The Political Thread

[Michael Knight]

The EU seeks to impose Tax harmonisation in 2 years time across the EU. This is what the whole 'apple' saga is about.
Please look at the wider picture and the EU's end game of a single Political state.
This is what this is really about.
Im not 'left' wing or 'right' wing. Meaningless labels to divide people and keep them squabbling until the end of time, whilst the bastards that ruin our planet getaway with it.
I respect peoples right to have a different opinion to my own and dont resort to calling them names etc like some 'adults' I happen to work with.
Whether your Pro EU or Anti EU thats perfectly fine,  all i ask is why arseholes like Blair and Cameron still say its merely an economic Union when they are actively seeking an EU army and police force?
Why the need for stealth and deception by arseholes like Junker etc? 

[IndigoPrime]

I'm just going to go and suggest something utterly bonkers and unthinkable, but maybe Labour wouldn't be doomed for a generation if the MPs didn't keep throwing wobblies about the leadership election of 2015 and just got on with things.

Honestly, I think they've got a point. I'm glad Corbyn shifted the debate about policy, but he bumbles along, does stupid stuff without telling even his shadow cabinet (like the appallingly timed Chakrabarti peerage), has seemingly one idea for PMQs, and is proving himself tactically inept when it comes to the EU. I say this is as a one-time Corbyn fan. He at the very least needs much better advisers and to stop thinking the support of the converted means a damn in the wider scheme of things.

they just want to be opposition MPs for as long as they can

There was a sense of that when Labour lost in 2010 and some said "well, it's time for someone else to have a go". That kind of thinking should be anathema to any MP. Handing over to the Tories because the public are, what, bored? Fuck off. You should want to be there, in power, for good. That you aren't means you've screwed up along the way.

Please look at the wider picture and the EU's end game of a single Political state.

Further integration, perhaps, but there's nothing to suggest the end game is a United States beyond paranoia. The same goes for security and defence. And the UK would have just dug its heels in anyway and been obstructionist until the idea went away.

[Michael Knight]

Indigo Prime mate we can agree to disagree but i don't think its just Paranoia that they want member states to mere provinces. The Founders of the original project and its Cheerleaders now like Junker etc are actually pretty transparent about it if you do some research. This aint coming from the daily mail either! 

[Professor Bear]

the appallingly timed Chakrabarti peerage

There was never going to be a good time for the Chakrabarti peerage as it was always going to be seized upon to revive and further the antisemitism narrative regardless of when she was nominated.  She was marked from the moment she failed to deliver what the media wanted, and it says a great deal about the UK that it so readily agreed to the media's version of events about a woman of colour.

[The Legendary Shark]

I'm not ill -- why should I pay for the NHS? I don't have kids -- why should I pay for education?

We all pay, because we all benefit, even if indirectly. That's how societies work.

I'm not a murderer -- why should I pay for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? I'm not a royalist -- why should I pay for throne polish?

The idea that people simply will not voluntarily pay for the services they use, or do not use, is demonstrably ludicrous. If people only paid for what they used, how do you explain charitable contributions? Many animal rescue centres, air ambulances and hospices, amongst countless others, rely on charitable donations. In Jimworld, people who do not intend to abandon their dogs do not contribute to the RSPCA, people who do not wish to ever use the air ambulance will not donate to it and people who do not wish to die will not purchase goods from hospice charity shops. In the real world, people pay into these things through choice, not because government forces them to. People leave tips for restaurant staff, barpeople and taxi drivers because they want to, not because they must. Government doesn't force people to pay for gym memberships, healthy food, toothpaste or improving literature, yet people happily pay for these things voluntarily because they know it makes sense to do so.

The core of my argument, which you have again conveniently ignored, is that our taxation system is coercive and that coercion is wrong. Instead, you have basically said that you do not like this argument because, if true, it must lead to outcomes you also do not like and so my argument must be wrong. Which is piffle.

We don't all pay because we all benefit (which sounds great in theory, I admit) but because we are forced to. We are forced to pay into services which the government then drives into the ground through several means. I would rather pay £X per period directly into the NHS voluntarily than be forced to pay £Y per period to a middle-man (government) who then decides how much of my money it's going to give to the NHS and how much to bankers, assorted cronies, the military industrial complex and any number of other things I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with.

The OED definition of society is, "The community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations." There is no mention of coercion. Societies do not require coercion to work - well, tyrannical ones do. I do not for one moment think that you are in favour of tyranny, Jim, but by supporting a coercive government that's just what you are advocating, whether knowingly or not.

[NapalmKev]

I'm not ill -- why should I pay for the NHS? I don't have kids -- why should I pay for education?

We all pay, because we all benefit, even if indirectly. That's how societies work.

I'm not a murderer -- why should I pay for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? I'm not a royalist -- why should I pay for throne polish?

The idea that people simply will not voluntarily pay for the services they use, or do not use, is demonstrably ludicrous. If people only paid for what they used, how do you explain charitable contributions?

The idea that everyone would voluntarily pay tax, despite not using certain facilities, is a complete fallacy! Yes, some people would contribute, a lot wouldn't.

I don't drive but if some of my Taxes aren't used for roads how can I expect emergency services to get to me? I'm hardly ever ill but it's nice to know that if I am there is a service that has been put in place by what you class as "Forced taxation"!

I'd love to see an altruistic world where everyone helped each other but it isn't going to happen! And it's not just the rich causing the problems. I know plenty of dossers who do nothing with their lives and still moan about where their non-existent tax payments have been spent!

Cheers

[TordelBack]

I'm not sure it's true to say it'll never happen, as human societies continue to improve, but I certainly don't want to live through the transition. I'd look terrible in leather chaps.

