Off Topic Political Debate

These are not disproportionate taxes - it stands to reason that those at the wealthier end of the scale should be paying more back into the system because they have gained the most from it. As for controls on the outward mobility of capital - these existed in nearly all Western countries until the 80s - why should a person who has become rich within a system, using its infrastructure, education system, roads, health system etc. in other words all of those things which have helped him to become rich be able to move all of his assets outside of that system totally at will ? Both the Land value tax and the Tobin Tax are also being considered by many well reputed economists who are far from suffering from the madness you suggest.

 

If he has paid the requisite taxes then the money is his - why should he not move it elsewhere if he desires to? YOu want to tax him twice - I smell again the politics of envy- if he is rich I want some. The Tobin tax has some merit - so long as it is done for what was mooted

 

The Tobin tax that Germany and France have adopted would have the effect of taxing people twice. Already if you buy shares in a company you are taxed in the UK.
Seems as if less than half of the EU countries wish to go down that route.

 

Leo, legally speaking the money is not his. By law I am not allowed to burn money (which I would be able to if it really belonged to me) it actually belongs to the realm. What I object to in the idea of unrestricted outward mobility of capital (at least in corporate hands) is that as soon as taxes become too high then firms can use this as a potential weapon or lever - in other word 'if you don't do this or that then we will relocate and make thousands unemployed' - this should not be possible. And if it does happen then those firms should be publically named and no longer have access to the home market.

 

I disagree with the proposed Tobin tax as it unfairly targets the City of London. I'm not sure why they feel the financial sector should come in for a special tax. The faults of some former executives, whether criminal or ignorance based, which caused so much damage, is no reason to raid our pension funds. EU countries with no such sector are looking for an undeserved share of the proceeds.

Hopefully they will push for the Tobin tax a.s.a.p. so it bolsters the 'out' vote.

 

The main problem with your restrictive ideas is that the UK will not attract the present high level of inward investment and most of the UK entrepreneurs will move their assets abroad.

Your reasoning is becoming close to the East German regime of locking people in the country. Once you start down your state control where does it end?

 

I'm not arguing for anything like the regime of the former GDR which you know well enough. There were restrictions on the international movement of capital until the 1980s in nearly all western states until the time of Reagan and Thatcher, states which were far from describing themselves as Communist. There are also 2 types of state - the one which has become remote from the people (as in the GDR) and the other in which 'the state' is you and I and in which all power flows from below - real socialism and not its Soviet bastardization. The aim of real socialism is the erosion of the state.

 

You are fully entitled to your views, which you argue well, but can't you see that it is old fashioned politics that nobody else wants?

It is not possible to turn the clock back, commerce is international now, countries, companies and individuals invest their money where they feel they can get the best return. It is up to each entity to make itself as attractive a proposition as it can. Any country or region that talks of barriers will will be instantly starved of investment.

There is a world of difference in having an idea but and making it work.

 

What's your view on people coming to the UK and sending significant amounts of their earnings back to their country of origin Cologne?

 

Legally speaking the money is his. Show me where it says I cannot burn money - or give it away. It does not belong to the realm - you are not allowed to deface coins but the origin of that is very different - to do with fraud by shaving silver off coins. Are you sure you are Green and not Red?
As others have said your views were tried and found wanting many years ago. Money needs to circulate to be effective. Why should a corporation not decide where to set itself up - any more than a person - so long as they meet the requirements of where they want to go.
This thread has undoubtedly shown that the arguments from one side ( I daren't try to name it) are based on envy, old fashioned politics, poor economic performance, a desire to give other people's money to causes that suit their ideology and the desire to restrict what people want to do and deny them freedom.
It has certainly made me appreciate the other case more. It is just a shame that that side do not have a more caring ethos.

 

I am afraid that if a company that could invest in one of the poorer countries of the world could not receive what their money had earned, they just would not make the investment in jobs which over time would help the country to raise the standard of living for the population. The poorest countries and people need help, not always by aid which can help in a small way, but by giving people a chance to provide for their families through employment. Surely we who are rich in comparison to most of the world would not wish to deny them the chance to better themselves.

 

You say that this is old fashioned politics which nobody wants - did the people ever actually vote for a system of international commerce ? A system in which jobs in one part of the World are dependent upon decisions made on the other side of the globe ? Did the people ever vote to have their own democracy diminished - if the answers to these questions are no then I do not see how you can say that nobody is interested in my ideas.

 

I'm afraid security concerns, both financial and physical can be a barrier for investing in unorthodox regions. I have a friend that was dealing with investment into Russia about 20 years ago. He was at a meeting there when a couple of heavies turned up with machine guns looking for protection money. Poor old Willie was very shaken, cash was paid then they disappeared. I don't think he went back.......

 

The only others seem to be our friend Corbyn and his sidekick.

 

If you think Leo that my ideas have been tried then please tell me where. I have said that I believe in a Socialism from below : Anarcho Communism.....call it what you will. A state where all political power has moved to the base of the pyramid and where the political apparatus has only an administrative function. Where all of the means of production are owned by the workers themselves (not by the state). The only historical case of this in a state was during the Spanish civil war where the Catalan and Basque areas were governed in this way - destroyed by the combined efforts of Fascism, Stalin and the West. Still to this day the highest concentration of workers cooperatives worldwide is in these areas. My approach to politics begins with myself Leo, and then with my immediate environment, and then with my town - it does not begin with the state and then work downwards.

 

I think we can quote examples of bribes being required to progress work. My nephew can tell some tales about Nigeria. However governments in some of the countries I was talking about are not able to provide sufficient money to develop industry because they are a bad risk. They need foreign investment if they are to improve their lot.

 

You mean sidekicks - there are more than one (I hope).

 

What many third World countries need is to receive a fair price for their products on the world market (to prevent their farmers having to grow opium etc.)

 

God Nooooooo!!!

 

The French inspired EU common agricultural farming policy does enormous damage to developing countries. They cannot compete with our state subsidised products.