Inequality in Britain

[Brendan]

Next you?ll be suggesting that the libertarian ideal of not paying tax but making charitable donations of our own discretion to the greater good is somehow flawed.

[Loz]

My view on that is there is a balance. It's noticeable how many charities are up in arms about government cuts. Why is the government funding charities? The government should fund *services*. Charities - funded by charitable donations - should provide a different set of services.

The money I give to charities fund things I think need and want to be funded. My taxes should provide government services to the country. They are not the same thing. It annoys me that the government fund certain charities (the Fawcett Society and other professional lobby groups being top of the list) and I would rather have more control over where my money goes in that regard.

I could also argue that government doing it this way lowers the charities efforts in fund raising and, ergo, awareness raising. And, through that, the amount people actually give to charity. And therefore the total amount of money put to both sets of services. Sort of a funding death spiral.

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

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

>

> It really won't make a blind bit of difference,

> except to make them look good and get them some

> attractive publicity. Warren Buffet is worth

> (according to Wiki) about ?62bn. If he was to,

> say, throw half a billion into the pot it would

> hardly dent his fortune (less than 1%) and do

> squat all for the US deficit. But wow, look at

> the publicity.

but isn't much of the publicity that he's courting around the fact that he's publicly pledged to give away 99% of his wealth?

>

> The guy is a genius.

[david_carnell]

Loz Wrote:

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

> My view on that is there is a balance. It's

> noticeable how many charities are up in arms about

> government cuts. Why is the government funding

> charities? The government should fund *services*.

> Charities - funded by charitable donations -

> should provide a different set of services.

>

> The money I give to charities fund things I think

> need and want to be funded. My taxes should

> provide government services to the country. They

> are not the same thing. It annoys me that the

> government fund certain charities (the Fawcett

> Society and other professional lobby groups being

> top of the list) and I would rather have more

> control over where my money goes in that regard.

>

> I could also argue that government doing it this

> way lowers the charities efforts in fund raising

> and, ergo, awareness raising. And, through that,

> the amount people actually give to charity. And

> therefore the total amount of money put to both

> sets of services. Sort of a funding death spiral.

Loz - what do you think charities are doing with govt money? Sitting on it? Throwing it at each other? They ARE providing services and have been doing so for years. And at a much cheaper rate than local authorities or the private sector. When govt withdraws funding and then still expects the "big society" to exist with charities providing the services but only through volunteers they are either ignorant or naive.

[pk]

pk Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > It really won't make a blind bit of difference,

> > except to make them look good and get them some

> > attractive publicity. Warren Buffet is worth

> > (according to Wiki) about ?62bn. If he was to,

> > say, throw half a billion into the pot it would

> > hardly dent his fortune (less than 1%) and do

> > squat all for the US deficit. But wow, look at

> > the publicity.

>

> but isn't much of the publicity that he's courting

> around the fact that he's publicly pledged to give

> away 99% of his wealth?

>

> >

> > The guy is a genius.

i guess that you think it's pretty clever to just post the same as you've said before, but i can think of a number of points that someone could think that they're making in doing so, but i'm not sure which one you think you're making - what is it you're saying?

[Huguenot]

You lost me there pk ;-)

[resident25yearsED]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> You lost me there pk ;-)

do you have a nervous twitch going on there? and usually on here nothing seems to throw you

[Jeremy]

IMO the French open letter is a media-savvy soundbite with little substance. You'll notice it contains the caveat "the contribution should not be so severe that it would provoke an exodus of the rich or increased tax avoidance". In practise it is very difficult to increase the tax burden on the wealthy without curbing entrepreneurialism and investment.

Besides, most of the super-rich pay themselves low wages to avoid income tax, hold their money in offshore accounts, and all sorts of other mysterious things. It's all a bit hypocritical.

[Ridgley]

I think the gap is wide but now even wider, now as were are facing hard times I feel this is the underline problem to why the riots happen I am not saying what the rioters did was ok it not. It is just part of other issues to deal with.

[mockney piers]

A thoughtful post well worth a read. http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2011/09/18/13662

Though about the united states the parallels to the coalition's social program are disturbingly apt, plus it makes you think how the riots have played into their hands.

[Odyssey]

"There is much to do, and it is not just a question of gaps in policy; in places it is inconsistent, even incoherent"

"A much more coherent and credible plan for supply-side reform to improve the long-term economic growth rate of the UK economy is now needed."

Who said that? Ed Miliband? No. Ed Balls? No. The Tory Andrew Tyrie. Says a lot.

[Huguenot]

This is the first of a week long barrage from right wing Conservatives that is being slated before the conference starts next Sunday.

Don't be confused by apparent 'good economic sense' arguments - this barrage is part of an ideological campaign by right wingers who wish to see massive cuts in government spending, an end to the welfare state, the disengagement of Britain from the rest of the world, and the deregulation of business.

This is not a campaign to end equality, it's actually a campaign for 'Thatcherism, but more so, and with even less regulation'.

The inconsistency and incoherence these commentators perceive, is that they say the current government is claiming to be Conservative, but actually sustaining the welfare state, intervening in business, and reaching out to the world for commerce in a way that clashes with Cretin Conservative values.

[A?Dean]

My son has a Mexican friend at school, and he comes up to me all the time asking me why is his friend "not as smart as him". It's hard to tell him the truth, that yes he is Mexican and does have a smaller brain but this is something that all mexicans alike have to live with.

Can anyone help come up with and easy way to brake it too him??

Andrew Dean

[Laddy Muck]

God, how depressing.

*sticks head in sand*

[DJKillaQueen]

Very depressing indeed. Spain is in real trouble. But we have high youth unemployment too and the best idea that Cameron seems to have is to press on with cuts (and the increased unemployment and welfare costs that will entail) and to loosen ties with Europe, presumably so that he can abolish some of the protections in law that Europe has given workers for example. He intends to make such demands in return for bailing out the euro and countries like Greece.

What makes this recession particularly worrying is that the cost of living is soaring. It's not just increasing unemployment (a factor in all recessions) but the rise in basic living costs stretching even those in employment but on lower incomes. Fuel, food and it was reported last week that rents in the UK are at record highs (so much for welfare reforms correcting the rental market) and being unable to afford the essentials is what is going to push many more people to the limit.

Those euro leaders (mostly millionaires) need to wake up and understand just how affected so many people are by all this. Investment in job creation, business and enterprise HAS to be at the core of any recovery plan and banks need to be forced to lend for that purpose.

[Huguenot]

The world's economists would be on your side with most of that DJKQ.

I think the banks should be written off, and a public fund for entrepreneurship should be made available which would match 1:1 funds attracted by private investors (to get the risk right).

[DJKillaQueen]

Sounds like a good idea to me H. Maybe some tax incentives to investors could be thrown into the ring too. I'm also sure that many people would like the chance to work for themselves, or to start a small businesses, if given the right support and an opportunity to find investment. That I think would be a worthwhile use of public money.

And I'd also say, remove the daft rules we have on bankrupts being unable to start a business for up to three years too. Entrpreneurs and small business owners are more vulnerable to bankrupcy during tough times and yet they are the very people we need to get things going again.

[Huguenot]

Better than paying welfare, and incentivises private money to deliver public benefits.

I'm not sure the bankruptcy rules are intended as a punishment, more because (as crazy as this sounds) I've come across carpet baggers out here who leach investors, run up huge company debts for personal gain, close it and do the same again.