tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post3633215183904846962..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: Let's Abolish Income Tax (And Other Pie in the Sky Policies)Iain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-5556214024248125252008-03-15T00:20:00.000+00:002008-03-15T00:20:00.000+00:00The fundamental principle is that I would like the...The fundamental principle is that I would like the freedom to decide how to spend my own money. I don’t see what qualifies the government to decide that they know best how to spend my money. This press release by the Libertarian Party is all about promoting individual freedom. The people who say moves like this, towards such a goal, are ‘pie in the sky’, these are the same people who would gradually relinquish our freedoms to autocracy. <BR/><BR/>This guy is on such a wavelength of freedom as the UK Libertarian Party, he’s American but his sentiments on freedom have significance for any individual interested in freedom. Presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root: http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/videos.phpRobert Enderbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375648956054094890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-78038031341630340062008-03-06T20:41:00.000+00:002008-03-06T20:41:00.000+00:00So, housing on the Peabody model.Back to the ninet...So, housing on the Peabody model.<BR/><BR/>Back to the nineteenth century anyone? Thatcher really wanted the beneficiaries of her big bang growth to find it in their consciences to step in to fulfil socail need, but unfortunately, nowhere near enough of them chose to do so.<BR/><BR/>I spent most of the eighties and nineties walking through cardboard city at Waterloo twice a day. Its ionhabitants were found proper accommodation using taxpayer resources after 1997.<BR/><BR/> I don't believe there's enough Peabody's out there. (There is an estate 100 yards from where cardboard city sat - he must have spun in his grave)<BR/><BR/>State funding education to 18 without the need for income tax? Ambitious. Good Luck. <BR/><BR/>It's been of interest Roger, but I'm afraid I can't be bothered to scroll down any longer. <BR/><BR/>No doubt your name will appear in future threads - I hope our swords may cross again on related issues!<BR/><BR/>Respect and regards<BR/><BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-29942748289565782512008-03-06T17:54:00.000+00:002008-03-06T17:54:00.000+00:00Anon,"Roger - I don't agree that relatively poor i...Anon,<BR/><BR/><I>"Roger - I don't agree that relatively poor individuals should be responsible for buying their own education."</I><BR/><BR/>That is not what I said. Education is not the same as training. I support state funded edu to A level or equivalent regardless of the age at which that education is drawn down (e.g. someone could leave school at 14 and then take A levels 20 years later, frex).<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"You neverthless don't, as I suspected...blah blah"</I><BR/><BR/>You are in error. Again.<BR/><BR/><I>"A Quango is a quasi-autonomous, non-governmental organisation."</I><BR/><BR/>Congratulations.<BR/><BR/><I>sounds pretty much the same as creating quangos to me - unless of course they mean not to subsidise such organisations, in which case I take my hat off to them! Maybe they'll be supported by well-wishers?</I><BR/><BR/>We do not intend to provide block grants and they should be totally autonomous so they will not be QANGOs. They can, however, be subsidised by people like your good self who want to see low cost housing funded. Or are you just happy to see things funded by other peoples' money and not your own?<BR/><BR/>An example: Peabody was founded as a charity.Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153744692290896812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-56459165692840844602008-03-06T14:40:00.000+00:002008-03-06T14:40:00.000+00:00Roger - I don't agree that relatively poor individ...Roger - I don't agree that relatively poor individuals should be responsible for buying their own education. <BR/><BR/>You neverthless don't, as I suspected, support your assertion that trickle-down (flood-away?) redwoodian economics leads to better learning opportunities at the bottom.<BR/><BR/>A Quango is a quasi-autonomous, non-governmental organisation. <BR/><BR/>"Migration to a plurality of non-State organisations providing low-cost housing." (under "welfare")<BR/><BR/>sounds pretty much the same as creating quangos to me - unless of course they mean not to subsidise such organisations, in which case I take my hat off to them! Maybe they'll be supported by well-wishers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-45638887422711048402008-03-06T11:46:00.000+00:002008-03-06T11:46:00.000+00:00Anon 9:29:"How precisely does this help extend edu...Anon 9:29:<BR/><BR/>"How precisely does this help extend education opportuntities to the (relatively) poor?"<BR/><BR/>What do you mean by "extend"? If there is more business and more jobs then competition for labour increases, more opportunities arise. There is more liquidity in the job market. People are responsible for securing training themselves, btw. The State is incompetent at organising such things. Best left to the individual.<BR/><BR/>"On housing,the extraordinary thing about the Libertarian Party's policy is that they intend to adopt a "plurality" of quangos to deal with socail housing!!!!!"<BR/><BR/>You are in error. Where does it say the housing will be by QANGOs? A plurality of not for profit non-state direct funded organisations is a world apart from QANGOs or can you not see the immense difference?Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153744692290896812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-61120053930952165502008-03-05T21:29:00.000+00:002008-03-05T21:29:00.000+00:00increasing opportunities to earn/learn at the lowe...increasing opportunities to earn/learn at the lower reaches of the wealth scale.<BR/><BR/>"You increase opportunities by making it easier to create business. Lower regulation"<BR/><BR/>How precisely does this help extend education opportuntities to the (relatively) poor?<BR/><BR/>Your notion that Osborne doesn't come into it reveals you as an outlier, but, hey, I think you have a place on this site!<BR/><BR/>On housing,the extraordinary thing about the Libertarian Party's policy is that they intend to adopt a "plurality" of quangos to deal with socail housing!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-10650969157448451902008-03-05T14:04:00.000+00:002008-03-05T14:04:00.000+00:00Neil Craig - So that's a retreat from "let's aboli...Neil Craig - So that's a retreat from "let's abolish income tax"? <BR/><BR/>The only people campaigning for the wholesale privatisation of public/civil services are people who don't want the Conservatives back in power ever.<BR/><BR/>Of course there's a large amount of waste - always has been, always will be. No one has the stomach for the sort of overhaul it would take for us to be rid of the civil service and its beloved quasi-autonomous bodies. <BR/><BR/>Your position is respectable, but i repeat knuckle-headed (ie rigid in its wilful ignorance of public opinion). <BR/><BR/>As a Labour voter, I hope Cameron lurches to the right, but i won't be holding my breath.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-61391405862056754912008-03-05T12:13:00.000+00:002008-03-05T12:13:00.000+00:00Anon"Neil, you are suggesting that no receiver of ...Anon<BR/>"Neil, you are suggesting that no receiver of Govt money is worth paying? At all?"<BR/><BR/>Well actually no I din't say that but since you insist. I will say that some of them do. Moreoever I will repeat that many quangos have a negative economic benefit - virtually all those preserving Victorian buildings do, for example. Perhaps, as a society we actually want to preserve some Victorian buildings but the public should know what the costs, direct & foregone, are in each case & should know how much of their money is being spent to persuade them to spend ever more on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-2345446364625652672008-03-05T09:12:00.000+00:002008-03-05T09:12:00.000+00:00"I too believe in a small state."I hate to say thi..."I too believe in a small state."<BR/><BR/>I hate to say this Iain, but unfortunately you've demonstrated that that's only when it's consistent with the Tories grabbing power. If the way to power is to tax & spend like Labour, then you'll happily support a Tory Party advocating that. Which frankly means who gives a stuff what you 'believe' as it'll always come second to naked political opportunism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-49159508488111861072008-03-04T23:21:00.000+00:002008-03-04T23:21:00.000+00:00Don't be so fatuous and don't put words in my mout...Don't be so fatuous and don't put words in my mouth. I too believe in a small state. What I don't believe in is making false promises which are not achieveable. Abolishing income tax is not achieveable much as I too might like it to be. Any political party which proposes such a thing deserves the derision it will receive. Flat taxes, yes. Lower taxes yes.Iain Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-25054048292927447212008-03-04T23:05:00.000+00:002008-03-04T23:05:00.000+00:00Anon 2:40Roger, spending taxes naturally rise when...Anon 2:40<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Roger, spending taxes naturally rise when prices rise - by a hefty (Tory) 17.5% at the moment.</I><BR/><BR/>As a percentage of the goods they will remain the same. The intention is to keep Sales Tax at 17.5%.<BR/><BR/>If you are talking about receipts, this is when people buy more non essential goods because they have more of their own money to spend - and what is wrong with that even? How does it make essentials more expensive for the poor than compensated by the removal of tax for them too. To quote Churchill: "Taxing your way to prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle". By your logic, the higher income tax the more money the poor have for goods that are cheap because you have taxed demand out of the economy. And you talk of people being knuckle-headed.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>The "poor" - a relative term in to-day's Britain - would simply stop buying stuff as it becomes too expensive.</I><BR/><BR/>See above.<BR/><BR/><I>Income tax is not a socialist idea, it's a commonly held one, but feel free to try to persuade Osborne to promise to abolish it - I'd be the first to breathe a sigh of relief.</I><BR/><BR/>Why should I bother with Osborne? Who cares.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I don't understand your description of my reference to an intelligent debate (go on, have a read) back in the Autumn as "exactly the socialist position"</I><BR/><BR/>For the reason I gave - the preference for the poor to get poorer as long as the rich did not get richer. <BR/><BR/><I>The modern Labour party position is that we should have a system where poverty is reduced by increasing opportunities to earn/learn at the lower reaches of the wealth scale.