Well said.

Jeff

When I say poor I am not talking about the able bodied who are of sound mind but who CHOOSE to be what I call the lazy poor living off and in state care and thriving generation after generation because of the benefits culture.

Anyone who is claiming benefits should be made to contribute. They should be made to work in some capacity in their community…or lose the money they receive via the taxpayer. The Conservative Party in the UK is proposing to do this. Whether they succeed is another matter. I hope they do.

Mothers who have child after child ‘for the State’ and are given homes to house their various offspring that were conceived with any stray dog are making a mockery of both motherhood and womanhood.

There is nothing more cynical than knowing that the State will provide for you if you have a child…so they choose to have the children. Meanwhile, unemployed boys and young men walk away time and time again from these girls having enjoyed open access for a few months. They do not earn regular money and so do not support and ultimately often lose contact with these babies. There are whole communities that operate like this…and they thrive because we let them.

The truly poor do not usually vote, are often lethargic, no one motivates them or cares for them, they are often seriously handicapped socially because of poor or non existent parenting. They may have major health problems (whether mental, physical or both), fall prey to trolls and no one takes them in hand until it is too late. They are often not in a position to pay taxes.

These poor cannot pay taxes. No one wants them. They often cannot hold down jobs even if they are willing to.

Elaine

Do you include all the poor? What about the lazy people who are poor? Should one be exempt from taxation due to laziness? Should upper class people who lost great fortunes, and are now poor, pay taxes?

Also, what is a definition of poor? Here in the USA, we have the richest poor in the world. Most have food, TV’s, bikes, a place to live, a cellphone, and clothes. If one can have possessions and a job, IMHO, they should pay taxes, even if it’s just a couple of dollars. If they are truly poor, like those in Calcutta, it would be folly to expect them to pay taxes.

Jeff

My meaning, obviously not clear, is that we, the peasants, now pay taxes which are being used/diverted for war efforts that we do not support.

No, the poor should not pay tax.

Elaine

Everyone should pay taxes… at the same rate. That’s only fair. There should be exemptions for nobody as far as taxes, along as everyone pays the same rate of tax. Success should not be punished by higher tax rates.

You said,
“If the shakers, decision makers and the hidden hands operating behind the democratic fronts want to have money for their military enterprises then THEY should go back to paying for their warring adventures.

Leave the peasants alone.”

Does leaving the peasants alone mean that welfare and benefits to the poor should go away? After all, what’s fair is fair, and nobody should get a free meal:)

Jeff

http://www.taxworld.org/History/TaxHistory.htm

Taken from the above link:

“Taxes during 14th century were very progressive; The 1377 Poll tax noted that the tax on the Duke of Lancaster was 520 times the tax on the common peasant.

Under the earliest taxing schemes an income tax was imposed on the wealthy, office holders, and the clergy. A tax on movable property was imposed on merchants. The poor paid little or no taxes.”

If the shakers, decision makers and the hidden hands operating behind the democratic fronts want to have money for their military enterprises then THEY should go back to paying for their warring adventures.

Leave the peasants alone.

Elaine

The offshore accounts and trusts mentioned in that article are available to people in other countries also. Here in my neighborhood in Florida, most of the real estate transactions have an offshore trust on one or both sides of the transaction. That being said, one can understand the desire for the rich, or anyone else, to minimize their tax bill. The rich can afford the luxury of employing people who’s job is to set up such trusts.
In the US, most of the super rich derive a large percentage of their income from capital gains which is presently taxed at a lower rate than earned income.

Taxes are always going to be more of a burden for lower income people…….always have, always will. It’s simple economics that 20% of $50,000 is going to have a greater impact on one’s lifestyle than 15% of $1,000,000. I do have problems with any government trying to punish success through excess taxation. That’s social engineering run amok. There is talk about hitting Exxon with windfall profits tax, because they happen to be making record profits. The government should be pleased that Exxon makes so much money, as it encourages investment, creates jobs, and returns dividends(which are taxable) to the shareholders. Perhaps the government should also set it’s sights on Microsoft and Starbucks, which operate with much higher profit margins than Exxon.

When an economy is in contraction, or having a slowdown, it is not wise to raise taxes…..It certainly didn’t work in Michigan.

Good point about the teachers…..we have many of the same here.

Obama wants to double the capital gains tax to punish the rich, forgetting that 50% of the families earning $60,000 or less in 2006, reported capital gains income.

I have some 14th amendment issues with the progressive tax rates in this country. I’m a flat tax kind of guy.

Jeff

In the UK it is known that the super rich (the real cream) do not contribute their fair share in taxes. Few will go on telly admitting it … but one did and ADMITTED it was not equal. Compare the percentage paid in personal salary taxation (we have no hiding places, off shore bank accounts, little island tax havens for our pennies) by nurses, lawyers, doctors, office workers, teachers, cleaners, legal secretaries to that offered up by the elite personally. There is not just a gulf…there is existence on an entirely different planet taking place.

In the UK the Government’s real source of income is taxation on ordinary people. Our services, institutions, our politicians…virtually EVERYTHING is paid for by us. It is not enough…so borrowing is the norm. Yet our two main parties seem to have been co-opted by monied businessmen who shape and direct policy which is annoying in the extreme

Of course the elite contribute…the difference is they choose how, when, if and who for. They are shaping and influencing and have real clout regardless of our voting in one of the two main parties periodically.

We are forced to pay a piper we elect who not only refuses to play our tune when in government but actively seeks out others to submit a play list. What happened to serving the meal we ordered as we are paying for it?

