Criminals on TV

[Brimstone]

JNugent wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> raisethe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean, "equitable"?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fairness dictated by reason and conscience.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see. You haven't got a supporting argument so you appeal to
>>>>>>> "reason" (that being nothing more than a restatement of your
>>>>>>> preferences).
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you don't see. You asked me what equitable meant, and I
>>>>>> defined it for you
>>>>>
>>>>> ...in a way that is meaningless unless seen from your particular
>>>>> POV. IOW, it wasn't a definition. It was just the way you wanted
>>>>> your use of the word to be interpreted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is what you asked him to do, quote JNugent, "What do you
>>>> mean, "equitable"?" and he told you what he meant. Why is that a
>>>> problem for you?
>>>
>>> It isn't.
>>
>>
>> Then why did you say it was?
>
> I didn't.

If you didn't understand what was meant then it must have been a problem
otherwise you wouldn't have needed to ask what was meant.

>>> You can go back to sleep now.
>
>> I do this in my sleep, don't you?
>
> No. But you've clarified something.

You surely don't mean that that which you write comes from a conscious mind?

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>>JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brimstone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>raisethe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What do you mean, "equitable"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Fairness dictated by reason and conscience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I see. You haven't got a supporting argument so you appeal to
>>>>>>>>"reason" (that being nothing more than a restatement of your
>>>>>>>>preferences).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, you don't see. You asked me what equitable meant, and I
>>>>>>>defined it for you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...in a way that is meaningless unless seen from your particular
>>>>>>POV. IOW, it wasn't a definition. It was just the way you wanted
>>>>>>your use of the word to be interpreted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is what you asked him to do, quote JNugent, "What do you
>>>>>mean, "equitable"?" and he told you what he meant. Why is that a
>>>>>problem for you?
>>>>
>>>>It isn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then why did you say it was?
>>
>>I didn't.
>
>
> If you didn't understand what was meant then it must have been a problem
> otherwise you wouldn't have needed to ask what was meant.

"Equitable" can mean anything or nothing; it simply means "fair". The
definition as (later) given was not based on a common reference point.
It still depended exclusively on the preferences of the reader.

>>>>You can go back to sleep now.

>>>I do this in my sleep, don't you?

>>No. But you've clarified something.

> You surely don't mean that that which you write comes from a conscious mind?

Much of it is aimed at half-conscious interlocutors.

 

[Brimstone]

JNugent wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> raisethe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean, "equitable"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fairness dictated by reason and conscience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see. You haven't got a supporting argument so you appeal to
>>>>>>>>> "reason" (that being nothing more than a restatement of your
>>>>>>>>> preferences).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you don't see. You asked me what equitable meant, and I
>>>>>>>> defined it for you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...in a way that is meaningless unless seen from your particular
>>>>>>> POV. IOW, it wasn't a definition. It was just the way you wanted
>>>>>>> your use of the word to be interpreted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is what you asked him to do, quote JNugent, "What do you
>>>>>> mean, "equitable"?" and he told you what he meant. Why is that a
>>>>>> problem for you?
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why did you say it was?
>>>
>>> I didn't.
>>
>>
>> If you didn't understand what was meant then it must have been a
>> problem otherwise you wouldn't have needed to ask what was meant.
>
> "Equitable" can mean anything or nothing; it simply means "fair". The
> definition as (later) given was not based on a common reference point.
> It still depended exclusively on the preferences of the reader.

Thus it was a problem (on whateveer scale) for you.

>>>>> You can go back to sleep now.
>
>>>> I do this in my sleep, don't you?
>
>>> No. But you've clarified something.
>
>> You surely don't mean that that which you write comes from a
>> conscious mind?
>
> Much of it is aimed at half-conscious interlocutors.

Thank you for that. You've clarified something.

 

[Paul George]

On 23 Oct, 21:35, raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:


> Completely OT, but so what. IHT is known as the voluntary tax. It is
> generally pretty easy to avoid. Actually, I would like it to be more
> rigorous. I would sooner everyone had as equal as possible a start in
> life, no matter how rich their parents are.
>
>
OK, so once everyone has that equal start in life, will you
accept that there should be no connection between the amount
of tax a person pays and their income/wealth.
Someone who sacrifices several years income to get a good
education and then works hard at their career so they can
reap the rewards in later life should pay the same tax as
an idle clock-watcher.
National and local (age related perhaps) poll tax would
seem the fairest system.

 

[[email protected]]

Paul George wrote:
> National and local (age related perhaps) poll tax would
> seem the fairest system.

It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't really address the fundamental
inequity in the tax system, which is that I pay too much and other
people should pay more.


