You said you wanted “entire multidisciplinary teams” to rule over us, because we can’t be trusted to decide for ourselves. It’s right there near the top of this very page.
Sounds pretty anti-democratic to me. I mean, once you’ve decided that certain options are off the table whether the people want them or not then you’re not a million miles from deciding that there’s no need to ask the people at all.
It only sounds anti-democractic to you because you didn't remotely explore what I meant by it.
Government is not supposed to work by simply having a bunch of politicians spout populist promises. It's supposed to work by Ministers obtaining input. From the public/civil service, from interest groups, from the general populace, from expertise.
The world is a complicated place. The solutions to problems are going to be complicated to. They are certainly not going to be arrived at by pointing at one person and saying "you have all the power because we like you".
I mean, entire systems of governance have developed over centuries precisely because of this. What is a parliament? It's a body almost expressly designed to prevent any one person having all the power (at one point, that one person was a king). The system is SUPPOSED to require that there's a lot of input from different sources. It's supposed to slow decision-making down.
You would never say that it was okay to just give a child whatever they want, no matter how unreasonable or dangerous. You seem to have this weird notion that adults are miraculously immune from similar impulses. No, sorry, they're not. They're somewhat better at impulse control and poor judgement, but they're not immune from it.
Given that we've been talking about transport and to some extent the road toll, how exactly do you think that happens? The vast majority of it isn't due to bad roads or bad cars, the vast majority of it is because human beings make really poor decisions.
What do the people want? Some of them want no speed limit. Some of them want the most powerful vehicle they can lay their hands on. Some of them want no rules against driving while drunk or otherwise intoxicated. Some of them don't want licensing.
Of course, some of the other people want the roads to be safe. Some of the other people are aware of the considerable societal cost of drunk driving and speeding and all the other stuff that greatly increases the risk of accidents.
Yes, I want some options to be off the table. I want some options to be off the table because they quite literally lead to death and destruction and misery, either for the people who believed they wanted the things that killed them, or for their families, or for innocent bystanders. The fact that you seem completely unaware of any nuance as to the grave dangers of giving people exactly what they want does you no credit whatsoever.
I mean, once you’ve decided that certain options are off the table whether the people want them or not then you’re not a million miles from deciding that there’s no need to ask the people at all.
Yeah, if the people want to murder all the Jews and you think that should be illegal nonetheless it's really the same sort of thing as overthrowing democracy.
It’s the same sort of thing, yes. A self-appointed elite declaring that the people aren’t allowed to vote for certain policies is anti democratic whether those policies are persecuting minorities, driving cars or taxing the rich.
Fuck me. You're not making much of a case for the merits of democracy here.
I think there's two or three different arguments against unrestricted majoritarian democracy here.
The one is a liberal argument: the majority may vote down rights for unpopular minorities.
A second is that the voters might choose a course of action whose benefits are less than they hope and whose costs are greater than they realise. For example, the majority might choose to ban vaccines under the impression that they allow the lizard people to beam 5G directly into the bloodstream. A related objection or maybe a third objection is that propaganda campaigns may prompt people to want something that they would not actually want if they considered the matter in a cool moment.
The second and third arguments are really arguments in favour of better civic education.
Correct. The problem being that a large part of both economic advantage and politics positively relies on not having better education or information.
There is also a real question as to how much of the population actually wants to wade through all the information, or even how much that's possible given the scale and complexity of the world. I don't think it'd be possible for everyone to wade through everything.
One of the podcasts I listen to, Flash Forward, once had an episode imagining a future where everything was voted on. Everything. Every policy decision done by referendum. What would most likely happen is that an awful lot of people would abstain from most votes. American States already vary greatly in the number of referendums that they have, and it turns out that engagement actually drops significantly once you have too many issues to vote on.
The problem is that democracy is difficult to define and impossible to achieve. It's the sort of thing we don't know when we've got it, but we certainly know when we don't have it. Definitionally we start back to front by designating certain states as democracies and then proceed to describe what their features are. The process of description includes questions of how decisions are made and enforced, in which we find that the selection of leaders in "free" elections is only one element in the structure of political power and that for democratic states to be well-run there is a need for administrative competence, technocracy. We also discover that democracies have a substantial number of unpleasant features, and that questions of transparency and accountability are a continuing problem: if democracy is about freedom, then an important element is the biblical injunction, 'the truth shall make you free'.
Carrying on from my previous post and given the original question of this thread there is the intriguing question as to the relationship between democracy, capitalism and socialism, which is: "While it is possible to have capitalism without democracy is it possible to have democracy without capitalism?"
"While it is possible to have capitalism without democracy is it possible to have democracy without capitalism?"
One could argue that the nature of capitalism, to centralise money in a small minority, and remembering that money equates to power to make decisions, makes capitalism and democracy (at least with universal suffrage) strange bedfellows. When a small number of people have the money and significant influence over the processes of government then is that not something that erodes democracy?
"While it is possible to have capitalism without democracy is it possible to have democracy without capitalism?"
One could argue that the nature of capitalism, to centralise money in a small minority, and remembering that money equates to power to make decisions, makes capitalism and democracy (at least with universal suffrage) strange bedfellows. When a small number of people have the money and significant influence over the processes of government then is that not something that erodes democracy?
