Flat Tax and New Labour Spin

[wadia-miester]

The Ave ernings in the UK are £25K or close to it I believe

 

[Paul Ranson]

Your opinions of what Hutton wrote and the reasons for America's black underclass are just that, an opinion.

Rather than using reason he was using his unsupported opinion on unrelated issues. Connecting 'tax cuts' to 'flat tax' via welfare dependency. Pretty unconvincing.

If flat tax is not political then why is it mainly championed only by those on the right?

Define 'right'. If you were a supporter of a large unproductive state apparatus then you would be against it. Does that make you 'left'? If you wanted a reduction in state overhead (and hence more resources for social purposes) and a reduction in taxation on the poor then you might be for it, and therefore 'right'? I think the instinctive reaction to it depends on whether you're pro-state or pro-people, and that doesn't line up left-right. Opposing it because you oppose some of the people proposing it is rather dim. IMO.

I'm not quite sure I see the relevance of your effective tax rate table. It's interesting, useful even, but doesn't reveal anything that most people don't already know.

Do most people know how much tax very low earners pay? Or how close to 'flat' the current system actually is?

Paul

 

[michaelab]

Opposing it because you oppose some of the people proposing it is rather dim.

I never said anything of the kind. My linking flat tax to a right-wing agenda was merely to show that it is political.

t depends on whether you're pro-state or pro-people

I'd phrase that as whether you're pro-society (the human race in general) or pro-individuals (only interested in your own welfare). That lines up fairly nicely into left (the former) and right (the latter).

Michael.

 

[7_V]

I'd phrase that as whether you're pro-society (the human race in general) or pro-individuals (only interested in your own welfare). That lines up fairly nicely into left (the former) and right (the latter).

I absolutely agree. Anyone on the right is an evil nasty (Bush/Thatcher) while those on the left are thoroughly decent folk (Mao/Stalin).

Aren't we getting a little tired of kindergarten politics?

Regards
Steve

 

[greg]

The ring fencing of a largely black underclass in the US is a product of leftwing social policy not 'tax cuts'.

Paul please explain how left wing US social policies have created this?

 

[greg]

If flat tax is not political then why is it mainly championed only by those on the right?

Left wing thinking has always failed to appreciate that commerce is a natural state of human behaviour and a commercially successful ecomony is the engine room of a prosperous nation.

This comment is made in the assumption that those who champion flat tax consider it to be economically beneficial.

Conversely right wing thinking has always failed to appreciate that laissez faire politics lead to the existence of an underclass and considerable misery.

I sit somewhere between the two on a rickety fence.

 

[greg]

I absolutely agree. Anyone on the right is an evil nasty (Bush/Thatcher) while those on the left are thoroughly decent folk (Mao/Stalin).

Aren't we getting a little tired of kindergarten politics?

Regards
Steve

Frankly I dont see what Mao or Stalin have to do with genuine left wing thinking. They are no more Marxists than J Edgar Hoover,

 

[7_V]

I sit somewhere between the two on a rickety fence.

Practically everyone sits somewhere between the two, Greg - at least in today's UK. The Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems are all on that rickety fence.

Steve

 

[7_V]

Frankly I dont see what Mao or Stalin have to do with genuine left wing thinking. They are no more Marxists than J Edgar Hoover,

They both ran countries where the state was paramount and the individual was secondary (except of course for those individuals who occupied positions of authority in the state).

...And those countries which are (or were) run by genuine left wing thinkers are where exactly?

 

[greg]

Indeed. Sure a bit of Marxist paraphrasing went on - call it facism with a theme.

 

[greg]

They both ran countries where the state was paramount and the individual was secondary (except of course for those individuals who occupied positions of authority in the state).

...And those countries which are (or were) run by genuine left wing thinkers are where exactly?

Actually, and oddly, Libya is probably as close as I can think of.

 

[GAZZ]

Flat tax, no one has said what percentage it would be. All that has been mentioned is 25%, whats stopping a goverment increasing it to say 30%? what about interest rates? Might i suggest the real figure may even be as high as 35% in the UK when they have to slow the economy down.

 

[Paul Ranson]

I'd phrase that as whether you're pro-society (the human race in general) or pro-individuals (only interested in your own welfare). That lines up fairly nicely into left (the former) and right (the latter).

Well I think you (as usual) do the 'right' a disservice. There's an interesting column by Anatole Kaletsky in today's Times which touches upon this, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1061-1802553,00.html.

Nothing to do with 'flat taxes' which are only worth considering in the context of a complete overhaul of taxation.

Paul

 

[greg]

I'd phrase that as whether you're pro-society (the human race in general) or pro-individuals (only interested in your own welfare). That lines up fairly nicely into left (the former) and right (the latter).

Michael.

You could just as easily characterise them as pro-idealism vs pro-pragmatism. Depends which end of the telescope you look down.

 

[greg]

Paul - still waiting for your explanation regards left wing policies and New Orleans.

 

[7_V]

Actually, and oddly, Libya is probably as close as I can think of.

And they say that Socialism doesn't work.

Steve

 

[michaelab]

Paul - still waiting for your explanation regards left wing policies and New Orleans.

So am I.

 

[7_V]

You could just as easily characterise them as pro-idealism vs pro-pragmatism. Depends which end of the telescope you look down.

I'm not sure about that, Greg.

With domestic policy, both the right and the left have their own ideals - for example, desiring 'small government' or excellent public services - and both wings have to be pragmatic about what can be achieved in practice.

With foreign policy, the idealist approach is to support regimes which have democracy and a good level of human rights. Pragmatism is the approach of aiming for stability and supporting the regimes that seem to provide this or those that are 'the enemy of your enemies', irrespective of their politics or human rights. Thus the neo-cons tend towards idealism (and they were leftists now considered rightists), while the pragmatic approach is the more traditional one typified by Henry Kissinger and his school of thought.

