|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 1, 2024 3:07:40 GMT
I do like the lady in green! She forces the ruling class to show their real intention.
"Why should there be a tax cut? Why aren't people willing to invest in our own country's public services for the benefit of themselves and others?"
Tim Stanley: "because it's my money"
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 1, 2024 4:01:14 GMT
What did he say next?
|
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 1, 2024 8:16:47 GMT
It IS his money. It is money that HE has earned all by himself, off the sweat of HIS own brow that he is required to hand over to the state. If he ever decided to emigrate or stop working, the government wouldn't be entitled to jack shit. Perhaps if the government realised this, that it is HIS money rather than THEIRS, they wouldn't be wasting prodigiously huge quantities of it like there's no tomorrow. I wonder how much the lady in green contributes in tax? Is she in the milch cow earnings bracket being asked to hand over an ever-increasing percentage of her income each year, or is she one of those people with an overinflated sense of entitlement, possibly working in the public sector, who thinks that other people should be paying in more money for her own benefit? It's a shame we are unlikely to ever know.
(Edit) Incidentally, the intention of the 'ruling class' (of which Tim Stanley is not a member) isn't to cut taxes, but to increase the size of the state and take the private sector for everything it can in order to fund all its various grandiose spending schemes and vanity projects. And a depressingly large proportion of the UK population seem to want the same thing, at least if this particular Question Time audience are anything like a representative sample.
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 1, 2024 10:43:21 GMT
It IS his money. It is money that HE has earned all by himself, off the sweat of HIS own brow that he is required to hand over to the state. ... But isn't it also true that he had been able to earn that money bc the state delivers a stable framework for business? A legal framework to be able to make contracts with others. A police force to guarantee that no-one is taking away his hard earned fruits? A financial framework that delivers a currency as a measurement for his bank account and his ability to be paid in a currency that is accepted at least nationwide and his ability to pay others in case he is a job creator? A military framework protecting him from external enemies? An infrastructure of roads for him to be able to use his car for getting to his place of work? An infrastructure for him being able to have energy, heating, water at home? A system of regulations for him being able to consume food that isn't toxic? ... etc. Or in other words: would he have been as successful if he had been born 30,000 years ago? I didn't look up what Tim Stanley does for living but the metaphor 'off the sweat of HIS own brow' surely is also fitting for fruit pickers who now come from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan instead of Poland and Romania, are less experienced bc of fruits they are less used to and more difficult to talk to as they are usually unexperienced in European languages. |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 1, 2024 11:19:52 GMT
But isn't it also true that he had been able to earn that money bc the state delivers a stable framework for business? A legal framework to be able to make contracts with others. A police force to guarantee that no-one is taking away his hard earned fruits? A financial framework that delivers a currency as a measurement for his bank account and his ability to be paid in a currency that is accepted at least nationwide and his ability to pay others in case he is a job creator? A military framework protecting him from external enemies? An infrastructure of roads for him to be able to use his car for getting to his place of work? An infrastructure for him being able to have energy, heating, water at home? A system of regulations for him being able to consume food that isn't toxic? ... etc. It is still HIS money - money that he has earned, that wouldn't have existed and increased the wealth of the society he lives in if he hadn't got off his arse and gone out to earn it. He has complete say on his willingness to do this, not the government.
How much of HIS money should go to contribute towards the 'stable framework' you mention is an entirely separate issue, as indeed who is responsible for maintaining this stable framework and accountable (or not) for its failings, but this is a two-way bargain. The stable framework providers (aka the 'ruling class' if you like) are no more justified in demanding an ever-increasing share of his money - i.e. the money he earns - and treating it like it's their own money they earned themselves than he is to withhold his fair share of it, and as we have seen elsewhere, the economy generally gets fucked when they do then to excess. Especially when they signally fail to keep up their end of the bargain.
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 1, 2024 11:38:03 GMT
It is still HIS money - money that he has earned, that wouldn't have existed and increased the wealth of the society he lives in if he hadn't got off his arse and gone out to earn it. He has complete say on his willingness to do this, not the government. I just have to smile as I remember the end of the movie 'La Grande Bellezza' when the mafia boss was arrested by the police. He said to Jeb Gambardella how absurd it is that he is the one to be arrested as it was his class that was the hardest working sector in the whole of Rome. (don't remember the exact words) But that was Italy, not the UK... |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 1, 2024 11:46:41 GMT
... (Edit) Incidentally, the intention of the 'ruling class' (of which Tim Stanley is not a member) isn't to cut taxes, but to increase the size of the state and take the private sector for everything it can in order to fund all its various grandiose spending schemes and vanity projects. And a depressingly large proportion of the UK population seem to want the same thing, at least if this particular Question Time audience are anything like a representative sample.
well, it seems a logical consequence to me given the high inequality of wealth distribution in the UK. The question whether Question Time audience are anything like a representative sample is an absolutely interesting one. Peter Oborne and Bylinetimes did write about it. |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 1, 2024 12:52:07 GMT
well, it seems a logical consequence to me given the high inequality of wealth distribution in the UK. And this is the problem with you, nobbi. We've had this conversation before: these little factoids you come out with, courtesy no doubt of the swivel-eyed remainiac bloggers you love so much, simply aren't borne out by any evidence. Pretty much all measures of inequality have deceased (or remained static) during the past 13 years of Tory government, welfare spending in real terms has increased hugely, the tax burden (as a percentage of GDP) is the highest it's been since the 1950s. I've tried to find helpful links to explain these which you usually don't bother to look at and then, back you come again spouting the same silly factoids, having completely ignored everything I said. Every time I try to engage with you, I always end up wondering why I bothered.