Yep. One of the Great fallacies is that democracy = capitalism. Or more significantly that democracy means a particular form of capitalism that is especially predatory and benefits a minority with a concentration of wealth and power. This oxymoron is a major problem.
"While it is possible to have capitalism without democracy is it possible to have democracy without capitalism?"
One could argue that the nature of capitalism, to centralise money in a small minority, and remembering that money equates to power to make decisions, makes capitalism and democracy (at least with universal suffrage) strange bedfellows. When a small number of people have the money and significant influence over the processes of government then is that not something that erodes democracy?
Perhaps, but when people have a truly free vote they will generally vote for policies that make them, as individuals, better off.
Carrying on from my previous post and given the original question of this thread there is the intriguing question as to the relationship between democracy, capitalism and socialism, which is: "While it is possible to have capitalism without democracy is it possible to have democracy without capitalism?"
I remember thinking in my teens when I was becoming aware of politics that I couldn't understand why people said communism meant no democracy and I'm still not sure why not. Why shouldn't there be a communist party standing in multi-party elections? If they win, they form a government and enact their policies (excluding cancelling elections) and are judged by the electorate next time. What's the connection between benign state control for the common good (as I understand the communist ideal) and people's freedom (or lack of) to choose the government?
"While it is possible to have capitalism without democracy is it possible to have democracy without capitalism?"
One could argue that the nature of capitalism, to centralise money in a small minority, and remembering that money equates to power to make decisions, makes capitalism and democracy (at least with universal suffrage) strange bedfellows. When a small number of people have the money and significant influence over the processes of government then is that not something that erodes democracy?
Perhaps, but when people have a truly free vote they will generally vote for policies that make them, as individuals, better off.
"truly free" is doing a heck of a lot of work there. Often they'll vote for policies that make them worse off so long as it makes an out-group even worse off than them. That's pretty much the raison d'etre [reason for existing] of the GOP and tories.
"While it is possible to have capitalism without democracy is it possible to have democracy without capitalism?"
One could argue that the nature of capitalism, to centralise money in a small minority, and remembering that money equates to power to make decisions, makes capitalism and democracy (at least with universal suffrage) strange bedfellows. When a small number of people have the money and significant influence over the processes of government then is that not something that erodes democracy?
Perhaps, but when people have a truly free vote they will generally vote for policies that make them, as individuals, better off.
Do you not think government has a role in protecting the interests of minorities who would be disproportionately disadvantaged by those policies?
Perhaps, but when people have a truly free vote they will generally vote for policies that make them, as individuals, better off.
While acknowledging the basic point that selfishness is a stronger impulse than altruism and compassion, people will generally vote for policies that make them feel better.
"Truly free" would mean, for example, a press that isn't largely owned by individuals with clear preference for right wing policies. It would mean that political campaigning should be held to the same standard of veracity as commercial advertising. It would mean significant revisions to rules regarding funding of political parties and campaigning such that a hyper-wealthy minority don't get to call the shots through the influence of large donations.
ie: "truly free" isn't something that characterises our democracies at the moment.
Carrying on from my previous post and given the original question of this thread there is the intriguing question as to the relationship between democracy, capitalism and socialism, which is: "While it is possible to have capitalism without democracy is it possible to have democracy without capitalism?"
I remember thinking in my teens when I was becoming aware of politics that I couldn't understand why people said communism meant no democracy and I'm still not sure why not. Why shouldn't there be a communist party standing in multi-party elections? If they win, they form a government and enact their policies (excluding cancelling elections) and are judged by the electorate next time. What's the connection between benign state control for the common good (as I understand the communist ideal) and people's freedom (or lack of) to choose the government?
Communism (and socialism in general, to lesser degrees) means people have to care about each other, play nicely together, and share what they have freely with those in need. The problem is that people don't generally want to do any of those things - they don't tend to give a shit about anyone except their friends and families.
Perhaps, but when people have a truly free vote they will generally vote for policies that make them, as individuals, better off.
While acknowledging the basic point that selfishness is a stronger impulse than altruism and compassion, people will generally vote for policies that make them feel better.
That's a form of being better off. It doesn't have to be economically.
Perhaps, but when people have a truly free vote they will generally vote for policies that make them, as individuals, better off.
Except when they vote for policies that will make other people worse off. (It has been said of Trump that his appeal to his core supporters is that he hates all the people they hate.) There is also your politics of fantasy, in which people seem to prefer policies that benefit the very wealthy to policies that benefit them as they are now: the possibility of lots of jam tomorrow is preferred to jam today, in such a way that makes lots of jam tomorrow less likely.
Add in prisoners' dilemma effects: people vote for policies that would make them individually better off if only nobody else were affected by the policies; and other failures to see the full effects of policies (for instance, the persistent belief that government finances work like household finances).
The point is that these errors systematically favour people who are already wealthy, because wealthy people are better able to promote errors that favour them (and suppress errors that don't).
The problem is that people don't generally want to do any of those things - they don't tend to give a shit about anyone except their friends and families.
