While we're on the topic of economics

[Summanus]

Hopefully this one will be readable, unlike the EU one.

Flat income tax rate. Would it work?

Say we put it at something like 25% or 33%. A lot of people will get tax cuts. Will the savings made in administering the system in any way compensate for said reductions, and will the expansionary nature of the policy bring everyone up anyway, meaning people earn more, the 25% gets larger and we end up with more money to spend in government?

[ChubbyChecker]

I object to a flat income tax rate on principle. I doubt whether the efficiency savings made would compensate for this.

[Dante Hicks]

The Economist was recently going on about how great a flat rate tax would be, but then again they would.

It wouldn't necessarily be _that_ bad, if you said something like "The first fifteen grand is tax free", but then I don't know how much the "flat rate" would be then. It does seem a lot easier to administer than all this tax code nonsense, but I don't know how much it costs to run the Inland Revenue.

It seems a bit misleading that it'll lead to that big a drop in tax evasion though, which seems to be one of the key arguments in favour.

In general, simpler=>better, but then again the whole welfare-state / tax system in Western Europe is a horrifically misapplied patch which tries to kludge around the various problems of the underlying kernel (private property). Almost every single tweak performed on the welfare system (e.g. rent rebate=>housing benefit=>local housing allowance to talk only of my own area) is to correct some other injustice, without actually dealing with the underlying problem.

Overall, the easiest way to achieve a most just / equal society the answer is NOT more taxation. It's for the lowest sections of society to increase self-organisation. But then that'd challenge the authority of the state and so will naturally be opposed by everyone with an ounce of power.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

but then again the whole welfare-state / tax system in Western Europe is a horrifically misapplied patch which tries to kludge around the various problems of the underlying kernel

This sentence made me cum.

[Nodrog]

Does 0% count as flat rate?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's for the lowest sections of society to increase self-organisation.

what exactly do you mean by this?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

what exactly do you mean by this?

Trade Unions, tenants associations, consumer groups, political parties, protest groups, pensioners groups, neighbourhood associations / community groups, youth groups, church groups, credit unions, community lending libraries, women's groups and other forms of association.

[Yahwe]

and these organisations are 'opposed' in someway?

[G.K Zhukov]

The Economist is more biased than ortodox communists who think every company with more than 1000 employed is monopolistic.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

and these organisations are 'opposed' in someway?

Opposed to what?

[Tomkat]

Jersey has a flat income tax rate, and we do ok.

Although we are a tax haven, and there are lots of rich twats there.

[Yahwe]

Overall, the easiest way to achieve a most just / equal society the answer is NOT more taxation. It's for the lowest sections of society to increase self-organisation. But then that'd challenge the authority of the state and so will naturally be opposed by everyone with an ounce of power.

its really this paragraph i am interested in.

I want to understand the connection you suggest between a just and equal society (and preferably what just and equal mean) and this concept of 'social organisation'

I am also curious as to the suggestion that this 'social organisation' either is or would be opposed in some way.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

The Economist is more biased than ortodox communists who think every company with more than 1000 employed is monopolistic.

There's nothing wrong with biased so long as you're intellectually honest.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I want to understand the connection you suggest between a just and equal society (and preferably what just and equal mean) and this concept of 'social organisation'

There are a number of ways things like this are affected. For instance on a very basic level, trade unions which represent the low paid can campaign for more wages for their members. In doing so, they will _generally_ create more equality by increasing the incomes of the bottom x% of society.

There are other examples, but I am sure you can see what I mean.

I am also curious as to the suggestion that this 'social organisation' either is or would be opposed in some way.

I am taking organisation as a verb, not a noun. There would not be "one" social organisation. At present, individuals only method for increasing equality or to help themselves (or so it is often perceived) is to ask the government. This has numerous social and psychological problems for those involved. People taking action to improve their life circumstances would be a preferable solution. To give a very simple example ; instead of asking the government for funds to regenerate their area, they could make efforts to improve things directly. I suppose in a sense Balsall Heath is an example of this phenemenon (although it's very embryonic so a lot of it is very much still dependent on the state).