(Edit) Also, if you want to focus on wealth inequality in the UK - still toward the higher end of the G20 I admit - and come up with some silly ill-considered theory that this leads to the 'logical consequence' of people wanting the state to grow into a huge and unaccountable monolith and bleed the private sector dry, perhaps you ought to apply some obective analysis to your theory and look back at the 1980s - the decade during which the UK changed from an economic basket case into an almost going concern, and also the decade which saw a huge and dramatic increase in wealth inequality. Which also happened to be the decade in which popularity of the Tory government - as evidenced by the two general elections during that decade - was almost off the scale, and there was no evidence whatsoever that the UK populace wanted the size of the state to grow. But of course, I don't expect that will happen, since arguments like this just go into one of your ears and then straight out of the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by mowlick on Mar 1, 2024 14:20:46 GMT
.Stanley appears to have hit the nail on the head, so there is not a lot more that need be said. |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 1, 2024 15:13:53 GMT
But that was Italy, not the UK... And he was the boss of a criminal organisation working hard to extort money and inflict violence, not some hard-working guy just trying to make a living and not be a burden on the economy. But I'm sure there's a point you are trying to make that seems to be hidden inside a layer of innuendo... |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 1, 2024 15:24:18 GMT
well, it seems a logical consequence to me given the high inequality of wealth distribution in the UK. And this is the problem with you, nobbi. We've had this conversation before: these little factoids you come out with, courtesy no doubt of the swivel-eyed remainiac bloggers you love so much, simply aren't borne out by any evidence. Pretty much all measures of inequality have deceased (or remained static) during the past 13 years of Tory government, welfare spending in real terms has increased hugely, the tax burden (as a percentage of GDP) is the highest it's been since the 1950s. I've tried to find helpful links to explain these which you usually don't bother to look at and then, back you come again spouting the same silly factoids, having completely ignored everything I said. ... The question is often about which sources to trust. If it is true that "Pretty much all measures of inequality have deceased (or remained static) during the past 13 years of Tory government" Then why "welfare spending in real terms has increased hugely," ? Without having a look at the sources I guess it depends on whether income by welfare is counted in in the measures of inequality beforehand. But back to Tim Stanley (and I hope I picked the right one) - After having had a short scroll through his X account I did in fact find this from 3 months ago about a topic we had a discussion about lately So Tim Stanley's inner alarm bell of conscience is still alive and ticking. |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 1, 2024 15:34:03 GMT
But that was Italy, not the UK... And he was the boss of a criminal organisation working hard to extort money and inflict violence, not some hard-working guy just trying to make a living and not be a burden on the economy. But I'm sure there's a point you are trying to make that seems to be hidden inside a layer of innuendo... You managed to put my 'secret intention' into the right words. :) Yes, I would not shy away calling politicians preferring to give away tax payer money to shady new companies on the market that their relatives have founded on the fly for PPE via VIP lane as criminal. And some of the narratives born in spin doctor circles are meant to be violence-indicting - at least so it seems to me. By the way: that mafia boss just called me and he would like to reframe his business as a 'security service protecting from violence' |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 1, 2024 15:45:23 GMT
Yes, I would not shy away calling politicians preferring to give away tax payer money to shady new companies on the market that their relatives have founded on the fly for PPE via VIP lane as criminal. And this has nothing to do with hard-working people not wanting to be a drain on the state facing the biggest tax burden since the 1950s either. We've talked about the PPE issue many times in the past, and I have given you my honest and forthright views on this which I am not going to repeat. Why are you now trying to change the subject to talk about it all over again? You are like a stuck record, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 1, 2024 15:51:42 GMT
The question is often about which sources to trust. No the question is whether you are interested in any sources that don't agree with your extremely prejudiced 'weltmodell' (to coin one of your phrases). I take the time and effort to find charts produced by organisations such as statistika and the ONS (which quite often give me pause for thought) and you routinely ignore them. It is clear that you are only interested in sources that confirm your bias.
Even that link I provided about spousal visa applications which turned out to contradict one of my own points (which I later realised and owned up to with the 'mea culpa' edit) you didn't bother to check for yourself, otherwise you'd have spotted it yourself. At least I would look for the contradictory statements in your swivel-eyed remaniac blogger posts and point them out to you. Although I bother to do that less and less these days since you routinely ignore them anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 1, 2024 15:54:56 GMT
... You are like a stuck record, aren't you? Once you are my age You will be thankful for being a vinyl record still being played, even with the scratches that sometimes let you stuck. |
|