I remain a conservative and anti wealth and land redistribution. I remain irritated with the fact that we employ teachers in the state (public) sector who fail to cope with the end result of their ‘level playing field’ social engineering policies (the kids from single parent families usually in deprived areas who no one can touch these days). These same social engineers can be found in parliament…still.

Elaine

Jeff

What kind of conservatism do you hate…..surely, you don’t hate all kinds of conservatism:) On the other hand, do you love all kinds of liberalism? Is there any strain of liberalism that you dislike,or is all liberalism a form of Valhalla?

As for myself, I’m a conservative in the William F. Buckley Jr. mold, with a dash of Goldwater thrown into the mix. There are certain types of groups that label themselves as conservatives that I vehemently disagree with such as the neo-cons, religious right, and a few other subsets.

Euphrosyne,

Your list, while far from complete, could invite a tit for tat reply, which I won’t waste anyone’s time, as you all know who’s on your side.
You forgot Ann Coulter……even I think she’s out there:)

Elaine,

Like you, I apppreciate diversity and am glad that there’s a mix of ideas out there. I celebrate the fact that people can disagree, and still have civil discourse. However, I disagree with you that the truly rich only look out for themselves(no more than any other group looks out for it’s members), as most rich people give a substantial portion of their net worth to charitable causes. Look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for example. I know some really rich people who quietly and anonymously give away a fortune every year….in addition to the large dollar amount of taxes they pay. I also disagree with your point that the rich get away almost entirely from contributing to the system in place. In the USA, the top ten percent earners pay a disproportionate amount of taxes in this country. While some complain that a millionaire pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, he’s still paying a whole lot more cash to the treasury. I’m comfortable,and my taxes are killing me. I’d hate to be really, really rich, as the tax bill would probably cause me to have a stroke.
I 100% share your dislike for people clamoring for a free lunch.

Jeff

Jeff

I am:

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=conference.2006.news.story.page&obj_id=132542

I am glad that we have socialists, liberals and democrats in the UK. Without them…we could have ended up a selfishly governed society that consisted only of conservative minded folk. The conservative in me fights for and defends my family first. And come a choice between ‘the other’ and those who are mine and entrusted to my personal care…I choose my own.

By having different thinkers, evolved thinkers and conceptual thinkers a society that does not just reflect the aspirations and selfish drives of those trying to keep their nuclear and extended family in tact and unthreatened has been created. My country allows for the wider inclusion of single parent families, extended families, same sex civil partnerships, differing faiths and religions and ethnicities. Most are contributing positively (and not just via taxation through paid employment) into our evolved system which has worked for the majority. My conservative thinking is constantly challenged on anything and everything by that which is not hidebound by traditional thought – which is good.

Thankfully, when the family falls apart through divorce or death people cared enough to strategise and put in place policies that support and help ‘the other’ – because it a good thing to do and because it can prevent cycles of deprivation and poverty. Our taxation system supports this but our politicians play football with OUR money so it should be constantly monitored and reviewed to ensure it is not abused (which it often is).

I just wish the truly rich did not get away almost entirely from contributing properly to the system in place. Money looks after money, money attracts money. The rich have been protecting what they have from the beginning and still today they are the cream that floats on top of the milk.

If the rich were killed off tomorrow…humanity would survive. Perhaps, we would go back to tilling and fishing again, listen to stories around camp fires and hunt for the pot once more. Wars would be fought for survival and land again. The dominant group with the brightest most loyal members would ensure the survival of its kinship group…loyalty to kith and kin over that of ‘the other’ being paramount. Once again primal conservatism would be seen in ugly, dominant action in order that the strongest group and its young survived.

I am all for open borders if you can be housed, fed and contribute positively in the UK. If you just want a free lunch at the benefits table then please get in line behind our own home grown lazy do nothing/take everything Labour voting parasites.

Which also seems to fit with the ‘no birth control’, barefoot and pregnant version of woman hood, underlying so much conservative ideology–which incidentally, also characterized the Nazi’s views of how good, German women were contributing to the reich.

Oh the tangled webs.

(sorry Jeff, I just call ‘em like I see ‘em–but for the record, I don’t hate the conservative, I hate the conservatism).

My point was that the source of this ridiculous scare tactic, and the only people who seem to take it at all seriously, are those self-same professed conservatives. Are they true conservatives? In the immortal words of Amy Poehler,”Bitch, I don’t know your life.” Tthe reason I keep using words like “professed” and “self-described” is precisely because they ARE one-issue voters, or screeching attention whores, or pseudo-religious nutjobs. I don’t know exactly what a true conservative is, but I know a jackass when I hear one.

Jeff’s contention was that the non-issue of reconquista keeps being brought up by hyper-sensitive liberals (another term I don’t really grasp) for no good reason. My answer, which perhaps should have been made more clear, was that if jackasses are allowed to bray long and loudly in public, someone may eventually respond, if only to point out the lack of credibility of the donkeys in question.

I think calling out willful ignorance is more than worth a post or two. I thought that’s what this post was about.

I know a lot of people who believe that McCain is a liberal, and that we’re about to have an election between a Democrat and a Democrat-wannabe. And if you’re a one-issue voter, or vote exclusively along a small subset of issues, then McCain is a liberal on those issues.

Yet another example of why “liberal” and “conservative” are often useless labels. We need a Myers-Briggs for politics, something like the Political Compass, but with more gradations than just 2 axes…

This is no different.