Blairites staging a coup...

[Stom]

Or it would if, you know, we actually censored any views. Or didn't have a left wing owner. Trifling details like that.

Ah, no true socialism has ever existed. That's marvellous. After each failure the socialists come out and say "Ah, but that wasn't TRUE socialism" despite what they may have said at the time.

There were various socialist, or socialist leaning states early on in the 20th century, but these states were torn apart by the WW1. Since the fall of communism, socialism has always been allied to neoliberal economic theory, meaning that it cannot be true socialism. Until we see a country utilising a different form of capitalism, combined with social democracy, we cannot say we have seen a modern, true socialist state.

We may well get one soon, though.

So name me a failure?

[Digby]

By such measures there may never have been a failed socialist state, it'd still leave socialism as an experiment almost no one wants to try, even a huge number of those on the left want modified social policies bolted onto a free market. It's possible at some point there'll be a desire to adopt socialism, but I can't see it moving beyond a very fringe movement for certain oddities in the various student unions to shout in the face of those other oddities who think even a 10% income tax little more than theft of their hard earned money

[Stom]

By such measures there may never have been a failed socialist state, it'd still leave socialism as an experiment almost no one wants to try, even a huge number of those on the left want modified social policies bolted onto a free market. It's possible at some point there'll be a desire to adopt socialism, but I can't see it moving beyond a very fringe movement for certain oddities in the various student unions to shout in the face of those other oddities who think even a 10% income tax little more than theft of their hard earned money

The question is, though: do we really have a free market? Considering state aid to corporations, I'd suggest not. And that's the problem. We don't practice capitalism, we practice feudalism under a different name.

I have been toying with the idea of 0% income tax, but I haven't yet figured it out completely. I think it's doable within a socialist structure.

[Digby]

I have been toying with the idea of 0% income tax, but I haven't yet figured it out completely. I think it's doable within a socialist structure.

Without doubt were everything owned by the State

[Stom]

I have been toying with the idea of 0% income tax, but I haven't yet figured it out completely. I think it's doable within a socialist structure.

Without doubt were everything owned by the State

Where you start to move a bit further left than I imagined...

I know 160bn doesn't correspond to 90bn, but you could wipe out a lot of corporate welfare (and justification for it) by removing income tax. I'm someone who has no problem with an individual earning 250k, 750k, whatever. I do have a problem with income that's designed to avoid taxation, though. So make salaries tax free, and close the loopholes. It may not work, but I think it's worth looking into a bit.

[Zhivago]

I have been toying with the idea of 0% income tax, but I haven't yet figured it out completely. I think it's doable within a socialist structure.

Without doubt were everything owned by the State

Where you start to move a bit further left than I imagined...

I know 160bn doesn't correspond to 90bn, but you could wipe out a lot of corporate welfare (and justification for it) by removing income tax. I'm someone who has no problem with an individual earning 250k, 750k, whatever. I do have a problem with income that's designed to avoid taxation, though. So make salaries tax free, and close the loopholes. It may not work, but I think it's worth looking into a bit.

You are no socialist.

[Digby]

I have been toying with the idea of 0% income tax, but I haven't yet figured it out completely. I think it's doable within a socialist structure.

Without doubt were everything owned by the State

Where you start to move a bit further left than I imagined...

I know 160bn doesn't correspond to 90bn, but you could wipe out a lot of corporate welfare (and justification for it) by removing income tax. I'm someone who has no problem with an individual earning 250k, 750k, whatever. I do have a problem with income that's designed to avoid taxation, though. So make salaries tax free, and close the loopholes. It may not work, but I think it's worth looking into a bit.

I'm not sure I'd favour an economy that were only a tiny percentage of what it might otherwise be, but if it were state controlled and you buy and sell from and to the state it'd be a reasonable claim there'd be no need for taxes and the state could just pay you net.

[Zhivago]

Without doubt were everything owned by the State

Where you start to move a bit further left than I imagined...

I know 160bn doesn't correspond to 90bn, but you could wipe out a lot of corporate welfare (and justification for it) by removing income tax. I'm someone who has no problem with an individual earning 250k, 750k, whatever. I do have a problem with income that's designed to avoid taxation, though. So make salaries tax free, and close the loopholes. It may not work, but I think it's worth looking into a bit.

I'm not sure I'd favour an economy that were only a tiny percentage of what it might otherwise be, but if it were state controlled and you buy and sell from and to the state it'd be a reasonable claim there'd be no need for taxes and the state could just pay you net.