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There are a number of ways things like this are affected. For instance on a very basic level, trade unions which represent the low paid can campaign for more wages for their members. In doing so, they will _generally_ create more equality by increasing the incomes of the bottom x% of society.

There are other examples, but I am sure you can see what I mean.


I am taking organisation as a verb, not a noun. There would not be "one" social organisation. At present, individuals only method for increasing equality or to help themselves (or so it is often perceived) is to ask the government. This has numerous social and psychological problems for those involved. People taking action to improve their life circumstances would be a preferable solution. To give a very simple example ; instead of asking the government for funds to regenerate their area, they could make efforts to improve things directly. I suppose in a sense Balsall Heath is an example of this phenemenon (although it's very embryonic so a lot of it is very much still dependent on the state).

i just can't understand your suggestion that such organisation would be opposed by those with power.

is it not more likely that the reason for this level of organisation not being achieved is a combination of the state functioning efficiently with equality and justice and the apathy which that creates?

to suggest that social organisation is the only way to improve, i'm going to have to start saying quality of life of the individual because the phrase 'equality and justice' is simply misleading; seems to me a dangerous suggestion that the democratic state is not working.

to abandon the system which has so fundamentally improved the quality of life of all its individuals in favour of a more ad hoc collection of particularist groups seems to me to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

and I for one can not see the difference between someone saying this " People taking action to improve their life circumstances would be a preferable solution." and someone saying "It is perfectly alright to steal the property of others if doing so improves your quality of life"

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I'm not sure that any of the groups he list have been burning mansions or ram-raiding the local Dixons to my knowledge.

Obviously they need to get more organised then!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

i just can't understand your suggestion that such organisation would be opposed by those with power.

Perhaps it is just paranoia on my behalf, I'm not sure. There is however some empirical evidence in that direction. A few examples :

- Trade unions have, in the past, been subverted, attacked and opposed by the governments. Where there have been large scale strikes, even in recent years, the government has generally acted in an adverserial manner (infiltrations, heavy handed policing, restrictive laws, etc).
- "Radical" political parties have faced the same and at a variety of phases in history have been surpressed entirely, infilitrated, had their literature banned and in some cases faced physical attack.
- Efforts for people to house themselves have been directly opposed - either through evictions, demolitions and in some cases directly attack. Even in the post-war period groups such as ex-servicemen have found the government opposing their attempts at housing themselves (ironically in some cases ex-MOD bases).
- Black nationalist groups have found themselves under direct assault from the state in the United States, with even figures like Paul Robeson being targeted by the CIA in a number of forms.

Here I am restricting my comments purely to "the government", but it could easily be extended to other powerful groups - e.g. large companies etc. If you wonder why (or how) companies might oppose trade unions striking for better pay then I am not really sure what I can say.

is it not more likely that the reason for this level of organisation not being achieved is a combination of the state functioning efficiently with equality and justice and the apathy which that creates?

It is possible of course, and with any facet of human behaviour there are a multitude of factors involved. I would however doubt the notion that "lack of organisation is proof the state is working so well" since, in many areas, there is more organisation (or at least association) among people who are better off compared to those that are not. It is often the lowest paid who are the least organised (cause and effect of course) and while it's possible that it's because people who are the lowest paid love their station in life, I would have some doubts that is the whole reason.

to suggest that social organisation is the only way to improve

Who said that? I apologise if it was me. I remember typing "easiest way to improve" and I certainly implied it was the best way to improve. But that is not the same that "the only way to improve". To get from my home to my work place the train is the easiest way to go but it would certainly be a bold (and erroneous) statement to say that it's the only way.

seems to me a dangerous suggestion that the democratic state is not working.

