A fair society ...

[dita-on-tees]

hmmm the BBC has announced that it understands tax concessions for married couples will be introduced in 2015. So amongst all the cutbacks where "were all in this together", there is still a bit of cash to incentivise marriage. The pledge in the manifesto was ?150 per annum which is just a little short of what child benefit is for the the first child. That should be a sweetener for those higher tax payers who will lose the child benefit. Clearly no concession to single parent families, for whom this change will impact most. It never ceases to amaze me that a party which is pretty laissez faire with the companies which nearly broke the economy but is so hands on with the way in which we should structure our lives.

Better go and hunt myself down a husband...

[Mick Mac]

Make sure he's not a higher rate taxpayer. He'll be a broken man.

[Loz]

?150 per annum which is just a little short of what child benefit is for the the first child

That's not right. Child benefit for the first child is ?20.30 a week, or just over ?1000 per annum.

[nashoi]

Huguenot

Been reading Schumacher by any chance? Was it the cannabis thread bringing back hazy memories of student days reading Small is Beautiful?

[Huguenot]

No, no, Nashoi. I'm proud that I've maybe pretended (have I?) a great thinker through my own trivial machinations. I've never read them, and don't know who they are, they are worthy of respect :)

My views are peeled back through the venerable thinkers of our time on this site, probably less graced by access to the printing press than some.

MM (because of our disagreements), Quids, DCarnell, Brenda, RosieH, Moos (albeit through distrust), Piers (more influential than he realises), Sean (because we fight our mututal conviction), Keef, Louisiana, DJQK, Ladymuck, HAL9000 to name but a few have a massive impact upon my opinions. Even Silverfox corresponds with enormous influence.

There are too many to mention.

But Schumacher? Big also-ran. Who again?

[Marmora Man]

What's your understanding of a fair society and how its achieved.

Equality of opportunity, sharing of skills combined with compassion for others.

So modifying Sean McG's earlier example to become:

Two people wash up on an island

One of them notices a pile of wood on their side of the island and builds a hut, using all available material.

Do they tell the other person to sleep outside in the pouring rain or do they share the shelter? YES This individual has made most of the opportunity presented - with compassion they will offer shelter to the other and, perhaps, discover that the other person can help by spinning a fishing line from hair so that sharing has helped both find food to live off.

[HAL9000]

This is the sort of problem being addressed by those of us involved in planning missions to colonise extraterrestrial habitats. The general view is that a fledgling economic system somewhere between a tribal village community and a monastic order represents the best option for the fair apportionment of resources amongst pioneer colonists.

For various reasons we avoid calling it communism.

[LuLu Too]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So the lesson seems to be "if you get wood, make

> sure your neighbour gets some".

Ahem...

I don't think that is quite what Sean meant.

Or is it?!

[Mick Mac]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What's your understanding of a fair society and

> how its achieved.

>

> Equality of opportunity, sharing of skills

> combined with compassion for others.

>

> So modifying Sean McG's earlier example to

> become:

>

> Two people wash up on an island

>

> One of them notices a pile of wood on their side

> of the island and builds a hut, using all

> available material.

>

> Do they tell the other person to sleep outside in

> the pouring rain or do they share the shelter? YES

> This individual has made most of the opportunity

> presented - with compassion they will offer

> shelter to the other and, perhaps, discover that

> the other person can help by spinning a fishing

> line from hair so that sharing has helped both

> find food to live off.

Man owns house in east dulwich with 5 + bedrooms. Does he offer a room to man with no house?

That's a tricky one.

[Marmora Man]

Mick Mac - touche! But for much of my time in my ED house I did share it with my in-laws and gave them the support they needed in their final frail years. I also share my goods"" with others in different ways - training, advice, charitable giving, tax,

[dita-on-tees]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?150 per annum which is just a little short of

> what child benefit is for the the first child

>

> That's not right. Child benefit for the first

> child is ?20.30 a week, or just over ?1000 per

> annum.

duhhh yesh, sorry was calculating on a ?20 per month. Thank heavens I work on the policy side of finance and not numbers otherwise we would really be fked.....

[Mick Mac]

MM.

My answer would be no. Ill share my house with friends and family only.

Just like to test peoples generousity of spirit in real situations. At least you responded.