It's a vision of hell. A public economy need not be state controlled.

[kk67]

It's much like politics, anyway: Westminster is so detached from the populace that it continues to make huge mistakes. Like the ref. I mean, it was blatantly obvious the remain campaign was failing to target anyone's fears, but they are still adamant they got it right...

Throw in the fact that even the Guardian is being run by a right winger and you get to see the problem. There is just no mainstream media representation of the views that real people have. And considering those likely to get their news from multiple sources are also those least likely to vote, you have a problem of representation.

I just fail to see how anyone who hasn't been brainwashed can look at the economic system of the past 20 years and say yes, that has been a success, let's keep at it. That economic system flat out destroys any possibility of social policy, thanks to dogma that just isn't true.

I also would like to comment on the "compromise" point. Those on the left of the spectrum are always asked to water down their views and move right. But those on the right always fail to acknowledge that they need to water down their views, and that does not mean gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a right or left PoV, it's a liberal PoV. And as we've seen with the LibDems, Liberal can mean right wing, too.

If the right leaning posters want to have some compromise, they need to give up some of that economic dogma.

Yup. I'm very angry about corruption in public office and in the business world. The top 10% being utterly self-serving is a betrayal of us all.
Regime change, going to war and destablilising countries just so that Halliburton can cream themselves....it can't be right.

[Sandydragon]

I have been toying with the idea of 0% income tax, but I haven't yet figured it out completely. I think it's doable within a socialist structure.

Without doubt were everything owned by the State

Where you start to move a bit further left than I imagined...

I know 160bn doesn't correspond to 90bn, but you could wipe out a lot of corporate welfare (and justification for it) by removing income tax. I'm someone who has no problem with an individual earning 250k, 750k, whatever. I do have a problem with income that's designed to avoid taxation, though. So make salaries tax free, and close the loopholes. It may not work, but I think it's worth looking into a bit.

So, would tax only be levied against products (VAT etc), rather than on income? That would be a major drain in the Treasury's income (appreciate this is a work in progress); would a flat tax rate with the loopholes removed not be more efficient?

[Stom]

Without doubt were everything owned by the State

Where you start to move a bit further left than I imagined...

I know 160bn doesn't correspond to 90bn, but you could wipe out a lot of corporate welfare (and justification for it) by removing income tax. I'm someone who has no problem with an individual earning 250k, 750k, whatever. I do have a problem with income that's designed to avoid taxation, though. So make salaries tax free, and close the loopholes. It may not work, but I think it's worth looking into a bit.

So, would tax only be levied against products (VAT etc), rather than on income? That would be a major drain in the Treasury's income (appreciate this is a work in progress); would a flat tax rate with the loopholes removed not be more efficient?

Not sure yet. An increase in corporation tax would be necessary, but SMEs would be better off, as they would be paying less per employee.

[Sandydragon]

Where you start to move a bit further left than I imagined...

I know 160bn doesn't correspond to 90bn, but you could wipe out a lot of corporate welfare (and justification for it) by removing income tax. I'm someone who has no problem with an individual earning 250k, 750k, whatever. I do have a problem with income that's designed to avoid taxation, though. So make salaries tax free, and close the loopholes. It may not work, but I think it's worth looking into a bit.

So, would tax only be levied against products (VAT etc), rather than on income? That would be a major drain in the Treasury's income (appreciate this is a work in progress); would a flat tax rate with the loopholes removed not be more efficient?

Not sure yet. An increase in corporation tax would be necessary, but SMEs would be better off, as they would be paying less per employee.

Would you be comfortable with driving multi-nationals abroad? I understand the dislike of fat cats etc, but they do provide a lot of jobs. How would that be compensated? Would there be an expectation that British firms would step into the breach and be competitive, perhaps supported by tariffs?

[Stom]

So, would tax only be levied against products (VAT etc), rather than on income? That would be a major drain in the Treasury's income (appreciate this is a work in progress); would a flat tax rate with the loopholes removed not be more efficient?

Not sure yet. An increase in corporation tax would be necessary, but SMEs would be better off, as they would be paying less per employee.

Would you be comfortable with driving multi-nationals abroad? I understand the dislike of fat cats etc, but they do provide a lot of jobs. How would that be compensated? Would there be an expectation that British firms would step into the breach and be competitive, perhaps supported by tariffs?

How would multis be driven abroad? They go where the talent is, for the right price. So if the highly skilled workforce of the UK was suddenly cheaper...

