67% of young Britons want a socialist system

Watch
Gaddafi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#61
Report 2 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by SHallowvale)
People already have the incentive to become wealthier, it's the reason why people spend years training to become doctors, accountants and engineers, the reason why people start their own businesses, the reason why people persue promotions within their company, etc. The incentive already exists. Cutting taxation and defunding the services that most people depend upon will only put them into debt as they will struggle to afford these services privately. Arguably, cutting some public services would actually make it harder for people to become wealthier. I can't see how any of this is worth potentially making some people feel more motivated?

We can debate where tax should be spent or what services are a waste of tax money, but that's separate to your original idea that 'less tax = more freedom'. This idea is simply incorrect, unless you wish to define "freedom" as you've done and don't consider what people can actually do with their lives.
High taxation naturally does effect motivation. One of the major reasons I stopped working 80+ hours a week was that the effort simply wasn't worth it with how much went to the government.

Here is a study on income tax and business innovation. " Simulated 40% increase in the income tax rate is shown to produce up to a 48% drop in the number of people filing patents."

As I have said to you, money is simply time quantified. When you take my money you are owning me for a set period of time for the working week. If we had a lower level of taxation, the state would own me for a lower amount of time. Thus I would me more free - I am honestly not sure how you can't understand that I would have an increase in freedom here.

Now you argue that the master-slave relationship promotes freedom. I suppose this might be true if we go by your definition. But your idea of freedom is merely being fed and looked after. I'll ask again, how is this any different to how some "benevolent" slave holders in Arabia and Rome treated their elderly slaves?
Last edited by Gaddafi; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#62
Report 2 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by Gaddafi)
High taxation naturally does effect motivation. One of the major reasons I stopped working 80+ hours a week was that the effort simply wasn't worth it with how much went to the government.

Here is a study on income tax and business innovation. " Simulated 40% increase in the income tax rate is shown to produce up to a 48% drop in the number of people filing patents."

As I have said to you, money is simply time quantified. When you take my money you are owning me for a set period of time for the working week. If we had a lower level of taxation, the state would own me for a lower amount of time. Thus I would me more free - I am honestly not sure how you can't understand that I would have an increase in freedom here.

Now you argue that the master-slave relationship promotes freedom. I suppose this might be true if we go by your definition. But your idea of freedom is merely being fed and looked after. I'll ask again, how is this any different to how some "benevolent" slave holders in Arabia and Rome treated their elderly slaves?
Not really, otherwise we wouldn't see people dedicating years of their life to training in hopes of earning a high paying job. I'd recommend anyone not work 80+ hours a week regardless of what the government is taxing you. That's a ludicrous amount of time to be working. Out of curiosity, what sort of salary were you getting?

I understand how lowering tax would raise freedom given your definition of freedom. What I disagree with is the definition you've chosen. I view freedom as the ability for people to do what they want, go wherever they want to go, etc. We live in a money driven economy so the opportunities people have are dependent on how much money they have. In that sense, people only have freedom if they have enough money for it. Taxation can help increase people's freedom if it is used to provide people with opportunities that they would otherwise have not been able to afford.

On the master-slave relationship analogy, I'm not sure why you've asked this. You yourself agree that there should be taxation in some form and that there shouldn't be a 0% tax rate. In other words, you seem to accept the master-slave relationship also. What we seem to disagree on is what extent people should be taxed and where tax should be spent.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by Gaddafi)
I disagree. The left should be comforted by the fact that the "right wing" party in this country is incredibly left wing and will keep a 45% tax rate for the top bracket. We have high taxation regardless of government here.

45p out of £1 in the top bracket goes to the government before we even look at NI. And we're supposed to pretend that there is an economically right wing party in this country?

The left own the country really. Our "right wingers" are mainly lefties anyway.
Out of interest do you consider any non-city states to be right wing?

You appear to view taxation as the defining point in right wing Vs not however even the US is not radically low tax once state level taxes are added.