Well I'm sorry you feel that this is a dangerous suggestion but (depending on what you mean by "working") then I would have to say that I don't believe it does. Especially in international terms, although nationally as well.

to abandon the system which has so fundamentally improved the quality of life of all its individuals in favour of a more ad hoc collection of particularist groups seems to me to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

What do you mean by system? Do you mean the existence of the state? Well I am not suggesting we abandon it today or tomorrow, or anything of the kind. If you mean taxation then again, I am not suggesting abandoning immediately. Indeed, even if we were to start down a very different kind of road today I could forsee a "tax-like-payment" (perhaps or preferably voluntary) being administered many years from now.

and I for one can not see the difference between someone saying this " People taking action to improve their life circumstances would be a preferable solution." and someone saying "It is perfectly alright to steal the property of others if doing so improves your quality of life"

I'm sorry you can't see the difference. They seem to be quite different statements to me. I would however say that a redistribution of property IS needed, but that is not inherent in what I have said previously. If you want to imagine that I am not implying any (moral or practical) limits to what individuals should and can do to improve their situation then of course you must feel free, but I am not sure what benefit it will bring for either yourself or the debate.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Perhaps it is just paranoia on my behalf, I'm not sure. There is however some empirical evidence in that direction. A few examples :

- Trade unions have, in the past, been subverted, attacked and opposed by the governments. Where there have been large scale strikes, even in recent years, the government has generally acted in an adverserial manner (infiltrations, heavy handed policing, restrictive laws, etc).
- "Radical" political parties have faced the same and at a variety of phases in history have been surpressed entirely, infilitrated, had their literature banned and in some cases faced physical attack.
- Efforts for people to house themselves have been directly opposed - either through evictions, demolitions and in some cases directly attack. Even in the post-war period groups such as ex-servicemen have found the government opposing their attempts at housing themselves (ironically in some cases ex-MOD bases).

and the people in the past who killed other people have been opressed too.
they have been hounded, often in the night, by government state police, had there liberty removed. been forced to stand on trial. been convicted and then sentenced by a man in the payment of the state and then sent to prison for large portions of their lives.

direct action by vigilanties will always be opposed because it is always too particularist in nature and never takes account of the national perspective.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

- Black nationalist groups have found themselves under direct assault from the state in the United States, with even figures like Paul Robeson being targeted by the CIA in a number of forms.

I'm not interested in America. let them rot.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Here I am restricting my comments purely to "the government", but it could easily be extended to other powerful groups - e.g. large companies etc. If you wonder why (or how) companies might oppose trade unions striking for better pay then I am not really sure what I can say.

What you see as opposition is only your point of view. companies and workers have conflicting needs, scewing the perspective entirely to that of the workers only serves to highlight the danger of particularist view points.

companies and workers are symbiotic. despite their necessary conflictions.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It is possible of course, and with any facet of human behaviour there are a multitude of factors involved. I would however doubt the notion that "lack of organisation is proof the state is working so well"

it seems quite apt when we consider that the state not working well invariably causes dissent and eventually revolution.

it's not absurd to suggest that the trend we are seeing of a decrease in what you call social organisation is occuring because there is no need for it, because the government is efficient and successful in creating justice and equality and improving the lives of its individuals.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

since, in many areas, there is more organisation (or at least association) among people who are better off compared to those that are not. It is often the lowest paid who are the least organised (cause and effect of course) and while it's possible that it's because people who are the lowest paid love their station in life, I would have some doubts that is the whole reason.

in an equal society, the lowest paid are the least skilled. saying they 'could' improve their position with social organisation is disingenuous

its the same as saying 'they could improve their situation by being more skilled'

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Who said that? I apologise if it was me. I remember typing "easiest way to improve" and I certainly implied it was the best way to improve. But that is not the same that "the only way to improve". To get from my home to my work place the train is the easiest way to go but it would certainly be a bold (and erroneous) statement to say that it's the only way.

i fail to see how it improves anything at all.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well I'm sorry you feel that this is a dangerous suggestion but (depending on what you mean by "working") then I would have to say that I don't believe it does. Especially in international terms, although nationally as well.

you are suggestion that the government, the state, is not working on a national or international level?
(i suspect this disagreement between us is not as big as it appears.)