-dan

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Paul George <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 23 Oct, 21:35, raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > Completely OT, but so what. IHT is known as the voluntary tax. It is
> > generally pretty easy to avoid. Actually, I would like it to be more
> > rigorous. I would sooner everyone had as equal as possible a start in
> > life, no matter how rich their parents are.
> >
> >
> OK, so once everyone has that equal start in life, will you
> accept that there should be no connection between the amount
> of tax a person pays and their income/wealth.
> Someone who sacrifices several years income to get a good
> education and then works hard at their career so they can
> reap the rewards in later life should pay the same tax as
> an idle clock-watcher.
> National and local (age related perhaps) poll tax would
> seem the fairest system.

Indeed it would, until you consider that the poor place heavier demands
on government than the rich: the poor claim benefits; they require state
education, a government-subsidised health service, police, parks, etc.

The rich can afford private security to protect their property and
persons; they can afford private health-care, private education and own
sufficient land to be able to relax in privacy.

As far as I can tell, the fairest system of taxation would be one which
charges people for their use of services. Police hours would be saved by
poor people realising that they could not afford to report crimes.
Congestion would be eased as poor people realised they could not afford
to use roads. The country would suddenly become a paradise.

There could be some issues with increased levels of disease and crime.
However, the inability of individuals to pull themselves out of
impoverished squalor might encourage enlightened employers to set up
social housing, health-care and a free or cheap education system.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[raisethe]

> > Actually, I would like it <IHT> to be more
> > rigorous. I would sooner everyone had as equal as possible a start in
> > life, no matter how rich their parents are.
>
> That line would have been a wow in Albania, pre-1989.
>

You don't have to be a fan of the land of King Zog to appreciate the
benefits of inheritance tax.



>
> > and
> > (ii) that given that the government needs to raise tax it is right
> > that those who use a lot of finite fossil fuels pay more tax than
> > those who use less, and those who pollute more pay more tax than those
> > who pollute less.
>
> It's a point of view. It has nothing in particular to commend it
> (unless you really mean it across the board and you are advocating a
> similar 400% tax on domestic gas and electricity as well as on road
> fuel, which could mean we could abolish income tax), but it's a point
> of view.
>


Yes, I would put an across the board tax on fossil fuels. I would
think more in terms of reducing VAT.





> > It is fair to charge a tariff on an overseas manufacturer who has a
> > lower tax burden for producing a particular good that he wishes to
> > sell in the UK, because otherwise he has an unfair competitive
> > advantage over the UK producer of the same good.
>
> There you go again.
>
> "Unfair", you say. You are using it as though it meant something
> widely-agreed. It doesn't.


It does. It is a no brainer. Think of a hypothetical example, insert
some figures, then you tell me whether the UK producer is at an unfair
disadvantage against a supplier from a low fuel duty country.


>
> > It won't have the intended purpose of the tax,
> > which is to reduce demand for fuel.
>
> Ah, you've fallen for the oldest trick in the book.
>
> The purpose of tax is to gain revenue. The Chancellor does not want
> people to use (much) less of commodities that are highly-taxed (except
> to the very limited extent necessary to be able to "prove" that high
> commodity taxes "work"). They are highly-taxed because he knows people
> *won't* or *can't* use less of them. Think of tobacco. In the end, it
> proved necessary to introduce severe controls on its use in public
> places. Why not just use high(er) taxes on it if the purpose of tax is
> "to reduce demand for" the highly-taxed commodity? Because it wouldn't
> have worked, that's why.


I can only repeat, I am only interested in what is right and fair. The
motives of the puppets in Westminster are only too clear, so no, I
have not fallen for this particular government scam. Fuel duty is for
reducing the demand of finite and dirty resources. However, it is of
course also to gain revenue, on the grounds that people who use more
of this stuff pay more tax, and those who use less, pay less.

You are making me repeat myself now. Perhaps you need to re-read my
earlier posts on this thread.

>
> > So if fuel duty is going to be
> > applied, it has to be both on all fuel which is used in the UK, and
> > all fuel which is used in the production and distribution of any good
> > sold in the UK. For those countries that have a lower fuel duty than
> > ourselves, a tariff is therefore necessary.
>
> Would you impose a similar tariff on goods or services produced by
> labour paid less then the (UK) minimum wage?
>
> If not, why not?


A very good question. But I have an equally fine answer. The UK
minimum wage should be abolished, as should welfare payments over and
above the requirements for the basics of life. No tarriff would be
required as we would be competing on level terms.

However, if the minimum wage is considered morally imperative, then we
should place an embargo on any good from overseas which has been
produced by labour paid less than the minimum wage. Failure to do so
is illogical. It is, however, the current situation in the UK.

>
> >>TYhank you for at least responding in a way that shows you understand
> >>the issues.-
> > No Sir. I thank you.
>
> After you, Claude...

