Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

B915 - Professional Gambling Taxation Bill (Second Reading) watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I get the impression you are a big supporter of Lenin but you do not always understand what Lenin is saying, do not have a clear plan of how to implement Lenin's societal vision, and have not considered the practicalities of everything, nor how everything would work in a socialist world.
    To be honest, did Lenin really know? And actually the sorts of quotes put forward exactly what's wrong with the radical left, they don't care what happens to the poor, as long as it harms the rich, well, the other rich people

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I get the impression you are a big supporter of Lenin but you do not always understand what Lenin is saying, do not have a clear plan of how to implement Lenin's societal vision, and have not considered the practicalities of everything, nor how everything would work in a socialist world.
    I like Lenin's quotes - not a great fan of all his work, he needed a bit more democracy in that omelette of socialism.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    To be honest, did Lenin really know? And actually the sorts of quotes put forward exactly what's wrong with the radical left, they don't care what happens to the poor, as long as it harms the rich, well, the other rich people

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Heyy I'm not radical!

    Much.

    We're of the poor, we care what happens to the working class, that's the point of it all.

    To be fair that quote was just provocative and I don't completely agree with it, I will admit.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    I like Lenin's quotes - not a great fan of all his work, he needed a bit more democracy in that omelette of socialism.
    I asked last week how socialism would be implemented but your only response was Lenin's plan that does not address the question. There are going to be lots of difficulties encountered with law, government institutions, attitude of individuals, and human nature that need to be addressed before Lenin's implementation plan can be considered reasonable.

    Jammy Duel That is true, left-wing writers, scholars, and philosophers go to great lengths to write debates about morals, fairness, justice, and equality but always fail to say how their ideal world is going to work. Contemporary moderates like Van Parijs, and contemporary left-wing supporters like many in the MHoC have all of these ideas about how society should be but none of them have a detailed plan how to achieve the goal, nor how to sustain the goal; the left-wing are proven to be dreamers. It returns to Thatcher' quote on making the rich less rich, the left-wing do not have any plans to boost the quality of living for the poor that does not involve handing the poor things that belongs to other people.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I asked last week how socialism would be implemented but your only response was Lenin's plan that does not address the question. There are going to be lots of difficulties encountered with law, government institutions, attitude of individuals, and human nature that need to be addressed before Lenin's implementation plan can be considered reasonable.

    Jammy Duel That is true, left-wing writers, scholars, and philosophers go to great lengths to write debates about morals, fairness, justice, and equality but always fail to say how their ideal world is going to work. Contemporary moderates like Van Parijs, and contemporary left-wing supporters like many in the MHoC have all of these ideas about how society should be but none of them have a detailed plan how to achieve the goal, nor how to sustain the goal; the left-wing are proven to be dreamers. It returns to Thatcher' quote on making the rich less rich, the left-wing do not have any plans to boost the quality of living for the poor that does not involve handing the poor things that belongs to other people.
    I was referring even simply to the one quote, even if the millstone of taxation is largely reserved for the rich the sand cannot be done for the inflation, and if that is going to be severe enough to be a millstone for the wealthy, how many poor are going to be killed by it?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    I like Lenin's quotes - not a great fan of all his work, he needed a bit more democracy in that omelette of socialism.
    I'm not a huge fan of Lenin but I don't mind Trotsky.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I asked last week how socialism would be implemented but your only response was Lenin's plan that does not address the question. There are going to be lots of difficulties encountered with law, government institutions, attitude of individuals, and human nature that need to be addressed before Lenin's implementation plan can be considered reasonable.

    Jammy Duel That is true, left-wing writers, scholars, and philosophers go to great lengths to write debates about morals, fairness, justice, and equality but always fail to say how their ideal world is going to work. Contemporary moderates like Van Parijs, and contemporary left-wing supporters like many in the MHoC have all of these ideas about how society should be but none of them have a detailed plan how to achieve the goal, nor how to sustain the goal; the left-wing are proven to be dreamers. It returns to Thatcher' quote on making the rich less rich, the left-wing do not have any plans to boost the quality of living for the poor that does not involve handing the poor things that belongs to other people.
    1. It was Trotsky's Transitional Programme.
    2. I did explain how this would work, but you clearly did not accept this.
    3. Clearly you haven't read man left-wing works if you claim this - Trotsky's Transitional Programme is one of the most famous of these works which explain how.