I would suggest that the evidence, for the vast majority, is against you there. Especially over the last year. The majority of people have maintained the requirements to socially distance - not just for their own safety, but to slow community transmission and protect others. How many people have there been volunteering to deliver parcels for the food banks, or organised local groups to make sure the elderly and vulnerable among their neighbours are doing OK? The people of Scotland at the last election voted in parties committed to raising tax rates for the wealthier half of the population (as they did, marginally) and those same parties are polling strongly for the election in a few weeks. In more normal times (ie: not dominated by Brexit and pandemic) the people consistently state that their priorities are community services - the NHS, schools, police numbers etc - above things like paying less tax.
Alan Cresswell: The people of Scotland at the last election voted in parties committed to raising tax rates for the wealthier half of the population (as they did, marginally) and those same parties are polling strongly for the election in a few weeks
And the reason they so voted was because their own tax liabilities were excluded from the increases. The test of your thesis is whether individuals are prepared to see their own tax burden rise to pay for improved public services.
Well, yes the Scottish Parliament amendment to the tax rate was to redistribute the tax burden with those over approx. £26k income paying slightly more and those with lower income paying slightly less, so there isn't a significant boost to income for public services. But, it still needed a lot of people in that >£26k bracket to vote for those parties for it to come into effect (the Tories certainly wouldn't have done that), which suggests that the electorate "don't tend to give a shit about anyone except their friends and families" isn't supported by that piece of data.
I would have thought that it is generally observed there is a link between tax and spending proposals and voting behaviour. It may be, of course, that the Scots are a virtuous exception, but one doubts it.
It was not me, by the way, who used the phrase "don't tend to give a shit", though it does somehow cut to the chase. The secret ballot, however, was always intended to permit and encourage electors to vote for the promotion of their private interests, as when Gladstone introduced it to protect crofters and tenants from the supervision of landowners. JS Milne, instructively, was opposed because he regarded voting as a public rather than a private act.
I would have thought that it is generally observed there is a link between tax and spending proposals and voting behaviour.
Well, of course. The vast majority of politics comes down to "this is what we propose to do" (spending) and "how are you going to pay for it?" (tax). Generally the public is opposed to raising taxes for unspecified spending, but specific "would you pay an extra 1p on income tax to fund above inflation pay rises for doctors and nurses, and to increase recruitment?" questions tend to get positive responses. People tend to vote for parties that propose spending on things they approve of (and, often that's general social issues like health and education) and with taxation proposals that appear to be a fair way to pay for that - and, yes balancing the cost to themselves and those they care for with the benefits they expect from that spending (though, that assessment is usually filtered through political spin and biases media reporting). There are very few people who would vote exclusively on whether parties propose to cut the amount of tax they pay. Equally, very few who would vote on just who proposes to spend the most on public services regardless of their taxation plans. Is there anyone who actually believes either of those extremes is a significant number of people? Or anyone who would deny that balancing tax and spending is something the majority who think about how they vote do all the time?
It was not me, by the way, who used the phrase "don't tend to give a shit", though it does somehow cut to the chase.
No, I was responding to @Marvin the Martian who made that claim, giving several examples of large proportions of our population who act as though they do care beyond their immediate family. You picked up one of those examples, so my response is still in that context.
Generally the public is opposed to raising taxes for unspecified spending, but specific "would you pay an extra 1p on income tax to fund above inflation pay rises for doctors and nurses, and to increase recruitment?" questions tend to get positive responses.
I wonder what proportion of the population can tell you to any degree of accuracy what a 1p in the £ rise in income tax would cost them ? In meaningful units (£x per week reduction in discretionary spending on a base of £y per week).
And how many respond on the basis that 1p doesn't sound much....
I wonder what proportion of the population can tell you to any degree of accuracy what a 1p in the £ rise in income tax would cost them ? In meaningful units (£x per week reduction in discretionary spending on a base of £y per week).
I think most people know what they get paid. They could divide that number by 100, and say "about that much". It wouldn't be quite right, because of the tax-free allowance, but it's in the right ballpark. So if you're one of those GBP 25K per year people, I'd think all of them capable of grasping that a 1p in the £ income tax raise would cost them about 20 quid a month.
In more normal times (ie: not dominated by Brexit and pandemic) the people consistently state that their priorities are community services - the NHS, schools, police numbers etc - above things like paying less tax.
It's also fair to say, I think, that people are quite a lot more strongly in favour of paying for those things for their local communities than for people a long way away.
Would Scottish taxpayers be as keen to pay more tax to support the poor of England?
I see this effect quite strongly in the US, where lots of people in suburbs are happy to pay tax to support their local school district, but very much less keen to subsidise school districts in less wealthy areas.
And very few people in any developed country are happy to pay significant tax to fund education and development in poor countries.
Generally the public is opposed to raising taxes for unspecified spending, but specific "would you pay an extra 1p on income tax to fund above inflation pay rises for doctors and nurses, and to increase recruitment?" questions tend to get positive responses.
I wonder what proportion of the population can tell you to any degree of accuracy what a 1p in the £ rise in income tax would cost them ? In meaningful units (£x per week reduction in discretionary spending on a base of £y per week).
And how many respond on the basis that 1p doesn't sound much....
I suspect most people on median weekly earnings (£585 in 2019) would be able on a rough and ready basis to work out that it would cost them less than £6 a week.
Leorning Cnight: Would Scottish taxpayers be as keen to pay more tax to support the poor of England?