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

What do you mean by system? Do you mean the existence of the state? Well I am not suggesting we abandon it today or tomorrow, or anything of the kind. If you mean taxation then again, I am not suggesting abandoning immediately. Indeed, even if we were to start down a very different kind of road today I could forsee a "tax-like-payment" (perhaps or preferably voluntary) being administered many years from now.

your ideas all seem to share a common thread. a reliance upon an idealised version of human nature. you seem to expect a lot of effort and noble sacfrifice.
from a man who can seldom be bothered to wash his trousers, is this not also disingenuous?

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm sorry you can't see the difference. They seem to be quite different statements to me.

yet you seem to think it is alright to occupy other peoples land and property as long as you need a home?
this doesn't seem very different from a mugger needing his victim's rolex to me.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I would however say that a redistribution of property IS needed,

whatever for?

[Yahwe]

who cares?

you still got your damn strike.

you still hurt the economy and yourselves

and you still achieved nothing

[Yahwe]

I'm sorry

we're at crossed wires. i meant 'achieve anything' by secure longterm improvements in the futures of those who worked in the mining industry'

on which police presence and potential infiltration could never have an effect

clearly if you meant 'achieve anything' to be 'how many buildings they burnt down or how many rich people they hurt'

then of course the police presence 'ruined there achievements'

[skiddy]

Could I just point out, that 'we' being the collective conciousness of the forums, hence meaning myself, were never on the topic of ecomomics.

Oh god I shouldn't have alcohol. Put the taxes up and dissuade me.

Now we're on economics, can I just say....

[midge5]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

we're at crossed wires. i meant 'achieve anything' by secure longterm improvements in the futures of those who worked in the mining industry'
'

It helped close down the mines which stopped so many miners being killed which is a sort of improvement.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

and the people in the past who killed other people have been opressed too.
they have been hounded, often in the night, by government state police, had there liberty removed. been forced to stand on trial. been convicted and then sentenced by a man in the payment of the state and then sent to prison for large portions of their lives.

I'm not really sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the uses of power I mention were all justified?

I'm not interested in America. let them rot.

That's fine, but my comments apply to lots of countries, not just the UK. Perhaps the United Kingdom government lacks the problems that other nations government have, I'm not sure.

What you see as opposition is only your point of view. companies and workers have conflicting needs, scewing the perspective entirely to that of the workers only serves to highlight the danger of particularist view points.

Yes they have conflicting needs which was entirely my point. You asked why the powerful would seek to oppose more organisation among the workers. They have a specific need to. If Tesco's paid their staff more then there would be less money to pay their shareholders / executives.

companies and workers are symbiotic. despite their necessary conflictions.

Of course. But in any symbiotic relationship there are changes in the balance. I am saying that to get a more "balanced" relationship would be best left to the workers involved, rather than heavy handed state intervention.

it seems quite apt when we consider that the state not working well invariably causes dissent and eventually revolution.

Define "working well". I do not mean to be difficult here, but I'm sure your opinion on the effectiveness of the state might contrast quite sharply with someone who is not doing so well.

it's not absurd to suggest that the trend we are seeing of a decrease in what you call social organisation is occuring because there is no need for it, because the government is efficient and successful in creating justice and equality and improving the lives of its individuals.

It's not absurd, no. I just don't think it applies. Other countries with more equal systems have more organisation. The United States have weaker social organisation and less equality. There was an article in the British Medical Journal a few years ago which argued that more social organisation ocurred in areas with more equality and in turn (for a variety of reasons) led to a healthier population.

in an equal society, the lowest paid are the least skilled. saying they 'could' improve their position with social organisation is disingenuous

I'm not referring just to social position in the relative sense, but their absolute standard of living. A community which is poor but organised is better off than one than is not. But anyway, even if we accept that the lowest paid are going to be the least skilled, the variation between top and bottom is entirely variable. The United States has a much larger variation, the Scandanavian countries much less. These things are not carved in stone.

you are suggestion that the government, the state, is not working on a national or international level?

Once again, define working. To me, on an international level, there are literally millions of people hungry. That to me is not a system which "works" as it fails to provides the bare essentials to millions of people.