It is worth saying that in the 2017-2018 financial year state spending was at the lowest level since 1948 as a percentage of GDP.
Last edited by Rakas21; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 2 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Not really, otherwise we wouldn't see people dedicating years of their life to training in hopes of earning a high paying job. I'd recommend anyone not work 80+ hours a week regardless of what the government is taxing you. That's a ludicrous amount of time to be working. Out of curiosity, what sort of salary were you getting?

I understand how lowering tax would raise freedom given your definition of freedom. What I disagree with is the definition you've chosen. I view freedom as the ability for people to do what they want, go wherever they want to go, etc. We live in a money driven economy so the opportunities people have are dependent on how much money they have. In that sense, people only have freedom if they have enough money for it. Taxation can help increase people's freedom if it is used to provide people with opportunities that they would otherwise have not been able to afford.

On the master-slave relationship analogy, I'm not sure why you've asked this. You yourself agree that there should be taxation in some form and that there shouldn't be a 0% tax rate. In other words, you seem to accept the master-slave relationship also. What we seem to disagree on is what extent people should be taxed and where tax should be spent.
Is your sample from TSR?. In terms of academic achievement, TSR is rather elitist compared to the rest of society. In reality, roughly 40% of 18 year old's go to university and the vast majority of those are on non demanding courses. Really we're looking at a small subset of that 40% that is dedicating years of their life to earning good money. Salary was £50,000 for 84 hour working week. ~£150,000 in commission, bonuses and shares given over 7.5 years. Long hours are less bad if you keep more of what you make. In a place like the UAE with 0% income tax it would be a good idea if health permits.

Sure, the individual who receives someone else's money after you redistribute it might be given more opportunities. But in my model, I'm not deceasing his freedom. He has the freedom to go out and earn it, and if he chooses not to then that is on him. I do know of plumbers and Uber drivers in this country earning £40,000-£50,000 annually. If you're not infirm or disabled, poverty is a choice in this country.

Well, if something is evil it would make sense to limit it to the smallest possible amount. I accept that to some degree we do need taxation (although in fairness we raise ~£200 billion from VAT + corporation tax so a 0% income tax rate isn't impossible.)
0
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by Rakas21)
Out of interest do you consider any non-city states to be right wing?

You appear to view taxation as the defining point in right wing Vs not however even the US is not radically low tax once state level taxes are added.

It is worth saying that in the 2017-2018 financial year state spending was at the lowest level since 1948.
Well I suppose there are non city states with no income tax as well, e.g the petro economies of the middle east.

I suspect that you and Starship Trooper would disagree with me but I would argue that the key feature in left vs right wing is collectivism vs individualism. And taxation is the key theme in that. Of course it isn't the only feature but the main one (more definitive then social values.)

I've met older socially conservative people who I have many similiar opinions with regarding the makeup of society, but they also happen to self declared lefties.

Regarding your last point, we have just had the Govt raise NI and there is talk of an increase in estate duty and CGT.
Last edited by Gaddafi; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#66
Report 2 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
For people interested in the differing accounts of human freedom (positive and negative liberty) then they might like to see here*

My take on "freedom" is that it's ultimately a means to an end and this can be for good or evil purposes. When evil reigns good people want to be free, and vice versa.

For instance we can see this when the radicals were truly in opposition against a conservative status quo they demanded freedom to think and say whatever you want. Fast forward fifty years and now these "radicals" are the status quo and we see them clamping down on "hate speech" etc.

So I would say if you have an evil government which I would describe Biden's America as, then it is moral and right to support negative freedom, as In the government should have as little power as possible and you should do everything legally in your power to do that inc tax avoidance and civil disobedience.

And to some extent, the reverse is also true. So I'm supportive if giving a good government more power/ money to stop immigration, go after corporations and help native families etc. Now I am more inclined to be more capitalist (less tax, less government) but we need to understand that unless the government is working for us it is never going to leave us alone and that that may not always be desirable.