The actual situation is that Scotland structurally receives more in public spending than it contributes in taxation, which means that English taxpayers routinely subsidies their counterparts north of the border.
Alan Cresswell: Generally the public is opposed to raising taxes for unspecified spending, but specific "would you pay an extra 1p on income tax to fund above inflation pay rises for doctors and nurses, and to increase recruitment?" questions tend to get positive responses.
While it is true that opinion surveys indicate a willingness to pay increased taxes for such purposes, experience indicates that such generosity is not reflected in the polling booth. It would seem that parties promising to increase taxes for even worthy causes are viewed with suspicion as being too trigger happy in that regard.
Leorning Cnight: Would Scottish taxpayers be as keen to pay more tax to support the poor of England?
The actual situation is that Scotland structurally receives more in public spending than it contributes in taxation, which means that English taxpayers routinely subsidies their counterparts north of the border.
The same could be said for almost all English regions, and the Scottish economy per capita is broadly in line with the UK average. The outlier here is the disproportionate effect of London on the whole of the UK, not the poverty of the Scottish economy.
Generally the public is opposed to raising taxes for unspecified spending, but specific "would you pay an extra 1p on income tax to fund above inflation pay rises for doctors and nurses, and to increase recruitment?" questions tend to get positive responses.
I wonder what proportion of the population can tell you to any degree of accuracy what a 1p in the £ rise in income tax would cost them ? In meaningful units (£x per week reduction in discretionary spending on a base of £y per week).
And how many respond on the basis that 1p doesn't sound much....
I suspect most people on median weekly earnings (£585 in 2019) would be able on a rough and ready basis to work out that it would cost them less than £6 a week.
I would say that as a general principal it's the task of parties proposing a 1p in tax rise to explain how much that actually looks like for different income bands, and of course the media to help accurately report that. It doesn't need each individual to work that out for themselves (some will, and if the political spin is inaccurate, eg: that the monthly cost is much higher, then that will be seized on by other parties).
While it is true that opinion surveys indicate a willingness to pay increased taxes for such purposes, experience indicates that such generosity is not reflected in the polling booth. It would seem that parties promising to increase taxes for even worthy causes are viewed with suspicion as being too trigger happy in that regard.
This is definitely received wisdom but the evidence is actually very unclear. What are the effects of political spin on these things? For example, the constant myth of the Labour "Tax Bombshell" from 1992 to 2019 (These are the ones I can remember when the Tories successfully lied about; convincing people they would be worse off when this was empirically untrue).
Given this, I think it's actually impossible to how people would actually behave if presented with accurate information.
I'd say the jury is still out on whether people are intrinsically selfish or altruistic. Certainly sociopaths, approximately 10% of the population by some studies, are selfish. I wonder if you took them out of the equation, how that would skew the results for the rest of us.
While it is true that opinion surveys indicate a willingness to pay increased taxes for such purposes, experience indicates that such generosity is not reflected in the polling booth.
I think most people are perfectly happy with tax increases, so long as those increases only apply to people earning more than they do. The cry is “tax the rich”, not “tax me”.
I think most people are perfectly happy with tax increases, so long as those increases only apply to people earning more than they do. The cry is “tax the rich”, not “tax me”.
Certainly I think there's a fairly widespread desire to see the rich pay what looks like their fair share. Complicated tax avoidance schemes generally don't go down well on the Clapham omnibus.
But I think you oversimplify.
The US provides a number of interesting datapoints on this front, because US elections in many places often have some number of specific tax-raising measures that voters vote on directly. And the evidence suggests that voters will vote to pay more money, if they think that the thing they're getting for it is worthwhile.
While it is true that opinion surveys indicate a willingness to pay increased taxes for such purposes, experience indicates that such generosity is not reflected in the polling booth.
I think most people are perfectly happy with tax increases, so long as those increases only apply to people earning more than they do. The cry is “tax the rich”, not “tax me”.
I'm rich. By some measures. Tax me.
But whilst you're sort of correct, you're also wrong and undermining your earlier points.
Yes, of course it's human nature to want others to pay. But there's also really good research on how the vast majority are willing to pay more as long as it's done fairly. Moreover it is easy to demonstrate that the 'rich are not paying their fair share.
But I thought you said democracy was just about the will of the majority; I assure you most people would vote to tax the rich (all other things being equal).
While it is true that opinion surveys indicate a willingness to pay increased taxes for such purposes, experience indicates that such generosity is not reflected in the polling booth.
I think most people are perfectly happy with tax increases, so long as those increases only apply to people earning more than they do. The cry is “tax the rich”, not “tax me”.
Coming up to the 1997 election I was a freelance software engineer working in a place where we outnumbered permanent staff. In conversation about the coming election and the economic consequences of what looked like a probable Labour win after 18 miserable years of the Tories in power, I said that I'd be willing to pay a bit more tax if it improved public services and thought a fair number of people earning well above average as we all were, would probably agree with me - we could afford it.
A prominent local Tory party member (who was said to have done very well (several million £) when the software house he co-founded went public) looked angrily at me, jabbed his finger in my face and said "liar!"
He just couldn't believe that anyone would willingly pay more tax to improve other people's lives and make the country better. He didn't seem like a cold, hard bastard but he was a Tory!