    As I've said before, a socialist system would work through self-government, with workers councils, factory committees, meaning greater direct democracy and so on. It is not about reducing democracy or destroying the rich so that all are poor, but about equality and pure democracy so that all may benefit.

    As you have proven here, you clearly do not know the difference between reformist and fundamentalist leftism. I agree that some fundamentalist socialists like Stalinists are ignorant and dreamers, but to claim that all socialists are is just pure ignorance.
    Your Thatcher quote is complete rubbish, as were most of her sayings, e.g. "the problem with socialism is you end up running out of money" and Quantitative Easing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    1. It was Trotsky's Transitional Programme.
    2. I did explain how this would work, but you clearly did not accept this.
    3. Clearly you haven't read man left-wing works if you claim this - Trotsky's Transitional Programme is one of the most famous of these works which explain how.

    As I've said before, a socialist system would work through self-government, with workers councils, factory committees, meaning greater direct democracy and so on. It is not about reducing democracy or destroying the rich so that all are poor, but about equality and pure democracy so that all may benefit.

    As you have proven here, you clearly do not know the difference between reformist and fundamentalist leftism. I agree that some fundamentalist socialists like Stalinists are ignorant and dreamers, but to claim that all socialists are is just pure ignorance.
    Your Thatcher quote is complete rubbish, as were most of her sayings, e.g. "the problem with socialism is you end up running out of money" and Quantitative Easing.
    I couldn't agree more. PROSM.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aye

    I earn about £300-£600 per week through bets on the greyhounds, which adds a significant amount to my earnings, I don't mind it being taxed and in actual fact, I'd support it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This is impossible, as we discussed in the first reading, because most professional gamblers, especially those who make their winnings from conventionally house-edge games, will play at a huge variety of venues, whereas those who would be hit by that tax would be normal punters who hit a lucky streak.

    Furthermore, isn't this nevertheless an improvement over the status quo?
    Simply add a provision allowing somebody to request a rebate at the end of the tax year if they are able to evidence that their winnings came from a number of venues below a defined threshold.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Either way, democracy is the point of socialism - greater direct democracy and democratic public ownership.

    the Transitional Programme by Leon Trotsky.

    The working class is not acquainted with the necessity of embracing the revolutionary ideas of the Fourth International due to "the confusion and disappointment of the older generation, the inexperience of the younger generation".

    The old "minimum" demands had been raised by reformists on the understanding that they were acceptable to an expanding capitalism, and had been dropped when they were not.
    The Fourth International, Trotsky writes, does not discard the program of the old “minimal” demands "to the degree to which these have preserved at least part of their vital forcefulness." Trotskyists should indefatigably defend "the democratic rights and social conquests of the workers".

    But in addition, transitional demands include the call for "employment and decent living conditions for all" and reach beyond what the capitalists will willingly give, challenging the "very basis of the bourgeois regime."
    Demands such as higher wages are not impossible demands in themselves, but capitalism in crisis demands lower wages in the hope of increasing profitability.


    By fighting for these "transitional" demands, the workers will come to realize that capitalism cannot meet their needs, and they will then embrace the full program of the Fourth International.
    You need to brush up on Thatcher, the quote I was referring to is one of her most famous quotes taken from her final stand against socialism; there is a video recording of it from PMQs. I have found your reply but it does not make sense on many levels as I will explain to you, the reply is very idealist.

    First, there is not a socialists government, people have rejected socialism in Britain, and it is unlikely there will be a true socialist government in Britain, meaning there will be no government to forcefully raise wages, or improve working conditions to a level above what the capitalists want; Trotsky fails to explain how these conditions will be delivered. Second, the capitalists have a monopoly on political influence, a monopoly on resources, and a monopoly on the legal system which has led to laws being created to protect the rights of big corporations; Trotsky fails to explain how the fall of power from the bourgeois will happen. Third, the working class would rather accept their situation than star on a revolutionary part to bring lasting change; Trotsky fails to explain how the working class will have their mind changed to desire change.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    You need to brush up on Thatcher, the quote I was referring to is one of her most famous quotes taken from her final stand against socialism; there is a video recording of it from PMQs. I have found your reply but it does not make sense on many levels as I will explain to you, the reply is very idealist.