....No, after you Cecil.

 

[raisethe]

On 24 Oct, 12:55, Paul George <p_e_
>
> OK, so once everyone has that equal start in life, will you
> accept that there should be no connection between the amount
> of tax a person pays and their income/wealth.
> Someone who sacrifices several years income to get a good
> education and then works hard at their career so they can
> reap the rewards in later life should pay the same tax as
> an idle clock-watcher.
> National and local (age related perhaps) poll tax would
> seem the fairest system.

I don't think you've thought this through.

i) People undertake further education either for aesthetic reasons or
as a means of obtaining higher income in the future. In the latter
case, the higher future income stream more than compensates for the
lack of income during the years of education, or else they wouldn't do
it.

ii) IME there is little relationship between how hard people work and
how much they get paid.

iii) Most damning to your thesis is that a poll tax has to be set
with regard to the lowest income level. Otherwise, your lazy
clockwatchers will not be able to pay it. In fact, the lowest income
is nil, so the poll tax rate would be nil, and no government revenue
would be generated.

 

[Martin Dann]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell, the fairest system of taxation would be one which
> charges people for their use of services. Police hours would be saved by
> poor people realising that they could not afford to report crimes.
> Congestion would be eased as poor people realised they could not afford
> to use roads. The country would suddenly become a paradise.

Poor people would not be able to report crime, which would lead to more
crime being committed against them (Often by the rich). This would lead
to a more victorian style country, the rich would abuse the poor.

Second example would lead to Mr Toads thinking that they own the roads,
and that peasant should not be able to use them, look at the example of
VED aka road tax.

Martin.

 

[JNugent]

Martin Dann wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:

>> As far as I can tell, the fairest system of taxation would be one which
>> charges people for their use of services. Police hours would be saved by
>> poor people realising that they could not afford to report crimes.
>> Congestion would be eased as poor people realised they could not afford
>> to use roads. The country would suddenly become a paradise.

> Poor people would not be able to report crime, which would lead to more
> crime being committed against them (Often by the rich). This would lead
> to a more victorian style country, the rich would abuse the poor.

> Second example would lead to Mr Toads thinking that they own the roads,
> and that peasant should not be able to use them, look at the example of
> VED aka road tax.

> Martin.

I think that's a whoosh.

 

[raisethe]

On 26 Oct, 00:24, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > As far as I can tell, the fairest system of taxation would be one which
> > charges people for their use of services. Police hours would be saved by
> > poor people realising that they could not afford to report crimes.
> > Congestion would be eased as poor people realised they could not afford
> > to use roads. The country would suddenly become a paradise.
>
> Poor people would not be able to report crime, which would lead to more
> crime being committed against them (Often by the rich). This would lead
> to a more victorian style country, the rich would abuse the poor.
>
> Second example would lead to Mr Toads thinking that they own the roads,
> and that peasant should not be able to use them, look at the example of
> VED aka road tax.
>
> Martin.

I think his post was ironical.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the fairest system of taxation would be one which
> > charges people for their use of services. Police hours would be saved by
> > poor people realising that they could not afford to report crimes.
> > Congestion would be eased as poor people realised they could not afford
> > to use roads. The country would suddenly become a paradise.
>
> Poor people would not be able to report crime, which would lead to more
> crime being committed against them (Often by the rich). This would lead
> to a more victorian style country, the rich would abuse the poor.

Not for long: the poor would soon be imprisoned (at their own expense)
for non-payment of taxes.
>
> Second example would lead to Mr Toads thinking that they own the roads,
> and that peasant should not be able to use them, look at the example of
> VED aka road tax.

Absolutely not: Mr Toad would /know/ that the peasant did not have the
right to use the road.

My point, for the sake of clarity, is that the fairest system of
taxation is probably not the most sensible system of taxation.

cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
raisethe ('[email protected]') wrote:

> On 23 Oct, 13:32, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> just think of the ridiculous measures to which UK citizens are driven
>> in order to be allowed to leave their possessions to their children.
>
> Completely OT, but so what. IHT is known as the voluntary tax. It is
> generally pretty easy to avoid. Actually, I would like it to be more
> rigorous. I would sooner everyone had as equal as possible a start in
> life, no matter how rich their parents are.

Agree absolutely. The Conservative Party's policies would be morally
defensible if they insisted on 100% death duties for everyone - I still
wouldn't agree with them, but I'd accept them as honest. If everyone
starts from the same place, unbridled competition can be defended as fair.

Heritable wealth is a very dangerous and destabilising concept for society,
because it will over time polarise wealth into fewer and fewer hands - as,
indeed, it did during the middle ages. Do we really want to go back there?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.