While it is true that opinion surveys indicate a willingness to pay increased taxes for such purposes, experience indicates that such generosity is not reflected in the polling booth.
I think most people are perfectly happy with tax increases, so long as those increases only apply to people earning more than they do. The cry is “tax the rich”, not “tax me”.
No, happy to pay more tax, in proportion to my earnings (unlike council tax and VAT which are regressive taxes). But there wouldn't be the need for it if everybody paid their taxes - individuals and companies alike. And billionaires would still be billionaires if we taxed them at 100% on wealth over £1bn.
But I thought you said democracy was just about the will of the majority; I assure you most people would vote to tax the rich (all other things being equal)
For sure. Just don’t portray that desire as some kind of altruistic, selfless thing that proceeds from the inherent goodness of the human heart. It’s nothing more than “I want more, so take it from that other bugger and give it to me”.
But I thought you said democracy was just about the will of the majority; I assure you most people would vote to tax the rich (all other things being equal)
For sure. Just don’t portray that desire as some kind of altruistic, selfless thing that proceeds from the inherent goodness of the human heart. It’s nothing more than “I want more, so take it from that other bugger and give it to me”.
As I said just up the page:
"He just couldn't believe that anyone would willingly pay more tax to improve other people's lives and make the country better. He didn't seem like a cold, hard bastard but he was a Tory! "
I wanted the country to be one I could feel some pride for in the way it provided for its people's needs - after 18 miserable years of the Tories selling off assets (a string privatisations plus undervalued sale of public housing) and helping the rich to trample on the poor. Isn't that something all decent people would want if they can manage to suppress their selfish "me first" lower nature? Yes, we all struggle to not be so completely selfish but right-wing types don't even try to overcome that selfish drive.
Isn't that something all decent people would want if they can manage to suppress their selfish "me first" lower nature? Yes, we all struggle to not be so completely selfish but right-wing types don't even try to overcome that selfish drive.
Moreover, they demonise anyone who does try: Either it's the politics of envy or it's champagne socialism. I do enjoy it when right-wing people have non-strawman arguments, sadly that doesn't seem to be very often.
Isn't that something all decent people would want if they can manage to suppress their selfish "me first" lower nature? Yes, we all struggle to not be so completely selfish but right-wing types don't even try to overcome that selfish drive.
Moreover, they demonise anyone who does try: Either it's the politics of envy or it's champagne socialism. I do enjoy it when right-wing people have non-strawman arguments, sadly that doesn't seem to be very often.
AFZ
If memory serves, I did once ask a Martian of this Parish, given that it had been suggested that wealthier left-wingers were "champagne socialists" and poor ones were envious, who could argue for a more socially just redistribution of wealth.
The answer was "no-one".
Which seems a little odd compared with the assertions upthread that everyone's voice should be heard and no policies be off the table a priori
Or perhaps we should be encouraged that views can change over time.
I guess that redistribution of wealth is fine, just as long as it's from the poor to the rich.
That's really the problem. That right there. The rich envy what little the poor have, because by right it should be in their own pockets. What they have is never enough.
Isn't that something all decent people would want if they can manage to suppress their selfish "me first" lower nature? Yes, we all struggle to not be so completely selfish but right-wing types don't even try to overcome that selfish drive.
Moreover, they demonise anyone who does try: Either it's the politics of envy or it's champagne socialism. I do enjoy it when right-wing people have non-strawman arguments, sadly that doesn't seem to be very often.
AFZ
If memory serves, I did once ask a Martian of this Parish, given that it had been suggested that wealthier left-wingers were "champagne socialists" and poor ones were envious, who could argue for a more socially just redistribution of wealth.
The answer was "no-one".
I suspect this principle that a particular group cannot vote for another part of society to bear a cost will not be applied universally or equally.
For some, property is theft, for others, taxation is theft. Fair enough, but most people that kind of rhetoric is pretty meaningless and strictly for the soap-box.
There may be an ethical case for 'soaking the rich' from a certain perspective, but in terms of party choice in tax and spend matters much of the burden necessarily falls on the vast majority of citizens subject to the standard rate, living not in mansions but in terrace and semi-detached houses, tenements and flats, trying to make ends meet. While they can recognise the value in having good public services, paying the bills and juggling a limited budget is dependent on having as much money as possible in the hand. That becomes particularly important in times of economic stress, such as the world is currently experiencing. Electors accurately conclude that parties to the right are more likely to minimise their tax liability, leaving them with more of their cash, than those of the left, though there may be negative consequences for the public services on which they rely. Voting for a centre-right party can be as much a strategy for economic survival as it is for those who vote differently.
As you acknowledge, those most economically stretched are those most likely to be dependent on those public services and benefits.
The genius of the Right has always been to convince them that the spending will go on "other people", whether those "other people" be the unemployed (styled as workshy layabouts, of course), immigrants, or the gay dolphin drop-in encounter workshop the Daily Heil insists the Loony Left Council is wasting the money on.
Electors accurately conclude that parties to the right are more likely to minimise their tax liability, leaving them with more of their cash, than those of the left, though there may be negative consequences for the public services on which they rely. Voting for a centre-right party can be as much a strategy for economic survival as it is for those who vote differently.