[Modern Panther]

The idea that people simply will not voluntarily pay for the services they use, or do not use, is demonstrably ludicrous. If people only paid for what they used, how do you explain charitable contributions?

The fact that corporations like Apple go out of their way to pay as little tax as they can get away with shows exactly how a voluntary system would go.  The fact that they're the most profitable company in the world shows that the market does not regulate for moral behaviour.

[Jim_Campbell]

The idea that people simply will not voluntarily pay for the services they use, or do not use, is demonstrably ludicrous.

No, it isn't. You cite charitable giving, but this simply isn't the same thing. I'm done here, because, yet again, you're arguing from a position so tangential to actual reality as to make no sense and yet you argue as if it is self-evident, unarguable truth.

I should know better, really.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

The argument that tax is coercive is irrelevant.

Like it or lump it, we live in a society structured around social contract. While this is most certainly not without its fundamental problems, there is a factual rather than theoretical kernal of truth in the arrangement: certain centralised functions in society are either necessary if unpopular (ie some form of policing, with the attendant restrictions on liberty) or easier to administer centrally (ie schooling). These functions of society are for the benefit of all, even if they impinge on some individuals (ie an action is categorised as a crime, whether you like it or not, or you pay for a child to be educated, whether you have children or not).

To illustrate this, look only at those countries where the centralised delivery of core services has failed: countries emerging from conflict. Note the "the key benefit of central planning: resource allocation can be coordinated rather than being simply the aggregation of individual donor decisions."

Tax, therefore, is not coercive but it is a necessary evil to pay for these functions. They are centrally administered and require centralised payment.

Arguing against tax is arguing in favour of greed and naked self interest, dressed up as libertarian hand-wringing with a veneer of social conscience and outrage. A description that could be applied to a lot of the points made on this thread.

[Prodigal2]

Indigo Prime mate we can agree to disagree but i don't think its just Paranoia that they want member states to mere provinces. The Founders of the original project and its Cheerleaders now like Junker etc are actually pretty transparent about it if you do some research. This aint coming from the daily mail either! 

I studied European Community institutions and law way back in the day and maintained an interest. I am pro-EU but I don't think you have to look too far to see federalist aspirations in some quarters principally and historically the European commission.

That doesn't necessarily mean it was going to happen but the thinking wasn't completely alien in all quarters.

[Satanist]

Instead of moaning about my tax paying for that scrounger up the street I like to imagine I'm actually paying back for my healthcare, education, etc I received as a child. Seems fair.

Also there is not a fucking chance that voluntary tax could ever work. Have you met people? They're terrible.

[Theblazeuk]

I can think of one solid concrete example of a person who makes their living via driving around the country but is extremely unlikely to be able to afford any kind of meaningful voluntary contribution towards paying for the roads and assorted infrastructure that makes this possible, even if they didn't pay any tax whatsoever.

I'm just going to go and suggest something utterly bonkers and unthinkable, but maybe Labour wouldn't be doomed for a generation if the MPs didn't keep throwing wobblies about the leadership election of 2015 and just got on with things.

Honestly, I think they've got a point. I'm glad Corbyn shifted the debate about policy, but he bumbles along, does stupid stuff without telling even his shadow cabinet (like the appallingly timed Chakrabarti peerage), has seemingly one idea for PMQs, and is proving himself tactically inept when it comes to the EU. I say this is as a one-time Corbyn fan. He at the very least needs much better advisers and to stop thinking the support of the converted means a damn in the wider scheme of things.

I think he does stupid stuff from time to time. I think they all do. I think the stupidest thing any Labour MP could do though - if they were really concerned about the party being electable - is spend all their energy for over a year publicly attacking their leader (in the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph...), crying wolf everytime someone slightly admonishes them for encouraging infighting, and completely ignore their role as opposition so they can slander all of the new people attracted to the Labour party (and lump everyone who disagrees with them as entryists, trots, greens in disguise whatever). Who are they appealing to? What new voters have been gained by this soap opera of their own making? Compare with the number of jaded voters who have been firmly alienated after thinking for a brief moment that they might actually join a political party and have more of a say than pissing in the wind every 5 years.

I really don't think Jeremy Corbyn is the savviest of politicians, and I could never be part of Momentum. I think all this parties within parties is the height of stupidity (though would love Progress to be looked at so closely for balance). However his opposition have really lost any respect I had for them over the last few months - because they do far more damage to everything whilst claiming they are doing both the right thing and the clever thing. The sheer hypocrisy is just so depressing. All these Labour councillors, MPs, etc who slag off the new membership completely undermine the already-sketchy foundation of representation by a political party. And so much poison on both sides - but again, hypocrisy there as some of the nastiest trolling nonsense against 'momentum' goes without comment - it's depressing to think these are all people who actually agree with each other.

It's all so bloody stupid and it's being conducted in a particularly repellent, myopic fashion.

[IndigoPrime]

I agree, although with a few exceptions I've lost all respect for both sides of Labour. Corbyn's handling of the post-referendum situation has been dire – the sort of thing akin to a blundering backbencher rather than the leader of the opposition. Every other party leader to the left of the Tories, be it Sturgeon, Farron, Wood, or Lucas (yes, I know she's not Green leader again yet, but she's effectively the one Green that matters), have grappled with this and at least have a basic understanding of the facts. Some of the quotes from Corbyn have been eye-openers (including a total misunderstanding of how Article 50 works).

I suppose this is the problem with a protest politician winning and the PLP not realising how far it had strayed from its ideals in the public eye (even if, fundamentally, Corbyn's policies aren't significantly different from Miliband's direction).

[Professor Bear]

The idea that Corbyn is any more or less gaffe-prone than Gonk in human form Ed Milliband is an odd one, but he's currently taking his media advice from someone who works at the Guardian.  From thence, things have proceeded as one might expect.