</I><BR/><BR/>You increase opportunities by making it easier to create business. Lower regulation, lower taxes. Exactly the opposite of the Labour position.<BR/><BR/><I>Not much difference from the modernising wing of the Conservative party,</I><BR/><BR/>No surprise<BR/><BR/><I> but miles away from the knuckle-headed debaters on this thread.</I><BR/><BR/>In your opinion.Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153744692290896812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-57211868312279783592008-03-04T22:49:00.000+00:002008-03-04T22:49:00.000+00:00I love the smell of being patronised in the mornin...I love the smell of being patronised in the morning Iain, why is reducing the State to the bare essentials of defence so upsetting to todays Tories, why should we create a nation with three classes, the political classes out of touch, feather nested,not so civil servants and local authority/quango employeesthat now take 20% of the tax take to enable to retire early on our money on pensions the other final class, us the drones, cannot afford.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-52476884758140896382008-03-04T21:03:00.000+00:002008-03-04T21:03:00.000+00:00its got my vote. what a cracking idea.its got my vote. <BR/>what a cracking idea.John Trenchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18212068575561254839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-70015073361898188732008-03-04T16:59:00.000+00:002008-03-04T16:59:00.000+00:00Neil, you are suggesting that no receiver of Govt ...Neil, you are suggesting that no receiver of Govt money is worth paying? At all? <BR/><BR/>£175 bn goes THROUGH, not TO quangos. What do you think that money is spent on? Paper-clips? One-legged Lithuanian dance troupes? It's WAGES Neil. Of nurses and doctors.<BR/><BR/>To stop paying 7m public sector beneficiaries would have the effect you're after.<BR/><BR/>This is not the real world, it's extreme fantasist blog-land.<BR/><BR/>ps "word verification" is NHSRAG!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-45158636761240289942008-03-04T16:49:00.000+00:002008-03-04T16:49:00.000+00:00To cut £170bn spending is to cut the concomitant n...<I>To cut £170bn spending is to cut the concomitant number of jobs, leaving upwards of 7 million people in receipt of redundancy packages, and then benefits.</I><BR/><BR/>You miss the point that these people cost the country money as they are public funded jobs.<BR/><BR/>If you are seriously saying that the public services employ 7 million people incapable of getting employment in the private sector, why are we funding them?<BR/><BR/>I am sure many of them would easily get private sector jobs and contribute to the economy rather than be a cost to it.<BR/><BR/>Someone is a worthless job that costs the taxpayer money has no right to that job simply because the alternative is unemployment.<BR/><BR/>Give me my money back to be frank.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-16485843489907873862008-03-04T16:17:00.000+00:002008-03-04T16:17:00.000+00:00Thats the point about cutting quangos rather than ...Thats the point about cutting quangos rather than benefits. The money comes off the relatively well off. The other point to make is that it is actually easier to promise to cut massively than slightly since you get nearly as much criticism from either but a massive cut is more balanced than just going for the Arts Council or Lesbian Co-operatives individually.<BR/><BR/>I must admit the idea of 7 million literate & fairly creative people on the market rather than having a net negative economic effect seems not unattractive but I think you would have to go beyond quangos to get close to that number.neil craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157898238945726349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-66631798590679105452008-03-04T15:13:00.000+00:002008-03-04T15:13:00.000+00:00sorry I posted twice.Reducing wages, pensions etc ...sorry I posted twice.<BR/><BR/>Reducing wages, pensions etc to 2001 levels is not a popular policy, and never will be.<BR/><BR/>To cut £170bn spending is to cut the concomitant number of jobs, leaving upwards of 7 million people in receipt of redundancy packages, and then benefits. It's time to put this to sleep!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-66444291522142498492008-03-04T14:40:00.000+00:002008-03-04T14:40:00.000+00:00Roger, spending taxes naturally rise when prices r...Roger, spending taxes naturally rise when prices rise - by a hefty (Tory) 17.5% at the moment.<BR/><BR/>The "poor" - a relative term in to-day's Britain - would simply stop buying stuff as it becomes too expensive.<BR/><BR/>Income tax is not a socialist idea, it's a commonly held one, but feel free to try to persuade Osborne to promise to abolish it - I'd be the first to breathe a sigh of relief.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand your description of my reference to an intelligent debate (go on, have a read) back in the Autumn as "exactly the socialist position"<BR/><BR/>The modern Labour party position is that we should have a system where poverty is reduced by increasing opportunities to earn/learn at the lower reaches of the wealth scale. <BR/><BR/>Not much difference from the modernising wing of the Conservative party, but miles away from the knuckle-headed debaters on this thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-41722977530574677092008-03-04T14:39:00.000+00:002008-03-04T14:39:00.000+00:00Roger, spending taxes naturally rise when prices r...Roger, spending taxes naturally rise when prices rise - by a hefty (Tory) 17.5% at the moment.