Except the 'accurate' part, of course. The tax burden is simply shifted to regressive taxes from progressive ones, and it costs the poor more. It's not a question of economic survival, it's falling for a long con.
They might have more money in their pockets, but their non-discretionary payments will swallow that up and more. The level of political discourse, especially around taxation, is woeful.
The majority of a neutral tax doesn't fall on the majority of the population: it falls upon the majority of the money, which is not by any means the same thing. (40% of the wealth belongs to 10% of the people in the UK.) A progressive tax would even more so raise money from the wealthier end of the system. If the majority of the population is paying the majority of the tax then either your society is egalitarian to the point of utopia/dystopia or the tax is entirely regressive.
The majority of a neutral tax doesn't fall on the majority of the population: it falls upon the majority of the money, which is not by any means the same thing. (40% of the wealth belongs to 10% of the people in the UK.) A progressive tax would even more so raise money from the wealthier end of the system. If the majority of the population is paying the majority of the tax then either your society is egalitarian to the point of utopia/dystopia or the tax is entirely regressive.
I'm not sure if this is a response to me, but a) no such thing as a neutral tax, and b) wealth is not taxed.
Doc Tor: Except the 'accurate' part, of course. The tax burden is simply shifted to regressive taxes from progressive ones, and it costs the poor more. It's not a question of economic survival, it's falling for a long con.
Is your argument that the total tax take under Left and Right governments is the same?
Electors accurately conclude that parties to the right are more likely to minimise their tax liability, leaving them with more of their cash, than those of the left, though there may be negative consequences for the public services on which they rely. Voting for a centre-right party can be as much a strategy for economic survival as it is for those who vote differently.
Probably more accurately, electors have bought the lie sold by the right that parties to the right minimise their tax liability and improve their overall prospects.
As @Doc Tor noted, the right-wing narrative almost always focuses on income tax which is generally the fairest way to tax income (the clue is in the name). But, there are other taxes paid - and for the poorer what's given in lower income tax is more than taken away through council tax, VAT, duties on fuel and other goods - and these taxes tend to benefit the rich (the taxes are similar but taken from disposable income rather than what would otherwise buy food). Added to which, the cuts in public services also hit the poorer - even if you get an extra £5 in your pocket, that doesn't help if the privatised utilities and bus services cost you £10 more than they would if a higher rate of tax funded them properly.
Doc Tor: Except the 'accurate' part, of course. The tax burden is simply shifted to regressive taxes from progressive ones, and it costs the poor more. It's not a question of economic survival, it's falling for a long con.
Is your argument that the total tax take under Left and Right governments is the same?
My argument is that the poor are poorer (for a sliding value of the poor - the lower middle class are now also poor) under right wing governments. The total tax take is a red herring - it's how that total is divided between wealth bands (and note, deliberately not saying income bands).
Comments
It only sounds anti-democractic to you because you didn't remotely explore what I meant by it.
Government is not supposed to work by simply having a bunch of politicians spout populist promises. It's supposed to work by Ministers obtaining input. From the public/civil service, from interest groups, from the general populace, from expertise.
The world is a complicated place. The solutions to problems are going to be complicated to. They are certainly not going to be arrived at by pointing at one person and saying "you have all the power because we like you".
I mean, entire systems of governance have developed over centuries precisely because of this. What is a parliament? It's a body almost expressly designed to prevent any one person having all the power (at one point, that one person was a king). The system is SUPPOSED to require that there's a lot of input from different sources. It's supposed to slow decision-making down.
You would never say that it was okay to just give a child whatever they want, no matter how unreasonable or dangerous. You seem to have this weird notion that adults are miraculously immune from similar impulses. No, sorry, they're not. They're somewhat better at impulse control and poor judgement, but they're not immune from it.
Given that we've been talking about transport and to some extent the road toll, how exactly do you think that happens? The vast majority of it isn't due to bad roads or bad cars, the vast majority of it is because human beings make really poor decisions.
What do the people want? Some of them want no speed limit. Some of them want the most powerful vehicle they can lay their hands on. Some of them want no rules against driving while drunk or otherwise intoxicated. Some of them don't want licensing.
Of course, some of the other people want the roads to be safe. Some of the other people are aware of the considerable societal cost of drunk driving and speeding and all the other stuff that greatly increases the risk of accidents.
Yes, I want some options to be off the table. I want some options to be off the table because they quite literally lead to death and destruction and misery, either for the people who believed they wanted the things that killed them, or for their families, or for innocent bystanders. The fact that you seem completely unaware of any nuance as to the grave dangers of giving people exactly what they want does you no credit whatsoever.
No, but it's the one that @Marvin the Martian is insisting upon.
Correct. The problem being that a large part of both economic advantage and politics positively relies on not having better education or information.
There is also a real question as to how much of the population actually wants to wade through all the information, or even how much that's possible given the scale and complexity of the world. I don't think it'd be possible for everyone to wade through everything.
One of the podcasts I listen to, Flash Forward, once had an episode imagining a future where everything was voted on. Everything. Every policy decision done by referendum. What would most likely happen is that an awful lot of people would abstain from most votes. American States already vary greatly in the number of referendums that they have, and it turns out that engagement actually drops significantly once you have too many issues to vote on.