Others on the other hand state that they would be happy to pay their taxes but swerve the issue when asked what level of tax would make them unhappy.

Talk is cheap. Stories are easy to write. But back in the real world.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I didn't swerve the issue Mick - I just forgot about it

What level would I be prepared to? No fixed amount - if a government persuaded 40% tax payers to go to 50% to avoid some of the worst cuts I wouldn't have a problem with that. As an example - I could be persuaded to pay more if I saw the maths. The money is out there it's just persuading people to cough up

As an aside:

"Talk is cheap. Stories are easy to write. But back in the real world."

i didn't write that - but the person who did, called me patronising a few days back. Just sayin

[Mick Mac]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I didn't swerve the issue Mick - I just forgot

> about it

>

> What level would I be prepared to? No fixed amount

> - if a government persuaded 40% tax payers to go

> to 50% to avoid some of the worst cuts I wouldn't

> have a problem with that. As an example - I could

> be persuaded to pay more if I saw the maths. The

> money is out there it's just persuading people to

> cough up

>

OK fair answer - but the Labour Government in the 1970s had a +90% effective rate of tax. The trouble is Sean, you don't get to see the maths and make a choice, taxation is compulsory.

I maintain that there is a point at which it becomes unfair on the people with higher earnings. 90% would be an example of a situation where you are close to communist ideals and this is where the hard workers are disincentivised in favour of others.

If you accept that, you may then accept that the concept of fairness is not a "simple" concept, which is what you you stated earlier.

> As an aside:

> "Talk is cheap. Stories are easy to write. But

> back in the real world."

>

> i didn't write that - but the person who did,

> called me patronising a few days back. Just sayin

Very patronising I agree. Apologies, but it was there to provoke a response.

[SeanMacGabhann]

All fair points Mick, but fairness doesn't have to mean tax increases. I just think, at the moment it's an option

The 90% situation in the 70s was ludicrous of course but if we aretalking about Britain's current situation (which it shares with many many countries where Gordon Brown wasn't PM) then we are to believe that the chancellor has looked at the books, and come up with a figure which he (and others, but not everyone) feels needs to be procured somehow, and within a short timeframe. And he is doing this via cuts (some of which will be fine and others which some people say will damage recovery but that?s a different argument)

He says he wishes he didn?thave to make these cuts ? which if we believe him leaves him with the option of saying

a) Here are the cuts and costings for the next 5 years

b) If I rasied taxes by x amount for those earning above y (the table could be more detailed than the current 40% cutoff) for, say 2 years, I would be able to leave in place most of the more critical programmes. The plan after 2 years is to revert to current tax levels

Now I?m not saying that is politically do-able or realistic, and I don?t expect it to be even mooted. And even people who would go along with it would worry about that 2 (or whatever) year timetable being constantly pushed back.

But would it be more fair? I would say yes, and I would be affected but I still think it must be easier for a family on (say) 50kto find expenses to cutback than a family on 20k. It just must be. And I don?t believe that most families on that 50k work HARDER than most families on 20k. I just don?t

[mockney piers]

As an aside 'costing' is one of those words that REALLY wind me up. It's managementeze; make a word more important by adding superfluous letters.

The traditional word 'cost' can suffice in every situation.

When 'costing' (legitimate use) something up the end results are surely just costs are they not?

Grrr baaahh humbug etc.

Anyway, as you were.

[*Bob*]

see also 'housing stock'

please, please stop it

[david_carnell]

@ Huguenot - I'm honoured to be named in such a venerable list of ForumThinkersTM but I think you're slightly confused regarding National Insurance. When it was the scheme was expanded in 1946, alongside the state pension, it was never designed to be a savings scheme on an individual basis. It was designed almost as a zero-sum gain where those currently claiming were paid for by those in work. But there are two fundamental problems that have since reared their ugly head ruining Beveridge?s ideal. The first is that when the state pension at 65 was introduced the average life expectancy for men was 64. You were more likely to be dead than claiming a pension and when you did claim it you had a high chance of dying every year. Now life expectancies have risen dramatically. The elderly are, due to a demographic time bomb, stripping the system bare.