<BR/><BR/>The "poor" - a relative term in to-day's Britain - would simply stop buying stuff as it becomes too expensive.<BR/><BR/>Income tax is not a socialist idea, it's a commonly held one, but feel free to try to persuade Osborne to promise to abolish it - I'd be the first to breathe a sigh of relief.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand your description of my reference to an intelligent debate (go on, have a read) back in the Autumn as "exactly the socialist position"<BR/><BR/>The modern Labour party position is that we should have a system where poverty is reduced by increasing opportunities to earn/learn at the lower reaches of the wealth scale. <BR/><BR/>Not much difference from the modernising wing of the Conservative party, but miles away from the knuckle-headed debaters on this thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-42136519103985711762008-03-04T14:07:00.000+00:002008-03-04T14:07:00.000+00:00Some of you people should live in the real world.....Some of you people should live in the real world.. <BR/><BR/>Quangoes spend :<BR/>NHS money - all of it<BR/>Arts Council money - all of it.<BR/>British Waterways Board<BR/>All the privatised industry regulators<BR/><BR/><BR/>I agree there's a lot of waste .. but anyone who seriously suggests we are going to spend zero on the above - through abolishing quangoes - is stark raving bonkers..<BR/><BR/>And that's what most of you innumerate idiots who can't be bothered to do any research but just witter on and on .. are saying.Madasafishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109237198481955714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-27129481504090997482008-03-04T13:53:00.000+00:002008-03-04T13:53:00.000+00:00anon 1.01pm"The discussion then was illuminated by...anon 1.01pm<BR/><BR/><I>"<BR/>The discussion then was illuminated by some clear discussion of the effects. Certainly it would have a major effect on quality of life differences.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly the Socialist position - they prefer the poor to be poorer rather than the rich get richer.<BR/><BR/><I>"Spending taxes would naturally rise to exclude the poorest from all but the most basic goods. It starts to smell a bit when that happens, doesn't it?"</I><BR/><BR/>Why would they "naturally rise"? £170bln income will go so £170bln of savings will be found. To assert that the poor will be denied somehow is just scaremongering or an inability to grasp the fact that government spending will drop.Roger Thornhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153744692290896812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-90455462965709214862008-03-04T13:01:00.000+00:002008-03-04T13:01:00.000+00:00DK had the last word in Sep/Oct :"Before we get in...DK had the last word in Sep/Oct :<BR/>"Before we get into an argument, I wasn't advocating abolishing income tax.<BR/><BR/>I was merely pointing out that enormity of the growth on government spending in only few years. Income tax is a useful measure, because the vast majority of us pay it."<BR/><BR/>The discussion then was illuminated by some clear discussion of the effects. Certainly it would have a major effect on quality of life differences. <BR/><BR/>Spending taxes would naturally rise to exclude the poorest from all but the most basic goods. It starts to smell a bit when that happens, doesn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-75328548306622671982008-03-04T12:09:00.000+00:002008-03-04T12:09:00.000+00:00"Do you seriously believe that any political party...<I>"Do you seriously believe that any political party would be electable with this policy?"</I><BR/><BR/>Do we care? <BR/><BR/>You know Iain, if you and the Conservatives spent more time even pretending that you had principles then you would probably stand a far better chance at the ballot box. As it is, the Conservatives, like Labour, make no attempt to hide the fact that they will do anything to get into power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-10461529065224360872008-03-04T12:01:00.000+00:002008-03-04T12:01:00.000+00:00Daily Referendum that is a quite extraordinary pos...Daily Referendum that is a quite extraordinary position. You accept that quangos are very largely a sort of £175 billion exteremely well paid dole for the politically connected & thus untouchable, except for saving money by getting rid of anything they actually do.<BR/><BR/>I can see a point for giving more real dole to people who genuinely, albeit because they refuse to get a real job, are fairly hard up. But the idea that it is proper to pay, in a particularly convoluted & expensive way, extraordinarily large amounts of money to discourage people who are usually more than averagely qualified from getting a productive job seems insane. I grant it is an insanity common in the political classes.<BR/><BR/>It was said the Reagan won as a result of a conspiracy between the bosses & the workers against everybody else. I think there is a lot of popular feeling among traditional Labour voters against Labour's "jobs for the boys" quangos which a well informed Tory campaign against these parasites could tap into.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22748135268961805172008-03-04T10:40:00.000+00:002008-03-04T10:40:00.000+00:00Chad,The people employed in these quangos are "the...Chad,<BR/><BR/>The people employed in these quangos are "the people" now.Daily Referendumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00899003349232334603noreply@blogger.com