DSilva
SHallowvale
Gaddafi

*https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/l...tive-negative/
In the sense of remediating an imbalance, I'd agree - in terms of an ideal to aspire to? The smaller, the better, but I think border control is a function it should always perform as part of defence. As for corporations, they are largely a creation of state power to cloak a lot of the activities the government itself would otherwise perform but either cannot legally, or doesn't want to be seen to be doing, e.g. censorship or money supply expansion through the credit system.

This is most openly the case in China, where the CCP has a controlling interest in large corporates by default; in the West, it is more surreptitious and control is effected mostly through soft power but also through controlling and influencing financial firms that in turn have stakes in a large variety of corporations. One thing that needs to be understood is that closely connected firms largely enjoy this power because they are serving a function various elites embedded within the government want them to perform - in essence, it is dismantling a form of power the government has grafted onto itself. It's a big error to treat corporations as they currently exist as synonymous with laissez-faire capitalism.
Last edited by TCA2b; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#67
Report 2 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by Gaddafi)
Is your sample from TSR?. In terms of academic achievement, TSR is rather elitist compared to the rest of society. In reality, roughly 40% of 18 year old's go to university and the vast majority of those are on non demanding courses. Really we're looking at a small subset of that 40% that is dedicating years of their life to earning good money. Salary was £50,000 for 84 hour working week. ~£150,000 in commission, bonuses and shares given over 7.5 years. Long hours are less bad if you keep more of what you make. In a place like the UAE with 0% income tax it would be a good idea if health permits.

Sure, the individual who receives someone else's money after you redistribute it might be given more opportunities. But in my model, I'm not deceasing his freedom. He has the freedom to go out and earn it, and if he chooses not to then that is on him. I do know of plumbers and Uber drivers in this country earning £40,000-£50,000 annually. If you're not infirm or disabled, poverty is a choice in this country.

Well, if something is evil it would make sense to limit it to the smallest possible amount. I accept that to some degree we do need taxation (although in fairness we raise ~£200 billion from VAT + corporation tax so a 0% income tax rate isn't impossible.)
The sample is the UK in general. Sure, not everyone will be spenting years of their life training for a high paying job but the fact remains that there are people who do this. If UK society were simply void of any motivation or incentive to get rich then this wouldn't happen. Regarding your salary, interesting... for your own sake I'm glad to hear you no longer work that much! Putting in 84 hours a week is insane, especially if it's over 7.5 years as you've said.

In your example he would have less freedom. He can not "go out and earn it" if the hurdle to earn more money is beyond what he can afford, for example if he requires training or a license that costs more money than he has. This applies to more than just jobs, too, including things such as whether they can have children. Freedom can be severely limited if you cut public services. Another thing I could mention is that telling people to 'just work harder' doesn't really account for the fact that there will always be people needed to work low paying jobs, unless you think that people should be impoverished.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#68
Report 2 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by Gaddafi)
I disagree. The left should be comforted by the fact that the "right wing" party in this country is incredibly left wing and will keep a 45% tax rate for the top bracket. We have high taxation regardless of government here.

45p out of £1 in the top bracket goes to the government before we even look at NI. And we're supposed to pretend that there is an economically right wing party in this country?

The left own the country really. Our "right wingers" are mainly lefties anyway.
There's no party to represent the left anymore. Labour are absolutely determined to turn themselves into an empty centre right neoliberal bucket of nothing.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by Gaddafi)
I would argue that the key feature in left vs right wing is collectivism vs individualism. And taxation is the key theme in that. Of course it isn't the only feature but the main one (more definitive then social values.)
No, see when democracy and the idea of left / right first came about it was the individualistic and pro free market liberals that were seen as the left against the more statist conservative right. Now sure things have changed but that only shows how left wing society has become in that left wing liberals at the time (such as the founding fathers ) would be considered hard right now.