Yep. One of the Great fallacies is that democracy = capitalism. Or more significantly that democracy means a particular form of capitalism that is especially predatory and benefits a minority with a concentration of wealth and power. This oxymoron is a major problem.
AFZ
Perhaps, but when people have a truly free vote they will generally vote for policies that make them, as individuals, better off.
I remember thinking in my teens when I was becoming aware of politics that I couldn't understand why people said communism meant no democracy and I'm still not sure why not. Why shouldn't there be a communist party standing in multi-party elections? If they win, they form a government and enact their policies (excluding cancelling elections) and are judged by the electorate next time. What's the connection between benign state control for the common good (as I understand the communist ideal) and people's freedom (or lack of) to choose the government?
"truly free" is doing a heck of a lot of work there. Often they'll vote for policies that make them worse off so long as it makes an out-group even worse off than them. That's pretty much the raison d'etre [reason for existing] of the GOP and tories.
Do you not think government has a role in protecting the interests of minorities who would be disproportionately disadvantaged by those policies?
While acknowledging the basic point that selfishness is a stronger impulse than altruism and compassion, people will generally vote for policies that make them feel better.
ie: "truly free" isn't something that characterises our democracies at the moment.
Communism (and socialism in general, to lesser degrees) means people have to care about each other, play nicely together, and share what they have freely with those in need. The problem is that people don't generally want to do any of those things - they don't tend to give a shit about anyone except their friends and families.
That's a form of being better off. It doesn't have to be economically.
Add in prisoners' dilemma effects: people vote for policies that would make them individually better off if only nobody else were affected by the policies; and other failures to see the full effects of policies (for instance, the persistent belief that government finances work like household finances).
The point is that these errors systematically favour people who are already wealthy, because wealthy people are better able to promote errors that favour them (and suppress errors that don't).
And the reason they so voted was because their own tax liabilities were excluded from the increases. The test of your thesis is whether individuals are prepared to see their own tax burden rise to pay for improved public services.
It was not me, by the way, who used the phrase "don't tend to give a shit", though it does somehow cut to the chase. The secret ballot, however, was always intended to permit and encourage electors to vote for the promotion of their private interests, as when Gladstone introduced it to protect crofters and tenants from the supervision of landowners. JS Milne, instructively, was opposed because he regarded voting as a public rather than a private act.
No, I was responding to @Marvin the Martian who made that claim, giving several examples of large proportions of our population who act as though they do care beyond their immediate family. You picked up one of those examples, so my response is still in that context.
I wonder what proportion of the population can tell you to any degree of accuracy what a 1p in the £ rise in income tax would cost them ? In meaningful units (£x per week reduction in discretionary spending on a base of £y per week).
And how many respond on the basis that 1p doesn't sound much....
I think most people know what they get paid. They could divide that number by 100, and say "about that much". It wouldn't be quite right, because of the tax-free allowance, but it's in the right ballpark. So if you're one of those GBP 25K per year people, I'd think all of them capable of grasping that a 1p in the £ income tax raise would cost them about 20 quid a month.
It's also fair to say, I think, that people are quite a lot more strongly in favour of paying for those things for their local communities than for people a long way away.
Would Scottish taxpayers be as keen to pay more tax to support the poor of England?
I see this effect quite strongly in the US, where lots of people in suburbs are happy to pay tax to support their local school district, but very much less keen to subsidise school districts in less wealthy areas.
And very few people in any developed country are happy to pay significant tax to fund education and development in poor countries.
I suspect most people on median weekly earnings (£585 in 2019) would be able on a rough and ready basis to work out that it would cost them less than £6 a week.
The actual situation is that Scotland structurally receives more in public spending than it contributes in taxation, which means that English taxpayers routinely subsidies their counterparts north of the border.
While it is true that opinion surveys indicate a willingness to pay increased taxes for such purposes, experience indicates that such generosity is not reflected in the polling booth. It would seem that parties promising to increase taxes for even worthy causes are viewed with suspicion as being too trigger happy in that regard.
The same could be said for almost all English regions, and the Scottish economy per capita is broadly in line with the UK average. The outlier here is the disproportionate effect of London on the whole of the UK, not the poverty of the Scottish economy.
This is definitely received wisdom but the evidence is actually very unclear. What are the effects of political spin on these things? For example, the constant myth of the Labour "Tax Bombshell" from 1992 to 2019 (These are the ones I can remember when the Tories successfully lied about; convincing people they would be worse off when this was empirically untrue).
Given this, I think it's actually impossible to how people would actually behave if presented with accurate information.
AFZ
I think most people are perfectly happy with tax increases, so long as those increases only apply to people earning more than they do. The cry is “tax the rich”, not “tax me”.
Certainly I think there's a fairly widespread desire to see the rich pay what looks like their fair share. Complicated tax avoidance schemes generally don't go down well on the Clapham omnibus.
But I think you oversimplify.
The US provides a number of interesting datapoints on this front, because US elections in many places often have some number of specific tax-raising measures that voters vote on directly. And the evidence suggests that voters will vote to pay more money, if they think that the thing they're getting for it is worthwhile.
I'm rich. By some measures. Tax me.
But whilst you're sort of correct, you're also wrong and undermining your earlier points.
