Comments on: Babylonian excesses

By: Tax Research LLP

Tax Research LLP — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:24:17 +0000

I now think I understand what all these comments are about.

According to the Daily Mail Michael Meacher has three properties available for his own use, one in London, one in his constituency and one in the Cotswolds. In addition it seems possible that he and his wife have between them several other properties that are let, most in southwest London.

I see nothing hypocritical about this. Meacher has not asked for the ending of private property. He has not said he is a socialist. He is a social democrat and has not condemned markets per se.

Roger and Andrew appear be saying that this is hypocritical. However, since he appears to have made full disclosure, appears to have done this at a time in life when many of his generation do share with him the benefit of inflation driven the property gains, and has in the process exposed himself to the risk that many others who have bought property as an investment will now face, and therefore has most certainly increased his understanding of markets, I cannot quite see how this holds true.

Paul’s comments appear to me to be wise. Does one have to be a failure in life to believe in equality of opportunity? Do you have to wear a hair shirt to talk of justice? If that is the case then are they most certainly fail.

I’ll put it on record: I have met Michael Meacher, like him and enjoy his company. I believe he is a man of integrity who has been quite willing to forego advancement to ensure that he can live by what he thinks to be the most important principles that accord with his politics.

The fact that I now learn that he is also made some money appears to be entirely irrelevant. I would expect nothing less from a man who appears competent at what he does.

Whether he was completely wise to make it from property is open to question, but I note the Daily Mail had to go back more than 20 years to find his comment upon property ownership. Maybe he had changed his mind in the meantime. If you can show me a person who has not over the course of two decades I will show you will fool.

Richard

By: paul

paul — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:52:09 +0000

I think Andrew is referring to the fact that Meacher is at the comfortable end of the income spectrum, though hardly an oligarch. How this disqualifies him from stating the obvious is beyond me.
If he was a single,unemployed or minimum wage adult, the group that has benefited least during the period and changes he discusses, would that affect the quality of his argument? I don’t think so, but then they don’t have much of a say in the national newspapers.
Criticism by the comfortable is countered by the ad hominem of hypocrisy while criticism by the less advantaged is dismissed by accusations of the ‘politics of envy’.
The conventional whiggish wisdom most of his milieu subscribe to, that people are rewarded according to their merits is genuine hypocrisy, and I don’t see Meacher differing with it as a problem at all.

By: Tax Research LLP

Tax Research LLP — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:03:32 +0000

Andrew

Way too cryptic for me

Try plain English

Richard

By: Andrew Brooks

Andrew Brooks — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:38:08 +0000

“Your evidence is ? ”

a private property portfolio running into the millions, paid for in part by the taxpayer and with a latent profit now only liable to 18% on sale, perhaps ?

By: Tax Research LLP

Tax Research LLP — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:39:04 +0000

Roger

Strong words.

Your evidence is?

Richard

By: roger rabbit

roger rabbit — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:27:27 +0000

I’m sorry Richard, but I’m rather disinclined to read articles by those whose maxim is do as I say not as I do. And for that reason I have difficulty believing or respecting anything Michael Meacher says. If he said the earth revolved around the sun I would be forced to check Britannica.

A proven hypocrite and liar far nearer in wealth to the super rich he criticises than the disadvantaged whose cause he professes to champion.

By: Emily Coltman

Emily Coltman — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:41:16 +0000

Just read Michael Meacher’s article - thanks for the link Richard.

£754,000 a year?? Holy schmoly! What do people need that sort of money for? I come into the “managerial and professional class” bracket and consider myself well off!

And then they avoid paying tax? Inexcusable.

Mind you, with Euro 2008 now on I’m reminded of how much footballers get paid - all for just kicking a ball around… When you compare that to the earnings of a teacher or a nurse…