I think they'd deal with the minimal increase. Plus I'd want to include a PoC tax anyway, so they'd have to pay it whether they were in the UK or not. One way to make that work is by making it cheaper for businesses based in Britain, but that would need to be watertight.

[Sandydragon]

Not sure yet. An increase in corporation tax would be necessary, but SMEs would be better off, as they would be paying less per employee.

Would you be comfortable with driving multi-nationals abroad? I understand the dislike of fat cats etc, but they do provide a lot of jobs. How would that be compensated? Would there be an expectation that British firms would step into the breach and be competitive, perhaps supported by tariffs?

How would multis be driven abroad? They go where the talent is, for the right price. So if the highly skilled workforce of the UK was suddenly cheaper...

I think they'd deal with the minimal increase. Plus I'd want to include a PoC tax anyway, so they'd have to pay it whether they were in the UK or not. One way to make that work is by making it cheaper for businesses based in Britain, but that would need to be watertight.

UK workforce is cheaper - is that a suggestion that companies could pay less because of no tax, or have I misunderstood your argument?
Multinationals need talent, agreed, but if the price of doing business is too high, then they will move. There will be a tipping point somewhere on the scale where it no longer becomes worth it.

PoC tax?

[Which Tyler]

Yup. I'm very angry about corruption in public office and in the business world. The top 10% being utterly self-serving is a betrayal of us all.
Regime change, going to war and destablilising countries just so that Halliburton can cream themselves....it can't be right.

That's just so last year - haven't you heard? we're destabilising ourselves now.

Mind you, if we can get a violent regime change for ourselves at the same time...

[Stom]

Would you be comfortable with driving multi-nationals abroad? I understand the dislike of fat cats etc, but they do provide a lot of jobs. How would that be compensated? Would there be an expectation that British firms would step into the breach and be competitive, perhaps supported by tariffs?

How would multis be driven abroad? They go where the talent is, for the right price. So if the highly skilled workforce of the UK was suddenly cheaper...

I think they'd deal with the minimal increase. Plus I'd want to include a PoC tax anyway, so they'd have to pay it whether they were in the UK or not. One way to make that work is by making it cheaper for businesses based in Britain, but that would need to be watertight.

UK workforce is cheaper - is that a suggestion that companies could pay less because of no tax, or have I misunderstood your argument?
Multinationals need talent, agreed, but if the price of doing business is too high, then they will move. There will be a tipping point somewhere on the scale where it no longer becomes worth it.

PoC tax?

Yes.

Point of Consumption.

[Sandydragon]

How would multis be driven abroad? They go where the talent is, for the right price. So if the highly skilled workforce of the UK was suddenly cheaper...

I think they'd deal with the minimal increase. Plus I'd want to include a PoC tax anyway, so they'd have to pay it whether they were in the UK or not. One way to make that work is by making it cheaper for businesses based in Britain, but that would need to be watertight.

UK workforce is cheaper - is that a suggestion that companies could pay less because of no tax, or have I misunderstood your argument?
Multinationals need talent, agreed, but if the price of doing business is too high, then they will move. There will be a tipping point somewhere on the scale where it no longer becomes worth it.

PoC tax?

Yes.

Point of Consumption.

IS that yes, people will be paid less, or yes I have misunderstood your argument?

Assuming its the former then most people should recognise that the important aspect of the payslip is what they get to take home, so provided that was similar, or indeed slightly higher, then I cant imagine too many complaints. In essence, you are returning the tax system to that prior to the Napoleonic Wars where taxes were on goods, but not (IIRC) income.], or at least wages.

The two big issues I would suggest with this are:
The lower revenues for the treasury. Corporation tax might make up the difference, but that's a bit IF and certainly not for a while.
The premise that taxation can be used for social levelling is blown out of the water, which would upset some people.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I don't think you can get rid of income tax without having such ridiculously punitive corporation taxes that you would actually start scaring companies away. Remember that companies don't pay income tax, they only collect it, so any savings would only come from the abolition of employers NI, which incidentally I'd be entirely in favour of.

ETA Taxes other than IT tend to be pretty regressive so you need to find a way to offset that.

[Zhivago]

Watson organises a meeting for Sunday (tomorrow) and then cancels it a day before (today), saying talk have failed. All just part of the show. PLP aren't interested in a compromise at all, they just want to appear open to one for the sake of their public relations.

[fivepointer]

Watson organises a meeting for Sunday (tomorrow) and then cancels it a day before (today), saying talk have failed. All just part of the show. PLP aren't interested in a compromise at all, they just want to appear open to one for the sake of their public relations.