Yes, of course it's human nature to want others to pay. But there's also really good research on how the vast majority are willing to pay more as long as it's done fairly. Moreover it is easy to demonstrate that the 'rich are not paying their fair share.
But I thought you said democracy was just about the will of the majority; I assure you most people would vote to tax the rich (all other things being equal).
AFZ
Coming up to the 1997 election I was a freelance software engineer working in a place where we outnumbered permanent staff. In conversation about the coming election and the economic consequences of what looked like a probable Labour win after 18 miserable years of the Tories in power, I said that I'd be willing to pay a bit more tax if it improved public services and thought a fair number of people earning well above average as we all were, would probably agree with me - we could afford it.
A prominent local Tory party member (who was said to have done very well (several million £) when the software house he co-founded went public) looked angrily at me, jabbed his finger in my face and said "liar!"
He just couldn't believe that anyone would willingly pay more tax to improve other people's lives and make the country better. He didn't seem like a cold, hard bastard but he was a Tory!
He didn't seem like a cold, hard bastard but he was a Tory!
No, happy to pay more tax, in proportion to my earnings (unlike council tax and VAT which are regressive taxes). But there wouldn't be the need for it if everybody paid their taxes - individuals and companies alike. And billionaires would still be billionaires if we taxed them at 100% on wealth over £1bn.
For sure. Just don’t portray that desire as some kind of altruistic, selfless thing that proceeds from the inherent goodness of the human heart. It’s nothing more than “I want more, so take it from that other bugger and give it to me”.
As I said just up the page:
"He just couldn't believe that anyone would willingly pay more tax to improve other people's lives and make the country better. He didn't seem like a cold, hard bastard but he was a Tory! "
I wanted the country to be one I could feel some pride for in the way it provided for its people's needs - after 18 miserable years of the Tories selling off assets (a string privatisations plus undervalued sale of public housing) and helping the rich to trample on the poor. Isn't that something all decent people would want if they can manage to suppress their selfish "me first" lower nature? Yes, we all struggle to not be so completely selfish but right-wing types don't even try to overcome that selfish drive.
Moreover, they demonise anyone who does try: Either it's the politics of envy or it's champagne socialism. I do enjoy it when right-wing people have non-strawman arguments, sadly that doesn't seem to be very often.
AFZ
If memory serves, I did once ask a Martian of this Parish, given that it had been suggested that wealthier left-wingers were "champagne socialists" and poor ones were envious, who could argue for a more socially just redistribution of wealth.
The answer was "no-one".
Which seems a little odd compared with the assertions upthread that everyone's voice should be heard and no policies be off the table a priori
Or perhaps we should be encouraged that views can change over time.
That's really the problem. That right there. The rich envy what little the poor have, because by right it should be in their own pockets. What they have is never enough.
I suspect this principle that a particular group cannot vote for another part of society to bear a cost will not be applied universally or equally.
There may be an ethical case for 'soaking the rich' from a certain perspective, but in terms of party choice in tax and spend matters much of the burden necessarily falls on the vast majority of citizens subject to the standard rate, living not in mansions but in terrace and semi-detached houses, tenements and flats, trying to make ends meet. While they can recognise the value in having good public services, paying the bills and juggling a limited budget is dependent on having as much money as possible in the hand. That becomes particularly important in times of economic stress, such as the world is currently experiencing. Electors accurately conclude that parties to the right are more likely to minimise their tax liability, leaving them with more of their cash, than those of the left, though there may be negative consequences for the public services on which they rely. Voting for a centre-right party can be as much a strategy for economic survival as it is for those who vote differently.
The genius of the Right has always been to convince them that the spending will go on "other people", whether those "other people" be the unemployed (styled as workshy layabouts, of course), immigrants, or the gay dolphin drop-in encounter workshop the Daily Heil insists the Loony Left Council is wasting the money on.
Good article here from a cursory reading: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://englishatlc.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/james-obrien-taking-the-biscuit.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiS9u6xv-7uAhXwRxUIHQNgDKcQFjABegQIDhAB&usg=AOvVaw2nIR1etjLu3QpT55pYUfr3
Except the 'accurate' part, of course. The tax burden is simply shifted to regressive taxes from progressive ones, and it costs the poor more. It's not a question of economic survival, it's falling for a long con.
They might have more money in their pockets, but their non-discretionary payments will swallow that up and more. The level of political discourse, especially around taxation, is woeful.
I'm not sure if this is a response to me, but a) no such thing as a neutral tax, and b) wealth is not taxed.
Is your argument that the total tax take under Left and Right governments is the same?
As @Doc Tor noted, the right-wing narrative almost always focuses on income tax which is generally the fairest way to tax income (the clue is in the name). But, there are other taxes paid - and for the poorer what's given in lower income tax is more than taken away through council tax, VAT, duties on fuel and other goods - and these taxes tend to benefit the rich (the taxes are similar but taken from disposable income rather than what would otherwise buy food). Added to which, the cuts in public services also hit the poorer - even if you get an extra £5 in your pocket, that doesn't help if the privatised utilities and bus services cost you £10 more than they would if a higher rate of tax funded them properly.
My argument is that the poor are poorer (for a sliding value of the poor - the lower middle class are now also poor) under right wing governments. The total tax take is a red herring - it's how that total is divided between wealth bands (and note, deliberately not saying income bands).