ForumGarden

Smaug;1484643 wrote: my 'temperature gauge' is nearly 'in the red' as regards the mealy-mouthed, self-serving, gold-digging, congenital liars and fraudsters that we keep electing to the halls of power here!!!!


My own opinion, for what little it might be worth, is that we should take a step forward and form a future government by means of the established democratic process rather than pouring water over the duck's back. Then it's not "them" any longer, and we can make the appropriate changes.

I have, in that light, taken the first step during the last couple of months and registered a party, for which I have this year been actively recruiting candidates to stand at the next General Election. We - the party, that is - are discussing a constitution and drawing up a policy document.

spot;1484645 wrote: My own opinion, for what little it might be worth, is that we should take a step forward and form a future government be means of the established democratic process rather than pouring water over the duck's back. Then it's not "them" any longer, and we can make the appropriate changes.

I have, in that light, taken the first step during the last couple of months and registered a party, for which I have this year been actively recruiting candidates to stand at the next General Election. We - the party, that is - are discussing a constitution and drawing up a policy document.


Now then!! This sounds interesting, Spot. Have you got a name/manifesto yet? We could certainly do with a change, that's for sure. I for one,am utterly despondent about the UK's 'see-saw', corrupt, ineffective governance for the last 30 odd years!



I must confess, I'm bursting with curiosity now you've said that!

You do realise, I hope, that now you've said this, you'll have to keep us informed of progress! Good luck with the 'dirty tricks' department the major parties employ, not to mention gerrymandered boundaries and the 'first-past-the-post' dis-enfranchisement electoral system they use to stop nascent parties from attaining Parliamentary representation, though I'm absolutely certain you know all about that!

I mean it, jolly good luck to you!!

Smaug;1484646 wrote: Have you got a name/manifesto yet?


The Manifesto is a work in progress, but I appear to have inadvertently created the designation Leader of The Common People. That's what appears on the record anyway.

I also seem to have taken to splitting infinitives.

spot;1484647 wrote: The Manifesto is a work in progress, but I appear to have inadvertently created the designation Leader of The Common People. That's what appears on the record anyway.

I also seem to have taken to splitting infinitives.


I would presume that you are a socialist/related party? With common-sense, compassionate, people-oriented policies being worked on? One thing we don't need is something extreme, as we've got plenty of those nut-jobs anyway! They invariably make a bad situation worse,IMO.

I would hasten to add that I make no such allegations against you or your party, as I know next to nothing about it.

Come on Spot, cheer me up with some hopeful news!

We are middle-of-the-road Socialists, which is more than can be said for any other mainstream political party in England.

Please could you possibly start another thread for this subject, as it is way off track from the OP and the initial posts ! Thank you Mr. spot !

Thank you Mr. spot .

So when is this party to be launched on the world ?

Bruv;1484685 wrote: So when is this party to be launched on the world ?


Our first Party Conference is in three months, Comrade. We expect fraternal greetings from what few remnants of Socialism may still exist in scattered pockets around the world. We also expect to be totally ignored by the capitalist running-dog media organizations which dictate what passes for news these days.

spot;1484686 wrote: Our first Party Conference is in three months, Comrade. We expect fraternal greetings from what few remnants of Socialism may still exist in scattered pockets around the world. We also expect to be totally ignored by the capitalist running-dog media organizations which dictate what passes for news these days.


Isn't the correct term Brother ?

Better get a decent PR department in place, for the good of the party and the future of the UK don't you do it..............said in a caring way.

Ah.

Yes, I do know I'm not the right public face for this.

spot;1484655 wrote: We are middle-of-the-road Socialists, which is more than can be said for any other mainstream political party in England.


That's true enough. Middle-of-the-road, moderate, and balanced is a somewhat rare beast these days. When you have formulated a manifesto, I would be interested in having a read.

Is Bruv suggesting in post #10 that you've got the face for radio?

Joking apart, I hope you can produce an electable party. There's one heck of a pile of ongoing work running a party, and if you DO start to get anywhere near the threshold for gaining MP's, the main parties will all be taking pot-shots at you!

Bruv;1484694 wrote: Isn't the correct term Brother ?
And as far as addressing one another across Conference is concerned we did, a few weeks ago, agree that both Brother and Comrade were a bit imitative. We've opted for Citizen.

Smaug;1484700 wrote: Is Bruv suggesting in post #10 that you've got the face for radio?


He's saying, and I know he's quite right, that I get up people's noses something rotten and I shouldn't be allowed near a reporter.

spot;1484703 wrote: And as far as addressing one another across Conference is concerned we did, a few weeks ago, agree that both Brother and Comrade were a bit imitative. We've opted for Citizen.


Very Orwellian or is it French revolution ?

spot;1484704 wrote: He's saying, and I know he's quite right, that I get up people's noses something rotten and I shouldn't be allowed near a reporter.


Well, I can't fault the sense in that, or the honesty! Though you CAN get on peoples'wick' at times (we've had our moments, haven't we?),

I also find you to be a mine of information, and a matchless sentinel overseeing Forum Garden security and dealing with technical issues.

You can't have everything, it would seem....

Bruv;1484708 wrote: Very Orwellian or is it French revolution ?