Don't think Corbyn is all that interested in building bridges either. 172-40 tells you something about the breakdown in trust between leader and the PLP.

[Stom]

Watson organises a meeting for Sunday (tomorrow) and then cancels it a day before (today), saying talk have failed. All just part of the show. PLP aren't interested in a compromise at all, they just want to appear open to one for the sake of their public relations.

Don't think Corbyn is all that interested in building bridges either. 172-40 tells you something about the breakdown in trust between leader and the PLP.

Yet McCluskey is behind Corbyn and the majority of members are, too. The MPs need to listen to their members.

This will end in a split, which is a good thing. Will stop the infighting.

[Zhivago]

Watson organises a meeting for Sunday (tomorrow) and then cancels it a day before (today), saying talk have failed. All just part of the show. PLP aren't interested in a compromise at all, they just want to appear open to one for the sake of their public relations.

Don't think Corbyn is all that interested in building bridges either. 172-40 tells you something about the breakdown in trust between leader and the PLP.

The PLP seem to think they can represent themselves. Hundreds of thousands of Labour members voted for Corbyn, only for a small cabal of Blairites to undermine him at every turn. Corbyn has been far more accomodating than I would be in his position.

[Rich]

Labour's decision to elect a leader based on OMOV (One Man One Vote) is an exercise in political suicide.

Everyone knows that the party membership are much more active and radical than the ordinary, non-party card holding supporter.

The Young Socialists lean very firmly to the left.

The same is true of the Conservative party BTW - the young Conservatives lean very much to the right with the average Tory party member a died-in-the-wool Thatcher-ite.
If the Tory party was ever as stupid as to follow Labour's lead in leadership election procedure, the Tories would elect some right wing nut-job.

Corbyn is going to defeat Angela Eagle....what then for the PLP ?

Does Britain get an SDP Mk II ?

Does Corbyn go on a witch-hunt and seek to get the 170+ Labour MPs who voted against him de-selected in time for the next General Election ?

Looks like a bloody civil war is in prospect for Labour.

[Digby]

Watson organises a meeting for Sunday (tomorrow) and then cancels it a day before (today), saying talk have failed. All just part of the show. PLP aren't interested in a compromise at all, they just want to appear open to one for the sake of their public relations.

Don't think Corbyn is all that interested in building bridges either. 172-40 tells you something about the breakdown in trust between leader and the PLP.

The PLP seem to think they can represent themselves. Hundreds of thousands of Labour members voted for Corbyn, only for a small cabal of Blairites to undermine him at every turn. Corbyn has been far more accomodating than I would be in his position.

Maybe Corbyn would care to accommodate more given he was elected by a few hundred thousand and the MPs by millions. Or more preferably he could go join the Socialists and leave Labour to the grown ups, and of course once safely in the fold of the SWP he'd even find he'd be accommodated.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Labour's decision to elect a leader based on OMOV (One Man One Vote) is an exercise in political suicide.

Everyone knows that the party membership are much more active and radical than the ordinary, non-party card holding supporter.

The Young Socialists lean very firmly to the left.

The same is true of the Conservative party BTW - the young Conservatives lean very much to the right with the average Tory party member a died-in-the-wool Thatcher-ite.
If the Tory party was ever as stupid as to follow Labour's lead in leadership election procedure, the Tories would elect some right wing nut-job.

Corbyn is going to defeat Angela Eagle....what then for the PLP ?

Does Britain get an SDP Mk II ?

Does Corbyn go on a witch-hunt and seek to get the 170+ Labour MPs who voted against him de-selected in time for the next General Election ?

Looks like a bloody civil war is in prospect for Labour.

Looks very much like they may be about to. In fact arguably they only have right wing nut jobs to choose from.

Watson organises a meeting for Sunday (tomorrow) and then cancels it a day before (today), saying talk have failed. All just part of the show. PLP aren't interested in a compromise at all, they just want to appear open to one for the sake of their public relations.

Don't think Corbyn is all that interested in building bridges either. 172-40 tells you something about the breakdown in trust between leader and the PLP.

The PLP seem to think they can represent themselves. Hundreds of thousands of Labour members voted for Corbyn, only for a small cabal of Blairites to undermine him at every turn. Corbyn has been far more accomodating than I would be in his position.

Alternatively the MPs are actually being true to the manifesto on which they were elected. not just by Labour members but by millions of people. It is of course possible to completely ignore what people actually voted for but it's rather what gives politics a bad name.