    First, there is not a socialists government, people have rejected socialism in Britain, and it is unlikely there will be a true socialist government in Britain, meaning there will be no government to forcefully raise wages, or improve working conditions to a level above what the capitalists want; Trotsky fails to explain how these conditions will be delivered.
    Second, the capitalists have a monopoly on political influence, a monopoly on resources, and a monopoly on the legal system which has led to laws being created to protect the rights of big corporations; Trotsky fails to explain how the fall of power from the bourgeois will happen. Third, the working class would rather accept their situation than star on a revolutionary part to bring lasting change; Trotsky fails to explain how the working class will have their mind changed to desire change.
    People have not 'rejected socialism' in Britain, as we can see from the past with successive Labour governments being elected and then recently with the election on a large majority of Jeremy Corbyn and his ensuing character assassination by the panicked right-wing media.

    With the exit of the UK from the EU that can change, as core socialist policies include the renationalisation of privatised public services, industries and utilities; defending the right to asylum and opposing racist immigration controls; and democratic public ownership of banks and major companies. All of these policies go against EU treaties which is why leaving will help the transition to socialism for a successive Labour/TUSC government.

    The mainstream media has already decided that UKIP, Tory and other pro-austerity and racist establishment politicians and organisations are the only exit voices they will feature. They completely ignore the millions of trade unionists, young people, anti-austerity campaigners and working-class voters generally who oppose the EU from a completely different standpoint.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Simply add a provision allowing somebody to request a rebate at the end of the tax year if they are able to evidence that their winnings came from a number of venues below a defined threshold.
    The problem isn't that professional gamblers would be taxed too much under your system, it's that they'd be taxed too little. Casual, single-venue gamblers would be taxed too much, and that rebate wouldn't help. Indeed, that would essentially increase gaming duty and do little else.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The problem isn't that professional gamblers would be taxed too much under your system, it's that they'd be taxed too little. Casual, single-venue gamblers would be taxed too much, and that rebate wouldn't help. Indeed, that would essentially increase gaming duty and do little else.
    The rebate would allow those casual non-professional gamblers to claim back the tax so it would help. Single venue can be addressed by the number of wins as opposed to the number of venues.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The rebate would allow those casual non-professional gamblers to claim back the tax so it would help. Single venue can be addressed by the number of wins as opposed to the number of venues.
    So you're requiring casual gamblers to keep records of all their play? That is literally never going to happen.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    So you're requiring casual gamblers to keep records of all their play? That is literally never going to happen.
    Only for winnings over a certain threshold and easily accomplished via the casino providing some kind of receipt.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Only for winnings over a certain threshold and easily accomplished via the casino providing some kind of receipt.
    Casual (read: long-term losing) gamblers are extremely unlikely to keep receipts/records because many are very keen on the self-delusion that they're winning players. You really can't logically be in favour of the decrease in gaming duty as well as that proposal.

    Furthermore, that's not a change I'm going to make, so I ask again - do you not at least this is better than the status quo, and therefore warrants an aye?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    To be honest, did Lenin really know? And actually the sorts of quotes put forward exactly what's wrong with the radical left, they don't care what happens to the poor, as long as it harms the rich, well, the other rich people

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You're right in some ways there - many of Lenin's quotes and actions were used by Stalin as excuses for his changes, like the abolition of other parties:Full, inner-party democratic debate was Bolshevik Party practice under Lenin, even after the banning of party factions in 1921. Although a guiding influence in policy, Lenin did not exercise absolute power, and continually debated and discussed to have his point of view accepted. Under Stalin, the inner-party practice of democratic free debate did not continue after the death of Lenin in 1924.This is how Stalin was able to make excuses for his authoritarian changes with Lenin's actions/quotes while Trotsky's reaction was "that's not why we did that!" and Stalinists are able to blacken the name of socialism/Marxism by attempting to call themselves "Marxist-Leninists"
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Casual (read: long-term losing) gamblers are extremely unlikely to keep receipts/records because many are very keen on the self-delusion that they're winning players. You really can't logically be in favour of the decrease in gaming duty as well as that proposal.

    Furthermore, that's not a change I'm going to make, so I ask again - do you not at least this is better than the status quo, and therefore warrants an aye?
    I agree that at least this is better than the status quo, and therefore warrants an aye.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    I agree that at least this is better than the status quo, and therefore warrants an aye.
    If you hadn't my next Bill would've been the 'British Sovereignty over Northern Ireland Bill'.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 3, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.