The second, related, issue was the ratio of workers to claimants. It started at near 7:1 in 1946. Today it is close to 3:1. That is unsustainable. People either have to work longer, pay more, claim later or be given less. Or a combination. But the current situation is unsustainable. The power of the grey vote makes it a political hot potato, however.

@ All - There has been a massive, 14 page debate in the Drawing Room on equality in society (the biggest thread in there I believe) and I don?t want to just repost old arguments from there.

It is worth noting, however, that in almost every measurable outcome more equal (or fair) societies do better. That doesn?t mean there is no difference between rich and poor ? just the relative difference is smaller. The equality gap. People in these societies are happier, live longer, commit less crime, have more intelligent populations, eat more healthily, have better records on female equality, less drug abuse, lower levels of imprisonment, fewer teenage births, and even contribute less to global warming. I can show statistical evidence for every one of these.

The method of attaining this society is the debate that now needs to be had.

[Brendan]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> a pension and when

> you did claim it you had a high chance of dying

> every year.

Sounds horrible. I think the way we do it now where you only get one year to die in, then that's it is much better.

[Brendan]

Seriously though your last point pretty much encapsulates my growing disdain for the right wing (and to a large extent the ethos of new labour). They vehemently attack the idea of a more equal society. The idea is that it is not just enough for the more powerful to enjoy the privileges of their endeavour (or more often than not inheritance) but those privileges have to be so great as to grind those below them into the ground.

They decry ideas of equality as socialist, oblivious to the irony that the socialist style systems we have would not be necessary if wealth was more evenly distributed. No one is saying that a partner in a city law firm should have a big gaff and a fancy car but just that maybe he shouldn?t be getting paid 2 million quid a year when the guy who cleans his office gets 9K a year, is forced to claim benefits to house and feed his family and is then labelled a scrounger and a drain on society.

[Huguenot]

Sure, but how do you achieve that through legislation?

[HAL9000]

Just thought I?d share a few thoughts written by my mirror-universe evil twin:

The western economic system ? unashamed, unhindered and unbounded capitalism - is predicated upon the premise that anyone ? even a complete idiot ? can achieve wealth, power and fame through luck, cunning or wit (or even less, of late).

Almost every school-leaver dreams of becoming a millionaire (or marrying one) by the age of thirty - despite the fact that 95% of the population end up in debt-bondage throughout their unremarkable lives.

And yet some on here seem to think they are living in a utopian state of communism in which fairness-for-all is the rallying cry.

Even if all the wealth and resources were evenly divided amongst the population ? within a couple of generations most of it would be back in the hands of the sharpest 5% and everyone else would be poor and mired in debt again.

Rampant capitalism and all-caring socialism cannot co-exist over the long term ? the 2008 financial crisis is a testament to that.

Our system demands a poor majority ? an underclass, if you will ? to protect and enrich the upper-most echelons of society.

At least you all know your places within this society ? otherwise your masters would have been hanging from lampposts long ago.

There?s only one rule: Winner takes all.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Even if I were to just accept that Hal, then when it comes to this bit:

"Our system demands a poor majority ? an underclass, if you will "

I wish the better off would stop vilifying that poor majority

But anyway - I don't think anyone here is aiming to spread everything equally - I think even the furthest left amongst us are looking for a less wide gap

And to stop with all the fatalism for a moment, the world has made huge strides over the centuries - be it slavery abolition, womens votes, right up to the start of a minimum wage - each and every one was opposed bitterly with similar fatalistic opposition

[HAL9000]

We have made great social progress over the centuries but there is a danger that going further (in the here and now) may disincentivise the workers - tax-payers have long complained about those who'd rather parasitise the benefits system than oil the wheels of capitalism. There is a limit beyond which the system breaks down - and the recent crisis has redrawn the boundaries.

My evil twin is playing Devil's Advocate, of course.

[SeanMacGabhann]

oh but of course ;-)

But I would say to that twin that his line

" there is a danger that going further (in the here and now) may disincentivise the workers - tax-payers have long complained about those who'd rather parasitise the benefits system than oil the wheels of capitalism."

is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. We heard it LOUD and clear before the introduction of the minimum wage from many different quarters - "job losses!" "unfair burden on business!" etc etc

One can give too much credence to the Cassandra wailing