Even if we confine our comments to the United Kingdom then I am still not sure by what you mean by worked. What KPI's are we establishing to judge this? To me, it doesn't seem that useful to have a binary yes/no scale.

your ideas all seem to share a common thread. a reliance upon an idealised version of human nature. you seem to expect a lot of effort and noble sacfrifice.

No sacrifice at all. And I don't "expect" anything at all. I am merely saying that X happening would be the best way to achieve Y. You may think X is impossible or unlikely and this is fine. I happen to think that many people do wish to improve their conditions, and this is evidenced by many attempts both historically and presently to do just this. It might be something incredibly small, like some council tenants getting together and painting their own communal hallway. Or it might be the tenants taking over the running of their own affairs in total after years of local authority incompetence. These are minor uncontroversial things yet can have a big impact on people's individual lives.

The common thread through what I have said is the relative banal truism that : "People are best placed to improve their own lot, on the whole. This is often achieved when people work with others in a similar situation."

from a man who can seldom be bothered to wash his trousers, is this not also disingenuous?

What has this got to do with anything? I don't have any interest in that, and thus I don't bother. I have no complaints about their condition, so why would I? Where I do have an interest, I am more likely to put in an effort. This is not particularly complex. It's like saying "LOL, Yahwe, your Perl programming skills are so shit!". Does this mean you're lazy or stupid? No, you merely have other priorities.

yet you seem to think it is alright to occupy other peoples land and property as long as you need a home? this doesn't seem very different from a mugger needing his victim's rolex to me.

I don't accept the legal basis of land ownership and thus they are very different things to me.

But anyway even now as I understand it, stealing a rolex is a criminal offence but squatting is not.

Anyway, people don't "need" rolex's like they "need" shelter from the elements.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not really sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the uses of power I mention were all justified?

your 'organisation' is just a euphamism for power

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That's fine, but my comments apply to lots of countries, not just the UK. Perhaps the United Kingdom government lacks the problems that other nations government have, I'm not sure.

i'm not commenting on other countries because i have no power over them.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yes they have conflicting needs which was entirely my point. You asked why the powerful would seek to oppose more organisation among the workers. They have a specific need to. If Tesco's paid their staff more then there would be less money to pay their shareholders / executives.

co-dependance means it doesn't really matter whom you consider is 'using the power' or 'has the power' because the desired result is always mutual compromise, not one side winning.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Of course. But in any symbiotic relationship there are changes in the balance. I am saying that to get a more "balanced" relationship would be best left to the workers involved, rather than heavy handed state intervention.

nonsense.
there isn't always a need for a change. a balance is achievable.
this goes back to my point about the lack of organisation not actually effecting lives, it simply serves as evidence that the balance has become disrupted.

there's little difference between a strike and a bankrupcy they both simply serve to evidence an unbalance. equally the absense of either must indicate that the balance is being maintained.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Define "working well". I do not mean to be difficult here, but I'm sure your opinion on the effectiveness of the state might contrast quite sharply with someone who is not doing so well.

only because their viewpoint might bias them.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's not absurd, no. I just don't think it applies. Other countries with more equal systems have more organisation. The United States have weaker social organisation and less equality. There was an article in the British Medical Journal a few years ago which argued that more social organisation ocurred in areas with more equality and in turn (for a variety of reasons) led to a healthier population.

a system of utter equality is an imbalanced system.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not referring just to social position in the relative sense, but their absolute standard of living. A community which is poor but organised is better off than one than is not.

i just don't follow 'why'??
better off is too subjective a measure.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Once again, define working. To me, on an international level, there are literally millions of people hungry. That to me is not a system which "works" as it fails to provides the bare essentials to millions of people.

i can not have concern for situations in which i have no power.
its silly.
foreign aid, military intervention, they all drain the state for no obvious reason. and have created, very little 'success' to date.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The common thread through what I have said is the relative banal truism that : "People are best placed to improve their own lot, on the whole. This is often achieved when people work with others in a similar situation."

the state is the ultimate embodiment of this concept.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