I've a suspicion it's the Tooting Popular Front, to be honest.

Power to the People!

You're right, I shouldn't speak to reporters.

And don't go near a soapbox.

Or a megaphone!

A brief question for the panel, if I may.

I need a term for the smallest social group which can be taxed. The Revenue and the Benefits-people-as-was (who might now be called the Universal Creditors) know the following words: single person, couple, child(0::n). I'm reluctant to call a combination of these a Taxable Unit because it sounds a bit formal. Can I get away with Household, or is that something different?

I fear Household may include Several Taxable Units if it includes grown children, cohabitees or separately-taxed marrieds but, if we discount Household, what can I use?

spot;1489437 wrote: A brief question for the panel, if I may.

I need a term for the smallest social group which can be taxed. The Revenue and the Benefits-people-as-was (who might now be called the Universal Creditors) know the following words: single person, couple, child(0::n). I'm reluctant to call a combination of these a Taxable Unit because it sounds a bit formal. Can I get away with Household, or is that something different?

I fear Household may include Several Taxable Units if it includes grown children, cohabitees or separately-taxed marrieds but, if we discount Household, what can I use?


Simplify the tax system and use "Individual"?

Bryn Mawr;1489438 wrote: Simplify the tax system and use "Individual"?I need to be able to tax children from birth. So yes, that would do it.

I've managed to retask the tax system with no change of law in a mere 200 words, as best I can tell, by removing the income floor from Working Tax Credits so it applies to zero-earners. I think that provides negative tax payments if I feed it with rejigged Universal Credits. Then I could, if needed, bolster any low initial hourly minimum wage with a negative initial tax rate to make even minimal employment more of an enticement.

Rather than bands I'd prefer a hyperbolic formula but everyone would scream "too complicated!" which it wouldn't be, with say a -75% low asymptote where it cuts zero income flattening to a +50% asymptote for all income over, say, 4 times the median wage.

spot;1489441 wrote: I need to be able to tax children from birth. So yes, that would do it.

I've managed to retask the tax system with no change of law in a mere 200 words, as best I can tell, by removing the income floor from Working Tax Credits so it applies to zero-earners. I think that provides negative tax payments if I feed it with rejigged Universal Credits. Then I could, if needed, bolster any low initial hourly minimum wage with a negative initial tax rate to make minimal employment more of an enticement.

Rather than bands I'd prefer a hyperbolic formula but everyone would scream "too complicated!" which it wouldn't be, with say a -75% low asymptote where it cuts zero income flattening to a +50% asymptote for all income over, say, 4 times the median wage.


You can't do that if you move the unit of taxation from the household to the individual or you'd be paying the indolent wife and children of a fat cat boss for not working!

Bryn Mawr;1489443 wrote: You can't do that if you move the unit of taxation from the household to the individual or you'd be paying the indolent wife and children of a fat cat boss for not working!


And, indeed, I'll be paying universal credits, which currently aren't in the least bit universal, to the fat cat boss himself as well. And he'll have a choice, like everyone else, of whether to continue as a wage slave. I have high hopes that working conditions will improve startlingly as a result.

I guess the 'simplest' way would be to pay everything they have to the Government, and then for the Government to pay everyone back an equal amount of 'Pocket Money'. That way, no calculations. No floors or ceilings. No percentages (apart from 100%). Perfect for those who have nothing. Not so good for the higher earners.

FourPart;1489794 wrote: I guess the 'simplest' way would be to pay everything they have to the Government, and then for the Government to pay everyone back an equal amount of 'Pocket Money'. That way, no calculations. No floors or ceilings. No percentages (apart from 100%). Perfect for those who have nothing. Not so good for the higher earners.


I'm pleased to say I have never advocated such a scheme other than as a way to run a commune. It's no way to run a country. My underlying concern regarding taxation is to define a minimum acceptable living standard which takes into account personal circumstance. If those able to earn more want to earn more to an unlimited extent then that's fine by me.

The reason the wealthy get taxed, to whatever extent they get taxed, is that they're enabled to accumulate wealth as a result of the society in which they live, and taxation supports that enabling society. I don't insist on taxing the income of the wealthy but I do see good reasons to do it.

I believe the fairest way is probably the oldest one on record - the tithe. Everyone, regardless of income, pays an equal percentage (in the case of the tithe, 10%) as taxes. What that percentage is set at is immaterial, so long as it is the same for everyone, but not changed so that those on higher incomes pay a lower percentage, etc. I have no objection to paying my way. What I DO object to is the Right Wing Government forever coming up with new dodges so as to make sure their wealthy Right Wing buddies get wealthier still by not having to pay so much tax as the rest of us.

So you'd completely abolish the local council tax? And the statutory obligation payments which are effectively taxes in that they're not contractual, they're compulsory whether you use the service or not, like the water and sewage bill?

I don't think any English government ever saw a tithe payment, it was all church income. And the odd thing is that church and monastic lands paid no tithe, and by the time of the dissolution of the monasteries that was a third of England. The king paid no tithe either, and he owned a fair proportion of the remainder. When Henry VIII sold all the confiscated monastery lands he included the monastic right not to pay tithes, so from then until tithes were abolished nobody who owned ex-monastic land paid tithes either.