The point is that all sides - left, right, idealists, pragmatists - support policies that they believe are for the good. The views that 'the left cares for others; the right care only for themselves' or 'idealists/pragmatists = good/bad' are vastly oversimplified and are the realms of tabloid journalism, populist politicians (who tend amazingly to come to their senses after retirement) and naive loonies of all persuasions.

Steve

 

[greg]

I'm not sure about that, Greg.

With domestic policy, both the right and the left have their own ideals - for example, desiring 'small government' or excellent public services - and both wings have to be pragmatic about what can be achieved in practice.

I must add that I dont see idealism as necessarily "good" or pragmatism as essentially "bad". Would you not agree though that the concept of "small government" is a practical one, whereas the concept of watered down Marxism is an idealistic one? I am talking about the left and right wings of thinking rather than real world politics,

I would argue that before "new" Labour, the Labour party lacked pragmatism in how they could implement their policies regards their ideals - which were in simple terms watered down Marxism (if thats actually possible ). They struggled enormously with results they didnt predict - especially the problems created by unions who in theory should have been over the moon with how their rights had been enhanced, but in practice became victims of the inevitable and very natural struggle for power and control within the unions.

I would equally argue that Thatcher's pragmatism obscured the damage caused to our social fabric. She was very effective in achieving certain enormously beneficial changes to our economy (and some very damging ones too) but along the way changed the very shape of our society for the worse (IMO). I would say this was a pragmatist, almost utilitarian method.

It could be said that both swings were necessary to bring us (in the UK) to a general centrism and there is nothing to say we wont move back to one wing or another - if we do it would almost certainly be to the right.

New Labour appears to offer centrism with a twist of leftism (and a healthy dash of rightism) which appears to attempt general pragmatism with idealism on occasions. In this regard, by it's very nature (in my thinking anyway) centrism is about hitting an approriate balance between pragmatism and idealism.

If the Tories do finally accept that the right wing thinking needs to be ditched if they want to stand a chance of reelection they will (I guess) sit somewhere very close - in some areas to the right and in some to the left of "New" Labour.

Let's not also forget that political thinking is 2D not 1D. When liberalism and facism are added as a vertical dissection my simplistic 1D characterisations become meaningless.

With foreign policy, the idealist approach is to support regimes which have democracy and a good level of human rights. Pragmatism is the approach of aiming for stability and supporting the regimes that seem to provide this or those that are 'the enemy of your enemies', irrespective of their politics or human rights. Thus the neo-cons tend towards idealism (and they were leftists now considered rightists), while the pragmatic approach is the more traditional one typified by Henry Kissinger and his school of thought.

I've never considered neo-con thinking anything other than right wing thinking - they believe they are being utterly pragmatic IMO.

I guess actually Marxism is also based on the belief it is pragmatic, so I take your point in part.

The point is that all sides - left, right, idealists, pragmatists - support policies that they believe are for the good. The views that 'the left cares for others; the right care only for themselves' or 'idealists/pragmatists = good/bad' are vastly oversimplified and are the realms of tabloid journalism, populist politicians (who tend amazingly to come to their senses after retirement) and naive loonies of all persuasions.

Steve

I accept that any sane government aims to support policies that they believe are for the good of their nation. I dont think many right wing thinkers believe their thinking is just caring for themselves, but in supporting concepts such as small governement, low taxes, and minimal state intervention it isnt hard to dispute that they believe in a social structure which rewards effort, endeavour and enterprise and ultimately isolates sections of the weak, the infirm and the poor.

I would add that in reality any newly incumbant administration is suddenly faced with the harsh reality of leadership and idealism should take a back seat as they attempt to take the reigns.

New Labour have struggled enormously to bring their idealism into their practical policies - take the "foreign policy with an ethical dimension". They just couldnt reconcile their ethics with the economic pressure of supporting our arms industry - one of our key exports. That is a perfect illustration of how politics is a series of compramises between competing and contrasting needs and objectives.

 

[7_V]

...Would you not agree though that the concept of "small government" is a practical one, whereas the concept of watered down Marxism is an idealistic one?
...
I would equally argue that Thatcher's pragmatism obscured the damage caused to our social fabric. She was very effective in achieving certain enormously beneficial changes to our economy (and some very damging ones too) but along the way changed the very shape of our society for the worse (IMO). I would say this was a pragmatist, almost utilitarian method.

I'm broadly in agreement with you Greg, although in the two specific cases above I disagree. I'd say that 'small government' is an ideal which is never achieved in practice. It's a property of bureaucracies that they tend over time to become less and less efficient as bureaucrats build up their empires and power bases.

Similarly, I'd say that Thatcher was an idealist. Practicalities dictated that she couldn't go as far as she would have liked (thank goodness).

...It could be said that both swings were necessary to bring us (in the UK) to a general centrism and there is nothing to say we wont move back to one wing or another - if we do it would almost certainly be to the right.

Very good point. The best legacy of Thatcherism is that practically everyone in the UK has come to the realization that we live (and should live) in a mixed economy - neither purely Marxist nor Capitalist. We have all become pragmatists in this respect. Just open a telephone or bank account in France or spend a few months in Paris or Germany to see how different British attitudes and corporations have become to their's. We're probably in a better state than either country as a result. Does anyone now believe that the French or German status quo is sustainable?

My own politics have become seasonal rather than left or right (domestically). If I feel the UK has moved too far to the right I tend to vote left (yes, it has happened, Michael) and vice-versa. In practice I lean to the right because I happen to believe that the general (BBC) consensus is too far left.

Ah well, back to work.
Steve