    As soon as it became clear that we weren’t about to join the Euro, or become suddenly more European, our days in the EU became numbered. We’re gambling the future of this country on the failed bus conductor John Major’s doctrine that we can play at being European without actually engaging in Europe’s grands projets.

    I’m getting very tired of typing this, but the assertion that sovereignty was not a factor in the decision to leave is bogus, unsubstantiated drivel. The (carefully chosen) slogan of Vote Leave was “Take Back Control”. Various polls have suggested that people voted as they did to do just that. I think Remoaners dismiss this point because they don’t have a proper counter-argument, and know it.

  61. meiac

    What happens under a world government when all are taxed at a flat level of 100%, which is indeed the main desire of Richard Murphy? Would that to you be a ‘fair system’?

  62. Van_Patten

    As I said before with a similar assertion about Richard Murphy (does he have a personal blog apart from Tax Research UK? I really can’t be bothered reading posts there), it would be a very odd stance to suggest moving to very high flat taxes. Can you prove what you’ve written?

    monoi

    Are you suggesting that there wouldn’t be a ‘race to the bottom’? Because ‘the bottom’ would be the most competitive stance, wouldn’t it?

  63. Ha ha ha .. yeah we live in a country full of constitutional obsessives why did I not see it ? According U Gov polling leave voters are 8 times as likely to put immigration as their top priority

  64. meiac

    In North Korea (closest real world jurisdiction to Murphy’s ideal) taxation is near enough 100% – the state decides your allocation of everything and rigorously enforces this through a system of informers. You are right that it is an odd stance – but then his entire ideology is odd!!

    Most of his thought, such as it is, comes from TRUK unfortunately, although I have a good friend who is a mutual friend of the man himself

  65. @ meiac,

    I’m saying that you are so deep in cognitive dissonance that you literally make up your own reality which has nothing to do with what I said.

  66. monoi

    you said

    “healthy competition amongst states would also be a good thing, to keep taxes low for example.”

    I said

    “What happens when all states have zero or very low tax rates?”

    you said

    “…you are so deep in cognitive dissonance that you literally make up your own reality which has nothing to do with what I said.”

    When you had said

    “healthy competition amongst states would also be a good thing, to keep taxes low”

    You created the opening for a discussion by opining

    “healthy competition amongst states would also be a good thing, to keep taxes low”

    And I asked the blog a question.

    “What happens when all states have zero or very low tax rates?”

  67. Van_Patten

    I have a feeling that you’re still doing ‘fake news’. I would be fairly interested to read a blog by someone who states “…North Korea [as their] (closest real world jurisdiction to Murphy’s ideal).

    and as well

    “the state decides your allocation of everything and rigorously enforces this through a system of informers.”

    Presumably you mean enforcers rather than informers.

    Doesn’t Donald Trump have ‘informers’. isn’t that how he’s able to accuse others of stuff?

  68. “What happens when all states have zero or very low tax rates?”

    If this is a serious question, then the answer really depends on things like the fiscal deficit, inflation and unemployment. If there is massive unemployment and maybe active deflation then maybe zero or negative taxes would make sense.

    If the economy is at capacity – low unemployment, inflation just about comfortable – then low taxes is taking a risk but that depends on how much government expenditure is taking place. In the UK, saddled as we are with the holy NHS, government spending is just going to ratchet up for evermore so low taxes is a bit of a chimera. However, I would have thought that the tax take could be reduced or at least re-allocated around the tax system rather better than it is now. VAT ought to be reduced. IHT, landfill tax and stamp duty should just be abolished.

  69. Hello Diogenes

    Why shouldn’t it be a serious question?

    the answer really depends on things like the fiscal deficit, inflation and unemployment

    Hmmm, ok, so we’re juggling those things – suddenly the country next to us, despite what we may think on the matter, drops, say; corp taxes to zero, caps CGT and IT and any workable wealth tax at near zero, and keeps consumption taxes at equivalence.

    We’re trying to compete: businesses start frothing about relocating, HNWs act as they do and refuel their yachts elsewhere, inward investment can’t find a lucrative angle.

    You’ve put a textbook example for what could be an environment for the said low tax regime, but tax competition between nation states completely bends those mirrors.

    In the UK, saddled as we are with the holy NHS, government spending is just going to ratchet up for evermore so low taxes is a bit of a chimera.

    Hmmm, a chimera?

    When using tax competition as part of a toolbox of business incentives, there isn’t an argument for saying “but but but deflation! risks! unemployment! won’t someone think of the fiscals!” to excuse not joining in the race.

    Once those decisions are made, then it’s on a roll of the dice.

    Sure, the tax system in the UK, and probably everywhere except Somalia [natch], could be simpler and more genuinely redistributive (without scaring the horses), but believing that a race to see each competitor state reduced to neglecting the very purpose of the state itself is fairytales. It simply cannot work.

    Also, the proper libertarian view for IHT is for their to be no gain to the inheritors. Each individual is made or fails on their own merit. Hand outs by dead people is cheating.

  70. monoi,

    ‘You fail to grasp the basic point:’

    My basic point was ‘expressed as opposed to revealed preferences’, you read it that I was arguing in favour of Big State + some more drivel.

    Then you write ‘Like most morons’ and that confirms the tell.

  71. Also, the proper libertarian view for IHT is for their to be no gain to the inheritors. Each individual is made or fails on their own merit. Hand outs by dead people is cheating.

    How so?
    The libertarian view is that people can do with their property as they wish. If I choose to give all my stuff to my kids when I shuffle off this mortal coil, then neither the government or anyone else should be able to say otherwise.

  72. Meiac, so it was not a serious question. You seem to be averse to me doling out my wealth as I see fit

  73. Also, why would a state race to the bottom if its fiscal position suffered. You probably believe that global warming is a problem and that building windmills is the solution

  74. @ Bobrocket,

    Your whole basis is moronic, which is why you are a moron. Revealed preferences are valid when there is a choice, which doesn’t exist in this instance.

    The basic point, that you missed, is that the state IS an emanation of the people.

    @meiac,

    You don’t get it, even whilst writing it, and then you come out with the usual “race to the bottom” drivel.

  75. monoi,

    I get it, you were born in East Germany in 1953 and were forcibly patriated to the DPRK in 1988 as only people with that level of indoctrination can really believe that the state is an emanation of the people.

    Whilst you might live in a state with machine gun towers and minefields making your exit to another jurisdiction hazardous to your health, the UK employs none of those.

    If you want to leave the UK you can, nobody is stopping you.

    ‘High-income earners are more likely to also have the opportunity to avoid taxes: their cost of moving is often smaller than for other agents, and the need for skilled labour has pushed many countries to compete through tax discounts to attract them.’

    Taxing high-income earners: tax avoidance and mobility by Alejandro Esteller, Amedeo Piolatto and Matthew D. Rablen
    published by the IFS

    http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/wps/wp201607.pdf

  76. Pingback: What are the police for? | White Sun of the Desert

  77. @Andrew C

    “Someone on £1m a year pays £459,400 in tax/NI.”

    ?? Seriously.
    I make it at least £480k in PAYE alone. Then there’s ~£130k in NI on top of that, most of which appears as a cost to the employer, but is ultimately incident on the individual.

    Also at that pay rate, the LHTD/WGCE is also wrong about the “subsidy” in pension contribs – above £150k income, you can only reclaim for £10k p.a. pension contribs, so only reclaim £5k super rate tax.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.