What has this got to do with anything? I don't have any interest in that, and thus I don't bother. I have no complaints about their condition, so why would I? Where I do have an interest, I am more likely to put in an effort. This is not particularly complex. It's like saying "LOL, Yahwe, your Perl programming skills are so shit!". Does this mean you're lazy or stupid? No, you merely have other priorities.

it's a wonderful example of the flaw in organisation.
some people will consider you in your unwashed trousers to be 'a poor quality of life' which can be improved by organisation
yet you don't actually care

because you don't care, nothing gets done.

the state is not abusive, it does not force you to wash your trousers

so when the individual and the state are both happy, as evidenced by both's lack of action how can you argue that 'organisation' which would act is somehow an improvement?
[/quote]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't accept the legal basis of land ownership and thus they are very different things to me.

the legal system workd best when individuals don't get to chose which laws they prefer.
If there was an oppressive law, people would rise up to get rid of it. ie. they would organise

thus 'organisation' is nothing more than a piece of historical evidence. you can't argue 'people should be more organised then they will have better lives'. its a flawed logic. and it is also potentially dangerous.

you might end up being forced to wear clean trousers for one

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

your 'organisation' is just a euphamism for power

In many ways it is. I am not criticising "power" per se, merely the previous examples of abuses of power.

i'm not commenting on other countries because i have no power over them.

OK.

co-dependance means it doesn't really matter whom you consider is 'using the power' or 'has the power' because the desired result is always mutual compromise, not one side winning.

Who said anything about winning? I think you're presuming I'm saying that Tesco's workers being more organised means they have to have some sort of apocalyptic general strike which destroys the company. I am not. In most instances a strike is undesirable for both sides. I am saying a more organised Teco's work-force may lead to them (i.e. the lower paid) getting slightly more money than they do. This is a completely banal point for me to have made, so I can't quite see why there's an argument really.

there's little difference between a strike and a bankrupcy they both simply serve to evidence an unbalance. equally the absense of either must indicate that the balance is being maintained.

This makes no sense at all. The Tesco's workers are in a relationship with the Tesco's company. We'll divide this into two camps for simplicity (although in real terms there's dozens of stakeholders like the local authority, the central government, suppliers to the store, competetitors, etc, etc). For ease of illustration we'll imagine that at present Tesco's staff get ten billion and the shareholders get 20 billion. I am saying that through more organisation the workers could improve their "share" to 12bn, with the shareholders getting 18bn.

Now you seem to be saying that because there is not a strike going on, some sort of Panglossian best-of-all-possible-worlds scenario exists, where a balance has been struck. And you could be right, I'm not sure. It could be that Tesco's simply have problems retaining staff, or hiring new staff. Or existing staff might take a lot of sick days or simply feel unmotivated in their job. All of these are symptoms of workers feeling dissatisfied without being on strike.

Anyway it seems credible ot me that in many of these types of relationships there is a room a bit upward for the workers than they currently achieve. If you think that every company in Britain has reached some sort of mystical balance at the same time then fair enough, but this doesn't ring true to me.

only because their viewpoint might bias them.

Well, can I have your unbiased definition of a system working please.

i just don't follow 'why'??
better off is too subjective a measure.

OK, here's a very simple example. There is a community without a credit union. They then form a credit union (i.e. more organisation). Because of the credit union the standard of living improves for it's members, despite no new income being brought into the community.

Alternately, a community decides to form a toy lending library. This is another very simple way that people will not suddenly become richer but their lives will be improved. I already gave examples of tenant involvement here too. The Stockwell Park Estate in Lambeth is a good example of this I think.

it's a wonderful example of the flaw in organisation.
some people will consider you in your unwashed trousers to be 'a poor quality of life' which can be improved by organisation

I am referring to people improving their own lives on issues where they care. A community might be concerned by litter and therefore decide to form a community group dedicated to litter collection. Yes, there might be groups which act in ways which are basically immoral or unjust. Obviously I am not endorsing this kind of action - this should be obvious.

so when the individual and the state are both happy, as evidenced by both's lack of action how can you argue that 'organisation' which would act is somehow an improvement?