But in answer to your point I would completely disagree:

I would argue that the key feature in left vs right wing is individualism Vs The Family. (Which basically means an egalitarian and feminist system VS a patriarchal and socially conservative system)

Notice for instance when they argue for say abortion they will make individualistic arguments such as it's my Right and of course "my body, my choice"
0
reply
Johnnava
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
the report that the headline is based on uses a variety of publications from the past ten years to make its assertion. It's not as if they just conducted an opinion poll and asked these questions in the past few weeks/months.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by Johnnava)
the report that the headline is based on uses a variety of publications from the past ten years to make its assertion. It's not as if they just conducted an opinion poll and asked these questions in the past few weeks/months.
That's just wrong, as stated, it's based on the recent IEA survey.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#72
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by DSilva)
There's no party to represent the left anymore. Labour are absolutely determined to turn themselves into an empty centre right neoliberal bucket of nothing.
Sadly agree, there clearly needs to be a new progressive force and a replacement of the traditional Left with a Green/Social alliance of some kind. This appears to be happening worldwide but patchily and is sluggish here in the UK compared to many other parts of the developed world. The US Democratic Party is now in an internal battle between traditional labor union forces and the Green New Left.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#73
Report 2 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Sadly agree, there clearly needs to be a new progressive force and a replacement of the traditional Left with a Green/Social alliance of some kind. This appears to be happening worldwide but patchily and is sluggish here in the UK compared to many other parts of the developed world. The US Democratic Party is now in an internal battle between traditional labor union forces and the Green New Left.
The Labour Party is basically becoming a UK Democrats party which relies on corporate donors, rather than grassroots.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#74
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by DSilva)
The Labour Party is basically becoming a UK Democrats party which relies on corporate donors, rather than grassroots.
It was totally that under Blair, they pretty much dumped (or just accepted but treated like dirt) union donations then and harvested cash from the likes of Lord Sainsbury, via Lord Levy's eager beaver services. (I'm sure he wasn't on a commission of any kind, lol.)
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report 2 weeks ago
#75
To be fair to the party the unions make demands for their cash, being dependent on any one donor is problematic at best.
0
reply
Johnnava
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#76
Report 2 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
That's just wrong, as stated, it's based on the recent IEA survey.
Can you provide the link to the survey? The references at the bottom of the page show a wide variety of opinion polls with varying statistics - the author seems to have handpicked the ones that fit her assumption.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#77
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by Johnnava)
Can you provide the link to the survey? The references at the bottom of the page show a wide variety of opinion polls with varying statistics - the author seems to have handpicked the ones that fit her assumption.
The key survey was carried out in Feb 21 and the data is at page 39.
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/upload...turn-ahead.pdf
0
reply
Johnnava
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#78
Report 2 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
The key survey was carried out in Feb 21 and the data is at page 39.
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/upload...turn-ahead.pdf
Even with that survey result report, the only conclusion you could come up with is that younger people associate capitalism with climate change - or in other words that capitalism has failed to resolve climate change. There's even an even-way split on whether socialism should be tried again!

"Just over half of Millennials, and just under half of Zoomers, correctly pick the definition of capitalism (see Figure 4). One in five Millennials, and one in four Zoomers, mistake the definition of socialism for the definition of capitalism. The remainder are not sure. The results for socialism are similar. Just under half correctly pick the definition of socialism, but one in three mistake the definition of capitalism for the definition of socialism (see Figure 5)."


  • The majority agree that racism is independent of the economic system.
  • The majority agree that profit-driven businesses create useful products, jobs.
  • The majority of the respondents want things like rent control, but that exists in the most capitalist of places like New York for decades.
  • It argues that the majority of youth wants to nationalise railways and utilities, but so do the majority of Brits.
  • The majority agree that "the Government should privatise public services where possible because businesses can run them better and tax revenue"
  • The majority agree that "‘I would prefer to pay less tax, because I don’t trust the government to spend my taxes wisely"
Last edited by Johnnava; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling now you've started university?

I'm loving it! (46)
13.37%
I'm enjoying it but I'm still settling in (93)
27.03%
I'm a bit unsure (60)
17.44%
I'm finding things difficult (115)
33.43%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (30)
8.72%

Watched Threads

View All