Lack of action is not evidence of approval. It can just be a sign of despair. There are people who (as you well know) take heroin to dull the pain of their existence. The fact they do not protest does not mean they are happy. It's dangerous to presume that someone who is quiet is happy.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

thus 'organisation' is nothing more than a piece of historical evidence. you can't argue 'people should be more organised then they will have better lives'. its a flawed logic. and it is also potentially dangerous.

It could be argued that local/individual organisation is more effective than central (state) organisation. However, as a nation we do not posess the resources to do both, and the state has already taken the decision as to which type of organisation we will have. It is unlikely to reverse this decision since it would greatly decrease the power of the state.

However, I've always thought of this as being more of a classical liberal (small government, people doing things for themselves) or even a conservative (traditional institutions acting instead of the state) argument than a socialist one.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

If there was an oppressive law, people would rise up to get rid of it. ie. they would organise

I could argue that several of the measures undertaken by the current government are "oppressive" and some of them even have been "organised" against - the best example being over the issue of fox-hunting. The law has yet to be repealed and, though not stringently enforced, it awaits only the time when the government can afford the cost of doing so.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Lack of action is not evidence of approval. It can just be a sign of despair. There are people who (as you well know) take heroin to dull the pain of their existence. The fact they do not protest does not mean they are happy. It's dangerous to presume that someone who is quiet is happy.

its not evidence of unanimous approval no.

but it is evidence of a general consensus.

individually depressed or upset people occur accross all social strata.

all i ever wanted to get accross was that organisation does not need endorsement. nor encouraging.

you asked for my unbias view, this is of course impossible. but my divinity makes my bias towards a far longer term, a bigger picture.

you can tell that for the moment tesco workers are content by the absense of organisation.

non spontaneous organisation is a far more dangerous thing. and you must distinguish between the two.

[acropolis]

on the original topic,

it depends on what you mean by 'flat tax'. in america, it's generally used to mean replacing the present 'bracket' system with a single income tax rate. often modified by some deductible. but anyway.

one argument in favor of such a system is that it would be simpler.

one argument against that is "no it wouldn't." seriously.

you could have a tax system in which the tax rate on your taxable income was based on the use of conformal mapping techniques applied to jacobians of multivariable integral equations, and no one would care because they would just find their taxable income, then look up their tax on the table in the back of the ****ing tax booklet. so ****ing hard.

under the flat tax, people would still look up their tax on the same table.

but maybe a flat tax is 'fair'

but i don't see how. how is taking $10 from one guy and $1 from another 'fair'? cuz the one guy made 10 times as much? But...guy A has a billion dollars in his bank, and made say $1000 last year...guy B hasn't a penny to his name, and made $10,000 last year...and yet there guy B is, supporting the government virtually single handedly. Cuz it's fair.

to me, fairness is stupid. not because fairness is inherently a bad idea, simply because it's impossible in practice.

taxes should be based on getting the most revenue while putting your citizens through the last hardship. or something to that effect.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Hopefully this one will be readable, unlike the EU one.

Flat income tax rate. Would it work?

Say we put it at something like 25% or 33%. A lot of people will get tax cuts. Will the savings made in administering the system in any way compensate for said reductions, and will the expansionary nature of the policy bring everyone up anyway, meaning people earn more, the 25% gets larger and we end up with more money to spend in government?

Depends on what you mean by "work". I'm sure that immediately some people would experience more hardship but I don't view that as a problem that has to be solved by the state. Of course I'd make a lot of other whacky changes nobody in the universe will agree with (unless qbll is having one of his days <3) so it's difficult to summarise in isolation.

[ComradeRob]

The flat tax appears to make economic sense and it is essentially "fair" in that it treats everyone the same way. The empirical evidence suggests that it has a positive effect on economic growth, though many of the examples given tend to be somewhat unique - Hong Kong, Jersey and so on.

All in all, it appears to be a good idea and has the benefit of being much less "intrusive" than the currently favoured system of tax "credits" for those who do the things that the government wants them to do (e.g. have children). Although it might mean that some of the rich pay less taxes, it probably means that more rich people will choose to live here, thus raising the overall proportion of the tax burden taken on by "the rich".